It’s a tiny community, so the same posters being in every thread shouldn’t be a surprise. And, in general, I sometimes reply to threads made by people I don’t like, without trying to stalk them.
3 Likes
I wish I knew. Shrugs Tis weird 
I lurk in a lot of threads until I find something worth responding to. Sometimes it’s people I dislike, but it’s usually from people I respect
2 Likes
The request to have the lawsuit paused was denied.
4 Likes
Quote-mining and getting things out of context are two different things.
So your response to the Church being corrupted by politics is to leave the church, reject church altogether and get corrupted by politics yourself? While I think you have a point, I think there’s a better way to approach these problems.
While there are people in the right-wing who fit that criteria, the same can also be said of people on the left-wing (such as the Marxist who co-founded BLM, Patrisse Cullors). Given the declining state of education, I’m not sure Red States being less educated than Blue States - if that’s true - is a guarantee of intelligence or unintelligence.
Barnaby Joyce and the people who had orgies in a prayer room (what PH are you referring to?) were wrong and shouldn’t have done those things. While they betrated the values they endorse, hat doesn’t mean the values themselves are wrong.
For example, if a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it’ll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid because you think there’s something wrong with the person behind the arguments? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?
1 Like
As far as I know, there are only three Christians commenting on this thread; myself Denona and Baalsamael. I haven’t had any goes at Baalsamael on this thread (even stuck up for him when Aki had a go at him). Also, Denona had a go at me first for not agreeing with them. While I admit I could have handled it better, that doesnt’ exonerate Denona.
I’ve been thinking about my views on abortion. There are two changes I’ve made. Abortion in the case of incest and forced conception is wrong because it’s punishing an innocent baby for the sins of the parent (or parents in regards to incest). It’s also important to keep in mind that abortions due to forced conception or incest account for a very small percentage of total abortions: only 1 percent of abortions can be traced to cases of rape or incest (Torres and Forrest, cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States , October 2001. In those scenarios, that’s where adoption and foster care are for.
Abortions when the mother’s life is at risk is where I’m considering there may be a case now. Even then, there are medical professional who contend that abortion is never necessary to save the mother’s life (especially with all the advances in medical science and technology). Over 1,000 OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts signed a statement in 2012, saying, in part, “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion—the purposeful destruction of the unborn child—is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman”.
So while that’s something to consider, I still stand by life begins at conception.
No that verse from Psalm 22 doesn’t disprove it, especially in light of these verses from Psalm 139:13-16
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13-16
That passage you shared from Numbers is not about abortion, it’s about jealousy and the test infidelity.
The 2011 edition of the NIV mistakenly states that the drink will cause miscarriage in Numbers 5:21-22, 27. However, this is not what the passage is talking about. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text. The only thing that even sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated, but even in that instance, it has nothing to do with pregnancy. Further, the passage does not say that drinking the concoction would cause an abortion/miscarriage. While drinking a poisonous mixture of ingredients could very well cause a miscarriage, that is not what this text is speaking of.
If a wife was found guilty, the punishment was death (Leviticus 20:10). If the wife was found innocent, she would be “cleared of guilt” and “able to have children” (Numbers 5:28). So, again, Numbers 5:11-31 does not refer to abortion in any sense. Rather, it is describing a method that God allowed to be used to determine if a wife had committed adultery against her husband.
You’re not the first person to cherry-pick from the Bible to attack it and you won’t be the last. Not even when trying to twist that passage from Numbers to attempt to justify abortion. Who did you pick that argument from? Richard Dawkins blog?
I said that because after we butted heads on this thread, you suddenly found your way onto another thread of mine to bring up these issues there. Of all the threads on this forum, you just happened to pick one of mine. Can you see how that looks suspicious?
Now who is putting words into peoples mouths.
How did you get me saying that politicians should keep their religion out of politics = the church is corrupted by politics? Let alone saying THAT is the reason why I stopped going to Church.
Clearly the old federal one… /sarcasm
Unfortunately, those values do get corrupted by corrupt individuals who claim to be “champions” of said values.
You are confusing facts with values. In this example, gravity is an universal law of physics. Values (in the context we are discussing) tend to be opinions on certain topics when it comes to morality. While being “pro family values” is not wrong in of itself, claiming you champion those values then do the exact opposite corrupts those values in the public eye. Particularly if that person is a public official and / or celebrity.
Note, one is an universal fact (backed by science). The other are opinions and beliefs. You do not “believe” in gravity like you do in a religion. Gravity will still exist either way.
Lying makes baby Jesus cry.
Who was the first to question the others faith? Who was the one that whined that the other person wasn’t defending their honour? Who was the one that kept saying “two wrongs don’t make a right” so only they can do the “wrong”?
Again, you are treating someone having a different opinion than yours as a personal attack. I do wonder if you would’ve treated me differently if I didn’t out myself as a Christian. Probably not though.
