Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nobody is assuming that Jesus "looked like a Jew" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). They are observing that he was vanishingly unlikely to look Caucasian.
    Not Caucasian.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    If Jesus, being the product of a virgin birth was conceived via parthenogenesis, he would likely exhibit the characteristics of his mother. If Jesus was conceived by way of a genetic contribution from God or his agents, then he most certainly would have Caucasian physical characteristics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    It seems most likely that along with the transition from hunter gatherers to farming our religions transitioned from a goddess centric to a male dominated religion.
    Along with that transition came a preference to not think of our mothers as sexual creatures.
    (just ask any guy about his mother's sex life---favorite position(s)---frequency of orgasms--vocalizations---etc)
    And so, we have taboo and a concept of mother as virgin(mine wasn't). The claimed virgin birth is a strong indicator of sexual repression and concomitant mental illness.

    (but, then again, I could be wrong)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I did not say how he looked. I noted how he would not have looked like.

    Given the archaeology from that time frame, reconstructions, we have a pretty fair bet that he would have looked like everyone else in his vicinity. In other words, not Caucasian.

    Which means, the shroud is not representative of someone who lived in the Middle East a few thousand years ago and more representative of someone who lived in Europe not that long ago. Considering the mounting evidence that it is fake, it is fair to say that the image is not real.

    You present a ridiculous argument about the shroud in a thread about abortion.

    It is literally as though you are trying to cram as much religious clap trap in this thread as you possibly can before it is closed.

    Poor reasoning is to take a known forgery and try to pass it off in a thread about abortion..

    Given your links have thus far been of youtube and not to mention some pretty sick footage.. Do you really think anyone should take you seriously?
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Eye for I: Click to be twisted into form.

    Oh, come, now: You don't love.

    The word "sociopath" is probably one you should be a little more cautious with.

    Imagine, for a moment, that there is an objective response you could put in front of me to which I have no real answer except to concede the point. It would, in this case, be a small detail, but would seem important given the fact of criticism. There are obviously more possibilities than two, but if we start with the the proposition of unwilling or unable, both seem puzzling until we account for the possibility that you don't really know what you're responding to, either not reading the posts, or not able to understand them. After all, consciously, willfully, and carefully choosing desperate fallacy as a response would be useless at best

    Overly emotional strawstuffing generally isn't helpful unless pointless wallowing is the point.

    Anything is possible. Some Christians have said so, in the past, but they never really quite made sense, as it was in the heat of political debate in which Christophobia would be applied to include the rejection of Christian supremacism, so I tend to not worry so much about those. Meanwhile, I figure some Christian will eventually say it again, and whether it makes any sense on that occasion will be a question of circumstance.

    It's also true I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a Christian to show up.

    As to something more substantial than your fallacies—

    —which thesis is this? Is this like the time you didn't list the actual text of the reference you included, and it just happened to be that reference didn't apply to your question?

    Yes, that really did happen, and, sure, it was nine years ago↗, so, whatever, but here's the thing: The references I found relating to what you posted then were, like your thread, ostensibly critical of Islam; what it looks like is that a handful of activists, either affiliated or not, happened to run with what looked like a good zinger without recognizing its inaccuracy; while it is entirely possible the original error was innocent, i.e., composition and proofreading E&O compared to willful malice, it seems at least a small number of people either fell for it or accidentally perpetuated the accident by promulgating the argument without knowing what it said or how it worked. Which, in turn, can be suggested to apply, here: I've no doubt that somewhere are scraps asserting Joseph was not a Jew, but nobody else knows what detail to fill in for you, because you haven't really bothered to explain what you're talking about. Indeed, trying to go fish for you, the most compelling case I've discovered so far is a self-conscious word game referring to a different Joseph. I also found an antisemitic rant in the comments of a Montenegran blog post about the last words of Gautama Buddha. Indeed, the Google result for "joseph was not a jew" currently runs: 1) Word game (other Joseph); 2) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 3) other Joseph; 4) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 5) End Times, other Joseph, antisemitism present; 6) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 7) openly antisemitic comment to Montenegran blog post about Gautama Buddha.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We can be pretty certain Jesus would not have looked like Robert Powell, or the famous Sallman Head. Other than that, though, what are you actually on about? If, for instance, you intend to drop lines, as you have, about "Is an assumption without evidence and is a very poor method of scientific inquiry" (#267↑), you should probably be prepared to support your statement.

