What Would an Evangelical Christian Country Be Like

bursto

bursto

Well-Known Member
i just think people should just get married and have kids the old fashioned way, i never needed any frozen eggs and yet i have 5 hungry kids.

some people just don't get it i suppose, they want careers, money, alcohol, holidays overseas, then they want kids when it's convenient, at a time of their choosing.

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
bursto said:
Religion is not God, its man kinds attempt to understand the mind of God, i prefer to stick with what the bible actually says, rather than join a specific religion like Seventh Day Adventists or say the Roman catholic church, or any other you care to mention

revelation 7.9

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

seems to me, a multicultural society is every bit part of Gods plan
Click to expand...
To the part I bolded, no.

It is (a long series of) one person’s chronicle to desperately try to share (what the individual believes on indefensible, purely visceral grounds to be) a highly personal insight into the divine, which is degraded by the effort to write it down, and battered beyond recognition by the rites and rules that accrete around it.

These latter are religion, and they bear about as much resemblance to the original, compelling experience as a lump of mud does to a symphony. (N. b . even a symphony captures nothing that can be recognized as divine, even though it is pretty.)

We arrive at a place where religion serves only a mundane purpose of creating and propagating a group identity. Those who interpret and enforce restrictive rules on what to say, wear, eat, sing … how to love ourselves and each other … are pure evil, without exception.

They do not serve any sort of divine. They make and enforce and go to war over what have become virulent and aggressive memes that exploit the weaknesses of the human psyche. They are the conscious equivalent of malware.

meme
[ meem ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for meme on Thesaurus.com
noun
    • a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition and replication in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
bursto said:
i just think people should just get married and have kids the old fashioned way, i never needed any frozen eggs and yet i have 5 hungry kids.

some people just don't get it i suppose, they want careers, money, alcohol, holidays overseas, then they want kids when it's convenient, at a time of their choosing.

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.
Click to expand...
I'm completely in synch with the idea that you are free to say whatever you like about your beliefs. You can even disrespect others as you did in this post about people who make different choices than you would. I'm OK with that. Where it ends is when zealots impose their beliefs using scripture to justify their impositions and not good reasons based upon need or logic.

That's what the judges in this decision in Alabama did. And it was fake citation of scripture too. The bible does not say fertilized eggs are people. It's all interpretation based upon belief.

It is telling, however that you would mention "the old fashioned way". Because this whole thing, from the Dobbs decision to the one in Alabama is an attack on a person's right to decide how to live their life in the manner they choose. Not coincidentally, the right wing political movement is attacking civil rights in many other areas, from gender, to lifestyle, to voting rights and the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.

Those who advocate their suffocating and limiting beliefs about sexual freedom are part and parcel of the authoritarian attack on freedom in the US that has taken us to the point where our democracy might not survive.

As I said at the beginning. I'm fine with your beliefs as long as you do you and leave the rest to others. There are religious ideological arguments that say the same but I'm not religious and so I won't even try to argue religion with you. But I will say that the so-called Christians who are laser focused on fertilized eggs are neglecting those who are in fact human beings in need.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
I'm completely in synch with the idea that you are free to say whatever you like about your beliefs. You can even disrespect others as you did in this post about people who make different choices than you would. I'm OK with that. Where it ends is when zealots impose their beliefs using scripture to justify their impositions and not good reasons based upon need or logic.

That's what the judges in this decision in Alabama did. And it was fake citation of scripture too. The bible does not say fertilized eggs are people. It's all interpretation based upon belief.

It is telling, however that you would mention "the old fashioned way". Because this whole thing, from the Dobbs decision to the one in Alabama is an attack on a person's right to decide how to live their life in the manner they choose. Not coincidentally, the right wing political movement is attacking civil rights in many other areas, from gender, to lifestyle, to voting rights and the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.

Those who advocate their suffocating and limiting beliefs about sexual freedom are part and parcel of the authoritarian attack on freedom in the US that has taken us to the point where our democracy might not survive.

As I said at the beginning. I'm fine with your beliefs as long as you do you and leave the rest to others. There are religious ideological arguments that say the same but I'm not religious and so I won't even try to argue religion with you. But I will say that the so-called Christians who are laser focused on fertilized eggs are neglecting those who are in fact human beings in need.
Click to expand...
I nominate the bolded for Post of the Month.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I nominate the bolded for Post of the Month.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but like most of what I bring here, it was an idea that I got from some article or podcast recent or from the past. I've been maybe spending too much time going through conservative but not MAGA podcasts recently. Once I realized that I had drawn lazy conclusions about results in the upcoming political campaigns, I started doing my homework. That idea, the one regarding, this ruling is part of the antiabortion movement that resulted in the Dobbs decision and part of a the right wing's attack on freedom in the US came from this podcast, just a little after 32:42

www.thebulwark.com

Jane Coaston: The Culture War of Absurdity

Ad-Free Version
www.thebulwark.com www.thebulwark.com

Jane Coaston says it better than I could.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
printer said:
"Science? Sure we are not against science as long as we bend it our way."

thehill.com

Why a flawed study on medication abortion was retracted

Taking a closer look at this study shows that the decision to retract it was justified — and exposes the larger context in which unsound science is used to drive an anti-abortion agenda in courts a…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
Love it.

