Tesla $23,000 Battery

[Travis Price]

Wait a minute why are you quoting scripture are you claiming to be a Christian

You don't have to be a Christian to be able to quote scripture.. you need a 5th grade reading comprehension level. I also disagree that it's irrelevant.

Besides that you do an awful lot getting involved in things that don't pertain to YOU so what's your point by saying this does not pertain to me?

Also incorrect. I'm (and people like me) not the one using the legal process to stifle body autonomy.

That's Conservatives. See the above point. That's why it's relevant.

Its an observation an observation that the woman is no more a man then the man an alien or the pregnant man that is a man is no more then surgical effected and not a natural occurrence

Also not true.

Man is a gender
Male is a sex.

Manly females (females that are masculine) and girl males (males that are feminine) are prime examples how gender and sex are defined.

Gender is not binary. Neither is sex, because there are three sexes, but whatever.

Your misunderstanding of the above fact doesn't make it misinformation. It just makes you misinformed and willfully ignorant...

If a man identifies as a lollypop I wont acknowledge that I wont hate him for it

If you don't respect the person for how they identify, you do hate them... You're proving it by not giving that person basic respect to call them how they request to be addressed.

Your example is an exaggeration, so if we're sticking on point.. if you can't call a transgendered male, "He"... it kinda makes you an a-hole.

Not because he's a biological male. But because you can't show the slightest ounce of compassion to realize that "those unnatural things" are people that are in the human experience, just like you. They just experience it differently.

Besides the fact that I was making the point that just because a man can be transformed have a baby or a woman can make herself look like a man and have a baby, does not make it any more natural then the guy that made himself an alien

It wasn't natural for women to vote. It wasn't natural for slaves to own property. It wasn't natural for schools to be desegregated.

"It's unnatural" is a trope that people use when they're scared because they don't understand something. It's used to dismiss something they don't understand.

It shows weakness in character.

 

[vic120]

You don't have to be a Christian to be able to quote scripture.. you need a 5th grade reading comprehension level. I also disagree that it's irrelevant.



Also incorrect. I'm (and people like me) not the one using the legal process to stifle body autonomy.

That's Conservatives. See the above point. That's why it's relevant.



Also not true.

Man is a gender
Male is a sex.

Manly females (females that are masculine) and girl males (males that are feminine) are prime examples how gender and sex are defined.

Gender is not binary. Neither is sex, because there are three sexes, but whatever.

Your misunderstanding of the above fact doesn't make it misinformation. It just makes you misinformed and willfully ignorant...




If you don't respect the person for how they identify, you do hate them... You're proving it by not giving that person basic respect to call them how they request to be addressed.

Your example is an exaggeration, so if we're sticking on point.. if you can't call a transgendered male, "He"... it kinda makes you an a-hole.

Not because he's a biological male. But because you can't show the slightest ounce of compassion to realize that "those unnatural things" are people that are in the human experience, just like you. They just experience it differently.




It wasn't natural for women to vote. It wasn't natural for slaves to own property. It wasn't natural for schools to be desegregated.

"It's unnatural" is a trope that people use when they're scared because they don't understand something. It's used to dismiss something they don't understand.

It shows weakness in character.

Look I am not going to go back and foth nor do I have the time to go over every point

But you are totally off

saying things like woman voting was at one time unnatural

What does woman voting have to do with unnatural or using outside things like doctors and chemicals to alter ones body?

What are you even talking about

and what in the world are you talking about that differentiates one deciding they identify as a flagpole or a little girl identifying as a princess or a homeless Man identifying as bill gates

How is that different

You know there are many who identify as vampires doesn't make them one

no matter what they do they are not actual vampire some will say that but there are some that truly believe they are vampires

and no matter how much they believe it does not make it true

Are you an Ahole if you don't acknowledge the guy is a flagpole or the one is an animal or the other is a vampire

How does that make any sense

 

[scagnt83]

Maybe if Christians actually followed the book they idolize we'd all be better off.

This x1000

 

[sman]

Maybe if Christians actually followed the book they idolize we'd all be better off.

Do you really believe that? That's a legit question. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Because Christians are commended to share the Gospel. There's a whole segment of society who HATES that. I'm not talking about the Westboro Baptist type of sharing. Those people are evil. I'm talking about the simple conversational type of sharing. And yes, there is a large segment of society hates hearing about Jesus.

