1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Nakosis, May 10, 2022.

  1. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,208
    Ratings:
    +3,749
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    I just another definition.
     
  2. Messianic Israelite

    Messianic Israelite Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2019
    Messages:
    664
    Ratings:
    +216
    Religion:
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Hi Viker. Good morning. Without government, there would most likely be anarchy. Romans 13:3 says "For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:" Government has a bad name right now because the governments of the world are often steeped in corruption. That won't be the case in the Kingdom with Yahshua our righteous Judge serving as king over the nations. However, in terms of the self-governance you mentioned, Micah 4:4 says: "But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of Yahweh of hosts hath spoken it." Sounds like the freedom of self-governance to me - everyone will have to judge themselves by the laws of Yahweh - however, laws will need to be enforced by Yahweh's saints in that kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10).
     
  3. Messianic Israelite

    Messianic Israelite Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2019
    Messages:
    664
    Ratings:
    +216
    Religion:
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Good morning Viker. This is quoted from our Statement of Doctrine:

    We affirm that as obedient children it is necessary to keep all of the commandments, statutes, and judgments (except the ritual and animal sacrifice Laws) which the Heavenly Father gave to Israel to make them a separate people, Leviticus 20:7-8; Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 25; Deuteronomy 7:6-11; Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 7:12. It is now possible through the Holy Spirit to keep these commandments by faith for our salvation, Ephesians 2:8-10; Jacob 2:17-20. We now keep a spiritual sacrifice rather than animal sacrifices, meal, and drink offerings, Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5; Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18
     
  4. Viker

    Viker Spirit in Black

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,791
    Ratings:
    +7,121
    Religion:
    In Diabolica
    See. Tyranny, in the holy name of theocracy.

    BTW, there's never going to be a world government (dictatorship), holy or otherwise. The world itself won't allow it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Messianic Israelite

    Messianic Israelite Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2019
    Messages:
    664
    Ratings:
    +216
    Religion:
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Hi Viker. It won't be a tyranny, though. You know I wish I could convey to people the benefits of keeping Yahweh's Law. It's not a burden, it's not grievous, it's for our good. Deuteronomy 6:24 says: "And Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our Elohim, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as at this day." Similar to a parent telling their child to do something for their benefit, and the child, lacking experience and understanding is not conducive to that instruction, so you have to enforce upon that child those rules or instructions for their own good until they realise that they are good instructions and consciously choose to do them things themselves. We have to think of Yahweh as a Father who has our best interests at heart.

    Tyranny implies cruelty. The Kingdom won't be a cruel place.
     
  6. Messianic Israelite

    Messianic Israelite Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2019
    Messages:
    664
    Ratings:
    +216
    Religion:
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Sorry Viker, I ignored your latter part of your post. When Yahshua comes with his angels to bring the Kingdom of the Heavens to this earth, it will be met with resistance. But the world will come to accept Yahshua the Messiah. He is worthy. He suffered, bled and died to save us. The Jews rejected him historically. However, this time he will come with power and he may well come to this earth before this earth sees it's own annihilation. With the judgments that befall this earth, the people of this world will have no logical alternative than to accept Yahweh's Messiah as their own king.
     
  7. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    1,653
    Ratings:
    +286
    I actually commented on another RF member's post, and you were the one that commented on mine - which means you jumped into my conversation - but that is beside the point.

    In all honesty - I don't understand why you brought up the whole "there are already unwanted children" at all - because it is irrelevant.

    If all orphaned children were miraculously adopted at this very moment in the U.S. - would you change your opinion about "abortion" and adoption?

    I don't think so - because however many "unwanted children" there are in the U.S. is irrelevant to your point of view - you would still believe that women can murder their children.
    It is realistic - but improbable today - considering how selfish and Godless most people are.

    My wife and I were both virgins when we were married - it is completely realistic - and remarkably easy to do if I'm being honest.
    My wife and I have had five children - we know how it works.

    I always find it funny when people think that faithful Christians - the ones having all the children - are those who don't understand how sex works.
    Correct - because "the buck" starts and stops with them.

    Excluding cases of rape and sexual assault - women are the ones who "allow" sexual activity to occur - not the men.

    But to be clear - I don't believe men should be having sex outside of marriage either.
    I don't believe that viewing sex and marriage only as means of reproduction is inherently wrong - I don't agree with it - but I digress.

