How could a heaven operate?

[Akar]

A woman can have a hysterectomy

lmao, the chauvinism is palpable.
"Just sterilize yourself you stupid " - Basics, 2020

No, the Old Testament lays out what that little thing inside a pregnant woman is and how its killing is to be administered. It's amazing how you think you know the Bible and yet still can't see the wood for the trees.

Let me know if you don't know how to click or open links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal...e_bitter_water

[Common Soldier]

lmao, the chauvinism is palpable.
"Just sterilize yourself you stupid " - Basics,

If 9 months is a too much time to ask of a woman's life, then 18 years, 2400% longer, is too much time to demand to of mann who doesn't want to be the father. "My money, my choice" . There are.men stuck paying child support paying child support who the court knows are not the bilogical father.

Fathers shoukd have the same right as the mother, to opt out of being a parent. If a father decides not tonpay child support, the child isn't killed and can still grow up to lead a rich productive life. A father's not paying child suppor doesn't doom a child to poverty, the child could be adopted by wealthy, loving parents and the reason that does not happen is a mother's decission to insist on raising the child herself, not matter how unfit she is, financially or otherwise.

As the comedian David Chappelle says "If you have the.right to kill it, I should have the right to abandon it" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoudH-RPnEE

[basics]

Akar,

So, a fertilized egg inside a woman has no right to life is just silly when it already is a life. It is not a tumour or a boil, even a cancer but the beginnings of a human being. Ask a farmer what he thinks as he has the vet call round to see if his cows or sheep are carrying life. He knows that's life in there and he cares for it whilst it is still inside the mother. Why pay vet's bills if it was nothing until it is born? But once again Akar is Akar putting words to my name, words I never said. So, are human babies any less valuable than say the cow's or the sheep's ? Come on give us another insane answer?

[AqD]

Cancer cells are not a form of life. They're sick cells basically.

Cancer cells mean no harm to you. They just keep growing and spreading unchecked and destroying other cells in the process.

Sound very familiar yes?

[Akar]

If 9 months is a too much time to ask of a woman's life, then 18 years, 2400% longer, is too much time to demand to of mann who doesn't want to be the father. "My money, my choice" . There are.men stuck paying child support paying child support who the court knows are not the bilogical father.

Fathers shoukd have the same right as the mother, to opt out of being a parent. If a father decides not tonpay child support, the child isn't killed and can still grow up to lead a rich productive life. A father's not paying child suppor doesn't doom a child to poverty, the child could be adopted by wealthy, loving parents and the reason that does not happen is a mother's decission to insist on raising the child herself, not matter how unfit she is, financially or otherwise.

As the comedian David Chappelle says "If you have the.right to kill it, I should have the right to abandon it" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoudH-RPnEE

Yes, I agree. Requiring a man to pay child support in every possible situation is ridiculous.

It's obviously more nuanced than Dave says but I agree with where he's coming from.

a mother's decission to insist on raising the child herself, not matter how unfit she is, financially or otherwise.

This is where forcing women to have kids by denying abortions and access to contraceptives comes into play. It's no longer a mother's decision to insist on raising the child, it's the state's (well, religious zealots) decision that the mother raise the child herself, no matter how unfit she is financially or otherwise. And 9 times out of 10, the state and religious zealots no longer have any interest in the single mother and child. In fact, most religious people would castigate a woman for being a single mom. Religious conservatives have dedicated themselves to destroying social safety nets as well as forcing people into situations where they would be reliant on the safety nets that have been removed.

Akar,

So, a fertilized egg inside a woman has no right to life is just silly when it already is a life. It is not a tumour or a boil, even a cancer but the beginnings of a human being. Ask a farmer what he thinks as he has the vet call round to see if his cows or sheep are carrying life. He knows that's life in there and he cares for it whilst it is still inside the mother. Why pay vet's bills if it was nothing until it is born?

Right, he's doing that because the cow/sheep is his property and he has a financial investment involved. The cow/sheep has an easily defined and articulated monetary value, (age, size, gender, etc all contribute to the valuation of the livestock) and pregnancy is a way for the farmer to recoup on his investment and turn a profit. Not to mention that cows have to be pregnant to produce milk, which means the farmer has even further financial incentive to care for the pregnant cow. The entire purpose of buying a herd of cows or sheep is usually to breed them and sell the wool/milk or beef/lamb meat.

