Jump to content

Rick's Sunday School in burning Kiev


seahawk

Recommended Posts

Let's keep in mind too, that if some religious people have concerns about things like abortion and LGBT issues, so do many non religious people, not to mention that it was religious people who led the Western fight for the abolition of slavery and encouraged charitable works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, R011 said:

I'm inclined to agree.  The question I have is what counts as "forcing".  Is an office Christmas tree forcing religion on me?  Is Rick linking to Bible quotes in a forum where they can be skipped over?  Is a common day of rest (otherwise quite secular and left leaning unions here were opposed to Sunday shopping)?  Is a Bible quote on a fast food wrapper?

The first two and the last one, no. I'm not a militant atheist and acknowledge the fact that Christianity is an important part of our identity. Bible quotes also don't bother me, neither does Rick posting them. Hell, my immediate family celebrates Christmas too, just without the religious aspect.

As for the third e.g. Poland passed a law banning Sunday trade. Oh, obviously our betters were using other, non-religious arguments, my favourite one was that it will help the small stores, which were excluded from the ban if the owner was behind the counter on Sunday. Guess what? Thousands of small stores went tits up, while the big chains actually benefited. Many of those who worked part-time on weekends, like students, suddenly had their opportunities cut in half. 

I'm also not sure what I consider more distasteful - effectively treating abortion as just another contraception method with no limits imposed (oh, and a 'human right') or forcing the raped teenage girl to give birth to the rapist's child and adding to her trauma. While in Poland the law allows to terminate the pregnancy that is the result of rape (or is a threat to mother's life), a few years back it was amended to exclude eugenic abortion (via the Constitutional Court, not the Parliament). That too is an example of madness, when women are forced to give birth to the disfigured/retards/children who will die within minutes/hours of birth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, R011 said:

Why should believers suffer the control of non believers?

Which particular controls are you referencing?  No law anywhere to say believers must have abortions etc, they have the right to self determination after all.

If you are talking laws and taxation etc then it's a non statement as neither are designed to affect only religious believers.

If those of a religious bent want to live a certain way, as long as they hurt nobody else, fine.  Go for it.  When they decide for those outside of their religious faith, then they are out of order.

When my pain goes beyond my ability to deal with it and on terms of my own choosing, I will be going.  No heaven or hell, no anything.  My freinds know full well not to allow any kind of religious service or commemoration.

Religion states this is against (Deity of choice) the law, it is not.  What is ilegal is to assist in the process.  I will not have religious folk enforcing their will on how I live my life, I will continue to be a Trekkie until my last breath and fight for freedom from persecution from those who believe differently from myself.

If a woman wants an abortion she should be allowed to have it.  How do folk feel about a situation where their daughter is raped and left pregnant, if she is a twelve or fourteen year old girl?

Why should someone with an uncurable health problem be left in consyant pain year after year with no chance of that ending short of dying, be forced to live on?

Religious faith?  What is it and why should it rule non believers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

Well, I fined the desire of religious folk of all denominations, trying to force their beliefs and value's on non believers to be fatuous at best.  Why should non beloevers suffer the control of believers?  It rather takes the rights of the individual and trashes them, imoho, of course.

Force? BWAHAHAHAHAAHA....

Where is the force? As noted, the force is government, here in the U.S. primarily under the control of the progressives.

There's a HUGE difference between the rightful liberty to make your own choices (and, coincidentally, to live with the results of those same choices) and the demand to be supported both in making those choices and in avoiding the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, FALightFighter said:

Force? BWAHAHAHAHAAHA....

Where is the force? As noted, the force is government, here in the U.S. primarily under the control of the progressives.

There's a HUGE difference between the rightful liberty to make your own choices (and, coincidentally, to live with the results of those same choices) and the demand to be supported both in making those choices and in avoiding the consequences.

