If Russia invades my country next I will still not see private gun ownership as a christian value. Because it has nothing to do with it.
A christian value would be to just accept being killed because you go to heaven. That is what Jesus did. Or to live under the occupation.
Jesus did not try to kill romans, did he?
If Russia invades my country next I will still not see private gun ownership as a christian value. Because it has nothing to do with it.
A christian value would be to just accept being killed because you go to heaven. That is what Jesus did. Or to live under the occupation.
Jesus did not try to kill romans, did he?
The Christian way would be that nobody owns guns and everyone is a pacifist, like jesus and would rather be crucified or under occupation than fighting.
You cannot just act like guns are a christian value.
If equality is a christian value, then republicans are against it, republicans do not want equality.
The Christian way would be that nobody owns guns and everyone is a pacifist, like jesus and would rather be crucified or under occupation than fighting.
You cannot just act like guns are a christian value.
If equality is a christian value, then republicans are against it, republicans do not want equality.
Secularists and atheists believe they reside in "gun free" zones where "no one has guns".
They do not acknowledge criminals and governments still retaining guns in "gun free" zones.
Thinking the world is a perfect place where everyone can be a pacifist (but only citizens are disarmed inside of a double standard) is a secularist / atheist stance.
Christians would prefer to have guns, and never have to use them.
It is christian value which is why the historically christian united states retains an expansive gun culture developed around its religious views.
Jesus chased moneychangers out of a temple with a whip. Not the most pacifistic event in history btw.
Secularists and atheists believe they reside in "gun free" zones where "no one has guns".
They do not acknowledge criminals and governments still retaining guns in "gun free" zones.
Thinking the world is a perfect place where everyone can be a pacifist (but only citizens are disarmed inside of a double standard) is a secularist / atheist stance.
Christians would prefer to have guns, and never have to use them.
It is christian value which is why the historically christian united states retains an expansive gun culture developed around its religious views.
Jesus chased moneychangers out of a temple with a whip. Not the most pacifistic event in history btw.
So what, the romans had swords too, the christians still did not arm themselves. Guns are anti christian, everything else is an excuse. Jesus chased people, that does not mean he tried to murder them.
Christians clearly were rather martyrs against romans instead of raising their hand against them.
So what, the romans had swords too, the christians still did not arm themselves. Guns are anti christian, everything else is an excuse. Jesus chased people, that does not mean he tried to murder them.
Christians clearly were rather martyrs against romans instead of raising their hand against them.
When romans arrived to take Jesus. Christians cut the ear off one, with a sword. That is a difficult feat to achieve if they were "not armed" as you claim.
...
Joe Biden and democrats in america.
Agree 100% with every word you say.
That may be the best indication of Joe Biden being a secularist / atheist available.
When romans arrived to take Jesus. Christians cut the ear off one, with a sword. That is a difficult feat to achieve if they were "not armed" as you claim.
...
Joe Biden and democrats in america.
Agree 100% with every word you say.
That may be the best indication of Joe Biden being a secularist / atheist available.
And jesus told him to stop and sheathe the sword, so it was clearly not an act to look favourably upon. One gospel has jesus heal the roman.
Christians are not supposed to use weapons like that, they are supposed to turn the other cheek.
Guns are not christian. Neither is the republican party, the republican party stands for inequality, it stands for not caring for each other, it stands for violence and it stands for lying and cheating.
And jesus told him to stop and sheathe the sword, so it was clearly not an act to look favourably upon. One gospel has jesus heal the roman.
Christians are not supposed to use weapons like that, they are supposed to turn the other cheek.
Guns are not christian. Neither is the republican party, the republican party stands for inequality, it stands for not caring for each other, it stands for violence and it stands for lying and cheating.
The focus on 'part of body' is pretty absurd, there is no real good reason why that should matter. It would be just as sound to say "you own everything that comes out of your body, so you own your children". It is just some kind of premise that gets thrown out but that yields to all kinds of questionable implications.
This is kind of the exact basis for why it's legal though?
To backtrack to how this discussion started - suggesting that "my body, my choice" can be a valid basis for argumentation against both abortion and vaccines just doesn't hold up IMO - You said that abortion affects others "if you believe abortion is murder". In the case of vaccines though, there is no basis for "belief" that you are not a risk to those around you if you're unvaccinated (or lacking any sort of immunity). Belief simply is not a foundational aspect of that at all. An exception might be those that are Christian Scientist, but even they are not anti-vaccine.
What does this have to do with what I said? You cannot look for hypocrisy among one politician and not the other and expect for anyone to take you seriously.
What do vices have to do with someone's intelligence? I like how hookers and blow are considered atheist and secularist, but sinning men of the cloth are still holy.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I think it's incredibly odd to try to bring up errant or ungodly lifestyles and then try to use Biden of all people as an example of that.