As far as "vet bills" go, most farmers and farms aren't going to give a if a cow is sick or hurt, they'll just kill it. It costs more money to fix it than it would cost to buy a new one, typically. Most farms these days are factory farms, where animals are put in horrible and and abusive conditions. 99% of cows and sheep aren't ever going to see a vet in their short, disgusting, miserable lives.

Let's say you're a chicken, Basics, who lives in a factory farm. Basically all you ever get to do is sit there in a tiny slanted cage (so you can in the cage and they don't have to clean it), not even big enough to walk around or stretch your wings in, where you are force fed until you have kids. Then, your kids are either sold or ground down into chicken product. Then, after your body is too weak to continue to lay eggs, they will kill you, skin you, and sell your flesh.

If you were that chicken, would you not prefer that your children not be born at all rather than subject them to a literal meat grinder or being sold to be eaten?

But once again Akar is Akar putting words to my name, words I never said.

Yeah it's called paraphrasing. It's not an inaccurate summary of what you said, either.

So, are human babies any less valuable than say the cow's or the sheep's ? Come on give us another insane answer?

Financially? Yes, absolutely. A baby has no fixed monetary value, nor is it even a commodity that can be sold (legally, at least). If anything, a baby carries negative financial value, as it comes with an 18 year financial commitment.

Morally? I see little moral difference between a sheep having an abortion and a woman having an abortion. The only difference I see is that the woman has made the choice of her own volition, whereas the sheep has been forced into that decision by it's owner. You know, kind of like how you're trying to force women to have kids?

[Common Soldier]

Yes, I agree. Requiring a man to pay child support in every possible situation is ridiculous.

It's obviously more nuanced than Dave says but I agree with where he's coming from.

So do I. If you watch the video, his monologue is really anti-abortion - at the end he says "Maybe I am wrong. And maybe you are too".

I have yet to see a single pro-choice person consistently apply their own arguments to their logical conclusion. If a woman has to have conteol over their own body, that right needs to apply prostitutes as well - what they do with their body is a matter between them and their clients, and none of the governments business. Any other position is total hypocrisy.

This is where forcing women to have kids by denying abortions and access to contraceptives comes into play. It's no longer a mother's decision to insist on raising the child, it's the state's (well, religious zealots) decision that the mother raise the child herself, no matter how unfit she is financially or otherwise.

What you say is totally untrue. Nobody has ever forced women raise a child, there were homes for unwed mothers and adoption agencies. All the state asked was 9 months so it he child can live; after that she was always free to give the kid up for adption. But now women, who demand the right to chose, in an example of total hypocrisy and double standard, deny the same right to chose for fathers. as they demand for themselves.

Whether a child is given up for adoption or kept is driven entirely and exclusively by the selfish desires of the woman. A drug addicted woman might decide to keep ue baby and raise it herself, despite having no mokey, when she could have given up the baby to a loving home, because she selfishly wanted to be a mother, and another woman has an abortion because a few months was just too inconvenient for her.

Men, who smetimes not even the biological father, are sometimes forced to pay for child support for the next 20 years. Husbands often have to pay for a child support that isn't theirs, whike their cheating wives get off scott fee. And a wife out of pure spite might abort their husband's baby, despite the husband's willingness to raise it own his own, but keep their lover's baby, because it was done for the thing most precious to you, pure selfishness. No woman has ever been jailed for fraud when husband finds ou that a child he has been raising for 10 years isn't his.

[/And 9 times out of 10, the state and religious zealots no longer have any interest in the single mother and child. In fact, most religious people would castigate a woman for being a single mom.

Typical liberal lie. Anti-abortionist often created homes for unwwed mothers, helped arrange adoptions, even help provide support. With the double standard, liberals and who castigate men as dead beat dads who did not want to be a father and might not even be the biological father.

Religious conservatives have dedicated themselves to destroying social safety nets as well as forcing people into situations where they would be reliant on the safety nets that have been removed.

The welfare system has not been abolished, you can still get food stamps, and contrary to liberal propoganda, people are not starving, i.e., not getting enough calories. (They may be malnurished, but that is due to poor eating habits, eating junk foods which are both exensive and lack proper nutrients.)

