Besorah is the bible, because effy's version of Christianity are the hipsters.
Advertisement
by Tarsonis Survivors » Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:16 pm
by Luminesa » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:58 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:Luminesa wrote:
Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.
But we can't wait for our presidents to do stuff concerning abortion. This is not just a political issue, but a human rights issue. We should be working in our communities right where we are, if we want to help to end abortion. What state are you from? Whichever one it is, you've still got plenty of work to do.
Cruz and Rubio won't do shit for abortion.
They know they can't, so they won't. Abortion was largely decided in the courts, and unless they can pass a Constitutional amendment or can overturn case after case of abortion they can't do anything in their power to ban it, let alone legislate it further than it already is.
Sadly, the talk about abortion has only become a political point which presidential and congressional hopefuls have just duped the population into actually paying attention to that and not to all the actual blunders their other policies have. Pro-life advocates in the U.S. have to focus on culture if they want to change the paradigm of abortion for the better, not on policy; because policies in the U.S. at the Supreme Court level are very rare to overturn, especially if they have been used as precedent.
I feel the best way to prevent abortions is to reduce the effect/rate of unwanted pregnancies. Sadly, abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK! I have said this before, and I will say this always. This delusional belief Southern Protestants have that teenagers and young adults won't have sex until they marry is that, delusional. Catholicism puts a moral condition to sex before marriage (it is bad in the eyes of God), however, not everyone is a Catholic in the South, let alone every Catholic being a devout Catholic.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:17 am
Luminesa wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
Cruz and Rubio won't do shit for abortion.
They know they can't, so they won't. Abortion was largely decided in the courts, and unless they can pass a Constitutional amendment or can overturn case after case of abortion they can't do anything in their power to ban it, let alone legislate it further than it already is.
Sadly, the talk about abortion has only become a political point which presidential and congressional hopefuls have just duped the population into actually paying attention to that and not to all the actual blunders their other policies have. Pro-life advocates in the U.S. have to focus on culture if they want to change the paradigm of abortion for the better, not on policy; because policies in the U.S. at the Supreme Court level are very rare to overturn, especially if they have been used as precedent.
I feel the best way to prevent abortions is to reduce the effect/rate of unwanted pregnancies. Sadly, abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK! I have said this before, and I will say this always. This delusional belief Southern Protestants have that teenagers and young adults won't have sex until they marry is that, delusional. Catholicism puts a moral condition to sex before marriage (it is bad in the eyes of God), however, not everyone is a Catholic in the South, let alone every Catholic being a devout Catholic.
I was gonna say that about changing the culture, but you beat me to it. JPII approves.
The only problem I can see with it is you're taught not to have sex, when you're in school, but you go out and sex is all over the TV and the Internet. If I were bringing sex into a conversation, I'd bring in some sort of pop-culture and be like, "What's wrong with this picture and why?" I dunno. The best way to teach is to meet the kids right where they are, I would think.
It also has a lot to do with our culture not understanding sexuality and sex itself very well. And that's on both sides. It's just one of those mysteries of the human body that we still know relatively little about, kinda like psychology. Also, it's become such a touchy subject in the media that you can't talk about it without riots starting. So if we want to learn about how sex works, we first have to learn how to discuss it with each other. And then we can go from there!
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Luminesa » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:31 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Luminesa wrote:
I was gonna say that about changing the culture, but you beat me to it. JPII approves.
The only problem I can see with it is you're taught not to have sex, when you're in school, but you go out and sex is all over the TV and the Internet. If I were bringing sex into a conversation, I'd bring in some sort of pop-culture and be like, "What's wrong with this picture and why?" I dunno. The best way to teach is to meet the kids right where they are, I would think.
It also has a lot to do with our culture not understanding sexuality and sex itself very well. And that's on both sides. It's just one of those mysteries of the human body that we still know relatively little about, kinda like psychology. Also, it's become such a touchy subject in the media that you can't talk about it without riots starting. So if we want to learn about how sex works, we first have to learn how to discuss it with each other. And then we can go from there!
My main qualm about abstinence-only is that it teaches not to have sex, and they never teach how to protect yourself if you ever do. It is an assumption that abstinence-only will scare the bejeezus out of children into not having sex and skirts all over the place on actual sexual education. I can tell you one thing, it didn't scare me back then, and it still doesn't scare me now, and I probably know more about contraceptives and whatnot on my own than I ever did in high school.
Cultural sex isn't all the pressure there is on teenagers who have their hormones on overdrive and who are pressured to have a girlfriend and marry because everyone else is doing it as part of adulting. Hell, I am 26, and haven't left a girl pregnant or have had STDs of any kind and I'm not an abstinent person. The pressure simply didn't get to me because my dad understood and told me that my time would come and to not worry about it right then and there because I had a future to look forward to anyways, and he reaffirmed the fact that just because I didn't have sex with anyone didn't mean I was less of a man because of it.
Basically, you are getting mixed messages striahgt up from your local community in many cases. Both "don't have sex" and "why are you not having sex?"; basically, fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.
by Constantinopolis » Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:03 am
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:41 am
Luminesa wrote:The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.
Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.