    That's going to require a little more reasoning than you have been willing to put in, so far.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Well, we can rule that one out immediately. If Jesus was conceived via parthenogenesis, he could not have been male and could only have been a female clone of the mother.
    Without male sperm, the mother can only produce female clones. Male DNA must be present for male offspring.

    Let's get real. shall we?
    Mary had relations with a male partner. That's how she got pregnant. No, woo is necessary.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Poe's Law.
    That joke is not available.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Woohaa....!
    Genetic contribution from god? God is a Caucasian?? What are you talking about???

    Something like Zeus disguising himself as a swan to mate with Leda? That would have had a greater chance of producing a male child than god divinely bestowing genetic material into Mary's DNA. There is a "coding problem" to be considered.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Maybe god can do magical things, but Mary was human all along and her body was subject to god's own laws of procreation. No virgin births of different gender allowed. End of story....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Interesting what anti-abortionists do with words. When I hear the word "child" I think of a living conscious person from around 2 to around 12 years old. When I hear the word "baby" I think of a cooing cuddly little infant in a mother's arms. Neither of these terms apply to an unconscious brain dead fetus in the mother's womb.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Notes, General and Particular

    In re some particularly silly dillydally about the appearance of Jesus and subsequent discussion of virgin birth, it is worth noting Elaine Pagels, forty years ago, observing that the apocryphal Gospel of Phillip "ridicules those literal-minded Christians who mistakenly refer the virgin birth to Mary, Jesus' mother, as though she conceived apart from Joseph: 'They do not know what they are saying ...'" (53). Pick what bones we might with belief in spirit and divine powers, the third-century tale recognizes the difference between carnal and noncorporeal unions: "'They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?' Instead, he argues, virgin birth refers to that mysterious union of the two divine powers, the Father of All and the Holy Spirit." We should note, as the third chapter of Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels is titled, "God The Father/God the Mother", the term, "Holy Spirit", does not quite mean what we would normally expect.

    Consider, please, just for a moment, a period in the early third century with a bunch of postvalentinian gnostics hanging out and laughing their asses off at the apparent balbutive of a quasiliteralist virgin birth: "They don't want it to be rape, so they said the woman did it! O! my God! hahaha!" Yeah, too bad about history and class struggle, such as it went. But subtlety doesn't work well on delusional, angry masses. Can you imagine a gnostic pogrom against dimwitted redemptive monotheists? (Talk about mod drama!°)

    We can, as I have noted, be pretty certain Jesus would not have looked like Robert Powell, or the famous Sallman Head.

    Beyond that, a bunch of gnostics who didn't quite comprehend°° the danger of what they were seeing in the rising pseudoliteralist, redemptionist, wannabe orthodoxy still managed to figure out what seems to puzzle twenty-first century critics of semiliterate, pseudoliteralist, redemptionist orthodoxy.

    • • •​

    Second.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° For instance:

    "We cannot fight them, lest we be just as wrong as they!"
    ― So we just let them take over?
    "I didn't say that! How dare you—"
    ― Don't give me that. You know that's what happens next.
    "How dare you accuse me of helping them! I'm just saying you can't fight them like that."
    ― Like wh—… never mind: What should we do, then?
    "Who says it's my job to figure that out? Why does it have to be my job?"
    ― You don't like my idea, what's yours?
    "Who says I don't like your idea? I never said, 'I don't like your idea'! Don't go putting words in my mouth!"
    ― Well, they're taking over, now.
    "That's your fault. It's because of people like you! You shouldn't have been on their side! You should have fought!"
    ― What?
    "It's because of people like you that they want to take over in the first place!"
    ― No, really: What?
    "You went out of your way to fight them and make them feel bad! It's your fault!"
    ― So I should have just let them take over like they were trying to, anyway?
    "Who says I said that! I never said, 'You should just let them take over like they're trying to, anyway'! Don't go putting words in my mouth!"
    ― So, what are you actually saying or doing?
    "Spending the rest of my life complaining about them and making stuff up to make them feel bad!"
    ― Sounds about right.

    °° And why would they? It's over eighteen hundred years later, and staving off antisemitic exploitation by Christianists hoping to bring about the Apocalypse is considered antisemitic; what second and third century thinkers really could have imagined that dysfunctional, pseudoliteralist crew ruling so much of the world for so many centuries?​

    Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. 1979. New York: Vintage, 1989.
     
  14. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Nature always finds a way.

    Parthenogenesis is regarded as a form of asexual reproduction. The offspring develops from an unfertilized egg. Parthenogenesis may be classified based on the sex of the offspring: (1) arrhenotokous parthenogenesis (or arrhenotoky), (2) thelytokous parthenogenesis (or thelytoky), and (3) deuterotokous parthenogenesis (deuterotoky).