Financially? Yes, absolutely. A baby has no fixed monetary value, nor is it even a commodity that can be sold (legally, at least). If anything, a baby carries negative financial value, as it comes with an 18 year financial commitment.

So do you advocate infanticide? It was practiced by many ancient societies, and isn't it splitting hairs in killing an eight month old fetus and an 8 month old premature baby, still killing a living in thing.

Whether someone is a person or not is not something you have the right to decide on your own. If a woman can decide a 7 month fetus is not a person and kill it, then why can't a woman decide a 7 month old premature baby is not a person and kill it, saving herself a big medical bill?

[Akar]

If a woman has it to have conteol over thwir own body, that right needs to apply prostitutes as well

Yes, obviously.

and none of the governments business

The government should receive a share of the tax as with any other job, as well as prosecute those who violate the law by abusing prostitutes. Making prostitution legal means giving it the full legal protection of the law, just like any other job.

What you say is totally untrue. Nobody has ever forced women raise a child, there were hokes ror unwed mothers and adoption agencies. All the state asked was 9 months so it he child can live; after that she was always free ro give the kid up.for adption. But now women, who demand thee right to chose, in an example of total hypocrisy and double standard, deny the same right to chose as they demand for themselves.

Utter nonsense. Thousands of women are forced or coerced into having unwanted pregnancies all the time. Either by being extorted into having it by family who threatens to kick them out or not assist with the child, being coerced by some priest into thinking having a kid is actually the right thing to do for her right now, by a society that refuses to allow women the right to access contraceptives, or by one that intentionally makes it so difficult for a woman to be able to have access to an abortion that it's prohibitive, even if legal.

Women are forced to raise children every day. What do you think happens when a man walks out on a woman? Do you think the woman just gets to walk out on the kid too, or does the responsibility fall on her to raise the kid now?

All the state asked was 9 months so it he child can live; after that she was always free ro give the kid up

The state has no right to violate anyone bodily autonomy. Pregnancy is an incredibly difficult thing to go through, and forcing someone to go through it when they don't want to have the child or anything to do with it is highly unethical and malicious. There is zero guarantee that a child will actually be adopted, or adopted by a loving family. How many kids are born and forced into foster homes with parents who only use them for a government check, or grow up in an orphanage? It's funny, the people who say like "oh just have the baby and then give it up" are never the kinds of people who support social safety nets, childcare, or maternity leave. Not only that, but by forcing women to have babies against their will destroys all incentive for them to not abuse drugs or alcohol during their pregnancy.

Even if you didn't smoke or drink before, being forced to have a child you don't want is more than enough to drive anyone to do it.

But now women, who demand thee right to chose, in an example of total hypocrisy and double standard, deny the same right to chose as they demand for themselves.

Please enumerate what "rights" women are denying people by getting an abortion? How does a woman having bodily autonomy somehow infringe on your rights?

Whether a child is given up for adoption or kept is driven entirely and exclusively by the selfish desires of the woman. A drug addicted woman might decide to keep ue baby and raise it herself, despite having no mokey, when she could have given up the baby to a loving home, because she selfishly wanted to be a mother, and another woman has an abortion because a few months was just too inconvenient for her.

Men, who smetimes not even the biological father, are sometimes forced to pay for child support for the next 20 years. Husbands often have to pay for a child support that isn't theirs, whike their cheating wives get off scott fee. And a wife out of pure spite might abort their husband's baby, despite the husband's willingness to raise it own his own, but keep their lover's baby, because it was done for the thing most precious to you, pure selfishness. No woman has ever been jailed for fraud when husband finds ou that a child he has been raising for 10 years isn't his.

This is all blatantly false and if you actually believe this sort of you should 100% go to a therapist. Like, what the man. Seriously...

Typicwl liberal lie. Anti-abortionist often created homes for unwwed mothers, helped arrange adoptions, even help provide support. With the double standard, liberals and who castigate men as dead beat dads who did not want to be a father and might not even be the biological father.

Source?

