Everyone knows abortion disproportionally affects blacks, most of whom would become future criminals. All these white working class profession Christians on xo — other than perhaps Wilbur Mercer — do not want to live in black neighborhoods or send their kids to schools with high black representations. You hide in euphemisms like wanting to live in “good neighborhoods” with “good schools” but we all know what that means. To acknowledge the primacy of race would mean that the Christian focus on “saving souls” is a misguided focus, and that you cannot change IQ, aggression levels, cleanliness, trustworthiness or future time orientation of groups of people.

Therefore, what all you Christcucks want is to virtue signal and spread out the costs to society at large, while avoiding the costs yourself, to live like a Nazi to the very maximum extent you can.

Belief in Christ, then, results in a hypocritical schizophrenia between word and action. You cannot acknowledge the concept of a volk, the health of common society, and the need to both individually and collectively try to work to improve it.

You are all deeply sick people and you deserve this country continuing to turn into a mud creature mess. And here’s some further news: you won’t be able to externalize the costs of your virtue signaling forever, and either you or your children — and not a single generation beyond them at this point — is going to pay the price.

(That’s not to say this roe decision is really going to change much of anything at all — it won’t.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737800)

False. There is a story in the Bible called the ordeal of the bitter water that INSTRUCTS a man who thinks his wife is pregnant by another man to take her to a priest and force her to get an abortion.

The Bible is explicitly pro-abortion, at least in the case of marital infidelity. So the Christian position that "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" requires a reading of the Bible as being "pro baby murder"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738394)

A Test for Adultery

11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man rlies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, ssince she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah3 of barley flour. tHe shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, ubringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and vunbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) w‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings the curse xpass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, y‘Amen, Amen.’

23 “Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. 25 And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand zand shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 And the priest ashall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman bshall become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

29 “This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, cthough under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman dshall bear her iniquity.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738575)

In terms of voting vote for Blake masters and jd vance, everyone else appears to be trash so far

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737884)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738793)

The pagan system that you’re dimwittedly trying to carry water for doesn’t consider your life to have any value.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739378)

What’s the big deal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737882)

What’s the big deal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737890)

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/3-blastocyst-formation-asklepios-medical-atlas.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741124)

Modern Christianity has completely cucked, however, and the "Pope" is evil.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737897)

abortion is one of the issues christians have steadfastly refused to cede an inch on

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737903)

?????

pre-Civil Rights era, evangelical christians were explicitly pro-abortion because they hated anti-abortion catholics so much

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738403)

Modern Christianity is A-OK with you formulating, sodomizing, murdering, etc. at will; as long as you have the right thoughts going through your head when you die, you’ll go to heaven (and that’s all that 99% of today’s “Christians” care about: their own personal salvation)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741138)

catholics, orthodox and most major protestant orgs that are still serious about the faith independently arrived at the same conclusion

but idk maybe they're wrong and genociding black kids is more important (or whatever you real motivation here is)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737900)

So according to the OT and modern Christian verbiage, a baby can be murdered if its dad is a cuck

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738407)

If you think the decision will change nothing than how are any costs being externalized?

This whole poast makes no sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737910)

This thread is a screed against the hope today by xo christcucks that today’s ruling will drastically lower black abortion rates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737917)

1. A large number of Christians on xo super excited today about roe overturned, which they hope will reduce (mostly black) abortion rates

2. These guys are mostly working class professionals

3. They almost all certainly live in exclusively white areas

4. Most of them rag on blacks here and claim to hate high crime rates

So what I see is an enormous disconnect between their words and the way they live

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737970)

It’s more

“ If you recognize that blacks commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crimes that you personally strongly want to avoid being a victim of, why aren’t you okay with allowing removal of black fetuses when those fetuses will be born and grow up to commit the very crimes you want to avoid?”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738030)

It's worth pointing out that this isn't true of poor people in Tx. It's basically impossible right now to get to NM for an abortion if you aren't upper middle class. Waitlists and hours and hours of travel (or a flight) that requires you take off work.

So all this really accomplishes is fewer successful white people will have kids. Poor minorities will have even more.

