Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William Barr: Religion is Under Attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Perspective is everything.
    Correct, with one curve and only one curve, statistical analysis just isn't there.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    And yes, the marked decline in abortion rates is historic.
    Too optimistic. What you are seeing is a 'trend." History is marked for instruction and there just isn't enough data to call anything 'historic' at this moment. History is not written by those participating. It is always written by others and in retrospect. It'd be presumptuous to write your own tombstone epitaph or to call it 'history' already. This is the same.

    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    While people have been seeking a government solution, others have been working to change minds. And that's far more effective.
    Agree but part of this is due to the peer pressure, which no longer sees out of wedlock births in an ill-light, and perhaps some of it is government involved as well (welfare, health care, etc.).
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    ? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Poly View Post
      Better go to all the day cares and schools and murder the kids because they might grow up to be evil. Heck, let's destroy the whole human race since there's the possibility that anyone could turn to the dark side.
      Well, if you were privy regarding the context betwee doser and I you would realize this was sarcasm.
      _/\_

      Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by quip View Post
        Your ignorance is showing. Dems support the freedom and liberty to CHOOSE - via ones own moral judgement - whether to abort or not. Understanding that a choice involves two options (abort or not to abort), Dems are neither pro nor anti- abortion.
        Likely though, your emotional rhetoric will ignore this fact.
        Riiiight..... The forcing of Christians to act against their beliefs by using a corrupt legal system is a real effort at supporting liberty and choice. Here is the essence of the abortion law passed in New York by Democrats.
        Here are eight facts about New York’s new abortion law:
        – The “fundamental” right to abortion is enshrined in the New York Constitution. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article,” the law states.
        – The law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. “A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion,” the law states.
        – The law allows abortion through the third trimester, including up to birth. “Third-trimester abortion will be allowed under the new law when a preborn child is diagnosed with a condition that will cause him or her to die at or shortly after birth,” Live Action reported.

        – The law removes protections for babies who survive an abortion procedure. “The new law removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion — meaning they could be left to die after birth — by rescinding a portion of New York’s public health law,” Live Action reported. Late-term abortions, until now, were illegal in the state of New York.
        – The law prevents pregnant women whose babies are killed in an attack on the mother from seeking justice and could result in infanticide by repealing the requirement for a second physician to be on hand in case an attempted abortion past 20 weeks yields a live infant.
        – The law states that an unborn child cannot be a victim of homicide if he dies while in the womb following an attack on the mother. “‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive,” the law states.

        – Pro-abortion advocates said the law would protect legal abortion even in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to make abortion legal — a decision that did no go as far as the New York law. “[The law] not only increases access to abortion across the board, including late-term abortions but also goes beyond Roe, which left some limits in place,” Catholic News Service reported.

        – The law is to “prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”
        I find zero evidence in the US Constitution for the "right" of a woman to commit murder with the help of a doctor. So, abortion cannot be a "right". To say that an unborn child is not a living human being is a major fallacy. It does not begin to live at birth. The fact that it grows in the womb is a testament to it's being alive. And don't try to tell me that it isn't human as there is zero chance that a pregnant woman gives birth to anything other than a human being.

        If a woman is in a car wreck and her unborn child dies as the result of reckless driving the person doing the reckless driving is likely to be charged with homicide. But, if a woman decides she doesn't want the child it's OK to murder it and the child will be classified as a fetus. The hypocrisy is incredible. In the case of abortion killing the child is looked at as a "right". In the case of an accident it is looked at as murder, which is exactly what abortion should be called. It is, in reality, first degree murder for it is intentional and done with malice aforethought. https://clarksvillenow.com/local/gra...n-fatal-crash/

        Here is the stands on abortion for every Democrat candidate for president. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/22/186932...-amendment-roe

        So, you consider any person's moral judgement to be just fine.... What a lot of baloney that is. It is, in effect, moral anarchy. Here's a Biblical story of what happened when the Isrealites "did what was right" in their own eyes. This is exactly what you're speaking about. Read Judges chapters 17-20. These are the stories of what happens when everyone decides his own moral judgment is sufficient. That there is no need a righteous standard of morality such as the 10 commandments. These stories of murder, rape, dismemberment, and the destruction of the inhabitants of an entire town are the sure result of rejecting God's standard of righteousness.

