ludofl3x

I've heard this concern about Harris and the Democrats having "anti child" and "anti family" policies. Can someone explain which policies they are and how specifically they're anti-family? If the answer is abortion, the 50 years of Roe V Wade being legal nationwide didn't seem to inhibit people from having families. 

I am curious as to the thoughts folks here who say they're pro-life have on the implications of the latest ruling in Alabama, which says embryos, stored for the purposes of IVF, are in fact people. No one's said a word about it yet.

Can a married couple claim 50 embryos as tax deductions, for example?

Can you use the HOV lane if you're pregnant?

If someone who has a child successfully through this method then leaves 40 embryos behind, are they legally responsible for paying for the cryogenic storage of same?

If they refuse to pay for this, are they now criminally liable as negligent parents for lack of care?

Do the embryos become wards of the state, supported by tax dollars, if abandoned by parents, or if the parents die, knowing they will be stored indefinitely?

There's a ton of these questions and implications. What's the current thinking?

Whenever someone brings up god's love, the problem of evil, free will, etc., I get started thinking about the Christian heaven. The Christian hell is portrayed all over the place in popular culture, for centuries. I think it's because we know quite well what it feels like to suffer! Your Bosch paintings, your renaissance literature, all the way to today, there's no shortage of versions of hell. What about the Christian heaven? Here's a restatement of a topic I did a while ago, and not a lot of serious Christians or believers engaged with it honestly. Obviously open to all.

Just wondering if there were any reactions on either side to the recent news that because of a law Utah passed (the law didn't ban porn, it had to do with age verification requirements), Pornhub, which you know you've been on, has blocked access to their website in Utah. Perhaps coincidentally, and this is true, the searches in Utah on google are showing a significant uptick in VPN searches :). 

So during the football games, I've seen a number of ads for some organization that's apparently advertising for Jesus. My question to Christians, why, in your view, do people spend ad dollars to advertise for Jesus? Simple question. 

Just strikes me as strange, it's like we don't even care. I heard someone say "it was only three kids," which is disheartening as a parent. What's the deal, are we just indifferent, or do we not want to discuss it? 

I'm referring specifically to the tale in Genesis about the guy who god tells to take his only son up a mountain to kill then burn as a sacrifice. It's come up in another topic and is threatening to derail that. Some possible talking points:

Any Christians in here have a passage in the bible that you HATE when skeptics or adherents of other religions bring up? One that really annoys you, because it is really a tricky subject to discuss? I know several in here get all up in arms about the Amlaekites or that guy who sicced a bear on some children because they called him bald, but I think the two that would make me most frustrated as a Christian are Jephtha and Abraham. 

Several articles around the web today are discussing the hit that the Covid pandemic has delivered to the parochial schools across the country, some believing that more than 100 of these institutions are going to close permanently by the time kids are allowed to go back to school. Here in NJ, one diocese announced five closures alone! Fundraising events were canceled, financially strapped parents who suddenly have questions about their familial necessities are unenrolling, weekly donations at the parishes are done 80% in some places (this funding often supports a school at least in part: about 80% of a school's costs are covered by tuition typically, the rest by donation, that number is now about 50% and falling). Isn't the solution to this problem obvious, if you're a member of the clergy?

With all the restrictions in place on large group gatherings, many churches including those in my state are using "live streaming" to get their adherents at least virtually together to worship, As a believer, do you think this "counts" if your faith mandates that you gather together on a regular basis to worship? Let's say you are unfortunate enough to pass away during this pandemic. When youget to your place of judgement, the arbiter of your preference says "Almost everything in here looks in order, but let's talk about the last couple of weeks of church services. Easter, specifically." (For Christians). Do you think you get in, or are you out?

Obviously the follow on question: if virtual services count, what do we need the buildings for exactly?

After fourteen years, on Friday, I had to put my dog down. I will miss her, but it had to be done. She was the greatest dog on the planet. I've had enough maudlin moments over the weekend, with many I'm sure still to come, but it gave me a chance to explain to my 11 year old that life is like the flame on a candle, when it goes out, it doesn't go anywhere, it's just gone. Of course, so many people believe in the afterlife around here. To my Christian friends, many I'm sure had dogs, do you believe animals go to heaven?

