abortion

Originally posted by Eladar
Once again you repeat the lies you've been taught. Your brainwashing runs deep and can easily change the topic.

Back to the topic, anything to counter that you view abortion as ripping apart fetuses causing them great pain so people do not need to raise their sons and daughters?

After having 1, 2 or 3 kids the person can choose to be sterilized?

Ow you are going hard on me now. I was just reacting on your statement, so maybe you are the one who changed topics.

My view, as I have said multiple times, is that I don't see foetuses as complete human, merely as things that have the potential of becoming a human, and the potential of destoying a mother's and/or father's life.

Yes, a person can choose to be sterilized, even after having 0 kids if he/she doesn't want kids.

Now, could you answer my question? Why doens't your Church allow condoms, the pill and other birth control methods?

Originally posted by robbebop
Ow you are going hard on me now. I was just reacting on your statement, so maybe you are the one who changed topics.

My view, as I have said multiple times, is that I don't see foetuses as complete human, merely as things that have the potential of becoming a human, and the potential of destoying a mother's and/or father's life.

Yes, a person can cho ...[text shortened]... er my question? Why doens't your Church allow condoms, the pill and other birth control methods?

Sure, I will answer again...

I am not Catholic. My church allows for the pill and condoms for married couples.

If the man and woman are not married, it isn't the pill or condom that's the sin.

Originally posted by Eladar
Sure, I will answer again...

I am not Catholic. My church allows for the pill and condoms for married couples.

If the man and woman are not married, it isn't the pill or condom that's the sin.

thank you; at least nobody can say that you don't answer questions.

I have heard (no documentation or proof to show though) that Luterans allow abortion under certain circumstances (I don't know which), is that true?

Originally posted by robbebop
thank you; at least nobody can say that you don't answer questions.

I have heard (no documentation or proof to show though) that Luterans allow abortion under certain circumstances (I don't know which), is that true?

In the US there is more than one Synod.

The liberal Lutherans allow for abortions like you. Others like the Missouri Synod are against abortion on demand but are ok with abortiins to save the mother's life.

Originally posted by Eladar
...
If the man and woman are not married, it isn't the pill or condom that's the sin.

Sex before marriage is a sin? Then your god is kinda retarded. No wonder natural people move away from it. Because sex is natural, and real people do natural stuff. Um, we were made that way.

Originally posted by apathist
Sex before marriage is a sin? Then your god is kinda retarded. No wonder natural people move away from it. Because sex is natural, and real people do natural stuff. Um, we were made that way.

I understand why you believe as you do about many things. You are a child of Satan so you spew evil. It is your nature.

Originally posted by Eladar
I understand why you believe as you do about many things. You are a child of Satan so you spew evil. It is your nature.

I get how some people might see 'sex before marriage' as "sin" but religious people who think that way can never seem to make any case for 'sex before marriage' being immoral, in and of itself, in a way that has any meaning or relevance for people who do not have those same religious beliefs.

This means that, while non religious people might have plenty to learn from religious people and the moral standards they aspire to, when they confront advocates like you, they would most likely find you and your ideas repulsive.

If so, one can legitimately ask you, if you believe yourself to be an ambassador for Jesus in this community, and whether you think it matters if your drunken behaviour is productive or counter-productive in the propagation of your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by FMF
I get how some people might see 'sex before marriage' as "sin" but religious people who think that way can never seem to make any case for 'sex before marriage' being immoral, in and of itself, in a way that has any meaning or relevance for people who do not have those same religious beliefs.

This means that, while non religious people might have plenty to l ...[text shortened]... nken behaviour is productive or counter-productive in the propagation of your religious beliefs.

Do you view premarital sex to be a good thing?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you view premarital sex to be a good thing?

Whose premarital sex? Mine?

Originally posted by FMF
Whose premarital sex? Mine?

The act of premarital sex in general, good or evil?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The act of premarital sex in general, good or evil?

What does "in general" mean in this instance? "In general" for which couple?

Originally posted by FMF
What does "in general" mean in this instance? "In general" for which couple?

As a general rule for any couple you want to imagine.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
As a general rule for any couple you want to imagine.

As a "general rule"? No of course not.

But I do think any kind of sex, whether it be marital, pre-marital, or post-marital, can be "bad" (morally unsound) if it involves deception or coercion or a lack of informed consent or harm or damage of any kind, whether it be physical or psychological, or if sexually transmitted diseases are willfully passed on, or through negligence, or if the sex is 'adulterous' (as discussed before). I think there's plenty of "bad sex" going on in the world, for sure.

But otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with sex in and of itself, whatever it has to-do or not-to-do with marriage, whether it's between heterosexuals or between homosexuals, or bisexuals, or whoever or whenever.

Originally posted by FMF
As a "general rule"? No of course not.

But I do think any kind of sex, whether it be marital, pre-marital, or post-marital, can be "bad" (morally unsound) if it involves deception or coercion or a lack of informed consent or harm or damage of any kind, whether it be physical or psychological, or if sexually transmitted diseases are willfully passed on, or th ...[text shortened]... whether it's between heterosexuals or between homosexuals, or bisexuals, or whoever or whenever.

So sex involving (the list of rules that you prefer) is always wrong as a general rule?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So sex involving (the list of rules that you prefer) is always wrong as a general rule?

No, I have no general rule about sex. I have my moral sensibilities - as discussed ad nauseam elsewhere - and, guided by them, I try to navigate my way through life being as good a person as I can in my interactions with others, and making sense of the world, and the human condition that envelops it, as best I can.