Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Sheldon]

As a matter of fact, it is my opinion

It's not a matter of fact, if it is just your opinion.

 

[Viker]

Because then there wouldn't be mercy.

There'd be no need if God hadn't set up Adam and Eve. How can the innocent be held accountable if they were snared by their creator? This is not mercy a god is offering it's servitude through deception.

Satan is still the "bad guy" and "deceiver"?

 

[Sheldon]

Good morning Viker. This is quoted from our Statement of Doctrine:

We affirm that as obedient children it is necessary to keep all of the commandments, statutes, and judgments (except the ritual and animal sacrifice Laws) which the Heavenly Father gave to Israel to make them a separate people, Leviticus 20:7-8; Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 25; Deuteronomy 7:6-11; Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 7:12. It is now possible through the Holy Spirit to keep these commandments by faith for our salvation, Ephesians 2:8-10; Jacob 2:17-20. We now keep a spiritual sacrifice rather than animal sacrifices, meal, and drink offerings, Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5; Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18

If there were a shred of objective evidence for any deity I might be inclined to believe it existed, if there were sufficient objective evidence then I would accept it existed, though I still wouldn't care what it wanted though.

Now try to imagine how I feel about you making the entirely unevidenced assertion, "my deity wants X Y and Z"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So if their religion is a farce and disingenious then of course they could be labelled an anti-christian hate group which apparently is what they are.

No, we aren't a hate a group.

But, it could even be argued in court that they are promoting hate speech. Since it is largely a Christian idea that "satan" comes to tempt and destroy people's souls. They've co-opted this concept for their own uses. Namely adopting this language in an attempt to offend and antagonize Christians whom they obviously have a lot of ire towards. Which should be the definition of hatred and hate speech.

Who cares about how you use the term? According to us it is you who have unfairly and unjustly maligned Satan while glorifying a violent, cruel and dangerous tyrant.
Guess what? Christians appropriated Satan from the Jews and bastardized his functions and purposes to fit their own narratives. Couldn't it be said to be hate speech to claim that one of Yahweh's most powerful and obedient angels is his ultimate adversary, as in libel and slander?

As for abortion. It's not just a Christian idea that the soul and the human spirit is real. That's in most religions around the world. So, the idea that it's only Christians opposing abortion is not necessarily true. It's a legitimate concern that human souls are being killed in so called abortions.

I thought humans couldn't kill the soul?

 

[dybmh]

There'd be no need if God hadn't set up Adam and Eve.

I'm of the opinion that humans are inherently flawed. So mercy would be needed sooner or later.

How can the innocent be held accountable if they were snared by their creator? This is not mercy a god is offering it's servitude through deception.

They weren't held fully accountable; Adam and Eve didn't die that day.

Satan is still the "bad guy" and "deceiver"

Nope, the serpent didn't lie.

 

[Viker]

I'm of the opinion that humans are inherently flawed. So mercy would be needed sooner or later.

At a certain point flawed but not with sin until another time, right? How then does being flawed require mercy, without God just continually providing care from the start? Why, still, the need for a set up at all?

Like I said, plot loop hole.

Maybe you'll eventually see why I do not agree or believe that Satan is the boogeyman of the Bible or Christian lore, or a deceiver, or a liar.

 

[dybmh]

At a certain point flawed but not with sin until another time, right?

They were always flawed, the sin was inevitable. That's my view.

How then does being flawed require mercy, without God just continually providing care from the start?

That's a good point. God is continually providing care. Continually providing mercy when death is justified.

Maybe you'll eventually see why I do not agree or believe that Satan is the boogeyman of the Bible or Christian lore, or a deceiver, or a liar.

I agree to a point. The serpent was able to tempt eve. Not through deception though.

 

[74x12]

No, we aren't a hate a group.

You are a member of TST?

Who cares about how you use the term? According to us it is you who have unfairly and unjustly maligned Satan while glorifying a violent, cruel and dangerous tyrant.

You cannot say that Satan is a fictional character on one hand and then claim we "unfairly" and "unjustly" malign him on the other hand. It just doesn't make sense. We might as well argue over santa claus and the reindeer. I'm not in some kind of Christian mythos fan club alright? This is real. So is it real to you?

Guess what? Christians appropriated Satan from the Jews and bastardized his functions and purposes to fit their own narratives. Couldn't it be said to be hate speech to claim that one of Yahweh's most powerful and obedient angels is his ultimate adversary, as in libel and slander?

Christianity was in fact a Jewish sect. There was no appropration from Jews. Just Some Jews going a separate way.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are a member of TST?

Yes.

