Curious what (unacceptable) lines has Twitter crossed as of now

[frostknight]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
... extremist anti-religious nuts who make up fake religions in order to insight anger from those they dislike.

Or could it be that traditional religions weren't always exactly nice to opposition and now it's coming back to them? What's the difference between real and fake religion anyway? Aside from the former having head start? Give it few thousand years and it's possible that Flying Spaghetti Monster will rule the world and other religions will be long dead.

Off-topic:
I am okay with the flying spaghetti monster one. That one is just silly, the other one, satanist, however is so cheeky that its very blatantly obvious they want to make their enemies go super nova. It is pretty obvious they hate religious people or they would have chosen a mascot that is either nonsensical like the one you mentioned or something that isn't over the top offensive.

Btw, the difference between real and fake religion is that if its real you believe the deity of said religion exists. I have talked to a few satanists and when you ask why they worship satan, they say they don't. That's a sign that they are not real and also, I consider that attributing good to evil. I know some hate the right wing and when they do all their hate speech/discrimation. I call that attributing evil to good aka, doing evil in the name of the lord.

I am okay with people dissing people of those faiths, if it means something concrete such as anti-abortionists and lgbtq hate. Religion isn't supposed to run by haters regardless of what they may want to say.

Ironically, that happens a lot because people are not perfect nor will they ever be till all of creation as it is known currently is gone.

Btw, that's assuming that the people of our world get their act together in demanding our politicans and corporate enemies deal with climate change. I have no idea when the world will end but it will happen eventually. The question becomes what will happen first.

Point being, if someone acts extreme, pretending to be a devil worshipper with the hidden agenda of killing religion, I take offense. I however also take offense to people who use God's name to do evil.

I try to be consistent on this stuff, but not everyone does on any group in the world.

Btw, the best way to increase a fire is to throw more fuel on the fire. This is yet another reason I detest the above extremism.

[frostknight]

Off-topic:
There is an obvious difference between parody religions and genuine ones. The former have no sincere observers, and are not intended to have any. A Briton who marks himself as Jedi in the census form does not actually believe in the Force as a Buddhist believes in karma, but is upset that his government is asking him about his faith. A Yankee who puts a strainer on his head for official business does not actually believe that it is a holy duty to dress like a buccaneer, but dislikes political factions his country who shroud themselves in piety. They are secular humanists who try to erode religious privileges in their countries’ law by exploiting them, or otherwise caricature something they hate, and it is obvious.

Off-topic:
You said what I took way too much text to say, agree 100%

Ironically, they call religious people haters... and then they do that.

Facepalm.jpeg

[Sob__]

Off-topic:
My previous point was (and I admit that I obscured it by FSM as wrong example) that when there are attacks against religion, it's not always as clear as believers present it. It may be undeserved hate, but it may as well be a case of former bully getting his ass kicked and then playing victim.

Religious people like to present how they mean well and everything. Well, it's not just them, everyone does that. But they also know very well how to be nosy, judgemental, intolerant, violent, force their beliefs on others who are not interested, etc. You can say it's just individuals. Yes and no. They hide as part of group and usually have a lot of silent support, because after all, they are still mostly on the same side. They've been doing it for centuries and they still do it today. That surely creates some enemies. It's of course unfortunate to target religion as whole in response, because it affects innocents too. But in a way, it's the religion that encourages this behaviour. It helps people believe that their opinions about life and stuff are not just opinions but 100% truth approved by god who can't be wrong. So going against this foundation does make sense. Fortunately I'm just an observer.

Anyway, a bit more on topic, Twitter is great place to watch this. Not just (anti)religion, any opposing groups. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. Group A fights against B, because B is the worst, their members must be blocked to protect from their lies, etc. While B stands united against the pure evil presented by A, blocks anyone who disagrees, because they must surely be A's lying agents, etc. Insane.

Oh and Nitter seems to work again, at least private instance with some patches and registered account (I didn't want to do that, but they were satisfied by throwaway email, so that was acceptable for me).

[BenFenner]

Btw, your idea of discrimination is very bizarre to me.

Discrimination is not treating people differently when they want to be, it means that you are treating them differently when they DON'T want to be

No, I believe you're mistaken. It is an honest mistake with how people use the word these days, but I'm much more familiar with these definitions of the word:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

No doubt you'll be able to find sources that have definitions more like what you're talking about, but I argue those are bastardizations of the word and have no basis in the root etymology.

[frostknight]

Off-topic:

Anyway, a bit more on topic, Twitter is great place to watch this. Not just (anti)religion, any opposing groups. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. Group A fights against B, because B is the worst, their members must be blocked to protect from their lies, etc. While B stands united against the pure evil presented by A, blocks anyone who disagrees, because they must surely be A's lying agents, etc. Insane.

Oh and Nitter seems to work again, at least private instance with some patches and registered account (I didn't want to do that, but they were satisfied by throwaway email, so that was acceptable for me).

No, I believe you're mistaken. It is an honest mistake with how people use the word these days, but I'm much more familiar with these definitions of the word:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

Perhaps your right, what you say very well might be true. words and ideals and phrases get screwed up over time... to put it mildly

My previous point was (and I admit that I obscured it by FSM as wrong example) that when there are attacks against religion, it's not always as clear as believers present it. It may be undeserved hate, but it may as well be a case of former bully getting his ass kicked and then playing victim.

Religious people like to present how they mean well and everything. Well, it's not just them, everyone does that. But they also know very well how to be nosy, judgemental, intolerant, violent, force their beliefs on others who are not interested, etc.

This is actually sometimes true, mostly because as humans, we have a huge issue of wanting things our way even if said idea runs contrary to our beliefs.

