How would they know that when about half of the nation is upset when they think they can't abort babies freely?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Agree?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
How would they know that when about half of the nation is upset when they think they can't abort babies freely?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
They're not my words, I posted overwhelming objective evidence, you failed to address any of it in any way beyond flat denial, the evidence supports the conclusion as it is derived from multiple examples over decades of research, and the rates of violent gun crime and murder in the US are significantly higher, enough to provide an irrefutable conclusion, you're simply indulging in hand waving, because you have no credible answer, beyond wild unevidenced conspiracies, and the "nu uh" argument, and don't like the obvious conclusions these facts support.
1, The US has one of the highest rates of gun violence and murder in the world
2. The US now has the highest rate of privately owned guns in the world.
Americans Have More Guns Than Anywhere Else in the World and They Keep Buying More
3. The US has some of the most lax gun laws in the world
"One reason for this difference is the abundance of guns in America. According to a 2007 survey, the US led the world in the number of civilian-owned firearms with 88.8 guns per 100 people, while second-place Yemen fell far behind at 54.8 guns per 100 people. And the research, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center, has repeatedly found a link between a higher number of guns and higher levels of gun violence."
If you had even addressed any of the evidence, then I might be inclined to believe you were not arguing out of sheer unevidenced bias, but that ship has now sailed. Little point in carrying on it seems. Your ingrained bias though, is a clear indicator of the underlying cultural problem in the US, the obsession with gun ownership.
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It's over half, and since abortions are legal, this post ironically shows that you don't know what murder means. Or that abortions don't involve babies, but generally a blastocyst or zygote, or developing foetus that is little more than a clump of insentient cells.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Have you any evidence he couldn't afford these guns? Only your unevidenced claim for a massive nationwide conspiracy is the larger claim than some 18 years old could afford to buy two rifles and some ammo.
I also posted evidence that the manufacturers involved target young customers in their teens, using adverts that are designed to attract teens, and offer credit terms. Of course you failed to address those facts I linked as you did with all the other facts. While simultaneously using claims you have failed to offer anything beyond bare assertion and assumption to support.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Apparently he purchased them legally for his 18th birthday. So I'm guessing that he probably got some birthday money or saved up the money or something. That's a pretty normal thing. I don't see why you think this is a particularly salient point that indicates governmental involvement. Perhaps you could elucidate.
If you want to talk about why it's so easy for an unstable 18-year-old to just waltz into a store and buy a bunch of guns and ammo, then I'm all for that. Because that sounds like a problem to me. But I don't see any reason (and you haven't really provided any) why this needs to be some conspiracy where the government orchestrated a deadly attack against school children.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well, that's not murder, for starters.
So perhaps it's you who isn't aware of what constitutes a murder.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
From my understanding of the scripture, if the fetus within the woman's womb dies as a result of a fight between two men, the man who struck her causing her to lose her unborn baby, even by accident because he was fighting with another man, is liable to death. If I am wrong, or learn more, I'll post to that degree.
You must realize that I did not ALWAYS think this way, but as I come to a clearer understanding of the Bible, my outlook and view changes.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Did you notice @stvdv ...Yes, you misunderstood, it was not his claim, it was his puzzle though, and you almost need to have Sherlock Holmes skills to find "who did it"
But don't sweat it, now you know, and @nPeace is in the clear, that was why I let you know
If I have misunderstood this claim:
Then I will apologise for the misunderstanding, but that was how I read it.
If I have misunderstood this claim. Then I will... but...
How would your master rate that on a scale of 1 to 10, for humility?
Don't hold your breath for that apology.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Let me help @stvdv.
How do we know the verse is not referring to the death of the woman, rather than the unborn child
Two reasons.
1. The context.
and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results
No fatality results from the premature birth, refers to the child. Not the woman.
2. Scriptural references
(Joshua 20:1-6) 1 . . .Jehovah said to Joshua: 2 “Tell the Israelites, ‘Select for yourselves the cities of refuge about which I spoke to you through Moses, 3 so that the manslayer who unintentionally or accidentally kills someone may flee there. And they will serve as a refuge for you from the avenger of blood. 4 He must flee to one of these cities and stand at the entrance of the city gate and present his case in the hearing of the elders of that city. Then they must receive him into the city and give him a place and he will live with them. 5 If the avenger of blood chases after him, they should not surrender the manslayer into his hand, for he killed his fellow man accidentally and he did not previously hate him. 6 He must dwell in that city until he stands trial before the assembly and remain there until the death of the high priest who is in office at that time. Then the manslayer may return to the city from which he fled, and he may enter his city and his house.’”
