TexasFreethinker

Are "pro-life" christians short-sighted?

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Miriam said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascism 

For fascism to work, there must be a complete absence of God. Atheism..

Your article says nothing about the absence of god being required for fascism to work.  Nor does it even bear mention of god.  The bulk of your article comes from the philosophy of Benito Mussolini, who, probably more for the purposes of politics than of faith, fostered close ties to the Roman Catholic church.

 

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/italy-1900-to-1939/mussolini-and-the-roman-catholic-church/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
24 minutes ago, Miriam said:

I won't accept that because it is based on a theory and not proven fact, if you can't do what I just demanded then it is not true.  You say the bible contradicts itself, so you go with science. Science is constantly contradicting itself

 

Please familiarize yourself with the term "scientific evidence" vs the vernacular use of the word "evidence".   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Miriam said:

One more thing - if you think Christianity is the biggest social evil, what about Marxism and Fascism? These are based on atheist principles, and have caused the biggest massacres in recent history.

I don't think so hun. Here are the biggest Massacres in all of history. These were 'ordered' by god himself!! This includes babies and thousands of innocent people estimated at

24,994,828!  Take your time hun. Look them all up for yourself. You don't need speakers for a bible!! 

(hug)

 

(The table has been updated to include God's killings in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. I'll be adding the missing Apocryphal stories in the next few days.)
 