That surely creates some enemies. It's of course unfortunate to target religion as whole in response, because it affects innocents too. But in a way, it's the religion that encourages this behaviour. It helps people believe that their opinions about life and stuff are not just opinions but 100% truth approved by god who can't be wrong. So going against this foundation does make sense. Fortunately I'm just an observer.

Again, some wisdom there. I don't detest athiests and conservatives as a rule of thumb, but while it isn't right, to do so, because I should be forgiving to all, I struggle to not hate people who take that belief or the conservative belief to the extreme as I mentioned before.

Flying spaghetti monster? Don't care... its a 1.5 on the irritation level, with 10 being the highest.

satan worshippers? That is a 10 on the irritation level as are the fascists on the right. I very much hate it when people do one or the other, because it throws fuel on the fire for the opposing side and causes the fire to keep getting bigger. That fire btw, is pure unadulerated hate.

Anyway, a bit more on topic, Twitter is great place to watch this. Not just (anti)religion, any opposing groups. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. Group A fights against B, because B is the worst, their members must be blocked to protect from their lies, etc. While B stands united against the pure evil presented by A, blocks anyone who disagrees, because they must surely be A's lying agents, etc. Insane.

Oh and Nitter seems to work again, at least private instance with some patches and registered account (I didn't want to do that, but they were satisfied by throwaway email, so that was acceptable for me).

I have seen hate threads on youtube before many a time... sometimes if I go to a certain media corporation with the name fox, I see things that make me sick inside. Stopped doing that, a few years ago thank God...

This being said, I am surprised a throwaway email worked. I would have thought these proprietary demons would have sniffed out such a thing.

Off-topic:
Btw, if nothing else, proprietary has one issue in case Moonchild responds, the more DRM is used, the more power/electricity is used and the more planned obsolescence happens and that leads to graveyards of electronics which hurts the climate of the world. To be clear, I am also against open source bloatware like redhat linux frameworks... although I have said this many times, so meh...

[Mæstro]

My preferred (public) Nitter instance is also working again, if less reliably than before: there have been 429 and 502 HTML errors which would never happen before, and even when the page loads, there have been times when it would return ‘no tweets found’ on profiles. These go away reloading the page after some time.

Off-topic:
Satanists are mundane. Like any other heathen, the Satanist is one who does not acknowledge the God of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (Collins). Like others who endorse parody religion, they are secularist as said before. They use more shock imagery than other feints, and gore makes me quite squeamish in itself, but this is marginal at best. The most disturbing parody religion I have yet encountered is the Church of Euthanasia.

[Religion] helps people believe that their opinions about life and stuff are not just opinions but 100% truth approved by god who can't be wrong.

We literally believe just that: ethics, theology and sacred history affirm factual statements, just as any other intellectual discipline does. A theory of knowledge which admits revelation is unlike one which does not; the former will not admit the fact-value distinction. I think this point is often lost on secularists.
Group conflicts are always entertaining. Feuding nationalists from different countries are my favourite genre for this.

[frostknight]

They use more shock imagery than other feints, and gore makes me quite squeamish in itself, but this is marginal at best. The most disturbing parody religion I have yet encountered is the Church of Euthanasia.

Off-topic:
We all have our own gripes. Btw, I don't like nationalists either because they have pride in their country which blinds them to many truths.
To me pride is a type of arrogance where you focus on your own way of thinking too much despite what the truth actually is.

I have never heard of Euthansia before.... but I doubt that it would disturb me more than the devil worshipper one.

In my life, I find dying less disturbing than tormenting the innocent and I consider some aspects of life to be on that level that other people don't.

I definitely don't support the ideal that climate change isn't happening or cannot be stopped. I don't like nationalist greed, liars or tyrants of any kind. I wonder if I am one of the rare liberals who both believes in Jesus Christ who also is mega liberal in pretty much every other way. I do consider USA to have very weak left wing beliefs. Europe on the other hand, has actual standards for this hence, why I believe USA needs to get off its high horse and start looking into supporting some of Europe's way of thinking regarding holding the powerful accountable and limiting corporate power and/or data collection. Btw, data collection is to me, in the top ten of jobs that shouldn't be funded without explicit permission without coercion, meaning you have to agree to use service to use it. It should be opt out always by default in this way. Otherwise people should go to jail for doing this no matter who they are. Besides, they don't get rid of it usually, the internet is forever crap for private conversations and also more importantly, it gives specific individuals the right to judge people forever because of one error/mistake they make that said group disagrees with even if it happened 20+ years ago and people have changed since.

On topic, I would be stunned if twitter didn't use their data collection to decide who to restrict and who to kick. If its violent or threatening, sure, but otherwise, it can be easily abused.

[BenFenner]

frostknight, you have attributed words to me in your post above ( viewtopic.php?f=66&t=29930&start=40#p240822 ) that I did not write.
More specifically, the 1st and 3rd quotes attributed to me are not my words (the 2nd quote is correctly attributed to me).

I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your post to fix the formatting and attribute quotes properly. Thank you kindly.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:
I've fixed the quoting for him, to keep things clear.

[Sob__]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
I think this point is often lost on secularists

It's probably worse. I'm mostly atheist, more specifically in "maybe there's some god, maybe there isn't, it doesn't matter until he shows up" camp (because no offence, but if we're talking about biblical god, it seems that he made the world - which was very nice, thanks - as a quick project, but then put it in a drawer and forgot about it). And I think that I and others like me, including non-sincere "believers", have near zero chance to grasp any of what true believers (probably) think and feel.

Religion as something cultural or social seems simple to understand. People going to church to get closer to other people makes sense. Meaning that without it, they may have nothing in common, but this one thing, even if they don't agree on many others, gives them something they share. I can see how it can be good for society. Or having symbols for right and wrong, good and evil, and using them in stories to explain things and morals, that's also useful. Even the fact that it can provide some enemies (= bad people), which is not exactly positive thing, is still useful, because the need to unite against some threat can bring something positive in the end. Huge simplification, but all this is fine.

