NationStates Jolt Archive

Illegal, with the exception of rape.

Abortion is murder.

Illegal, with the exception of rape.

Abortion is murder.
What about when the mother's life or child's life is in danger? What about when they both will die during labor?

Illegal, with the exception of rape.

Abortion is murder.
So two crimes make a right in your world?

Furthermore, look to the earlier discussion about why abortion isn't murder, or find a dictionary and learn on your own.

So of course men deserve more rights than women, thanks.
Actually, in a Christian marriage, the woman's RIGHT TO LIFE overrides that of the man's: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). This is to say that a man should give his life up for his wife if necessary. This actually happened in history on the Titanic: "Women and children first!"

I'm not married and I have sex on a regular basis! :shocked:
These are crimes against God. I pray you turn away from your sin and accept Jesus into your heart.

Illegal, with the exception of rape.

Abortion is murder.

Is this like, the same person making another account every few pages?

I do it because when they sell themselves, they lose their womenhood. I'm not really ridiculing women; I'm ridiculing men who have female reproductive organs.


Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. Laws concerning automobiles or speeding tickets are not constitutional. Why haven't I complained about them? Because abortion kills 4,000 children per day, but while automobiles do kill people, the legislation prevents it.


Equals? Women != Men. Just look at them; do they look the same to you? I hope not. They ought to be treated for who they are, not who you think they ought to be.


No, that's disgusting. I'm not like that.

I'm sorry, but there is no way this isn't trolling. No way.

p(2) Planned Parenthood is, and I am not BSing you, a fascist organization.

(2) Margaret Sanger played a large part in founding Planned Parenthood. This quote is attributed to her: "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Emphasis mine)

"The minister" turned out to Martin Luther King, Jr., by the way.

i think the word you were looking for isnt fascist but genocidal.

yes margaret sanger was an advocate of eugenics. so what? she's been dead for 40 years and eugenics fell out of favor when the nazi's demonstrated just how slippery a slope it generates.

should planned parenthood disband and then re-form so that it can say it wasnt started by margaret sanger? wouldnt that be just a TOUCH silly?

and how did that preacher turn out to be MLKjr when the letter was written in '39 and king wasnt even ordained until '47?

Actually, in a Christian marriage, the woman's RIGHT TO LIFE overrides that of the man's: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). This is to say that a man should give his life up for his wife if necessary. This actually happened in history on the Titanic: "Women and children first!"


These are crimes against God. I pray you turn away from your sin and accept Jesus into your heart.
Not being married is a crime again God?

I have respect for myself and I have respect for other women and guess what...

I'm not married and I have sex on a regular basis! :shocked:

You sir, are the pervert.

Also, what you call respect I call oppression.
Tsk tsk, you foul wench! How dare thou engage in such devilish practices! :eek: Fire and brimstone it shall be for thee!

What is the legal basis for determining when a fetus is "viable" and when it is not? Why does the right to privacy/liberty end at a certain point, and why does the right to life begin at a certain point? There are no Constitutional principles to support any of these points as addressed in Roe v. Wade and rulings thereafter.

Very good point. When does the right to life of the fetus override the liberty of the mother?

There is no legal basis to answer that question but I always side with Bentham: "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?"

In my opinion, the fetus gains the right to life when it is able to suffer (i.e., has a functional nervous system).

i think the word you were looking for isnt fascist but genocidal.

yes margaret sanger was an advocate of eugenics. so what? she's been dead for 40 years and eugenics fell out of favor when the nazi's demonstrated just how slippery a slope it generates.

should planned parenthood disband and then re-form so that it can say it wasnt started by margaret sanger? wouldnt that be just a TOUCH silly?

and how did that preacher turn out to be MLKjr when the letter was written in '39 and king wasnt even ordained until '47?
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=555

Not being married is a crime again God?
Sex before marriage is wrong. Especially promiscuous sex.

Tsk tsk, you foul wench! How dare thou engage in such devilish practices! Fire and brimstone it shall be for thee!
If you weren't being sarcastic, I would agree with you fully.

How about this:

EVERYONE WHO IS NOT PRO CHOICE IS GAY!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

(Have you ever noticed that niether fluffle has distinguishing sex charactaristics?)

But is the point debatable? For the sake of debating, lets assume you are male, as I am sure that the vast majority of anti-abortionists are. Kind of like how most pro-slavery people weren't slaves. Obviously, if you aren't pro choice, you only seek the approval of women who highly beleive in a religion that doesn't allow abortion, or are incredibly stupid. Some might argue that those are one and the same, but I digress. Generally, and this may be false, so don't quote me on it, the more attractive women realize that they are more attractive, and therefore more likely to accidentally conceive, and thusly are more likely to be pro choice, or at the very least don't mind the idea of a morning after pill. So far, we have established that you are someone who does not like attractive, smart women with little or no religious obgections against abortion. Must I countinue insulting your sexuality?

By the way, if my understanding is correct, it takes much longer than 24 hours for the egg to become fertilized. So if my understanding of the morning after pill is correct, it is not even close to abortion because all it does is prevent the egg from becoming fertilized. And if you want to call every woman who releases an unfertilized egg a murderer, within the next month, you will have to arrest every single woman in the world who is between puberty and menopause. So, let's see, there are about six billion people in the world, and let's say half of them are female, that's three bilion, and so if half, which is probably WAY lower than the actual number, are in that age, you're looking at over 1.5 billion people. How will we fit that many people in jail? Even the biggest city in the world, Mumbai, India, has only 12,778,721 people, according to Wikipedia. The greater Tokyo area, the largest metro area by population, has only 35,237,000. Think about that.

Very good point. When does the right to life of the fetus override the liberty of the mother?

There is no legal basis to answer that question but I always side with Bentham: "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?"

In my opinion, the fetus gains the right to life when it is able to suffer (i.e., has a functional nervous system).
A valid opinion, and one that should be considered by a Congressperson or put a ballot, not mandated by the Supreme Court.

How about this:

EVERYONE WHO IS NOT PRO CHOICE IS GAY

I am pro-choice, and I am gay. Take your homophobia elsewhere.

Slappage begins at 09:30. Line forms to the left. :)


*gets in line*

How about this:

EVERYONE WHO IS NOT PRO CHOICE IS GAY!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

(Have you ever noticed that niether fluffle has distinguishing sex charactaristics?)

But is the point debatable? For the sake of debating, lets assume you are male, as I am sure that the vast majority of anti-abortionists are. Kind of like how most pro-slavery people weren't slaves. Obviously, if you aren't pro choice, you only seek the approval of women who highly beleive in a religion that doesn't allow abortion, or are incredibly stupid. Some might argue that those are one and the same, but I digress. Generally, and this may be false, so don't quote me on it, the more attractive women realize that they are more attractive, and therefore more likely to accidentally conceive, and thusly are more likely to be pro choice, or at the very least don't mind the idea of a morning after pill. So far, we have established that you are someone who does not like attractive, smart women with little or no religious obgections against abortion. Must I countinue insulting your sexuality?

By the way, if my understanding is correct, it takes much longer than 24 hours for the egg to become fertilized. So if my understanding of the morning after pill is correct, it is not even close to abortion because all it does is prevent the egg from becoming fertilized. And if you want to call every woman who releases an unfertilized egg a murderer, within the next month, you will have to arrest every single woman in the world who is between puberty and menopause. So, let's see, there are about six billion people in the world, and let's say half of them are female, that's three bilion, and so if half, which is probably WAY lower than the actual number, are in that age, you're looking at over 1.5 billion people. How will we fit that many people in jail? Even the biggest city in the world, Mumbai, India, has only 12,778,721 people, according to Wikipedia. The greater Tokyo area, the largest metro area by population, has only 35,237,000. Think about that.
The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

---

Edit:
I am pro-choice, and I am gay. Take your homophobia elsewhere.
This only backs up what I said.

I am pro-choice, and I am gay.

He didn't say you couldn't be gay and pro choice. He just said you couldn't be "not-pro-choice" and straight. Of course, it's complete bullshit either way.

The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

So, not only are you a bigoted racist who defiles women and wants to subjugate them, but a homophobe, too? Such a nice little mix.

I am pro-choice, and I am gay. Take your homophobia elsewhere.

It was a joke. Did you read the post? I must not have made it clear, but it was a joke. And also, it said that anyone who is NOT pro choice is gay. And it was a joke. I think i need a disclaimer in my sig again.:rolleyes:

EDIT: Just saw this post:
The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

Funny, because I am pro choice, and not gay. Huh. Imagine that.

So, not only are you a bigoted racist who defiles women and wants to subjugate them, but a homophobe, too? Such a nice little mix.
They sort of go hand in hand, don't they?

They sort of go hand in hand, don't they?

It's like a troglodyte trifecta.

Actually, in a Christian marriage, the woman's RIGHT TO LIFE overrides that of the man's: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). This is to say that a man should give his life up for his wife if necessary. This actually happened in history on the Titanic: "Women and children first!"
Right, which is of course why christians were so gung ho about burning the witches.
And before the feminist movement, men had so many more rights than women, at one point women weren't allowed to own property, they weren't allowed to leave abusive husbands, they weren't allowed to vote, to get a job, to go on to higher education et c.
Also, I think you should read the bible a bit more if you think women got a fair shake of things.

These are crimes against God. I pray you turn away from your sin and accept Jesus into your heart.
lol
It's not a sin, he consents, I consent, I care about him very much and we both like to explore each other in a sexual manner. Nothing at all wrong with that. :)

By the way, I've done the whole Jesus thing, it's not my bag, but how about you start listening to him and stop judging everyone else.

Sex before marriage is wrong. Especially promiscuous sex.

According to the Bible - yes. But God still doesn't care about what happens to the offspring of such a mating while still in the womb.

It was a joke. Did you read the post? I must not have made it clear, but it was a joke. And also, it said that anyone who is NOT pro choice is gay. And it was a joke. I think i need a disclaimer in my sig again.:rolleyes:
He objects to the fact that you throw the word around like that. The way you used the word is as if it were an insult. So he is justified.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=555


Oh, OK. So, if bat-shit crazy stuff get posted on the internet, it magically becomes true. :rolleyes:

The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

Ah, you have all the milestones of good debate.

Namecalling - check
Hyperbole - check
Skewing historical facts - check
Conspiracy theories - check

The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

I hope that site is satire.

"DNC CHAIRMAN DEAN gets pro-sex pervert award from former head of NARAL Kate Michelman"

"SODOMITE BISHOP ROBINSON tells Planned Parenthood Episcopal pro-lifers ‘off the deep end’"

"Longtime pro-life activist Janet Folger had an epiphany a few years ago at a pro-family conference at Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. She “suddenly connected the dots and realized it’s all the same battle” after hearing a speaker discuss “the real aim of the homosexual agenda: the criminalization of Christianity.”"

Tsk tsk, you foul wench! How dare thou engage in such devilish practices! :eek: Fire and brimstone it shall be for thee!
Well, I'll be in good company at least.

It was a joke. Did you read the post? I must not have made it clear, but it was a joke. And also, it said that anyone who is NOT pro choice is gay.

Your resorting to homophobia is not made any different by your semantics.

And it was a joke. I think i need a disclaimer in my sig again.:rolleyes:

It wasn't funny at all. You used being gay as an insult. Grow up.

Legal, to filter the would-be criminals and welfare mothers out of society.

Sex before marriage is wrong.
No it's not.

Especially promiscuous sex.
Who said I was being promiscuous?

If you weren't being sarcastic, I would agree with you fully.
And that doesn't say much at all about your character or your ability to follow your own religion properly.

I hope that site is satire.

"DNC CHAIRMAN DEAN gets pro-sex pervert award from former head of NARAL Kate Michelman"

"SODOMITE BISHOP ROBINSON tells Planned Parenthood Episcopal pro-lifers ‘off the deep end’"

"Longtime pro-life activist Janet Folger had an epiphany a few years ago at a pro-family conference at Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. She “suddenly connected the dots and realized it’s all the same battle” after hearing a speaker discuss “the real aim of the homosexual agenda: the criminalization of Christianity.”"
Actually, that site is one of the only sites left that doesn't lie. It's not part of the "managed media" (liberal media).

Actually, that site is one of the only sites left that doesn't lie. It's not part of the "managed media" (liberal media).
Do tell, how I, as a Christian homosexual, plan on getting the religion criminalised, so that I may be incarcerated? :rolleyes:

The opposite is true. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=479

lol. You're either a troll or a joke.


What he really should have said is "Everyone who is not pro-choice is likely mentally challenged" then. That way he wouldn't have offended Fass and he would have been more accurate.

I pray you turn away from your sin and accept Jesus into your heart.


Are you without sin? You must be, or you wouldn't have spent all this time berating other people for their alleged sins.

Actually, that site is one of the only sites left that doesn't lie. It's not part of the "managed media" (liberal media).
Hahahahahahahahaha

This screen name has to be a joke, seriously. This guy's pulling our leg.

No, the Constitution is not clear on the rights to end one's pregnancy. Where is it stated when "viability" is reached? What is the legal basis for determining when a fetus is "viable" and when it is not? Why does the right to privacy/liberty end at a certain point, and why does the right to life begin at a certain point? There are no Constitutional principles to support any of these points as addressed in Roe v. Wade and rulings thereafter.But it is abundantly clear that it grants a right to privacy as based on the cumulative effect of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments (as determined in Griswold v. CT). Not to mention the effect of the 9th Amendment. Laws which tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies violate that right of privacy in absence of compelling state interest, per the 14th Amendment.

As in so many other constitutional issues, what we have is conflict between the rights of one party and those of another. The difficulty here is that one party is contained in the other. Thus the court's attempt to balance the rights of the two and the reliance on viability, which given the state of scientific evidence at the time, they left as a bright line at the end of the second trimester.