Christianity was in fact a Jewish sect. There was no appropration from Jews. Just Some Jews going a separate way.

Christianity still appropriated and repurposed Satan. In Judaism there is no Devil, there was no Rebellion, the Serpent was just the serpent.

You cannot say that Satan is a fictional character on one hand and then claim we "unfairly" and "unjustly" malign him on the other hand. It just doesn't make sense. We might as well argue over santa claus and the reindeer. I'm not in some kind of Christian mythos fan club alright? This is real. So is it real to you?

Technically, yes, you do adhere to the Christian mythos, and we could kind of consider church a sort of Jesus fan club. But let's not split hairs over semantics.
But we do have to ask what is real. No, Santa isn't real (especially as we know him in America today), but yet there is an essence of Santa that we have made real. Just as the Church has made Satan real. But it's not real outside of that.
Kind of like the Johnny Depp movie the Ninth Gate.

 

[74x12]

Yes.

Ok, at least I can talk to someone who represents them.

Christianity still appropriated and repurposed Satan. In Judaism there is no Devil, there was no Rebellion, the Serpent was just the serpent.

The idea of a rebellion of angels did not just occur to early Christians all of a sudden. It was widely believed among Jews of the time. We know this from extra-biblical writings. Just because orthodox, chabad modern Judaism has rejected the idea that doesn't change the historical facts. So my point is that you can't just ignore thousands of years of history. It's the equivalent of creationists arguing against the idea that people evolved from apes and monkeys. Of course an evolutionist would say No, we evolved from the same ancestors as apes and monkeys.

To put it simply; Christianity and modern Judaism came from the same root.

Technically, yes, you do adhere to the Christian mythos, and we could kind of consider church a sort of Jesus fan club. But let's not split hairs over semantics.
But we do have to ask what is real. No, Santa isn't real (especially as we know him in America today), but yet there is an essence of Santa that we have made real. Just as the Church has made Satan real. But it's not real outside of that.
Kind of like the Johnny Depp movie the Ninth Gate.

So you're defending a fictional character. Apparently this is TST's great crusade. They might as well call themselves the temple of Thanos and defend that. Which would be alot less offensive by the way.

This to me proves it is done in an attempt to antagonize/troll Christians. In effect; it's thoroughly an anti-Christian organisation at it's core. If you really believed in satan that would be another story. But as it is ... TST is a clear cut hate group distributing and promoting anti-Christian bigotry. The belief that seems to be central to it all is to go against and hate everything Christianity stands for.

 

[Heyo]

So they were set up to fail so God would show mercy later. Sounds like a terrible movie plot. Why have sin in the first place? Why couldn't God leave well enough alone?

You need some kind of drama to have a story. Without "the fall", the Bible would end after Genesis I with "and they lived happily ever after".

 

[Viker]

You need some kind of drama to have a story. Without "the fall", the Bible would end after Genesis I with "and they lived happily ever after".

I hope they never make this stuff into a movie.


Oh wait.......

 

[Heyo]

I'm of the opinion that humans are inherently flawed. So mercy would be needed sooner or later.

I find the Christian image of man too pessimistic. I'm a "Terminal Optimist" as I believe that most humans are good most of the time.
(They are also dumb, lazy and coward, so if it is that what you call "flawed", we agree.)

 

[Sheldon]

You cannot say that Satan is a fictional character on one hand and then claim we "unfairly" and "unjustly" malign him on the other hand.

I don't see why not?

It just doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, have you never spoken to ardent sci fi fans?

We might as well argue over santa claus and the reindeer.

Well there you go.

I'm not in some kind of Christian mythos fan club alright? This is real.

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe it is, you get that right?

Christianity was in fact a Jewish sect. There was no appropration from Jews. Just Some Jews going a separate way.

All religions fragment and schism in this way, there are currently over 45000 different Christian sects, what does that imply to you?

 

[Sheldon]

Of course an evolutionist would say No, we evolved from the same ancestors as apes and monkeys.

I don't know what an evolutionist is, but the taxonomy of humans is that they are part of the family of great apes. This is a biological fact underpinned by overwhelming evidence. DNA alone would be sufficient to establish this fact.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

TST is a clear cut hate group distributing and promoting anti-Christian bigotry. The belief that seems to be central to it all is to go against and hate everything Christianity stands for.

That is nothing more than your wildly uneducated and hateful opinion. Not one of our Seven Tenets mentions anything about hating Christians or Christianity. We promote no bigotry, and nothing is distributed that would encourage it.

They might as well call themselves the temple of Thanos and defend that. Which would be alot less offensive by the way.

So you are offended by a name? Christians don't get to dictate what others do and make demands.