There are many Christians doing work you never hear about. Just serving people, trying to meet their needs and loving on them. But I get your point. I too am disgusted with the church as a whole (mainly church leadership). But I still love Jesus and what He did for me, you and everyone else.

 

[Travis Price]

There are many Christians doing work you never hear about.

I'll preface this by giving you the same respect you gave me. I am not trying to antagonize you or be disrespectful to you. Take any slight as a problem with the medium.. because I personally take a lot of time to write, edit, and then rewrite stuff that I express. Unfortunately, without nonverbal communication, it's easy to read into what I'm saying.

I believe there are a fair amount of "Christians" that do not follow the teachings of Christ and those people really screw it up for the Christians that do follow the teachings of their faith. I'm not saying you're one of the d-bags, just answering the question.

It's not so much Christianity that I have an issue with. In truth, Jesus was my kinda guy. It's "Christians" that use faith to feel superior to others because they don't agree with their lifestyle; forcing societal change using "unnatural" terms or other ambiguous arguments to support Orwellian policies.

That's the problem.

If that doesn't fit you (general you), it doesn't. I don't hate Christians for being Christian. I hate them because of their crappy actions.

Christians are commended to share the Gospel.

I think there's a mismatch of what actually sharing the gospel actually means, in terms of what Christ did. Christ did not force Christianity. He did not force his teaching on people that didn't want to participate. He managed his house. Exactly what you're describing.

The reason why people hate hearing about Jesus is that organized religion (in the name of power) is evil. Unfortunately, a large (or at least very vocal) subsect of Christians cram their religion down other people's throats, metaphorically obviously... but also in policies they push.

An example:

There's a lot of "Christians" on here that want to make decisions on abortions for other people that have nothing to do with them. That's not really Christ's way.

It doesn't mean they have to like it, or agree with it, but they do need to show compassion for other people in, what's usually a really bad situation. That's how you win over people. Not guilt. It's the same with trans people. Acknowledge they're humans and are trying to navigate their world as best as possible, just like you.

You don't have to be a Christian (and it doesn't matter if you are or not) to show compassion for others. Unfortunately, the actions that (again) a very vocal subsect of Christianity takes makes them all look like real a-holes.

 

[suranceman]

I'll preface this by giving you the same respect you gave me. I am not trying to antagonize you or be disrespectful to you. Take any slight as a problem with the medium.. because I personally take a lot of time to write, edit, and then rewrite stuff that I express. Unfortunately, without nonverbal communication, it's easy to read into what I'm saying.

I believe there are a fair amount of "Christians" that do not follow the teachings of Christ and those people really screw it up for the Christians that do follow the teachings of their faith. I'm not saying you're one of the d-bags, just answering the question.

It's not so much Christianity that I have an issue with. In truth, Jesus was my kinda guy. It's "Christians" that use faith to feel superior to others because they don't agree with their lifestyle; forcing societal change using "unnatural" terms or other ambiguous arguments to support Orwellian policies.

That's the problem.

If that doesn't fit you (general you), it doesn't. I don't hate Christians for being Christian. I hate them because of their crappy actions.



I think there's a mismatch of what actually sharing the gospel actually means, in terms of what Christ did. Christ did not force Christianity. He did not force his teaching on people that didn't want to participate. He managed his house. Exactly what you're describing.

The reason why people hate hearing about Jesus is that organized religion (in the name of power) is evil. Unfortunately, a large (or at least very vocal) subsect of Christians cram their religion down other people's throats, metaphorically obviously... but also in policies they push.

An example:

There's a lot of "Christians" on here that want to make decisions on abortions for other people that have nothing to do with them. That's not really Christ's way.

It doesn't mean they have to like it, or agree with it, but they do need to show compassion for other people in, what's usually a really bad situation. That's how you win over people. Not guilt. It's the same with trans people. Acknowledge they're humans and are trying to navigate their world as best as possible, just like you.

You don't have to be a Christian (and it doesn't matter if you are or not) to show compassion for others. Unfortunately, the actions that (again) a very vocal subsect of Christianity takes makes them all look like real a-holes.

FYI, the pro-life people don't support abortion because it terminates another human life. They believe that the location of another human does not determine whether or not it can live or die even if it happens to be in a woman's body. It has nothing to do with "controlling women's bodies" even though that's a common narrative.

So I can better understand your position, would you be okay with abortions in the 3rd term (lets exclude dangers to the mother's life for this example)?