Actually, that site is one of the only sites left that doesn't lie. It's not part of the "managed media" (liberal media).

If there were any doubts as to the troll nature of this poster, they have by now been laid to to rest. This is the second troll I add to my ignore list today - what is it with this day? Have we been linked to from fark.com?

The Christians have not revised history by saying that America was Christian it the time of its founding. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.
Contradicting yourself will get you banned on this forum.

Your resorting to homophobia is not made any different by your semantics.



It wasn't funny at all. You used being gay as an insult. Grow up.
I hope you're a virgin. Being gay is a crime worthy of death. If you accept Jesus into your heart, He can helo you turn away from your sin, and the eternal punishment will be lifted.

Then again, simply being human is a crime worthy of death. But Jesus is there to save us, if you believe in Him.

Then again, simply being human is a crime worthy of death. But Jesus is there to save us, if you believe in Him.
Wow, Jesus was a nihilist? The "Lord of Light and the Source of Life"?

If there were any doubts as to the troll nature of this poster, they have by now been laid to to rest. This is the second troll I add to my ignore list today - what is it with this day? Have we been linked to from fark.com?
I tried to add them both to my ignore list but it's not loading for me today. :(

Are you without sin? You must be, or you wouldn't have spent all this time berating other people for their alleged sins.
No one is without sin. But some people try harder than others to sin, and Christians, I pray, are the ones who try hardest not to sin.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=555
yup, mlkjr received the margaret sanger award in '66

yup he thought that birth control would be a blessing for poor black families. id have to agree with him. birth control is a blessing for ALL families.

but no, that doesnt make him the target of the proposed recruitment of black ministers back in '39.

lol. You're either a troll or a joke.


What he really should have said is "Everyone who is not pro-choice is likely mentally challenged" then. That way he wouldn't have offended Fass and he would have been more accurate.

It's a puppet. I reported it. There is no way this is for real.

Do tell, how I, as a Christian homosexual, plan on getting the religion criminalised, so that I may be incarcerated? :rolleyes:
Please note that "Christian homosexual" is an oxymoron. If you claim a faith in Christ, you MUST turn away from homosexuality.

I hope you're a virgin.
I know you are, no woman in her right mind would have anything to do with a prude like you.

Being gay is a crime worthy of death.
No it's not. Well, it was in the middle ages, it isn't anymore.

If you accept Jesus into your heart, He can helo you turn away from your sin, and the eternal punishment will be lifted.
hahahahaha. This line is getting tired.

Also, again, you really need to stop judging people.

Then again, simply being human is a crime worthy of death. But Jesus is there to save us, if you believe in Him.
The myth of Jesus was based on earlier pagan myths.

Wow, Jesus was a nihilist? The "Lord of Light and the Source of Life"?


Don't use big words. You'll confuse him.

Please note that "Christian homosexual" is an oxymoron. If you claim a faith in Christ, you MUST turn away from homosexuality.
Homosexuality isn't a choice, sexual orientation is fixed at adulthood and is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

One could be a celibate homosexual and be a christian... or one could open one's mind and notice that the Bible only condemns ritual sex with members of the same gender, not loving homosexual relationships.

Please note that "Christian homosexual" is an oxymoron. If you claim a faith in Christ, you MUST turn away from homosexuality.
Based on your definition, a Christian human is an oxymoron. Were I you, I would silence myself to avoid further humiliation.

No one is without sin. But some people try harder than others to sin, and Christians, I pray, are the ones who try hardest not to sin.


By what right to you condemn people? Who appointed you God's official representative on earth?

3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst,

4 they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?"

6 They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger.

7 But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."

8 Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

9 They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last. Jesus was left alone with the woman where she was, in the middle.

10 Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?"

11 She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
John 8:3-11

I know you are, no woman in her right mind would have anything to do with a prude like you.


No it's not. Well, it was in the middle ages, it isn't anymore.


hahahahaha. This line is getting tired.

Also, again, you really need to stop judging people.


The myth of Jesus was based on earlier pagan myths.
Come on, don't take that bait. This guy has nothing to do with Christianity. Attacking Christianity just adds credibility to his argument.

It's a puppet. I reported it. There is no way this is for real.

Sadly I think it is. I remember this jerk a few months back. Spouted the same conservative, conspiracy nut-job theories back then as well.

Come on, don't take that bait. This guy has nothing to do with Christianity. Attacking Christianity just adds credibility to his argument.
I'm not attacking christianity... if I was, then I would have made something up. Many details of Jesus' life were based on earlier pagan godmen and saviour deities.

Come on, don't take that bait. This guy has nothing to do with Christianity. Attacking Christianity just adds credibility to his argument.

Exactly. But, most Christians aren't very Christian either.... :)
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Sadly I think it is. I remember this jerk a few months back. Spouted the same conservative, conspiracy nut-job theories back then as well.

This isn't even a good fake. Older trolls used to be so much better and much harder to pick out.

Based on your definition, a Christian human is an oxymoron. Were I you, I would silence myself to avoid further humiliation.
You deserve a high five for that one.

*high five*

This isn't even a good fake. Older trolls used to be so much better and much harder to pick out.

Agreed. I miss UNA...

I'm not attacking christianity... if I was, then I would have made something up. Many details of Jesus' life were based on earlier pagan godmen and saviour deities.

Unless Jesus was a man, in which case the details of his life were based on *gasp* his life. Pretending you're not attacking Christianity by calling the central tenet of it a myth is bullocks. Again, this guy is trying to get this kind of nonsensical debate going on. It has nothing to do with abortion and by attacking the existence of Christ you are most certainly taking his bait. You're welcome to do so, but it's disappointing.

You deserve a high five for that one.

*high five*
He is a series of contradictions, so it's not too hard.

Any chance I can get a cookie? :)

Your resorting to homophobia is not made any different by your semantics.

It wasn't funny at all. You used being gay as an insult. Grow up.

I realise that some people on this forum did not realise that I was saying that as a joke against the Other people who throw around the word Gay as an insult. I did not mean to offend anyone who is gay, has gay freinds, parents, reletaves, etc. If I did, sorry. Though I will note for the record that resposes like what I got don't seem to come nearly as strong when someone is being completely serious about it. And before you correct me, I don't spend my entire life on this forum, so I probably don't get as good of a feel of what is going on. I will state again, for the record, that while I myself am not gay, I have no problem with gay people. Do whatever the hell you want. I don't really care. And if gay marrage is so damaging to the so-called "institution" of marrage, what sould we do about the celebrities who go to Vegas, get married, and then get an annulment in a matter of days? Ban celebrity marriges? Kill all celebrities? I think we can count Bush as a celebrity in this case? Can we cound Jeb and H.W too?

How about terrorists? Can I say that all people who are not pro choice are terrorists? I hear that's the new word that you're supposed to throw around at people now. You know, like in WWI and WWII it was German, during the cold war it was Communist, and a few years ago it was gay (I know it still continues to today, but it was really picking up steam again a few years ago) and now we just say terrorist. So let's do that:

ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PRO-CHOICE ARE TERRORISTS!

AND NOTE THAT THAT WAS A JOKE! IT IS NOT SERIOUS! PUT THE GUN DOWN! :sniper:

Pretending you're not attacking Christianity by calling the central tenet of it a myth is bullocks.

It's a myth as per the definition of what a myth is. Just like Arjuna, or Buddha, or whatever.

I don't believe abortion is moral, but I also believe that it is the people's right to decide morality and not the government's job to enforce it.

I don't believe abortion is moral, but I also believe that it is the people's right to decide morality and not the government's job to enforce it.


ELECT HIM/HER! QUICK!

ELECT HIM/HER! QUICK!

Been there, done that...

ELECT HIM/HER! QUICK!

I'll second that! (Heh, pretty much follows my beliefs, so definitely...)

It's a myth as per the definition of what a myth is. Just like Arjuna, or Buddha, or whatever.

When she says the story of his life is based on other people or myths, she says it's false and it is not germaine to the thread and it most certainly rises to the bait laid out by our friend. There is no need to attack the central tenant of the Christian faith simply because this person is pretending to be Christian. To do so is essentially the same tactic as our friend is using.

Unless Jesus was a man, in which case the details of his life were based on *gasp* his life. Pretending you're not attacking Christianity by calling the central tenet of it a myth is bullocks. Again, this guy is trying to get this kind of nonsensical debate going on. It has nothing to do with abortion and by attacking the existence of Christ you are most certainly taking his bait. You're welcome to do so, but it's disappointing.
True. I suppose that's for another thread anyways. But he did make a statement implying that Jesus was real and had real authority so I pointed out that this might not be the case.

(also, it seems rather unlikely to me that the exact same events would happen to two holy men... and really, I don't think that any christians would have issues calling Zeus a myth. I view christianity to be on par with all other religions and if there's no evidence that the characters existed or they appear plagerized from earlier sources, I'm not about to hesitate in pointing that out.)

When she says the story of his life is based on other people or myths, she says it's false and it is not germaine to the thread and it most certainly rises to the bait laid out by our friend. There is no need to attack the central tenant of the Christian faith simply because this person is pretending to be Christian. To do so is essentially the same tactic as our friend is using.

But it is based on other people in other myths, and very similar to the competing Mithras myth. The Jesus myth is in no way original.

But it is based on other people in other myths, and very similar to the competing Mithras myth. The Jesus myth is in no way original.
Indeed.

He is a series of contradictions, so it's not too hard.

Any chance I can get a cookie? :)
*gives you a cookie*

True. I suppose that's for another thread anyways. But he did make a statement implying that Jesus was real.

(also, it seems rather unlikely to me that the exact same events would happen to two holy men... and really, I don't think that any christians would have issues calling Zeus a myth. I view christianity to be on par with all other religions and if there's no evidence that the characters existed or they appear plagerized from earlier sources, I'm not about to hesitate in pointing that out.)

Gotta agree about the myth bit.

Jesus is plagarized? I know he follows the saviour archetype and that Christian holidays are stolen from pagan religions, but Jesus himself is plagarized? From who?

But it is based on other people in other myths, and very similar to the competing Mithras myth. The Jesus myth is in no way original.

Look, if you get your rocks from attacking Christianity at every opportunity. Have fun. I'm not feeding the troll.

Gotta agree about the myth bit.

Jesus is plagarized? I know he follows the saviour archetype and that Christian holidays are stolen from pagan religions, but Jesus himself is plagarized? From who?
Mithras.

Mithras was born to a virgin, was visited by shepherds and magi. He had 12 disciples, he was crucified atop a hill with a criminal on either side of him, one was saved, one was condemned. Both Jesus and Mithras served the same purpose in their respective mythologies as well. The myth of Mithras was written about at least 500 years before Jesus was supposed to have existed though.

(oh, there are some other details that were similar, but I forget them...)

I'm not sure if you knew this little fact, but in the past 33 years, The US has killed over 1,571,477,000 sence 1973 when abortions was made legal, kind of sick?

Gotta agree about the myth bit.

Jesus is plagarized? I know he follows the saviour archetype and that Christian holidays are stolen from pagan religions, but Jesus himself is plagarized? From who?

Again, all this evidences my point. Now we'll have a big discussion of Christianity with people arguing from hyperbole and the very unimpressive troll accomplishes his task.

Mithras.

Mithras was born to a virgin, was visited by shepherds and magi. He had 12 disciples, he was crucified atop a hill with a criminal on either side of him, one was saved, one was condemned. Both Jesus and Mithras served the same purpose in their respective mythologies as well. The myth of Mithras was written about at least 500 years before Jesus was supposed to have existed though.

(oh, there are some other details that were similar, but I forget them...)

Great. You've evidenced correllation. Fun. Now, how about causation.

I'm not sure if you knew this little fact, but in the past 33 years, The US has killed over 1,571,477,000 sence 1973 when abortions was made legal, kind of sick?

Not really. 'Twas the mother's choice, after all. (Well, unless it was an emergency).

Look, if you get your rocks from attacking Christianity at every opportunity. Have fun. I'm not feeding the troll.
Pointing out where one religion takes inspiration from another isn't an attack, it's an observation. Hell, if you read the old testament, you can see how judaism evolved from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one.

Mithras.

Mithras was born to a virgin, was visited by shepherds and magi. He had 12 disciples, he was crucified atop a hill with a criminal on either side of him, one was saved, one was condemned. Both Jesus and Mithras served the same purpose in their respective mythologies as well. The myth of Mithras was written about at least 500 years before Jesus was supposed to have existed though.

(oh, there are some other details that were similar, but I forget them...)

o.O Oh.

Not really. 'Twas the mother's choice, after all. (Well, unless it was an emergency).

yeah but think of the super army we could have with all those people

Look, if you get your rocks from attacking Christianity at every opportunity. Have fun. I'm not feeding the troll.

Attacking? Am I attacking Hinduism when I refer to Arjuna as a myth? Buddhism when I see Buddha as a myth, too? Would I be attacking Greek mythology for calling it a mythology? Sorry if you perceive the truth and the treatment of Christian myths as all other religious myths as an attack. I don't. And I will not treat Christianity any different.

Great. You've evidenced correllation. Fun. Now, how about causation.

Bwah? I don't think correlation and causation are the things we're looking for here...You wanna know how Mithras caused Jesus?

Great. You've evidenced correllation. Fun. Now, how about causation.
Well, the romans liked to adopt religions from their conquered regions and spread them around and they took to Mithraism pretty well (they've found roman shrines to Mithras). You take a dash of an existing saviour deity, throw in an oppressed people (the jews) who have prophesies of a saviour who will deliver them from oppression, some existing messiah claimants and viola! Christianity.

