Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Suspect Identified In Suspicious Package Case Following Arrest In Florida



Looks like they were related to me...

No, you are someone who ignores fact to push an agenda, this guy ignores reality to impose an agenda.
He's lvl 3 stupid, you are still lvl 2.

The point was that in many situations, such as the Magabomber and the accusations against Kavanaugh, it is quite easy to look at the facts and see what is happening without some talking head on a news outlet telling you so.

[Coco Pops]

Im going to blame Trump for this just to annoy Annoyed

But that would be a fair assessment. His bluster and rhetoric did lead to this.

[aretood2]

I didn't name ANY drugs, I just said drugs, and I suggest you look up the top 10 addictive drugs list.

You used terms like "drug dealer" and "cartel" which distinctively don't deal with alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco or any other drug that isn't colloquially named "drug". And should Marijuana be legalized, you bet they'd stop dealing in that too. It's Cocaine, crack, meth et al that they will always deal with because those will always be illegal for good reason. All I am saying is that your comparison isn't perfect.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2014/...narco-charity/
You sure?

So donating to St. Jude's=El Chapo trying to put on a good face? This is beyond ridiculous to pure idiocy.

If I changed the subject randomly, It would be goal post moving. If I created an unrealistic strawman scenario, it would be goalpost moving. Every step of escalation I have used has existed, or now exists. At no point did I say "all doorknockers are bad paedophiles out for my kids and my money" because doorknocking is unrelated to a church in anyway but being a GATEWAY to a potentially mind altering set of conditions, much like drugs can be a GATEWAY to the same thing, and as we were discussing MIND ALTERING things, that's apples and apples. It is you my friend connecting dots that I did not intend to create a pattern. Having said that, given my history of dislike of churches (and again, all of them), I'm not surprised you crafted that pattern in your mind, and I'll accept the responsibility for that. Given however we are talking about ADDICTION, addiction can form from pretty much anything (ask anyone with OCD) yet it does follow a predictable path of escalation.
That's my point man, ADDICTION is the bad thing, because it invariably ends in EXTREME behaviour.
OCD can cripple someone to the point of non-functionality.
Drug Addiction can cause people to kill and steal because the addiction overrides social programming.
Religious (or political) Addiction can cause people to kill because "the cause" becomes more important than the self, and unlike a Junkie who kills by opportunity, their escalation to killing becomes TARGETED.
Is that clearer to you now?

Crusaders were hardly into religion beyond the idea that they wanted an easy way out. They didn't spend a lot of time in churches...certainly they read no scripture. Just regular towns people, average people whose religiosity compared to modern day counterparts was rather mild, who were told a lie that motivated them to go and fight in far of lands for the Pope. It's not a equatable comparison, it is a sloopy one.

It's the public stance the Church has and almost every mainstream religions as well. We've already proven the actual representation of your faith in the world you and I walk differs from the Bible. Your theological point of view has merit but is irrelevant.

There is no "The Church". And historians aren't exactly sure what the christian churches thought of religion in during the 1st to 3rd century. The first restrictions and punishments concerning abortions begin to appear in the 4th century, but usually tied with other "crimes" and not just abortion itself. But then by this point we are so far removed from the biblical church that any opposing view from any church during the 4th century can be viewed as equally valid. We just have so little documentation from that era about the non-Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to know one way or another.

Modern day examples of Pro Life churches in the US alone:
United Church of Christ (1 Million members)
Presbyterian Church of USA (1.5 Million Members)
Evangelical Lutheran Church (close to 4 Million Members)
The Episcopal Church (2-4 Million members depending on how you count them)
Quakers are also pro-choice though they tend to not like talking about decisive issues.
Several Protestant groups are also pro choice.

The United Methodist Church ( over 12 Million members) accepts certain situations for abortion. From what I understand it is in cases of rape, incest, and medical well being of the mother. Not sure how they feel about financial well being. But they do frown upon using it as a backup to contraception. The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) is also very similar in its stance to that of the United Methodist Church.

But yes, the majority of Churches do have an ambivalent view on Abortion at best. But to say that all do is...well...wrong.

