Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Aaron Massey

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Aaron Massey

Political Threads / Is Fascism Racism, Nazism Extreme right?
« on: August 20, 2020, 06:15:56 am »
Continually i see it getting bought up that ppl like Donald trump are Fascists... and that they are extreme Right..

Im not disputing that Trump might be extreme right..

But i am disputing the idea that Racism or Fascism is in fact extreme right... i dont think it is.

Elements like Fascism are a quasi mix from the political compass from what i can tell.... and therefore it is not extreme right or even really Right wing.

For instance, Mussolini started a fascist party, it was a right wing party, in the sense that it vehemently opposed communism....  but that only makes it right of the absolute extreme left... and not particuly "Right" at all.

Racism, or should i say Discrimination is the corner stone of Fascism, usually genetic (i: Nazis hating Jews).... but many fascist states are theological fascist, like Iran who dont tolerate any other religion... (you dont have to carry out mass murder to be a Fascist either)

But Racism on the extreme right is a non thing to me it seems.., the "right" is about the individual and his liberty, while you are more likely to hear racism from the right under the umbrella of "Free speech", if it was to ever develop into a political force applying racist policy it would simply no longer be "Right wing" as it is denying individual freedoms.

So i would agree the seed for Fascism could be a by product of liberty.. free speech...  but it would quickly cease to be considered on the right side once it started trying to apply such things.

While libertarian social/individual freedoms are extreme right (one below Anarchists which are the true extreme right... despite what ppl thinking groups like antifa are anarchists.. they are not)

More to the middle right you have your conservatives, who usually believe in tradition, things that are sacred...   to some extent Hitler was a conservative as he wanted to preserve traditions..   
But the way in which this preservation took place was not from the Classical liberalism that most conservatives also hold true i feel, and hitler was denying that.

So Hitler was in alot of sense on the Right... but that position is soon abandoned once he wants to forces others under a Authoritarian rule..    and one that is central mostly and controlling peoples daily lives. (public spending, people cars etc..)

If anything the right gives rise to fascism by providing it a place to discuss speak about its ideas... but once it goes beyond that...  i cant see how it is not all Authoritarian left...   a fascist has to eliminate or re-educate those who are undesirable, this needs to be done by mass central instruments of government, which is the antithesis of the Right, further it is foundational in getting fascism in a position to correct the problems they have.

So why does the Right or extreme right get tagged as being Fascists?   
Is it just a vestige of history in the fight against communism?  everything is right of communism and all fascist got called that in europe as it was the biggest opposition to the communist forces in europe?

I think calling fascist or Racists right wing needs to be stopped.. 

Trinity / The head of Christ is God..
« on: July 04, 2020, 07:51:31 am »
If the head of christ is God...  1 Corinthians 11:3 
"3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband and the head of Christ is God."

So, if God is the head of Christ, then Christ is not God?   surely? ... it is incontrovertible.
Therefor Trinity is False.


I dont get it..  nothing has been fixed to accommodate forum users on PC's since the last forum update..
The only reason it seems it was updated, was for Mobile users... when Google said they would no longer support sites with out mobile compliance...  but this completly F#$# the usability for PC users it seems. (and my user name) (who ever done it needs to be shot)
No options for text, and no shor cuts for inserting video links, images or Gifs... c'mon... this is 2020, for the forum to either not have the shortcuts to easlily add photos or the bandwidth is disturbing.
I just tried to add an attachment to a post... 27k btw..   Error i get..  "The attachments upload directory is not writable" you dont even have server space for a 27k image ?

I have to ask, why hasnt the forum software been addressed?   so many users slowly left over months becuase of it... they tried to stay... but nothing was fixed..  how is a supposed upgrade that only degraded the forums never fixed?

Anyone watching or watched these?  I really enjoyed all 3...   But i just finished..
The new Pope:

And it was interesting, I liked it, but could not make complete sense of it all and it was ambiguous... but still enjoyable to watch. 

Anyone else watch these? what you think>

Choose Your Own Topic / Adultery Question...
« on: May 09, 2020, 02:36:14 am »
So many Christians seem to believe that even if you have had sex in the past, It is still OK to have get married and that it is blessed.