 

[scagnt83]

Do you really believe that? That's a legit question.

Absolutely.

Many claim that the "silent majority" of Christians are good people who do their best to follow the path of the teachings of Jesus.

However, I would argue that their silence is just as bad as the "bad apples". Good people do not remain silent about the bad apples among them. Good people do not allow those bad apples to remain active leaders within their religion.

Good Christians do not try to force their religious views on others. And US Christians have become more and more extreme in trying to impose their religious beliefs upon others via political process.

Good Christians do not remain silent when other Christians call a political party "anti christian".

Good Christians do not politicize their religion.... assuming they live as the bible taught them...

Ive read the book front to back, multiple times, multiple versions. US Christianity has become an abominashon to what the book taught. People listen to a human standing in front of them... but dont actually read it for themselves and try to understand it for themselves. Many are great at quoting a few verses that support a various political stance. But the overall message the book teaches is completely lost.

 

[Travis Price]

FYI, the pro-life people don't support abortion because it terminates another human life. They believe that the location of another human does not determine whether or not it can live or die even if it happens to be in a woman's body. It has nothing to do with "controlling women's bodies" even though that's a common narrative.

You're welcome to that opinion, although fundamentally it's wrong. You're taking a very complex topic and simplifying it to, "but it's a child."

Let's put things into perspective for a second:

1) Under no circumstances can one entity force you to unwillingly put yourself at risk for another life. Would you support the government forcing you to give a kidney to someone else?

2) Most "Pro-lifers" support the death penalty, which is the polar opposite of pro-life. SCotUS literally just made an argument in Arizona where a guy is innocent of the crime, but can't introduce evidence that exonerates him. Is that pro-life? Administrative finality over innocence?

SCOTUS rules against inmates in right-to-counsel case - The Indiana Lawyer

3) Pro-LIFE is not the same as pro-BIRTH. Considering slashes in after birth care (SNAP, Medicaid, etc) and it's proven that women in poverty worsen (meaning the child also lives in poverty.) That is not a pro-life act.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/class_gaps_unintended_pregnancy_release.pdf

So I can better understand your position, would you be okay with abortions in the 3rd term (let's exclude dangers to the mother's life for this example)?

This premise is faulty. Statistically, abortions after 21 weeks are rare. It's the boogeyman that Pro-birthers use that's basically a lie. I'll answer the question, but I'll inject reason into the argument.

Third term trimesters start around weeks 29-40. That's months 7, 8, 9. Reasonably, a female that carries a child through to this stage of the pregnancy is going to give birth. It's already in the nesting stage of pregnancy. There's already a bond.

As to your question, directly:

Viability starts at 24 weeks. Meaning it can survive on it's own. It can be removed from the womb (although premature.) There's no reason for an abortion at this point, and it's quite dangerous to do it post this timeframe. Instead, a C-section and adoption may resolve this concern.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

The issue here is risk. Pregnancy and birth are high-risk activities that can cause ongoing effects during and post birth, and even death. FORCING a mother to deliver a child that is unwanted isn't protecting the "child's rights." It's using the female as an incubator, which goes to the most Orwellian of all justifications.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

Pro-BIRTHERS that don't want an abortion don't have to have one. Making a decision concerning high-risk activities for other females is wrong, period. The argument is always made, "They should use contraception... or not have sex..." both are wrong. 51% of women that have abortions are using contraception and abstaining just doesn't work. It's not a matter of willpower, it just doesn't work.

You're entitled to your opinion about the process. You're not entitled to enforce your opinion on others. Any argument against that clearly shows the hypocrisy of people that don't want the government to tell them what to do, unless it meshes with their ideology.

 

[suranceman]

You're welcome to that opinion, although fundamentally it's wrong.

Let's put things into perspective for a second:

1) Under no circumstances can one entity force you to unwillingly put yourself at risk for another life. Would you support the government forcing you to give a kidney to someone else?

2) Most "Pro-lifers" support the death penalty, which is the polar opposite of pro-life. SCotUS literally just made an argument in Arizona where a guy is innocent of the crime, but can't introduce evidence that exonerates him. Is that pro-life? Administrative finality over innocence?

SCOTUS rules against inmates in right-to-counsel case - The Indiana Lawyer

3) Pro-LIFE is not the same as pro-BIRTH. Considering slashes in after birth care (SNAP, Medicaid, etc) and it's proven that women in poverty worsen (meaning the child also lives in poverty.) That is not a pro-life act.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/class_gaps_unintended_pregnancy_release.pdf



This premise is faulty. Statistically, abortions after 21 weeks are rare. It's the boogeyman that Pro-birthers use that's basically a lie. I'll answer the question, but I'll inject reason into the argument.