In my opinion it is not "discrimination". That is the hypocrisy I find in some people that picks items from the religion menu and call themselves faithful followers. Not saying that's your case, but some people are not with the "party line" on almost every sensitive topic.

i.e.: I'm for gay marriage, sexual intercourse outside marriage, priest should marry, etc. But hey I'm Christian!

Their is a lot in this short spot so I'll tackle just one. Priests. First of all, Protestantism rejects celibacy, it has always done so. And so do other non-Protestant churches since a very long time ago. And most protestant churches don't have priests. The only major ones that do are the Anglicans and their offshots and the more conservative versions of Lutherans. And state churches in Europe. The few Orthodox Churches that exist also have priests, though.

My point is that, Cherry picking isn't a church level act. It's an individual level act. Take Celibacy. Catholics use extra-Biblical sources for their beliefs, and in those sources you find the need/demand for celibacy among priests and monks/nuns. Calvinists or Lutherans not practicing Celibacy is a rejection of those Catholic sources and a desire to return to biblical base of belief.

There is great debate on finer areas, theologically, on other points.

I don't need to understand religion to respect someone's opinion, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't think you understand how unbelievers such as myself see your metaphysical basis as complete gibberish. You surely don't believe in Allah, would you accept an argument from me based on the Quran?

Yes. Yes I would. I believe the Quran teaches charity to those who are vulnerable to society. If Muslims start demanding government take action to help or protect the vulnerable I would gladly join them. The Quran also teaches forgiveness and redemption. If muslims start advocating for prison reform that also focuses on rehabilitation, then yes, I would certainly join them too.

Just because there is a religious argument for those things, it doesn't preclude a valid secular argument for those things, a secular argument Muslims also believe in.


And for the record, Allah is not a different god. God is Allah. It's just the arabic word for it much like Elohim is a hebrew word for God.

Wrong, religion at its core defines morality in a literal medium or in books. Interpretations may differ, leading to different branches of the faith having divergent morality stances, yet a code is imposed all the same. Suicide for instance is viewed as immoral by Christianity as a whole, is it not?

And is there no secular cause for preventing it? Half the argument in Christianity against suicide is or can be secular. Just take God and spiritual salvation out of the entire argument and you have a good secular argument in favor of preventing suicide.

The parralel I was making is that the prolife is the Church's official stance, publicly known, and that organization advocating this position is led exclusively by men. I was specifically talking about that aspect (religion).

Religion senior managers that actually decides = Men
Stance= prolife

Wether you like it or not, it is the blatant truth.

So why mention that at all? Unless you want to imply that pro-life is an inherently male position...which would be ridiculous to do.

[Annoyed]

But that would be a fair assessment. His bluster and rhetoric did lead to this.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton told CNN's Christine Amanpour.

"That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength." she continued.

-- Hillary Clinton

So, we can blame Hillary for that guy that shot a Republican congresscritter at a baseball game last year, right?

[jelgate]

Apples and oranges. The violence precedes Clinton's comments.

[Annoyed]

Apples and oranges. The violence precedes Clinton's comments.

Nonsense. Two nut jobs, one on the right and one on the left. Acting independently from the party they supported, attacking political figures.
If he wants to blame Trump for the recent spate of bombs, fine, then he has to accept that folks on the left side of the isle are just as offensive in their statements. The only difference is who is offended.

[Gatefan1976]

You used terms like "drug dealer" and "cartel" which distinctively don't deal with alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco or any other drug that isn't colloquially named "drug". And should Marijuana be legalized, you bet they'd stop dealing in that too. It's Cocaine, crack, meth et al that they will always deal with because those will always be illegal for good reason. All I am saying is that your comparison isn't perfect.

I used them to compare two organizations "drug dealers" with mind altering substances don't go to your house and push their crap, religion however DOES.
Go back to the beginning of my comparison.
[/quote]
So donating to St. Jude's=El Chapo trying to put on a good face? This is beyond ridiculous to pure idiocy.
[/quote]
Yes, I run non-profit-quarterly to crap on you...………

Crusaders were hardly into religion beyond the idea that they wanted an easy way out. They didn't spend a lot of time in churches...certainly they read no scripture. Just regular towns people, average people whose religiosity compared to modern day counterparts was rather mild, who were told a lie that motivated them to go and fight in far of lands for the Pope. It's not a equatable comparison, it is a sloopy one.