To put it simply; Christianity and modern Judaism came from the same root.

Yes, but Christianity still gets a lot wrong about Judaism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I actually commented on another RF member's post, and you were the one that commented on mine - which means you jumped into my conversation - but that is beside the point.

In all honesty - I don't understand why you brought up the whole "there are already unwanted children" at all - because it is irrelevant.

It is very relevant in a world where women are forced to give birth to more children.

If all orphaned children were miraculously adopted at this very moment in the U.S. - would you change your opinion about "abortion" and adoption?

No, I wouldn't. Because nothing trumps bodily autonomy. But I'm also not the one making the argument that we should force women to carry pregnancies to term and just put them up for adoption and everything will be fine.

I don't think so - because however many "unwanted children" there are in the U.S. is irrelevant to your point of view - you would still believe that women can murder their children.

It's very relevant to the argument I am arguing against.

It is realistic - but improbable today - considering how selfish and Godless most people are.

Your God shouldn't have made us sexual beings, and I guess he also shouldn't have made sex feel so good.

My wife and I were both virgins when we were married - it is completely realistic - and remarkably easy to do if I'm being honest.

How did you know whether or not you'd be sexually compatible?

My wife and I have had five children - we know how it works.

Good for you. Not everyone wants or can support five children.

I always find it funny when people think that faithful Christians - the ones having all the children - are those who don't understand how sex works.

Perhaps that comes from the fact that you seem to blame women for getting pregnant.

Correct - because "the buck" starts and stops with them.

Yep. Their body, their choice.

Excluding cases of rape and sexual assault - women are the ones who "allow" sexual activity to occur - not the men.

But to be clear - I don't believe men should be having sex outside of marriage either.

The men allow it as well.

I don't believe that viewing sex and marriage only as means of reproduction is inherently wrong - I don't agree with it - but I digress.

I do.

I did not say that they should only have sex to procreate - but rather they should only have sex when they are "ready to have children".

Could'ves and should'ves are great, but they aren't reality.

No one should have sex until they are ready for the possibility of children - because sex makes children - and birth control doesn't always work - as you point out next..

Condoms are 98% effective and only 0.15% of vasectomies fail - so we all know that the vast majority of not-yet-born children murdered are products of unprotected sex.
It's kind of like starting a fire - even if you are as careful as can be - it can still spread and hurt other people.

Oh we do? I don't think you've really thought through how many actually people make up that 2% number. Same for the "rape only happens 5% of the time" claim that actually amounts to millions of people just in the US alone.

Condoms break. Sometimes people don't put them on properly. Some people use other means of birth control.

If that were to happen - you would need to take responsibility - you can't opt out and say, "I consented to starting the fire - but not to all the loss of life and property it caused."

Getting an abortion is taking responsibility, as it terminates a pregnancy. But I think by "responsibility" you, like so many others, actually mean "punishment."

The only way women can make sure they never get pregnant before they are ready is to practice abstinence before marriage and only get married once they are ready for the possibility of children.

That is completely unrealistic, as already pointed out.

You honestly believe that I was advocating that a woman should marry her rapist?

You do know what a question mark means, right?

This was a very stupid question, and it shows that you aren't being serious.

I'm dead serious.

I would be shocked if my father got some random woman pregnant because he has been married to my mom for decades and that would kill her.

I still don't think they should murder my not-yet-born half-sibling.

We should be teaching women to leave - or never have sex with - abusers - rather than encourage them to murder the innocent not-yet-born child who had nothing to do with the abuse.

Yeah, no kidding. But that doesn't change the fact that women are abused, everywhere across the world, on a daily basis.

It sounds to me like it's not a woman problem, but a man problem. Maybe we should teach men to stop being so abusive and rapey towards women. See this is what I mean when I say your point of view infantilizes and blames women. Just stop being abused! You say. You focus on the woman who is being abused, rather than on the men who are doing the abusing. Well, I say, men need to stop abusing women already!

If women practiced self-control and abstinence before marriage - they would never find themselves in this situation.

Unless they were raped. Or abused. But that's their fault too. Just stop having sex with abusers, women!

Why would anyone have sex with someone that they don't want to spend their life with?
I honestly cannot conceive of such a thing.

Why wouldn't they? Sex is a natural part of life.

Yes - they are.

No, they aren't. They are blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses.

A "child" describes someone's son or daughter of any age - so the stage of development does not matter - because as soon as those gametes combine - an entire new DNA sequence is generated which includes the sex of the child - and someone's son or daughter has come into the world.

A child is a person who has been born.