Attacking? Am I attacking Hinduism when I refer to Arjuna as a myth? Buddhism when I see Buddha as a myth, too? Sorry if you perceive the truth and the treatment of Christian myths as all other religious myths as an attack. I don't. And I will not treat Christianity any different.

ever wonder why christianity always get picked on, like you don't see movies or books trying to disprove the quran or some other religious book?

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.

so god deserves to die???? :rolleyes:
I mean he is traditionally the leading cause of death.

yeah but think of the super army we could have with all those people

Think of all the extra oil they'd use...

ever wonder why christianity always get picked on, like you don't see movies or books trying to disprove the quran or some other religious book?

Because there's 2 billion of 'em?

ever wonder why christianity always get picked on, like you don't see movies or books trying to disprove the quran or some other religious book?
Uh... yes you do.

Go to a christian bookstore and have a look, they've got loads of them.

Pointing out where one religion takes inspiration from another isn't an attack, it's an observation. Hell, if you read the old testament, you can see how judaism evolved from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one.

Again, it's not germaine to the point of this thread. That's the first bit. The second bit is that your claims have to start with Jesus not existing or the story of his life being false. If one were to listen to some then the 'myth' of Kennedy is based on the 'myth' of Lincoln. And one could likely find lots of similarities between MLK and various other religious leaders. Does any of that prove that the story of Jesus isn't plagiarized? Nope. But similarity doesn't prove it either. First, one has to start with it being false.

Meanwhile, you making this point simply kidnaps the argument and feeds the troll. You can't pretend like you thought you were making an innocent argument when you said it. You knew it would upset people, and it still wouldn't have a damn thing to do with the point.

I'm not sure if you knew this little fact, but in the past 33 years, The US has killed over 1,571,477,000 sence 1973 when abortions was made legal, kind of sick?
Can't kill something that's not a life.

yeah but think of the super army we could have with all those people

Think of the over population we could have with all those people. Not to mention abandoned children.

ever wonder why christianity always get picked on, like you don't see movies or books trying to disprove the quran or some other religious book?

I see that all the time (Christians are very good at attacking other religions, while remaining blind to the fallacies of their own), even if it's not that hard to point at the fallacies of a four-handed man-elephant deity. You're just centred on Western culture, where Christianity is dominant. It, however, doesn't deserve to be treated any differently from any other religion or mythology.

Again, it's not germaine to the point of this thread. That's the first bit. The second bit is that your claims have to start with Jesus not existing or the story of his life being false. If one were to listen to some then the 'myth' of Kennedy is based on the 'myth' of Lincoln. And one could likely find lots of similarities between MLK and various other religious leaders. Does any of that prove that the story of Jesus isn't plagiarized? Nope. But similarity doesn't prove it either. First, one has to start with it being false.
Ok, well there aren't any independant accounts of Jesus actually existing either, not even an execution order. The roman execution orders are still intact you know.

Meanwhile, you making this point simply kidnaps the argument and feeds the troll. You can't pretend like you thought you were making an innocent argument when you said it. You knew it would upset people, and it still wouldn't have a damn thing to do with the point.
I haven't seen the troll for a couple pages and yeah, this is a bit of a threadjack, if you want to make another thread then fine. I didn't bring it up to upset people, I brought it up to point out why his views might not have as much sway as he wanted them to. I'll stop discussing this here.

Bwah? I don't think correlation and causation are the things we're looking for here...You wanna know how Mithras caused Jesus?

How the myth of Mithras caused the myth of Jesus. Substitution created, evolved into, etc. The point is the same. Either way, I'm done here. I'm not hijacking this thread and we all know your point of view is based on assumption as is mine. The difference is that I admit my assumptions and I don't go out of my way to upset people simply because I don't agree with them. Have fun feeding the troll.

Have fun feeding the troll.
Would you stop saying this? I really have the feeling that the troll has left the building.

I see that all the time (Christians are very good at attacking other religions, while remaining blind to the fallacies of their own), even if it's not that hard to point at the fallacies of a four-handed man-elephant deity. You're just centred on Western culture, where Christianity is dominant. It, however, doesn't deserve to be treated any differently from any other religion or mythology.

See this is exactly the problem. You start with an unfortunate generalization and act like it justifies your attack of all people under than generalization. I guess if I've been robbed by black people, I'm justified in attacking them. I mean, it's not all black people, but hey, since when do we treat people like individuals. Let's just insult the whole group.

Yes, Christians happen to be very powerful in the Western world and SOME happen to attack other religions. However, when you attack us as if we are one homogenous mass, you are the one being biggotted. Your generalizations aren't valid justifications, they're evidence against you.

Attacking? Am I attacking Hinduism when I refer to Arjuna as a myth?

You're not attacking Christianity but you are attacking the "infallibility" of the bible. :)
For example, the many Flood Myths (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) support the fact that the flood in the Bible was borrowed from earlier cultures.

Yes, Christians happen to be very powerful in the Western world and SOME happen to attack other religions. However, when you attack us as if we are one homogenous mass, you are the one being biggotted. Your generalizations aren't valid justifications, they're evidence against you.

Look at the volumes of literature pushed out by Christians over the centuries attacking other religions and undermining them, while securing a safe place for their own. If you want to feel targeted by a "generalisation," fine, be targeted. I am not going to add a "not all, but some" disclaimer to protect your sensibilities when the vein in Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions as well, for that matter, to undermine other mythologies is so apparent.

And, yes, I just called Christianity a mythology. Up to you if you want to be offended or not because you think Christianity is somehow special; I am not going to treat your mythology differently from the other mythologies.

Look at the volumes of literature pushed out by Christians over the centuries attacking other religions and undermining them, while securing a safe place for their own. If you want to feel targeted by a "generalisation," fine, be targeted. I am not going to add a "not all, but some" disclaimer to protect your sensibilities when the vein in Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions as well, for that matter, to undermine other mythologies is so apparent.

And, yes, I just called Christianity a mythology. Up to you if you want to be offended or not because you think Christianity is somehow special; I am not going to treat your mythology differently from the other mythologies.

Well, I know I find the arguments of someone who doesn't want to be generalized against and attacked to be compelling while they are slinging similar arguments out the other side of their mouth. Yep, compelling arguments. If only all champions of equal rights would be so willing to generalize and attack based on said generalizations. We would get so incredibly far by doing so.

You're not attacking Christianity but you are attacking the "infallibility" of the bible. :)

That's the point so many Christians (wait, should I add a "not all" disclaimer here to appease?) need to get over: I as a non-Christian do not view it as infallible, and am not going to treat it as such.

For example, the many Flood Myths (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) support the fact that the flood in the Bible was borrowed from earlier cultures.

There is nothing new under the Sun. No religion existing today is all that original, especially the ones that came into being in the Middle East and the surroundings of India, which are infamous from having borrowed from each other and previous mythologies present in the area.

That's the point so many Christians (wait, should I add a "not all" disclaimer here to appease?) need to get over: I as a non-Christian do not view it as infallible, and am not going to treat it as such.
Indeed.

What I really don't get is that it's alright for most christians to call other religions myths, like the greek or roman myths... yet I know people who practice those as religions. They believe in the greek pantheon, there are people who believe in the norse pantheon or the celtic yet I've never encountered a christian who hesitates to call them mythologies, yet Jocobia gets all up in arms when we call Jesus a myth. To many people, Jesus is the same as Zeus or Odin or Vishnu or Set or any of the other deities you dismiss as myths. You need to cut the persecution complex out, imo.

Well, I know I find the arguments of someone who doesn't want to be generalized against and attacked to be compelling while they are slinging similar arguments out the other side of their mouth. Yep, compelling arguments. If only all champions of equal rights would be so willing to generalize and attack based on said generalizations. We would get so incredibly far by doing so.

Ah, a persecution complex in denial of Christian history, and the basic tenet of the religion that goes something along the line of "I am the one and only god. All others are false. Mine is the only true religion. No, you cannot have another one." I was wondering when that was going to rear its head.

Seems to me you have more of a problem with your own religion being that of a jealous deity than you do with me pointing out that Christians have been very good at turning said jealousy into their own words and actions.

But I guess I have to add another "some, but not all" in there somewhere, just like I guess I should have to add a "some, but not all" disclaimer when I say "Swedes speak Swedish." Heaven forbid I slight those who don't, even if I'm not actually attacking them in any way what so ever. Well, apart from any such "attack" they may construe themselves with their vivid imaginations. Oh, wait! That "some, but not all" of them may construe. Oh, wait! "Vivid imaginations that some, but not all, of them may possess." Mustn't forget those who are imaginarily challenged. Justice must be meted out by the nanometre! :rolleyes:

I'll give a similar example. One person is arguing using evidence from planned parenthood. The other person responds with "so, planned parenthood was founded by a racist who wanted to purify the white race". It's not germaine to the argument. It's weak debate. And it's a generalized attack which serves no purpose but to spread vitriol.

If a person's arguments are flawed, demonstrate as much. If you disagree with them, say so. But making a generalized attack on 'Christians' or 'abortionists' or 'evolutionists' or whatever group you want to choose is simply weak debating and is unfortunate.

If a person's arguments are flawed, demonstrate as much. If you disagree with them, say so. But making a generalized attack on 'Christians' or 'abortionists' or 'evolutionists' or whatever group you want to choose is simply weak debating and is unfortunate.

You remain Christian-centric in assuming that calling your myth the myth it is, is an attack.

I wasn't generalizing or attacking. The poster said that his authority to judge us all wrong for doing something came from him repeating what Jesus said (yes, I know he ignored other things Jesus said, such as not judging others) and I pointed out that what Jesus is reported to have said holds little sway as his existence can't even be determined and it seems possible he was based on earlier myths. If anything, I was questioning the source of his information and pointing out that it doesn't have credibility with everyone.

Ah, a persecution complex in denial of Christian history, and the basic tenet of the religion that goes something along the line of "I am the one and only god. All others are false. Mine is the only true religion. No, you cannot have another one." I was wondering when that was going to rear its head.

Seems to me you have more of a problem with your own religion being that of a jealous deity than you do with me pointing out that Christians have been very good at turning said jealousy into their own words and actions.

But I guess I have to add another "some, but not all" in there somewhere, just like I guess I should have to add a "some, but not all" disclaimer when I say "Swedes speak Swedish." Heaven forbid I slight those who don't, even if I'm not actually attacking them in any way what so ever. Well, apart from any such "attack" they may construe themselves with their vivid imaginations. Oh, wait! That "some, but not all" of them may construe. Oh, wait! "Vivid imaginations that some, but not all, of them may possess." Mustn't forget those who are imaginarily challenged. Justice must be meted out by the nanometre! :rolleyes:

Ha, yes, generalize it more to justify your actions. I have never persecuted anyone using Christianity as a basis. EVER. Nor have most of the Christians I know. I'm not talking about the general persecution of Christians. I'm talking about YOU. Keep justifying it. You're very convincing.

I wonder how far we would get if everyone used similar justifications. Christians could talk about how they are justified by the portion of gay people who attack Christianity. And vice versa. Muslims could justify their persecution of others by the fact that others persecute them. And hey, we can go way back into history for those justifications. We don't even have to be talking about today. Yep. That's one peaceful world you're setting up a justification for. No treating people like individuals. Group them into ridiculously generalized groups and then justify your persecution of them by the actions of some. Why do I hear a Louis Armstrong tune playing while imagine that world?

You remain Christian-centric in assuming that calling your myth the myth it is, is an attack.

Not all Christians think myth is a bad word. C.S. Lewis claimed:
"Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths; i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of the poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things' ... namely, the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection."

You remain Christian-centric in assuming that calling your myth the myth it is, is an attack.

When she suggests the basic tenet of Christianity is false to debate a single poster, then yes, it's a generalized attack.

Poster A: "I'm black so I don't like white people."
Poster B: "Really? Look at the amount of crime black people commit in America. Like I should listen to black people."

Yep, Poster B is completely justified. Nothing wrong there. Carry on, folks. As long as one is attacking someone from a group that is being insulting then it's all okay. A clear recipe for peace and cogent debate if I've ever heard one. Gosh, I hope everyone reads this thread and takes a lesson from Fass.

I wasn't generalizing or attacking. The poster said that his authority to judge us all wrong for doing something came from him repeating what Jesus said (yes, I know he ignored other things Jesus said, such as not judging others) and I pointed out that what Jesus is reported to have said holds little sway as his existence can't even be determined and it seems possible he was based on earlier myths. If anything, I was questioning the source of his information and pointing out that it doesn't have credibility with everyone.

Actually, had you said it that way, I think it unlikely I would have replied. Somehow the substance of the above comment is a bit different than the substance of what you actually said however.

The myth of Jesus was based on earlier pagan myths.

Hmmmm... I don't see any might or may be or is questionable. Just the suggestion that it's false by saying it's just an evolution of an earlier myth. And make no mistake, I was not simply objecting to the word 'myth'.

:rolleyes: I really think you're being melodramatic and blowing what I said out of proportion. I mean, believe what you want, but don't bring your beliefs in as facts in a debate unless you want them questioned.

Actually, had you said it that way, I think it unlikely I would have replied. Somehow the substance of the above comment is a bit different than the substance of what you actually said however.

Hmmmm... I don't see any might or may be or is questionable. Just the suggestion that it's false by saying it's just an evolution of an earlier myth. And make no mistake, I was not simply objecting to the word 'myth'.
Yes, because I'm sure your phrasing is always perfectly accurate and inoffensive at all times. Seriously, calm down.

:rolleyed: I really think you're being melodramatic and blowing what I said out of proportion.

All I said is that making a generalized statement about the group that poster happens to belong to and is using as justification simply feeds their trolling tactics and draws people into a debate about your comments. Now, you could have just left it at that, but you pressed me so I further explained. If you think claiming that you know Jesus didn't exist is helpful to the debate then perhaps I gave you too much credit.

