The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    11507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    161

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    The Folk Prophet reacted to Just_A_Guy in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    So, this is a long thread that I haven't followed closely (family camping trip the last couple of days).  So, @clbent04, I'll throw out some random thoughts that occurred to me as I perused the thread this evening; and maybe they'll be useful, or maybe they'll just be illogical rantings.     
    I also want to note that it seems to me that you've been very tentative  and vague in some of your questions/inferences in this thread.  Some other folks seem to have read you as suggesting either a) that a person can, with some degree of scienter, deliberately reject opportunities to enter into covenants with God throughout their mortality and yet still claim exaltation at some point thereafter; or b) that it is unnecessary for an exalted person to have received their saving ordinances, either in person or by proxy, prior to the Resurrection.  Frankly, I don't read you as alleging either of those things--and I'm not sure if it's because I've been reading you very closely, or not closely enough!  Either way--I'll respond to some of those ideas, but please don't interpret me as posing straw-men if that wasn't what you intended to suggest. 
    With that said . . . here goes:
    1)  I don't know that, in these sorts of discussions, it's very helpful to talk about what a "good Baptist" or "good Methodist" or "good Buddhist" or "good Muslim" was.  Religion--other than our religion--is, to a significant degree, man-made; and in many cases is so inextricably tied up with local culture/peer pressure that I'm not sure a person's loyalty to their chosen religion is an eternally significant indicator as to what kind of eternal reward someone is going to receive.
    2)  Similarly, I would agree with those who have pointed out that it's not particularly helpful to get wrapped up in a person's deeds/works in these kinds of decisions.  
    3)  I would also beware about over-emphasizing trite platitudes about charity or "wuuuuuuv"; particularly as the concept has been bastardized and perverted in the last fifty years.  
    4)  The seminal scriptural texts here, I think, are D&C 76 (cited by @mordorbund), D&C 88 (cited by @laronius), and perhaps also D&C 130.  Then-Elder Oaks's "The Challenge to Become", I think, is also crucial in getting a proper perspective on these sorts of issues.  Again, these scriptures seem to say relatively little about institutional religious devotion; and they don't come off to me as being either legalistically works-based or being rooted in hippie-dippie notions of "charity".  Taken together, I think the scripture and Elder Oaks point to a set of "judging criteria" that focuses primarily on the nature of the relationship that we have formed with Jesus Christ, the ability we have cultivated to hear Him, what we have become already, what we are willing to become further under His tutelage, and what we are willing to give up.  
    5)  The covenant path--the commitments and liturgies associated with what we call the "saving ordinances"--are a sine qua non for exaltation, full stop.  They are non-negotiable.  They have to be made, whether in person or by proxy.  No other current institution has the divine authority to administer those ordinances.  The quantity and depth of Church teaching on this (as exposed in part by @The Folk Prophet) and the tremendous sacrifices the Church has historically made to make this teaching a reality, is staggering and--to my mind--not up for debate.
    6)  In the priesthood ordinances, the power of godliness is made manifest.  In the ordinances, we receive (or become eligible to receive) endowments of spiritual power that can magnify and enhance every virtue, give power to every endeavor, and fundamentally change our lives.  We can also receive these ordinances and thereafter fail to live up to the privileges associated with them.  It seems that significant proportion of Church members fall under this category--I know I do.  
    7)  Nobody on this earth is a finished project.  The finished project is Godhood; and the most amazing, godly person any of us has ever met in person is a tiny speck compared to the dazzling light of exaltation that may one day be attained through atonement and full reconciliation with Christ Jesus.  In this sense, then, no one is living a "celestial caliber" at any point in their mortal life.  I can't look at anyone and think "yeah, he's made it." 
    Similarly--and harking back to point 6) above--the question is not whether John Q. Non-Mormon seems to be living a more "celestial caliber" life than Jane Z. Mormon.  The question is how much more awesome John Q. Non-Mormon would be at this moment if he had access to the same wells of divine power--the same promise of potential--that we in the Church do.  I am satisfied that--as I think it was @estradling75 who suggested it--those who were denied access to that power in life will wistfully reflect on how much better mortality would have been if they'd had that power; even if only in an Alma-esque, "I do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted to me" sort of way.  I don't see anyone in the eternities saying "geez, sure glad I dodged that 'Mormonism' bullet, 'cause paying tithing woulda sucked!"