Killing Event Reference Bible's Number Estimate
1 The Flood of Noah Gen 7:23   20,000,000
2 Abraham's war to rescue Lot Gen 14:17-19   1,000
3 Sodom and Gomorrah Gen 19:24   2,000
4 Lot's wife Gen 19:26 1 1
5 While they were sore, Dinah's brethren slew all the males Gen 34:1-31, Judith 9:2-3 2 1,000
6 Er for being wicked in the sight of the Lord Gen 38:7 1 1
7 Onan for spilling his seed Gen 38:10 1 1
8 A seven year worldwide famine Gen 41:25-54   70,000
9 There will be blood: The first plague of Egypt Ex 7:15-27 , Wis 11:7-8   10,000
10 The seventh plague: hail Ex 9:25   300,000
11 Firstborn Egyptian children Ex 12:29-30   500,000
12 The Lord took off their chariot wheels Ex 14:8-26 600 5,000
13 Amalekites Ex 17:13   1,000
14 Who is on the Lord's side?: Forcing friends and family to kill each other Ex 32:27-28 3,000 3,000
15 Aaron's golden calf Ex 32:35   1,000
16 God burns Aaron's sons to death for offering "strange fire" Lev 10:1-3 2 2
17 A blasphemer is stoned to death Lev 24:10-23 1 1
18 When the people complained, God burned them to death Num 11:1   100
19 While the flesh was still between their teeth, the Lord smote them will a very great plague Num 11:33   10,000
20 Ten scouts are killed for their honest report Num 14:35-45 10 110
21 A man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day is stoned to death Num 15:32-35 1 1
22 Korah, his companions, and their families are buried alive Num 16:27 3 9
23 God burns 250 people to death for burning incense Num 16:35 250 250
24 God kills 14,700 for complaining about God's killings Num 16:49 14,700 14,700
25 The massacre of the Aradies Num 21:1-2   3,000
26 God sent serpents to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water Num 21:6   100
27 Phineas's double murder: A killing to end God's killing Num 25:1-11 24,002 24,002
28 The Midianite massacre: Have ye saved all the women alive? Num 31:1-35 6 200,000
29 God slowly killed the Israelite army Dt 2:14-16   500,000
30 God the giant killer Dt 2:21-22   5,000
31 God hardens King Sihon's heart so all his people can be killed Dt 2:33-34 1 5,000
32 Og and all the men women, and children in 60 cities Dt 3:6 1 60,000
33 The Jericho massacre Jos 6:21   1,000
34 Achan and his family Jos 7:10-26 1 5
35 The Ai massacre Jos 8:1-25 12,000 12,000
36 God stops the sun so Joshua can get his killing done in the daylight Jos 10:10-11   5,000
37 Five kings killed and hung on trees Jos 10:26 5 10,000
38 Joshua utterly destroyed all that breathed as the Lord commanded Jos 10:28-42 7 7,000
39 The genocide of twenty cities: There was not any left to breathe Jos 11:8-12 2 20,000
40 The Anakim: some more giant killing Jos 11:20-21   5,000
41 The Lord delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites Jg 1:4 10,000 10,000
42 The Jerusalem massacre Jg 1:8   1,000
43 Five massacres, a wedding, and God-proof iron chariots Jg 1:9-25   5,000
44 The Lord delivered Chushanrishathaim Jg 3:7-10 1 1,000
45 Ehud delivers a message from God Jg 3:15-22 1 1
46 God delivers 10,000 lusty Moabites Jg 3:28-29 10,000 10,000
47 Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad Jg 3:31 600 600
48 Barak and God massacre the Canaanites Jg 4:15-16   1,000
49 Jael pounds a tent stake through a sleeping man's skull Jg 4:18-22 1 1
50 Gideon's story: The Lord set every man's sword against his fellow Jg 7:22 120,000 120,000
51 A city is massacred and 1000 burn to death because of God's evil spirit Jg 9:23-27 1,001 2,000
52 The Ammonite massacre Jg 11:32-33   20,000
53 Jephthah's daughter Jg 11:39 1 1
54 42,000 die for failing the "shibboleth" test Jg 12:4-7 42,000 42,000
55 Samson murdered 30 men for their clothes Jg 14:19 30 30
56 Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass Jg 15:14-15 1,000 1,000
57 Samson killed 3000 in a suicide terrorist attack Jg 16:27-30 3,000 3,000
58 A holy civil war (it had something to do with rotting concubine body part messages) Jg 20:35-37 65,100 65,100
59 The end of Judges: two genocides and 200 stolen virgins Jg 21:10-14   4,000
60 God killed Eli's sons and 34,000 Israelite soldiers 1 Sam 2:25, 4:11 34,002 34,002
61 God smote them with hemorrhoids in their secret parts 1 Sam 5:1-12   3,000
62 50,070 killed for looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam 6:19 50,070 50,070
63 The Lord thundered a great thunder upon the Philistines 1 Sam 7:10-11   1,000
64 Another Ammonite massacre (and another God-inspired body part message) 1 Sam 11:6-13   1,000
65 Jonathan's first slaughter 1 Sam 14:12-14 20 20
66 God forces the Philistines to kill each other 1 Sam 14:20   1,000
67 The Amalekite genocide 1 Sam  15:2-3   10,000
68 Samuel hacks Agag to death before the Lord 1 Sam 15:32-33 1 1
69 In the valley of Elah: Goliath 1 Sam 17:51, 2 Sam 21:19 1 1
70 David buys a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins 1 Sam  18:27 200 200
71 The Lord said to David, Go and smite the Philistines 1 Sam 23:2-5   10,000
72 God killed Nabal (and David got his wife and other stuff) 1 Sam 25:38 1 1
73 David commits random acts of genocide for the Philistines 1 Sam 27:8-11   60,000
74 David spends the day killing Amalekites 1 Sam 30:17   1,000
75 God kills Saul, his sons, and his soldiers (because Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites) 1 Sam 31:2, 2 Chr 10:6 4 100
76 David kills the messenger 2 Sam 1:15 1 1
77 David killed, mutilated, and hung Rechab and Baanah 2 Sam 4:12 2 2
78 God helps David smite the Philistines from the front and the rear 2 Sam 5:19-25   2,000
79 God killed Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam 6:6-7, 1 Chr 13:9-10 1 1
80 David killed two-thirds of the Moabite POWs and enslaved the rest 2 Sam 8:2   667
81 And the Lord gave David victory wherever he went 2 Sam 8 - 10 65,850 66,850
82 David killed every male in Edom 2 Sam 8:13-14, 1 Kg 11:15-16, 1 Chr 18:12, Ps 60:1 15,000 25,000
83 Thus did David do to all the children of Ammon 2 Sam 11:1, 1 Chr 20:1   1,000
84 God slowly kills a baby 2 Sam 12:14-18 1 1
85 Seven sons of Saul are hung up before the Lord 2 Sam 21:1-9 7 3,000
86 David's mighty men and their amazing killings 2 Sam 23, 1 Chr 11 1,403 3,400
87 God killed 70,000 because of David had a census that God (or Satan) told him to do 2 Sam 24:15, 1 Chr 21:14 70,000 200,000
88 Solomon murdered Job and Shimei (per David's deathbed wish) 1 Kg 2:29-46 2 2
89 A tale of two prophets 1 Kg 13:11-24 1 1
90 Jeroboam's son: God kills another child 1 Kg 14:17 1 1
91 Jeroboam's family 1 Kg 15:29   10
92 Baasha's family and friends 1 Kg 16:11-12   20
93 Zimri burns to death 1 Kg 16:18-19 1 1
94 The drought of Elijah 1 Kg 17:1, Luke 4:25, James 5:17-18   3,000
95 Elijah kills 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest 1 Kg 18:22-40 450 450
96 The first God-assisted slaughter of the Syrians 1 Kg 20:20-21   10,000
97 God killed 100,000 Syrians for calling him a god of the hills 1 Kg 20:28-29 100,000 100,000
98 God killed 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them 1 Kg 20:30 27,000 27,000
99 God sent a lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet 1 Kg 20:35-36 1 1
100 God killed Ahab for not killing a captured king 1 Kg 20:42, 22:35 1 1
101 God burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill 2 Kg 1:10-12 102 102
102 God killed Ahaziah for asking the wrong God 2 Kg 1:16-17, 2 Chr 22:7-9 1 1
103 God sent bears to kill 42 boys for making fun of a prophet's bald head 2 Kg 2:23-24 42 42
104 The Lord delivered the Moabites 2 Kg 3:18-25   5,000
105 A skeptic is trampled to death 2 Kg 7:2-20 1 1
106 God's seven year famine 2 Kg 8:1   7,000
107 Jehoram of Israel 2 Kg 9:24 1 1
108 Jezebel 2 Kg 9:33-37 1 1
109 Ahab's sons: 70 heads in two baskets 2 Kg 10:6-10 70 70
110 Ahab's hometown family, friends, and priests 2 Kg 10:11   20
111 Jehu killed Ahaziah's family 2 Kg 10:12-13, 2 Chr 22:7-9 42 42
112 Jehu and his partner kill the rest of Ahab's family 2 Kg 10:17   20
113 Jehu assembled the followers of Baal and then slaughtered them all 2 Kg 10:18-25   1,000
114 Mattan the priest of Baal and Queen Athaliah 2 Kg 11:17-20 2 2
115 God sent lions to eat those who didn't fear him enough 2 Kg 17:25-26   10
116 An angel killed 185,000 sleeping soldiers 2 Kg 19:34, 37:36 185,000 185,000
117 God caused King Sennacherib to be killed by his sons 2 Kg 19:37, Tobit 1:21 1 1
118 Josiah killed all the priests of the high places 2 Kg 23:20   100
119 Just another holy war 1 Chr 5:18-22   50,000
120 God killed a half million Israelite soldiers 2 Chr 13:17-18 500,000 500,000
121 Jeroboam 2 Chr 13:20 1 1
122 God killed a million Ethiopians 2 Chr 14:9-14 1,000,000 1,000,000
123 Friendly fire: God forced "a great multitude" to kill each other 2 Chr 20:22-25   30,000
124 God made Jehoram's bowels fall out 2 Chr 21:14-19 1 1
125 God killed Jehoram's sons 2 Chr 22:1   3
126 Ahaziah of Judah 2 Chr 22:7-8 1 1
127 Joash, the princes, and army of Judah 2 Chr 24:20-25 1 10,000
128 God destroyed Amaziah 2 Chr 25:15-27 1 1,000
129 God smote Ahaz with the king of Syria 2 Chr 28:1-5 1 10,000
130 God killed 120,000 valiant men for forsaking him 2 Chr 28:6 120,000 120,000
131 The fall of Jerusalem 2 Chr 36:16-17   10,000
132 The Purim killings: God hath done these things Esther 2 - 9, 10:4 75,813 75,813
133 God and Satan kill Job's children and slaves Job 1:18-19 10 60
134 Hananiah Jer 28:15-16 1 1
135 Ezekiel's wife Ezek 24:15-18 1 1
136 Oh! Susanna Dan 13:6-62 2 2
137 Judith is blessed above all women (for cutting off a sleeping man's head) Judith 13:6-10 1 1
138 The Judith massacre: hang ye up this head upon our walls Judith 15:1-6   1,000
139 Mathathias's double murder 1 Mac 2:24-25 2 2
140 Mathathias and his friends slay the wicked sinners 1 Mac 2:44   100
141 God killed Andronicus, the sacrilegious wretch 2 Mac 4:38 1 1
142 A Jewish mob killed Lysimachus, the sacrilegious fellow 2 Mac 4:42 1 1
143 God helped Judas Machabeus destroy the wicked 1 Mac 3:1-26, 2 Mac 8:5-6 800 4,900
144 Judas and his unarmed men kill 3000 of Gorgias's soldiers 1 Mac 3:44-4:24 3,000 3,000
145 The Hanukkah killings 1 Mac 4:34-5:7 5,000 17,000
146 The Machabees brothers slaughter the heathens 1 Mac 5:21-51 11,000 37,000
147 Nicanor's army: The Almighty being their helper, they slew above nine thousand men 1 Mac 7:32-47, 2 Mac 8:24, 15:27 147,002 147,002
148 Jonathan and Simon destroy the wicked out of Israel 1 Mac  9:46-49, 2 Mac  8:30-33, 10:61 1,000 1,200
149 Five heavenly horsemen cast darts and fireballs at the enemy 2 Mac 8:32-10:38 21,103 21,400
150 God killed Antiochus with an incurable bowel disease 2 Mac 9:5-28 1 1
151 Idumeans, traitors, and Jews in two towers 2 Mac 10:16-17 40,000 40,100
152 Nicanor's head: A manifest sign of the help of God 1 Mac 7:33-48, 2 Mac  15:1-35 35,000 35,000
153 Aliens at Cades 1 Mac 11:74 3,000 3,000
154 John burns to death 2000 in the tower of Azotus 1 Mac 16:10 2,000 2,000
155 God sent wasps to slowly destroy people Wisdom 12:8-9   1,000
156 Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:5-10 2 2
157 Herod Aggripa Acts 12:23 1 1
158 Jesus Rom 8:32, 1 Pet 1:1820 1 1
  Totals 2,821,364 24,994,828

