[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

According to the Norse gods*, I'm supposed to get drunk, take drugs and rampage across England, murdering and looting wherever I go. Abstinence (From violence, arson, sex, alcohol, drugs or heavy metal music) is sinful for me.

From a Swede, this is mostly... mostly correct. <.>

[Kernen]

According to the Norse gods*, I'm supposed to get drunk, take drugs and rampage across England, murdering and looting wherever I go. Abstinence (From violence, arson, sex, alcohol, drugs or heavy metal music) is sinful for me.

From a Swede, this is mostly... mostly correct. <.>

Wow, I have never been more tempted to join a religion as I am after reading that.

[Estanglia]

He'd probably be fine with it because "It's all part of God's plan." If God didn't want abortion to happen then he shouldn't have invented it, so he must've invented it for a reason.

Also, he performs thousands of abortions a day thanks to miscarriages, still births, and false-positives pregnancies.

A natural event is different than an act you instigate yourself. Grandma dying from pneumonia is different than killing grandma. As is the standard for this thread, I already explained this, and it comes up two pages later.

God created the universe, right?
So he created everything with the potential to end up at its current state.
So, nature ending up at its current state (in this case Grandma dying to pneumonia) is partly his fault, as he didn't design the universe so that pneumonia wouldn't exist and Grandma wouldn't die.

He also allowed the person killing grandma to be in the state of killing grandma by allowing the universe to be designed to allow that.

So, in a way, God is responsible for both of those acts for a similar reason. The only possible difference that could absolve him is that killing requires an action made using free will but pneumonia killing granny doesn't, but God is also responsible for us having free will, so...

[Estanglia]

Then I am sure you would have no issue with Jews forcing you to follow Jewish law...right? They are after all trying to prevent you from following sinful behavior, particularly the behavior of following a polytheistic god. That is what we see when you try to legislate abortion based on your religion.

According to the Norse gods*, I'm supposed to get drunk, take drugs and rampage across England, murdering and looting wherever I go. Abstinence (From violence, arson, sex, alcohol, drugs or heavy metal music) is sinful for me. Where is the societal acceptance of my religious imperatives? Christians want to use their religion as justification for a ban on abortion? I want to use "my religion" as justification for a change in libel laws, replacing lawsuits with a fight to the death.
On what moral grounds would Christians privilege their dumb religious mandates over what I claim are my dumb religious mandates?


* Well, to a comic-book level of understanding, but it's not like Christians can attack me for cherry-picking or making up history without it also being true for themselves.

Edit: Cleared up that "you" was directed at Christians arguing that their religion should be public policy.

This is why having religion-based rules sucks.

Why should religion x's religious rules be used over religion y?
They both claim legitimacy for similar reasons (e.g 'our god is the right one'/'our morals are the right ones'), both desire their rules to be law for similar reasons (they're the correct ones/they're trying to save you from sinning etc.) and both have the same legitimacy to their followers. There's pretty much no reason to go with religion x over religion y.

[Jebslund]

A lot of Christians believe a lot of different things. When we leave this life and are thrust before God to receive our justice, we will be held accountable for what we did and believed. I really have to wonder how God will respond to those that were okay to have His creation destroyed in the name of "bodily sovereignty." What is a piece of clay's claim of sovereignty to the potter? May God have mercy.

If I sculpted something out of clay, and it claimed to have sovereignty, I'd think that was pretty neat-o.

Indeed. And if I made something and it claimed bodily sovereignty, I'd make it easier to enforce without the need to kill anything.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then let Him sort it out when people stand before him in judgment, and live your life according to your conscience without imposing it on others.

That is a point. If pro-life theists believe God will stand in judgement and find pro-choice people wanting for their beliefs and actions, why the need to try and legislate those beliefs by enforcing pro-life policies?

Many of those same theists (even those who believe their faith is the only way to eternal life) are not trying to force mandatory theism on the populace. If only God may judge, why try to stand in His stead?

Considering we believe it's equal to infanticide, I don't know why you think this would be very convincing. "There's no need to stop murder and genocide, God will judge!"

[Kernen]

The idea that god will punish people who destroy his creations when he makes the process of creating it both instinctively desirable and the actual conception imperfectly manageable sounds like a whole lot of entrapment.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent and still chose the entrapment option in the Grand Design, he bears a whole lot more culpability for abortions than the women who get them do.

[Thepeopl]

That is a point. If pro-life theists believe God will stand in judgement and find pro-choice people wanting for their beliefs and actions, why the need to try and legislate those beliefs by enforcing pro-life policies?

Many of those same theists (even those who believe their faith is the only way to eternal life) are not trying to force mandatory theism on the populace. If only God may judge, why try to stand in His stead?

Considering we believe it's equal to infanticide, I don't know why you think this would be very convincing. "There's no need to stop murder and genocide, God will judge!"

Do souls of unborn children actually go to heaven? They aren't baptized.