Oh really?
So what you are saying is people NOW who will not travel across the world to fight in a cause they apparently believe in are "less motivated", when that kind of travel was even MORE dangerous?
Ok man.
The only comparison between then and now is, they believed in a lie.

There is no "The Church". And historians aren't exactly sure what the christian churches thought of religion in during the 1st to 3rd century. The first restrictions and punishments concerning abortions begin to appear in the 4th century, but usually tied with other "crimes" and not just abortion itself. But then by this point we are so far removed from the biblical church that any opposing view from any church during the 4th century can be viewed as equally valid. We just have so little documentation from that era about the non-Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to know one way or another.

If they don't KNOW, WHY make it such an issue?
If the bible never speaks of abortion (and it does actually, in the OT, and it's in favour of it to prove a womans purity), WHY is the modern "church" so cut up about it?

[jelgate]

Nonsense. Two nut jobs, one on the right and one on the left. Acting independently from the party they supported, attacking political figures.
If he wants to blame Trump for the recent spate of bombs, fine, then he has to accept that folks on the left side of the isle are just as offensive in their statements. The only difference is who is offended.

You completely ignored what I said to go one another one of your rants

[aretood2]

[QUOTE=Gatefan1976;14641181]I used them to compare two organizations "drug dealers" with mind altering substances don't go to your house and push their crap, religion however DOES.
Go back to the beginning of my comparison.

What's your point? If not to say what I have been arguing against?

Oh really?
So what you are saying is people NOW who will not travel across the world to fight in a cause they apparently believe in are "less motivated", when that kind of travel was even MORE dangerous?
Ok man.
The only comparison between then and now is, they believed in a lie.

I don't know, crack open a history book or two and actually learn about how life was back then, how people saw the world, how things were taken and don't pretend that to be religious back then was the same today. It doesn't take fanaticism to create volunteer armies. Just ask any American military recruiter or the minutemen who fought the British in 1776.

If they don't KNOW, WHY make it such an issue?
If the bible never speaks of abortion (and it does actually, in the OT, and it's in favour of it to prove a womans purity), WHY is the modern "church" so cut up about it?

First, I forgot about two or three people who did mention abortion, but that was more of a rhetorical ploy to refute accusations of Christians eating babies. How can we eat babies if we don't even allow abortion?

But anyway, I don't think drinking bitter water to have a miscarriage was actually supposed to work. It's more like "You think your wife cheated on you? Okay, sure....have her drink bitter water and if nothing happens then you are a jealous idiot". And of course....bitter water does nothing. Though Judaism allows it if the mother's health is in danger.

The answer though, because it depends on when life begins. If a womb is the sole defining factor, sure...but the idea that the only thing that makes you alive is leaving the womb seems kinda off doesn't it? So the minute before you're born, you are not a life but the minute after you are born you are alive...yet nothing really changed during labor other than your environment.

So that begs the question. At what point are you actually alive? That's the real debate. Because if you are alive during the 2nd or 12th, or whatever week of gestation, then that means that killing you inside the womb would be no different than killing you outside the womb.

The distaste many Christians have for abortion has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with that pesky question of when one is alive and what are the moral and ethical implications to that answer.

Just about every religious is at the very least ambivalent towards abortion for that reason alone. And what do you know, it is also a perfectly secular reason too. When does life begin and what are our responsibility to said life? Faith isn't needed to ask that question and to come to an opinion.

[Annoyed]

You completely ignored what I said to go one another one of your rants

And you completely ignored the point I was making, that the Democrats/Left has been far more the driving force behind un civil behavior for a while now, harassing Republicans in restaurants and other public settings with Pelosi urging them on. And that is certainly not the first hostile comment out of Clinton's yap.

But you accept that sort of behavior from the left, don't you?

No one should have the right to harass, threaten or actually attack someone else, over their political views or anything else for that matter.