        The "right" to choose to act in an evil way is not a right in any way, shape, or form. To claim there is one is to open the way for the destruction of society and the opening of the door to the subjection of the entire nation to it's enemies for when a society has that lack of moral fiber it also lacks the political will to defend itself against those who would destroy it. It seems you've learned nothing from history. The ruling nations of history fell to moral degeneracy time and time again. Babylon--was destroyed even though it had an impenetrable wall surrounding it. The entire army and all the leadership of Babylon was drunk out of the minds the night a guard was bribed to open the river gates. They destroyed themselves with greed and lust.

        Greece fell due to Alexander the Great's drinking habits. His drinking habits were very possibly the cause of him being poisoned. And his poisoning was the result of lust for power and greed.

        Medo-Persia fell because of the greed of it's kings who looted the gold supplies thus impoverishing their own people. Then they looked to take wealth from another nations by war and lost not only the war but most of their army. So moral decline did them in too.

        Rome fell through moral decline also. Their young men became homosexuals more interested in practicing their perversions than in supporting and defending their own nation. In other words, their immorality caused them to become so stupid they didn't understand the consequences of their own actions. They began to hire barbarians to fight for them rather than fight themselves. What a bunch of losers. For some reason they never understood that a hired army had no reason other than their pay to fight so when the going got tough, the Roman army lost it's will to fight. And the emperors were so corrupt that they devalued their own money so they could spend it on themselves and their perverted sexual appetites. Rome fell because of it's own moral degeneracy.

        And look at what caused Britain's decline. They had leadership so weak and enervated that Chamberlain was too stupid to recognize Hitler for what he was. He thought he could just keep on selling the rest of the world out and that Hitler would then leave Britain alone because Chamberlain had given him whatever he had demanded of Chamberlain. How stupid can a man get? I guess it's the same reason people think that if they pay off a blackmailer the problem will go away. It's the total denial of reality. And what caused the British to vote in someone as weak as Chamberlain? Their own moral corruption and unwillingness to stand for what was right. They were just as weak and enervated as Chamberlain.

        And you socialists are creating the same scenario in the US. You are pushing it into moral degeneracy and calling that "freedom". Sorry, but hedonism in not liberty. Liberty calls for self-control, self-discipline, and moral behavior. None of which is being taught in the educational system. Instead they are teaching our kids that they need "safe spaces" because someone disagreeing with them makes them so distraught they can't handle it. Even writing Trump's name on a step causes them to go into hysterics. And that is the Democrat run educational system we now have. You will soon have your wish as the US will become another Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... because your desire to control everything will destroy our economy and our liberty. You won't realize what you've done until it's over and then you'll regret it, but no one can tell you guys anything now. Unfortunately those of us who oppose you will have to pay the price right along with you for your stupidity.
        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        “One and God make a majority.”
        ― Frederick Douglass

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
          Riiiight..... The forcing of Christians to act against their beliefs by using a corrupt legal system is a real effort at supporting liberty and choice. Here is the essence of the abortion law passed in New York by Democrats.

          I find zero evidence in the US Constitution for the "right" of a woman to commit murder with the help of a doctor. So, abortion cannot be a "right". To say that an unborn child is not a living human being is a major fallacy. It does not begin to live at birth. The fact that it grows in the womb is a testament to it's being alive. And don't try to tell me that it isn't human as there is zero chance that a pregnant woman gives birth to anything other than a human being.

          If a woman is in a car wreck and her unborn child dies as the result of reckless driving the person doing the reckless driving is likely to be charged with homicide. But, if a woman decides she doesn't want the child it's OK to murder it and the child will be classified as a fetus. The hypocrisy is incredible. In the case of abortion killing the child is looked at as a "right". In the case of an accident it is looked at as murder, which is exactly what abortion should be called. It is, in reality, first degree murder for it is intentional and done with malice aforethought. https://clarksvillenow.com/local/gra...n-fatal-crash/

          Here is the stands on abortion for every Democrat candidate for president. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/22/186932...-amendment-roe

          So, you consider any person's moral judgement to be just fine.... What a lot of baloney that is. It is, in effect, moral anarchy. Here's a Biblical story of what happened when the Isrealites "did what was right" in their own eyes. This is exactly what you're speaking about. Read Judges chapters 17-20. These are the stories of what happens when everyone decides his own moral judgment is sufficient. That there is no need a righteous standard of morality such as the 10 commandments. These stories of murder, rape, dismemberment, and the destruction of the inhabitants of an entire town are the sure result of rejecting God's standard of righteousness.