If a toddler, teenager, full-grown adult or elderly person can be someone's "child" - then so can a blastocyst/zygote/fetus.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's still a blastocyst/zygote/fetus.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

And now we're back to the old, "I can murder someone if they are inconvenient to me" argument.

First off - no one is "forcing" any woman to do anything.

Not allowing people to murder children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

Also - if you asked any of those "unwanted children" if they would rather be dead than be alive in the system - I think I'd know what their answer would be.

And what is wrong with all of these "unwanted children" anyway? You believe they are less valuable than "wanted children"? You don't think the world is a better place with them in it? You believe they will never amount to anything? Never be happy?

I have met a lot of unproductive and sad people who grew up "wanted" with a mother and father - and they are just as valuable as anyone else - but having parents isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Having a chance to become "wanted" or be happy is better than no chance at all.

Besides - as I have pointed out already - the list of couples waiting to adopt newborn babies is long - people wait years - so adding newborns wouldn't be adding to the "unwanted children" you believe are "less than" other people.

Why doesn't what is best for the not-yet-born child factor into your scenario?

Just so you know - millions of women give birth in the U.S. every year with no complications - whilst an "abortion" always kills the not-yet-born child.

Well - technically - not all "abortions" are successful - which has led to many cases of after birth "abortions" - so straight up infanticide.

Hold up - didn't you just say that, "...it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them" - yet here you are now deciding what is best for these couples?

I guess you only feel that way about women who are considering murdering their children?

I find that the only consistent thing about more Left-leaning people is that they are inconsistent.

Why aren't you "all for" promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability and not murdering babies?

Why only "birth control" - when abstinence and self-control are the most effective forms of "birth control"?

Anyways - I understand that there are religious people that don't want to use contraception - I disagree with them - but I believe their "motive" is to discourage sex outside of marriage.

If people on the Right cannot make claims about men not being women and such without being a "biologist" - then no one can make any claims at all without being one.

I am joking - of course - but I am also pointing out glaring inconsistencies found in the ideology of the Left.

Yes - you are.

You claimed that women putting their newborns up for adoption would "exacerbate" the "problem" of "unwanted children" being in the world.

Goodness - imagine if I swapped our "unwanted children" with a particular race or class - then you would notice how immoral what you are saying is.

Anyways - there are more couples seeking to adopt newborns than there are newborns - so obviously a woman putting her newborn up for adoption would not be "exacerbating" that "problem".

And you just double downed on the claim you said you weren't making.

Imagine if I swapped in "Black" or "poor" in for "unwanted children" - my goodness - you'd be another Margaret Sanger.

Of course they should be arrested and you are right - I should have said "child" rather than "baby" - that's my bad - but it hardly matters - because a human being is still being murdered.

I refer to all my children as "baby" (or "monkey") even though my oldest is nine.

I just hope that my "baby" designation doesn't make him "less than" in your eyes - since you believe that the terms we use to describe our development can affect if we can be murdered or not - and the "less developed" are worth less than the "more developed" - right?

I don't believe people become more valuable the more developed or older they become.

Contrarily - in most life and death situations - the "less developed" people are often given priority over the "more developed".

We make sure the children are safe first - especially babies - and we don't claim that they are "less than" the adults.

Not only that - if there was only one spot left on a lifeboat - yet there were two women who needed a seat - one of them being obviously pregnant - who do you think the seat would go to?

And everyone - even the other woman - would consider that saving two lives.

Also - no one is asking to exchange the life of the mother for the life of the newborn - that is ridiculous.

And notice how you fuzz the qualifier of "sentience" by saying "fully sentient" - which is what exactly?

Someone hopped up on some pain killers may not be "fully sentient" - are they now disposable?

Yes - you are.

You just mocked people for suggesting adoption because it won't "solve everything".

Murdering the not-yet-born also doesn't "Solve everything" - so that isn't a good argument.

That is a stupid answer if it means she gets the right to murder her child.

You won't let couples wait to adopt a newborn - but you are fine with mother's murdering their children?

So much for letting people decide for themselves what is best for them. No consistency.

Everyone is always bombarded by the opinions of others - that's just living in society.

And why are you so opposed with someone learning all sides of an issue before making a decision?

Only demagogues, propagandists, fearmongers, rabblerousers and fanatical idealogues want to stop people from learning about all their options and receiving all relevant information before making a life-changing decision.

Yeah - I am well aware - but being irresponsible and selfish are not "facts of life".

Many people in the world are being responsible and not murdering their children as a result.

I'll consider responding to this if you could learn how not to turn my words into things I did say or imply.

I will point out that abstinence-only education has been a dismal and utter failure in the United States that has resulted in more unwanted pregnancies (and STI's), not less.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you kidding?

