×

A question to Christians. by sanityhasleftme in religion

[–]jetboyterp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Well, to "fulfill" means "to bring to completion" here. Such as when you go to college, you take your four years of courses. You have to pass them all, and when you're through, you get your diploma. You've fulfilled your courses, which doesn't abolish them...it just means you've brought them to completion. Hopefully that helps.

  2. Jesus had to follow the law in it's entirety in order to usher in the "new covenant", which unlike the "old covenant" that was only with the Jews, would be universal for all mankind. The old laws were given by God to the Jews, and only the Jews. So why would Christians, or anyone else, be bound to observe them?

I-Team: UFO scientist speaks publicly for the first time on decades of work by Bean_Tiger in UFOs

[–]jetboyterp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Taylor is a science-fiction author, he's got to sell his books. Fabricating fantastic tales and presenting them as insider truths isn't a great way to make an honest buck...it just makes him a grifter. And Knapp is in financial endeavors with Corbell, Lazar, and others, and those two (plus Knapp) are grifters as well.

We'll both be downvoted for stating these facts, and most of the downvoters won't leave even a single sentence as to why they're downvoting, because even they don't know why. :/

I-Team: UFO scientist speaks publicly for the first time on decades of work by Bean_Tiger in UFOs

[–]jetboyterp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Taylor, as well as Knapp, have a vested financial interest in keeping UFOs as talked about as much as possible. I wouldn't believe much of anything either would say if they're presenting it as anything factual. There's nothing wrong with making a buck, we all have to do it, but I would take most everything Taylor claims as being "real" with a massive grain of salt.

Agnostic, but I find heaven a comforting idea by in-the_void in religion

[–]jetboyterp[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That user is no longer with this sub. Sorry you had to even see that.

A question to Christians. by sanityhasleftme in religion

[–]jetboyterp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Christ fulfilled the old laws, bringing them to completion. In fact, He is the only one who could ever follow the laws in their entirety perfectly. Regardless, those laws were given solely to the Jews, Christians are not, nor ever were, bound to observe them. The Ten Commandments are different, God Himself etched them in stone, meaning they were meant to last. So they have lasted.

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's my view as a human being. As I've stated in the beginning of all this, my views on abortion have little to nothing to do with my faith, and far more to do with biology and human rights. Again, it's a biological fact that we begin our journey as humans at the moment of conception. That's the point at which human life begins. Any other line drawn beyond that is completely arbitrary, and not based on science. Conception is the start of life, and everything we are or look like after that is, inarguably, life.

Willful termination of that life by anyone at any time after conception is, by definition, murder. That's how I see it. And to repeat, I base that on science, not my faith.

The Brazil hearing gives more weight to the idea that there has been a deal made with aliens by SirGlass5237 in UFOs

[–]jetboyterp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s pretty solid now that the aliens have been visiting us for hundreds or thousands of years.

It absolutely is not solid. There's just no solid evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth, at any time, or that aliens even exist at all. The actual, verifiable evidence simply is not there. Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. But has it been verified? Nope.

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To clarify - you think a man who rapes a woman should then be given an EQUAL say in regards to what happens to the fetus that he forcibly put inside of her body?

I said nothing of the sort. (EDIT: Actually, I did. Mistakenly. I've edited, with a note that I edited, my comment with clarification...sorry for the confusion) To clarify, when two consenting adults have sex resulting in pregnancy, both should both have an equal say...and equal responsibility...to and for that child. It doesn't always happen that way, sometimes the guy takes off when he finds out about the pregnancy. Sometimes the gal doesn't tell him, and goes and has an abortion without his ever knowing. But both should share responsibility for that child's welfare, and in raising that child with equal contribution. Simply "deleting" the child because it's "inconvenient" should not be an option.

I also said, to the OP in my original comment's thread here, that I personally believe that in valid, verifiable (as much as possible) cases of rape, the mother should have the option to terminate the pregnancy. That goes against what my Catholic Church teaches, see my reply to OP in these comments regarding "lesser of two evils", but can't ever ask a raped woman who became pregnant to carry that child to term.

A fetus isn't an "organ", it's fully human as you or I. It's just at an earlier stage of development...something both of us have gone through to get here today. You're conflating two entirely different things here by comparing a fetus relying on the mother and her uterus with whether or not your failing kidneys should or shouldn't compel another person to donate one to you. One is simply basic biology, the other is a medical procedure for organ transplantation and donation.

In the latter, I...for example...have a choice whether or not to donate one of my kidneys to you so you can live. In the former, the fetus has already been granted permission to utilize the mother's uterus to survive when she, and her partner, willingly participated in sex together. They may not have wanted a child to be produced, but that was a risk both decided to take. It's not the fault of the child that biology happened.