It's why I don't think rapetiles don't actually worry about becoming a minority in the US anymore since they obviously want this outcome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738418)

Part of the reason Republicans are popular right now is because they are the party of liberation. Democrats have been scrambling hard to pull gun rights, censor people online, and force new decorum (pronouns, “latinX,” etc.) among other things. However, that was the position Republicans were in during the early 2000s/late 90s. Abortion was one of the issues that turned republicans unpalatable at the national level.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741157)

Of course on a political level this roe decision massively incentivizes shitlibs for 2024 and also pushes moderates their way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741410)

these people are no different from "libs:" both groups of people care only about their selfish virtue-signaling and feel-good emotions that they glean from seeing "their" "causes" succeed in the political arena. they don't actually care (or even think about!) any of the consequences of these things happening

it's completely pathetic and it's another piece of supporting evidence for the fact that today's shitlibs are just the most fervent descendants of christianity. there's no real difference between "libs" who are deontologically pro-abortion and "christian cons" who are deontologically anti-abortion. both of these groups of people are spiritually and psychologically christian mushbrains who have had their conscious, thinking brains hijacked by the moral programming that has been written into them over the generations

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44737982)

It's funny because being pro-abortion to "pwn the blacks" is the ultimate, ultimate virtue-signal for internet-only "rightists" who have never and will never accomplish anything. It's a steam valve position, a Venus flytrap designed perfectly to ensnare 100 IQ dullards like yourself. To wit: abortion has done ***nothing*** to stop the browning of America and the hundreds of thousands of white babies who got aborted is a far greater loss than any number of feral blacks who didn't. Not to mention, of course, it's satanic and evil, but I'm sure you're too "euphoric" for those concerns.

The extremely simple math behind your postion - abortion = less blacks, ergo ipso facto good - is designed to make you feel like you're "accomplishing something" while endorsing a moral evil. You think to yourself, "Yeah, my country might be turning into a third world cesspit, but at least there are marginally less blacks around. That makes my inaction okay." You never stop to think why every single one of your "mortal enemies" - Jews, the elites, the Deep State, GC, w/e - are also rabidly pro-abortion. Aren't they pro-black, after all?

But sure, go link arms with Ezra Goldstein. You - and a handful of quotemos - REALLY get it, lmao. You're a freethinker, who just happens to be exactly where they want you to be: arguing against the religion of your forefathers - the one that is undoubtedly responsible for your existence - and endorsing a GC-approved evil with zero tangible results while the country continues its steep decline, all the while blowing 100 IQ logorrheic chunks proclaiming only you're smart enough to "think about it."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738328)

Re abortion rates

Although black Americans comprise 13.4% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 36.0% of the abortions in 2015, which was almost identical to the percentage of abortions (36.9%) that year among white Americans, who make up 76.6% of the population.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/blacks-make-134-population-36-abortions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738356)

It doesn't accomplish anything and you don't have to be Christian or even religious to understand that killing children is not the proper position for a white man to take.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738479)

Why do you think absolute numbers are more important than relative rates? If you look at white flight, Leah Boustan’s examination of 70 metropolitan areas found that for every black family that moved into a central city between 1940 and 1970, two white families moved out.

So even a small number of blacks around whites end up in white flight / a drastically lower quality of life for whites.

Ultimately unlimited mud immigration is a way bigger issue than abortion — but the latter is the topic of the day.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738513)

Like it or not, the European people were Christians when they conquered the world. I understand you are not of European lineage, but anyone who is white has Christian forbears.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738455)

Retarded strawman. Of course the Bible can be comprehended in English. The point is if God were real, it's unlikely that he would issue his word only in languages that most people don't speak, forcing us to rely on human translators rather than being able to read his actual words directly. However, if God isn't real and Christianity is as man-made as all the other religions invented by ancient people, that's exactly what we'd expect to see.

"The zombie Jesus guy, right?"

I didn't call Jesus a zombie. What I did say (see thread linked below) is that the events of Matthew 27:51-53 can fairly be referred to as a "zombie uprising." If you disagree, then please tell us, just what word would YOU prefer we use to describe an event such as "the earth shook, rocks were split open, tombs were opened, and many saints who had died were brought back to life... they came out of their tombs, went into the Holy City, and appeared to many people"? Would it have been more respectful of me to say "undead" or something instead?

Of course, the whole point of the "zombie" comment was to highlight how odd it is that nobody else ever witnessed and wrote about this astonishing mass resurrection of the dead. A point that you studiously ignored in favor of whining about how reddit-ish of me it was to use the word "zombie."

Aren't you the retard who said that not believing in the resurrection of Jesus is irrational because we have so much "evidence" for it being true, namely, various documents written many decades after Jesus's death by people who never even met Jesus, such as "the gospels, Paul's epistles, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Talmud, or even more speculative sources like Suetonius"?