Yes, because I'm sure your phrasing is always perfectly accurate and inoffensive at all times. Seriously, calm down.

I don't generalize about groups in order to insult them unless it's a group that by definition holds offensive beliefs (like Nazis or Stormfront). I avoid it because I can't argue for treating people like individuals and against it at the same time.

When she suggests the basic tenet of Christianity is false to debate a single poster, then yes, it's a generalized attack.

Poster A: "I'm black so I don't like white people."
Poster B: "Really? Look at the amount of crime black people commit in America. Like I should listen to black people."

Such a false representation.

Yep, Poster B is completely justified. Nothing wrong there. Carry on, folks. As long as one is attacking someone from a group that is being insulting then it's all okay. A clear recipe for peace and cogent debate if I've ever heard one. Gosh, I hope everyone reads this thread and takes a lesson from Fass.

And let's all hope we all develop a nice persecution complex like Jocabia, demanding that nanometre his jealous deity demands he demand.

Ha, yes, generalize it more to justify your actions. I have never persecuted anyone using Christianity as a basis. EVER. Nor have most of the Christians I know. I'm not talking about the general persecution of Christians. I'm talking about YOU. Keep justifying it. You're very convincing.

I wonder how far we would get if everyone used similar justifications. Christians could talk about how they are justified by the portion of gay people who attack Christianity. And vice versa. Muslims could justify their persecution of others by the fact that others persecute them. And hey, we can go way back into history for those justifications. We don't even have to be talking about today. Yep. That's one peaceful world you're setting up a justification for. No treating people like individuals. Group them into ridiculously generalized groups and then justify your persecution of them by the actions of some. Why do I hear a Louis Armstrong tune playing while imagine that world?

Yes, we're all out to get you. You and your little dog, too.

All I said is that making a generalized statement about the group that poster happens to belong to and is using as justification simply feeds their trolling tactics and draws people into a debate about your comments. Now, you could have just left it at that, but you pressed me so I further explained. If you think claiming that you know Jesus didn't exist is helpful to the debate then perhaps I gave you too much credit.
Claiming that it's not certain that Jesus did exist was important to the debate in that instance. If someone stated that Santa Claus said it was a sin to be homosexual or to have premarital sex or have an abortion and I pointed out that Santa Claus was based on a myth about this and that (I forgot the evolution of the Santa myth) then would you still be so pissy? Hell, would you care if he'd said that it was offensive to Brahmin and I pointed out that it's possible that Brahmin never existed? Or is it just because it calls your beliefs into question?

And really, comapring me to a racist is blowing it out of proportion.

Yes, we're all out to get you. You and your little dog, too.

See, keep generalizing. I'm not talking about 'you all'. I'm talking about your behavior. Do strawmen usually work for you?

Illegal, except to save the mothers life.

/sign

Life clearly begins at conception.

A fact of science...only anti-lifers claim otherwise.

I don't generalize about groups in order to insult them unless it's a group that by definition holds offensive beliefs (like Nazis or Stormfront). I avoid it because I can't argue for treating people like individuals and against it at the same time.
I didn't generalize about a group. I said that his point wasn't valid because the authority he appealed to didn't exist in the first place.

Although really, the appeal to authority is a piss poor argument to begin with...

At any rate, I didn't say "all christians suck" as I don't believe that to be true. You're free to believe what you want, if you want to believe Jesus existed, then fine, do so and don't let the facts get in your way, just don't use it as a way to justify forcing others to do what you want them to do or believe is right.

A fact of science...only anti-lifers claim otherwise.

Maybe the "life" of something small and insignificant begins at conception. Personally, I don't mind crushing ants as I walk along the pavement.

A fact of science...only anti-lifers claim otherwise.
lol

anti-lifers.... you anti-choicers crack me up.

It's not a fact of science that life begins at conception, see the discussion around page 10 or so for why that's not the case.

There was a story of a person who had a nail shot through his left ventrical (part of your heart), who would normally need that part to be replaced completely. Instead, he made it to Canada, where they simply put stem cells in his heart, and it healed right up.

I'm gonna have to call BS on that. Source please.

See, keep generalizing. I'm not talking about 'you all'. I'm talking about your behavior. Do strawmen usually work for you?
How the hell was he generalizing? You are acting like we're out to get you when we're not. Last I was aware, we were participating in a civilized debate, especially since the troll left.

Claiming that it's not certain that Jesus did exist was important to the debate in that instance. If someone stated that Santa Claus said it was a sin to be homosexual or to have premarital sex or have an abortion and I pointed out that Santa Claus was based on a myth about this and that (I forgot the evolution of the Santa myth) then would you still be so pissy? Hell, would you care if he'd said that it was offensive to Brahmin and I pointed out that it's possible that Brahmin never existed? Or is it just because it calls your beliefs into question?

And really, comapring me to a racist is blowing it out of proportion.
I didn't suggest you were racist. I was using examples of generalizations that we can all agree we find offensive. We find them offensive not simply because we don't like the conclusions but because using individuals to justify offensive behavior toward the group they belong to is wrong.

Trust me, you aren't calling my beliefs into question. And yes, if you'll find me in many threads saying the EXACT same things to people who attack Muslims of today based on attacking the 'violence' of Mohammed. I happen to be a Christian but my problem is with your attacking a religion simply because an individual is using it (in a flawed way, as you pointed out) to justify their behavior. It has nothing to do with what I happen to believe.

If you implied Saint Nicholas didn't exist, I would say something, but as he's not the basis of a religion, much less so.

See, keep generalizing. I'm not talking about 'you all'. I'm talking about your behavior.

"Yes, Christians happen to be very powerful in the Western world and SOME happen to attack other religions. However, when you attack us."

I don't see no "some, but not all are powerful" in there. Or, wait, is it OK when you generalise about Christians, but not when I do it?

Oh, gee, sir, I do believe your halo is wavering. Will you be as pissy with yourself, now?

Do strawmen usually work for you?

Oh, the added irony.

How the hell was he generalizing? You are acting like we're out to get you when we're not. Last I was aware, we were participating in a civilized debate, especially since the troll left.

I'm not acting like you're out to get me. I reacting to something you actually said. The fact that I belong to the group we are talking about is not important.

I'm gonna have to call BS on that. Source please.
I'm going to guess that the poster you responded to has left the thread, that was on the second page or something like that, wasn't it?

I'm gonna have to call BS on that. Source please.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077125 has an article bearing some relation...

Compulsatory. :p
dumb retard not funny

lol

anti-lifers.... you anti-choicers crack me up.

I am anti-choice if the choice is to murder or not.

It's not a fact of science that life begins at conception, see the discussion around page 10 or so for why that's not the case.

My settings only give me three pages.

Anyway it clearly is a fact of science. An individual organism is created at conception. It has it's complete DNA code that defines it biologically. It is a hard cold fact of science that life begins at conception.

Now you can argue that it's OK to kill said life, if you care to, but that doesn't change the fact.

I didn't suggest you were racist. I was using examples of generalizations that we can all agree we find offensive. We find them offensive not simply because we don't like the conclusions but because using individuals to justify offensive behavior toward the group they belong to is wrong.

Trust me, you aren't calling my beliefs into question. And yes, if you'll find me in many threads saying the EXACT same things to people who attack Muslims of today based on attacking the 'violence' of Mohammed. I happen to be a Christian but my problem is with your attacking a religion simply because an individual is using it (in a flawed way, as you pointed out) to justify their behavior. It has nothing to do with what I happen to believe.

If you implied Saint Nicholas didn't exist, I would say something, but as he's not the basis of a religion, much less so.
kris kringle died a long time ago but so the children would not be sad the parents lied

I think it should be legal, but people should be informed about other contraceptive methods and these methods should be used preferably over abortions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077125 has an article bearing some relation...

OK, thank you. Well they were given their own stem cells from bone marrow. That's a promising development but no babies were harmed so it's probably not relevant to this debate.

I am anti-choice if the choice is to murder or not.



My settings only give me three pages.

Anyway it clearly is a fact of science. An individual organism is created at conception. It has it's complete DNA code that defines it biologically. It is a hard cold fact of science that life begins at conception.

Now you can argue that it's OK to kill said life, if you care to, but that doesn't change the fact.


Murder only covers sentient beings killed maliciously. If something without a brain is destroyed, then it does not fit under the definition of murder. Besides, if you're against killing ANYTHING living, stop breathing. You are killing spores in the air. If you've eaten a cheeseburger, you effectively killed a cow. What makes human life so friggin special?!

I've seen cats that were too young to reproduce healthy offspring (or survive giving birth) put themselves in harm's way to terminate the pregnancy. (Of course, with at least a dozen cats in my yard for the past 8-10 years, I've seen behavior run the gamut -- some animals also gave birth and then drowned their young.)

OK, thank you. Well they were given their own stem cells from bone marrow. That's a promising development but no babies were harmed so it's probably not relevant to this debate.

No babies are harmed in the collection of fetal stem-cells, either, and similar trials have been made with fetal stem-cells. You do know most of the civilised world allows stem-cell research?

"Yes, Christians happen to be very powerful in the Western world and SOME happen to attack other religions. However, when you attack us."

I don't see no "some, but not all" in there. Or, wait, is it OK when you generalise about Christians, but not when I do it?

Oh, gee, sir, I do believe your halo is wavering. Will you be as pissy with yourself, now?

I was talking about Christians as a group. Literally referring to Christianity being a powerful force.

And I believe you can tell the difference between using the actions of an individual to justify an offensive statement and simply making a bland statement. If you're going to make offensive statements and justify them with the actions of some then expect to be corrected. Or do you not say anything when people say "gays are all promiscuous disease spreaders"? Does it only matter to you when people are saying something that you find offensive? I mean didn't you just get mad at someone for using the word 'gay' in an offensive way in a joke.

Make no mistake. This has nothing to do with Christianity. This is about making offensive comments about a group and justifying it with the actions of some of that group.


Oh, the added irony.

Ha. Are you suggesting she didn't suggest Jesus wasn't a real man, thus insulting an entire religion, in response to a single poster who was of that religion? Are you suggesting that didn't happen. Do you even know what a strawman is?

I didn't suggest you were racist. I was using examples of generalizations that we can all agree we find offensive.
...and you compared me to a racist in the process. My point was nothing like the one in your scenario. Mine was more like:

Person A: People who don't spend time in self-contemplation are terrible people because Apollo said that it is important to know oneself.
Person B: Apollo likely didn't exist, perhaps you should try basing your opinion on someone else's philosophies.

We find them offensive not simply because we don't like the conclusions but because using individuals to justify offensive behavior toward the group they belong to is wrong.
I wasn't justifying offensive behaviour towards a group. My statement wasn't meant to be offensive at all.

Trust me, you aren't calling my beliefs into question.
Good to know you're not one of those christians who have such weak faith that the existence of non-believers causes them concern. (yes, I am saying that not all christians are like that, but there are christians who are like that...)

And yes, if you'll find me in many threads saying the EXACT same things to people who attack Muslims of today based on attacking the 'violence' of Mohammed.
Except that I'm not attacking anyone.

I happen to be a Christian but my problem is with your attacking a religion simply because an individual is using it (in a flawed way, as you pointed out) to justify their behavior.
I'm not attacking a religion either. I'm saying that a creature of myth is just that.

If you implied Saint Nicholas didn't exist, I would say something, but as he's not the basis of a religion, much less so.
If someone made an argument to authority based on Santa Claus and I pointed out that Santa didn't exist, you would call me out on that? Honestly?
It's entirely because Jesus is the basis of a religion.

You do know most of the civilised world allows stem-cell research?

Yeah...it should be incorporated into the definition of civilised. :)

OK, thank you. Well they were given their own stem cells from bone marrow. That's a promising development but no babies were harmed so it's probably not relevant to this debate.


We've known for a LONG time that stem cells can be extracted from umbilical cord blood -- something that hospitals discard on a daily basis. This harms NO ONE, and there are no painful procedures done to extract the blood. The cord is nonsentient and a waste product.

I used to be pro-life, untill I saw a documentary on India and Population control, in which women, unable to get legal abortions from doctors, would attempt home abortions with things like bleach. That changed my mind.

Not all Christians think myth is a bad word. C.S. Lewis claimed:
"Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths; i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of the poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things' ... namely, the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection."
what do you mean really happened?

none of the details of jesus's life in the gospels checks out. no star, no wise men, no census, no slaughter of the innocents, no angels, no sudden darkness around the time he is supposed to have died.

i guess i need it spelled out more.

I hope you're a virgin. Being gay is a crime worthy of death. If you accept Jesus into your heart, He can helo you turn away from your sin, and the eternal punishment will be lifted.

Then again, simply being human is a crime worthy of death. But Jesus is there to save us, if you believe in Him.This guy is even worst than a typical islamic extremist. :rolleyes:

I am anti-choice if the choice is to murder or not.
See the earlier discussion on what it is to murder.

My settings only give me three pages.
For the whole thread?

Anyway it clearly is a fact of science. An individual organism is created at conception. It has it's complete DNA code that defines it biologically. It is a hard cold fact of science that life begins at conception.
DNA doesnt' make it a life. If that was the case, identical twins would be one life and chimreic people would be two.
I'll sum it up. In order for something to be alive, it has to fullfill certain requirements, it must have cells, it must respire, grow, respond to stimulus et c. Until the fetus reaches 20 weeks of development it does not respond to stimulus as an organism, instead it responds as individual cells. While the individual cells are alive, combined they do not constitute an organism, but a group of cells. Therefore at conception it is alive, but not a life, quite a distinction.
Thus, it is a cold hard fact that you're wrong and need to take biology classes.

Now you can argue that it's OK to kill said life, if you care to, but that doesn't change the fact.
It's still not a life. Can't take something away when it's never there in the first place.