So you value the baby more so than the mother, who in most of these cases you listed is a victim? Nice to know you value the rights of an unborn human more than one who is alive.
Mate, not everything is a conspiracy. Let alone one against you. The Story forum regulars are small in number and this is a very niche sub forum to begin with. Seriously, grow up. Please. So what, are we not allowed to post on your threads then? Sounds to me like you want an echo chamber.
3 Likes
Like I said. That’s extremist to the core and evil in my view.
Just like the preacher from Alabama that was allowed to go free for… what he did with a 14 year old girl.
That’s simply not true. Women die because of it. Often those children are also already dead, or can’t be saved. You are listening to blind fanatics not facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
One example. She died because of Catholic extremists. There were extreme large protests all over Ireland and they abolished this absurd abortion ban. Just one prominent example of many. Every year women die in the U.S. because of complications.
At least you are thinking about it.
Well Biblical wrong and scientifically silly.
Of course it does. From the first breath. That’s it. There isn’t much to argue with such extremist. Thankfully this view is only held by a small fringe.
You really know not much about your religion, do you? No, it’s a thing since 100’s of years and in every language.
Lol what a silly lie. We are done here. 
Yes, yes it does! 
Also note: It’s all about the state of a mans mind.
I’m not. You are. Of course you are ignoring it.
I bet you are also eating shrimp, wearing mixed fabrics or worked on a Sunday.
Typical.
2 Likes
You said;
It sounds like you were putting words in my mouth, and there seems to be some misunderstanding. I thought you were saying the church had gotten corrupt by politics. Now that you’ve clarified that it’s not the case, before I continue there’s two things I want to clarify. Going back to church doesn’t mean ignoring political corruption, and I wasn’t asking you to ignore political corruption.
PH is an acronym for a lot of things, this was a genuine question. I guess you meant parliament house.
The perception of those values gets corrupted, not the values themselves.
The point of that is right and wrong doesn’t change based on who is saying it.
We started talking with you having a go at me for my stance on abortion, that’s not a lie. To clarify, do you believe life begins at conception? By the way, speaking of defending the honor of Christians, I notice you didn’t stand up for Baalsamael either when they got flak on this thread from Aki.
The baby is a living human too, being in the womb doesn’t change that. Are you familiar with Psalm 139?
When I’ve got several people ganging up on me on one thread, then they come to another thread to keep having jabs at me, that’s pretty suspicious. What would you think if you were in that situation? In fact, look how up in arms you got when I merely questioned your faith.
Speaking of echo chambers, are you all trying to gang up on me to convince me to leave and remove “a dissenting voice”?
You basically said, “seems you have placed politics in your heart where God should be”. Aka, stop being so political and go back to Church.
Obviously. How can you be so dense? We were talking about LNP federal ministers, I thought it would’ve been obvious. Guess not.
Yes, I attacked the argument. Not you directly. Stop confusing the two. You attacked me directly by “asking questions” about my faith repeatedly. And don’t say you were “just asking questions”. That is a line used by the extreme right to worm around sensitive topics.
I never knew it was a job requirement. Seriously what exactly is your problem?
Depending on the stage, that is argumentative. As for Palms, while I am a Christian, I also value science just as highly as well. Therefore I tend to take what science says over the bible (can’t wait for you to get triggered about that).
Or it could be that you have just crap opinions on various topics and those threads just so happen to have the most amount of activity. Take the tin foil off your head.
Considering you seem to be the only person who thinks, “someone attacking my argument = attacking me directly”. It is clear that you do not want a debate, nor a discussion. And again with the conspiracy theories.
1 Like
Indeed it’s the other way around. Churches were always corrupt and in Europe early on interconnected with politics for a long time. The church is corrupting politics, not the other way around.
1 Like
So protesting against punishing an innocent baby is extremist and evil?
I did say I consider this a case by case situation.
Biblically proven and scientifically unfalsifiable. Funnily, even Christopher Hitchens supported that unborn babies are living beings (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
And yet Psalm 139 still stands.
And yet you only showed me the 21st century NIV translation. Can you give me any others?
Yes you are. Tail set firmly between your legs, I see.
?
Saying “no you” and baseless accusations before moving on to try and gang up on me with someone else. You’re losing the plot.
Now we get to the meat of the matter. Thank you for clarifying, and how do you practice your faith?
I was talking about God, not church, though I can understand how you reached that conclusion.
Everybody makes mistakes.
I see.
While I can’t speak for outside the forums, from what I’m seeing on this thread, you’re not showing any love to fellow Christians.
Valuing science is fine, but God should be valued more highly. Science is fallible and scientists can make mistakes or lie (eugenics comes to mind).
While I admit I have not shown you the love of Christ as I should have, Jesus wants us to love everybody, including each other and I don’t think you’re doing a good job of it here.