 

https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Miriam said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascism 

For fascism to work, there must be a complete absence of God. Atheism.

 

False. 

 

Hitler was supported by the catholic church. I've read Mein Kampf. There are a number of places where Hitler makes reference to doing God's will. Gott mit uns was inscribed on the belt buckles of Nazi soldiers. In no sense can fascism be said to require atheism.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Miriam said:

Ephesians 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient and bearing with each other in love

 

Yes, God obviously wants me to commit terrorist acts and kill as many people as I can.

This is called ''Cherry Picking'' the nice little verses from the bible. Read the WHOLE book! From Genesis to revelation and you will soon see the god who loves to kill.. He adores blood sacrifices from humans and animals. Wait. Even his own 'son' ...........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

False. 

 

Hitler was supported by the catholic church. I've read Mein Kampf. There are a number of places where Hitler makes reference to doing God's will. Gott mit uns was inscribed on the belt buckles of Nazi soldiers. In no sense can fascism be said to require atheism.

To be fair, Gott mit uns was inscribed on the belt buckles of German soldiers before the Nazis came to power.   The inscription was present during the first world war.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To be fair, Gott mit uns was inscribed on the belt buckles of German soldiers before the Nazis came to power.   The inscription was present during the first world war.

 

 

 

Yes, in wwI it was inscribed on the helmets of German soldiers.  But if Hitler's Germany had been an explicitly atheist regime, they would have done away with the slogan. They didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some "godly" Hitler quotes -- for more see here:

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Mein Kampf (1925-1926)[edit]

Ralph Manheim, ed. (1998). Mein Kampf. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395951054.
  • Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)
  • Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. (p. 116)
  • This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. (p. 152)
  • Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. A fight for freedom had begun mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be. (p. 161)
  • And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174)
  • His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In retum, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties — and this against their own nation. (p. 307)
  • Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (p. 383)
  • It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. (p. 403)
  • The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. (p. 562)
  • As far as this variety of ‘folkish’ warriors, are concerned, I can only wish the National Socialist movement and the German people with all my heart: "Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal with our enemies." (p. 565)
  • Since Germany never defends herself, except by a few flaming protests on the part of our parliamentary elite, and the rest of the world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free... (p. 622)
  • For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’ (pp. 632-633) 
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, in wwI it was inscribed on the helmets of German soldiers.  But if Hitler's Germany had been an explicitly atheist regime, they would have done away with the slogan. They didn't.