Too funny how this hasn't stopped the bible thumpers from using the now discredited study to prevent women from accessing this safe but effective means of ending their pregnancy. It shows the difference between ideologists and scientists. Anti-choice advocates haven't changed their position even though the study they used to justify the position has been discredited. This is the essence of pseudo science. People searched for some study that confirmed what they wanted to say, they found this and it became their arguing point. It's become entrenched in their canon and the now disproven conclusion will remain no matter that their favorite study has been discredited.


This is why I trust science over other forms of decision making. It's not that scientific research is always right, it's that science polices itself to correct errors that are inevitably made over the course of time. There is no outcry from the scientific community over this. They just look at the data and accept that an error was made and move on. There are many flaws, contradictions and false myths in the bible but changing the bible would be a crime against the God that didn't write the bible. So, people who cite scripture as reasons for their decisions should be given a polite smile and then ignored. They SHOULD NOT be allowed near the levers of power. This is at core of the US legal system, which every now and then needs a good flush to wash away religious contamination.
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
Love it.

Too funny how this hasn't stopped the bible thumpers from using the now discredited study to prevent women from accessing this safe but effective means of ending their pregnancy. It shows the difference between ideologists and scientists. Anti-choice advocates haven't changed their position even though the study they used to justify the position has been discredited. This is the essence of pseudo science. People searched for some study that confirmed what they wanted to say and that became their arguing point. It's become entrenched in their canon and the now disproven conclusion will remain no matter that their favorite study has been discredited.


This is why I trust science over other forms of decision making. It's not that scientific research is always right, it's that science polices itself to correct errors that are inevitably made over the course of time. There is no outcry from the scientific community over this. They just look at the data and accept that an error was made and move on. There are many flaws, contradictions and false myths in the bible but changing the bible would be a crime against the God that didn't write the bible. So, people who cite scripture as reasons for their decisions should be given a polite smile and then ignored. They SHOULD NOT be allowed near the levers of power. This is at core of the US legal system, which every now and then needs a good flush to wash away religious contamination.
Click to expand...
I have never encountered a religion that admitted to the primacy of Test.

The entire concept of “revealed truth” is susceptible to complete corruption. I hold up dominionism as a case study. They’ve found a way to thoroughly contradict the recorded sayings of Jesus in crafting their repressive concept of theocracy.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
bursto said:
Ecclesiastes 11:5-6

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
Click to expand...
A semantic argument based on a translation of a translation of a translation of the original text, whose validity is not generally accepted.

Until a fetus is born, it is not a baby (or child). It is difficult to argue against that without falling back on religion (vide supra).
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
bursto said:
Ecclesiastes 11:5-6

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
Click to expand...
Almost surreal when Jewish desert mythology is presented as relevant in 'Politics'.

One tries to improve oneself, every day, become a little wiser, or more knowledgeable. It's somewhat disappointing to learn that even if one attains a divine level of omniscience, it's still impossible to prevent babies from being born with defects or living short, miserable lives. Babies, are born. Unborn... not baby. Another requirement is poop. If it doesn't poop, not a baby. It's not that hard. My by Christians slaughtered ancestors (lol but true story) believed it wasn't a baby in the sense that it needed care and should live unless it had been fed at least once. After all, if you don't feed it, it doesn't poop. And then it's not a baby. No poop, no spirit.
 
bursto

bursto

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
A semantic argument based on a translation of a translation of a translation of the original text, whose validity is not generally accepted.

Until a fetus is born, it is not a baby (or child). It is difficult to argue against that without falling back on religion (vide supra).
Click to expand...
Not really that difficult, google seems to disagree with that statement, that they are babies, that can survive after 6 weeks in the womb

Two thirds of babies born at 24 weeks gestation who are admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) will survive to go home. Ninety eight per cent of babies born at 30 weeks gestation will survive.
 
Last edited:
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
bursto said:
Not really that difficult, google seems to disagree with that statement, that they are babies, that can survive after 6 weeks in the womb

Two thirds of babies born at 24 weeks gestation who are admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) will survive to go home. Ninety eight per cent of babies born at 30 weeks gestation will survive.
Click to expand...

Most premature baby

www.guinnessworldrecords.com www.guinnessworldrecords.com
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
bursto said:
Not really that difficult, google seems to disagree with that statement, that they are babies, that can survive after 6 weeks in the womb

Two thirds of babies born at 24 weeks gestation who are admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) will survive to go home. Ninety eight per cent of babies born at 30 weeks gestation will survive.
Click to expand...
Exactly. after the 23rd week, the decision whether or not to carry the fetus to term is fraught. The law in Oregon leaves the decision up to the woman and her doctors, who are the only ones who have all the necessary information. The horror shows going on in states that meddle with this decision give good reasons why Oregon does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top