• 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!

Turn abortion clinics into "Temples of Human Sacrifice"?

Spiderman

Veteran Member
A bit lionising but okay
Fair enough

Yes, scientific based information and less judgement from judgey mcjudgepants folks who should be minding their own business would likely relieve such anxiety and stress from women. I agree



What message do they send, exactly? I’m not American so I don’t know how they advertise themselves.

And plenty of founders of things were awful people. Surprise. People (particularly in the past) had opinions that look awful in hindsight. So what?
Criticise their positions, that’s fair enough. But I’m not going to get rid of my car if I found out that it’s invented by a guy who, I dunno, hated Jews or something. You know?



qualified mental health professionals?
I dunno

I keep hearing this and every time I mention it to my (religious minded) American relatives they scoff at it’s supposed “unconstitutional Unamerican crap.” (Their words, not mine.)
I get the distinct impression that that was due to the Cold War propaganda at the time. Merely an attempt by the government to convince the citizens that they were good, moral upstanding people, unlike those “irreligious socialists/commies.”
Old people say the same of my country but once I actually look into the implications of their arguments, really it just boils down to “we were allowed to bash gays and black folk knew their place. Now we’ve lost our moral compass. Wahhhh” Yeah, real moral guys
I’m not accusing you of such thinking. I don’t think you have such prejudice
Just that that is usually the conclusion of such “morality of the old times” arguments once you get into the nitty gritty of them


Pretty sure the prohibition gangsters make ours look like Sesame Street performers
But whatever


Abortion is as old as civilisation itself. Lmao. People would go to “spooky” ladies in society for a “special potion” all the damned time
Like seriously were you not aware of this?


They also (potentially) think gay people and trans individuals existing and given freedom is a sin. Forgive me for not taking their half hearted excuses at face value
And I say that as a spiritual person myself



So can a theist. (Imo)
What’s your point?


That says more about your morality than anything about theism. That’s going to have to be a big yikes from me, my friend!


If you need a Big Brother style God in order to be moral, that’s says far more about you than anyone else, imo. Nothing whatsoever about secularism vs theism. Though what’s that old joke?
“It’s not that atheists are immoral it’s that theists need more supervision.”


Okay, maybe you are right and the people who think it was better fifty plus years ago are all racist and antihomosexual and that is their motive for saying that. If that is the case, i'm not for it. I've had teachers tell us that people used to pray in public schools in America though.

Also, to clarify, I know lots of atheists have a moral compass. Let me give you an exact quote of what I said: "typically a completely secular person isn't going to have a whole lot of strong motive to be a good person or have a moral compass."

Emphasis on the words "Typically...more". There are plenty exceptions to the rule. And strong motive I spoke of in the context of compared to a person who believes they will be rewarded or consequenced for eternity.

Now, theists are often just as bad as atheists. I prefer the average atheist over bigoted Christians and Muslims, but I'm saying they have much stronger motive for doing what they believe is right.

An atheist just rots in a hole and nothing matters a hundred years from now , so they really don't have huge motive for living a virtuous life, because a hundred years from now it won't matter , and no unseen entity is pleased with their deeds or offended by them.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, maybe you are right and the people who think it was better fifty plus years ago are all racist and antihomosexual and that is their motive for saying that. If that is the case, i'm not for it. I've had teachers tell us that people used to pray in public schools in America though.
I’m just reporting on my personal observations.
I have heard of the prayer in schools thing. But...It’s not for the government to decide what religion their citizens have. Again I thought such a thing explicitly goes against your constitution???
That document seemingly all Americans worship as more sacred than even the Bible

Also, to clarify, I know lots of atheists have a moral compass. Let me give you an exact quote of what I said: "typically a completely secular person isn't going to have a whole lot of strong motive to be a good person or have a moral compass."
Why? Human compassion, decency and empathy are instinctual (not to say psychopaths or sociopaths don’t exist however.)
We are literally a tribal species who would have died out eons ago if we couldn’t find a way to be halfway decent to each other. Our literal survival hinged upon team work. For generations. Arguably even now.
Although to be sure such coexistence is a working progress.

Emphasis on the words "Typically...more". There are plenty exceptions to the rule. And strong motive I spoke of in the context of compared to a person who believes they will be rewarded or consequenced for eternity.

If a person only does something “good” just to get rewarded then they are definitely not a good person by default. They are just begging for a treat and validation. Such selfish immorality, geez.

