Comment Re:When I was a kid in the 70s (Score 0) 309
frozen fertilized eggs are full human beings
According to Christianity and biology, this has been true for many centuries. Is this the first time you heard of this?
frozen fertilized eggs are full human beings
According to Christianity and biology, this has been true for many centuries. Is this the first time you heard of this?
despite the fact that the fundamental basis of that philosophy --the existence of souls, an eternal afterlife, an omnipotent god who selects eternal rewards and punishments, who's personal biases define an objective morality on the universe, and who possesses a deep and abiding concern for the affairs of an elect group of humans-- has been repeatedly and thoroughly proven false by science and reason.
Uhh, when and where did that happen? Please provide specific references, not wishful thinking disguised as an argument.
"Keeping the human race alive" sounds like "saving the world" to me.
Uh, you keep claiming that I'm trying to "save the world", which I said I'm incapable of. I've never intended or tried to... keep husbands and wives procreating, therefore I'm not trying to save the world in this context. Is your comment serious or is this a joke?
You talk about "hitting a soft spot", then reply with a wall of text wherein you flail about trying to shield yourself from the obvious embarrassment triggered by me noticing superhero cape.
If responding with a question implies that I'm a superhero in your mind, let's just say that you're wrong. The "wall of text" contains a statement of fact that proves most of your allegations are wrong; it's no wonder you attempt to discredit it in vain by bringing up... fantasies, capes and my non-existent embarrassment... By the way, I can honestly say that I don't wear capes! Superhero or otherwise.
With some projection thrown in for good measure.
I'm not certain what you imply here, but:
I'd place erasing homosexuals firmly in the category of non-importance vis-a-vis saving the world.
is the first time anyone in this discussion mentioned "erasing homosexuals". This is text written by you verbatim. Pot, kettle, and all that...
At least you've finally brought yourself to make the concrete assertion that homosexuality is "harmful behavior." That's a starting point for constructing a coherent argument.
Uh, if by "coherent argument" you mean calling me a cape-wearing protagonist of a fantasy comic book, let's just say I wonder if you know what these words actually mean!
I'm an idiot and can't answer the question you ended your post with. Do tell, what would happen "if everybody were homosexual?"
Well, after calling me a cape-wearing superhero of comic books, this question makes me wonder if you really can answer the question. Can you? If you can, you know the answer. If you cannot, there's no point in continuing this discussion.
Since you asked, What if everyone was a man? That has an equally likely chance to happen as your thought experiment.
No, it doesn't. The human species comprises men and women by definition.
So are you saying that sex when there is no chance of reproduction is deviant?
No.
So, we can infer that what this is really about is you & Ron saving the world. Why didn't you just say that directly? If you're afraid of being ridiculed, perhaps don't be so ridiculous.
Wow, it seems that I hit a soft spot here! First of all, I'm neither American, nor do I know who this Ron guy is. Second, I'm way too unimportant to be able to save the world; I have no idea where you got that from, hence ridiculousness is something not to find on my side, especially as it seems that you're grasping at straws in a futile attempt to mislead about my response. Your comment:
If showing a gay person constitutes "sexual themes" then show does showing a husband and wife. Somehow I can't get upset about any of it. And I mean, my life is pretty empty, but I can think of way less destructive things to fill it with than some politician's culture warrior creed.
implies that demonstration of sexual themes by gay people is something that doesn't make a difference to you compared to similar demonstration by a husband and wife. As husbands and wives are important to keep the human race alive, you're equating normal sexual behaviour (the important part) to sexually deviant behaviour (the negligible part) when you say that you're indifferent to such demonstrations. How does this have anything to do with me saving anything or anyone? This is a simple statement of fact.
I'd place erasing homosexuals firmly in the category of non-importance vis-a-vis saving the world.
So, you're discussing options about saving the world, after you falsely accused me of doing this?! And you intend to achieve this by erasing homosexuals?! The ironic part here is that I got bad karma for something I never said or implied, but you say this explicitly and got upvoted! I don't know from where you got the idea that anyone (me included) wants to "erase homosexuals". I do think, though, that erasing homosexuality is good for the world, but this is outside my capability.