True.  And well met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Recent" Margee - read what I said.  I won't repeat myself, so if you want to know my answer please look where I responded to RedNeck in the Christianity Debunked forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miriam said:

Insightful - sorry, I realised I'd gotten this confused with the passages in Deuteronomy - sorry! Here is my full answer (it's a bit long - sorry!) Could you try to answer it without sarcasm? (Not you Insightful, I think you are being very respectful :) )

 

 

Thanks, Miriam!  I appreciate your respectful attitude as well 😃   (

 

3 hours ago, Miriam said:

This calls into question the nature of God. Is God a nasty, murdering tyrant? I think one thing is, you want a God of love, without being a God of wrath. That makes no sense, you can’t have one without the other. Example: if you love children, you must feel wrath against child abusers.  And, if God is a perfect being, then to not feel wrath against evil would be wrong.  So, God, as a God of love, must love us, his creation, but at the same time be angry at the wrong we do.

 

I agree - I think it does call into question the nature of God - the God presented by the Bible.  I identify as Agnostic:  I do not believe the evidence we presently have is sufficient to conclusively decide whether God exists.  That said, I am philosophically open to God's existence - and a God with a range of characteristics might exist.  But I don't "want" for that God to be one thing or another.  He could be both loving and wrathful.  Why not?  Of course I cannot tell a God what his attributes should be.  But - to stir in me a sense of faith, wonder, awe, reverence, and worship - Goodness and Justice are essential.  

 

Of course God could (and would understandably) be angry at the evil in the world.  I don't think many of us would have a huge problem with God judicially executing remorseless child rapists/killers.  In fact, I wish he actually did that - before children ever got raped and killed.  It would be a privilege to worship a God who actively defended children from being raped or murdered.  I would praise such righteous wrath.

 

But why kill babies??   No judicial system on earth (at least in a developed nation!) would order the killing of a child for a long-ago crime by the child's ancestor.  That's the stuff of barbaric ancient peoples.  I believe that the Israelites just wanted a moral justification for doing the horrific things they did to the peoples of the "promised land" - and convincing their soldiers to follow through with their wishes - so they claimed a divine mandate.  Just like Al Qaeda and 9/11...

 

Only a belief in a divine mandate would make an otherwise compassionate, ethical, moral person override their innate morality to do something so cruel.  

 

Think about it:  if the Bible is true, than God would make a point to judicially execute nursing babies for their ancestors' crimes, yet not stop Jeffrey Dahmer from raping and cannibalizing his young victims or stop the children of Christian parents from being sexually assaulted in the Sovereign Grace churches....   

 

4 hours ago, Miriam said:

And Numbers 14:18 “The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

 

Note, though, that this system was overturned in the post-exilic period:  Exekiel 18:20  "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

 

No more punishing future generations... Why?

 

Notice that in the Pentateuch, all rewards and punishments were limited to this life only.  Nothing about eternal rewards or punishments.  The penalty for Adam and Even was death in this life.  Not hell.   Look at the blessings and cursings at the end of numbers and deuteronomy - all things in THIS LIFE.  Fertility, bountiful crops, health, etc.

 

Because there was no belief in a conscious afterlife, threats and promises beyond this life didn't make sense.

 

In an effort to further threaten and control people, the next step was extending threats to your offspring (like in Numbers 14:18).  

 

But by the time we get to Ezekiel (after the babylonian exile and the contact with the persian religions), Israel had incorporated the persian beliefs of a dualistic afterlife:  heaven and hell.  Now people can be threatened and incentivized into eternity...    So no more need to threaten their offspring.  Besides, that one always felt unjust anyway...

 

In all of this, fear and punishment are held out as a means of controlling people and ensuring continued adherence to the belief system - which maintains the income for the priestly class...   And the fear and punishments get extended further and further... from this life, to future generations, into eternity...

 

(on a total tangent, you can see a similar evolution in the development of Jesus's deity.  In Mark, the earliest gospel, he became divine at his baptism... in Matt/Luke, at his birth... and in John, he was always divine...)

 

 

5 hours ago, Miriam said:

Now, the question being, is God evil and wrong to kill a child? After telling me how arrogant it is for me to assume to know the will of God, now you are deciding you are the perfect judges, who can see into men’s hearts, and know all. Your belief, which is based on solid fact, actually requires a lot of assumptions about your own infallible wisdom. 

 

You are correct that I am using my own wisdom and judgment to assess the Bible's assertions in order to decide whether or not they are consistent, free from contradiction, morally beautiful, etc.  Although I certainly don't think my wisdom is infallable!  (I don't think I called you arrogant?).

 

What I do think is problematic, though:   The use of logic and reason and weighing evidence seem to be praised by Christians as good tools to arrive at faith, which is why we give people books like Evidence that Demands a Verdict (McDowell).  But when we use those same tools to reason our way out of Christian belief, we are accused of leaning on our own wisdom and being proud.

 

In deciding whether or not to believe the bible is true, I do use my own moral sense to evaluate whether a just God would do some of the things attributed to him in the Bible.  How else could I decide whether or not to believe it?