See the earlier discussion on what it is to murder.


For the whole thread?


DNA doesnt' make it a life. If that was the case, identical twins would be one life and chimreic people would be two.
I'll sum it up. In order for something to be alive, it has to fullfill certain requirements, it must have cells, it must respire, grow, respond to stimulus et c. Until the fetus reaches 20 weeks of development it does not respond to stimulus as an organism, instead it responds as individual cells. While the individual cells are alive, combined they do not constitute an organism, but a group of cells. Therefore at conception it is alive, but not a life, quite a distinction.
Thus, it is a cold hard fact that you're wrong and need to take biology classes.


It's still not a life. Can't take something away when it's never there in the first place.

Thanks for saving the rest of us the trouble. 10 points for you.

OK, thank you. Well they were given their own stem cells from bone marrow. That's a promising development but no babies were harmed so it's probably not relevant to this debate.
No babies are harmed in other stem cell research either.

Stop using improper terminology, it's not a baby until it leaves the womb alive.

Thanks for saving the rest of us the trouble. 10 points for you.
Thank you. :D

I was talking about Christians as a group. Literally referring to Christianity being a powerful force.

No, you said "Christians." You didn't say "Christians as a group" (which, by the way, is not any less a generalisation) or "Christianity" (this isn't any less of a generalisation about people, either, for that matter.) You said "Christians are powerful." I know many, many Christians who are not powerful. How dare you generalise about them in such a fashion? Imply they're all power-hungry maniacs?

See, I can play the same pathetic little game you're playing, and I can make it sound as stupid as when it's coming from you.

And I believe you can tell the difference between using the actions of an individual to justify an offensive statement and simply making a bland statement.

You apparently can't, but thank you for giving me the credit.

If you're going to make offensive statements and justify them with the actions of some then expect to be corrected. Or do you not say anything when people say "gays are all promiscuous disease spreaders"? Does it only matter to you when people are saying something that you find offensive? I mean didn't you just get mad at someone for using the word 'gay' in an offensive way in a joke.

Yeah, yeah. You generalised as much about Christians as I did, and we can all see how contrived your pissiness is.

Make no mistake. This has nothing to do with Christianity. This is about making offensive comments about a group and justifying it with the actions of some of that group.

Apart from when you say it, that is. Then it's OK. You're allowed to generalise, the rest of us aren't. The rest of us must be out to get you.

Ha. Are you suggesting she didn't suggest Jesus wasn't a real man, thus insulting an entire religion, in response to a single poster who was of that religion? Are you suggesting that didn't happen. Do you even know what a strawman is?

There is no reliable and independent proof that Jesus was real. The poster was talking about Jesus as if he were. We are allowed to point out the fallacy in assuming that he was, and we are allowed to point out that the religion the poster follows is as worthless to us in a debate as are the myths it plagiarised, without caring if it gives you opportunity to strut your mock-indignation, Jocabia.

Thank you. :D

You're very welcome. *looks above* It appears Fass has sunk his fangs into a regular forumite. This could be interesting. *kicks back and grabs the popcorn*

You're very welcome. *looks above* It appears Fass has sunk his fangs into a regular forumite. This could be interesting. *kicks back and grabs the popcorn*
Yes, it is getting entertaining now that Jocabia is ignoring my arguments and only taking on Fass. I'm not sure whether I should feel neglected or join in the kicking back.

Yes, it is getting entertaining now that Jocabia is ignoring my arguments and only taking on Fass. I'm not sure whether I should feel neglected or join in the kicking back.


*hands over some popcorn* It looks like Fass has a pretty good grip on Jocabia's proverbial balls right now.

No babies are harmed in the collection of fetal stem-cells, either, and similar trials have been made with fetal stem-cells. You do know most of the civilised world allows stem-cell research?

Actually, there have been very few, if any, trials with fetal stem cells. It is rare that there is an opportunity to collect fetal stem cells, and the difference in potential between fetal stem cells and other forms of adult stem cells (yes, as odd as it may sound, fetal stem cells are actually adult stem cells) is very small.

There have been some trials, IIRC, using embryonic stem cells, and there is certainly quite a bit of research involving them. I work right next to the embryonic stem cell core at my university, although my work is actually with bone marrow progenitors.

We've known for a LONG time that stem cells can be extracted from umbilical cord blood -- something that hospitals discard on a daily basis. This harms NO ONE, and there are no painful procedures done to extract the blood. The cord is nonsentient and a waste product.

Indeed, just as we've known for a long time that stem cells can be extracted from bone marrow.

However, every stem cell is not created equal, as it were. Umbilical cord stem cells, like bone marrow cells, are adult stem cells. They are limited in both proliferative and differentiative potential when compared to embryonic stem cells. Meanwhile, the embryos that have been used to derive embryonic stem cell lines, are also nonsentient, and are also waste products - considering that they were slated for destruction.

In order for something to be alive, it has to fullfill certain requirements, it must have cells, it must respire, grow, respond to stimulus et c. Until the fetus reaches 20 weeks of development it does not respond to stimulus as an organism, instead it responds as individual cells.

This isn't quite true. The fetus has a developed enough system to respond to stimulus as an organism at approximately the end of the first trimester. 20 weeks is the point at which it may be able to feel pain, and the *conscious* portions of the brain begin to develop.

Your point really still stands, though, since the vast majority of abortions occur before the end of the first trimester, and those performed after 20 weeks are only for medical reasons ((in the US, at least)).

This isn't quite true. The fetus has a developed enough system to respond to stimulus as an organism at approximately the end of the first trimester. 20 weeks is the point at which it may be able to feel pain, and the *conscious* portions of the brain begin to develop.
Really? I was under the impression that there weren't enough nerve connections before the 20 week mark for it to respond as an organism.

Your point really still stands, though, since the vast majority of abortions occur before the end of the first trimester, and those performed after 20 weeks are only for medical reasons ((in the US, at least)).
Well, then it works just the same. :)

what do you mean really happened?

none of the details of jesus's life in the gospels checks out. no star, no wise men, no census, no slaughter of the innocents, no angels, no sudden darkness around the time he is supposed to have died.

C.S. Lewis believed it (i.e., the crucifixion and resurrection) really happened. Most likely, his opinion was based completely on faith. The only evidences that I have seen pertaining to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure are not very convincing (e.g., one an obvious forgery by later Christian authors).

Actually, there have been very few, if any, trials with fetal stem cells. It is rare that there is an opportunity to collect fetal stem cells, and the difference in potential between fetal stem cells and other forms of adult stem cells (yes, as odd as it may sound, fetal stem cells are actually adult stem cells) is very small.

There have been some trials, IIRC, using embryonic stem cells, and there is certainly quite a bit of research involving them. I work right next to the embryonic stem cell core at my university, although my work is actually with bone marrow progenitors.



Indeed, just as we've known for a long time that stem cells can be extracted from bone marrow.

However, every stem cell is not created equal, as it were. Umbilical cord stem cells, like bone marrow cells, are adult stem cells. They are limited in both proliferative and differentiative potential when compared to embryonic stem cells. Meanwhile, the embryos that have been used to derive embryonic stem cell lines, are also nonsentient, and are also waste products - considering that they were slated for destruction.



This isn't quite true. The fetus has a developed enough system to respond to stimulus as an organism at approximately the end of the first trimester. 20 weeks is the point at which it may be able to feel pain, and the *conscious* portions of the brain begin to develop.

Your point really still stands, though, since the vast majority of abortions occur before the end of the first trimester, and those performed after 20 weeks are only for medical reasons ((in the US, at least)).


Embryonic stem cells can be/are often extracted from embyros created in and discarded by fertility clinics, correct?

Actually, there have been very few, if any, trials with fetal stem cells. It is rare that there is an opportunity to collect fetal stem cells, and the difference in potential between fetal stem cells and other forms of adult stem cells (yes, as odd as it may sound, fetal stem cells are actually adult stem cells) is very small.

There have been some trials, IIRC, using embryonic stem cells, and there is certainly quite a bit of research involving them. I work right next to the embryonic stem cell core at my university, although my work is actually with bone marrow progenitors.

Slip of tongue. I, of course, meant embryonic. I blame it on Swedish not having any good name for "foetus" ("foster" is used quite indiscriminately, and can actually even mean "figment") thus making me forget the embryo-foetus divide in quotidian discussions, but you are mostly correct.

No, you said "Christians." You didn't say "Christians as a group" (which, by the way, is not any less a generalisation) or "Christianity" (this is any less of a generalisation, either, for that matter.) You said "Christians are powerful." I know many, many Christians who are not powerful. How dare you generalise about them in such a fashion? Imply they're all power-hungry maniacs?

I was actually talking about the group not the individuals, but I'll give that my point would have been better made by saying Christianity. We can argue whether Christianity is a force in the modern world, but I don't think the evidence is for you. That is not evidence that individual Christians have the power of that force, however.

See, I can play the same pathetic little game you're playing, and I can make it sound as stupid as when it's coming from you.

Perhaps if you call it stupid, you'll be justified. Yes, referring to Christianity and it's effect on the world is exactly the same as saying something offensive about the central tenent of the religion in response to an individual of that group. Yep. Exactly the same. Compelling stuff, that is. You're right. When you say it, it does sound stupid. If we were talking about the same thing, I would be embarrassed. Fortunately, I wasn't saying an obviously offensive statement to the members of the group and justifying it by the actions of a single member of that group. She was. One would hope you can tell the difference.

You apparently can't, but thank you for giving me the credit.

Uh-huh. More compelling arguments. How the entire world doesn't come around to your way of thinking when you use such compelling arguments, I'll never know. Perhaps, you'll tell me again how I'm just upset because everyone's persecuting me.

Yeah, yeah. You generalised as much about Christians as I did, and we can all see how contrived your pissiness is.

We were talking a generalization that nearly all Christians would disagree with and most would find offensive. I gave an example that is not likely to offend anyone and was MEANT to refer to the group. Yep, exactly the same. If one said black people are poorer than white people in the US that's exactly equivalent to saying black people are criminals. Yep. Exactly equivalent.

Apart from when you say it, that is. Then it's OK. You're allowed to generalise, the rest of us aren't. The rest of us must be out to get you.

I'm not allowed to offend individuals in a group by generalizing about it. That's what was done here. And you further justified it with more generalizations. You justified offending a group of people by the actions of individuals in the group. I never did that. And THAT is what we're talking about. I'd like to think you are actually paying attention. Please prove me right.

There is no reliable and independent proof that Jesus was real. The poster was talking about Jesus as if he were. We are allowed to point out the fallacy in assuming that he was, and we are allowed to point out that the religion he follows is as worthless to us in a debate as are the myths it plagiarised, without caring if it gives you opportunity to strut your mock-indignation, Jocabia.
Yes, no rational person would think that argument would be offensive. Nope. Why would anyone think otherwise? Your no reliable proof argument aside, there is no way that any reasonable person thought debunking the central tenet of Christianity was justified by the actions of a troll.

I know I am also compelled by people who attack various Muslims on this forum by attacking Mohammed. It's the central tenent of cogent debate. If only everyone did it. This forum would be wonderful.

25 points to Fass today for the kickass, civilized posts!

Really? I was under the impression that there weren't enough nerve connections before the 20 week mark for it to respond as an organism.

Everything I have read tends to point to more like week 12. It cannot respond in all the ways that we can, but it can respond as an organism. It does not, however, have any of connections that would lead to consciousness, or, according to recent studies, pain perception.


Embryonic stem cells can be/are often extracted from embyros created in and discarded by fertility clinics, correct?

Yes. All of the "approved lines" in the US and most of the lines throughout the US and other countries have been created from discarded embryos at fertility clinics. I recently read that a few lines have recently been derived from embryos created specifically for research. These are being used to investigate certain disease processes (the patients who donated eggs and sperm to be used carry certain genetic diseases). Meanwhile, in vitro fertilization clinics in the US alone discard and destroy an extimated 100,000 embryos per year, with some 400,000 still in storage.

Slip of tongue. I, of course, meant embryonic. I blame it on Swedish not having any good name for "foetus" ("foster" is used quite indiscriminately) thus making me forget the embryo-fetus divide in quotidian discussions, but you are mostly correct.

No problem. I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the right page. Regardless of how a given person feels about embryonic stem cell research, they should at least be well-informed on it before making that decision. It is amazing to me how many people think that embryonic stem cells are derived from aborted fetuses, when they, in fact, could not possibly be derived from such a source. Thus, I try to dispel that confusion when it comes up.

even though iam a christian i think that abortion should be leagal. here is why...

I know its not my place to pass judgement on people and if i were in their shoes i would probly do the same thing. i dont hold people that arnt christians to the same standered. I think that the Governmet has no place telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. abortion is a personal choice and no one should be able to condem some one for chosing to have one...

*hands over some popcorn* It looks like Fass has a pretty good grip on Jocabia's proverbial balls right now.
Indeed.
*eats popcorn*

Everything I have read tends to point to more like week 12. It cannot respond in all the ways that we can, but it can respond as an organism. It does not, however, have any of connections that would lead to consciousness, or, according to recent studies, pain perception.



Yes. All of the "approved lines" in the US and most of the lines throughout the US and other countries have been created from discarded embryos at fertility clinics. I recently read that a few lines have recently been derived from embryos created specifically for research. These are being used to investigate certain disease processes (the patients who donated eggs and sperm to be used carry certain genetic diseases). Meanwhile, in vitro fertilization clinics in the US alone discard and destroy an extimated 100,000 embryos per year, with some 400,000 still in storage.



No problem. I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the right page. Regardless of how a given person feels about embryonic stem cell research, they should at least be well-informed on it before making that decision. It is amazing to me how many people think that embryonic stem cells are derived from aborted fetuses, when they, in fact, could not possibly be derived from such a source. Thus, I try to dispel that confusion when it comes up.


