Abortion

WindSock

Jakkass wrote: »

Can other people do it is what you should be asking. Until it was brought up by Thaedydal and WindSock I did leave it out. I do believe in God however, and that is a motivation behind my belief in pro-life. This won't convince everyone as everyone is not a Christian however.

Infact, read the 9 posts I have linked in my signature, they represent clear reasoning that doesn't invoke God.

In fairness to Jakkass, I did bring god & my stance on the bible up in another post. It's not fair to be targetting him every time the 'G' word is mentioned, and I understand and respect his need to defend his beliefs.

WindSock

WillieCocker wrote: »

Your just knitpicking and taking it out of context.

Well you said every other thing in this world. And I disagree.

me-skywalker

its not fair the price to pay for having a good time... hangovers/babies/no money/guilty consciences! worth far more than any false religious sentiments ever will.. considering an abortion and using the god angle is about as pointless as this website.

WindSock

Jakkass wrote: »

People like myself think that we need clear moral norms that transcend "what is appropriate to do" for society to operate effectively.

What difference does an unborn foetus make to society? The only person that is aware of it's existance is the woman, and possibly the foetus itself at a later stage, I don't know about that one though.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a difference between ethics and morality.

Ethics: What is deemed appropriate to do.

Morality: Rights and wrongs. In Kant's view of morality if you hold morals you wish them to be universal. You cannot argue that someone is doing wrong unless you see it binding on them that they are doing something wrong. There is no point in arguing morals unless they are indeed absolute. Why on earth do people say to eachother "You ought to know better". They are appealing to their sense of morality which must be universal for others to relate to. (This is how C.S Lewis explains the Moral Law).

I'm confused. You say that you can't tell something they're doing something wrong unless morality is universal but could they not say "that is not deemed appropriate to do" and make the same argument from an ethical perspective? Must we use the argument from authority logical fallacy every time we tell someone they've done wrong? (ie it's wrong because the universal moral thingy says so and we don't have to explain any further)

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you and others on this thread hold to ethics. I.E the liberal "whatever floats your boat" type agenda. People like myself think that we need clear moral norms that transcend "what is appropriate to do" for society to operate effectively.

There is no such thing as a liberal "whatever floats your boat" type agenda. There is a liberal "whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't harm someone else" type agenda though. Any "norm" as you call it over and above that is just getting in other people's business and forcing your morality on them

I don't see being against abortion as forcing my morality on people because it doesn't fit with the "as long as it doesn't harm someone else" clause but if you're going to try to argue your point from a universal morality perspective you're going to lose. Sorry mate but most of the people here don't believe in your god and we don't believe in universal morality. People always have and always will decide among themselves what is appropriate and what isn't. That is the only "morality" that exists and it existed before the desert folk wrote it down in a book and pretended it came from god

WindSock

WindSock wrote: »

every time the 'G' word is mentioned

Just to clarify, 'G' is God, not Gangsta.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm confused. You say that you can't tell something they're doing something wrong unless morality is universal but could they not say "that is not deemed appropriate to do" and make the same argument from an ethical perspective? Must we use the argument from authority logical fallacy every time we tell someone they've done wrong? (ie it's wrong because the universal moral thingy says so and we don't have to explain any further)

That's as much as I have gleaned from my moral philosophy course so far. For you to hold morals effectively, you have to wish for them to become universal if you are going to hold another to your moral standard. I.E When you hold someone to account for doing something wrong, you have to appeal to an objective point of view to do so. If morals were subjective appealing to them would be useless, they are only yours and yours alone, and leave us alone we can do whatever we want. Morals to be effective have to be universal in my view anyway.

You could make an argument from an ethical point of view, but that tends to be more utilitarian. The idea is whatever is most suitable in a situation. Someone could well argue that it is appropriate to remove an inconvenient life from their lives as it is the most pragmatic idea to do. It's a hindrance to my life, therefore it seems appropriate to remove it.

Ethics generally don't work on value. Ethics merely work on what is the most convenient thing to do.