The bible for the most part makes no mention of any special ceremony of marriage... in the bible, it tends to be a case of, the first person you have sex with is who you are married too. (early on in the bible this is laid out with Rachel and Lea.... later it is laid out by Jesus in a way that is so extreme it seems like it is impossible not to commit adultery before even physically having sex. (even having sexually immoral thoughts.)

So, the question is, say you marry a man as a virgin, But he has already been with another woman before marriage to you, you are unaware, and then find out 3 years into the marriage, should you stop having relations with the man as that is adultery to continue to do so?

It seems to me that is what needs to be done.

Interesting book i heard about while listening to a interview with the author.
Tom Holland is a respected Historian who decided to write about Christianity and its impact on History, and finds it impacts nearly every facet of life.

I highly recommend listening to this interview:

Choose Your Own Topic / Atheists are your prepared to die?
« on: March 21, 2020, 04:31:10 am »
Is it a contradiction for an atheist to not want to die, but also reject all possible resolutions to what will be the biggest outcome in there life?

Not that christianity solves the death in this world part, we all need to die.   but the chance to live after death is surely appealing? 

Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against abortion..
« on: March 14, 2020, 06:35:33 am »
President Nixon once said regarding the abortion debate.. "as long as it is not a means for birth control" (paraphrased) that he would be ok with it being legal.

Ask anyone if they think abortion is a form of birth control...   they will say no,,,  because both semantically and logically it comes after the fact.. ie: Birth control is considered a priori... not a posteri.

So its not birth control, its abortion.. meaning stopping the current process. 

Then ask them what they would choose if having to decide between an abortion or having the sex that conceived the pregnancy... which would they choose? 

This will make them mad.   Congratulations you just won your first abortion debate.

But, They might say its a false dilemma, so i choose to have contraception with sex... they would be correct...  or are they?
 i dont think the scenario allows for that..  you cant really say..  "well if i had my time again, i would use the pill"  its kind of a cop out, as it shows abortion to be a back up of birth control... 

So is abortion birth control?

Choose Your Own Topic / Favourite Atheist, Anti-theist or Nihilist band?
« on: February 28, 2020, 05:52:40 am »
It didn't seem right to have only Jesus Freaks having a thread..

Mine would probably be :

Trinity / WLC states that trinity not required to be saved in new video...
« on: February 09, 2020, 07:13:51 am »
So WLC has a new video on youtube about Trinity being essential.  But i feel he contradicts himself.

Firstly, I was kind of surprised to hear him state that Unitarians can be saved...  but before i get to that, i was disappointed that he defined 2 groups as either untarian or Trinitarian... contrast Christians between Jews and Muslims... which i think is unfair for Christians who are not unitarian.

The third way is simply "Non trinitarian" Christians, These are christians who make no claims on the make up of God.

While he conceded that Unitarian christians could be saved..  well he didn't really, he made a smoke screen that those who believe in christ in church in the way he does, but are not up to speed on the doctrine of trinity can be saved... ie: they believe all the essential elements with out being consciously aware of the doctrine itself.
He never really said unitarians can be saved, i found that kind of deceptive.
He then continues on in a fashion that made it seem like it was near impossible to accept jesus without being a trinitarian.

This video is very poor, never really tackled the issue.  What do you think?

We are asked to believe that man made climate change is true.

To do so, most of us have to have faith in science, not that science is knowledge based on faith, rather that many individuals coming to believe man made climate change is true have to take scientists on there word alone, they simply don't have the time or comprehension to understand the science to make a informed choice in any reasonable way.

When theologians talk about man made evil in the world being the cause for all wrongs, that is taken on faith too. 

While one is based on science, and the other theological speculation with a little bit of historical evidence hinting of its possibility. ..

You have to ask... for the end user, those who doesn't understand climate science or those who don't understand theology,...

How are the end believers in both those concepts any different from each other?    it doesn't seem to matter that man made climate change is based in science, nor does it matter if the world is broken by mans sinning if it were the most popular view... 

both end users are in the same position... there never going to spends months researching climate change no more than they will spend months researching mans fall through theology text books. 