But actually believing that everything really exists (god, devil, ...), like for real real, that's completely different. It doesn't have to be god like a person you could have chat with, it could be any powerful entity in any form, but it's all the same, that whole concept seems just too far fetched (why is it even needed?). And with that probably goes inability to understand that someone could actually feel hurt (or whatever it is) if someone else mocks this. I can accept and respect that it somehow works and I can try to avoid doing it, because I think that hurting people is bad. But I can't say that I understand it.

I'd almost bet that many/most(?) "satanists" and others like them take it more like "cosplay", "fan fiction with a twist" or something. Basically "hey, here's a lore with cool characters, let's have fun with them, there can't be any harm in that". Or possibly even one step further. Not my opinion, but I can imagine that some may see religion as trolling (and respond the same way). Because if they live without it, see many others who do the same, none of them misses it, and there isn't really any convicing proof that it's not all made up, then what else can it be. Joke, trolling, or perhaps some kind of evil plan, given how often it gets (mis)used by many people.

[Mæstro]

Off-topic:

(because no offence, but if we're talking about biblical god, it seems that he made the world - which was very nice, thanks - as a quick project, but then put it in a drawer and forgot about it).

What you have in mind is deism, not Christianity.

And I think that I and others like me, including non-sincere "believers", have near zero chance to grasp any of what true believers (probably) think and feel.

As a true believer, I agree. I am very much reminded of Galton’s survey on mental imagery. The true believer knows God familiarly, while I expect the atheist to grasp God as much as I expect the blind to grasp colour. Basic concepts like colour or God are indispensable to those who have them, yet indefensible to those who do not. Your point on insincere believers is especially salient. A German survey in 1989 had found that only one in four nominal Christians (one in three Catholics, one in five Protestants) even believes the Apostles’ Creed, the shortest traditional summary of orthodoxy. The rest go for social or cultural reasons, as you say.

that whole concept seems just too far fetched (why is it even needed?).

Beside the intimate familiarity I have already mentioned, we believe that such a being has been present in history and that the Bible documents this presence over forty centuries, culminating in Christ’s rising from the dead, which we see as an historical fact in exactly the same way that Caesar’s conquest of Gaul is.

And with that probably goes inability to understand that someone could actually feel hurt (or whatever it is) if someone else mocks this.

We love this being, who is a thinking, feeling self like we are (indeed, we are modelled after him), and we feel hurt the same way we do whenever someone mocks any of our loved ones.

I'd almost bet that many/most(?) "satanists" and others like them take it more like "cosplay", "fan fiction with a twist" or something.

This is my point. Satanists do not want anybody to believe Satan exists like I do. They think imagery linked to cultural depictions of Satan are cool and edgy.

[Wrolf]

Snip

Off-topic:
Snip
A theory of knowledge which admits revelation is unlike one which does not; the former will not admit the fact-value distinction. I think this point is often lost on secularists.
Snip

A theory of knowledge which admits revelation does not necessarily have to refuse the fact-value distinction. Revelation is ok for scientists and ateists, with the proviso that you do well investigating and testing the revelation factually to see if there is any substance to the revelation (like, the wooden statue of the saint bled blood from its eyes - did somebody put in a little bag of sheep's blood to make the wonder, or perhaps better: the world will be destroyed tomorrow. Today we go into the cave that will shield us from destruction. What will we meet tomorrow - God or journalists with cameras, sending directly all over the world?). This point is sometimes lost on the religious, especially those who insist that all statements must be taken on faith, and if you want to check up on it, then you are very evil. The command to take something on faith, or else, is sometimes just an order and a threat.

[Mæstro]

I hope Frost does not mind if, the thread having revived here, I answer his DM in public:

this is why people in this world confuse the hell out of me.
It just seemed kind of ironic that people think shouting heil satan and calling themselves satanists would say they aren't worshiping him when I ask why they are worshiping him.
Especially considering they call it a religion. Yet at the same time, they also claim to be atheists.
It just comes across, to me like an oxymoron.

Non-literal, performative speech is confusing in general. As an autist, I struggle against this daily; it is too familiar.

A theory of knowledge which admits revelation does not necessarily have to refuse the fact-value distinction. Revelation is ok for scientists and at[h]eists, with the proviso that you do well investigating and testing the revelation factually to see if there is any substance to the revelation… This point is sometimes lost on the religious, especially those who insist that all statements must be taken on faith…

Assuming the fact-value distinction, one could not reveal or test moral facts, for there would be none by definition. In any case, it is standard to distinguish general and special revelation, or natural theology from revealed religion. It is the latter in either pair which I have had in mind: revelation that goes beyond what empirical methods alone could possibly discover. The scientific method is not false, but neither is it complete. It is no more at fault for not exhausting all knowledge than the axiomatic method within mathematics. The only real philosophical victim is physicalism (or logical positivism), which had declined since 1950 and perished by 1970 among philosophers, however popular it remains among laymen and natural scientists. Where the scripture (special revelation) does touch upon matters amenable to empirical investigation, I believe that investigation can or will confirm what it reveals, minding that the data are always ambiguous by nature and some statements’ truth can only be seen by faith, which is itself a divine gift, not something we can cultivate ourselves. We maintain that ethics is properly a branch of theology; one could not reliably study it without special revelation. General revelation here can offer ambiguous hints at best. We are moreover willing to believe on faith revealed statements within potentially empirical domains even if the available evidence and understanding would seem to oppose these claims.

…and if you want to check up on it, then you are very evil. The command to take something on faith, or else, is sometimes just an order and a threat.