I think the answer has to be "no". First off, they don't have souls, as far as the bible seems to be concerned. Second of all, they don't know Jesus, and that's the only way into heaven. WHat do you think, and why do you think it?

Do animals, then, go to hell? I mean they don't believe in Jesus. They have no souls to torture though. So then, do they just get annihilated?

Okay, I admit, it's a bit of a click baity title, but a guy's got to get eyeballs on stuff, right? 

A question to the religious (except Mopac and Poly, for different reasons). If religion is so easy to find, and indoctrination from a young age is not in fact a way to perpetuate the cycle of donors to your church, what do you think the effect on a religion, any religion, would be in terms of population or followers if your faith came out tomorrow and said: "We believe that God / Allah / Jesus will lead his flock to his righteous ways no matter what, because that's how much he loves them and that's how present he is in our every day existence. We have the utmost confidence in [diety] wisdom to ensure we continue to grow not just as a faith, but as a parish! To really show our conviction in this belief, we hereby ban parishioners from bringing their children under 16 to worship, and strongly, strongly suggest not talking to them about our articles of faith in any way until this age, so as to ensure that they're only getting information directly from the God who certainly will take care of them. TO BE CLEAR, DO NOT PREACH TO YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT GOD. Doing so only screws up his signal, and pollutes the corruptible young mind making it more difficult for god to break through." 

If the age of reason is 14 in the bible, the age of consent is 18 in the US, I'm splitting the difference. Would you, as a church going parishioner, oppose this rule, or support it? Why?

This has been on my local morning news channel for several weeks now, and you can google "measles outbreak 2019 NYC" to read the details if you feel it necessary, but the long and short of it is as follows. 

The Orthodox Jewish community in areas of NYC are claiming a religious exemption, and religious discrimination, as it comes to the requirement to vaccinate your children against MMR. I saw a woman on the news this morning saying the it's between her and her creator, that god created perfect children, and vaccinating them is against her religion. Unfortunately, measles is now rising in that area, meaning that unvaccinated children are carrying it and communicating it (it is NOTORIOUSLY communicable) to others. 

On the one hand, I respect their right to not vaccinate their children. Forcing them to do so does seem to be an infringement on their exercise of their religion. On the other hand, they are creating a public health menace, and if that's what they want to do, then they seem to me to be putting themselves into an 'apartheid' state: their children shouldn't be allowed in public schools, public parks, etc., because now you're imposing your own religious views / ignorance on others (by exposing others to this disease). 

Which takes precedence in your mind? Protecting the larger community means segregating this population, at best, and mandating a medical treatment, at worst, for the good of a larger number of people. Deferring to religious freedom and saying that disallowing these children in public spaces like everyone else puts more kids in danger. It's an interesting thought exercise, but in the end, kids are getting sick that really don't need to. 

As with all things modern, there's a wide range of religious opinion dealing with the science of genetics. Where do you stand? Does genetic repair, like discovering that this gene is the gene for Alzheimer's and then editing it to elimniate the disease, get int eh way of God's plan? Does it allow us to do what you think is more 'god's work'? If we discover a genetic way to eliminate birth defects, from a religious standpoint, SHOULD we do that? 

Not sure if anyone here watches SNL, but I heard on my local morning news yesterday that Pete Davidson made a joke that basically drew a comparison between R Kelly (the singer recently in a heap of legal trouble for sexually abusing girls under age) and the Catholic Church (Which...well., it's the Catholic church, you know what they're up to). I don't want to repeat the joke because it doesn't translate on a retelling, but the truism that made it work was that if you continue to support the Catholic Church, how can you not support R Kelly? This got the Catholic Church, I believe specifcally the Brooklyn diocese, all up in arms and demanding an apology. Clutching their pearls, as if HOW DARE YOU say that about the Catholic church! Where do you get the nerve! We're a religion!