Encouraging emotive responses and being willfully ignorant are what infantilize women - all while claiming they should never be held responsible for their actions.

Yeah - I'm the one infantilizing them.

Yes, you are. I pointed out exactly where again, in my last post to you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm the one who has to be sorry. I didn't ask you but @Wildswanderer in post #119. I got confused because you repeated that 1% number in post #210.

If I had a nickel for every time that happened.

This did pique my interest though - so I read your question - and I was confused by it.

Would you mind asking me the same question - but perhaps a tad bit clearer?

Because - from what it looks like - you are comparing a man who is told that he is the father of a child (with a 99% accuracy rate) to an indisputable case of a product of rape/incest.

I'm not understanding the question.

It started with the red herring if "mother" is the correct term or "birthing person" would be more appropriate and was followed by a Gish gallop of equally unrelated topics.

I understand - but would emphasize that that was no "red herring" - for I consider the topic of "abortion" and many other "liberal" or "progressive" topics to be mere "appendages" to an ideological "body".

I oppose the ideology of the Left in all its forms - and "gender identity" and "transgenderism" are other "appendages" to that same ideological "body".

Therefore - I will refer to one when discussing another in order to point out inconsistencies - I just cannot resist.

For example - before the Supreme Court leak - the Left was parroting mantras like "birthing persons" and "men can also menstruate/get pregnant".

However - once that leaked happened - they returned to classic slogans of "no uterus, no opinion" and "men should shut up about 'women's issues'"

Which is hilarious not only because it contradicts their other talking points about "gender" - but this is the political wing that cannot answer the question, "What is a woman?" with any consistency or accuracy.

So - I understand that it may seem irrelevant and that you may not agree with all "appendages" of that ideological "body" - but you do agree with this one - so I felt it appropriate.

I like to keep the discussion manageable. Too many topics at once make posts unreadable, I'm willing to go back to other points when one is solved.

Please do.

It is forcing her to give her body as a rent-free apartment to the fetus.

I have never understood this argument.

What do you mean by "rent-free apartment" - are there uteruses that charge rental fees?

What are those rates?

And what argument are you making exactly?

That her uterus is functioning properly?

Women are upset that their uteruses are operating as designed - either by God or evolution?

So - I am justified in murdering someone because my liver is functioning properly and producing bile?

How is the fact that a woman's uterus is operating properly an argument that she has the right to murder her child?

I don't understand.

I'm all for equality. I'd be willing to allow men to abandon their child in about the same time period as women are allowed to abort a fetus.

What "time period" are your referring to here and what metrics did you use to select that "time period"?

Also - why do you believe a man should only be able to abandon during that "time period".

And - "abort a fetus" obfuscates the issue - so let's say "murder a child" - because the man isn't abandoning "a fetus" is he?

Another point we can agree upon. We don't force men to carry a fetus for 9 month and neither should we women.

It is impossible for a male to become pregnant and carry a child.

Yet - despite that inescapable hurdle - if it were possible for men to carry their children - I wouldn't want them to murder their children either.

This was a very silly thing to say - in my opinion - because you are using an impossibility as an example of "equality".

Good. I think it is an equally absurd idea to vote for a "women tax" - forcing them to let their bodies be used for at least 9 month.

No - this is an absurd notion.

Rather than a "tax" - it's more like a refusal to "bailing them" - even though what we are really talking about here is a refusal to let them murder people.

Are all citizens being "taxed" because the Law forbids them to murder other people?

Anyways - back to the "tax" and "bail out" scenarios - you understand that the "too big to fail" policies of the Federal government screws everyone?

They "bail out" businesses considered "too big to fail" and all that does is incentives bad business practices and costs the tax-payer as well as the consumer.

A woman who screws up should not be "bailed out" - but should be allowed to "fail" (even though protecting the not-yet-born is hardly a "failure") - then she can give her child up for adoption - because there are many couples waiting years to adopt newborns.

Hopefully the experience will help her make better life choices down the road - a life saved and a life-lesson learned.

Win-win.

In the US there is no constitutional right to bodily autonomy but there is also no inalienable right to life.

Irrelevant to what I said.

I never claimed that the U.S. Constitution granted an "inalienable right to life".

You mentioned "women's rights" as if "abortion" should be counted among them - when it is not a right by any sense of the word.

The U.S. Constitution lists no right to "bodily autonomy" or "to murder those who are inconvenient to you" - so there is no reason to list "abortion" as a "woman's right".

It just isn't.

However - there are Federal laws against murder - of which "abortion" definitely qualifies.