I have said before on this board that I am pacifist. Physical and indeed social coercion are wicked, and the faithful must not employ them. Pace St Anselm and his successors, the very concept of punishment is alien to the gospel.

[frostknight]

I have said before on this board that I am pacifist. Physical and indeed social coercion are wicked, and the faithful must not employ them. Pace St Anselm and his successors, the very concept of punishment is alien to the gospel.

Well, I do think that the concept of humans punishing is alien to the gospel at least as a means of anything other than love, meaning proper correction and even then its complicated.

Btw, side note, what I meant in that pm, was more or less, religion is about worshiping someone and also their cause. Neither by itself makes any sense, without one, its just hallow and empty inside like those junk food chocolate bunnies they sell at stores.

I wasn't planning to revive this, but oh well.

I do struggle sometimes to keep myself away from judging others. It used to be way worse even before I became a Christian, which happened as of teenage years. Though it took still 20 years beyond that to find the peace I needed. Some people take longer than others to find some purpose in theology. some take less time, some give up and some also quit for whatever other reason.

Most things aren't as simple as they should be.

I do however disagree with many of my brethren on specific aspects of theology. Mainly, the most right wing aspects, making abortion illegal, persecuting LGBTQ people. All this does is give atheists and other groups who don't agree with theology a platform. Its kind of ironic really. Its like they are perfectly okay with shooting the cause they claim to support in random parts of its body.

Maybe they secretly want theology to die? I don't know... just weird and irritating. Also, I don't even see any definitive proof that the former was ever considered murder. Thus, it seems likely it was used as a way to distract people.

Sheer greed...

[Pallid Planetoid]

... I do however disagree with many of my brethren on specific aspects of theology. Mainly, the most right wing aspects, making abortion illegal, persecuting LGBTQ people. All this does is give atheists and other groups who don't agree with theology a platform. Its kind of ironic really. Its like they are perfectly okay with shooting the cause they claim to support in random parts of its body.

Maybe they secretly want theology to die? I don't know... just weird and irritating. Also, I don't even see any definitive proof that the former was ever considered murder. Thus, it seems likely it was used as a way to distract people.

Sheer greed...

First off, I'm not religious per say, if I had to define my position in regards to the term "religion", I'd consider myself to be more in line with agnosticism - so please don't pigeon-whole me in regards to "religion" or for that matter "politics" based on what I have to say here. (with that said, don't get me wrong! Let me say that I'd frankly love to be fully committed to a sincere belief in "God" - after all, lets be honest, this approach to life is clearly far more "comforting" than any alternative ). On this subject (since Christianity has been at the forefront of this post that I'm responding to), I will say that I find the "Shroud of Turin" to be extemely compelling as far as offering very interesting support as to what appears to be something uniquely "special" about the life and death of the Christian Jesus, but then I digress....

Just breaking down the first couple of the sentences of your post that I've isolated above, it would appear that you are clearly conflating "politics" and "religion" in your references to "right wing aspects" and "making abortion illegal". As a "Christian", as you profess to be as of your "teenage years", I'd suggest that if you are familiar with the precepts of your "Christian" religion that of which is exclusively based on what is called by those who profess to be "Christians" the "Holy Bible" you might find some reasonable grounds to make the case that abortion would not be considered necessarily a "noble" or "proper" act. Fact is, as we should all know, there is no definitive position expressed in the Bible on "abortion" -- a word that is not present at all in the entire Bible. As a matter of fact, of the 600 laws of Moses, not one of any of these laws refer to the term "abortion". And of course one can postulate as to why that is the case in that the concept of intending to end a pregnancy of which the term "abortion" applies can certainly be argued to be a term that would not have likely been perceived of as something people would consider, in any manner, to be a "rational act" in those days. That aside, arguments by advocates of both sides of the issue have continued to use various parts of the Bible to support their respective positions on the subject.

The most notable scripture of the Bible on the side of the pro-abortionists today, I'd say is found in the book of Exodus (I'll not reference chapter/verse but leave that up to others who might feel compelled to research further). Basically arguments on the side that take the position the act of "abortion" is not condemned in the Bible is based on the concept that while the Bible promotes the death penalty for the "murder" of a human being, this penalty does not apply to the expulsion of a fetus. More specifically, the case in point in the Bible is that if a pregnant women were attached but not killed, still, on the other hand, the fetus had in fact died as a result of the attach the attacker is not to be considered subject to the penalty of death based on the mere fact the women survived the attach of which one can see why this verse is used to support the pro-abortionist position. That said, in regards to the seminal verses of the Bible used to support pro-choice one must remain diligent in the proper interpretation of the wording of the passage in the Bible which is that we are dealing with an "unintended" miscarriage as opposed to an "intended" miscarriage in the verse that is commonly used by pro-choice advocates. The difference here is critical, clearly an act that produces an "unintended" outcome that involves the death of a fetus would not in any way be considered a "capital offense" (even in today's court of law). On the other hand, an act by someone that did have the "intent" to end the life of a fetus is entirely different and a position that is not discussed in this passage or for that matter any other passage in the Bible. And again, why would that be? - obviously because the concept of "intending" to end the life of a fetus was not a concept that would be contemplated as a rational act at that time.

Another argument that pro-abortionist often make are references in the Bible that delineate "life" to begin at the time a "breath" is taken. But what those who advocate this position misunderstand is that this concept that life begins with the act of "breathing" has nothing at all to do with the purposeful act of "abortion" (again an act that was not in any perceived as a rational choice available to humanity at that time).

Now lets consider why it is that the two views just discussed are so frequently used to promote the argument that there isn't any biblical prohibition concerning the act of abortion. This premise is reached by pro-choice advocates because they conclude that because "abortion" (again, a term not used in the Bible) is not punishable by death then "abortion" should therefore be permitted. By taking this approach we are asked to accept the concept that whatever the Bible does not prohibit would then be by definition Biblically permissible. We can see the failure in logic here, that is to say that an action by a person which is not spoken of (i.e. perceived of) does not necessarily mean that specific action is therefore condoned.