          The "right" to choose to act in an evil way is not a right in any way, shape, or form. To claim there is one is to open the way for the destruction of society and the opening of the door to the subjection of the entire nation to it's enemies for when a society has that lack of moral fiber it also lacks the political will to defend itself against those who would destroy it. It seems you've learned nothing from history. The ruling nations of history fell to moral degeneracy time and time again. Babylon--was destroyed even though it had an impenetrable wall surrounding it. The entire army and all the leadership of Babylon was drunk out of the minds the night a guard was bribed to open the river gates. They destroyed themselves with greed and lust.

          Greece fell due to Alexander the Great's drinking habits. His drinking habits were very possibly the cause of him being poisoned. And his poisoning was the result of lust for power and greed.

          Medo-Persia fell because of the greed of it's kings who looted the gold supplies thus impoverishing their own people. Then they looked to take wealth from another nations by war and lost not only the war but most of their army. So moral decline did them in too.

          Rome fell through moral decline also. Their young men became homosexuals more interested in practicing their perversions than in supporting and defending their own nation. In other words, their immorality caused them to become so stupid they didn't understand the consequences of their own actions. They began to hire barbarians to fight for them rather than fight themselves. What a bunch of losers. For some reason they never understood that a hired army had no reason other than their pay to fight so when the going got tough, the Roman army lost it's will to fight. And the emperors were so corrupt that they devalued their own money so they could spend it on themselves and their perverted sexual appetites. Rome fell because of it's own moral degeneracy.

          And look at what caused Britain's decline. They had leadership so weak and enervated that Chamberlain was too stupid to recognize Hitler for what he was. He thought he could just keep on selling the rest of the world out and that Hitler would then leave Britain alone because Chamberlain had given him whatever he had demanded of Chamberlain. How stupid can a man get? I guess it's the same reason people think that if they pay off a blackmailer the problem will go away. It's the total denial of reality. And what caused the British to vote in someone as weak as Chamberlain? Their own moral corruption and unwillingness to stand for what was right. They were just as weak and enervated as Chamberlain.

          And you socialists are creating the same scenario in the US. You are pushing it into moral degeneracy and calling that "freedom". Sorry, but hedonism in not liberty. Liberty calls for self-control, self-discipline, and moral behavior. None of which is being taught in the educational system. Instead they are teaching our kids that they need "safe spaces" because someone disagreeing with them makes them so distraught they can't handle it. Even writing Trump's name on a step causes them to go into hysterics. And that is the Democrat run educational system we now have. You will soon have your wish as the US will become another Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... because your desire to control everything will destroy our economy and our liberty. You won't realize what you've done until it's over and then you'll regret it, but no one can tell you guys anything now. Unfortunately those of us who oppose you will have to pay the price right along with you for your stupidity.
          Her body her choice.
          _/\_

          Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lon View Post
            Correct, with one curve and only one curve, statistical analysis just isn't there.
            Actually, the data is quite amenable to analysis in many ways.

            Too optimistic.
            It's reality. So not open to change. But of course the historic trend can change.

            History is not written by those participating.
            Lon, it's always written by the winners who participated. You want a history of the Albigensians? How about Aztecs? Guess who got to write them.

            It'd be presumptuous to write your own tombstone epitaph
            Being a veteran, I get to do exactly that. Still working on a one-liner.

            And I see it as a good thing that more people prefer to have a child than to abort it. Even if they aren't married.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by quip View Post
              Her body her choice.
              apply that to the mother carrying her infant child who decides to set it on the curb and walk away

              Comment


              • Originally posted by quip View Post
                Her body her choice.
                And that to you is moral.... How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

                The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".
                “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                “One and God make a majority.”
                ― Frederick Douglass

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Actually, the data is quite amenable to analysis in many ways.
                  Agree, but with no other stats, you've no history in which to compare thus we cannot write our own. We can look at it in the scope of historical abortions but it has only been wide-open since the 80's. There is a difference from inference vs. history and again, we don't get to write it. It is always given in hindsight and by others.



                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  It's reality. So not open to change. But of course the historic trend can change.
                  The debate here isn't over observance, but rather what fits the definition of historic. There is no possible way but to predict because you and I cannot write it. History isn't done this way. It will be up to others long after we are gone.



                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Lon, it's always written by the winners who participated. You want a history of the Albigensians? How about Aztecs? Guess who got to write them.
                  Right, but the definition isn't 'history' it is 'commentary.' There is a difference. The next generations will either buy or reject what we spin. That is when it will be history.



                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Being a veteran, I get to do exactly that. Still working on a one-liner.