What do vices have to do with someone's intelligence? I like how hookers and blow are considered atheist and secularist, but sinning men of the cloth are still holy.
The media claims Trump had an affair with a pornstar who was photographed attending democrat NXIVM parties.
Atheist secularist decadance hasn't changed since atheists like Nero and Caligula were in power. The same decadent lifestyle democrat atheists like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have today.
And yet somehow... people... still.... haven't caught on.. to it.
The media claims Trump had an affair with a pornstar who was photographed attending democrat NXIVM parties.
Atheist secularist decadance hasn't changed since atheists like Nero and Caligula were in power. The same decadent lifestyle democrat atheists like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have today.
And yet somehow... people... still.... haven't caught on.. to it.
Setting aside the fact that you're using atheist and secularist not only as a pejorative, but in a way that incorrectly indicates some sort of corrupted belief system...
There's plenty of Christians who claim to be so with words, but not with deeds.
Why do you get to call Biden an atheist when he's said the opposite? What about his lifestyle suggests he's an atheist? Is Trump's lifestyle not decadent because he claims he's Christian and you take that at face value? Why not pay the same courtesy to politicians you dislike?
Caught onto what? The satanist cabal that secretly pulls the strings?
No, I am telling you that your argumentation is not sound.
Your argument in that case was "you cannot expect bearing a child from a woman who does not want it because it is huge mental and physical stress".
But of course, many people are put into situations where they have to endure a lot of physical and mental stress and are expected to take it.
You need to decide for one clear argument (that can consist of several different parts) that works for legalizing abortion but does not work for legalizing many other undesirable things.
And so far, I don't think any of your arguments did that.
If you truly believed that, you wouldn't keep trying to find ways to convolute my argument. The argument from me has always been that the pregnant person decides what they do with their body, and personhood is what determines the worth of a living being. Not only is it a clear argument, it's the most commonly used argument amongst pro choice people. That's why you keep creating scenarios to try to remove the pregnant person's agency and give it to the aborted person. You made one argument about conjoined twins, and then you moved on to someone taking care of a handicapped person that's already born.
Both skip past the personhood argument by making the person already old enough to be a person. You don't care to contend with my actual argument. You want to make new arguments to get me in some kind of "gotcha" moment. And I'm not going to let you.
But that is not all, because we are talking about a political decision and that is different from an individual choice. And in politics, it is a decision society can make whether it bans or allows abortion and for that decision, there need to be clear arguments that are consistent.
The political decision is about whether or not it should be that persons individual choice, and what kind of punishment should be levied against them should they make that choice. I say it is ALWAYS their choice. It doesn't get any clearer than that. At least until you start looking for niche situations to distract from the common argument. Like conjoined twins.
But then we are back to vaccinations and i ask why i should expect people to vaccinate themselves. After all, they are just making a choice for their body and the risk of side effects is too big in their estimation to take the vaccine.
You shouldn't expect them to any more than they should expect you to be okay with them putting your life in danger. For the thousandth time my argument is about moral and immoral actions. And my moral framework says that the right thing to do is promote wellbeing amongst as many people as possible while limiting the amount of harm done to as many people as possible.
Aborting a child: harms 0 persons because they're not a person yet. Even if they've reached personhood, there's no point during a pregnancy where the host body loses dominion over their own body and thus doesn't owe the fetus anything.
Infecting countless people with covid: harms countless actual people that you have no excuse to harm, who may already be doing their part as a moral agent by wearing their mask and social distancing in case they have covid.
To be clear, I've said before that it IS their body and it IS their choice to get the vaccine or not. It's just the person aborting the child isn't immoral, and the person not getting vaccinate IS immoral.
If i cannot expect a woman to bear a child in a country with a very low deathrate for pregnancies, then I don't think i can tell someone to vaxx himself, even if the risk is minimal. At least not based on that argument, neither based on the argument that he impacts others, because at the end of the day, most choices impact others directly or indirectly.
Right now, there are good ways to protect against covid, if you are vacced 3 times and wear a mask, your risk with omicron is about as minimal as vaccine side effects .
To me the personhood argument comes to... How the hell does someone decide a fetus is or isn't a person? "personhood" is not a question science can answer. That's more for philosophers to break their heads with for eternity and lawyers to settle with answers at a specific point in time. I won't go as far as saying life starts at conception since, well, conception does not even guarantee a pregnancy, let alone a baby but post implantation I am of the idea that you need actual receipts for the claim that a fetus is or not a person. The rational way to go about this is to treat a fetus as a person (IMO). And sure, if you have to choose between a fetus and the mother definitely choose the mother (barring the mother choosing the fetus at her own peril).