On the other hand, pro-life advocates take the approach that a fetus is a "person" and as such should have the right to be lawfully protected. Now the crux of this argument focuses on the debate to define what we can rationally perceive of as to what exactly is a "person". Pro-abortionists will make the case that a "person" is not a "person" if incapable of surviving outside of the mother's body. Admittedly a solid argument, but then if this is our definition of what can be defined as a "person" then an equally valid argument can be made as to at what month during a pregnancy can a fetus survive outside of the womb. And as we all know, it has been well established that fetal viability is generally considered to occur at 24 weeks. So based on this, can an argument be made that the time a fetus gains the ability to survive outside the womb may then be considered the time when a "fetus" becomes a "person"? Certainly a cogent position to take - and if we adopt this position then an argument can be made that any abortion committed as of the six month period of a pregnancy can logically be considered "murder" at that point, since causing the death of a "person" is how "murder" is defined after all.

So getting back to what I've extracted from your post (as referenced above) -- I'd suggest to you that by considering the possibility of taking any life regardless of whether that life resides in the womb or not is a very profound topic. It behooves anyone that holds a position on this topic to be well informed as to the stages of prenatal development. One can clearly see significant changes in the fetus at various stages of a pregnancy. For the months from four through six, we find that the heartbeat grows stronger as well as most all of the bodily systems in general become far more developed. Fingernails, hair, eyelashes, and toenails are all formed during this time. Most importantly, the fetus increases around six times in size.

As to what else you've mentioned, I can't follow exactly what you mean by most of what you've posted subsequent to your second sentence (referenced above). But reading on, if your attempting to determine if there may or may not be any "definitive proof" as to whether it is rational at all to consider the ending life in the womb to be the act of "murder" might arguably apply at some point during the prenatal development of a child. And that point could very well be as of six months based on my supposition above. I would add one last caveat to the practice of attempting to define at what point "murder" might possibly be applied to the act of abortion - and that is from the more extreme point of view of those who are I'd say substantially religious; the thought is that "life" (or in this case the "person") actually begins at conception. This premise is based on the concept that conception is no less than the very "act of God" and as such is what defines the beginning of an autonomous "person", just as God's creation of man in the beginning, as we know from biblical scripture, was in the image of God. I ask that people please do not get upset with me on some of these views, I'm simply providing what it is that Christianity in many cases purport to be the "truth" as based on Holy Scripture. If you have issues then take it up with the Church or those who assiduously practice their faith - not me! I'm only offering the point of view of both sides of the ideological spectrum as it were. (if any of this offends - well, I say to that, we should all try to keep in mind how imperative it is for a civil society to allow for the free expression of all personal beliefs and opinions. We all need to be able to deal with "uncomfortable feelings" - it's a significant part of maturity imo.).

I'll just say this in regards to your reference to "...persecuting LGBTQ people" - it all comes down to what is defined as "persecution". If a religious Christian who holds fast to Biblical scripture by taking what is referenced in the Bible specific to this topic literally. And if this then leads this person to conclude (based on their own personal perspective as a result of using the Bible as their guide) that a life-style of this nature is contrary to Biblical scripture as they see it. I ask any fair minded person, how is condemning this persons inalienable right to candidly hold this personal opinion based on their respective interpretation of Bible verse be at all honorable? We must always understand that there will always be two sides of an argument (albeit, one side of the spectrum of thought may or may not be more compelling than the other side of the spectrum of thought) and to the extent a point of view may or may not be perceived to be more compelling than an alternative, this should not (and in fact arguably does not) necessarily negate the less compelling point of view.

Again, all points of view should be given fair discourse and appraisal if we are to have a civilized debate on any subject and I might add a civilized society as well. We need less "condemnation" and more "understanding", if we are going to learn to live together in reasonable harmony.

[frostknight]

We must always understand that there will always be two sides of an argument (albeit, one side of the spectrum of thought may or may not be more compelling than the other side of the spectrum of thought) and to the extent a point of view may or may not be perceived to be more compelling than an alternative, this should not (and in fact arguably does not) necessarily negate the less compelling point of view.

You wrote a lot, but this in particular is wise. I don't claim to understand everything, to think this would be the height of pride a form of arrogance that I fear.

Persecution, simply put is forcing your ideals down other people's throats when you know they won't change no matter what and you use every trick in the book to change their behavior, mind, etc... especially if the person isn't hurting anyone by their actions.

That's my definition per-say.

There is also a command that says love is the most important thing, this coming from Jesus himself in the bible.

But yes, they do believe conception is when life begins, a belief that allows all sorts of torment to hit the world. No one should ever be able to prevent abortion for someone who is forced to have sex. Besides, who would want to be born into a house that doesn't want them.

I guess ironically, they think this is giving that unborn fetus a voice. Assuming that said fetus wants to be born into a family that doesn't want them or was forced to bear them is the height of insanity and is also pretty damn tone-deaf. Not saying, that you have to agree per-say, but this is all my view.

Peace may be a tricky road, but extremism, too much, too little on any issue, almost always causes hate maybe always even.

Again, all points of view should be given fair discourse and appraisal if we are to have a civilized debate on any subject and I might add a civilized society as well. We need less "condemnation" and more "understanding", if we are going to learn to live together in reasonable harmony.

Yeah, agree there. There is way too much condemnation and not enough understanding.

I think I understood some of what you said, hopefully. In any case, the root of everything evil including money, is pride. People like to hoard money when they have an excessive amount for this reason. It feeds their ego, etc...