    I did not say that they should only have sex to procreate - but rather they should only have sex when they are "ready to have children".

    No one should have sex until they are ready for the possibility of children - because sex makes children - and birth control doesn't always work - as you point out next..
    Condoms are 98% effective and only 0.15% of vasectomies fail - so we all know that the vast majority of not-yet-born children murdered are products of unprotected sex.

    It's kind of like starting a fire - even if you are as careful as can be - it can still spread and hurt other people.

    If that were to happen - you would need to take responsibility - you can't opt out and say, "I consented to starting the fire - but not to all the loss of life and property it caused."

    The only way women can make sure they never get pregnant before they are ready is to practice abstinence before marriage and only get married once they are ready for the possibility of children.
    You honestly believe that I was advocating that a woman should marry her rapist?

    This was a very stupid question, and it shows that you aren't being serious.
    I would be shocked if my father got some random woman pregnant because he has been married to my mom for decades and that would kill her.

    I still don't think they should murder my not-yet-born half-sibling.
    We should be teaching women to leave - or never have sex with - abusers - rather than encourage them to murder the innocent not-yet-born child who had nothing to do with the abuse.

    If women practiced self-control and abstinence before marriage - they would never find themselves in this situation.
    Why would anyone have sex with someone that they don't want to spend their life with?

    I honestly cannot conceive of such a thing.
    Yes - they are.

    A "child" describes someone's son or daughter of any age - so the stage of development does not matter - because as soon as those gametes combine - an entire new DNA sequence is generated which includes the sex of the child - and someone's son or daughter has come into the world.

    If a toddler, teenager, full-grown adult or elderly person can be someone's "child" - then so can a blastocyst/zygote/fetus.
     
  8. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    1,653
    Ratings:
    +286
    And now we're back to the old, "I can murder someone if they are inconvenient to me" argument.
    First off - no one is "forcing" any woman to do anything.

    Not allowing people to murder children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

    Also - if you asked any of those "unwanted children" if they would rather be dead than be alive in the system - I think I'd know what their answer would be.

    And what is wrong with all of these "unwanted children" anyway? You believe they are less valuable than "wanted children"? You don't think the world is a better place with them in it? You believe they will never amount to anything? Never be happy?

    I have met a lot of unproductive and sad people who grew up "wanted" with a mother and father - and they are just as valuable as anyone else - but having parents isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

    Having a chance to become "wanted" or be happy is better than no chance at all.

    Besides - as I have pointed out already - the list of couples waiting to adopt newborn babies is long - people wait years - so adding newborns wouldn't be adding to the "unwanted children" you believe are "less than" other people.
    Why doesn't what is best for the not-yet-born child factor into your scenario?

    Just so you know - millions of women give birth in the U.S. every year with no complications - whilst an "abortion" always kills the not-yet-born child.

    Well - technically - not all "abortions" are successful - which has led to many cases of after birth "abortions" - so straight up infanticide.
    Hold up - didn't you just say that, "...it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them" - yet here you are now deciding what is best for these couples?

    I guess you only feel that way about women who are considering murdering their children?

    I find that the only consistent thing about more Left-leaning people is that they are inconsistent.
    Why aren't you "all for" promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability and not murdering babies?

    Why only "birth control" - when abstinence and self-control are the most effective forms of "birth control"?

    Anyways - I understand that there are religious people that don't want to use contraception - I disagree with them - but I believe their "motive" is to discourage sex outside of marriage.
    If people on the Right cannot make claims about men not being women and such without being a "biologist" - then no one can make any claims at all without being one.

    I am joking - of course - but I am also pointing out glaring inconsistencies found in the ideology of the Left.
    Yes - you are.

    You claimed that women putting their newborns up for adoption would "exacerbate" the "problem" of "unwanted children" being in the world.

    Goodness - imagine if I swapped our "unwanted children" with a particular race or class - then you would notice how immoral what you are saying is.

    Anyways - there are more couples seeking to adopt newborns than there are newborns - so obviously a woman putting her newborn up for adoption would not be "exacerbating" that "problem".
    And you just double downed on the claim you said you weren't making.

