Infanticide

[Immanuel Can]

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception.

Slavery vastly predates Christianity...or is your idea that there were no slaves in ancient Greece or Rome or Persia or Mesapotamia?

Actually, we find that slavery is as old and august an institution as prostitution and killing neighbours. It's as old as history itself, and clearly predates even that, since there would have to be slaves already if history were to record any.

That the Christian Bible uses slavery as a synonym for "bondage to sin," or that it comments on the existing practices and lives of slaves (For example, telling people, "If you are able to buy your freedom do so, and if not, you can still serve God.") does not convert slavery into a "Christian" institution, anymore than the Emancipation Proclamation makes slavery an "American" concept.

[Nick_A]

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception.

That may be, Nick, but I'm not Christian, and the slavery I'm talkin' about ain't spiritual: it's fleshy.

True, but either way a person can experience that at one time they feel something wrong with infanticide for purposes of convenience yet do it anyhow once they feel a social purpose to do so. A seeker of truth admits it and seeks to understand this apparent slavery to opposing forces. The study of hypocrisy is psychology.

[Nick_A]

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception.

Slavery vastly predates Christianity...or is your idea that there were no slaves in ancient Greece or Rome or Persia or Mesapotamia?

Actually, we find that slavery is as old and august an institution as prostitution and killing neighbours. It's as old as history itself, and clearly predates even that, since there would have to be slaves already if history were to record any.

That the Christian Bible uses slavery as a synonym for "bondage to sin," or that it comments on the existing practices and lives of slaves (For example, telling people, "If you are able to buy your freedom do so, and if not, you can still serve God.") does not convert slavery into a "Christian" institution, anymore than the Emancipation Proclamation makes slavery an "American" concept.

Does the previous explanation for slavery described by Paul in Romans 7 make sense to you?

[henry quirk]

a person can experience that at one time they feel something wrong with infanticide for purposes of convenience yet do it anyhow once they feel a social purpose to do so.

What social purpose?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception.

Slavery vastly predates Christianity...or is your idea that there were no slaves in ancient Greece or Rome or Persia or Mesapotamia?

Actually, we find that slavery is as old and august an institution as prostitution and killing neighbours. It's as old as history itself, and clearly predates even that, since there would have to be slaves already if history were to record any.

That the Christian Bible uses slavery as a synonym for "bondage to sin," or that it comments on the existing practices and lives of slaves (For example, telling people, "If you are able to buy your freedom do so, and if not, you can still serve God.") does not convert slavery into a "Christian" institution, anymore than the Emancipation Proclamation makes slavery an "American" concept.

Does the previous explanation for slavery described by Paul in Romans 7 make sense to you?

If you mean my reference to the use of "slavery" as an image for "bondage to sin," yes. It's very obviously that, not some sort of physical "slavery." After all, Paul was never himself an actual slave.

[Immanuel Can]

a person can experience that at one time they feel something wrong with infanticide for purposes of convenience yet do it anyhow once they feel a social purpose to do so.

What social purpose?

Does it matter? After all, a purpose doesn't suddenly turn an action to something with a moral purpose just because some "society" decides it's useful. Many mideastern cultures have institutionalized forcible child rape, as having the "social purpose" of gratifying their men. Does that make it moral? Of course not, right?

But I should let Nick answer...

[henry quirk]

But I should let Nick answer...

Little late for that now...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How cute. All the little religioturd buddy perverts in a row sucking each others genitals

[Immanuel Can]

But I should let Nick answer...

Little late for that now...

I don't see why. The man's can still type, I'm guessing.

[Nick_A]

a person can experience that at one time they feel something wrong with infanticide for purposes of convenience yet do it anyhow once they feel a social purpose to do so.

What social purpose?

Does it matter? After all, a purpose doesn't suddenly turn an action to something with a moral purpose just because some "society" decides it's useful. Many mideastern cultures have institutionalized forcible child rape, as having the "social purpose" of gratifying their men. Does that make it moral? Of course not, right?

But I should let Nick answer...

Romans 7

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Social pressure refers to the influences of the collective or society one is born in. The collective is the source of pressures which produces sin. This is the norm for the human condition. Man lives with the struggle between social pressures and the human ideals their conscience allows them to feel. Paul is suggesting that without the help of the spirit brought into the world by the Christ, our potential for conscious evolution is hopeless.

[iambiguous]

I think I'll just end it here.

Cut & run: yeah, I thought you might.

You JUST KNEW that I would, right?

[Walker]

... prefer actual babies to be murdered rather than allow a woman to safely end an unwanted pregnancy in the first 8 weeks, ...

Some preacher man must have pinched the baby VT, and she never got over it.

Well, relating infanticide to the historical perspective of Rome and Sparta reveals that whether it be babe in the hand or babe in the womb, the intent is to kill.

To kill the babe in the hand is much safer for the mother, and abortion science in ancient Rome and Sparta probably wasn't up to the assembly line safety standards of today's abortions.

And, killing children was acceptable to the social standards back in those days. I doubt if the women of Rome and Sparta had a single double-thought about the killing. They probably said, "We have to kill the kid." And society was fine with that.

Society would probably be fine with it now, too. Admitting the harsh reality of what must be done, is freeing to the woman. Better to live in truth rather than with double-think. Why? Because doing so, under the right conditions, leads to actions that obviate the need for double-think, and the glass gets cleaner.



(Don't be mean, keep it clean.)

[henry quirk]

You JUST KNEW that I would, right?

It's what you do...

I think it is best if we just move on to others.

...when things ain't goin' your way.

'nuff said

[iambiguous]

You JUST KNEW that I would, right?

It's what you do...

I think it is best if we just move on to others.

...when things ain't goin' your way.

'nuff said

Then it's a deal.

[Advocate]

First, encourage people not to have babbies at all. We should adopt all babbies out at random to an interested person who was more responsible than to bring a babbie into this twisted fucking society. The babbies will automatically be enrolled in a Circle of Trust with certain legal immunities and privileges, so they will always have a default backup family support system. The circle is also randomly chosen.