[SoulReaver]

And you completely ignored the point I was making, that the Democrats/Left has been far more the driving force behind un civil behavior for a while now, harassing Republicans in restaurants and other public settings with Pelosi urging them on.

absitively they shouldn't be driving government officials out of restaurants they should be making death threats & attempts on their lives & those of their families just like the neocons are against political opponents

[jelgate]

And you completely ignored the point I was making, that the Democrats/Left has been far more the driving force behind un civil behavior for a while now, harassing Republicans in restaurants and other public settings with Pelosi urging them on. And that is certainly not the first hostile comment out of Clinton's yap.

But you accept that sort of behavior from the left, don't you?

No one should have the right to harass, threaten or actually attack someone else, over their political views or anything else for that matter.

No I dismiss your analogy because it doesn't work. But nice job making unfounded accusations again

[Chaka-Z0]

Crusaders were hardly into religion beyond the idea that they wanted an easy way out. They didn't spend a lot of time in churches...certainly they read no scripture. Just regular towns people, average people whose religiosity compared to modern day counterparts was rather mild, who were told a lie that motivated them to go and fight in far of lands for the Pope. It's not a equatable comparison, it is a sloopy one.

Hardly into religion?The Knights Crusaders were very pious people, only in a different fashion. They performed rituals and had beliefs from the ancient times, some close to Egyptian Gods, that were not in line with the Pope's Kingdom at the time. They were accused of worshipping idols, many which were false accusations. Some were simple folks as you said, a peasant for instance, that wanted more and joined the order, but he was not considered as a ''knight'' more like a foot soldier that had access to better equipment. I can't remember their title on top of my head.

Templars actually spent a lot of time helping out the poor folks in cities and had to go through the ''monk'' training prior to anointment. Was there some in there that only wanted a ''way out?'' as you said? Probably, just like some ISIL crazies right now.

There is no "The Church". And historians aren't exactly sure what the christian churches thought of religion in during the 1st to 3rd century.

Yes there is. It just so happens that you don't like it and try to exclude yourself from it, it's still considered as ''The Church'' because it is the most popular form of Christianity throughout the world and therefore has the most impact.

Modern day examples of Pro Life churches in the US alone:
United Church of Christ (1 Million members)
Presbyterian Church of USA (1.5 Million Members)
Evangelical Lutheran Church (close to 4 Million Members)
The Episcopal Church (2-4 Million members depending on how you count them)
Quakers are also pro-choice though they tend to not like talking about decisive issues.
Several Protestant groups are also pro choice.

Okay so a lot of churches are pro-life? So... what?

The United Methodist Church ( over 12 Million members) accepts certain situations for abortion. From what I understand it is in cases of rape, incest, and medical well being of the mother. Not sure how they feel about financial well being. But they do frown upon using it as a backup to contraception. The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) is also very similar in its stance to that of the United Methodist Church.

But yes, the majority of Churches do have an ambivalent view on Abortion at best. But to say that all do is...well...wrong.

As if that makes anything better? Why only certain conditions? Ridiculous. Half-measures again, from people that cherry-pick their religion as I said before.

My point is that, Cherry picking isn't a church level act. It's an individual level act. Take Celibacy. Catholics use extra-Biblical sources for their beliefs, and in those sources you find the need/demand for celibacy among priests and monks/nuns. Calvinists or Lutherans not practicing Celibacy is a rejection of those Catholic sources and a desire to return to biblical base of belief.

There is great debate on finer areas, theologically, on other points.

I don't care if it is individual or church level. If you call yourself a follower of X religion and you don't follow its principles, you're cherry-picking in my book. Why exactly do you think there's great debate around these issue? Might have something to do with imposing positions on certain issues to their followers?

Yes. Yes I would. I believe the Quran teaches charity to those who are vulnerable to society. If Muslims start demanding government take action to help or protect the vulnerable I would gladly join them. The Quran also teaches forgiveness and redemption. If muslims start advocating for prison reform that also focuses on rehabilitation, then yes, I would certainly join them too.

I swear, I don't know how many times I've heard that BS before. Religion of peace and forgiveness eh? Tell that to the lady that received a bowl of battery acid in her face because she talked to another man. That's also probably why Saudi Arabia and any other Islam-based country is basically a prison camp of the medieval era. Religion police, censure, beatings, honor killings, women dumbed down to cattle, etc. Whoever say that is full of sh*t and as I've said before, the actual REALITY of this religion is very different than what's in the book. You also have these crazy nutjobs from ISIL spreading terror all around the world. Come again with that religion of peace.