Oh, look! Yes, you ARE that retard! Here's the link to you arguing that: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477437

"I understand you are not of European lineage"

? Yes, I am.

"the European people were Christians when they conquered the world"

Why does that mean Christianity is responsible for his existence? If they hadn't been Christians, or hadn't conquered the world, they'd still be his forebears. Nor is there any reason to think that Christianity enabled them to conquer of the world. So what the fuck is your point? Arabs have Muslim forebears, so would it be wrong for them to convert to Christianity and "argue against the religion of their forefathers"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738764)

Why does that mean Christianity is responsible for his existence? If they hadn't been Christians, or hadn't conquered the world, they'd still be his forebears. Nor is there any reason to think that Christianity enabled them to conquer of the world. So what the fuck is your point?

This is extremely odd thinking. You don't think the religion that informed all the cultural and societal structures and under whose banner Europeans conquered the world had some bearing on whether or not whites exist at all today? A butterfly flaps its wings and the weather in Tokyo changes, but you seem to think human history would have proceeded irrespective of a given faith system. There's a good chance none of us would exist without Christianity's mark on history; this doesn't seem to be very controversial to me.

Arabs have Muslim forebears, so would it be wrong for them to convert to Christianity and "argue against the religion of their forefathers"?

Never wrong for someone to convert to Christ, of course. But I wouldn't fault a Muslim xoer for arguing Islam saw the Arab people from an obscure group of desert tribes to the world's second-largest faith system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739042)

Why would whites need to conquer the world to still exist today? We could have just stayed in Europe. The Chinese didn't conquer the world, and yet here they are.

"A butterfly flaps its wings and the weather in Tokyo changes, but you seem to think human history would have proceeded irrespective of a given faith system. There's a good chance none of us would exist without Christianity's mark on history"

This is a trivial point. Of course any change in history means the dice get re-rolled, different sperm meet different eggs, and none of us are born. But some other people would be born instead. If Christianity had died out in ancient times and Europeans stayed pagan instead, we'd have some guy like you squawking about how wrong it is to argue against paganism since it is the religion of his forebears and we wouldn't exist without it, because hey, if things were different, then things would be different! So what? And Europeans could very well have conquered the world under some other banner. Alexander the Great didn't need Christianity for his conquests.

"I wouldn't fault a Muslim xoer for arguing Islam saw the Arab people from an obscure group of desert tribes to the world's second-largest faith system."

He'd be right to point that out, but he'd still be wrong about Islam being true. So if it's a bad argument for Islam, it's an equally bad argument for you to complain that someone was "arguing against the religion of [his] forefathers."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739099)

If system X worked so well that it saw my people flourish and likely led to my existence through a very long series of causal relationships, then I do not think it's wrong to criticize a peer for arguing to abandon it for system y or z or w/e, especially when those systems have convincing data that they aren't as good/effective.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739222)

i'm a consequentialist (like every other thinking person). all i care about are the consequences of things and whether those consequences are, overall, desirable or undesirable

we are never going to see eye to eye about anything that actually matters, because we do not see or experience the world around us in the same way, just like how a dog and a shark do not experience the world around them in the same way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738379)

it is *obviously* the relative rate of abortions for whites vs. non-whites that matters, not the absolute numbers. if abortions were to continue indefinitely at their current relative rates by race, the white population would increase over time relative to the non-white population (absent any other factors). it makes absolutely no logical sense to look at the absolute numbers, and i have no idea why you think that the absolute numbers would be what i or anyone else would find more important or meaningful

like i'm not trying to be a dick, but seriously, the above mistake is some really weird low IQ shit. all your posts are like this. you consistently miss the points that other people are trying to make and then toss out bizarre half-assed strawmen that obviously do not correspond at all to what the other person is trying to say

you believe that abortion is bad because the bible and god tell you it's bad. shitlibs believe abortion is good because MSNBC tells them it's good. you are the same. i believe abortion is good because i've done a complex analysis of the wide range of consequences of legal abortion vs. no illegal abortion and have determined that in this specific time and place, allowing abortion to continue to remain legal would be more desirable for my moral and philosophical vision of the world. i am not like you, i am not like them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738542)

Your whole second paragraph is exactly the retardation I was referring to. Obviously something isn't right when blacks were 13% of the population when Roe came in and 13% when it left. There is no absent other factors in reality, of course. Holding up abortion as a panacea - or as particularly necessary in a 21st century overflowing with all sorts of forms of contraception - is, again, foolhardy.