But we can't wait for our presidents to do stuff concerning abortion. This is not just a political issue, but a human rights issue. We should be working in our communities right where we are, if we want to help to end abortion. What state are you from? Whichever one it is, you've still got plenty of work to do.
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:59 am
Constantinopolis wrote:The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
You're both forgetting the distinction between stocks and flows.
Having a massive cathedral (that was built a long time ago) is not the same thing as building a new massive cathedral.
Should we refrain from building new massive cathedrals, because the money would be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps. This is a suggestion that we should at least consider.
But we can't just stop having the massive cathedrals that were built centuries ago. They are already built. Other than the maintenance and restoration costs (which would have to be paid by someone anyway, no matter if the Church owned these buildings or not), it doesn't take a lot of money to just keep worshiping in them, no matter how extravagant they are. Having a massive cathedral passed down to you from previous generations is like having a diamond ring passed down from your grandmother. It's not an indication of any actual large spending on your part.
by The Archregimancy » Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:49 am
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:But we should build new massive cathedrals, there are not enough of them! Modernism in church design should be eliminated, all churches should be beautiful and extravagant, built in the styles of antiquity.
by Czechanada » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:31 am
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Luminesa wrote:
Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.
But we can't wait for our presidents to do stuff concerning abortion. This is not just a political issue, but a human rights issue. We should be working in our communities right where we are, if we want to help to end abortion. What state are you from? Whichever one it is, you've still got plenty of work to do.
In Canada, we actually do vote for parties and not candidates. The party itself selects which candidate will be prime minister if that party forms a government.
I should say that many candidates might try to do something about abortion in the US, but they will fail. Bush was in office for 8 years and he didn't really manage to change anything.
In Canada, unfortunately there is definitely no one who will do anything about abortion, because none of the political parties here are pro-life. The poison has set in too deep, and there is no cure in the foreseeable future. The only way I can see an end to abortion is through the technology of artificial wombs, which would allow fetuses to be removed without being killed. Unfortunately peoples minds have become too clouded with the delusion that bodily autonomy matters more than life itself for much to be done about it.
by Luminesa » Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:51 am
by Luminesa » Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:54 am
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:You're both forgetting the distinction between stocks and flows.
Having a massive cathedral (that was built a long time ago) is not the same thing as building a new massive cathedral.
Should we refrain from building new massive cathedrals, because the money would be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps. This is a suggestion that we should at least consider.
But we can't just stop having the massive cathedrals that were built centuries ago. They are already built. Other than the maintenance and restoration costs (which would have to be paid by someone anyway, no matter if the Church owned these buildings or not), it doesn't take a lot of money to just keep worshiping in them, no matter how extravagant they are. Having a massive cathedral passed down to you from previous generations is like having a diamond ring passed down from your grandmother. It's not an indication of any actual large spending on your part.
But we should build new massive cathedrals, there are not enough of them! Modernism in church design should be eliminated, all churches should be beautiful and extravagant, built in the styles of antiquity.
by Herskerstad » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:07 am
by Czechanada » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:10 am
by Cill Airne » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:19 am
As I've mentioned before, I go back and forth between the United States and the United Kingdom. The Church I attend in the Episcopal Church while in the United States was built in the later 19th century, with construction ending in the 1920s, and most people remark it looks like a "Mini-Cathedral". In truth, it's actually based on Magdalen College, in Oxford. I absolutely love Cathedral architecture, and to worship in them makes me feel as though I am looking at the beauty of Heaven on Earth. But I do agree, constructing a new cathedral could be seen as a waste of money today, with better things to spend on but that does not mean we should abandon our cathedral churches for simpler building-styles.Constantinopolis wrote:The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
You're both forgetting the distinction between stocks and flows.
Having a massive cathedral (that was built a long time ago) is not the same thing as building a new massive cathedral.
Should we refrain from building new massive cathedrals, because the money would be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps. This is a suggestion that we should at least consider.
But we can't just stop having the massive cathedrals that were built centuries ago. They are already built. Other than the maintenance and restoration costs (which would have to be paid by someone anyway, no matter if the Church owned these buildings or not), it doesn't take a lot of money to just keep worshiping in them, no matter how extravagant they are. Having a massive cathedral passed down to you from previous generations is like having a diamond ring passed down from your grandmother. It's not an indication of any actual large spending on your part.
by Luminesa » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:20 am
Herskerstad wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
Hagia Sophia is best church.
If it still was then yeah it would rank pretty high on most scores.
Chances are always that the sultan of crazy will revert it from a museum to a mosque again.
As for myself, while I will always have a weakness for the staff-churches in Norway, I like the design more simple and elegant than elaborate and stunning.
by Diopolis » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:39 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Luminesa wrote:
Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.
But we can't wait for our presidents to do stuff concerning abortion. This is not just a political issue, but a human rights issue. We should be working in our communities right where we are, if we want to help to end abortion. What state are you from? Whichever one it is, you've still got plenty of work to do.
Cruz and Rubio won't do shit for abortion.
by Menassa » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:58 am
by Efraim-Judah » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:12 am
by Efraim-Judah » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:14 am
by Efraim-Judah » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:15 am
by Efraim-Judah » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:20 am
by Efraim-Judah » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:21 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dauchh Palki, Hurdergaryp, Statesburg
Advertisement