Just because there is a religious argument for those things, it doesn't preclude a valid secular argument for those things, a secular argument Muslims also believe in.

Go ahead with your secular argument, I'm fine with that. When someone tries to argue with his religion, that's where I draw the line. Religion should be an individual and personal aspect not something to be imposed on the society.

And for the record, Allah is not a different god. God is Allah. It's just the arabic word for it much like Elohim is a hebrew word for God.

I actually agree with that, both religions have the some origins. Try telling that to a Muslim though, and make him agree with you, these people go nuts for caricatures of their God there's no way they would accept such a comparison.

And is there no secular cause for preventing it? Half the argument in Christianity against suicide is or can be secular. Just take God and spiritual salvation out of the entire argument and you have a good secular argument in favor of preventing suicide.

Obviously this example I used was for a theoretical example, nobody's gonna argue that being ''pro-suicide'' is a valid opinion. You said religion doesn't impose morality, it does. If you do X you're going to hell, if you do Y you're going to paradise. Society imposes morality as well, only in a different fashion.

So why mention that at all? Unless you want to imply that pro-life is an inherently male position...which would be ridiculous to do.

[/QUOTE]

Because we were on the religious topic, and all representatives from the biggest religion of this world are entirely comprised of males. Do you actually think this is a coincidence? Do you think things would've been the same if, say, a women had been on the clergy for centuries?

[mad_gater]

Hardly into religion?The Knights Crusaders were very pious people, only in a different fashion. They performed rituals and had beliefs from the ancient times, some close to Egyptian Gods, that were not in line with the Pope's Kingdom at the time. They were accused of worshipping idols, many which were false accusations. Some were simple folks as you said, a peasant for instance, that wanted more and joined the order, but he was not considered as a ''knight'' more like a foot soldier that had access to better equipment. I can't remember their title on top of my head.

Templars actually spent a lot of time helping out the poor folks in cities and had to go through the ''monk'' training prior to anointment. Was there some in there that only wanted a ''way out?'' as you said? Probably, just like some ISIL crazies right now.



Yes there is. It just so happens that you don't like it and try to exclude yourself from it, it's still considered as ''The Church'' because it is the most popular form of Christianity throughout the world and therefore has the most impact.



Okay so a lot of churches are pro-life? So... what?



As if that makes anything better? Why only certain conditions? Ridiculous. Half-measures again, from people that cherry-pick their religion as I said before.



I don't care if it is individual or church level. If you call yourself a follower of X religion and you don't follow its principles, you're cherry-picking in my book. Why exactly do you think there's great debate around these issue? Might have something to do with imposing positions on certain issues to their followers?





I swear, I don't know how many times I've heard that BS before. Religion of peace and forgiveness eh? Tell that to the lady that received a bowl of battery acid in her face because she talked to another man. That's also probably why Saudi Arabia and any other Islam-based country is basically a prison camp of the medieval era. Religion police, censure, beatings, honor killings, women dumbed down to cattle, etc. Whoever say that is full of sh*t and as I've said before, the actual REALITY of this religion is very different than what's in the book. You also have these crazy nutjobs from ISIL spreading terror all around the world. Come again with that religion of peace.



Go ahead with your secular argument, I'm fine with that. When someone tries to argue with his religion, that's where I draw the line. Religion should be an individual and personal aspect not something to be imposed on the society.



I actually agree with that, both religions have the some origins. Try telling that to a Muslim though, and make him agree with you, these people go nuts for caricatures of their God there's no way they would accept such a comparison.

And is there no secular cause for preventing it? Half the argument in Christianity against suicide is or can be secular. Just take God and spiritual salvation out of the entire argument and you have a good secular argument in favor of preventing suicide.

Obviously this example I used was for a theoretical example, nobody's gonna argue that being ''pro-suicide'' is a valid opinion. You said religion doesn't impose morality, it does. If you do X you're going to hell, if you do Y you're going to paradise. Society imposes morality as well, only in a different fashion.