The absolute number matter more because - if you're a good white supremacist/rightist/or w/e title you prefer - a single white child is worth more than a whole ocean of blacks. Why is one million aborted white babies worse than one hundred thousand blacks if blacks are larger percentage-wise? Well, I'd say there at least 900k reasons. Perhaps I misunderstand exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, but I assumed it's less dead white babies. "Saving" them from future blacks only to see them cut up in the womb hardly seems like a good solution.

You need to define your position better. Are you a arch-white supremacist? How can you possibly defend a veritable holocaust on your people in exchange for less blacks (except, ofc, it's not really less blacks because other factors matter in the real world)? Or are you some sort of ends-justify-the-means humanist for which millions of dead white children is an okay price to pay if it erases blacks from existence, (which again, 40+ years of data demonstrates is not the case)?

You seem to think that you exist in some great post-Christian, post-morality space where you alone can come to the conclusion that amorality makes it easier to accomplish certain political goals. You're not, this path has been well-tread before you. But you are right: I do not think killing children is a proper position for a white man to hold, Christian or otherwise. For non-white bugpeople, sure, but I do hold us to a higher ideal. Isn't that kind of the whole point of your philosophy?

Finally, I'd really urge you rethink that final paragraph. It gave me the same visceral cringe I felt upon reading the "aalewis" copypasta. You can be pro-abortion, but please don't flatter yourself into thinking you're "unalike" shitlibs when you hold their exact same positions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738674)

i can't respond to the content of this post, i'm sorry man. you are just too dumb and this stuff is way over your head. i will leave you alone because you seem like an otherwise pretty decent person

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738758)

pretty funny

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738821)

Are you contending that aborting millions of white babies is okay if it also eradicates blacks? That would be consistent, at least.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738863)

You're free to continue in your non-belief, of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738961)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477437

As you can see, we weren't just talking about "evidence of Jesus's existence," we were talking about "evidence of Christ's existence, death, and resurrection" (your words).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739029)

Repeatedly spamming the equivalent of "Got a source for that?" just isn't good argumentation. Like I said upstream, you're no Dawkins, and you're certainly no Camus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739085)

My argument is that if God exists, he made things look exactly like how we would expect them to look if he doesn't exist. So what's more likely: that God has a bizarre secret plan for why he would do things in such a convoluted and inexplicable way, or that he's just not there?

If you're going to go with this "we can't assume that God would do things in a way that would make any sense to us" then you have no basis for believing in anything religious at all. Maybe God is really the Islamic version of God and he planted all your "evidence for Christianity" as a deliberate hoax to fool you into believing in Christianity when Islam is the true religion. Why would he do that, you ask? Wouldn't that be evil and insane and irrational? Any such objections from you could be refuted with your own taunt against me: "God didn't do it in a way that makes sense to me, ergo it didn't happen."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739149)

My argument is that if God exists, he made things look exactly like how we would expect them to look if he doesn't exist.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Our existence is an impossible miracle which by all the deduction of our extremely limited minds should not be. Everything we can observe about this universe tends to indicate nothing does not beget something, and yet here we are.

Look, I can understand why someone would object to specific claims about Christianity. Do you really think the Christians here haven't struggled with many of the same doubts you've found so convincing to your unbelief? (Relatedly, there are much better apologists out there than me if you're looking to learn more about Christ in good faith, but I doubt that's the case). But to hold that God does not exist because we don't understand elements of existence/think they're unfair is, to me, the height of man's arrogance and quite silly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739297)

You are completely misunderstanding my point. When I say that the universe looks the way we'd expect without a god, of course you are free to disagree and argue that the evidence points to god, etc. That's not what I was getting at. I was simply responding to your statement that my arguments boil down to "God didn't do it in a way that makes sense to me, ergo it didn't happen."

Let's say you were to grant for the sake of argument that I'm right that "things look exactly like how we would expect them to look if he doesn't exist." Then surely you would concede that it's reasonable for me to think God's non-existence is more likely than God being a deranged trickster who bizarrely decides to make everything look like he doesn't exist.

You are basically using circular reasoning here. I am starting out by saying: we don't know if God exists or not, so let's look at the evidence, and if the evidence is such that it would make no sense to us that God would do it that way, he probably doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, are starting out assuming he does exist and therefore saying that if something seems nonsensical or unfair, it must be explained by God's plan.