The force is driving the law via like minded individuals, to alter the law to deny people their rights.  In the USA, some areas are forced to deny progressive and proven science to force creationism into the syllabus.  The force is individuals blockading abortion clinics and harrassing women going through one of the worst events in their lives, as THEY choose.

The force is people om my doorstep trying to force their beliefs down my neck.  The force is certain USA churcehs sending missionaries to block our path in the streets to talk about "Jaysus".  etc etc.

If believers were to leave the rest of us to our own moral compas, it really would be a much more peaceful world and then we have the wars.  "I am doing GODS work"etc.  How many folk out there describe themselves as doing just that, while they murder their neighbours.........?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

Which particular controls are you referencing?  No law anywhere to say believers must have abortions etc, they have the right to self determination after all.

If you are talking laws and taxation etc then it's a non statement as neither are designed to affect only religious believers.

If those of a religious bent want to live a certain way, as long as they hurt nobody else, fine.  Go for it.  When they decide for those outside of their religious faith, then they are out of order.

When my pain goes beyond my ability to deal with it and on terms of my own choosing, I will be going.  No heaven or hell, no anything.  My freinds know full well not to allow any kind of religious service or commemoration.

Religion states this is against (Deity of choice) the law, it is not.  What is ilegal is to assist in the process.  I will not have religious folk enforcing their will on how I live my life, I will continue to be a Trekkie until my last breath and fight for freedom from persecution from those who believe differently from myself.

If a woman wants an abortion she should be allowed to have it.  How do folk feel about a situation where their daughter is raped and left pregnant, if she is a twelve or fourteen year old girl?

Why should someone with an uncurable health problem be left in consyant pain year after year with no chance of that ending short of dying, be forced to live on?

Religious faith?  What is it and why should it rule non believers?

Your posted gave the impression you think only the religious try to exert control over others.  This is clealry not true, even speaking of democracies rather than dicttorships like China and the old Soviet Union.  Therre are those, for instance, who wpold deny religious people the right to speak about issues with which they disagree for whom even things like silent prayer is an arretsable offense.

And if a majority of the people in a state believe that aborton is murder, for instance, why should they not be allowed to exercise their democratic rights to change the law on it?  Aren't the pro-choice peole forcing their opinions on the defenceless unborn?  Is it right to execute someone who is innocent of  the crime comitted against their parent?  Do we encouragepeope not in their right minds to commit suicide?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

The force is driving the law via like minded individuals, to alter the law to deny people their rights.  In the USA, some areas are forced to deny progressive and proven science to force creationism into the syllabus.  The force is individuals blockading abortion clinics and harrassing women going through one of the worst events in their lives, as THEY choose.

The force is people om my doorstep trying to force their beliefs down my neck.  The force is certain USA churcehs sending missionaries to block our path in the streets to talk about "Jaysus".  etc etc.

If believers were to leave the rest of us to our own moral compas, it really would be a much more peaceful world and then we have the wars.  "I am doing GODS work"etc.  How many folk out there describe themselves as doing just that, while they murder their neighbours.........?

You understand that freedom of speech means all people are allowed to express their opinions in the public space, not just those who believe as you do?  yeah, this means you get to be annoyed from time to time.  Personally, I find "peace" and enviromental activists far more agressively annoying that the quasi-cultists holding signs and handing out leaflets.

As for public harassment, the Left is at least as quick to do that to those it hates as the pro-life crowd and less amenable to accepting reasonable restrictions on protest locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

...The force is people om my doorstep trying to force their beliefs down my neck.  The force is certain USA churcehs sending missionaries to block our path in the streets to talk about "Jaysus".  etc etc...

No worse than door to door salesmen or any type of marketing. Practically every one I have met (including weirdness like Mormons and Amish* and some of "edgy sects"...) were very polite and did not bother me after I told them that I was not interested.

*Not those on sabbatical, real Amish preaching Amish way of life.

1 hour ago, R011 said:

You understand that freedom of speech means all people are allowed to express their opinions in the public space, not just those who believe as you do?