As for the universal morality thing, and not explaining anything any further, that isn't true either. Secular philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas say for morals to be binding there has to be a decent explanation for why it is so. I believe on the pro-life side we have done this sufficiently time and time again, however it seems that some people aren't interested in morals but rather in ethics which makes it extremely difficult to reason with them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no such thing as a liberal "whatever floats your boat" type agenda. There is a liberal "whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't harm someone else" type agenda though. Any "norm" as you call it over and above that is just getting in other people's business and forcing your morality on them

Take a look around you. The world, particularly in the West is dominated by this liberal "whatever floats your boat" agenda. People don't want to hear what you think about rights and wrongs they just want to be able to do whatever they want in as many circumstances as possible.

You don't seem to consider abortion as a part of this agenda. However it manifestly is. As for getting into anothers business, your views on abortion could be seen as getting into another persons business. However both me and you know that this causes harm.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't see being against abortion as forcing my morality on people because it doesn't fit with the "as long as it doesn't harm someone else" clause but if you're going to try to argue your point from a universal morality perspective you're going to lose. Sorry mate but most of the people here don't believe in your god and we don't believe in universal morality. People always have and always will decide among themselves what is appropriate and what isn't. That is the only "morality" that exists and it existed before the desert folk wrote it down in a book and pretended it came from god

There you go. However, it could well be interpreted as such.

The universal morality perspective is the only intelligible way that one can argue from morality. Arguing from ethics is different. As I say there is a whole debate on the subject of morality and I've found moral universalism to be the only practical and realistic way to deal with morals.

As for bringing up God, you know as well as I do one can argue this subject without dealing with religion. Infact many secular philosophers have argued for moral universalism. You know my views on the source of morals, and I'd be glad to discuss it with you on the Christianity forum any time, but when dealing with abortion it's best not to add more confusion.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That's as much as I have gleaned from my moral philosophy course so far. For you to hold morals effectively, you have to wish for them to become universal if you are going to hold another to your moral standard. I.E When you hold someone to account for doing something wrong, you have to appeal to an objective point of view to do so. If morals were subjective appealing to them would be useless, they are only yours and yours alone, and leave us alone we can do whatever we want. Morals to be effective have to be universal in my view anyway.

In Ireland 20 years ago it was considered immoral to have a child out of wedlock, now it's perfectly acceptable. In biblical times it was moral to sell your daughter into slavery but it's not anymore. It was moral to keep slaves until a few hundreds years ago. It was moral for women to be second class citizens until the last century and still is in many places. In Ireland suicide is immoral but in Japan you were required to commit suicide if you lost honour. In ancient Rome paedophilia was acceptable. The biggies like murder and stealing are (mostly) always there but there have always been differences. Morality is not now nor has it ever been universal.

And it's not a choice between objective unalterable morality and morality being "yours and yours alone". Society decides what it will accept and what it won't. It's the way it has always been, even among religious people, although they like to convince themselves otherwise. If it wasn't we'd still be living in the same society as the ancients and it'd still be fine to rape children

Jakkass wrote: »

You could make an argument from an ethical point of view, but that tends to be more utilitarian. The idea is whatever is most suitable in a situation. Someone could well argue that it is appropriate to remove an inconvenient life from their lives as it is the most pragmatic idea to do. It's a hindrance to my life, therefore it seems appropriate to remove it.

Ethics generally don't work on value. Ethics merely work on what is the most convenient thing to do.

I'm afraid Jakkass, that you have no understanding of what the word ethical means. You seem to be associating it with nihilism or anarchism where people do whatever they want and don't give a crap about anyone else. The mantra of the ethicist is "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else" but you seem to be forgetting about the last part. I suggest you google "morality vs ethics" and learn a bit more about it before you continue.

A definition from the net defines ethics as: A set of principles of right conduct.

How do you get "whatever floats your boat" from that?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the universal morality thing, and not explaining anything any further, that isn't true either. Secular philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas say for morals to be binding there has to be a decent explanation for why it is so.

so can an ethicist not explain to people why something is wrong, have everyone agree and then form a society based on these commonly decided rules?

also if you have to explain it, it's not universal. If it's universal, everybody already knows it's wrong and doesn't need it explained. I see no difference whatsoever between a moral system that has been explained to the young and accepted by society, and an ethical system. Although if I had your very odd understanding of the word ethics there would be a difference. You really need to find out what the word means tbh

Jakkass wrote: »

Take a look around you. The world, particularly in the West is dominated by this liberal "whatever floats your boat" agenda. People don't want to hear what you think about rights and wrongs they just want to be able to do whatever they want in as many circumstances as possible.