*points at the bit directed to herself* Thanks -- I wanted to clear that up as well.

Really? I was under the impression that there weren't enough nerve connections before the 20 week mark for it to respond as an organism.


Well, then it works just the same. :)

You're thinking of the forebrain. The brainstem engages much earlier. This is the point when it begins to behave as an organism. It still doesn't mean the type of brain activity required for life at all other stages. The brain activity we use to measure life for humans isn't present until approximately 20+ weeks. The exact time is under debate but there are likely no legal elective abortions occuring after that time.

25 points to Fass today for the kickass, civilized posts!

I'm always amused by how what passes for civilized varies by what group the target belongs to. Had I been making equally rude and inflamatory remarks about gays because the trolls was a gay poster, I suspect there would be equal support.

C.S. Lewis believed it (i.e., the crucifixion and resurrection) really happened. Most likely, his opinion was based completely on faith. The only evidences that I have seen pertaining to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure are not very convincing (e.g., one an obvious forgery by later Christian authors).
yes cs lewis did believe it.

does that make it more convincing to you?

the interesting thing to me is that none of the details of christs life are true AND that the older the writing, the less details there are. the epistles of paul being the oldest with just the barest of details...that being that jesus was crucified.

I was actually talking about the group not the individuals, but I'll give that my point would have been better made by saying Christianity. We can argue whether Christianity is a force in the modern world, but I don't think the evidence is for you. That is not evidence that individual Christians have the power of that force, however.

Perhaps if you call it stupid, you'll be justified. Yes, referring to Christianity and it's effect on the world is exactly the same as saying something offensive about the central tenent of the religion in response to an individual of that group. Yep. Exactly the same. Compelling stuff, that is. You're right. When you say it, it does sound stupid. If we were talking about the same thing, I would be embarrassed. Fortunately, I wasn't saying an obviously offensive statement to the members of the group and justifying it by the actions of a single member of that group. She was. One would hope you can tell the difference.

Uh-huh. More compelling arguments. How the entire world doesn't come around to your way of thinking when you use such compelling arguments, I'll never know. Perhaps, you'll tell me again how I'm just upset because everyone's persecuting me.

We were talking a generalization that nearly all Christians would disagree with and most would find offensive. I gave an example that is not likely to offend anyone and was MEANT to refer to the group. Yep, exactly the same. If one said black people are poorer than white people in the US that's exactly equivalent to saying black people are criminals. Yep. Exactly equivalent.

I'm not allowed to offend individuals in a group by generalizing about it. That's what was done here. And you further justified it with more generalizations. You justified offending a group of people by the actions of individuals in the group. I never did that. And THAT is what we're talking about. I'd like to think you are actually paying attention. Please prove me right.

For those following the discussion, I would like to spare you having to read that like I had it to read it and I will summarise what was written above thusly: "When I generalise it's not bad. When you generalise, it is bad. All because I'm special, and my generalisation is not generalisation, even though it is, but isn't. "

Jocabia, face it. You made a tempest in a teapot, a rooster out of a hen, a bale out of a straw, a whatever out of something lesser that it was not - I'm tired of thinking of Anglophone idioms to phrase it in. Then you did the exact same thing you accused me of, but are now ever so willing to excuse your own behaviour. Well, I buy the excuse as little as I buy your basis for vexation here, and I am thus not so poised to giving a damn about it.

Yes, no rational person would think that argument would be offensive. Nope. Why would anyone think otherwise? Your no reliable proof argument aside, there is no way that any reasonable person thought debunking the central tenet of Christianity was justified by the actions of a troll.

I know I am also compelled by people who attack various Muslims on this forum by attacking Mohammed. It's the central tenent of cogent debate. If only everyone did it. This forum would be wonderful.

And I don't buy your basis for indignation in this part of the discussion, either, because it's very much "oh, you hurt my feelings because I want my religion to be special." You've already had it explained to you that, no, it isn't.

I'm always amused by how what passes for civilized varies by what group the target belongs to. Had I been making equally rude and inflamatory remarks about gays because the trolls was a gay poster, I suspect there would be equal support.

It seems not so many others are buying the basis for your bellyaching, either. What is that English saying about "sour grapes?"

Fortunately, I wasn't saying an obviously offensive statement to the members of the group and justifying it by the actions of a single member of that group. She was. One would hope you can tell the difference.
You're definitely generalizing again, I've encountered some christians who aren't offended in the least when I point out the complete and total lack of evidence for Jesus' existence or that his life bears a remarkable similarity to earlier mythological figures. Also, if you're going to talk about me, talk to me, don't just talk to Fass about me, it's somewhat rude.

We were talking a generalization that nearly all Christians would disagree with and most would find offensive.
I didn't make a generalization. I just called Jesus a myth. I really don't see how that's a generalization at all, since I made a statement about one mytholgical figure.

Your no reliable proof argument aside, there is no way that any reasonable person thought debunking the central tenet of Christianity was justified by the actions of a troll.
Jesus' existence isn't necessarily the central tenet of Christianity, again, you're generalizing about how people follow their religion. And yes, it was pretty reasonable.

I know I am also compelled by people who attack various Muslims on this forum by attacking Mohammed. It's the central tenent of cogent debate. If only everyone did it. This forum would be wonderful.
Except that I didn't attack christians, I didnt' attack Jesus. Hard to attack someone that doesn't exist.

yes cs lewis did believe it.

does that make it more convincing to you?

the interesting thing to me is that none of the details of christs life are true AND that the older the writing, the less details there are. the epistles of paul being the oldest with just the barest of details...that being that jesus was crucified.
I don't think s/he believes it necessarily. S/he was just quoting CS Lewis in pointing out that not all christians are offended by calling Jesus a myth.

Jocabia, face it. You made a tempest in a teapot, a rooster out of a hen, a bale out of a straw, a whatever out of something lesser that it was not - I'm tired of thinking of Anglophone idioms to phrase it in.
A mountain out of a molehill? I think it's the most common one.

Yes, it is getting entertaining now that Jocabia is ignoring my arguments and only taking on Fass. I'm not sure whether I should feel neglected or join in the kicking back.

Actually, you said you were done with it at the same time I did, so I dropped that part of the argument. The thing is, if you read my original reply was that if you make a comment like that, one that so many people are going to find offensive, that you are going to create a debate centered around Christianity and likely one that would not be productive. You actually agreed. I didn't think what you said was that big of a deal. I just thought it was bad form. Your response was to agree with some things I said and disagree with others. A reasonable response that ended with the suggestion that we stop. I listened to that suggestion, at least in terms of replying to you.

Fass' reply was to make further generalizations and justify his opinions with claiming that most persecution comes form Christians and misrepresenting my argument as a persecution complex. The amusing part is that your comment wasn't directed at me (so I don't where the persecution part comes in), I never suggested I was offended, and I stated directly that I had a problem with the fact that it was an offensive generalized statement that injures the group the poster belongs to rather than addressing the issues of the poster (which YOU even suggested could more adequately be addressed by other means).

I don't think s/he believes it necessarily. S/he was just quoting CS Lewis in pointing out that not all christians are offended by calling Jesus a myth.

Another case where Jocabia generalised about Christians. Jocabia alone gets to decide what they are freakishly easy to offend. Because, you know, he's allowed to generalise, and the rest of us aren't. Well, not I, at least, apparently.

It seems not so many others are buying the basis for your bellyaching, either. What is that English saying about "sour grapes?"

Appeal to popularity. We know you're more popular than me.

and I stated directly that I had a problem with the fact that it was an offensive generalized statement that injures the group the poster belongs to rather than addressing the issues of the poster

There he is, again, ladies and gents - generalising (imagine thunder and lightning erupting as you read that word) about what does or does not injure a group. Because Jocabia is entitled.

Actually, you said you were done with it at the same time I did, so I dropped that part of the argument. The thing is, if you read my original reply was that if you make a comment like that, one that so many people are going to find offensive, that you are going to create a debate centered around Christianity and likely one that would not be productive. You actually agreed. I didn't think what you said was that big of a deal. I just thought it was bad form. Your response was to agree with some things I said and disagree with others. A reasonable response that ended with the suggestion that we stop. I listened to that suggestion, at least in terms of replying to you.

Fass' reply was to make further generalizations and justify his opinions with claiming that most persecution comes form Christians and misrepresenting my argument as a persecution complex. The amusing part is that your comment wasn't directed at me (so I don't where the persecution part comes in), I never suggested I was offended, and I stated directly that I had a problem with the fact that it was an offensive generalized statement that injures the group the poster belongs to rather than addressing the issues of the poster (which YOU even suggested could more adequately be addressed by other means).
Well, I said that the discussion on whether Jesus actually existed probably belonged in another thread. And you did respond to me after that post... you just stopped after a while.

Another case where Jocabia generalised about Christians. Jocabia alone gets to decide what they are freakishly easy to offend. Because, you know, he's allowed to generalise, and the rest of us aren't. Well, not I, at least, apparently.
I still don't get how I generalized in the first place either.

an abortion thread... huh.
i thought it was about time for you guys to have another one of those. thank god, cause i was worried

Appeal to popularity.

You were the one who tried to impugn someone who complimented me. Sour grapes, indeed.

We know you're more popular than me.

Alas, the loss to my honour that lies in that not being such a difficult feat to accomplish.

I still don't get how I generalized in the first place either.

You don't need to get it, because there isn't anything to get. You've just been swept up in Jocabia's complex. Such a tilt-a-whirl o' fun, no?

You don't need to get it, because there isn't anything to get. You've just been swept up in Jocabia's complex. Such a tilt-a-whirl o' fun, no?
Well, it did kill the abortion discussion... although I expect that the people who briefly interrupted will come back in a while complaining that nobody responded to their posts as they've been buried in other, unrelated discussion.

Well, it did kill the abortion discussion... although I expect that the people who briefly interrupted will come back in a while complaining that nobody responded to their posts as they've been buried in other, unrelated discussion.
bravo
can i be first to complain:D

Well, it did kill the abortion discussion... although I expect that the people who briefly interrupted will come back in a while complaining that nobody responded to their posts as they've been buried in other, unrelated discussion.

Funny how Jocabia was the one bitching the most about the unrelated discussion. I guess, as always, when he's part of it, it's not so bad.

Wow. *munches popcorn*

Another 25 points for Fass! It takes skill to be abrasive and yet remain civilized.

bravo
can i be first to complain:D
Well, I really think that nobody responded to your post...

But it was reasonable and I agreed with it. It may be sad, but I only really respond to the posts I disagree with most of the time.

You're definitely generalizing again, I've encountered some christians who aren't offended in the least when I point out the complete and total lack of evidence for Jesus' existence or that his life bears a remarkable similarity to earlier mythological figures. Also, if you're going to talk about me, talk to me, don't just talk to Fass about me, it's somewhat rude.

I explained this in another post. I thought you were done. If I missed a particular post you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to do so. Fass compounded the problem which is why I replied. Let's look at this mountain I made -

[QUOTE=Jocabia]Come on, don't take that bait. This guy has nothing to do with Christianity. Attacking Christianity just adds credibility to his argument.

Unless Jesus was a man, in which case the details of his life were based on *gasp* his life. Pretending you're not attacking Christianity by calling the central tenet of it a myth is bullocks. Again, this guy is trying to get this kind of nonsensical debate going on. It has nothing to do with abortion and by attacking the existence of Christ you are most certainly taking his bait. You're welcome to do so, but it's disappointing.

When she says the story of his life is based on other people or myths, she says it's false and it is not germaine to the thread and it most certainly rises to the bait laid out by our friend. There is no need to attack the central tenant of the Christian faith simply because this person is pretending to be Christian. To do so is essentially the same tactic as our friend is using.


Yep, I was flying off the handle there. I was simply expressing that I didn't think it was an appropriate way to reply to the poster.

Below is your very reasonable reply, and it would have ended here had it just been you and I talking.

True. I suppose that's for another thread anyways. But he did make a statement implying that Jesus was real and had real authority so I pointed out that this might not be the case.

(also, it seems rather unlikely to me that the exact same events would happen to two holy men... and really, I don't think that any christians would have issues calling Zeus a myth. I view christianity to be on par with all other religions and if there's no evidence that the characters existed or they appear plagerized from earlier sources, I'm not about to hesitate in pointing that out.)

Now in the midst our relatively simply conversation where we basically end up agreeing, we see Fass' reasonable posts.

I see that all the time (Christians are very good at attacking other religions, while remaining blind to the fallacies of their own), even if it's not that hard to point at the fallacies of a four-handed man-elephant deity. You're just centred on Western culture, where Christianity is dominant. It, however, doesn't deserve to be treated any differently from any other religion or mythology.

Justifies offending Christians by things other Christians have done. This exasperated the argument and this is where the wheels fell off the wagon so to speak. Interesting that our conversation was so civil, while when Fass gets involved it isn't. Hmmmm...

As far as generalizing, I said that I am less careful with generalizations that are not going to offend anyone. However, if I was going to talk about terrorism and Muslims, for example, I would be quite careful to direct my comments. In my experience, you do as well, which is why I spoke up. Fass, however, has no such history. Fass has a beef with Christianity and gets off by offending Christians whether it is warranted or isn't. I could fill the thread with quotes. Fass justifies the behavior by the persecution he and others have received at the hands of certain groups of Christians. We've encountered a few others who feel such generalizations are justified by past persecutions. Lyric comes to mind.

Well, I really think that nobody responded to your post...

But it was reasonable and I agreed with it. It may be sad, but I only really respond to the posts I disagree with most of the time.

See. Now you know why I didn't reply to you after a point. ;)

Funny how Jocabia was the one bitching the most about the unrelated discussion. I guess, as always, when he's part of it, it's not so bad.
That is kinda funny.