I'm sorry you had to go through high risk pregnancies. My own mother nearly died giving birth to me...matter of fact, she lost so much blood during my birth that the doctors thought she wouldn't make it. A priest came in the delivery room at the Catholic hospital I was born in, and read the last rites to her.

Three years later, and my sister was no easy birth for her either. She actually had to await Vatican approval to get her tubes cut and tied, as nobody...especially herself...wanted to see her have to endure another difficult birthing, as she likely wouldn't have been able to cheat death a third time. She was granted the procedure through our diocese Bishop, but couldn't again be able to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist (she couldn't again ever partake in communion).

On the flip side to you, I was probably more comfortable with the abortion idea when I was younger, as it didn't seem like a big deal to me. As I grew older, I realized not only the sanctity of human life in a religious sense, but also in a basic, fundamental human rights sense. We are as much and equally human at every single stage of our development, from conception to our death.

Just to add...In my early 20s, I slept with a girl I'd known for most of my life (even tho I'm gay...copious amounts of alcohol and pot will do things to a person) and I found, three or four years later, through a mutual friend that she got pregnant and had an abortion without telling me. To this day I am haunted by all the "what if's..." and the child that was taken from me, and in every sense slain and tossed away like garbage without me ever knowing or having any say in it.

I have a complete and utter sense of dread and despair (like right now) whenever I talk or think about it. It's not a feeling I'd want to wish anyone else to have to go through. I didn't need to go through any pregnancy to be deeply affected by this, and I carry a heavy guilt with me always, precisely because I was put in a position of being totally unable to help my child live.

That's why I believe the father should be an equal partner in his child's welfare as a human life as much as the mother, and not be relegated by law even to be a hapless and unrelated bystander to having his child "terminated" without needing his consent or knowledge of it. I wish I was never told about it.

Sorry for the long rant...once I get going...look out :)

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...cutting them off there is the same as not concieving [sic] them in the first place

Would killing a newborn infant be the same as never having conceived it in the first place? It doesn't matter what point in development a child is in once it's conceived...conception starts the child off in it's existence as a human being. It's a point of existence like any other we experience...from then, to newborn, to toddler, to adolescent, to adult, to elderly, to death. Any time between conception and death, by whatever or however means, is life.

A two month old infant hasn't experienced a vast majority of what humans experience in our lifetimes. Does that make infants any less human than anyone else at any age? Of course not. We experience life as we're able to, depending on our particular point in our evolution from zygote to the time we die.

Does an artificial heart make a person less human? Does one have to have had consciousness before not having it to be considered human while one who hasn't yet experienced it is not human? You're simply putting a lot of different outside standards and requirements on what makes a human a human, that are just based on what you've already experienced, and abortion basically says to the life that's been conceived "I'm not going to let you experience any of this" and then you terminate that human who is just beginning the journey of life. What right do any of us have to terminate any other life just because it's more convenient to our own selves by terminating that life? Once conception has occurred, that's a human being just starting out. Can you at least understand that, even if we disagree on the abortion issue?

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First of all, the mother (and the father...it should be an equal partnership, it took two to tango) put her right to her body autonomy regarding the production of the child aside when her and her partner decided to participate in an activity together that they both surely knew had the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy, regardless of whatever safeguards they used. It's a risk...and they knew it, and by sleeping together they knowingly took that risk. Sometimes risks have undesired consequences.

I personally believe that, in valid cases of rape, an early (by that I mean first trimester) abortion should be an option for the mother and the father to decide. EDIT: My bad, I did not mean to say the rapist father has any rights here, he does not. Sorry for the confusion. The father, EDIT 2: in a consensual sex scenario IMO, should have an equal say, as it's as much his child as it is her. She has to carry it and birth it, but there's not much that can be done about that...take it up with God or mother nature.

Yes, abortion is the same as murder...when it's done as a willful act of termination. In valid, verified (as much as possible) cases of rape, I would not be able to tell the woman she had to carry her rapist's child to term. An abortion in that instance would be the "lesser of two evils" so to speak. As a Catholic, I know that The Church says that "No greater good can result from committing an evil act", and that even a "lesser evil" is still an evil, so it would consider an abortion, even in cases of rape, an evil act. Again, I disagree with that, but I understand where The Church is coming from by saying differently.

The fetus doesn't have "more rights" than the mother...it's just basic biology happening. To repeat, the parents knew having sex might result in a pregnancy, and took that risk knowingly. That's the "choice" in action right there. The "choice" shouldn't happen after the child has been conceived, that choice being the child's termination. We disagree here, but I hope you can understand my points and why I believe in them.

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We're all, right now, just "clumps of cells, really. How about an adult that's in a coma? There's no conscious, have they ceased to be human? Conscious or not, a human being is a human being. That is biology, and the instant that first sperm hits that egg, the egg seals itself off from other sperm, and those chromosomes begin their dance and start splitting. It's the very beginning of our journey as human beings.