Many ways to do that for sure, but yeah.

Appreciate your sentiments though.

[Pallid Planetoid]

But yes, they do believe conception is when life begins, a belief that allows all sorts of torment to hit the world. No one should ever be able to prevent abortion for someone who is forced to have sex. Besides, who would want to be born into a house that doesn't want them.

I guess ironically, they think this is giving that unborn fetus a voice. Assuming that said fetus wants to be born into a family that doesn't want them or was forced to bear them is the height of insanity and is also pretty damn tone-deaf. Not saying, that you have to agree per-say, but this is all my view.

Some (I assume you mean Christians) believe (probably most) that life begins at conception, but there are those that take other arbitrary positions at various stages of prenatal development (i.e. when the heart beats or when fetal viability outside the womb occurs which has been well established to be 24 weeks as there have been many cases where the new born has survived a 6 month pregnancy).

I find the phrase "when life begins" to be troubling - I think we can all agree that even an embryo is a form of "life". For that matter, even the sperm and egg represent "life" at a certain stage of prenatal development. I think a better approach would be when a "person" emerges during fetal development (not an easy task to reach a consensus on this topic in-and-of-itself, I might add). Then we have the next hurdle as to whether that which is defined as a "person" needs to be autonomous (i.e. the fetus is capable of surviving on its own outside of the womb if need be). The vast majority of pro-life advocates however, do not make this a requirement obviously.

If I had to break it down as to where Christians generally land in regards to when "life" or more appropriately a "person" is established during fetal development, I'd estimate the percentage to be some where in the vicinity of the following percentages:
1) Conception 70%.
2) Fetal viability outside the womb 17% (established to be 24 weeks, i.e six months).
3) When a "heart beat" can be detected 10% (as of around 6 weeks, an approach that has been more prominently discussed in Congress specific to this topic).
4) Other stages of fetal development 3%.

Let me be clear, the above are purely estimations on my part (I have no data to support this, possibly it would be available on the web) - and is included simply to provide a rather vague idea as to what the percentages might be.

Note: I personally find #2 appealing on the basis that it is what I would regard as a rational approach considering the fact that the fetus is capable of surviving independent of the mother, hence is in effect arguably an "individual" human and therefore an autonomous "person" on that basis.

In regards to "unwanted" pregnancies, for very understandable reasons (I might add) - there is an alternative you know - that is adoption of the unwanted child is always a choice available to the mother (a choice that the pro-choice advocates fail to mention for the most part). The fact is, there are literally millions of "unwanted" babies that have been adopted. For example, according to the 2010 census there are about 4.5 million adopted children in the United States that make up about 7% of the total population. I venture to say virtually ALL of those 4.5 million children are HAPPY TO BE ALIVE! (considering the alternative).

I would assume if we were to ask each and every one of these 4.5 children what they think about this topic -- my guess is the vast majority (very nearly all) would say they are so very extremely happy to be alive and grateful that the mother decided to take the choice of adopting the child as opposed to choosing abortion. -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? Ask yourself, would you be grateful to be alive (if you happened to be one of them)? - I know considering what the alternative is to choosing "life", most certainly I WOULD be grateful!

Let's be forthright here, the simple answer (i.e. available option) to a "problem" or "inconvenient" pregnancy will always be for the women to abort, but once the "life of the child" enters into the equation then the whole issue becomes admittedly much more complex. For example, the dynamics of "right" and "wrong" come to the forefront of the dilemma as to what path to take at the point when we consider the "other" life that the pro-choice side so often conveniently chooses to ignore.

Just think of all those children and the opportunity they have been given to live out their lives by choosing "life"! - and consider as well the fact that many of those children either already have or may at some point contribute in meaningful ways to our society that would have otherwise been lost to us.

[Mæstro]

I had begun to write a reply some days ago, but this was before Pallid had begun to speak. I like seeing how conversations develop when I step away. Apologies for the mixed, disorderly citations. You know what you wrote, when and where.

Persecution, simply put is forcing your ideals down other people's throats when you know they won't change no matter what […] But yes, they do believe conception is when life begins, a belief that allows all sorts of torment to hit the world. No one should ever be able to prevent abortion for someone who is forced to have sex.

The pacifist position here, which I uphold in my belief that it follows proper exegesis, is unique. Understanding that a human soul in the image of God possesses the embryo, any deliberate attempt to kill it is murderous, and therefore to be considered equivalent any other intended homicide under the New Covenant, such that it needs no singling out, but this same rejection of force that condemns its harm forbids us to pursue or punish the murderer through any violent or coercive measures whatever. (This properly extends to methods of emotional or social violence as well as physical.) Prevention must be by encouragement and education, not threat or shaming. We cannot expect the infidel to behave like the Christian or even to understand that he has sinned; we can only offer the gospel before them, that they may become children of God and know the forgiveness of sins.

Again, all points of view should be given fair discourse and appraisal if we are to have a civilized debate on any subject and I might add a civilized society as well. We need less "condemnation" and more "understanding", if we are going to learn to live together in reasonable harmony.

I agree also, and my natural style in writing on such matters is apologetic; I shy away from elenchus. I seek to describe my views and explain why I believe them to be true more than anything else. An example of how I address rejected beliefs follows. While I could have addressed sexual ethics, the discussion has moved towards the narrower matter of abortion, which i have already begun to address in any rate, so is better suited for my purposes as I want to exhibit my methods, not just rant about my own views. Pallid understands already how I feel on such things in any case; I speak truly, understanding a proper exegesis of the Bible as epistemologically prior any other source.

I think a better approach would be when a "person" emerges during fetal development (not an easy task to reach a consensus on this topic in-and-of-itself, I might add).