 

4 hours ago, Miriam said:

Back to Insightful

 

If I said to you, I will believe in evolution utterly and that intelligent design is false, if you can put a single celled organism on the table in front of me and have it evolve into a primate in 2 hours. You'd probably say, that's ridiculous, evolution takes millions and millions of years. Then I could say, No. I won't accept that because it is based on a theory and not proven fact, if you can't do what I just demanded then it is not true.  You say the bible contradicts itself, so you go with science. Science is constantly contradicting itself - what was held as fact 400 years ago is now a lot of it obsolete, and in another 400 years the truths you hold to now may be proved false - where is your evidence? I am happy to admit my beliefs are that - beliefs, which I have based on evidence. How can you claim that yours is absolute fact when there is in fact no certainty to that either? And if you do not hold absolute truth, you can't definitively claim I MUST be wrong.

 

I agree that scientific theories change over time - they typically become more accurate in light of new information.  I don't think we can be certain about what we now know.  I do believe that absolute truth exists, but that doesn't mean I think I'm absolutely right about everything I presently think...  But I have enough trust in science to get a flu shot... or get on a plane...  or undergo a heart transplant if I needed one.  I don't think science is as hopelessly misguided as you make it seem...   

 

BTW, if you were having a heart attack and the ambulance could take you to a top-trained cardiologist (who was an atheist) or to your pastor's house for him to pray as James 5:4-5 commands, where would you go?  " Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 1And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well."

 

You are right - we all do look at the evidence and make our best conclusions about reality based on how we see that evidence.  You and I look at the same Bible, the same world, and land in different places.   

 

I think that is because Christianity hooks us in with the fear of hell, promise of eternity, social acceptance, and a sense of purpose - long before we ever had a chance to rationally weigh its claims.   We effectively sign a contract we never actually read first.  Then we're inside the system with all of the mechanisms that keep us there - like don't lean on your understanding, and how it's impossible to fall away and return, the threat of social ostracization...  Then we encounter the many problems and feel no choice but to double down on our beliefs and make it work...

 

Thanks for reading if you made it this far 😃

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miriam, please try to excuse the abrupt responses from some of us. We have been doing this a long time; we have encountered and countered every apologist argument you can imagine. Over and over. The facts never change, the Christian interpretation of Scripture does. Carry on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, florduh said:

Miriam, please try to excuse the abrupt responses from some of us. We have been doing this a long time; we have encountered and countered every apologist argument you can imagine. Over and over. The facts never change, the Christian interpretation of Scripture does. Carry on!

That is exactly why she should go read further in the Lions Den, there is more of the same there and nothing new. These conversations get tiring. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Miriam said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascism 

For fascism to work, there must be a complete absence of God. Atheism.

 

This is yet another unsupported claim that's related yet different to the previous claim. 

 

Saying that atheism leads to fascism is different from saying that in order for fascism to work you need an absence of God. 

 

What is your reasoning here? Also can you explain what YOU think fascism is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to pop in here and say it's possible to be anti-abortion and not a Christian. I think Christian reasoning for abortion is flawed and possibly short-sighted, but I refuse to believe it's wrong to strongly oppose the practice, seek alternatives that will help end the atrocious behavior, and encourage responsible behavior in us all. 

 

It's a logical fallacy to only allow for two abortion belief "options". This doesn't have to be a false dilemma or a strawman. Just saying!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

I just wanted to pop in here and say it's possible to be anti-abortion and not a Christian. I think Christian reasoning for abortion is flawed and possibly short-sighted, but I refuse to believe it's wrong to strongly oppose the practice, seek alternatives that will help end the atrocious behavior, and encourage responsible behavior in us all. 

 

It's a logical fallacy to only allow for two abortion belief "options". This doesn't have to be a false dilemma or a strawman. Just saying!

 

Excellent post.

 

Not saying I agree that abortion is wrong per se,  but still.  It's very easy to get trapped in binary thinking. The question of abortion should be asked independent of religion,  in my opinion. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Excellent post.

 

Not saying I agree that abortion is wrong per se,  but still.  It's very easy to get trapped in binary thinking. The question of abortion should be asked independent of religion,  in my opinion. 

 

Agreed. I can't stand waffling between the two and arguing with both sides lol. I find it personally unreasonable for a discussion on abortion alternatives to be tables simply because "Oh I must be pro-life" or something. But I also don't believe fetuses have souls, so I find the Christian pro-life movement lacking. I think the pro-life movement is actually hindering the discussion and pushing people who could be willing to look at abortion alternatives away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 6:41 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  I thought exactly the same thing, even as a christian.  Abortion is the ultimate "Get Out of Hell Free" card.

 

Yup, my thoughts exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 3:28 PM, ag_NO_stic said:

I just wanted to pop in here and say it's possible to be anti-abortion and not a Christian. I think Christian reasoning for abortion is flawed and possibly short-sighted, but I refuse to believe it's wrong to strongly oppose the practice, seek alternatives that will help end the atrocious behavior, and encourage responsible behavior in us all. 

 

It's a logical fallacy to only allow for two abortion belief "options". This doesn't have to be a false dilemma or a strawman. Just saying!

 

Thanks for sharing your position. I value your input.

 

To be fair, though, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who actually thinks that there are only "two abortion belief options." We are well aware that there are varying views on the matter. Even though most Christians whom most of us know are pro-life and most secularists are pro-choice, we know that there certainly are pro-choice Christians and pro-life secularists. Beyond that, there are people within each camp who see exceptions, such as those who are pro-life but find abortion excusable in situations where the mother's life is in danger, or those who are pro-choice but find late-term abortions to be barbaric. Even Miriam changed her tune a little bit in this thread after I pointed out the mandated abortions in Numbers 5.