Because we were on the religious topic, and all representatives from the biggest religion of this world are entirely comprised of males. Do you actually think this is a coincidence? Do you think things would've been the same if, say, a women had been on the clergy for centuries?[/QUOTE]

If you think more about, any system of laws in any country is the imposition of a moral code on the citizenry as a whole, for good or for ill.

And the Catholic Church's representatives are hardly all male. Sure only men can be ordained as the primary purpose of ordained men is to act in persona Christi, but that hardly means that women are not allowed to publicly speak or otherwise represent the Church's views in public. In fact a lot of public speakers in the Church are women, probably because there aren't many of us men who enjoy public speaking

[Gatefan1976]

What's your point? If not to say what I have been arguing against?

At this point, I am not sure WHAT you are arguing for or against.
My point was "mind altering things can be bad, and unlike drug dealers, they turn up at my house to sell their mind altering thing"
If I go to a rave, I would expect someone to offer to sell me acid, or E's, or speed, or Meth, the same way if I went to a church I would expect to be sold whatever flavour of god was on offer.
I choose to go to a rave, I don't choose to have a drug dealer have legal rights to sell their product door to door, anymore than I would want a alcohol or tobacco salesman go door to door.
Religion not only expects that ability, they DEMAND it based on it being a baked in part of their religion.

I don't know, crack open a history book or two and actually learn about how life was back then, how people saw the world, how things were taken and don't pretend that to be religious back then was the same today. It doesn't take fanaticism to create volunteer armies. Just ask any American military recruiter or the minutemen who fought the British in 1776.

I suggest you follow your own advice, and don't take 2 examples that lived in the same country as a good way to argue against crossing half the then known world to fight for some cause you claim they didn't really believe in.
Were some of the crusaders in it for the money and fame?
Yep.
Were they the common fighter?
Nope.

First, I forgot about two or three people who did mention abortion, but that was more of a rhetorical ploy to refute accusations of Christians eating babies. How can we eat babies if we don't even allow abortion?

Yeah, cause that's a line I would take, sure.

But anyway, I don't think drinking bitter water to have a miscarriage was actually supposed to work. It's more like "You think your wife cheated on you? Okay, sure....have her drink bitter water and if nothing happens then you are a jealous idiot". And of course....bitter water does nothing. Though Judaism allows it if the mother's health is in danger.

Is that like not floating, or floating proving your guilt or innocence?
Of having a "devil's teat"
Also, failing to prove your charge did actually have implications.
but meh I suppose.

The answer though, because it depends on when life begins. If a womb is the sole defining factor, sure...but the idea that the only thing that makes you alive is leaving the womb seems kinda off doesn't it? So the minute before you're born, you are not a life but the minute after you are born you are alive...yet nothing really changed during labor other than your environment.

Which is why most, if not all laws regarding abortion recognize a timeframe of being able to survive independently of the mother, and that is a reasonable distinction. Currently, that stands at around 22-25 weeks because before then, the foetus is not developed enough to survive even with medical aid. IF we could do it at 1 week, then the law should be 1 week, but we CAN'T do it NOW, and to remove the choice of the mother is to violate her rights because she is a fully fledged person.

So that begs the question. At what point are you actually alive? That's the real debate. Because if you are alive during the 2nd or 12th, or whatever week of gestation, then that means that killing you inside the womb would be no different than killing you outside the womb.

No, the question is, when are you conscious of life and able to live on your own (and no, I don't mean without aid)
Sperm is "alive", yet men naturally break that down, Eggs from ovaries are "alive" until they are naturally ejected from a woman's system.
The difference between living, or not living here is VIABLE, and it's the exact response by pro choice people.
Is this foetus VIABLE?
CAN it live on it's own?

The distaste many Christians have for abortion has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with that pesky question of when one is alive and what are the moral and ethical implications to that answer.

What is your birthday?
Do you celebrate your "conception Day"?
Do your parent's even know when that was?
Do you care when Jesus was conceived, or just when he was supposedly born and died?

Just about every religious is at the very least ambivalent towards abortion for that reason alone. And what do you know, it is also a perfectly secular reason too. When does life begin and what are our responsibility to said life? Faith isn't needed to ask that question and to come to an opinion.

Most religions are pretty harsh on murder, not so much abortion.
What your responsibilities are to said life, well that's somewhat problematic.