[Luminesa]

Considering we believe it's equal to infanticide, I don't know why you think this would be very convincing. "There's no need to stop murder and genocide, God will judge!"

Do souls of unborn children actually go to heaven? They aren't baptized.

Some people believe in limbo, where unborn childrens’ souls just...float around. But most people think that they go to Heaven. Now, what benefit then does a child get from Baptism? Catholics and Orthodox believe it removes original sin and claims a person as a member of the Church, in which they receive a higher degree of glory in Heaven.

[Luminesa]

A little surprised how much controversy can be created by referring to the Church as feminine, but as Kat said we've discussed it too much for the context of this thread.



A lot of Christians believe a lot of different things. When we leave this life and are thrust before God to receive our justice, we will be held accountable for what we did and believed. I really have to wonder how God will respond to those that were okay to have His creation destroyed in the name of "bodily sovereignty." What is a piece of clay's claim of sovereignty to the potter? May God have mercy.

Then let Him sort it out when people stand before him in judgment, and live your life according to your conscience without imposing it on others.

But a Christian’s entire life is supposed to be “go out and evangelize to the whole world” according to Matthew 28. A Christian is told in Matthew not to put their light under a bushel. We have to preach as Christians, in a truthful and merciful manner.

[Luminesa]

From a Swede, this is mostly... mostly correct. <.>

Wow, I have never been more tempted to join a religion as I am after reading that.

*“Immigrant Song” intensifies.*

[New haven america]

The idea that god will punish people who destroy his creations when he makes the process of creating it both instinctively desirable and the actual conception imperfectly manageable sounds like a whole lot of entrapment.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent and still chose the entrapment option in the Grand Design, he bears a whole lot more culpability for abortions than the women who get them do.

It's because of The Original Sin.

God punished humans for it by making sex super fun and enjoyable, but can only be done under very specific circumstances and in certain ways (Or else your going to Hell for it), while also making pregnancy as miserable as possible in order to punish women specifically for Eve picking the Forbidden Fruit.

[Kernen]

The idea that god will punish people who destroy his creations when he makes the process of creating it both instinctively desirable and the actual conception imperfectly manageable sounds like a whole lot of entrapment.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent and still chose the entrapment option in the Grand Design, he bears a whole lot more culpability for abortions than the women who get them do.

It's because of The Original Sin.

God punished humans for it by making sex super fun and enjoyable, but can only be done under very specific circumstances and in certain ways (Or else your going to Hell for it), while also making pregnancy as miserable as possible in order to punish women specifically for Eve picking the Forbidden Fruit.

Why on earth anybody willingly ascribe to a theory that shits all over them is beyond me.

[New haven america]

It's because of The Original Sin.

God punished humans for it by making sex super fun and enjoyable, but can only be done under very specific circumstances and in certain ways (Or else your going to Hell for it), while also making pregnancy as miserable as possible in order to punish women specifically for Eve picking the Forbidden Fruit.

Why on earth anybody willingly ascribe to a theory that shits all over them is beyond me.

Because of the Roman Empire and Hell.

The Roman Empire made Christianity the most common Religion in Europe because one of the emperors saw one of Christ's symbols at a battle that he was sure was gonna be a loss but ended up being a landslide victory, so he made Christianity the state religion of the Empire because he believed that Christ got him the victory (At least, that's how the story goes), and it kinda just stuck around for 2000 years. While on the other hand, Hell was used and abused by early Christians as a marketing tool by making it as undesirable as possible, thus getting people to convert solely to avoid Hell and any punishment that happens in Hell.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why on earth anybody willingly ascribe to a theory that shits all over them is beyond me.

Because of the Roman Empire and Hell.

The Roman Empire made Christianity the most common Religion in Europe because one of the emperors saw one of Christ's symbols at a battle that he was sure was gonna be a loss but ended up being a landslide victory, so he made Christianity the state religion of the Empire because he believed that Christ got him the victory (At least, that's how the story goes), and it kinda just stuck around for 2000 years. While on the other hand, Hell was used and abused by early Christians as a marketing tool by making it as undesirable as possible, thus getting people to convert solely to avoid Hell and any punishment that happens in Hell.

As Julian (famed for his anti-Christianity) said, it was more than that, Christianity revolutionized how religion was organized in such a way that it was very appealing to people due to the community it created. It was what inspired his efforts to reform paganism, because he didn't think it was possible for paganism to compete with Christianity unless it adopted its social organization.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do souls of unborn children actually go to heaven? They aren't baptized.

Some people believe in limbo, where unborn childrens’ souls just...float around. But most people think that they go to Heaven. Now, what benefit then does a child get from Baptism? Catholics and Orthodox believe it removes original sin and claims a person as a member of the Church, in which they receive a higher degree of glory in Heaven.

Well, for the Orthodox, it's ancestral sin, as we don't believe in original sin in the Western sense.