    8 )  Are the saving covenants/ordinances required for salvation as well as exaltation?  I don't know.  Is there progression between the kingdoms that renders the difference between "salvation" and "exaltation" moot in the long run?  Again, I don't know.  These questions add a layer of complexity to what we've been talking about.  I've also grown up with the paradigm that proxy temple work is of absolutely no benefit to people who rejected the Gospel in this life; which had always led me to the conclusion (which I'm sort of revisiting now, but I haven't abandoned at this point) that a person who receives a Terrestrial or Telestial inheritance does it independently of any priesthood authority that the LDS Church currently possesses (and has the ability to receive limited ministrations from the Holy Ghost even in their unbaptized state).  
    So, if the Catholics or the Presbyterians or even the Shintos can bring a person to the Terrestrial Kingdom just fine, it seems to me that the LDS Church's raison d'etre is to do what the other churches can't--to point out the path to exaltation for those people who want to follow it, and to facilitate the liturgical work for the living and dead who want to go down that path.  There may be some incidental material benefits--supportive communities of fellow believers, cheap food storage, ridiculously economical academic degrees, and the like--but fundamentally that's not what make us, us.  I believe it is in our acknowledgment of the quest for exaltation and our ability to orient people on that quest, that fundamentally defines us as a Church; and if we fail to do that, we make ourselves institutionally expendable as far as the Lord is concerned.  
     
  2. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Doctrine Fallout   
    I cannot see how to reconcile my thinking beyond this as well. The difference being that I do believe. So I follow.
    However, I think there's an inherent implication in what the First Presidency message has urged that there are exceptions. And I believe President Nelson would be the first to recommend to someone who had underlying health reasons, spiritual promptings, or the like to not get vaccinated for Covid. What I worry about is how many seem to have neither of these things but are merely swayed strongly by the politics and conspiracies' of it all. I am one of those, actually (though not to the extent some are). But I do not believe such to be a good reason to disregard prophetic council. Therefore I am getting the vaccination, despite my strong reservations.
    I might add that I'd come to this conclusion before the latest First Presidency letter.
    Basically, to me, it is exactly this simple. You either follow, or you don't.
  3. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    I'm not sure what tastes might overlap but just for fun here are some of my other favorites in the rock and or roll world.
    Metallica
    Queen
    White Zombie
    Rob Zombie
    Children of Bodom
    Meshuggah
    I like lots of styles of music here and there. 
  4. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    I've always secretly kind of wanted to write a heavy metal opera. But....I won't ever.
  5. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    I think you'd be surprised.
    Don't get me wrong. The problem with rock in musicals to me is like pineapple on pizza. It just doesn't belong. Give me rock when I want rock. Give me musicals when I want musicals.
    That being said, it can work. I secretly really like Jesus Christ Superstar. I dislike the concept. I very much like the music.
  6. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now.
    So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant?
    That being said, I have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for.
    I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.
  7. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Vort in What's a popular word, saying or phrase you can't stand?   
    I believe it is attributed to Albert Einstein. But I hate the saying: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 
    Clearly Einstein never learned to play the piano. 
  8. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Just to be clear -- the exception that the Spirit legitimately reveals to someone always applies.
    I'm actually less stringent on things than I'm coming across I think. I think casual selfish abortion is an abomination. But I also understand that everyone will stand before God accountable for what they have done with their agency, and that abortion choices will play into that in a perfectly fair and just way.
    The church's official position is not a legal theory. I separate the two things in my mind.
  9. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    So I'm familiar with some of the music but I haven't ever seen it. On your recommendation I'll look into doing so. 
  10. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from clwnuke in What's a popular word, saying or phrase you can't stand?   
    I believe it is attributed to Albert Einstein. But I hate the saying: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 
    Clearly Einstein never learned to play the piano. 
  11. Thanks
    The Folk Prophet reacted to Suzie in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    @The Folk Prophet I really appreciate your response. Thought about you yesterday and I hope we can leave all of this behind. About my progressive leaning views...lol you know what? It's not THAT liberal. Copying and pasting from another thread:
    😂 You guys call me "liberal" or "progressive" (a term I use often to describe my views) BUT I don't think they fit into any particular "box". For example: I believe in legal immigration and at the same time I can empathize with those who are fleeing certain countries. But not to the point where they now jump the line and leave behind those people who have been patiently waiting for years. I believe in fairness, the system is a mess and  people shouldn't be waiting for decades to be reunited with family.
    Then, racism. I don't believe when people say minorities use the "race card" for everything. This isn't always the case,  there are genuine cases of racism taking place daily and cannot and should not be ignored or automatically categorized as using the "race card".  Also, people assume too many things when they see someone from another ethnicity or culture , they automatically assume the person is illegal, uneducated,  they can't speak English or they are on welfare. This mindset cannot be right and I blame this to ignorance, particularly lack of exposure and traveling. The most "exotic" places  people go is Hawaii! Real exposure to people of other cultures and races is needed to stop prejudice.