I hope that helps in understanding correctly.
One who accidentally killed someone, was not put to death.
In the case of an unborn child, God viewed it differently.
The persons should have considered that there was a woman who was carrying, and took precautions against harming the child.... or anyone, for that matter.
(Deuteronomy 22:8) . . .“If you build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof, so that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house because of someone falling from it.
However, an unborn child was a very valuable expectation.
To an Israelite woman in ancient times, failure to bring forth children was viewed as a reproach, an affliction, a punishment, one of the greatest misfortunes. Genesis 30:1
See it-1 p. 258 Barrenness
Sheldon
Veteran Member
If "the government" suitably vague, wanted to introduce gun laws, why would they need ot waste time and energy on falsifying such crimes, and risk exposure and prosecution?
I'm wondering how long before this vague unevidenced government conspiracy becomes any a rant against left wing politicians.
This is not about the extremes of the political spectrum of course, that is simply largely how positions on this issue divide. The lax laws have caused the ubiquitous availability of guns, that are easily obtained, and this has led to astonishing and tragic levels of gun crime and violence. While multiple other countries who have strict gun laws, have vastly lower levels of gun crimes and violence.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Right? It doesn't make any sense to me.
And honestly, I'm just so tired to of the endless conspiracy theories at this point.
Next post?
Winner winner chicken dinner!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There seems to be some sort of epidemic of people misunderstanding the words you post.
If that kept happening to me, I might try looking inward a bit.
stvdv
Veteran Member
You use now a different verse, you should not do that, please use the same verse, otherwise it's useless that I give my view on a verse
And you ignore my explanation for the 2nd scenario that mother and child die both, as is explained in the verse I replied to. And what it might imply
stvdv
Veteran Member
@nPeace only
I did.
I prayed to Baba, I like His solution
I won't hold my breath
, nor remind him. Promise (word/truth) is always made to GodGod knows best how to handle His own stuff
. I know from experience (I once made a promise mentally to Baba/God) And Baba physically told me to my face "you better die than not keep your promise". Human conscience works miracles, I suffered for years, and you won't see me make promises again Deo volente
nPeace
Veteran Member
You mean ignore the problem, and look the other way?There seems to be some sort of epidemic of people misunderstanding the words you post.
If that kept happening to me, I might try looking inward a bit.
Why? Are Atheist that ashamed of their shortcomings?
There is an easy solution to that, but it's not mine to fix.
The only thing I can do, is point out the problem... and if they are willing, I can offer the solution...
Not that I haven't done so already.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Words are just words to most Atheists. They mean nothing... at least to the ones I have communicated with.@nPeace only
I did.
I prayed to Baba, I like His solution
I won't hold my breath
God knows best how to handle His own stuff
And Baba physically told me to my face "you better die than not keep your promise". Human conscience works miracles, I suffered for years, and you won't see me make promises again Deo volente
nPeace
Veteran Member
Exodus 21:22-23 That's not it? I'm sorry. Which one is it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No, I meant quite the opposite of ignoring the problem.You mean ignore the problem, and look the other way?
Why? Are Atheist that ashamed of their shortcomings?
There is an easy solution to that, but it's not mine to fix.
The only thing I can do, is point out the problem... and if they are willing, I can offer the solution...
Not that I haven't done so already.
I suggest looking inward and dealing with it directly.
If people are continually misunderstanding your posts, then I would suggest that the problem rests in your lap.
nPeace
Veteran Member
People? People don't usually misunderstanding my posts.
Atheists do.
Oh yeah, right. They are people too.
Consider my suggestion. If Atheists are in the constant habit of misunderstanding... not only my posts... and I can't break RF rules to show you all those places... Then ................
I'll offer my suggestion, only if you ask for it.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Some did say that Truth is very important, if I remember correctly, well...Americans did give Trump kind of a carte blanche to "deviate from Truth". So, probably Truth speaking is taken with a bag of saltWords are just words to most Atheists. They mean nothing... at least to the ones I have communicated with.