|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:15 pm
some religions stress the importance of having a united community
since they have great influence over civil law and all aspects of community life
so that may be an incentive to convert people by the sword, in order to have a whole united community
even if they hate you
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:54 pm
Many seem to misinterpret religious teachings as enforcing religious teachings. If you enforce religious teachings you are breaking the most important one "treat others as you wish to be treated".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:36 am
It seems to me that most with that mentality are using (incorrectly) religion for control/power over others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:29 pm
Stupid people don't think, they want someone to think for them. They get so drummed up in their causes that they can't see what hypocrites they are.
So then you get people who think, abortions are wrong, but shooting doctors who preform abortions is okay!
Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:10 pm
Manga Punk Sai Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that. Well, the thing about that is the majority of people at war get more of a choice about whether they want to fight, whereas the unborn babies being killed in abortions don't have a say at all...I know people think they're just fetuses ><, but i really think that's just using a term to distance ourselves from it. It makes me think of how people in the Giver were 'released', instead of killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:27 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that. Well, the thing about that is the majority of people at war get more of a choice about whether they want to fight, whereas the unborn babies being killed in abortions don't have a say at all...I know people think they're just fetuses ><, but i really think that's just using a term to distance ourselves from it. It makes me think of how people in the Giver were 'released', instead of killed. So you think no pregnant women are killed when we drop bombs on other countries? No children? No non-combatants get caught in the crossfire? I just don't get how terminating cell growth is some how worse to people than dropping bombs on foreigners. Or worse when they act like a mother's life doesn't matter, its better for the baby to be born and for her to die, even if she's leaving behind parents, friends, a husband, and other children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:44 pm
Manga Punk Sai xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that. Well, the thing about that is the majority of people at war get more of a choice about whether they want to fight, whereas the unborn babies being killed in abortions don't have a say at all...I know people think they're just fetuses ><, but i really think that's just using a term to distance ourselves from it. It makes me think of how people in the Giver were 'released', instead of killed. So you think no pregnant women are killed when we drop bombs on other countries? No children? No non-combatants get caught in the crossfire? I just don't get how terminating cell growth is some how worse to people than dropping bombs on foreigners. Or worse when they act like a mother's life doesn't matter, its better for the baby to be born and for her to die, even if she's leaving behind parents, friends, a husband, and other children. I never said there were more causalities, but you have to admit the majority of people killed in war are more likely to have a say then the 100% of babies who don't even know what hit them. 'Terminating cell growth'. Again, it's just a way to cover up what we're really doing. They're still human, and if they were allowed to grow up, they'd be just like you and me. Got to go, I'll finish the post later...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:33 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that. Well, the thing about that is the majority of people at war get more of a choice about whether they want to fight, whereas the unborn babies being killed in abortions don't have a say at all...I know people think they're just fetuses ><, but i really think that's just using a term to distance ourselves from it. It makes me think of how people in the Giver were 'released', instead of killed. So you think no pregnant women are killed when we drop bombs on other countries? No children? No non-combatants get caught in the crossfire? I just don't get how terminating cell growth is some how worse to people than dropping bombs on foreigners. Or worse when they act like a mother's life doesn't matter, its better for the baby to be born and for her to die, even if she's leaving behind parents, friends, a husband, and other children. I never said there were more causalities, but you have to admit the majority of people killed in war are more likely to have a say then the 100% of babies who don't even know what hit them. 'Terminating cell growth'. Again, it's just a way to cover up what we're really doing. They're still human, and if they were allowed to grow up, they'd be just like you and me. Got to go, I'll finish the post later... Really? Something without a brain, a heartbeat, or even a vaguely human shape is still "human"? It's a manipulative technique for people to say that when a pregnancy is terminated it's "killing babies". Abortion isn't legal after a certain point in a pregnancy, and most are carried out before whats in there can be considered a viable living thing. Zygotes and embryos are not babies. They're not anywhere near the same thing. I mean it would be like saying a woman whose had a miscarriage should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Would that be fair? Why do so-called "pro-lifers" find supporting needless wars that result in massive civilian casualties more acceptable than abortion? Why is it more acceptable to terminate established lives? And just because some people killed in war are soldiers that signed up for the job does that mean all war is necessary? That the sacrifice of life is just?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:10 am