So why don't we see widespread murder, rape, theft etc from these people that apparently want to be able to do whatever they want? Why does it appear that they follow much the same rules as christians except they do the bits that you're "not supposed to do" even though they don't harm anyone else, eg practising homosexuality

Jakkass wrote: »

As for bringing up God, you know as well as I do one can argue this subject without dealing with religion. Infact many secular philosophers have argued for moral universalism. You know my views on the source of morals, and I'd be glad to discuss it with you on the Christianity forum any time, but when dealing with abortion it's best not to add more confusion.

You can absolutely argue it without mentioning god and you can also argue it without mentioning universal morality. The two concepts are inextricably linked. I find it hard to believe that secular philosophers have argued from moral universalism. The idea of morality based on explaining to people why something is wrong is the antithesis of universal morality. What can you possibly argue to someone who doesn't see anything wrong with what they're doing except "it's wrong because I say it's wrong and my morality applies to everyone"? What justification can be given other than a higher power and if the justification is done through explaining why it's wrong, what's the difference between that and ethics? If you're explaining why it's wrong, you're not arguing from a universal morality perspective

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In Ireland 20 years ago it was considered immoral to have a child out of wedlock, now it's perfectly acceptable. In biblical times it was moral to sell your daughter into slavery but it's not anymore. It was moral to keep slaves until a few hundreds years ago. It was moral for women to be second class citizens until the last century and still is in many places. In Ireland suicide is immoral but in Japan you were required to commit suicide if you lost honour. In ancient Rome paedophilia was acceptable. The biggies like murder and stealing are (mostly) always there but there have always been differences. Morality is not now nor has it ever been universal.

By universal I do not mean that people do not dispute it. I mean for you to hold someone accountable to your morality, you must accept that your morality is also binding on them. Do you get that much?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid Jakkass, that you have no understanding of what the word ethical means. You seem to be associating it with nihilism or anarchism where people do whatever they want and don't give a crap about anyone else. The mantra of the ethicist is "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else" but you seem to be forgetting about the last part. I suggest you google "morality vs ethics" and learn a bit more about it before you continue.

Blame my philosophy lecturer who has defined ethics as such

Ethics doesn't have anything to do with rights or wrongs, it has to do with what is appropriate. Morals are where we begin to attempt to define rights and wrongs. That's the way that seems to make the most sense of it. People argue that morals do not exist, and are merely contractual. Contractual would indicate that they are merely agreed on by people which would lead it more to be an idea that it is what people have decided is appropriate to do within their communities.

That's my 2 cents on it anyway. You may differ, but to say that someone doesn't have a clue about ethics when they have been studying the concept for an entire semester seems a bit strange doesn't it?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you get "whatever floats your boat" from that?

Whatever is appropriate at the time for a particular individuals or a group of individuals seems to me to be very similar to the notion of liberalism.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so can an ethicist not explain to people why something is wrong, have everyone agree and then form a society based on these commonly decided rules?

I wouldn't agree that ethicists deal with rights and wrongs, but rather they deal with "appropriateness". I don't agree that morals and ethics are the same thing.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also if you have to explain it, it's not universal. If it's universal, everybody already knows it's wrong and doesn't need it explained. I see no difference whatsoever between a moral system that has been explained to the young and accepted by society, and an ethical system. Although if I had your very odd understanding of the word ethics there would be a difference. You really need to find out what the word means tbh

I've explained my reasoning behind the use of universal at the start of the thread. You have to believe that it is binding on others to hold them to account to it. That's pretty much as universal as you get. If you believe that something is wrong, it's patently wrong, you believe it to be universally wrong. Whether or not you are mistaken is another thing, but to condemn someone you have to do it objectively. You cannot do it based on relativism.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So why don't we see widespread murder, rape, theft etc from these people that apparently want to be able to do whatever they want? Why does it appear that they follow much the same rules as christians except they do the bits that you're "not supposed to do" even though they don't harm anyone else, eg practising homosexuality.