                  And I see it as a good thing that more people prefer to have a child than to abort it. Even if they aren't married.
                  Next of Kin as far as I've ever heard. I've officiated enough of these to know you can write it by your life, but your kin will write it regardless. I do thank you for your service, but that isn't where my heart and life are for my own epitaph. I'm aiming for something higher.
                  My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                  Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                  Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                  Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                  No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                  Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                  ? Yep

                  Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                  ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                  Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                    And that to you is moral.... How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

                    The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".
                    Who stated anything about equal outcomes? It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will. No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort ...nor is the forced alternative just. It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman. Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.
                    _/\_

                    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by quip View Post
                      It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will.
                      it's immoral to force a woman to care for an unwanted infant against her will

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by quip View Post
                        Who stated anything about equal outcomes?
                        So the outcomes are not equal, in your mind?

                        You missed it, quip. Try again:

                        Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                        How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

                        The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".
                        Are they, quip?

                        It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will.
                        No, quip, it's wrong to kill a baby in his mother's womb. If that means that a woman must carry the baby to term, then so be it, and if she doesn't want her child at that point, she should let someone adopt. But killing the baby is murder.

                        No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort
                        Telling women that it's not wrong to kill their innocent child is immoral.

                        There is NEVER a situation where it is OK to kill a baby in his mother's womb.

                        ...nor is the forced alternative just.
                        You're question begging, trying to make it sound like having a baby is the most unnatural thing in the world. The "alternative" here (even though it is no alternative at all) is in killing the baby, and the default option (as if there were any other), and the one that women for the past seven thousand years have chosen, is to carry the baby to term and give birth.

                        It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman.
                        When the choice is between carrying a baby to term, versus murdering one's own child, the choice should ALWAYS be to let the child live.

                        Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.
                        This coming from the sophomoric, ill-informed (or just willfully ignorant), biased modus of typical, anti-life, vitriolic quip.

                        Why do you hate babies so much?

                        Do you know someone who killed their own baby in their womb, or worse, did you yourself convince someone to do so?

                        Does the life of the baby in a mother's womb mean so little to you?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          So the outcomes are not equal, in your mind?

                          You missed it, quip. Try again:



                          Are they, quip?



                          No, quip, it's wrong to kill a baby in his mother's womb. If that means that a woman must carry the baby to term, then so be it, and if she doesn't want her child at that point, she should let someone adopt. But killing the baby is murder.



                          Telling women that it's not wrong to kill their innocent child is immoral.

                          There is NEVER a situation where it is OK to kill a baby in his mother's womb.



                          You're question begging, trying to make it sound like having a baby is the most unnatural thing in the world. The "alternative" here (even though it is no alternative at all) is in killing the baby, and the default option (as if there were any other), and the one that women for the past seven thousand years have chosen, is to carry the baby to term and give birth.



                          When the choice is between carrying a baby to term, versus murdering one's own child, the choice should ALWAYS be to let the child live.



                          This coming from the sophomoric, ill-informed (or just willfully ignorant), biased modus of typical, anti-life, vitriolic quip.

                          Why do you hate babies so much?

                          Do you know someone who killed their own baby in their womb, or worse, did you yourself convince someone to do so?

                          Does the life of the baby in a mother's womb mean so little to you?
                          Opinion duly noted.
                          _/\_

                          Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by quip View Post
                            Opinion duly noted.
                            How about answering the questions you were asked?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by quip View Post
                              Who stated anything about equal outcomes? It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will. No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort ...nor is the forced alternative just. It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman. Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.
                              So, a woman can play the field, get pregnant, and then decide she is inconvenienced by the coming child so just kill it is the solution. She has no responsibility to the child, just to her own self. That's pure selfishness and pure immorality. Of course she has a responsibility for the life she helped bring into existence. To say her only thought should be of herself is very revealing as to your personal ethics/morality. Or rather your lack of personal ethics/morality. You who preached empathy at me has zero empathy for the truly helpless. All you care about is that a woman might be inconvenienced due to the choices she made and if that inconvenience can be removed by murder, kill the kid.

                              It's really interesting to see you reveal your own moral depravity and your disregard for human life. The fact that you think it's more immoral that woman be held accountable for her own actions than for her to murder her own child shows a complete lack of morality on your part.
                              “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                              ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                              “One and God make a majority.”
                              ― Frederick Douglass

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                How about answering the questions you were asked?
                                I have. Throughout the years I've covered all the rhetoric spewed forth from the ranks of the TOL anti choicers...it's a broken record. Yours is more of the same: moral declaration sans substance.
                                Don't feign debate JR...you simply desire a platform for a diatribe.

                                Been there, done that.
                                _/\_

                                Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X