Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:34 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

:lol: Aren't you supposed to be the Christian, you massive hypocrite?

What on earth makes you think that Christianity is at all benevolent ?

They freely admit to having nailed their only prophet to a tree at his own fathers request and it only got worse from that point on.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:39 pm  

He's one of these I'm afraid.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:24 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

What on earth makes you think that Christianity is at all benevolent ?

They freely admit to having nailed their only prophet to a tree at his own fathers request and it only got worse from that point on.

My view on religion is underpinned by the thoughts of the two wise people below.

Karl Marx wrote:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

My Dad said daily but I don't think ever actually wrote:

Religion causes all the evil in the world.

Having said that, if a bloke called Jesus did live a couple of thousand years ago, all he appeared to say was, ' "Live and Let Live", be good to each other and treat others as you'd like to be treat yourself. Don't be cruel and selfish and try to see the bigger picture.' I think.

How that got bastardized into the horrific organizations perpetrating directly antithetical dogma to those fairly innocent words and who operate in the poor sod's name to boot I can't conceive.

However, any person claiming to follow the "true" word of Jesus, then coming out with the evil bile that Kirkstaller did then (yes, I can see he is a very prejudicial person anyway) is either deluded or a pharisee.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:35 pm  

How about, from a former, now deceased, singer songwriter?

God is a concept
By which we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:25 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Little different from the Victorian belief that, if someone was poor, then it was their own fault and the result of them being sinful.

Except Kirkstaller's point was not about poverty but about choices. Children don't just happen. People choose to have them. If they have multiple children by multiple partners but expect the taxpayer to provide for all of them then while that protects the children, it excuses the adults from taking responsibility for their own choices. That has nothing to do with Victorian belief about poverty being equal to sinfulness.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:39 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Except Kirkstaller's point was not about poverty but about choices. Children don't just happen. People choose to have them. If they have multiple children by multiple partners but expect the taxpayer to provide for all of them then while that protects the children, it excuses the adults from taking responsibility for their own choices. That has nothing to do with Victorian belief about poverty being equal to sinfulness.

It may come as some surprise to you, but quite often some children are born that were not part of a carefully scripted life plan, there was no spreadsheet to pinpoint the optimum financial moment at which to give birth, some kids just happen.

Especially those who's religion has fobidden the use of contraceptive devices, for instance.

Strange but true.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:25 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

It may come as some surprise to you, but quite often some children are born that were not part of a carefully scripted life plan, there was no spreadsheet to pinpoint the optimum financial moment at which to give birth, some kids just happen.

Especially those who's religion has fobidden the use of contraceptive devices, for instance.

Strange but true.

I do not oppose contraception - that is the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view. My personal view is the non-procreative sex with your spouse is OK. Paul actually teaches that sex within marriage is to control lust, not to procreate (1 Cor 7:9).

It is true that children can come at any point. However, if you do not use contraception then you always know it is a possibility. If your religion forbids contraception, don't have sex. That, or find another way of satiating your desires.

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:35 pm  

Pornwank, anyone?

Re: Revolution : Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:47 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Except Kirkstaller's point was not about poverty but about choices. Children don't just happen. People choose to have them. If they have multiple children by multiple partners but expect the taxpayer to provide for all of them then while that protects the children, it excuses the adults from taking responsibility for their own choices. That has nothing to do with Victorian belief about poverty being equal to sinfulness.

Well indeed. The person he was referring to chose for his previous relationship to end, for instance.

As has been pointed out, children are not always carefully planned by any stretch of the imagination.

And so when people start out by asserting, from a point of assumption, that they know that everything that happens to a person is the result of specific choices, it's very, very much in the terrain of the blaming people for being poor.

That Mary didn't choose to have a child out of marriage, did she? Bloody lucky Joseph was so understanding. Possibly why her son doesn't appear to have been reported as saying much on the matter – expect telling people to pay their taxes and advising that riches will make it difficult to get into his dad's gaff.

Re: Revolution : Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:03 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

It is true that children can come at any point. However, if you do not use contraception then you always know it is a possibility. If your religion forbids contraception, don't have sex. That, or find another way of satiating your desires.

The catholics have had that one sorted out for hundreds of years.

Its a tad unfortunate that its now illegal to use children in such a way but there you are.