The welfare system has not been abolished, you can still get food stamps, and contrary to liberal propoganda, people are not starving, i.e., not getting enough calories. (They may be malnurished, but that is due to poor eating habits, eating junk foods which are both exensive and lack proper nutrients.)

The notion that people aren't starving is laughably false. My family does charity work with multiple organizations that interacts with starving and malnourished kidsevery single day. If you want people to believe like "no one in America is starving" you need to provide more evidence than a hastily typed paragraph riddled with grammatical errors and typos.

I also didn't say that no safety nets existed, just that people advocating against a woman's right to choose almost always support the abolition of those safety nets. Which is incredibly evident by you spouting nonsense about "liberal propaganda" and "the welfare system" and "food stamps".

Just because you aren't educated or aware of problems doesn't mean they don't exist.

So do you advocate infanticide? It was practiced by many ancient societies, and isn't splitting hairs in killing an eight month old fetus and an 8 month old premature baby, still killing a living in thing.

If "infanticide" is defined as "letting a woman decide what to do with her own body", then apparently so.

Trees are living, so are sheep and cows. No one laments when we kill them just to eat them. Just because something may be "living" doesn't mean it's inherently or morally wrong to "kill" it.

Whether someone is a person or not is not something you have the right to decide on your own. If a woman can decide a 7 month fetus is not a person and kill it, then why can't a woman decide a 7 month old premature baby is not a person and kill it, saving herself a big medical bill?

You'll be pleased to know that this isn't something that I, or anyone else, has "decided on their own". This is a decision we have reached collectively as a society.

I love that you're okay with women being forced to pay "big medical bills" to have babies they don't want to have. Gotta support that Pharmacutical Industrial Complex somehow, right?

[basics]

Akar,

So it appears that you have more sympathy for an animal than you do for a human being. The value of a child is much greater, why? Because a firstborn son or daughter is a treasured thing. The value for a son is that he continues the lineage and for a daughter that she may forge alliances for the betterment of a family by bearing children. One cannot put a monetary value to such as it varies all across but there is no doubt that there is a monetary value in there. Within a family these arrangements are seen all over the world and thank God they still exist. Killing a living child in the womb is wrong on any count.

[Akar]

One cannot put a monetary value to such as it varies all across but there is no doubt that there is a monetary value in there.

Saying you can't put a monetary value on something then saying it has a monetary value is quite the contradiction.

[AqD]

Akar,

So it appears that you have more sympathy for an animal than you do for a human being. The value of a child is much greater, why? Because a firstborn son or daughter is a treasured thing. The value for a son is that he continues the lineage and for a daughter that she may forge alliances for the betterment of a family by bearing children. One cannot put a monetary value to such as it varies all across but there is no doubt that there is a monetary value in there. Within a family these arrangements are seen all over the world and thank God they still exist. Killing a living child in the womb is wrong on any count.

I'm curious about the inherent value of a child. Is the value about life, or about creation? If it's the latter, if a mom gave birth to 3 kids and aborted 2 others, is that still good? (better than having no kid at all?) If it's about life itself, would you say any human life is a blessing? including the ones born with incurable cancer or without arms or legs or brain? Do you even consider constant suffering a bad thing?

But since everything dies as your God designed, wouldn't you say he has single handedly killed far more humans than any other human could match?

If it's not, as we're supposed to follow his designs, what do you think of extending life? and eventually extending life to infinity? Imagine a world where life, once created, would live forever and never die. Is that better?

[basics]

AqD,

You're not really curious about the life of a child or its value otherwise you wouldn't ask such a question. Adam chose to die rather than live and so when his nature was changed so too did that change fall on all his heirs so God is not to blame for the countless deaths that have occurred regardless of their nature. Had Adam kept to God's word no babies would be born in tragic circumstances. It's called the fall of man not the fall of God. When I get to heaven there will be no time, no pain, no disease, no death, just the wonder of being in the presence of Almighty God.

[Akar]

You're not really curious about the life of a child or its value otherwise you wouldn't ask such a question.

And you clearly aren't really interested either, if you're unwilling to answer the question.

It's called the fall of man not the fall of God.

And yet, it was the entire fault of god, not of man. You're going to tell people not to eat something that will teach them the difference between right and wrong, and when they do eat it (not knowing it's right or wrong), you punish them for doing the wrong thing. Which they wouldn't have any way of knowing was the wrong thing until they ate the fruit, which was the wrong thing. Which they had no way of knowing was the wrong thing until they ate the fruit, which was the wrong thing...