To me in the end the issue of abortions is not even about abortions. I mean, it is but legalizing abortions doesn't solve the issues that lead to people needing them. Dumbass teens (the bulk of it) and rape (the least of it). Legalizing abortions doesn't make teenagers more mature or less stupid and legalizing doesn't un-rape anyone. The way to actually tackle this is educating people on how not to have babies. Do that successfully and you mostly get rid of the need to have abortions.... That said, I am of the idea that teenagers should be discouraged from having sex in general. Teenagers are both stupid AND broke. Someone who doesn't have consistent access to the 3 dollars it takes to buy a pack of condoms shouldn't be having sex at all regardless of age.... As in, if you are literally too broke to be responsible you shouldn't be risking the lifelong financial burden of a child. Or even the far less extreme financial burden of an adoption.
To me the personhood argument comes to... How the hell does someone decide a fetus is or isn't a person? "personhood" is not a question science can answer. That's more for philosophers to break their heads with for eternity and lawyers to settle with answers at a specific point in time. I won't go as far as saying life starts at conception since, well, conception does not even guarantee a pregnancy, let alone a baby but post implantation I am of the idea that you need actual receipts for the claim that a fetus is or not a person. The rational way to go about this is to treat a fetus as a person (IMO). And sure, if you have to choose between a fetus and the mother definitely choose the mother (barring the mother choosing the fetus at her own peril).
It depends on your definition of person. My personal rule is if it can't recognize it's personhood, it's not a person. Even animals have personhood... but since they aren't human we don't value it to the same degree.
To me in the end the issue of abortions is not even about abortions. I mean, it is but legalizing abortions doesn't solve the issues that lead to people needing them. Dumbass teens (the bulk of it) and rape (the least of it). Legalizing abortions doesn't make teenagers more mature or less stupid and legalizing doesn't un-rape anyone. The way to actually tackle this is educating people on how not to have babies. Do that successfully and you mostly get rid of the need to have abortions.... That said, I am of the idea that teenagers should be discouraged from having sex in general. Teenagers are both stupid AND broke. Someone who doesn't have consistent access to the 3 dollars it takes to buy a pack of condoms shouldn't be having sex at all regardless of age.... As in, if you are literally too broke to be responsible you shouldn't be risking the lifelong financial burden of a child. Or even the far less extreme financial burden of an adoption.
It depends on your definition of person. My personal rule is if it can't recognize it's personhood, it's not a person. Even animals have personhood... but since they aren't human we don't value it to the same degree.
You're smart enough to know that telling kids not to have sex is gonna make them desire it more.
Ok? but what do I do with that? What receipts do you or anyone have for your definition of personhood? How do we make a reasonable law based on that? How does it apply to the actual questions that pertain to the science, laws and politics of this?
Welp, sure. Teenagers are inherently stupid, that's why I make the point that the focus should be on education to mitigate the stupid. I am not even saying they should wait until marriage or anything like that. I can't possibly care less than I already about what other people do in that regard (if anything I'd like to know less about it) but odds are that adults going without sex for prolonged amounts of time without sex is massively unhealthy.... I would argue the framing should be something like they can do whatever they want but generally it's healthier for them to wait until adulthood due to the emotional and monetary implications of the whole thing. Along with the benefit of a grown ass man presumably having consistent access to the 3 dollars required to buy a pack of condoms. And 3 dollars being less than whatever the buttfuck an abortion or a baby costs. To me the idea of someone relying on an allowance from his parents to buy condoms is pure lunacy...
Ok? but what do I do with that? What receipts do you or anyone have for your definition of personhood? How do we make a reasonable law based on that? How does it apply to the actual questions that pertain to the science, laws and politics of this?
When looking for a justification for your actions, it essentially comes straight down to how successfully you can convince yourself that your justification is sound. So what I expect you to do is try to falsify the idea that personhood isn't limited to living beings with brains that have reached a certain level of development/consciousness. Admittedly, this won't mean shit to you if you don't value science as much as I do.
Welp, sure. Teenagers are inherently stupid, that's why I make the point that the focus should be on education to mitigate the stupid. I am not even saying they should wait until marriage or anything like that. I can't possibly care less than I already about what other people do in that regard (if anything I'd like to know less about it) but odds are that adults going without sex for prolonged amounts of time without sex is massively unhealthy.... I would argue the framing should be something like they can do whatever they want but generally it's healthier for them to wait until adulthood due to the emotional and monetary implications of the whole thing. Along with the benefit of a grown ass man presumably having consistent access to the 3 dollars required to buy a pack of condoms. And 3 dollars being less than whatever the buttfuck an abortion or a baby costs. To me the idea of someone relying on an allowance from his parents to buy condoms is pure lunacy...
Okay good. That was all I meant by bringing that up. But at the bold part... that's not true. Not having sex for a long time isn't unhealthy, let alone massively unhealthy.