 

Even on the first page of this thread, Geezer suggested the presence of a heartbeat as a cut-off, after which I suggested the presence of brainwaves as a cut-off. It's not my place to tell women what to do, but from my personal perspective, I still think that the presence of brainwaves is the most sensible deciding factor (while making unfortunate exceptions for life-threatening situations afterwards).

 

The reasoning is simple. Morally speaking, prior to brainwaves being present, the fetus cannot feel anything, so there is no cruelty factor whatsoever. The vast majority of abortions take place during that time-frame. I personally fail to see any logical moral argument for prohibiting abortions that cause no harm to the fetus. On the contrary, prohibiting those abortions would cause harm for some of the mothers, so from a purely moral perspective, it makes the most sense to me to allow abortions during that time-frame.

 

That's my non-false dilemma, non-strawman, non-binary take on the matter. Just sayin'. ;)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

            I must confess I have NOt read the entire topic, but I do admire the idea that one does NOT have to be enlisted in a camp. I mean, about the abortion issue I believe life begins at conception. The first cell already has the DNA of the person. So for me he is a human being. That cell is not A PART of the mother, it is a distinct being which would naturally evolve into a human being, To me, making the difference between the first cell and a human would be the same as between a two year child and an adult. It is an artificial distinction.

            I am also making MY artificial distinction, of course, but there it is. So to me, the question is not so much about whether the woman has the right to choose. Because that choice is equal to murder. The degree of murder I do not know how to judge, but murder nonetheless. It is like in the ancient world a slave owner had "the right to choose" over his slave because they were his, his property, and extension of himself in a way. 

           About life threating conditions however, I would leave this to the woman , with counsel from the other parent, if he is a husband or boyfriend, any spiritual guide she may have , therapist, etc. 

            However, the fact that I hold this belief does not make immediately want a law prohibiting abortion. This because right now I am not sure about the relationship between legislature and morality. I am leaning towards laws against abortion, while at the same time providing reality based sexual education for everyone, and many safety nets for mothers with "surprise" children. 

            Many religions may make sexuality have this gruesome look, but the truth of the matter is that IT is dangerous to play with something like this. It is a great power, and, as the great wisdom of the Spiderman epic teaches us. with great power, comes great responsability. 

           I am open to dialogue. This issue seems to one about boundaries. I mean, where and why do we set boundaries on what consider human? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

            I must confess I have NOt read the entire topic, but I do admire the idea that one does NOT have to be enlisted in a camp. I mean, about the abortion issue I believe life begins at conception. The first cell already has the DNA of the person. So for me he is a human being. That cell is not A PART of the mother, it is a distinct being which would naturally evolve into a human being, To me, making the difference between the first cell and a human would be the same as between a two year child and an adult. It is an artificial distinction.

            I am also making MY artificial distinction, of course, but there it is. So to me, the question is not so much about whether the woman has the right to choose. Because that choice is equal to murder. The degree of murder I do not know how to judge, but murder nonetheless. It is like in the ancient world a slave owner had "the right to choose" over his slave because they were his, his property, and extension of himself in a way. 

           About life threating conditions however, I would leave this to the woman , with counsel from the other parent, if he is a husband or boyfriend, any spiritual guide she may have , therapist, etc. 

            However, the fact that I hold this belief does not make immediately want a law prohibiting abortion. This because right now I am not sure about the relationship between legislature and morality. I am leaning towards laws against abortion, while at the same time providing reality based sexual education for everyone, and many safety nets for mothers with "surprise" children. 

            Many religions may make sexuality have this gruesome look, but the truth of the matter is that IT is dangerous to play with something like this. It is a great power, and, as the great wisdom of the Spiderman epic teaches us. with great power, comes great responsability. 

           I am open to dialogue. This issue seems to one about boundaries. I mean, where and why do we set boundaries on what consider human? 

Legislation will not stop abortion from occuring. Instead it will only be done illegally in unsafe circumstances as it has been before, which has only endangered the lives of many women. 

Women are the only ones who carry and deliver children. Yes men have a say, as the children are theirs as well, but in this matter it should be the woman who has the final say over her body. Yes, I've had a lifetime of religion controlling the reproduction of women and hence my perspective. I am strongly against other people controlling a woman's life and strongly in favor of her own bodily autonomy. There are as Citsonga pointed out plenty of other factors to weigh in such as the length of the pregnancy and the health of the mother. To those I would add the ability of the parents to support the child in every necessary way. Abortion is certainly a complicated issue and every circumstance is different therefore I don't think one can even have a one or the other position in support of it. Doing so too simple. The one objection I have to legislation (I also have an issue with people in general telling others what they should do with their bodies) is that it overrides the body autonomy of women, which is a human right. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Citsonga said:

 

Thanks for sharing your position. I value your input.

 

To be fair, though, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who actually thinks that there are only "two abortion belief options." We are well aware that there are varying views on the matter. Even though most Christians whom most of us know are pro-life and most secularists are pro-choice, we know that there certainly are pro-choice Christians and pro-life secularists. Beyond that, there are people within each camp who see exceptions, such as those who are pro-life but find abortion excusable in situations where the mother's life is in danger, or those who are pro-choice but find late-term abortions to be barbaric. Even Miriam changed her tune a little bit in this thread after I pointed out the mandated abortions in Numbers 5.

 

Even on the first page of this thread, Geezer suggested the presence of a heartbeat as a cut-off, after which I suggested the presence of brainwaves as a cut-off. It's not my place to tell women what to do, but from my personal perspective, I still think that the presence of brainwaves is the most sensible deciding factor (while making unfortunate exceptions for life-threatening situations afterwards).