I believe that this approach fails because of the precautionary principle, which would suggest here to err towards treating embryos as already men, that is, preserving their lives as our own. I believe that there are good, external reasons for doing so, as you have noted in your caveat, but this rule is one I accept anyway, for example, in rejecting GMO, and I believe it is closer to the argument’s nub. (When presenting my views to others, I might assume positions I find counterfactual if I believe my partner would accept them and I think my point still holds, to isolate and define the actual dispute.) There are some who believe that the zygote is clearly lifeless in the way that a clot is, but the Christian does not share these reasons, usually about brain development, for believing so.

Then we have the next hurdle as to whether that which is defined as a "person" needs to be autonomous (i.e. the fetus is capable of surviving on its own outside of the womb if need be). The vast majority of pro-life advocates however, do not make this a requirement obviously.

Indeed, we do not. We do not see any substantial difference between a child born at 24 weeks needing intensive medical care and one born at 40 needing the same. At least for me, another general principle holds here; I am very much a lumper, not a splitter. More trite, but still sound, is the fact that medicine is improving: children born at 24 weeks could not have been saved some decades ago, and as medicine improves, it should become possible to save earlier and earlier pregnancies until, one hopes, all disputes about abortion can be put to rest as the child can be preserved alive outside the womb in any case. Also commonplace and more fundamental is the already observed. ontological belief that man is a soul in the image of God possessing a recognisably Homo sapiens body.
※My viewpoints naturally settle in the above into a series of points whereby I would need be convinced to change my mind: first showing compatibility with the precautionary principle, next addressing why autonomy as a standard would be compatible with my belief on the ontology of man, next addressing objections such as vagueness and so on. Conditions for possibly admitting an idea tend to come before objections to an idea I am basically willing to accept, as you can see.

there is no definitive position expressed in the Bible on "abortion" …That aside, arguments by advocates of both sides of the issue have continued to use various parts of the Bible to support their respective positions on the subject.

I prefer your last line here to the first as more accurate, though the word is indeed not present. There are conflicting exegeses, all appealing to the Bible for ultimate support, on this and myriad other subjects. Correct exegeses are definitive, but which are correct is disputed, so this definitiveness is often lost to onlookers, if readily apparent to polemicists. Hence, I would assert that the correct exegesis is that the Mosaic provisions for mistakenly induced miscarriage involve concessions to ancient customs which have not always accorded with God’s wishes (cf Mark 10.5 &c), but which do not bear on the New Covenant, which holds simply to do no violence (Luke 3.14 &c). A similar, more important example, definitive of orthodoxy, is that of the trinity: another word not in the scripture itself, but which must feature in any exegesis on pain of heresy (hence falsehood).

I do however disagree with many of my brethren on specific aspects of theology…

Aye. Disagreements between brethren within the bounds of orthodoxy are no reason for schism. In Germany, we have only one Protestant church of note, which is part of the Lutheran communion for traditional reasons. The free churches, which are institutionally separate, are obscure. Similar relationships between the national and fringe churches exist throughout Protestant Europe; the bewildering variety of denominations is to be found mostly in the USA, and even there, I understand that the mainline churches have come back into communion with each other, in much the same way Holland’s internal schisms have lately been repaired.

[frostknight]

I had begun to write a reply some days ago, but this was before Pallid had begun to speak. I like seeing how conversations develop when I step away. Apologies for the mixed, disorderly citations. You know what you wrote, when and where.

Same here, I don't want to be do this too much especially if I am in a foul mood

The pacifist position here, which I uphold in my belief that it follows proper exegesis, is unique. Understanding that a human soul in the image of God possesses the embryo, any deliberate attempt to kill it is murderous, and therefore to be considered equivalent any other intended homicide under the New Covenant, such that it needs no singling out,

To be honest, I don't know when he puts the soul in the fetus, nor does anyone else. Its possible that it doesn't happen till much later which would be ironic but would make sense.

Why should women have to suffer so, especially if its because of unwanted sex?

I consider myself a free thinker as well as far as christian go. I don't assume people are christian just because they say they are, their acts determine who they really represent. Violence for example to the innocent goes against this easily. When I say this, I mean in excess just to clarify.

Btw, when a huge percentage of people voted in a walking disaster of a president, just to get rid of abortion and to this day still refuse to acknowledge they made an error in judgment, it makes me think they let their pride go wild.

Basically, if it were more important, they would do without electing a nutcase to power. who embodies so many anti-christ qualities.

Lying, cheating, especially doing whatever it takes to win, even illegal, coercion and all of the above to the extreme... yeah no, I have a hard time trusting such people's judgment on most things. Btw, if you guessed, yes, I mean Trump. I don't hate him, mostly haven't either beyond a few moments. When I see him, I see someone who has lost their way to the point of an almost fully hardened or actually fully hardened heart. Aka, its sad...

I won't say its impossible for it to be true, but as of now, I cannot accept such a belief, there just isn't enough evidence. Although, I doubt there ever will be.

Love doesn't force is very much a rule of Christianity. Also, Jesus says that was the most important commandment, so... yeah.

Btw, I don't follow any one denomination, I follow as best as I can and if there is something unknown/or potentially controversial, I use my given judgment and think about it before I decide. The bible does factor in, but its based more on, the fact that I know he isn't cruel and that he desires justice and mercy and not manipulation as well.

[Pallid Planetoid]

So frostknight - I have a couple of questions for you to consider as a result of what appears to be your strongly held opinion that (at least in some cases) abortion should in your view be a women's "right". I don't personally have a strong opinion either way myself (I can see both sides of the discussion on this) - however I do believe that there's more to the topic than just the adult women. How much more there is than that and to what extent is debatable in my view.