Now, theists are often just as bad as atheists. I prefer the average atheist over bigoted Christians and Muslims, but I'm saying they have much stronger motive for doing what they believe is right.
No they don’t.
They just have extra hoops to jump through. And don’t get me started on the atrocities or even just horrible acts humans have committed in the name of religion. We’ll be here all day lmao
An atheist just rots in a hole and nothing matters a hundred years from now , so they really don't have huge motive for living a virtuous life, because a hundred years from now it won't matter , and no unseen entity is pleased with their deeds or offended by them.
That’s a pretty nihilistic outlook.
I’m personally more into Sartre but to each their own.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
I say.... We kill our own babies then Hypocritically say "Our population is dropping we need more immigration"!
Example: Spain is at a negative growth the country will disappear in thirty-five years the death rates exceeding birth rates!
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
That's what it says, yes.
The problem is that it doesn't say that.
It makes no distinction between the humans and the animals to be sacrificed. That is, it does not say what you'd like it to say.
Do you really need a distinction between humans and animals? Because I don't. You should actually research how this law was implemented in ancient Judaism before you post such things.
That was the massacre of a population, dedicated to God.
It was war. That's different. This is ridiculous equivocation.
No. And I get weary of this deliberate misreading of the text ─ which expressly states that Jephthah made this vow while the spirit of the Lord was upon him.
The Spirit of the Lord was on him to lead the Israelites against their enemies. Not to make that vow. In Matthew 4:1 Jesus is actually led of the Spirit into the wilderness for the express purpose of being tempted by Satan. So just because the Spirit of the Lord is upon you that doesn't mean you can't or won't be tempted by evil.
Again you read what you want to, not what the text says. God sent the famine, agreed to the terms, accepted the death by impalement of seven innocent people "before the Lord" and on that basis ended the famine.

The atrocities God orders in the Tanakh and NT go well beyond human sacrifice. There are massacres, mass rapes, murderous religious intolerance, rules for slavery including the proper way to sell your daughter and how to have sex with your slaves, the idea of women as property generally, and so on.

Time you read your own book instead of trying to whitewash it. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age were rough times, human sacrifice was found in Mesopotamia, Canaan, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, the Celtic lands, and so on. The bible is no Goody-Two-Shoes in the game of tribal survival and internecine war.

Not till after the Babylonian captivity is there much sign of civilization. And God sending Jesus on a suicide mission as a sacrifice to God is openly stated in the NT, even though no reason why it might be necessary is ever offered.
I don't read what I want to. I try to understand the text in a spiritual, religious, comprehensive and historical context. I don't try to just find things to make the Bible look bad like you do.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member

Roe Vs Wade won't be overturned. I think the voices in my head have an idea, and it would be a big step in the right direction. We turn abortion clinics into "Temples of Human Sacrifice" to a Deity that we simply call "IT".

I mean, the Catholic Church made the infants slaughtered by Herod canonized Saints called "Holy Innocents". God wanted his only son to wear a crown of thorns , be flogged, and nailed to a cross to atone for sin. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and was extremely proud of him for getting ready to sacrifice a human being.

Why not sacrifice unwanted unborn children legally in a way that spares the child a lifetime of suffering, makes a Saint out of the child, and potentially atones for the sins of the world ( according to some theologians)?

The mother is to name the sacrificed unborn baby and write the name in a book of souls which is placed in a Honden when filled up like the Japanese do at Yasukuni shrine and they become "Holy Innocents" and we venerate them like they are Saints and they become American heroes (Infantry). Would that be morally sound from a Theist perspective?

Obviously atheists would object because it would identify that we are sacrificing the infants to an unseen sentient being, and we are claiming the fetus has a Soul/Spirit, but Theologically , Theists have sacrificed their unwanted infants to Deities since before Abraham got famous for trying to kill his child on an altar.

If we acknowledge a fetus has an eternal soul, sounds to me like Theologically speaking we have made a step in the right direction. Thoughts?
Live everyone's life yourself in one single minded body and then try to make a comment on their behalf.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you really need a distinction between humans and animals? Because I don't.
Neither does the text. You give the firstborn humans and the firstborn animals to God on the eighth day.
It was war. That's different. This is ridiculous equivocation.
It says that the massacre was dedicated to God. This is consistent with God's style of command ─

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)
God ordains, and is given, a massacre of populations.
The Spirit of the Lord was on him to lead the Israelites against their enemies. Not to make that vow.
Nope. As the text says, the spirit of the Lord was on him to make the vow, and when he'd carried out the vow God raised him to be Judge of Israel.
In Matthew 4:1 Jesus is actually led of the Spirit into the wilderness for the express purpose of being tempted by Satan. So just because the Spirit of the Lord is upon you that doesn't mean you can't or won't be tempted by evil.
The Tanakh is its own book. The NT's views of it are irrelevant.
I don't read what I want to. I try to understand the text in a spiritual, religious, comprehensive and historical context.
You've chosen 'spiritual, religious' and abandoned 'historical'.
I don't try to just find things to make the Bible look bad like you do.
I have no interest in trying to make the bible look anything. It's an ancient document and its importance lies in what it tells us of ancient thought and culture, and what light it may throw on history. I don't try to make the bible look bad or good. I simply read what it says, via the most reputable translation I can find. Were it instead wall to wall sunshine and roses from Genesis to Malachi that would make no difference to me.

And it says what I pointed out it says.
 
Top