    What happened to George Floyd was horrible and yet some people chose to talk about his character rather than what was done to him and this isn't good. When the Black Lives Matter movement started, I understood the reason why because no one wanted a repeat of the 50's and 60's but things got out of control rather quickly, destroying property, hurting others, etc to the point of profiting from this and certain individuals becoming millionaires practically overnight. 
    I also don't agree with the extent in which we engage in political correctness. It feels as though there is a new term we all have to be careful to use. I cannot keep up with them and I find myself having to explain what I mean when I'm not inclined to do so. And yet at the same time, I deeply believe in respecting every individual and I truly care how they feel and I don't wish to purposely offend anyone. I am just concerned with people losing their jobs or being accused of things they didn't mean. And don' get me started with cultural appropriation...GOOD CULTURE IS MEANT TO BE APPROPRIATED! Unless we are segregationists."
    Nothing to forgive, I apologize if I offended you in any way. Have a great Sabbath.
    Suzie.
  12. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from askandanswer in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    @Suzie, I am sorry.

    I think I have some historical hang-ups with you because of some of your progressive leaning views on things and, additionally, I think your communication style might not resonate with me or something. I mean, I don't even know...it's hard to put into words beyond the fact that if I'm legitimately honest with myself, I have to admit that I respond viscerally to your comments in a more defensive way than I would with others.
    That is not your fault, despite all my implications. I don't know that I shouldn't have explained that I felt your post was implying something unfair, but I absolutely, most certainly could have said it with a LOT more understanding, love, and forgiveness. Instead I was snarky and biting in my response. And then I doubled down on it with more snark and biting remarks, even though I said in my first post I wasn't going to say more. But I kept at it anyhow. I apologize, truly and deeply for all of that.
    Look, if you really don't want to interact with me moving forward that is fair. But I promise you that if you do in the future I will do better. I understand you might have blocked me already and may never see this.
    But I am really sorry. Please forgive me.
  13. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Traveler in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    Yes. That is why work for the dead is so important.
  14. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from askandanswer in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something?
    I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape.
    I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration.
  15. Like
    The Folk Prophet reacted to mordorbund in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    I know the discussion has been carrying on, but I wanted to respond if only to show my appreciation of your consideration. I think that given the difficulty of actually taking a rape case to trial the police report is a fair compromise. If a woman is actually raped she needs to report it. If she was not actually raped the report in reality won't actually harm the father (usually) - but it will alert him to the kind of woman he's dating/hooking up with/(or unthinkably, married to). In order to prevent the retroactive rape accusations, I would like the police report filed before the doctor's pregnancy test. Actually, it would need to be reported within a certain window of the rape to prevent the home test->police report->doctor visit timeline, but I'm not familiar enough with rape cases or pregnancy to nail down the window now.
    As for the sons of Zion vs the children of Babylon - well, we live in a culture where even respectable couples have sex outside of marriage. Minimize abortion and the risk of pregnancy, parental, and fiscal responsibility return as credible deterrents to casual sex in non-committed relationships. I don't think we'll need to pile the threat of rape accusations on top of that.
    I am not unsympathetic to the traumas bona fide rape victims suffer. I do question how we can sort them out. You've described a distinguishing feature of a rape victim (or at least, one who's life should be considered over the infant's) is the level of trauma currently experienced. Frankly, I don't trust those who measure such things to do so in a way that also considers the infant's interests. As a social science, psychology is filled with practitioners who correlate with pro-choicers. Will they share with their patients the traumas of abortion when weighing the decision? The APA has shown that they are willing to change diagnoses based on political consensus and not hard data. Will abortion become the de facto psychological treatment for rape?
    Let's add it to the sex ed curriculum. If you are raped report it right away. If you get pregnant from that encounter you'll need that report for an abortion. If you are having consensual sex, use the tools we've been teaching for 50 years or accept the risk. If you wait until marriage, you'll be eligible for a temple recommend. (huh, they left that last part out in my classes).
  16. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from mordorbund in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    Yes.
    I don't believe we've been speaking of contentment. That seems to be a goal post shifting.
     
  17. Like
    The Folk Prophet reacted to estradling75 in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    It is also something life long members can have difficultly understanding.  Those who have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost at age 8 and have been diligently trying to keep the commandments all there lives, will have a strong tendency to view the blessing they are getting as 'Normal.'  And if it is normal then it is just like everyone else.
    It took me hearing testimonies of those that had fallen away for a time before coming back, and their descriptions of how things felt, before, during, and after, to help me have a greater appreciation of that which has been so easy for me to take for granted.