 

The reasoning is simple. Morally speaking, prior to brainwaves being present, the fetus cannot feel anything, so there is no cruelty factor whatsoever. The vast majority of abortions take place during that time-frame. I personally fail to see any logical moral argument for prohibiting abortions that cause no harm to the fetus. On the contrary, prohibiting those abortions would cause harm for some of the mothers, so from a purely moral perspective, it makes the most sense to me to allow abortions during that time-frame.

 

That's my non-false dilemma, non-strawman, non-binary take on the matter. Just sayin'. ;)

 

 

I value your input back. :) Thanks for the comment, I respect the opinions of each and every person here who treats the issue and opposing viewpoints with respect back. 

 

My concern about abortion has nothing to do with cruelty or the life of the fetus, though I do have concerns about those things. I actually abhor the term "pro-life" because of how it is used against people who don't give a shit about the baby after it's born. It also has nothing to do with men forcing their opinions on women or with me trying to force other women into a birth. I'm not interested in the SLIGHTEST bit with force, I'm interested in persuasion. In changing the minds of women who would otherwise get an abortion, who doesn't view a fetus the way I do. In coming together as a group of humans and deciding that we want to stop the practice and help each other with baby raising and contraception. Is that idealistic, probably, but it's just where I am with it. I get confused in today's political climate with who's life and hard times I'm supposed to give a shit about, it can be frustrating to navigate the minds of people who want me to care about issues they care about but do not care in return. 

 

My issue with abortion is 100% about us, as a society, deciding to overlook consequences as the result of our behavior and give "the easy way out" at the expense of a human life. We are viewing other humans as expendable purely for our own convenience. I keep saying as a nation, because it's currently legal. When we denounce the practice legally and stop endorsing it, there can be more room for discussion. The morality I see here is group oriented, not individual, which is actually different from how I usually view things. If you had asked a slave owner how life would look without slaves, they would have given any number of reasons or excuses for how it's "not the best practice out there, but it gets the job done," or "it might not be favorable, but society will collapse with out it," etc etc. We still took a stand as a group, fought a war over it even, that ultimately put that practice to rest. At the time, it was not considered to be such a violation of human rights as it is today. The "cut-off" debate at the time was different, but it's the same principal of debating on the behalf of people who weren't given a voice, who were actively silenced. That's why the 3/5 compromise was such a big deal. And we still look back TODAY and judge ourselves for not treating people with basic human decency. "How could we do that to people" we ask ourselves. We have that opportunity today, to tell ourselves that within society's moral code there is room for change.

 

I recognize there are a lot of ways that these two issues are NOT comparable. That doesn't mean we can write off ways that they are ARE comparable and throw the baby out with the bathwater, they are both human rights issues that revolve around prioritizing who gets more of a say in what happens to an entire group of people. They are both infringements on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They both ignore the well being of one human for the sake of another. They also both are cases where society was willing to cause harm to one group of people for the sake of convenience. The fact is, for the large majority of cases, it's just "Oops, wasn't planning on this right now" when you engaged in sex which makes babies. That is not personally responsible and it opens the door for future "convenience related" death. I don't want to live in that kind of society. 

 

For the record though, I try to be a reasonable person. It's not that I can't see individual situations where a pregnancy can't continue. But we find ourselves in predicaments like that all the time, where we must face some cognitive dissonance and deal with it. No one wants a "triage" situation, but it happens and sometimes the life of the mother is the one who must be treated "first" to survive. We don't condone murder as a society, but when an abused woman shoots and kills her spouse in self defense, we allow room for understanding and accept the spouse's death more readily than a serial killer or school shooter or something. I'm just saying "choice" applies to pre-pregnancy as well, if you already know that you are willing to kill a fetus to avoid raising it, maybe don't have sex. Get your tubes tied/a vasectomy. Use a condom AND the pill. Maybe do butt stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

            I must confess I have NOt read the entire topic, but I do admire the idea that one does NOT have to be enlisted in a camp. I mean, about the abortion issue I believe life begins at conception. The first cell already has the DNA of the person. So for me he is a human being. That cell is not A PART of the mother, it is a distinct being which would naturally evolve into a human being, To me, making the difference between the first cell and a human would be the same as between a two year child and an adult. It is an artificial distinction.

            I am also making MY artificial distinction, of course, but there it is. So to me, the question is not so much about whether the woman has the right to choose. Because that choice is equal to murder. The degree of murder I do not know how to judge, but murder nonetheless. It is like in the ancient world a slave owner had "the right to choose" over his slave because they were his, his property, and extension of himself in a way. 

           About life threating conditions however, I would leave this to the woman , with counsel from the other parent, if he is a husband or boyfriend, any spiritual guide she may have , therapist, etc. 

            However, the fact that I hold this belief does not make immediately want a law prohibiting abortion. This because right now I am not sure about the relationship between legislature and morality. I am leaning towards laws against abortion, while at the same time providing reality based sexual education for everyone, and many safety nets for mothers with "surprise" children. 

            Many religions may make sexuality have this gruesome look, but the truth of the matter is that IT is dangerous to play with something like this. It is a great power, and, as the great wisdom of the Spiderman epic teaches us. with great power, comes great responsability. 

           I am open to dialogue. This issue seems to one about boundaries. I mean, where and why do we set boundaries on what consider human? 

 

Not being a willful asshole, but I can't resist a little good-natured sarcasm here. There aren't boundaries on what we consider human, it's like.....humans give birth to humans. That means even if the infant has no brain, it's still a human. It's not like it's monkey tissue. 