    The arrhenotoky is a form of parthenogenesis in which the unfertilized eggs develop into males. In contrast, thelytoky is a form of parthenogenesis in which unfertilized eggs develop into females.

    https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Arrhenotoky

    The logic of two thirds of the American citizenry says you’re wrong.
    Speaking of male sperm, God does cry over spilled milk.


    Genesis 38:8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also

    https://www.openbible.info/topics/spilling_your_seed

    Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

    https://www.bible.com/bible/59/GEN.1.26.ESV


    Since the white man is the pinnacle of God’s creation here on earth, it would be logical to assume that God’s likeness would be white as well.

     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    The logic of 99% of scientists say I am right.
    Only the Y chromosome determines gender.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

    p.s. the logic of one third of the American citizenry says Trump is a moral human, he's white.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Woohaaa........there it is. White man is the pinnacle of God's creation and hasn't changed in 1.5 million years since his creation.
    Who started this pinnacle of "civilized" (divine) human behavior?
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    is morality an attribute of religious ideology ?

    does specific or collective or individual religions own morality as an ideological premise of forced compliance by society ?

    can any religion claim to own morality of the people to assert its own desires over others against their wishes ?

    is all reproductive sex "the act of playing god" by 'risking creating a living being' thus is blasphemy ?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    technically...
    the actual number who voted
    vs
    how many total citizens
    vs
    how many registered to vote

    etc etc... after spending some time going over and over the math and stats from different sources it appears the rough statistic is around 32 to 34 % of Americans (registered voters)voted for the Republicans(i doubt [whom ever ends up being the nominee]is separate to the party enough to define the president to be devoid of the party vote etc)

    the figure is closer to 25% when all tallied(counting children & unregistered people)
    which flies in the face of generic majority rule claims around ideological concepts, yet is normalized amongst most society's power structures.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter...tes_presidential_elections#Turnout_statistics

    2016
    voting age population estimate 250,056,000 (estimated)[10]
    Turn-out 138,847,000 (estimated)[10]
    Turn-out-of-voter-age-population 55.5% (estimated)[10]

    soo roughly that gives hilary 25% and donald 25%
    but because of california being a smaller number of house seats to a larger population base
    more people voted for hilary by around 1.5 million votes to hilary
    but they were mostly all inside california.

    thats all up roughly 23%
    which is 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 people
    soo... the majority have not voted for the leader.

    i saw the various web sites publishing supposed official figures being around a 46% to 48%(roughly total turn out) voter turn out.

    real questions like if all the democrat supporting voters who didnt vote, got out and voted...
    would they be in the swing states that give house seats to change the end result ?

    meanwhile.. in the swing states, the politicians need to play both sides of the fence to try and maintain their leadership which tends to pander to a process of doing nothing when it comes to government policy.
    thats a bit of an issue but is falsely worded as "conservatism" when in fact it is more soo devisionism as a race to the bottom(excluding those areas where the majority choose a collective model of governance and general wealth distribution is vastly more equal by ensuring people have jobs[this vastly skews the figures in specific ways which is used to dupe false results for nonsense headlines].
    soo much so that these swing states have some of the most gerrymandering going on in attempts to maintain a majority of an economic model which then follows with general voter behaviors amongst a fairly semi-isolated community
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  21. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    No scientists have a say in the question of Mary's virgin birth given that they have no access to the relevant aspects of the occurrence. The Bible being the indisputable word of God affirms the virgin birth as a fact. Case closed.
    Trump's superior morality is beyond question, why else would he be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
    Correction, it's been 6000 years since his creation.
    Just another example of white superiority. Nobody can kill more effectively than the white man.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And makes white man moral? He can kill better than everyone else? Especially if it's in the name of God?

    I won't deign to respond to the rest of your statement. From your disdain for Science and the Constitution (Bill of Rights), you clearly are not a US citizen, and if you are, you are watching the wrong news stations.
    Or you have a more sinister agenda...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  23. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Killing doesn't get any more moral than doing it in the name of God.
    Tell me what scientific evidence exists that disproves the virgin birth of Jesus? And what makes you think that professional scientists are immune from the appeal and rationalization of religious mysticism? And if that bit of irony doesn't grab you, the fact that the Bill of Rights was crafted by a bunch of racist white slave owners should.
    I clearly am a US citizen, get most of my news from mainstream and left leaning sites, and my agenda is occasionally advocating for the Devil and noting hypocrisy when I see it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page