  18. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now.
    So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant?
    That being said, I have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for.
    I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.
  19. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from SilentOne in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    I have often wondered if I hadn't been born into the Church if I would have struggled to accept it or if I'd even entertain considering it. It's a difficult premise because I know I'm quite pigheaded on my faith in the gospel. But........ that pigheaded faith is concretely based on spiritual experiences. So I don't explore Scientology or...the Jehovah Witnesses or what-have-you because I already know what I know and that knowledge precludes (or, perhaps excludes) the possibility that other churches could be the correct path back to God.
    But....I was taught to think that way! I was taught by my mother and primary teachers and in seminary, etc., etc. that we pray to know the truth directly from God via the Spirit and that it is from the Spirit and the Spirit alone we can know the truth of the gospel.
    But.... what if I hadn't been taught that?
    I don't know. Would I be as pigheaded in something that, having been taught what I was, doesn't make sense to me, but maybe would had I been taught differently? How much of my reasoning on the matter is a mere product of what I was taught?
    That being said...I fully outright reject a lot of what I was taught in, say...college, about, say....music theory... so that implies there might be some independent thinking there, right? But it's not exactly the same thing as core beliefs that were drilled into me from diaper day one.
    So I tend towards being forgiving....while also staying pigheaded? It's a real conundrum of an existence I guess.
  20. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Vort in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    For anyone interested, just for clarities sake, Vort's talking about the patriarchal order of the priesthood. Though, per scripture, the Melchizedek is the highest and all else are appendages. But that's quibbling uselessly.  The patriarchal order is the highest level of the Melchizedek (that we know of, though I would argue, also speculatively, that we know... it is the highest. It is, ultimately, what God is...as in a Father. A.k.a., a patriarch)...so... Yes, some semi-speculation, but on pretty solid footings.
  21. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Right. Still...not exactly apples to apples.
    I believe I said exactly that.
    I'm sympathetic to this. I'm only questioning whether it justifies killing an innocent child. I've said it before but I'll repeat. If you could, and of course you can't, but if you could take that baby and put it in your arms, would you still be okay with the theoretical killing? I feel like that gets lost in these conversations.
    It's either a baby or it isn't. If it is, then it IS...the same as the babe in arms. If that can be acknowledged then...let me rephrase actually...that must be acknowledged alongside the acknowledgement that an unborn baby is a baby. And if that isn't acknowledged then go ahead and cut out the tumor. If it's a baby...it's a baby. And when and if one can justify killing a born baby that's in one's arms, then one can justify an abortion. They are no different if they are both babies.
    I am not claiming that there are no legitimate reasons to kill a baby. I am claiming that it must be considered in that light, not as if it is something else entirely. The entire argument of abortion (including rape) is that it is or is not a baby. That's it. Period. There are no other legitimate arguments for or against it. It either is a baby, in which case killing it must come with the same severity of moral understanding as taking a living child and cutting its throat, or it is not. It cannot be treated differently. Now debate can be had over when it becomes a baby. And that's a different matter. You've suggested yourself that, perhaps, the spirit doesn't arrive upon conception. I don't buy that thinking, per se...but it's an argument. But if one, generally, takes the view that a conceived child counts as a baby, I just cannot see treating it any differently.
    I agree. But I'll submit two questions for your consideration. 1. Is all "rape" is equal? (Applicable to the reality of legalizing abortion in cases of rape.) 2. Even in the worst form you speak of (jumped in an alley by a Freddy Krueger type or the like...), why is murdering the innocent child the only option? And why is that child's life always to be viewed as of less value than the woman's?
    Why don't we put the woman into a coma or something for 9 months if she can't handle it? Oh....I remember...she has those things we call human rights. Inalienable, if I recall. But the baby...none. No rights. Right? Why? Why doesn't the baby have the same rights in this rape scenario discussion?
    This is not what I meant to suggest, or what I believe.
    Do you believe this idea of "just giving her an ibuprofen" even remotely approaches what I'm saying? It strikes me as uselessly flippant, and doesn't even begin to approximate the point I'm trying to convey.
    I think you actually know that...so I'll put it to a communication faux pas on your part. I'm sure I've had several myself, as is my way.
    Say, for the sake of getting closer to the idea, the guy with the gun gave you the option of letting the rape continue or shooting your own toddler in the head (pretend there's enough bad-guys to control the situation and they gave you a gun with one bullet or something... (yes, creating reasonable representative situations is practically impossible..but....)) Would you shoot your toddler in the head to stop the rape?