[basics]

Akar,

Adam and Eve were warned by God not to eat of a particular tree else they would die. They had everything they needed until Eve heard the words. " God really doesn't mean ye shall die." and " Eat and ye shall be gods like Him." So she ate and then persuaded Adam to do the same. Immediately they realised they had sinned and tried to hide. They broke two cardinal rules, one they disbelieved God and so they disobeyed Him, the very thing all the detractors of God do and as you are doing right now. Had they stayed faithful to God's word death wouldn't have followed sin into the world.

So everytime you whine about God you miss the point entirely, how? Because the story we are living through is about God, not you. It is about God's power and pleasure to redeem certain people from the very sin that Adam brought into the world through Him joining with us in the form of the Lord Jesus Christ to take away that sin from off them so that death was defeated. This He did at Golgotha when He hung on a cross bearing more than any human has ever bourne so that His blood paid the price demanded by the Law for sin. But you don't want to see that preferring instead to follow Darwin's fading theory whilst at the same time crying out, " There is no God, " yet blaming Him for all your ills. The thing is that it has all been written and finalised in heaven although we are still playing it out here. When Jesus cried out, " Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing," that wasn't just for His executioners, it was for all mankind, Him knowing that by His dying not only was He saving some but condemning more others to hell. It's a wonderful story authored by the Creator of all things Who makes plain that what is written has His power to save even the worst of men.

[Akar]

Adam and Eve were warned by God not to eat of a particular tree else they would die. They had everything they needed until Eve heard the words. " God really doesn't mean ye shall die." and " Eat and ye shall be gods like Him." So she ate and then persuaded Adam to do the same.

Yes. Because, again, they had no way of knowing what was right or wrong before they ate it. It doesn't matter if they were tricked or not, before eating the fruit they would have had no understanding or perception of trickery or that it was wrong or could lead to wrongness.

It is about God's power and pleasure to redeem certain people from the very sin that Adam brought into the world

Yeah, no. You don't get to blame Adam for that . God is the one who caused all of those bad things to happen. If god didn't want that to happen, it wouldn't have happened. It's not like god was helpless to stop Adam from eating the fruit (which he didn't know was wrong, because he didn't know what wrong was). This is literally god creating a solution to a problem that HE CREATED.

Darwin's fading theory

What exactly is "fading" about the theory of evolution? More people than ever are trusting in science and throwing away the anti-intellectual shackles of religion.

" There is no God, " yet blaming Him for all your ills.

Yeah, god isn't creating ills but his followers sure as are. God didn't cause the Crusaders or the Inquisition, or the genocide of Native peoples. His followers did that. God isn't being blamed, you are being blamed for your blind faith.

power to save even the worst of men.

And since you believe in predestination, he also is the one who is responsible for making them evil. It's a retarded, nonsensical catch-22. I don't see how anyone can believe this .

[basics]

Akar,

Well when a parent warns his or her child of a danger, does that child know what the danger is or its consequences. Of course they don't and so the parent tries to get the child to believe them before they find out the hard way. It's a case of trust and obey and just so in the case of Adam and Eve.

God created us for Himself so we all are predestined to do what God set for us. Every word you speak against Him is exactly what He authored you to say so what does that make you? Not even a mere pimple on the back of His hand.

More people may well be turning away from God but then that also is part of the story so it's not to be unexpected.

It is written that God created good and evil, so why? For the story of redemption by Him through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He placed all men under sin so that He could save some, not all. God is Sovereign so nothing that happens does so without His knowledge or authorship. Evolution is just a myth that a world turned over to evil needs in its quest to deny the Sovereignty of God. It's all part of the story created by God for God.

[Akar]

Well when a parent warns his or her child of a danger, does that child know what the danger is or its consequences.

Yes?

First of all, lets ignore that in this new example the child would be capable of understanding right from wrong (depending on age), whereas Adam and Eve could not. Now, for example, telling a kid not to touch the stove unless he wants to get burned. You've detailed the request, the danger, and the possible consequence. You certainly aren't going to punish the kid for touching the stove, and you definitely aren't going to punish the kid, the kid's kids, the kid's kid's kids, and so on...