My thoughts: the Catholic Church better pipe the F down. First of all, it's a satire program and second of all, you can't look MORE clueless than saying "The Catholic Church has done more for sexual assault victims than any other organization" in your demand for an apology. If you're the Catholic church and you don't like getting constantly connected to anything regarding sexual assualt against minors, maybe you ought to actually do something about the real problem, which is RAMPANT ABUSE OF MINORS in the Catholic church, and not worry about something said on late night television pointing out that behavior. I thought it was a real mistake from a PR perspective for the Catholic church, even as I don't think the joke was SUPER funny. This is a classic example of "respect religion only because it's a religion," when in fact this organization which certainly has had some members do plenty of objectively decent things, doesn't deserve it. I don't care how many homeless people you give a meal to if as soon as you're done you go make a nine year old give you a blow job. You don't get to say "but I gave meals to homeless people," the two are not equivalent. 

@PGA2.0

See how nice I am? Have at it. My initial question:

If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?

This is a big area of disagreement between sects of Christianity, so I figured since the creator => specific god thread has officially come off the rails, it was time for something new. 

CHRISTIANS: which version of salvation do you think is correct, and why, and how do you support your choice from scripture? There's the always popular once saved, always saved folks, who feel that once you accept Jesus, you are definitely getting into heaven (creating a space for uninterrupted sinning with no consequence, it would seem). There's the saved through works folks, which places some emphasis on doing good deeds all the time. There's the depends on the day and time folks, like Catholics who think "Well I just left confession, I'm sin free now so I guess this is a good time for a tragic car accident", those that say you can't get in if you're covered in sin. There's the predeterminists, the ones who think being saved or damned is not up to anyone but is already determined at the time of birth.

Which one's right? Why?

Let's say tomorrow you wake up to find that indeed, an almighty power DOES exist, and said power has provided evidence overnight to the entire earth of its existence. It's all over the news, it's doing interviews, it's demonstrating its powers, it's explaining the meaning of life, etc. etc. In short, there is literally no way to deny its existence. There's one problem though: it's some god OTHER than the one your grew up worshiping. To use the Christian example, it's definitely not Jesus or the holy spirit or god or the ultimate truth, it's absolutely something or someone different. Good thing for you, though, this deity is granting amnesty from retribution for not believing in it, for a limited time! It knows it could have communicated better, or been more present, but the long and short of it is that he doesn't blame you. He does, however, demand that you present yourself to him within 48 hours, bend the knee and renounce your old belief. You can do it and enjoy his good graces, or you can deny it, and be sent to some equivalent of the punishment you used to fear from your old religion. 

Would Christians then immediately renounce Jesus? Muslims Allah? Hindus their pantheon?  Etc. Etc. Etc. Remember now, this is unquestionable evidence. There's no doubt this thing exists. 

THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail! 

Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:

Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?

Open to Christians of any stripe, I have never received an answer to this quandary. Good luck.

This is another one I always enjoy, though I admit it's largely a monotheist / Abrahamic question. If your version of god is all knowing, and has a plan, what would be the point of prayer? If, for example, you have a relative who gets diagnosed with an illness, would you pray for them to get better? It seems praying for god to do his will is pointless, he's going to do it anyway. If you're praying for the illness to cure, aren't you asking god to change his plan? If you don't expect him to change his plan, and he's going to either cure or not cure anyway, aren't you hoping the unchangeable god changes its mind? I guess I just don't understand how this is supposed to work. Of course if you think god can change his mind, or that he doesn't have a full plan< i get that praying would seem like a sensible idea, but otherwise I don't get it.

I limit it to intercessory prayer, but if you like, some people think prayer is simply to praise his name. Why does god need or want people to do that?

I haven't seen this one here, and this place could use a couple of new topics. Unfortunately it seems like there are less theists here than atheists, so I'm not sure about the traffic this place will get. Here we go:

Let's say we take for granted that the universe is here as it is not because of any natural reaction or coincidence, but instead that it was created by a thinking agent. There is no real rational reason for granting this, at least none I've ever seen argued convincingly here or elsewhere, but let's skip that part, I'm saying, as an olive branch to the believer. It doesn't matter, then, if you subscribe to a big bang cosmology BUT it was started by a thinking agent, or if you think the world was created 10000 years ago. What I'm curious about is how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. How, essentially, can you convince someone else that your version of the creator is correct, and by extension your religion is the right one, and theirs is INcorrect, and therefore the wrong one?