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

Let's see, an elected government over a non elected body of mostly men, who ignore the rights of at least fifty percent of the population and want to force their choices down the throats of people who do not share their belief system.

So, the small minority of folks who claim to be gender de jour are forcing their abnormal views via secular law on the majority of folks who do not identify as such. Is this what you mean?

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states there is not a Federal right to killing an unborn child, that such "rights" belong to the states and that many of these pro-abortion states will accept out of state women seeking an abortion. So which 50% of the population is this. A look at the population of those states that allow abortions and those that do not will show that the majority of the population live in the pro abortion states. 

Laws from that elected government over the beliefs a few wanting to shove nonsense down the throats of the many, WITHOUT their say so. What religious or religiously inspired laws are preventing you from doing what you want to do?

Tell me, why do you think you should be able to use your beliefs to punish and control the lives on non believers?

How did I make this happen?

I am not a number, I am a FREE man.  Oh really! Tell that to the I.R.S. Tell this to the government official the next time your "asked" to participate in the national census.

I suggest that those who think otherwise should remember you only have the right to believe what YOU want to, because I can believe what I want too.  Democracy over theocracy every day of the week, ta. 

I agree with you. It's the putting the these abnormal and immoral thought into laws that  is the problem. For just one example, witness what is happening to those cities who "Defund the Police." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

And in between there's me, an agnostic who on one hand would like to purge wokeism and on the other would rather have the opportunity to do shopping on sunday (ba dum tss) and doesn't appreciate having the religion forced down his throat.

Asking a curiosity question, not attempting anything else; what is being forced down your throat more often, wokeism (I'll include its ancestor political correctness) or religion? Which one affects you more negatively?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bojan said:

No worse than door to door salesmen or any type of marketing. Practically every one I have met (including weirdness like Mormons and Amish* and some of "edgy sects"...) were very polite and did not bother me after I told them that I was not interested.

*Not those on sabbatical, real Amish preaching Amish way of life.

This.

Interesting about the Amish. Could you elaborate?  I am only familiar with the Amish around me who are reserved and polite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

You understand that freedom of speech means all people are allowed to express their opinions in the public space, not just those who believe as you do?  yeah, this means you get to be annoyed from time to time.  Personally, I find "peace" and enviromental activists far more agressively annoying that the quasi-cultists holding signs and handing out leaflets.

As for public harassment, the Left is at least as quick to do that to those it hates as the pro-life crowd and less amenable to accepting reasonable restrictions on protest locations.

Well stated and authentically accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

The force is driving the law via like minded individuals, to alter the law to deny people their rights.  In the USA, some areas are forced to deny progressive and proven science to force creationism into the syllabus.  The force is individuals blockading abortion clinics and harrassing women going through one of the worst events in their lives, as THEY choose.

The force is people om my doorstep trying to force their beliefs down my neck.  The force is certain USA churcehs sending missionaries to block our path in the streets to talk about "Jaysus".  etc etc.

If believers were to leave the rest of us to our own moral compas, it really would be a much more peaceful world and then we have the wars.  "I am doing GODS work"etc.  How many folk out there describe themselves as doing just that, while they murder their neighbours.........?

All people have and will sin. That is why Jesus did what he did. And knew he would do it. Is there anyone else on earth, past or present, who is more well known and loved than Jesus. Any secular leader more omnipotent than Jesus?

How many hymns are dedicated to a secular government? There is  powerful poetry in those hymns, how many powerful poems are dedicated to a secular government?

Why is the Bible, a book that has been in circulation for over 1,000 years telling and describing how we should live, has not changed in this time. Yet, how many more, much more, volumes of law and regulations that have been passed by government attempts to do the same thing. And still printing. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rick said:

Asking a curiosity question, not attempting anything else; what is being forced down your throat more often, wokeism (I'll include its ancestor political correctness) or religion? Which one affects you more negatively?