[Jebslund]

Then let Him sort it out when people stand before him in judgment, and live your life according to your conscience without imposing it on others.

But a Christian’s entire life is supposed to be “go out and evangelize to the whole world” according to Matthew 28. A Christian is told in Matthew not to put their light under a bushel. We have to preach as Christians, in a truthful and merciful manner.

We are to lead people to Christ, not beat them over the head and then drag them kicking and screaming. There's a wide gulf of difference between sharing God's Word and forcing everyone to live by the laws laid out in the Bible, especially since it's not following the laws, but faith in Christ (which cannot be faked or forced), that gets you into Heaven, so imposing God's law on everyone regardless of whether or not they believe in Christ, thereby chasing away people who might have, had they been approached in a more considerate and warm manner, otherwise come to believe in the Lord and accept His gift of salvation, is actually *counter* to that message. It's like putting the houses of nonbelievers to the torch just because God doesn't want you to hide your light.

[Kernen]

Because of the Roman Empire and Hell.

The Roman Empire made Christianity the most common Religion in Europe because one of the emperors saw one of Christ's symbols at a battle that he was sure was gonna be a loss but ended up being a landslide victory, so he made Christianity the state religion of the Empire because he believed that Christ got him the victory (At least, that's how the story goes), and it kinda just stuck around for 2000 years. While on the other hand, Hell was used and abused by early Christians as a marketing tool by making it as undesirable as possible, thus getting people to convert solely to avoid Hell and any punishment that happens in Hell.

As Julian (famed for his anti-Christianity) said, it was more than that, Christianity revolutionized how religion was organized in such a way that it was very appealing to people due to the community it created. It was what inspired his efforts to reform paganism, because he didn't think it was possible for paganism to compete with Christianity unless it adopted its social organization.

Which doesn't explain its attraction now other than an unwillingness to look critically at it. Especially when worrying about the rules lands you in a harder life than ignoring them and, say, getting an abortion.

[New haven america]

As Julian (famed for his anti-Christianity) said, it was more than that, Christianity revolutionized how religion was organized in such a way that it was very appealing to people due to the community it created. It was what inspired his efforts to reform paganism, because he didn't think it was possible for paganism to compete with Christianity unless it adopted its social organization.

Which doesn't explain its attraction now other than an unwillingness to look critically at it. Especially when worrying about the rules lands you in a harder life than ignoring them and, say, getting an abortion.

Because if you stop following it or believing in Christianity or do things Christianity says is wrong then you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.

[Kernen]

Which doesn't explain its attraction now other than an unwillingness to look critically at it. Especially when worrying about the rules lands you in a harder life than ignoring them and, say, getting an abortion.

Because if you stop following it or believing in Christianity or do things Christianity says is wrong then you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Yeah, no. You aren't.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As Julian (famed for his anti-Christianity) said, it was more than that, Christianity revolutionized how religion was organized in such a way that it was very appealing to people due to the community it created. It was what inspired his efforts to reform paganism, because he didn't think it was possible for paganism to compete with Christianity unless it adopted its social organization.

Which doesn't explain its attraction now other than an unwillingness to look critically at it. Especially when worrying about the rules lands you in a harder life than ignoring them and, say, getting an abortion.

It's attraction now still comes from the philosophy and sense of community. And, for the record, there are whole branches of Christianity (Eastern Christianity, for instance) which cares little for rules and would say that right conduct is obvious from the starting point of trying to be loving.

[Kernen]

Which doesn't explain its attraction now other than an unwillingness to look critically at it. Especially when worrying about the rules lands you in a harder life than ignoring them and, say, getting an abortion.

It's attraction now still comes from the philosophy and sense of community. And, for the record, there are whole branches of Christianity (Eastern Christianity, for instance) which cares little for rules and would say that right conduct is obvious from the starting point of trying to be loving.

Oh. I can't tell which version is worse.

[New haven america]

Because if you stop following it or believing in Christianity or do things Christianity says is wrong then you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Yeah, no. You aren't.

But Christianity says you are, so you are.

Best believe just to be safe is a pretty common idea among Christians (And non-Christians, I know a couple Jews who got baptized solely as an insurance policy).

[Kernen]

Yeah, no. You aren't.

But Christianity says you are, so you are.

Best believe just to be safe is a pretty common idea among Christians (And non-Christians, I know a couple Jews who got baptized solely as an insurance policy).

I'd rather run the risk than submit to an objectionable authority.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's attraction now still comes from the philosophy and sense of community. And, for the record, there are whole branches of Christianity (Eastern Christianity, for instance) which cares little for rules and would say that right conduct is obvious from the starting point of trying to be loving.

Oh. I can't tell which version is worse.

I don't see how the latter is bad at all. It simply says that one should do all things out of love for God and love for others, as such canon-law is very relaxed, being more of a guideline than laws at all. It gives a great deal more flexibility in how priests handle things because the focus isn't on rigid legalism.