    Imagine if I swapped in "Black" or "poor" in for "unwanted children" - my goodness - you'd be another Margaret Sanger.
    Of course they should be arrested and you are right - I should have said "child" rather than "baby" - that's my bad - but it hardly matters - because a human being is still being murdered.

    I refer to all my children as "baby" (or "monkey") even though my oldest is nine.

    I just hope that my "baby" designation doesn't make him "less than" in your eyes - since you believe that the terms we use to describe our development can affect if we can be murdered or not - and the "less developed" are worth less than the "more developed" - right?
    I don't believe people become more valuable the more developed or older they become.

    Contrarily - in most life and death situations - the "less developed" people are often given priority over the "more developed".

    We make sure the children are safe first - especially babies - and we don't claim that they are "less than" the adults.

    Not only that - if there was only one spot left on a lifeboat - yet there were two women who needed a seat - one of them being obviously pregnant - who do you think the seat would go to?

    And everyone - even the other woman - would consider that saving two lives.

    Also - no one is asking to exchange the life of the mother for the life of the newborn - that is ridiculous.

    And notice how you fuzz the qualifier of "sentience" by saying "fully sentient" - which is what exactly?

    Someone hopped up on some pain killers may not be "fully sentient" - are they now disposable?
    Yes - you are.

    You just mocked people for suggesting adoption because it won't "solve everything".

    Murdering the not-yet-born also doesn't "Solve everything" - so that isn't a good argument.
    That is a stupid answer if it means she gets the right to murder her child.

    You won't let couples wait to adopt a newborn - but you are fine with mother's murdering their children?

    So much for letting people decide for themselves what is best for them. No consistency.
    Everyone is always bombarded by the opinions of others - that's just living in society.

    And why are you so opposed with someone learning all sides of an issue before making a decision?

    Only demagogues, propagandists, fearmongers, rabblerousers and fanatical idealogues want to stop people from learning about all their options and receiving all relevant information before making a life-changing decision.
    Yeah - I am well aware - but being irresponsible and selfish are not "facts of life".

    Many people in the world are being responsible and not murdering their children as a result.
     
    #348 Fallen Prophet, May 20, 2022
    Last edited: May 20, 2022
  9. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    1,653
    Ratings:
    +286
    Are you kidding?

    Encouraging emotive responses and being willfully ignorant are what infantilize women - all while claiming they should never be held responsible for their actions.

    Yeah - I'm the one infantilizing them.
     
  10. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,557
    Ratings:
    +3,855
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    Yahweh couldn’t govern a small garden.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,208
    Ratings:
    +3,749
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, I have a different opinion. But thanks for your answer.
     
  12. Sand Dancer

    Sand Dancer Crazy Cat Lady

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,253
    Ratings:
    +3,854
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    He had this nice tree, and this naked couple comes and eats his stuff. At least have a scarecrow or something.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,557
    Ratings:
    +3,855
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    He’s ruling TWO PEOPLE and everything breaks apart after a few days.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Sand Dancer

    Sand Dancer Crazy Cat Lady

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,253
    Ratings:
    +3,854
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    He can't parent, so he blames his kids. Nice...
     
    • Like Like x 4
  15. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,310
    Ratings:
    +7,234
    Religion:
    Judaism
    they were setup to fail, but for a good cause. there needs to be sin so there can be mercy.
     
  16. Viker

    Viker Spirit in Black

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,791
    Ratings:
    +7,121
    Religion:
    In Diabolica
    Seriously? o_O

    That appears preposterous.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,310
    Ratings:
    +7,234
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Yes seriously :)
     
  18. Viker

    Viker Spirit in Black

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,791
    Ratings:
    +7,121
    Religion:
    In Diabolica
    So they were set up to fail so God would show mercy later. Sounds like a terrible movie plot. Why have sin in the first place? Why couldn't God leave well enough alone?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,310
    Ratings:
    +7,234
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I agree. What we need to know is what God promised to the serpent for enticing them.
    Because then there wouldn't be mercy.
     
  20. Sheldon

    Sheldon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,383
    Ratings:
    +6,769
    Religion:
    None
    Why should I care what the bible says about anything, anymore than what Harry Potter books say about the rules of Quidditch? People who assume a deity exists are always doing this, assuming everyone else must make the same assumption.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...