Ultimately for what its worth, science is no better at being a instrument for public guidance than religion...  as neither can be understood fully by most. And neither should be used for running a society.

Choose Your Own Topic / Is honesty more important than truth?
« on: December 07, 2019, 09:41:48 am »
It seems that in both Philosophy and Theology it is portrayed that Truth is the most important goal. 

But it seems impossible with out people being honest.... (or even phenomena in the world)  honesty does not even reveal truth "per se", but it shows the genuine pursuit of Truth.

For me, the best example i can give is Peter Singer, i think he is one of the most honest thinkers there is, and it shows.
Yet i dont agree with most of his conclusions, i do with his thinking oddly... and that thinking i believe is honest thinking is why i like it.  He does not let his views get i the way... 

So do you rate Honesty over truth?  any examples of thinkers who have conceded in honesty that there view is incorrect? 

Choose Your Own Topic / Under christianity can i blackmail people?
« on: December 02, 2019, 08:22:38 am »
Pretty sure the answer is NO...  but... i thought i would ask anyway..

Take this scenario, you see a businessman tipping used motor oil into a river, which is against most western government environmental rules... and probably others (USA Europe,Canada, Australia)

As a christian, do i report them, or do i turn the other cheek?  do i not pour tuna oil from a can down the sink? (i dont, but i know people who do and i despise it)

OR... do i follow the law of the land?  and report them to the appropriate authority?

Or am i able to go to the businessman and say, if you give me 10k, i will not report you to the authority which if i did would get you a fine of 100k, but you should never do it again....

Am i able to ask someone to give me money to not report the issue?  Obviously if it was murder i would become complicit..  But pouring old engine oil into a pristine river is not murder either...   obviously they would stop  doing it after you warn them and they pay you... with out the use of the government.. .  after all you took the photos to incriminate them, so why shouldn't you make something out of it?   

So in 2008 The state of Victoria had the abortion Law reform, this bill passed victorian parliment in October that year. 
in February 2009 several massive bushfires tore through the state, killing 173 people.

A Member of parliament and preacher claimed this was becuase God was angry that they made abortion legal.

Come 2019...     New South Wales just de-crimimlised abortion in september this year..   Now massive bush fires across the state.

In Queensland they decriminalised abortion in October... and in september preceding it they had worst ever start to the bushfire season.

To be honest.. i just dont know.    But it is kind of uncanny.   God causing it is probably as likely as Climate change being the cause.

BTW, all these abortion law reform legalise it to be able to have an abortion up to pre birth...  this isnt just.. its legal to 20weeks...   these are the most progressive abortion laws on the planet.

So In Melbourne Australia a tragic but otherwise interesting thing occurred, a pregnant woman was ejected from a moving car a died, and the unborn baby was removed with a C-section by doctors.

Firstly in Melbourne australia abortion is available upto 24weeks, and upto prebirth with the consent of 2 doctors.

This dilemma does work on a problematic premise, It is assumed the base argument for abortion is that woman get the right to choose, and this is a bodily autonomy argument. 

Now if a woman falls out of a car dies and the unborn child is still inside, what gives doctors the right to remove the unborn fetus and attempt to grow it to a person?    Doesn't that contravene the woman's right to choose? 

Let me put it simpler... (or complex)

A woman is on her way to the abortion clinic where she has a booking to terminate a 24week old growth.
She is hit by a car and rushed to hospital where she dies.
Doctors find she is pregnant and remove the fetus, incubate etc... it lives.  Hooray!
After taking the body of the mother to morgue they find a note in her pocket, it says.. "If i am hit by a car and die on the way to my abortion not one part of my body is to be separated from me and is to buried and or cremated with me, no exception"
Do the doctors need to bury the now living baby alive with the mother to support the standard society agrees too on bodily autonomy and abortion?  it seems to me it is inescapable, to remain consistent with the law, you can not remove the growth from the mother if she is not there to give consent.   Its actually morally reprehensible based on the argument in favour of abortion to do such a thing... its like forcing a woman to give birth.  Its like removing body parts without consent.


Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 22