Manga Punk Sai xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai xxEternallyBluexx Manga Punk Sai Or even worse people who are pro-war and "pro-life", and they can't even fathom what's wrong with that. Well, the thing about that is the majority of people at war get more of a choice about whether they want to fight, whereas the unborn babies being killed in abortions don't have a say at all...I know people think they're just fetuses ><, but i really think that's just using a term to distance ourselves from it. It makes me think of how people in the Giver were 'released', instead of killed. So you think no pregnant women are killed when we drop bombs on other countries? No children? No non-combatants get caught in the crossfire? I just don't get how terminating cell growth is some how worse to people than dropping bombs on foreigners. Or worse when they act like a mother's life doesn't matter, its better for the baby to be born and for her to die, even if she's leaving behind parents, friends, a husband, and other children. I never said there were more causalities, but you have to admit the majority of people killed in war are more likely to have a say then the 100% of babies who don't even know what hit them. 'Terminating cell growth'. Again, it's just a way to cover up what we're really doing. They're still human, and if they were allowed to grow up, they'd be just like you and me. Got to go, I'll finish the post later... Really? Something without a brain, a heartbeat, or even a vaguely human shape is still "human"? It's a manipulative technique for people to say that when a pregnancy is terminated it's "killing babies". Abortion isn't legal after a certain point in a pregnancy, and most are carried out before whats in there can be considered a viable living thing. Zygotes and embryos are not babies. They're not anywhere near the same thing. I mean it would be like saying a woman whose had a miscarriage should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Would that be fair? Why do so-called "pro-lifers" find supporting needless wars that result in massive civilian casualties more acceptable than abortion? Why is it more acceptable to terminate established lives? And just because some people killed in war are soldiers that signed up for the job does that mean all war is necessary? That the sacrifice of life is just? The pro-lifers I know believe it's fine to okay to abort the baby if the mother's life is in danger (to go back to your earlier post), and so bringing up that point is kinda like me bringing up live-birth abortion... They have the same genetic code, and as far as I'm concerned, that and what they will become defines them. I can see you disagree, but I don't see why that makes the other point of view any less valid. And any term anybody uses will be manipulative for their side of the argument. That doesn't stop me from having a problem with the terms that seem to glaze over what's going on. No, but there's either no people who want that, or very few. My point about abortions is that they're lives destroyed on purpose, and most don't see anything wrong with that. How is that okay? I never said that sacrifice is more just, but at least it's more honest in a way. Everyone knows war is terrible, and most wish for world peace, but I doubt everyone feels that way about abortion. As long as they feel it's just a 'fetus', most will see it as okay, and that is not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:00 am
Semiremis WickedRentSpringAwakening Now now everyone, don't forget the Christian equivalent of the jihad, the crusade. You know that if the US was not under the Constitution with the Establishment Clause for religion, the US would be going to crusades all the time. They have throughout history, what's different now? 1. The last crusade ended over 700 years ago and all of the crusades happened in about a 200 year time frame. 2. The US is not under a predominantly Catholic influence and the Crusades were wars or battles sanctioned by the Catholic Church. 3. There's no dogmatic element to them. Jihad has to do with an inner and outer struggle, so the two really aren't all that comparable...they only are when meaning of the words are being misused. One meets so few Catholics anymore. Believe it or not, as pagan as I am, I find it somewhat refreshing. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:52 am
xxEternallyBluexx The pro-lifers I know believe it's fine to okay to abort the baby if the mother's life is in danger (to go back to your earlier post), and so bringing up that point is kinda like me bringing up live-birth abortion... They have the same genetic code, and as far as I'm concerned, that and what they will become defines them. I can see you disagree, but I don't see why that makes the other point of view any less valid. And any term anybody uses will be manipulative for their side of the argument. That doesn't stop me from having a problem with the terms that seem to glaze over what's going on. No, but there's either no people who want that, or very few. My point about abortions is that they're lives destroyed on purpose, and most don't see anything wrong with that. How is that okay? I never said that sacrifice is more just, but at least it's more honest in a way. Everyone knows war is terrible, and most wish for world peace, but I doubt everyone feels that way about abortion. As long as they feel it's just a 'fetus', most will see it as okay, and that is not a good thing. Saying that you are "aborting a pregnancy" is not glazing over what's going on. That's exactly what's going on. Saying that it's "murdering babies" is an attempt to emotionally manipulate people. Again, zygotes and embryos are not babies. And war isn't killing other human beings on purpose? How is it a more "honest" purposeful killing? It's government-sanctioned murder isn't it? I still don't understand how people can support war without so much as blinking but at the same time be so much more protective of something that isn't even life yet. So we can drop bombs on living babies, and children, and men and women, but a zygote that might form into a baby is unquestionably sacred? I don't get it. And who, pray, will take care of all these unwanted babies? Once they're born suddenly they're not good enough to waste tax money on. Getting them born is the important part it seems, after that to hell with them. It's like these pro-lifers who are also against birth control. Proper sex education, access to birth control would do much more to prevent abortions from taking place and yet the same people who want abortion banned also want no one to have access to birth control? That's completely insane. It's like its gotten to the point that all they care about is abortion happening, they don't care about who takes care of the baby after its born, they don't even care about prevention. They don't care if we're killing foreign children as collateral in our wars, they even support it. Nope, they just care that no one has an abortion ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