Not all people are moral relativists for a start. Secondly they would have also entered into ethical contractualism. It isn't appropriate to do for a number of reasons. As I say I distinguish between ethics and morals. You clearly do not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can absolutely argue it without mentioning god and you can also argue it without mentioning universal morality. The two concepts are inextricably linked. I find it hard to believe that secular philosophers have argued from moral universalism. The idea of morality based on explaining to people why something is wrong is the antithesis of universal morality. What can you possibly argue to someone who doesn't see anything wrong with what they're doing except "it's wrong because I say it's wrong and my morality applies to everyone"? What justification can be given other than a higher power and if the justification is done through explaining why it's wrong, what's the difference between that and ethics?

Universalism is relevant to moral discourse as such I won't be leaving it out. I haven't referred to a higher power although I do believe that a higher power has condemned murder and abortion it's not the best footing to get on with people who don't share your idea of a higher power.

I'd personally like to keep this thread on the topic of abortion however if you don't mind that is. We can agree on that much so it seems.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

By universal I do not mean that people do not dispute it. I mean for you to hold someone accountable to your morality, you must accept that your morality is also binding on them. Do you get that much?

No I don't. I can look at a muslim woman wearing a burqa and say that to me is immoral but I can also acknowledge that it's their culture and they see nothing wrong with it. In all likelihood even the woman wearing the burqa sees nothing wrong with it because that's just how things are done there.

I can however appeal from an ethical perspective and say "I wouldn't like that done to me" but if the man and the woman are both happy with the arrangement and I still try to make them stop then I'm forcing my non-universal morality on them

Jakkass wrote: »

Blame my philosophy lecturer who has defined ethics as such

Either you misunderstood him or he should be sacked, most likely the former

Jakkass wrote: »

Ethics doesn't have anything to do with rights or wrongs,

Yes it does, you clearly do not understand the word

Jakkass wrote: »

That's my 2 cents on it anyway. You may differ, but to say that someone doesn't have a clue about ethics when they have been studying the concept for an entire semester seems a bit strange doesn't it?

Nothing surprises me with yourself Jakkass. It does seem strange but you have demonstrated on this thread that you don't understand it. Personally I think you have a biased view of ethics as bad and morals as good because of your religious beliefs

Jakkass wrote: »

it has to do with what is appropriate. Morals are where we begin to attempt to define rights and wrongs. That's the way that seems to make the most sense of it. People argue that morals do not exist, and are merely contractual. Contractual would indicate that they are merely agreed on by people which would lead it more to be an idea that it is what people have decided is appropriate to do within their communities.

Well that is what has always happened in every society. Such a system works because I know that I wouldn't like to be killed or to have something stolen from me so it follows that someone else wouldn't either. You don't have to have moral rules handed down from a higher power or written in stone for all time to be able to understand the concept of "I wouldn't like it done to me so I won't do it to someone else". That is the basis of an ethical system.

And the reason that it's better than a universal moral system is that a moral system is more like "I wouldn't like it done to me so it shouldn't be done". That's why moralists and ethicists clash on issues such as homosexuality because we don't mind it as long as it doesn't affect us but you don't want it practised at all even if it has nothing to do with you

Jakkass wrote: »

Not all people are moral relativists for a start. Secondly they would have also entered into ethical contractualism. It isn't appropriate to do for a number of reasons.

The fact that not all are "moral relativists" as you call them is irrelevant. You said that philosophy "dominates the west" so it would be the dominant practise and it's clearly not


You described an ethical system as "whatever floats your boat" and said that is the dominant system in western cultures. But if that is the case, and it floated my boat to rape women and children, why do we both know that not only would it be frowned on but I'd go to jail for quite a while? Or do you want to update your definition of ethics since you've just admitted it's wrong?

And if people can decide among themselves that it's not appropriate to murder, rape and steal without appealing to some universal moral code, what's so wrong with such a system? Why is it impossible to build a society on it?

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that ethicists deal with rights and wrongs, but rather they deal with "appropriateness". I don't agree that morals and ethics are the same thing.

Ethics and morals are not the same thing, I never said that but you are trying to argue that you can't build a successful society on ethics and you must use universal morality and I'm saying ethics is just fine. Ethics and morals are two different approaches to making a good society, morals from the top down and ethics from the bottom up

philologos

I'd like to keep the topic on abortion if you don't mind. I feel such a discussion would be more appropriate on the philosophy forum or in humanities.

I disagree with your view of ethics, but I certainly am not wrong for adopting another philosophical understanding on it than you do. I also don't see any other philosopher who has argued this as being wrong.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd like to keep the topic on abortion if you don't mind. I feel such a discussion would be more appropriate on the philosophy forum or in humanities.