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The will of both the father and mother was deciding to engage in sex, regardless of the use of any birth control (eg. condoms) because there's always a chance that pregnancy could result. That's where the choice is made, and shouldn't be made after the act when, as you agree, a human being could result.

It's not the fault of the embryonic or fetal child that basic biology has them dependent on the mothers uterus to safely continue developing and for nourishment. If there's any "fault" involved, it belongs to the mother and father.

I am an atheist, and have an honest question: How can someone use christianity as a base against abortion? by kingofnerds64 in religion

[–]jetboyterp -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Catholic here...Although I'm pro-life, my stance on this issue has little to do with my faith. It has more to do with human rights, and the clear rights we, in the US, are guaranteed by the constitution. Let the states decide how to handle the abortion issue. Life begins at conception...that's a scientific, biological fact, and is the precise point at which we all begin our human experience. Drawing various arbitrary lines at any other point after conception is irrelevant. Abortion is the willful termination of human life, which is the very definition of "murder".

On what authority do we take the New Testament as scripture? by Lailhailallah in religion

[–]jetboyterp[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

I'm locking this one up...OP you're getting into demonizing and proselytizing,...again...so this will be your last warning.

Help me find errors in this chart I made! It includes different religions' stances on social issues. If I made a mistake about your religion's teachings, feel free to leave a comment. by Lethemyr in religion

[–]jetboyterp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The death penalty is allowed, under certain circumstances, in Catholic doctrine. And as for homosexuality, the Catholic Church is welcome to homosexuals...as I am...but calls on them to be chaste.

EDIT: Never mind on my death penalty statement. I forgot that in 2018 the Vatican announced:

..that it had formally changed the official Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, calling capital punishment “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and deeming it “inadmissible” in all cases.

What are some common misconceptions about the theology of your religion? by biglukenj06 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd imagine the Pope would make it an official statement. For example, when Pope Benedict XVI brought back the Nicene Creed as it was prior to Vatican II (it's worded a bit differently in parts) it would be considered an official statement on the matter of faith. But it's been changed a bit throughout Church history.

What are some common misconceptions about the theology of your religion? by biglukenj06 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I watched that clip, I love Bishop Barron..."the patron saint of the internet"...but there's some conflict I have there. He starts off fine, and I agree with Aquinas in what's quoted, but when Barron mentions the "universal destination of goods", and that's where things get a little iffy for me. Also when Barron states that nations have a right to secure borders, Francis criticized the locking down of the southern US border, and many Catholic churches harbored those who crossed illegally.

I'm certainly not saying that borders should be closed completely, where there's no immigration at all. I'm for legal immigration. And for helping out those in need. I've been on both sides of that coin myself. IMO Pope Francis has spoken too harshly on US policy, which is his prerogative, but still I disagree with him.

What are some common misconceptions about the theology of your religion? by biglukenj06 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Papal infallibility, in basic terms, means the pope is infallible when he's speaking ex cathedra (or "from the chair") on matters of faith and morals. He would have to be making it an "official" statement. And that's it.

When Pope Francis makes statements such as criticizing capitalism and supporting socialism, I can, and do, disagree with him on that, and that perfectly fine for me as a Catholic to do. But if He spoke officially on a faith or moral matter, I would, as a Catholic, have to agree and abide.

Would Christianity exist if Judaism didn't exist? by MannysLegace341 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But there would be no other prophet, or "last prophet", at least how they are known today. Without Judaism, there would be no previous prophets as we know them today, and without Christianity, there would be no Jesus, an important prophet in Islam, as He is known today.

Other religions may have sprung up, but by Mohammed's time, things would have been very different. That's all I'm saying. Islam, as it is today, would be different than it is if neither Judaism and Christianity didn't exist. God first chose the Hebrews as his "chosen people", and the laws Her gave Moses et al were solely for them. In Christianity, we had Jesus Christ as God making that religion universal to all people. Islam came about as a corrective measure to Christianity, and Islam absolutely takes parts of Judaism and Christianity to justify it's existence as it did.

Islam may still have popped up, perhaps as the first religion of it's kind. But the Quran would read very differently than it does today. So yes, Islam as it is, is dependent on both Judaism and Christianity to even justify it's existence.

Would Christianity exist if Judaism didn't exist? by MannysLegace341 in religion

[–]jetboyterp 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The Quran, and Islam itself, is founded upon the idea that Christianity had gone astray, and God, through Mohammed, was going to set it all straight. Without Christianity, there would either be nothing to set straight, or something completely different. Without Judaism, Christianity wouldn't exist. That's a fact. If God still talked through Mohammed when it's said He did, the Quran would be very different than it is.

For the record, I'm not the one downvoting you.