God created us for Himself so we all are predestined to do what God set for us. Every word you speak against Him is exactly what He authored you to say so what does that make you?

So why not do anything we want, exactly when we want to? It's all god's plan, right? Why even look both ways before crossing the street? If you're hit, you're hit. All god's plan!

It is written that God created good and evil, so why? For the story of redemption by Him through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He placed all men under sin so that He could save some, not all. God is Sovereign so nothing that happens does so without His knowledge or authorship. Evolution is just a myth that a world turned over to evil needs in its quest to deny the Sovereignty of God. It's all part of the story created by God for God

You're one street corner away from being the apocalyptic street barker found in any major city.

[conon394]

Well when a parent warns his or her child of a danger, does that child know what the danger is or its consequences. Of course they don't and so the parent tries to get the child to believe them before they find out the hard way. It's a case of trust and obey and just so in the case of Adam and Eve.

No it is not to essentially restate Akar above you believe in capricious blood attainder. Yes my child might well burn his or her hand on a pot and subsequently perhaps spill the contents harming themselves or things in the kitchen. But lesson learned one way or the other is not some f-ing blood curse. Moreover one without repair until some vague time in the future handed out parsimoniously at best.

not all. God is Sovereign so nothing that happens does so without His knowledge or authorship. Evolution is just a myth that a world turned over to evil needs in its quest to deny the Sovereignty of God. It's all part of the story created by God for God.

So basically you believe in a god who buys an ant farm watches than shakes it and just derives pleasure from eventually helping the ants recover their hive but only part of them and screw all the rest. But which ants is something they have limited ability to know and changes on a whim.

God created us for Himself so we all are predestined to do what God set for us. Every word you speak against Him is exactly what He authored you to say so what does that make you? Not even a mere pimple on the back of His hand.

Well now if you want to for full predestination than why should I bother to seek forgiveness or act morally at all?

And if I have no free will Gods world is rather boring for him.

More people may well be turning away from God but then that also is part of the story so it's not to be unexpected.

But you just said he already wrote that, knew that so umm...

It is written that God created good and evil, so why? For the story of redemption by Him through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He placed all men under sin so that He could save some

So Adam and Eve you are saying were suppose to fail so why the warning?

[basics]

conon394,

Adam and Eve could still be alive in the garden had they obeyed God by believing Him but they didn't and so death came into the world and they were cast into it. Oh they had a will but it was never free because in the garden they were governed by rules and once put out they were governed by Satan and sin. Why did it happen this way? It happened because God ordained it to make His story about His redemption plan. You ask if that is the case why should you bother to seek forgiveness and the answer is that you can't. Only God can bring you to do that but only if he has already ordained it to be. The good news is that there is no league table as to how dead in your sin you are, the trigger is in believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross for you, rose again for you, that you can be forgiven and have eternal life. Believe that and God will do the rest.

[Akar]

So you're just going to ignore every single question he asked, then?

[Vladyvid]

Im sure there were similar debates some thousands of years ago about how does the Mount Olympus operate? The times are new, but the superstitions are old.

Think about this for a moment: in 10000 years all the current religions will be gone and not even a memory of them will remain. Just as the religions of 10000 years past are nothing but a myth now. Thats because people create those religions out of superstition. There are countless millions of planets in our galaxy alone, and all of a sudden we have a planet here with the religion of truth? We are just one of the countless billions of life forms in the universe. What hubris this is to think we are the only ones, we are the keepers of the truth and the true religion. Typical human hubris and supersition.

Think about what is the concept of heaven - a reward for a good life? Eternal reward for lets say a 100 years of living? It makes no sense at all in my opinion. Life is often hard, and especially in the past when the civilization was much less developed. Thats why people would always cling to the beliefs that what comes after death will be better than their mostly lives. Also, people seek meaning in life and the afterlife for many seems like a good explanation of their otherwise meaningless existance. The only problem is, that our existance is essentially completely meaningless, thats why we can ascribe it any meaning we desire. There is no more mystery behind the concept of heaven, its just wishfull thinking.

Again you remind me that i was born on a wrong planet.