I disagree with your view of ethics, but I certainly am not wrong for adopting another philosophical understanding on it than you do. I also don't see any other philosopher who has argued this as being wrong.

Your view of ethics is that people can do whatever they want and that it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Here's a line from the wikipedia ethics page:

Normative ethics
Main article: Normative ethics

Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong

adopting a different philosophical understanding to me does not make you wrong but adopting an understanding that completely misses the point and is more akin to nihilism does indeed make you wrong. Wiki's definition of nihilism:

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical position that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented.[1] Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[2] is without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another. Nihilism can also take the form of epistemological, metaphysical or mereological nihilism.

That's pretty much your understanding of ethics as far as I can see


edit: and I won't be moving the topic to another forum because the last time you said that what we were talking about was off topic and asked me to start another thread so we could discuss it, you never responded to the new thread that you asked me to start

philologos

As I say, it's blatently off-topic. I'd far prefer to keep discussing on abortion rather than descend the discussion into things like post-modernism, nihilism, and existentialism.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

As I say, it's blatently off-topic. I'd far prefer to keep discussing on abortion rather than descend the discussion into things like post-modernism, nihilism, and existentialism.

You were happy enough to discuss it for a number of posts but if you want to use the "it's off-topic" excuse to duck another debate mid way through you have that right. But remember that every time you use an excuse like that you lose a little bit more credibility

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You were happy enough to discuss it for a number of posts but if you want to use the "it's off-topic" excuse to duck another debate mid way through you have that right. But remember that every time you use an excuse like that you lose a little bit more credibility

How childish is this? Its quite reasonable to request to take it to another thread. Why resort to such upity one upmanship? Jackass is quite entitled not to respond to the other thread neither. Just pretend you won an arguement if you want, but Jackass has certainly not requested anything out of the ordinary

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

How childish is this? Its quite reasonable to request to take it to another thread. Why resort to such upity one upmanship? Jackass is quite entitled not to respond to the other thread neither. Just pretend you won an arguement if you want, but Jackass has certainly not requested anything out of the ordinary

I see you're not familiar with Jakkass. As I said he has done this before a few times and then just not responded to the thread he asked for. You can say he has no obligation to respond but you'd think he'd respond to a thread that only exists because he asked for it to be started. The way he tends to debate is it goes back and forth until you say something he can't respond to at which point he makes some excuse to get out of the debate or simply stops responding to you and acts like you never said the thing he couldn't respond to, often asking the same rhetorical questions over and over, ignoring all responses. And it has become apparent that the "start a new thread for this" excuse is another way to get the other person to drop the topic because he never has any intention of responding to the new thread. The issue has been raised with him by many people who have got frustrated with this impenetrable "debating" technique so it's not just me throwing a tantrum

JC 2K3

While I wouldn't consider your debating style to be entirely reasonable, and quite hostile at times, I have to agree with you here about Jakkass. It gets extremely frustrating after a while.

dr.bollocko

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see you're not familiar with Jakkass. As I said he has done this before a few times and then just not responded to the thread he asked for. You can say he has no obligation to respond but you'd think he'd respond to a thread that only exists because he asked for it to be started. The way he tends to debate is it goes back and forth until you say something he can't respond to at which point he makes some excuse to get out of the debate or simply stops responding to you and acts like you never said the thing he couldn't respond to, often asking the same rhetorical questions over and over, ignoring all responses. And it has become apparent that the "start a new thread for this" excuse is another way to get the other person to drop the topic because he never has any intention of responding to the new thread. The issue has been raised with him by many people who have got frustrated with this impenetrable "debating" technique so it's not just me throwing a tantrum

JC 2K3 wrote: »

While I wouldn't consider your debating style to be entirely reasonable, and quite hostile at times, I have to agree with you here about Jakkass. It gets extremely frustrating after a while.

Regardless of what your opinions are it is not OK to drag a thread off topic with personal insinuations against another poster and I would thank you not to do it again.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

While I wouldn't consider your debating style to be entirely reasonable, and quite hostile at times

I like to think that I'm generally reasonable with people as long as they're being reasonable but I do acknowledge that I can get a bit hostile when someone's just said something that is, in my opinion, retarded (not referring to this thread).