Third term trimesters start around weeks 29-40. That's months 7, 8, 9. Reasonably, a female that carries a child through to this stage of the pregnancy is going to give birth. It's already in the nesting stage of pregnancy. There's already a bond.

As to your question, directly:

Viability starts at 24 weeks. Meaning it can survive on it's own. It can be removed from the womb (although premature.) There's no reason for an abortion at this point, and it's quite dangerous to do it post this timeframe. Instead, a C-section and adoption may resolve this concern.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

The issue here is risk. Pregnancy and birth are high-risk activities that can cause ongoing effects during and post birth, and even death. FORCING a mother to deliver a child that is unwanted isn't protecting the "child's rights." It's using the female as an incubator, which goes to the most Orwellian of all justifications.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

Pro-BIRTHERS that don't want an abortion don't have to have one. Making a decision concerning high-risk activities for other females is wrong, period. The argument is always made, "They should use contraception... or not have sex..." both are wrong. 51% of women that have abortions are using contraception and abstaining just doesn't work. It's not a matter of willpower, it just doesn't work.

You're entitled to your opinion about the process. You're not entitled to enforce your opinion on others. Any argument against that clearly shows the hypocrisy of people that don't want the government to tell them what to do, unless it meshes with their ideology.

Yes or no. Would you support an abortion in the 3rd term?

You didn't answer this question fyi.

 

[sman]

Absolutely.

Many claim that the "silent majority" of Christians are good people who do their best to follow the path of the teachings of Jesus.

However, I would argue that their silence is just as bad as the "bad apples". Good people do not remain silent about the bad apples among them. Good people do not allow those bad apples to remain active leaders within their religion.

Good Christians do not try to force their religious views on others. And US Christians have become more and more extreme in trying to impose their religious beliefs upon others via political process.

Good Christians do not remain silent when other Christians call a political party "anti christian".

Good Christians do not politicize their religion.... assuming they live as the bible taught them...

Ive read the book front to back, multiple times, multiple versions. US Christianity has become an abominashon to what the book taught. People listen to a human standing in front of them... but dont actually read it for themselves and try to understand it for themselves. Many are great at quoting a few verses that support a various political stance. But the overall message the book teaches is completely lost.

I truly am glad you believe that. But scripture tells us Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. I have a good friend who is a missionary to India. He has had to go into hiding more than once in India because the locals were looking for the Christian man to kill him.

I don't disagree that some "Christians" are terrible representatives. But there's a decent portion of society that will always ridicule anything to do with Christianity no matter how "nice" a Christian is. It's the "hip" thing to do now. You see it across tv and movies regularly. And that's fine. Society thinks a Christian is evil because they believe there is an actual life in the womb and it deserves a chance to live. Society thinks a Christian is evil because he/she believes God when the scripture said He created man in His own image....male and female, He created them. Just sharing those two things causes people who don't agree to have strongly negative views of Christians which is why I asked if Travis really believed when he said:

"Maybe if Christians actually followed the book they idolize we'd all be better off"

In theory, if Christians followed the teachings of the bible, everyone would just see the love and compassion and everything would be great. But as soon as the Christian disagrees with certain world views, they are awful people (and I'm being polite with terminology there). It is what it is and it shouldn't prevent a Christian from continuing to follow Christ as best they can. But it certainly leads to plenty of anger and frustration from society as a whole when a Christian discusses their beliefs when those beliefs go against society/culture.

One simple example of a person, in one area of his life, attempting to protect himself and his wife, was Mike Pence when it was revealed he wouldn't meet with women alone. Society thinks that's primitive and weird. But it prevents the ability of anyone to accuse him of a #metoo moment. Well, it doesn't necessarily prevent the accusation, but it sure does prevent there being any proof. I mean, the man was ridiculed by society for this stance. I personally believe it's honoring to his walk and his wife. And I'll go on record and say I'm not a fan of Mike Pence the politician.

Anyway, I'm not changing my beliefs in regard to my faith because society makes it difficult. I'll continue to help people where I can and offer support when needed. But I'm under no illusion that if every Christian followed the teachings in the bible that everything would be hunky dory. Scripture tells us it won't be.