See. Now you know why I didn't reply to you after a point. ;)
So you agreed that my example of what I did was more reasonable than your example using race and that you were basically completely wrong about me setting out to offend people and instead making a reasonable post questioning the source for a basis in an argument? And basically, you agree that I'm right and you're wrong?

(bottom of page 26 if you're wondering and have the same settings as me)

I still don't get how I generalized in the first place either.

You didn't actually. Fass did. I was talking about the fact that a poster makes comments that are 'supposedly' justified by Jesus (even though you pointed out how they're not) and you replied with a comment directed at the group the guy belongs to. It wasn't a focused response. When I started talking about generalizing, I was talking about Fass and at some point I didn't keep the names right. Fass was the only one justifying offending Christians by generalizing about Christians (as I quoted).l

Justifies offending Christians by things other Christians have done. This exasperated the argument and this is where the wheels fell off the wagon so to speak. Interesting that our conversation was so civil, while when Fass gets involved it isn't. Hmmmm...
I didn't say that bit, Fass did... I know in the discussion you mention Fass, but in the quoting it's me...

I haven't been around enough lately to really know the posting habits of anyone so I can't really attack or defend Fass and his usual behaviour, but as much as you're being reasonable right now, you did appear to be getting pretty heated earlier on.

So you agreed that my example of what I did was more reasonable than your example using race and that you were basically completely wrong about me setting out to offend people and instead making a reasonable post questioning the source for a basis in an argument?

(bottom of page 26 if you're wondering and have the same settings as me)

You guys were arguing together and agreeing with each other so I was arguing against both together. My examples were not to suggest you're a racist and when you asked before I said so. I simply chose something that was more universally offensive. For some reason, because of the history of Christianity, people are quite happy to jump on the pile when it's a Christian at the bottom.

I actually happen to use the similarity to Mithras as an argument when it applies. The point I made in the first several posts was that your post was going to hijack the thread and feed the trolling (coincidentally the troll disappeared right when this began). I agree that you may not have been trying to be offensive. I still think the response was not justified.

I didn't say that bit, Fass did... I know in the discussion you mention Fass, but in the quoting it's me...

I haven't been around enough lately to really know the posting habits of anyone so I can't really attack or defend Fass and his usual behaviour, but as much as you're being reasonable right now, you did appear to be getting pretty heated earlier on.

Again, it was in reply to Fass. I mixed you two together. Unfortunately, Fass continued and you backed him up several times so I kept going. I did want to let this die and said so next to the same post where you said it. I admit I should have responded to you seperately. It is not my experience that you have an general intolerance for Christians. Fass on the other hand...

And yes, Fass said that bit and I was copying the tags and forgot to edit. Sorry for misquoting.

I haven't been around enough lately to really know the posting habits of anyone so I can't really attack or defend Fass and his usual behaviour, but as much as you're being reasonable right now, you did appear to be getting pretty heated earlier on.

Hush, now. Jocabia is allowed to get heated, just like he's allowed to generalise, and nobody else is. Where he is civil, others aren't. Funny how he seems the ocean of civility, and every thread he enters is commandeered by ruffians like me, uncivilising them. It can't have anything to do with Jocabia, no, no. He's allowed, and don't you forget it.

You were the one who tried to impugn someone who complimented me. Sour grapes, indeed.



Alas, the loss to my honour that lies in that not being such a difficult feat to accomplish.

Exactly what I'd expect from you, Fass. Golly, I sure wish I was more popular on an internet forum. That would definitely complete my life. What passes for insults from you are laughable. I'm fine with you being more popular.

You guys were arguing together and agreeing with each other so I was arguing against both together. My examples were not to suggest you're a racist and when you asked before I said so. I simply chose something that was more universally offensive.
But my post wasn't universally offensive. Not even all christians would be offended by that.

For some reason, because of the history of Christianity, people are quite happy to jump on the pile when it's a Christian at the bottom.
See, this is the persecution complex we were pointing out earlier.

The point I made in the first several posts was that your post was going to hijack the thread and feed the trolling (coincidentally the troll disappeared right when this began). I agree that you may not have been trying to be offensive. I still think the response was not justified.
I don't think it necessarily would have hijacked the thread had it not been pointed out and then discussed to death. I also suspect that perhaps the mods got to the troll...
And I still think my response was justified.

Hush, now. Jocabia is allowed to get heated, just like he's allowed to generalise, and nobody else is. Where he is civil, others aren't. Funny how he seems the ocean of civility, and every thread he enters is commandeered by ruffians like me, uncivilising them. It can't have anything to do with Jocabia, no, no. He's allowed, and don't you forget it.

Can you quote me saying bad things about a group as justification for attacking a member of that group? I can quote you, from this thread alone.

Exactly what I'd expect from you, Fass. Golly, I sure wish I was more popular on an internet forum. That would definitely complete my life. What passes for insults from you are laughable. I'm fine with you being more popular.

Aww, look, your barb didn't go your way, so you're all "it doesn't matter to me, being popular, but it matters to you, because I say so, so it's just bad of you turn it against me, because, honest, I don't care, even if I was the one who raised the issue."

What passes as a retort from you, now there is the risible object.

Hush, now. Jocabia is allowed to get heated, just like he's allowed to generalise, and nobody else is. Where he is civil, others aren't. Funny how he seems the ocean of civility, and every thread he enters is commandeered by ruffians like me, uncivilising them. It can't have anything to do with Jocabia, no, no. He's allowed, and don't you forget it.
Oh, I forgot to add that while you're being sarcastic and perhaps a touch rude now, you definitely kept a cool head and made excellent points throughout the discussion. Although if you hadn't then I would have made some nitpicky arguments so you would know it. ;)

Again, it was in reply to Fass. I mixed you two together. Unfortunately, Fass continued and you backed him up several times so I kept going. I did want to let this die and said so next to the same post where you said it. I admit I should have responded to you seperately. It is not my experience that you have an general intolerance for Christians. Fass on the other hand...
I see...

And yes, Fass said that bit and I was copying the tags and forgot to edit. Sorry for misquoting.
I figured that's what happened. It's no problem, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Unlike certain posters who disappeared after trolling, I don't expect perfection from everyone else.

Can you quote me saying bad things about a group as justification for attacking a member of that group? I can quote you, from this thread alone.

I am not denying generalising. You, however, continue to generalise all the time, but are claiming it's not bad when you do it, and then you invent these "attacks" to foment the persecution complex you entered this thread with, and now, in retrospect want to attach these creations of yours to my generalising in a feeble attempt to try to somehow, anyhow, make mine seem different from yours. Because, as we all know by now, when you do it, it's OK.

I generalised. You generalised. You invented these "attacks." They're called "fantasifoster" in Swedish. "Figments of the imagination." You know, the vivid or not so vivid one I was talking about earlier.

Oh, I forgot to add that while you're being sarcastic and perhaps a touch rude now,

I've never claimed to be the saint Jocabia is. I am rude, and I am sarcastic, and I'm not particularly hung-up on sparing precious sensibilities. My use of language is often deceptive, be it by double-entendres, or quirky grammatical construct, or (pop)cultural references. I am a fan of ésprit.

I guess I'm simply not the nicest person around, and that's nothing I deny like I've seen others have to, be it for themselves, or for whatever reason.

you definitely kept a cool head and made excellent points throughout the discussion. Although if you hadn't then I would have made some nitpicky arguments so you would know it. ;)

Man tackar, man tackar!

But my post wasn't universally offensive. Not even all christians would be offended by that.

I said it wasn't universally offensive. I chose something MORE universally offensive because it makes the point clearer. Christianity is a funny point because so many use it's history to justify attacks on it. What is not under debate is the checkered past of Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.


See, this is the persecution complex we were pointing out earlier.

Are you claiming this doesn't occur? I don't generally end up defending Christianity so I've not generally been on the bottom of that pile. But let's face it. Many among those that would jump all over offensive generalizations about other groups would sit back and laugh while it's Christians. It's hardly a major threat, but it does exist.

Now, let's qualify that though. We're talking about an internet forum. If the worst thing anyone endures is a slant on this forum toward certain ideologies, then we have little to worry about, no?

However, this forum does slant toward the liberal end of the spectrum. It does slant toward the anti-Americanism. It does slant toward anti-religion.

I don't really care that it does, for the most part but there are results. And I think to some degree it's a result of behavior on this very forum where there are so many vocal Christians who are the advocates of limiting rights or completely denying them.

More importantly, some of those Christians justify their stances by claiming there is an attempt to destroy Christianity. I try to speak up because I've seen them justify such behaviors by quoting people who do appear to have such an agenda. I am less concerned with Christians being 'held down' than with the fact that it justifies the 'war on Christianity' trolls.

I don't think it necessarily would have hijacked the thread had it not been pointed out and then discussed to death. I also suspect that perhaps the mods got to the troll...
And I still think my response was justified.
And we can choose to disagree. As I said, I think this would have been a short and reasonable conversation if someone didn't justify attacking Christians by claiming we deserve it.

Weird how when I leave to go to a bookstore for a few hours, a long argument follows regarding Christianity. Did I do that? :rolleyes:

You should just get off each other's backs. Let people be Christian, let people have their beliefs, and politely advocate your own beliefs.

Am I troll to tell people to be nice to each other?

Oh, and it's not "mythology" to idolize someone who got pinned to a tree for telling people to be nice to each other for a change. "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Gospel of Judas," while both heresies to my religion, do at least serve to prove that Jesus actually existed.

And just to make this post relevant to the thread, I think abortion is wrong.

I've never claimed to be the saint Jocabia is. I am rude, and I am sarcastic, and I'm not particularly hung-up on sparing precious sensibilities. My use of language is often deceptive, be it by double-entendres, or quirky grammatical construct, or (pop)cultural references. I am a fan of ésprit.

I guess I'm simply not the nicest person around, and that's nothing I deny like I've seen others have to, be it for themselves, or for whatever reason.
Well, I understand the sarcasm now. I mean, it's not really much of a debate anymore, it's more the after-discussion.

Man tackar, man tackar!
I don't know what that means.

Weird how when I leave to go to a bookstore for a few hours, a long argument follows regarding Christianity. Did I do that? :rolleyes:

You should just get off each other's backs. Let people be Christian, let people have their beliefs, and politely advocate your own beliefs.

Hmmm... like calling people whores and sluts? If you really believe that, and let's hope you do, take a lesson from your this and do so. You're right. We could have been more polite to one another.

Am I troll to tell people to be nice to each other?

Oh, and it's not "mythology" to idolize someone who got pinned to a tree for telling people to be nice to each other for a change. "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Gospel of Judas," while both heresies to my religion, do at least serve to prove that Jesus actually existed.

Make a thread for that, because I want to hear that argument.

Are you claiming this doesn't occur? I don't generally end up defending Christianity so I've not generally been on the bottom of that pile. But let's face it. Many among those that would jump all over offensive generalizations about other groups would sit back and laugh while it's Christians. It's hardly a major threat, but it does exist.
Look, I'm agnostic and I tend to side with whichever side has the better points or is being more civil and point out where people are being jerks in religion related threads and usually it's the christians who draw first blood. Occasionally it's an atheist or agnostic who does so, but more often than not, the christians set themselves up as targets by attacking other groups first.

However, this forum does slant toward the liberal end of the spectrum. It does slant toward the anti-Americanism. It does slant toward anti-religion.
I would hardly say this forum has a liberal slant.
I would also say it qualifies as anti-religious. For every militant atheist on here there's at least one other militant christian. If I recall, the numbers of people who believe in a deity are roughly equal to the numbers of people who don't. I suppose there's a touch of anti-americanism, but really, look at what the states is doing right now? Hell, putting aside the unnecessary wars you've got lots of shit the american government is doing to its own allies. Do you have any idea how badly they're violating free trade agreements with Canada right now and we've been loyal friends and neighbours for how long?

Incidentally, we've seen some form of influx o' God-peoples and it's now pretty even between theists and atheists.

I've never claimed to be the saint Jocabia is. I am rude, and I am sarcastic, and I'm not particularly hung-up on sparing precious sensibilities. My use of language is often deceptive, be it by double-entendres, or quirky grammatical construct, or (pop)cultural references. I am a fan of ésprit.

I guess I'm simply not the nicest person around, and that's nothing I deny like I've seen others have to, be it for themselves, or for whatever reason.



Man tackar, man tackar!

Ha. I don't claim to be a saint. I'm rude and sarcastic as well. I'm fairly abrasive and sometimes I read my arguments and wish I was more patient. However, I'm an advocate of keeping my rudeness and sarcasm directed at those who earn it.

Look, I'm agnostic and I tend to side with whichever side has the better points or is being more civil and point out where people are being jerks in religion related threads and usually it's the christians who draw first blood. Occasionally it's an atheist or agnostic who does so, but more often than not, the christians set themselves up as targets by attacking other groups first.


I would hardly say this forum has a liberal slant.
I would also say it qualifies as anti-religious. For every militant atheist on here there's at least one other militant christian. If I recall, the numbers of people who believe in a deity are roughly equal to the numbers of people who don't. I suppose there's a touch of anti-americanism, but really, look at what the states is doing right now? Hell, putting aside the unnecessary wars you've got lots of shit the american government is doing to its own allies. Do you have any idea how badly they're violating free trade agreements with Canada right now and we've been loyal friends and neighbours for how long?

Oh, you won't get an argument from me about the behavior of our recent administration. I used to jump in and defend Bush (even though I would have never voted for him) back in the day, but I pretty much view him as indefensible at this point.