While it can be pretty satisfying to point out just how retarded their comment is, it's probably not the best way to go about a debate because people don't like being told they're retarded

So I will take your comment on board and try to tone down the hostility and tell people they're wrong in a way that doesn't make them deny it just because of the way I told them

Nevyn

Sam Vimes just put jackkas on ignore, you have to from time to time other wise you'd go nuts with how he roams form forum to forum searching out threads to push his christian view point, and agenda which to me is proselyting.

philologos

Everyone has an agenda and a point of view, and I am entitled to mine

Sure, I get passionate about some things, but then again so do you. I am glad for the arena that we have to share these views, and I am glad for many of the interactions I have had on boards. We have various groups of people who are passionate about their views, and I believe that every man has a cause:
Pro-lifers, pro-choicers, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, the various factions on the politics forums. Surely these make the forum a better place?

As for "Christian agenda" though. I would advise every objective reader to the thread to note that I did not raise God or religion in this thread. Infact I was quite willing to discuss pro-life issues without bringing in Christianity or God.

orestes

Jakkass wrote: »

Everyone has an agenda

No they don't, they have a point of view. An agenda is not good for open and free discussion/debate. Constantly putting forward your own "agenda" without being open-minded enough to consider the opposing point of view is soap-boxing and ignorant, not to mention downright self-righteous and arrogant.

People with an agenda are the last people I would take seriously in a debate

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Everyone has an agenda and a point of view, and I am entitled to mine

Really can you point me to even 5 out of your last 100 posts which are not about your christian agenda?

Seriously the paganism forum was the first religious forum on the site
and it was created with the caveat that there would be no proselytizing.

Other then I mod that forum people would be hard pushed to know that I am pagan, I don't push that on anyone, it does not clearly show in my posts that I have a pagan bias as all your post clearly do.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "Christian agenda" though. I would advise every objective reader to the thread to note that I did not raise God or religion in this thread. Infact I was quite willing to discuss pro-life issues without bringing in Christianity or God.

You have a clear bias it's in all your posts, you at some stage in your short 20 years had some sort of epohiny and are in my opinion using this site to bring more people to christ which is proselystising. IT has gotten worse over the last 4 months and you have moved from taking pot shots in paganism, to spirituality, to pi to parenting and when you were told to stop you moved to humanities and now AH and next it seems is philosophy.

Dude this site is not your preaching soap box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIRb8TigJ28

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really can you point me to even 5 out of your last 100 posts which are not about your christian agenda?

Indeed, you are correct. I do post on a lot of Christian related topics, it's an interest of mine. Particularly the more theology related stuff. If you look back to my post history you'll see this trend towards posting more Christian related posts started in 2007. I don't see why I should have to deny my faith in Jesus Christ, or why I cannot speak about it on this forum when the topic allows. I think that is reasonable. If it is not reasonable, please take it up with the admins or the SMods to request me to be site banned.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Seriously the paganism forum was the first religious forum on the site
and it was created with the caveat that there would be no proselytizing.

And?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Other then I mod that forum people would be hard pushed to know that I am pagan, I don't push that on anyone, it does not clearly show in my posts that I have a pagan bias as all your post clearly do.

Yes, I'm very interested in Christianity. It's changed my life entirely.

Thaedydal wrote: »

You have a clear bias it's in all your posts, you at some stage in your short 20 years had some sort of epohiny and are in my opinion using this site to bring more people to christ which is proselystising. IT has gotten worse over the last 4 months and you have moved from taking pot shots in paganism, to spirituality, to pi to parenting and when you were told to stop you moved to humanities and now AH.

Bear in mind folks:

Parenting thread concerned baptism.
Humanities threads have concerned a lot of topics concerning Christianity.
All of the threads that I have posted on have related to the actual topic at hand. It's not like I have brought it in off topic in any respect.

As for having a Christian perspective? Are Christian perspectives to be muted on boards? Is it wrong to have a Christian perspective on certain issues on boards?

That is up for you all to decide.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Dude this site is not your preaching soap box.

Indeed, it isn't. It's a place where I have shared quite a few ideas with quite a few people. Some have received me well, some have received my posts badly. However, I don't expect my posts to please everyone. As I say, I can get passionate about what I advocate or what I do not, perhaps too passionate. I welcome the mods of any forum to ban me if I get out of line.