  22. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from mordorbund in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Well that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Keep in mind -- suggesting. You know -- for consideration. Not demandingly yelling, "there's no other legitimate thought on the matter". I've said this before but I'll say it again. If you take the baby out of the womb and consider it an actual child and then have someone demanding to slit that child's throat for any reason is a hard pill to swallow as an argument.
    It's not really that complicated to my mind. There are terrible, horrible things people have to go through. So much so that I can hardly even comprehend having to deal with them. But to me those things don't seem to justify killing an innocent baby. And that's what they are to me. Babies. I find it terribly sad that we, as a society, have been so callously blinded to the reality of that fact because it's all behind closed doors, so to speak.
    Interesting.
    Well...I'd say as a general rule, taking the life of someone when not engaged in the defense of those things God has commanded us to defend unto bloodshed, unless explicitly directed otherwise by God.
    Reasonable?
    I can see an argument being made for, accordingly, a legal standard of rape/incest exceptions because that does seem to be (as discussed) the church's policy, and we can assume, therefore, God's.
    Another part of me, however, recalls no command from God that we defend emotional trauma unto bloodshed, by killing an associated innocent. Yes...I know...very callous. But...trust me...my empathy is there, particularly in the case of rape (incest is a bit of a different matter, actually...if it's consensual). My empathy is just stronger on behalf of the baby.
    Didn't we have a similar discussion regarding Laban and Nephi? I seem to recall you justified that under Jewish law of the time or something. But I'm not sure that even matters one whit. God's will matters. God told Nephi to do it.
    If God commands killing a baby then.....
  23. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Grunt in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Well, let me push back on this:
    Surely you wouldn't argue that if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children that we are justified in slaughtering all their newborn children? What if doing so stopped the war? Justified then? (I know that is, indeed, sometimes the way of war...a la the end of WWII in Japan...but....)
    Depends. Do you know he's innocent? And is he actually threatening your life with said lunge? Or just causing some trauma? (edit: the point being...you kind of know with a baby...not a threat to life, generally, but definitely innocent and definitely will cause some level of trauma)
    Granted, in such a case you couldn't possibly know. And there is certainly an argument to be made for lethal action here. There's also an argument to be made for non-lethal. Which side do you fall on? I'm hoping I'd go with non-lethal. I'm pretty sure I would if it was just me. With my family in the house...maybe not. (That being said, I'm a pretty big non-lethal kind of person, and I think I'd take every measure, even then, to avoid a lethal response. Perhaps to my regret.)
    Not all physical threat is equal. I assume you agree?
    Sure. Kill the rapist. Definitely.
    It really feels like your mixing threats here. And I know it's complicated. Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent.
    You're talking about justified killing of an attacker and then comparing it to killing a third party for an offense committed by the attack. So....I'm so upset by someone that I'm going to stop in and murder one of their children tomorrow. Granted...the pregnancy directly effects the attacked in ways the attacker's child doesn't...but what if it did? What if the attacker was...I dunno...forcing you into slavery to nanny their child at gunpoint. Can you justifiably kill their kid then?
  24. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Grunt in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    I have a theory on how to deal with all abortion cases. It goes something like this:
    Thou shalt not kill.
  25. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Well, let me push back on this:
    Surely you wouldn't argue that if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children that we are justified in slaughtering all their newborn children? What if doing so stopped the war? Justified then? (I know that is, indeed, sometimes the way of war...a la the end of WWII in Japan...but....)
    Depends. Do you know he's innocent? And is he actually threatening your life with said lunge? Or just causing some trauma? (edit: the point being...you kind of know with a baby...not a threat to life, generally, but definitely innocent and definitely will cause some level of trauma)
    Granted, in such a case you couldn't possibly know. And there is certainly an argument to be made for lethal action here. There's also an argument to be made for non-lethal. Which side do you fall on? I'm hoping I'd go with non-lethal. I'm pretty sure I would if it was just me. With my family in the house...maybe not. (That being said, I'm a pretty big non-lethal kind of person, and I think I'd take every measure, even then, to avoid a lethal response. Perhaps to my regret.)
    Not all physical threat is equal. I assume you agree?
    Sure. Kill the rapist. Definitely.
    It really feels like your mixing threats here. And I know it's complicated. Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent.
    You're talking about justified killing of an attacker and then comparing it to killing a third party for an offense committed by the attack. So....I'm so upset by someone that I'm going to stop in and murder one of their children tomorrow. Granted...the pregnancy directly effects the attacked in ways the attacker's child doesn't...but what if it did? What if the attacker was...I dunno...forcing you into slavery to nanny their child at gunpoint. Can you justifiably kill their kid then?