I'd say from the point of view of a non-religious person it's in general less of an issue as to whether or not abortion should be a women's "right" or if in fact the act of abortion is either right or wrong. A non-religious person would in general typically not hold as strong of views on any of this at either end of the spectrum of opinion - that is not to say strong opinions would necessarily not be in play for non-religious people, certainly strong opinions either way can certainly be present in non-religious persons as well. My point is that in more cases than not, this topic isn't that significant for non-religious people in general.

But in your case, as a self described religious person - I can see why it appears to be a critical issue from your perspective. So let's go over some thoughts on what is a very "critical" issue for you as a religious person and while we do this, consider the faith you profess to follow and how that faith might look upon this topic.

First of all I'm going to assume a premise: That as that you have a belief in in a creator and this creator (i.e. God) operates in a way that what occurs in life is by way of planned design. I assume this to be true because it would seem to be antithetical to a belief in an a creator that is an omnipotent and loving God as it applies to the Christian faith to operate in a way that what occurs is not by design, simply because absent planned design would necessarily be chaotic in nature and as such would not comport at all to what Christians believe God to be.

And with that out of the way - I would assume a believer in the creator God of the Christian faith that the plan put in place by God involves the creation of "life" as opposed to the ending of "life" (as referenced in the Bible in the book of Genesis). I doubt any believer in the Christian God would conclude that the planned design involves "death" as opposed to "life". Just as the simple question - is the design to lead to "life" or "death"? Obviously from a Christian perspective "death" was not a part of the "original" plan or design - agreed? It's common knowledge that "death" was brought about by "sin" and as such is not the desired outcome. Clearly we should have no doubt that "death" is purely an anomaly of the design of God.

So can we agree upon the premise above regarding the belief that the plan of God (as based on the Christian religion in general) was explicitly concerning none other than "life"?

So as a designer of not only our planet and our solar system, but the entire universe itself as stipulated by the Christian Bible -- I'd like you to ask a question and tell me what you think the answer would be of whom your asking the question.

So let us first establish who it is your asking the question of: That would be Jesus of the Christian religion or more importantly consider it to be the omnipresent God of the Bible himself. And keep in mind that we've established the premise that the ontological design by both Jesus and God exclusively involve only "life".

Now to the question you would ask - which would be: what do you think about abortion? And then elaborate on that question to ask can the act of abortion in-and-of-itself be considered to be "good and noble" act and is fitting with the God's ultimate design or on the other hand would it be neither of these attributes and antithetical to God's design? (see below as to what the term "in-and-of-itself" represents)

If the answer you think you'd get would be the former (that it's "good and noble" and part of God's ultimate plan) - then there's nothing further to discuss in as much as whatever is "good and noble" is to practiced as much as possible hence any trepidation concerning the act of abortion is not to be of any concern.

On the other hand, if you believe that the answer would be the latter (that is it's an act that is antithetical to God's ultimate design and that neither of the attributes of "good or noble" are present in the act of abortion in-and-of-itself), then would it be correct to assume this act should be avoided as much as possible? (that is at least minimally make an effort to avoid if possible)

Now let me do one last thing and define what is meant by "in-and-of-itself" - that would be to just consider the act in isolation (that is on its own merit or lack thereof) independent of any moral, social or political considerations. That is, all is set aside other than just what the act of abortion represents in terms of "life and death" which is undeniably the ending of a "life" obviously.

In taking the discussion bit further that is more from the perspective of the Christian religion, I have a lot more substantive questions (respective to Christianity) for anyone reading this. To start with, there can clearly be no debate that a choice to not abort does not involve the ending of a "life" and it is just as clear that to abort does in fact end a "life". Now, what we can debate is what kind of "life" that may be - but we cannot deny that some form of "life" is involved here, no matter what, and in one case "life" ends. And there is also no denying wherever there is "life" (of any kind for that matter) then God is present in some way in as much as God represents "life" based on God's ultimate purpose and design. And lastly, when considering that there is just one path that does not end "life" - could one consider the outcome that does not end "life" to be the more desirable result of the two alternatives?

And finally, to consider that one outcome ends "life" (however you want to define that "life") but on the other hand the other outcome does not (but instead salvages "life") - which outcome would most consider to be the safest and less likely to be controversial? Obviously the path to not end "life" would be less controversial considering the paramount nature of how important "life" is to the Christian God in general. It's simply a matter of balancing out the two sides of the debate and reaching a conclusion as to which would be the better approach all things considered specific to a level of "importance" as it relates to God's overall not only plan but "goal" for that matter.

And if we are to consider what exactly is God's "goal" for all people (as of the time when "sin" entered the picture), is it (as professed by the Christian faith) to save as many "souls" as possible? And would the person that is saved by choosing "life" lead to the possibility of "saving" a soul (as opposed to the alternate in which the possibility of saving a "soul" would be impossible)? And finally on this thought - can we all agree that if "life" is the choice that is made then (regardless of when a "soul" becomes a factor) at some point a "soul" will be the outcome even if one believes that this requires birth to occur (as long as life is selected, then birth will necessarily occur, hence whether or not a "soul" is at issue is not debatable - fact is, the "soul" is inexorably at issue simply given the choice taken). If anyone concludes to the contrary - then I'm happy to hear an explanation as to how this conclusion is reached. And from the perspective of God, what path would you consider the more likely to be less controversial or for that matter from God's perspective the less objectionable? So if we are to consider what would be God's preference, I think it is rather obvious at this point.

With the presence of "life" the saving of a "soul" is inexorably possible, on the other hand the absence of "life" altogether precludes that possibility.

This is not to say one has to necessarily rule anything in or out concerning this very critical and highly sensitive topic - I'm just putting out food-for-thought as to what may or may not be arguably the better approach to take (for the most part from the perspective of the Christian religion) with absolutely no intention of casting any judgement of any kind either way.

That's it.... just some thoughts to maul over in your mind....