Splendour

Deleted User wrote: »

I had this discussion recently with some friends,
basically I said at this moment of my life myself and my GF couldn't handle a child, so if bad luck struck we would decide to take the trip the england for an abortion. I don't see the problem but my friends did.

What are peoples opinions?

* I know this is a touchy subject so try keep it civil folks, I would like to hear some real opinions on this without risk getting the thread locked, thanks.

Just tripped across this thread and admit to not having fully read it all post by post so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that has been said.
My take on this is: if you're old enough to handle sex then you're old enough to have a child. If you aren't old enough to have a child then you aren't old enough to have sex.

Terry

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really can you point me to even 5 out of your last 100 posts which are not about your christian agenda?

Seriously the paganism forum was the first religious forum on the site
and it was created with the caveat that there would be no proselytizing.

Other then I mod that forum people would be hard pushed to know that I am pagan, I don't push that on anyone, it does not clearly show in my posts that I have a pagan bias as all your post clearly do.



You have a clear bias it's in all your posts, you at some stage in your short 20 years had some sort of epohiny and are in my opinion using this site to bring more people to christ which is proselystising. IT has gotten worse over the last 4 months and you have moved from taking pot shots in paganism, to spirituality, to pi to parenting and when you were told to stop you moved to humanities and now AH.

Dude this site is not your preaching soap box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIRb8TigJ28

I'll see your Life Of Brian and Raise you a Meaning Of Life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A

Jakkass, well done on ruining another thread with your bible bashing.
Post in this thread again and I will ban you.
Reason for the ban?
I have warned you numerous times about bringing the bible into AH, yet you continue to do it.

In language you might understand:
Book of Terry; 1:37 - 38
Thou shalt not mention the writings of the bible of those of the Abrahamic God,
For Terry will be sad,
And he will raise him hammer of ban,
And he will use that hammer to ban those who speak of the Abrahamic God,
For he is a false god where AH is concerned and the AH God is not a forgiving one.

Just don't post in this thread again.

orestes

Splendour wrote: »

Just tripped across this thread and admit to not having fully read it all post by post so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that has been said.
My take on this is: if you're old enough to handle sex then you're old enough to have a child. If you aren't old enough to have a child then you aren't old enough to have sex.

What on earth does that have to do with abortion?

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to deny my faith in Jesus Christ, or why I cannot speak about it on this forum when the topic allows.

Oh please I never said you had to be a Peter but you go out of your way to find such thread to post in or to nudge the topic so you can post you message in.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that is reasonable. If it is not reasonable, please take it up with the admins or the SMods to request me to be site banned.

I don't think you should be site banned, I do think you should have a think about what you are doing and how it can be off putting to people.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I'm very interested in Christianity. It's changed my life entirely.

That's nice, my own spiritual revelations completely changed me and my life,
my beliefs and how I live my life in accordance with them fill me up with joy,
but I respect the rights of others and don't go looking to push, promote or proselyte my beliefs. I and my Gods are not so arrogant to believe they are the one true way for everyone.

Jakkass wrote: »

Parenting thread concerned baptism.
Humanities threads have concerned a lot of topics concerning Christianity.
All of the threads that I have posted on have related to the actual topic at hand. It's not like I have brought it in off topic in any respect.

You have disrupted threads and kept bringing them back to the christain point of view and agenda again and again and again post bombing them until
all other discussion gets drown out, it's what cult members are trained to do.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for having a Christian perspective? Are Christian perspectives to be muted on boards? Is it wrong to have a Christian perspective on certain issues on boards?

There are ways to do that with out being so in people's faces, it could be that you are still young and so still full of zeal but I hope your god sees fit that you gain some wisdom and maturity soon.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I say, I can get passionate about what I advocate or what I do not, perhaps too passionate. I welcome the mods of any forum to ban me if I get out of line.

I have a lot of time for passion, passionate people and what interests and drives people but there has to be more to you then just this?

K-9

orestes wrote: »

What on earth does that have to do with abortion?

I think he means if people have sex, a pregnancy may result?

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Book of Terry; 1:37 - 38
Thou shalt not mention the writings of the bible of those of the Abrahamic God,
For Terry will be sad,
And he will raise him hammer of ban,
And he will use that hammer to ban those who speak of the Abrahamic God,
For he is a false god where AH is concerned and the AH God is not a forgiving one.

pmsl