 

Is this what you meant? Or did you mean the "when does life begin" debate? Or just "when is abortion okay," argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Legislation will not stop abortion from occuring. Instead it will only be done illegally in unsafe circumstances as it has been before, which has only endangered the lives of many women. 

Women are the only ones who carry and deliver children. Yes men have a say, as the children are theirs as well, but in this matter it should be the woman who has the final say over her body. Yes, I've had a lifetime of religion controlling the reproduction of women and hence my perspective. I am strongly against other people controlling a woman's life and strongly in favor of her own bodily autonomy. There are as Citsonga pointed out plenty of other factors to weigh in such as the length of the pregnancy and the health of the mother. To those I would add the ability of the parents to support the child in every necessary way. Abortion is certainly a complicated issue and every circumstance is different therefore I don't think one can even have a one or the other position in support of it. Doing so too simple. The one objection I have to legislation (I also have an issue with people in general telling others what they should do with their bodies) is that it overrides the body autonomy of women, which is a human right. 

 

 

The legislation is what I'm interested in. And I don't mean "legislating to punish the woman," at least not for a very long time. I object strongly to women saying "You can't force me to ____" as though the government when in there and made that baby in a lab and forcibly stuck it in the uterus of a fertile female. No, a woman made that baby of her own accord, I object to the government "bailing her out" at the expense of another human's rights. You can't stop stealing, murder, cheating, drugs, etc from happening ever again. It will happen. Our laws still have opinions on those behaviors along with what happens if you do it anyway. I can't stop a back alley abortion, I can't stop a woman from putting herself at risk anymore than I can stop a redneck from putting himself at risk by mud tubing on a major highway. But just as a baby was the result of improper birth control, so would complications from a back alley abortion be the consequence of the decision to do so. That doesn't mean the government should endorse it and say, "Well if abortions are going to happen, we may as well just make it legal." 

 

I don't want to legislate "harm to women" either, I think it should be decriminalized for an acceptable period of time while we figure out all our options. But offering abortions to everyone and their mom, pun intended, because they don't feel like dealing with the consequences of their actions is not acceptable. And women trying to say NOT offering abortions is "forcing her to give birth" is just not true. It's just the government not bailing women out of a predicament they have put themselves in.

 

If you rape/murder someone, you are held accountable. You don't get an "oopsie, re-do."

If you steal something, you have to pay for it + other legal repercussions. That is just on your record now.

If you don't pay a bill, no electricity for you.

If you eat too much cheesecake, you might gain weight. The "convenient out" here might be plastic surgery, but even THAT has repercussions.

If you fuck around with matches, you might light your ass on fire. You may or may not get your ass back the way it was working before.

If you have sex, you might have a baby. If you're not ready, don't have sex.

 

EDIT: How is bodily autonomy a human right? I can't smoke weed in my own home, drive around without a seatbelt, assault/rape/kill someone....there are ANY NUMBER of things you cannot do just because it's your body.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

The legislation is what I'm interested in. And I don't mean "legislating to punish the woman," at least not for a very long time. I object strongly to women saying "You can't force me to ____" as though the government when in there and made that baby in a lab and forcibly stuck it in the uterus of a fertile female. No, a woman made that baby of her own accord, I object to the government "bailing her out" at the expense of another human's rights. You can't stop stealing, murder, cheating, drugs, etc from happening ever again. It will happen. Our laws still have opinions on those behaviors along with what happens if you do it anyway. I can't stop a back alley abortion, I can't stop a woman from putting herself at risk anymore than I can stop a redneck from putting himself at risk by mud tubing on a major highway. But just as a baby was the result of improper birth control, so would complications from a back alley abortion be the consequence of the decision to do so. That doesn't mean the government should endorse it and say, "Well if abortions are going to happen, we may as well just make it legal." 

 

I don't want to legislate "harm to women" either, I think it should be decriminalized for an acceptable period of time while we figure out all our options. But offering abortions to everyone and their mom, pun intended, because they don't feel like dealing with the consequences of their actions is not acceptable. And women trying to say NOT offering abortions is "forcing her to give birth" is just not true. It's just the government not bailing women out of a predicament they have put themselves in.

 

If you rape/murder someone, you are held accountable. You don't get an "oopsie, re-do."

If you steal something, you have to pay for it + other legal repercussions. That is just on your record now.

If you don't pay a bill, no electricity for you.

If you eat too much cheesecake, you might gain weight. The "convenient out" here might be plastic surgery, but even THAT has repercussions.

If you fuck around with matches, you might light your ass on fire. You may or may not get your ass back the way it was working before.

If you have sex, you might have a baby. If you're not ready, don't have sex.

 

EDIT: How is bodily autonomy a human right? I can't smoke weed in my own home, drive around without a seatbelt, assault/rape/kill someone....there are ANY NUMBER of things you cannot do just because it's your body.

 

 

I likely should have made clear in my post that it goes without saying that people should exercise responsibility with their sex lives and risks of pregnancy, so I didn't even bother to point that out separately. You can assume that when I'm talking about abortion I'm not saying the government should just provide freebies to irresponsible people.

And I also don't mean that body autonomy means you can do whatever, wherever to your body. You cannot compare giving birth to and supporting a child for the rest of your life to smoking weed.

You should,, as a woman, be able to make the choice for giving birth or not - you will not only be responsible for that choice but for the support of another human being for the rest of your living life, and that's not any decision to be made lightly.

As I said, it's a complicated issue and it's situation/context dependent.

At the end of the day however, I will not be walking around judging people's choices in regards to the choice they made. There are enough people out there already doing that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now