There's no wokeism being forced down my throat, because I happen to live in a still rather conservative country. But IF the trends (people are far less religious than they used to be and the so-called 'progress' slowly finds its way here) continue in 20-30 years it will be the other way around. Judging by what happens in the US and Western Europe it's' going to be far worse than what happens now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

I am only familiar with the Amish around me who are reserved and polite.

Those were also polite. They asked if I am interesting in their way of life, I said that thank you, I am not, and that was it. It was "weird" as AFAIK Amish are not really into spreading their way of life?

  

59 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

it's' going to be far worse than what happens now. 

IMO, extremes invite opposite extremes, and when pendulum finally swings to the other side it swings hard.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Abortion of a nine months old child is clearly murder. Yet in some cases that is what is being asked for. Also, killing children after birth has been proposed. 
  The question is, how far away from birth can the destruction be done? For example, most people would agree contraception is ok. (Although the Catholic Church does not agree. )

  The reasonable answer is to let different states make their own decisions. However, some states will be so extreme they will invite intervention from the rest of the country. 
 

  Children of rape are not a significant percentage of aborted babies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Detonable said:

  Abortion of a nine months old child is clearly murder. Yet in some cases that is what is being asked for. Also, killing children after birth has been proposed. 
  The question is, how far away from birth can the destruction be done? For example, most people would agree contraception is ok. (Although the Catholic Church does not agree. )

  The reasonable answer is to let different states make their own decisions. However, some states will be so extreme they will invite intervention from the rest of the country. 
 

  Children of rape are not a significant percentage of aborted babies. 

The reasonable answer is that once the sperm enters the egg, the result is a human being and should be protected from being murdered like any other human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

I wouldn't mind working in one of their wood shops for a few months...The food's probably not half bad either. 

At that moment (early 2000s) Amish way of life = +/- rural southern or eastern Serbia (ok, exaggeration, but still...). It was like trying to sell snow to Eskimos. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 12:50 PM, Mike1158 said:

If a woman wants an abortion she should be allowed to have it.  How do folk feel about a situation where their daughter is raped and left pregnant, if she is a twelve or fourteen year old girl?

I would see that my daughter got the necessary emotional, mental, and spiritual counseling she needs (as well as the physical care, of course), and I would love my grandchild dearly, whose fatherhood is not his or her fault.  It is no more right to kill that child when in the womb than it would be were the child a year old. 

There being no distinction, no, a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion any more than she should be allowed to kill her infant, youth, or adult child.  A woman does have control over her body (except in the cases of rape, covered above):  she can keep her legs together except for her husband. 

As for medical necessity:  "Separating the mom and the baby when the mom's life is threatened is not an abortion [for the purposes of state laws, abortions are defined as procedures done or drugs administered with the intent to kill a living human being in the womb], and that includes the treatment of ectopic pregnancies," per Donna Harrison, M.D. CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

I would see that my daughter got the necessary emotional, mental, and spiritual counseling she needs (as well as the physical care, of course), and I would love my grandchild dearly, whose fatherhood is not his or her fault.  It is no more right to kill that child when in the womb than it would be were the child a year old. 

There being no distinction, no, a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion any more than she should be allowed to kill her infant, youth, or adult child.  A woman does have control over her body (except in the cases of rape, covered above):  she can keep her legs together except for her husband. 

As for medical necessity:  "Separating the mom and the baby when the mom's life is threatened is not an abortion [for the purposes of state laws, abortions are defined as procedures done or drugs administered with the intent to kill a living human being in the womb], and that includes the treatment of ectopic pregnancies," per Donna Harrison, M.D. CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

So, women must live by the Bible even if they are not believers IN the Bible or the Christian belief system?  You are welcome to live by your beliefs, everyone else should be free to live by theirs.

 

If you want the quid, you MUST have the pro quo or condemn your own beliefs as immaterial.

Link to comment
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

×
×
  • Create New...