There are all kinds of behaviour that are considered harmful throughout history that prevail, but this doesn't mean that they're not harmful. An easy way to identify harmful behaviour, if you're not a Christian in this case, is to consider the extreme case: what if everybody were homosexual?
If showing a gay person constitutes "sexual themes" then show does showing a husband and wife.
Can the human race exist without husbands and wives? Do you seriously think that the cause of continuous existence of humanity and sexually deviant behaviour by a few are equally important?
As for studies, here is one: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wi...
According to https://link.springer.com/chap..., the results are described as "tentative" by the author and in fact in Copenhagen rapes increased much more than the nationwide drop in sexual crimes.
Also, more than 50% of psychology studies and articles fail to be reproduced and in general are of poor statistical quality. Regarding pornography, it is well known that women participating in it are frequently abused and exploited, which implies that consumers of pornography may be regarded as encouraging such abuse.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic bible do not say anything about it, nor does science.
Uh,
Matthew 5:28 KJV: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
...
In fact, several studies show that the easier access a culture has to porn the less rape and other sexual crimes occur (if you can get off with a picture, you do not need a person).
Any reference for this?
Covid vaccines are way safer than getting covid
No, they're not and they never have been. It is known that at least a vaccine was more dangerous than Covid infection, thus it is no longer recommended for use (AstraZeneca). Also, results from Israel indicate that the mRNA vaccine has been causing the recent surge of incidents of myocarditis and pericarditis, while Covid19, which has widely been claimed to contribute to such incidents, seems to have had no effect on this!
There is also an article about severe consequences of vaccination, but the result seems to be too grave to link here before it has been verified independently.
if you're referring to the end of the gospel of Matthew, that bit is fake.
Several other bits in Matthew are fake too, for instance the prostitute account ("Go, and sin no more").
As always with the bible, it's hard to keep all the lies straight and shut your eyes to all the internal inconsistencies.
I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence that anything in the Bible is fake or a lie or inconsistent. Do you have any? Evidence is not guesswork; I hope you know the difference.
That said, let me get back to the reintroduction of slavery now that Roe vs Wade is fixed.
What does killing babies have to do with slavery? If you're implying that they both are deplorable, I agree, but killing babies is homicide and mostly legal, while slavery is obviously not as bad and illegal if you're not in a prison...
Though scholars argue with each other about the original being written between 45 AD and 60 AD, we don't have the original and the earliest copy known is dated to around 200 AD.
The point is that there is a record earlier than the 50 years you mention, it is roughly 20 years.
that doesn't mean, for example, that the two (quite different) stories of creation in Genesis are true in an historical sense.
It doesn't, but they are in agreement with current scientific knowledge about the Creation.
That is not at all obvious.
The accounts of several events described from the point of view of several witnesses are in agreement with each other even for very intricate time and place arrangements, e.g. the women going to Jesus's tomb. That is very hard to do without eye witnesses, as it is very easy to miss details and produce an impossible timeline. One such eye witness is John, and his account of the events matches that of the rest of the witnesses.
In short, there is no evidence that there is anything in the Bible that is not true.
he's not said squat in 2000 years
One of the reasons He came here was to found the Church, which comprises talking people.
the records we have of him are 50 years after he went tits-up
"tits-up"? The earliest such record I'm aware of is the epistle to the Galatians, dated circa 48 AD.
are inconsistent if not downright made up.
There is an entire branch of archaeology based on the Bible, which implies that most of it, all in my experience, is true. Inconsistencies in the form of different expressions used in various copies of the text do not alter the meaning. There were no secretaries or historians at the time following Jesus and writing down the events; people wrote them down when they needed to share them with the rest of the Church. It is obvious from the text that some of it was written by eye witnesses.
Because fertilized human eggs are not people.
Then what are they? Isn't the zygote the beginning of a human's life? That's what I learnt in biology class, also I have some references from embryologists that agree.
I asked you because there is obviously a big difference between a few cells and a human being and this difference is manifest in the legal systems of most (all?) countries in the world: killing a few cells may not be a big deal, killing a human is homicide.
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