Because the other people in this thread have peppered their attacks on my arguments with personal attacks (and you’re indulging in a bit of the latter now too).
Considering you got triggered at me saying that I stopped going to Church…what else was I meant to think? You basically skipped me saying how I practice my faith despite claiming that you read everything I post.
2 Likes
No. Your take is evil in my view. We aren’t talking about babies.
And I said at least you are thinking about it. It’s an evolution. Good.
Nothing about life there.
It was really a bad choice for you. It’s destroying you.
I also showed you the Lutheran version.
Boy. Read.
The whole thing is about a jealous tyrant forcing his women to get an abortion. This is silly even for you.
You remember others mentioned ancient methods of contraception and abortion? Bitter water is one of them.
It’s rather specific. We both now all U.S. Christians are wearing mixed fabrics and most don’t care about eating shrimp, working on a Sunday and so much more.
You are simply ignoring what you don’t like and projecting your views on to things you want to force upon others. The last part is why it’s a problem.
1 Like
As I told you before. I have already stated it. You claimed to read all of my posts. Clearly that was a lie if you have to keep asking this question.
That is because I do not base my opinion on someone with their faith alone. I refuse to be a knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of someone just because they are a Christian. Even more so if the topic at hand has nothing to do with their religion being attacked.
Science itself is not fallible, but the ways we go about to understand it are. The important thing is that people are fallible. And that it is why peer reviewed studies are extremely important.
Again with the “two wrongs don’t make a right” routine.
Or maybe in most of the cases, you consider someone having a different opinion as an attack.
I mean tbf, you have missed the context of a lot of things. One of which was getting confused by what “PH” I was referring to… in a post talking about the corrupt federal LNP ministers we currently have…
Don’t bother going down this road. He just won’t get the point. I’ve tried. He will just try and use it as a gotcha post in time (and fail to do so).
1 Like
Just because you don’t believe life begins at conception doesn’t mean we aren’t talking about babies.
Psalm 139:13-16 It’s not destroying me at all, quite the opposite.
The Lutheran version? You mean that German version of Psalm 22? That doesn’t prove your case.
That was a test.
Because you care about people accurately following the Bible given how much you attack it lol
I don’t deny there are some, how many U.S Christians have you actually met or interacted with?
Because the people in them, including myself, are corrupted by sin, as are we all.
Politics is corrupting the church, not the other way around, and did so in historical times as well. This can also be seen in governments dominated by other religions or atheistic governments (China’s current government, for one). Sometimes Christians end up in control of governments, sometimes governments adopt Christianity.
How much do you know about the Papal Inquisition compared to the Spanish Inquisition?
Call me a liar or not, what’s wrong with repeating how you go about it?
We’re to love people regardless of our opinions of them. Did Jesus say to only show love to those we agree with, or did He tell us to love even our enemies? And the topic has now also come to attacking the religion, but you still stand back and don’t speak out.
If science was infallible, people would get it right the first time and the Problem of Induction wouldn’t exist. Also, peer reviewed studies are fallible too.
It’s not wrong.
So the name calling is a different opinion too?
You’re still doing it, regardless of the reason.
That’s presumptuous.
Your religion doesn’t as well and yes it doesn’t. No we don’t. It becomes a baby later on. No matter what you call it, my stance is fix. Forcing this upon women is evil.
Like I said nothing there.
Exactly.
You can go back all the way to early versions.
Which causes an abortion. It´s not a real test because the thing the women has to drink does always the same thing.
Oh, don´t let snakes bite you.
You are the one ignoring it and trying to push your non biblical nonsense on to others.
Actually enough.
That´s not historical for the U.S. Preachers are telling their congregation for whom they should vote and giving money to politicians and so on.
How much do you know about the German inquisition? Or the church decorated in human bones?
Yeah, it seems like talking to a wall.
1 Like
Sure… if you are one of those conspiracy nuts (oh wait…)
Peer reviewed studies seek to repeat ones experiment to see if they yield similar results. If there is no significant difference between the two or more studies, then it is not fallible. That is mathematics (statistics) in action. I mean as long as the studies and the data in those studies are independent, the central limit theorem kicks in. As you can find the mean of means from those studies. Thus greatly reducing the number of errors (and how large those errors are) by effortlessly increasing your ‘sample size’.
No… because the people doing the experiments can be fallible. Do you even know what peer reviewed studies are exactly? For example, there have been studies where the person conducting the study either willingly fudges up the data, or is pressured to do so from those who fund them. A great example of this was that quack who claimed that the MMR vaccinate could lead to autism. That same quack would later say taking his separated MMR vaccines would not.
No it is a fact. You even tried to turn it into a gotcha moment by saying it was an example of ME cherry picking when I was pointing out that Christians cherry pick laws from the Bible throughout history… and you know that.
1 Like