The problem with your reasoning is that as soon as we introduce this idea that God's intentions/motivations are so utterly inscrutable that we can't make any reasonable inferences about what God would be likely to do, we immediately lose all basis for saying anything about God whatsoever. God would then essentially just be this completely unpredictable chaotic being, who might destroy the world five minutes from now, might toss all Christians in hell, might do anything imaginable. Because if God's reasoning is thoroughly different from ours, we have no reason to think he wouldn't do those things. You'd have to give up your whole concept of God as a being who acts in a way that we would describe as fundamentally reasonable and rational. After all, you just said that if any action on God's part seems unfair or impossible to understand, that's no reason to hold that such a god probably does not exist.

"there are much better apologists out there than me"

Lol. Yes, I am familiar with professional Christian apologists. I find their arguments just as silly and nonsensical as yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739376)

Tell us more about how we should believe in a supernatural resurrection because some people may have written something about Jesus a hundred years later.

Why don't you believe in the miracles reported by Herodotus? He was an actual known historian who wrote only 50 years after the alleged events and claimed to have interviewed eyewitnesses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738856)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2#44666772

That wasn't me. I was the one below him.

You’re sort of assuming what you’re trying to prove by saying “if the level of evidence is similar” which it never will be in a situation like this.

Of course Christians are free to object that the level of evidence is not actually similar. That's why I said "if." My view is that the level of evidence seems similar (both ancient, both written decades after the fact, both written by people who did not personally observe the miracles, etc.). If they disagree, they should explain why.

I don't know what your point is about it involving a religious following or not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739003)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738902)

"And yet, I bet you could write a pretty convincing history of, say, WWII today."

And if my history included talk of magic and miracles and angels, not a single person would believe me, particularly given the timespans involved and lack of eyewitness testimony. Just like how you don't believe Herodotus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738948)

Are you stupid or am I falling for a flame post

“Thou shall not kill”

Didn’t read anymore of your nonsense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738392)

“ the closest you can get it combining the commandment about not killing with John the Baptist leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41), which is a major stretch and Bible Code tier logic (thanks, cow goes moo).”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738395)

Yea I guess if you make that exception that a particular person isn’t a person then you can get around the sweeping commandment that you shall not kill other people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738435)

if it were "thou shalt not kill" then why are there exceptions for the health of the mother (reverse big willie style Christian trolley problem), and why are so many Christians OK with the DP and war?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44738421)

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5

No other verse is cited more often to argue for illegal abortion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739084)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44739347)

catechism of trent, 1566: "persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime -- nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741530)

It’s too bad Pope Gregory XIV made explicit in 1590 that the termination of a pregnancy before ensoulment was not a sin (which was Church doctrine from the founding of Christianity to 1585, btw) and that remained the official Catholic church position until 1869. You’d have been better off pointing out that there was a single 5 year window in the late 1500s where the Church supported a total ban on abortions.

Edit: you’ve also conveniently left out a single word: “married,” as in “married persons.” A more full statement is “It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ­­ nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.” Sounds like you’re free to abort if you aren’t married!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44741727)

stop with the bullshit claim.

edit: LJL at you editing your first poast in this subthread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44742016)

1. Interesting to see you've edited your past conclusions. In the past, you admitted to me that John leaping in the womb *atleast* suggests that abortion at 6+ months is wrong. Now you've gone back to the claim the Bible says nothing.

2. The bible does not explicitly have to say something is wrong. It can be inferred from other teachings. This is why Christians can believe a man fucking a 3 year old in the bum is unbiblical without such an event being explicitly called out.

3. Catholics and Orthodox (combined for most of the Christian world) have this little thing call Sacred Tradition. We are not sola scriptura. So even if #1 and #2 can be batted away (they can't), you still haven't proven your point because Tradition on this topic is irrefutable. For example, the Didache, which was written right around the time last book of the Bible was written in the 100s AD, expressly forbids it.

HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44742731)

You stated in the other thread you’re Canadian and live in a rural white area and you don’t take demographics into account in where you live.

There’s too much mud creature importation into Canada for you to remain a race-blind egalitarian, which you currently don’t have to pay a direct cost for believing . You will soon be forced to choose whether that position is worth you or your kids dying for. Good luck.

(I think you’ll choose poorly, btw)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44742747)

However, do I think its ok to murder innocent children just because they might be part of a group that causes disproportionate damage to a society? Absolutely not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5138548&forum_id=2#44742850)