You should just get off each other's backs. Let people be Christian, let people have their beliefs, and politely advocate your own beliefs.
You're the one who started to try to force your beliefs on others, you stated that both me and Fass to hell if you didn't notice and prayed that we repented our sinful ways. Is that your idea of civilized discussion? Do you have any idea how patronizing that is?

Am I troll to tell people to be nice to each other?
Yes, you're being so nice to the woman you call sluts and whores.

Oh, and it's not "mythology" to idolize someone who got pinned to a tree for telling people to be nice to each other for a change. "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Gospel of Judas," while both heresies to my religion, do at least serve to prove that Jesus actually existed.
No they don't. The Da Vinci Code was first of all, based on something that turned out to be fictional in the first place and secondly written 2000 years after the supposed events in question. There are no contemporary refrences to Jesus outside the Bible and even then the gospels were written 100 years afterwards at a time when the lifespan was under 50, not eyewitness accounts, contradictory and heavily resembling pagan myths that abounded at the time.

And just to make this post relevant to the thread, I think abortion is wrong.
Good for you. Doesn't mean it should be illegal because you believe it's wrong.

I don't know what that means.

It's a mock-regal way of saying "thank you" in Swedish. It means "One thanks, one thanks." Having a royal family as upper class twits makes for some fun linguistics...

Ha. I don't claim to be a saint. I'm rude and sarcastic as well. I'm fairly abrasive and sometimes I read my arguments and wish I was more patient. However, I'm an advocate of keeping my rudeness and sarcasm directed at those who earn it.

Implied, of course, that you're never the first to have earned it.

It's a mock-regal way of saying "thank you" in Swedish. It means "One thanks, one thanks." Having a royal family as upper class twits makes for some fun linguistics...
Ah, neat. I should write it down.

Is it pronounced the way it looks from an english speaking point of view or should I not bother trying to figure out the pronunciation because it's too different and hard to explain?

Ah, neat. I should write it down.

Is it pronounced the way it looks from an english speaking point of view or should I not bother trying to figure out the pronunciation because it's too different and hard to explain?

It's too bloody late for this. (http://goto.glocalnet.net/fass1/regal.mp3)

Illegal at all times.

It's too bloody late for this. (http://goto.glocalnet.net/fass1/regal.mp3)
Thank you very much for that. :D

Have I ever told you how sexy your accent is?

I'm not sure if you knew this little fact, but in the past 33 years, The US has killed over 1,571,477,000 sence 1973 when abortions was made legal, kind of sick?
Surely not. The actual figure is about 40 million at most which is entirely appropriate for such a big country.

Implied, of course, that you're never the first to have earned it.

No, not at all. I earn it all the time. Just ask my girlfriend. We're still talking about generalizations. When you aim your vitriol at groups in a generalized way, you are generally going to be getting a few in that net that didn't earn it. Again, none of my protests here had anything to do with the fact that I'm a part of the group you're talking about. I've made the same arguments for Muslims.

Thank you very much for that. :D

Have I ever told you how sexy your accent is?

You sweet talker, you. I hate my accent. Damned Swedish influence...

No, not at all. I earn it all the time. Just ask my girlfriend. We're still talking about generalizations. When you aim your vitriol at groups in a generalized way, you are generally going to be getting a few in that net that didn't earn it.

Oh, it's undeniable when I direct my vitriol. Such did not occur in what you were complaining about.

Again, none of my protests here had anything to do with the fact that I'm a part of the group you're talking about.

I'm still not buying it. Not for a second.

I've made the same arguments for Muslims.

They must be nice to have as token deflectors.

Surely not. The actual figure is about 40 million at most which is entirely appropriate for such a big country.

Yes, the number quoted doesn't even remotely resemble the figures WORLDWIDE. There are only around a million abortions a year in the US.

You sweet talker, you. I hate my accent. Damned Swedish influence...
I like it. It sounds nice, but then I have a bit of a thing for accents. :)

Oh, it's undeniable when I direct my vitriol. Such did not occur in what you were complaining about.

You didn't make a generalized statement about how Christians deserve it because they are usually doling it out? Really? I guess I must have been dreaming when you said that.

I'm still not buying it. Not for a second.

Uh-huh. I realize that in order to justify your behavior you have to tell me I think something other than I do. If that helps you, feel free.

They must be nice to have as deflectors.
Uh-huh. Keep up the strawmen. If that makes you feel better. Evidence doesn't agree with you, therefore it must be my big plan to hide the fact that I only really want to defend Christians. I think some of the Christians on this board would disagree with you. Some in fact think I'm not a Christian because I don't automatically side with them. It's interesting how the things I get accused of without evidence vary based on who it is making the claims.

You sweet talker, you. I hate my accent. Damned Swedish influence...

Why? It sounds very nice...and here's me supposedly straight saying that. :p

ever wonder why christianity always get picked on, like you don't see movies or books trying to disprove the quran or some other religious book?
Look into the director Theo van Gogh's work.

Islam doesn't get picked on because countries where Islam is the majority religion don't give people the right to criticise it. In Europe and America Islam is small enough for most people not to care.

I haven't seen the troll for a couple pages and yeah, this is a bit of a threadjack, if you want to make another thread then fine. I didn't bring it up to upset people, I brought it up to point out why his views might not have as much sway as he wanted them to. I'll stop discussing this here.
I don't know what your fascination is which proving the fallacies of Christianity, but how real Christianity is, has no effect on the law. Thus it need not be discussed in political threads.

I abhor the concept of abortion. I'm not a huge fan of killing babies, regardless of the circumstances under which said babies were conceived and/or will be born into.

That said, abortion should be legal for two main reasons.

1. As Clinton said, if abortions are illegal people will still have them anyway, only they'll be in back alleys and at much higher risks. So, as The Man himself said, abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."

2. Abortion is way too highly polarizing. Nothing you say to a pro-lifer will make him pro-choice, and vice-versa. With such a hugely divisive issue, it's impossible to legislate based on a belief system. Even if there was conclusive scientific evidence that fetuses were "alive" from conception, it wouldn't change anyone. You can't legislate that sort of thing, as Kerry said.

You didn't make a generalized statement about how Christians deserve it because they are usually doling it out? Really? I guess I must have been dreaming when you said that.

I have already commented on your imagination. It's probably connected to your subconscious.

Uh-huh. I realize that in order to justify your behavior you have to tell me I think something other than I do. If that helps you, feel free.

Nope, honey, I'm just not interested in the excuse you're selling.

Uh-huh. Keep up the strawmen. If that makes you feel better. Evidence doesn't agree with you, therefore it must be my big plan to hide the fact that I only really want to defend Christians. I think some of the Christians on this board would disagree with you. Some in fact think I'm not a Christian because I don't automatically side with them. It's interesting how the things I get accused of without evidence vary based on who it is making the claims.

Yup, those tokens are mighty convenient.

I don't know what your fascination is which proving the fallacies of Christianity, but how real Christianity is, has no effect on the law. Thus it need not be discussed in political threads.
The poster in question stated that he was right because Jesus said so. Questioning the existence of his source was indeed necessary.

Why? It sounds very nice...and here's me supposedly straight saying that. :p

Supposedly? Don't give a bloke ideas. :)

Anyway, not wanting to attention whore, I just think I sound weird when I speak in English. And I can hear every Swedism in my speech patterns, and I hate Swedish English accents. They make me cringe.

Supposedly? Don't give a bloke ideas. :)

Anyway, not wanting to attention whore, I just think I sound weird when I speak in English. And I can hear every Swedism in my speech patterns, and I hate Swedish English accents. They make me cringe.
Maybe you should come to North America, after enough praise about your accent you might start to like it. :p

Maybe you should come to North America, after enough praise about your accent you might start to like it. :p

Praise over it is not something I've encountered in North America. By the people in the US who cared about me being a foreigner, I mostly got comments from people who thought Sweden was Switzerland, and deluded rants about WWII.

In Canada, I tried to stick the Francophone areas. Montréal is a jewel.

Praise over it is not something I've encountered in North America. By the people in the US who cared about me being a foreigner, I mostly got comments from people who thought Sweden was Switzerland, and deluded rants about WWII.

In Canada, I tried to stick the Francophone areas. Montréal is a jewel.
There's much more to Canada than Montéal.

And I'm sure there are some places in the states where people would properly appreciate your accent. Either that or you're finding the wrong sorts of people.

(or perhaps I'm weird with my accent fascination)

There's much more to Canada than Montéal.

And I'm sure there are some places in the states where people would properly appreciate your accent. Either that or you're finding the wrong sorts of people.

Indeed. He needs to find wherever we come from, I guess. I know the girls 'round here would melt from his voice, but that's not exactly what he'd want, is it? :p

Indeed. He needs to find wherever we come from, I guess. I know the girls 'round here would melt from his voice, but that's not exactly what he'd want, is it? :p
I know. Too bad I don't have a penis, I'd stand a chance maybe...

There's much more to Canada than Montéal.

Ah, but one has all one needs in Montréal. A vibrant gay community, a major hub of health sciences, excellent night life, cute Canadian-French...

And I'm sure there are some places in the states where people would properly appreciate your accent. Either that or you're finding the wrong sorts of people.

The sort of people who are well-raised aren't the sort of people who interrogate people about their accents unless they know them more than on a cursory basis. So, I noticed it did tend to attract perhaps not the sort of people who are used to meeting foreigners. Well, other than as Mexican maids...

(or perhaps I'm weird with my accent fascination)

Or, perhaps, you're just decent.

Indeed. He needs to find wherever we come from, I guess. I know the girls 'round here would melt from his voice, but that's not exactly what he'd want, is it? :p

I know some guys who would probably melt too, but I doubt Fass would travel to Georgia, of all places, to meet them. =)

Ah, but one has all one needs in Montréal. A vibrant gay community, a major hub of health sciences, excellent night life, cute Canadian-French...
Many other canadian cities have all of that too... well, perhaps not the canadian-french...

Or, perhaps, you're just decent.
*blushes* aww... shucks.

Many other canadian cities have all of that too... well, perhaps not the canadian-french...

It's a deal-breaker. I love French, but I couldn't imagine living in France, even if I adore Paris, but only in regulated amounts.

*blushes* aww... shucks.

Don't change, now!

who ever believed in taking responsibility for actions...??!?!?!?!?!? its like they expect people to grow up and learn how to take consequences like real adults!?!?!?!?!?!?! what a crazy world we live in...

who ever believed in taking responsibility for actions...??!?!?!?!?!? its like they expect people to grow up and learn how to take consequences like real adults!?!?!?!?!?!?! what a crazy world we live in...

Abortion is taking responsibility. It's one of the most responsible decisions one can take.

When I got pregnant with my little girl, I had a co-worker who insisted until my baby was born that she wasn't a person. You could see the little foot kicking out - and if you poked the foot, it'd kick you back. But nope, not a person until she came out and breathed all my herself.

More than all my arguments, that one little baby did more to persuade him that at very least, late term abortions are in fact killing a real live person. If you can go hear the little heart beating, and feel the little feet kicking, and see a hand-print on a pregnant stomach, and THEN tell me there's no person in there, and it's perfectly okay to just abort at any time... I don't think I'll ever understand you.

When I got pregnant with my little girl, I had a co-worker who insisted until my baby was born that she wasn't a person. You could see the little foot kicking out - and if you poked the foot, it'd kick you back. But nope, not a person until she came out and breathed all my herself.

More than all my arguments, that one little baby did more to persuade him that at very least, late term abortions are in fact killing a real live person. If you can go hear the little heart beating, and feel the little feet kicking, and see a hand-print on a pregnant stomach, and THEN tell me there's no person in there, and it's perfectly okay to just abort at any time... I don't think I'll ever understand you.

There are very few who support elective late-term abortions and the vast majority of abortions occur long before the time you're talking about.

For all of you people who support abortion I have four questions:

1) When does life begin in your opinion?
2) what medical evidence backs this up?
3) Is it moral to destroy a fetus the day before you believe its life will begin?
4) How about a month before?

The thing that bothers me about people that support abortion is that they cannot answer these simple questions. My belief is that life begins when the brain stem begins to function ( the opposite of death...which is when it stops functioning). This occurs very early. Second, I believe that even if you destroy a fetus at 2 weeks it is immoral because if you let it continue to grow it will be born, be a child, love, grow old, have friends, and have a life. To destroy any fetus at any age is to rob that future person of their entire life in my opinion.

For all of you people who support abortion I have four questions:

1) When does life begin in your opinion?
2) what medical evidence backs this up?
3) Is it moral to destroy a fetus the day before you believe its life will begin?
4) How about a month before?

The thing that bothers me about people that support abortion is that they cannot answer these simple questions. My belief is that life begins when the brain stem begins to function ( the opposite of death...which is when it stops functioning). This occurs very early. Second, I believe that even if you destroy a fetus at 2 weeks it is immoral because if you let it continue to grow it will be born, be a child, love, grow old, have friends, and have a life. To destroy any fetus at any age is to rob that future person of their entire life in my opinion.

The opposite of death is not the brainstem. It's the forebrain. That does not occur very early. Babies born without a forebrain are considered stillborn.

The opposite of death is not the brainstem. It's the forebrain. That does not occur very early. Babies born without a forebrain are considered stillborn.

Oh. Interesting. Do you have any ideas about the questions I posted?

There are very few who support elective late-term abortions and the vast majority of abortions occur long before the time you're talking about.

Yes, but if you admit that it's a baby then, how do you make a magic line? When you can hear a heartbeat? Many abortions are performed well after there's a heartbeat, hands, feet, a head and brainwaves to go with it. Not a person my foot. If you want to stay pro-abortion don't think about it too hard.

four simple questions.......no pro-abortion person has ever given me answers to

1) When does life begin in your opinion?
2) what medical evidence backs this up?
3) Is it moral to destroy a fetus the day before you believe its life will begin?
4) How about a month before?