Agenda 21 and Atheism

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Atheists/Non Christians/Agnostics a conversation between myself and arian brought up the question of Agenda 21.

What? Have you seen the demands atheists wrote up in 'Agenda 21' regarding Sustainability?

Agenda 21 is not atheism, and atheism is not Agenda 21. I do not support Agenda 21, but I'd have to say the present capitalist system based on infinite growth is unsustainable, and what is unsustainable cannot be sustained.

Oh yes it's atheism, and evolutionism, nazism, socialism, backed and supported by all the other religions of the world.

I said I am not an advocate of Agenda 21 because I have not studied it in any great detail. I am mainly aware of Agenda 21 through alternative media outlets that seem to fear and loathe it for the same kinds of reasons arian throws up. I believe I know enough to feel secure in saying it is not atheism. But maybe I am wrong. Let's see!

Here is the Agenda 21 website.

Questions 1: is Agenda 21 atheism or in any way an atheistic inspired programme as arian suggests? (If you answer yes please be specific and where possible quote Agenda 21 to give examples of how this programme is atheistic.)
Question 2: is Agenda 21 a bad thing? Should we be worrying about it in the way some alternative media suggests?

[help3434]

Wouldn't influencing 90% of the population to become gay lower birth rate? I mean you guys have bee doing a great job of it for a while now, passing gay-marriage laws, prosecuting anti-gay slurerers, .. anti-gay slurer laws, born this way music videos, .. I mean at this rate in a few generations you'll have to turn the modern abortion clinics into fertility clinics, or face extinction.

How does protecting gays from bullying and giving them the same rights as everyone else influence straight people to become gay?

[Furrowed Brow]

The pie is not a fixed size.

Ultimately (unless we invent warp drive and move on) the pie (planet Earth and all its resources) is a fixed size. This kind of brings us back to the question of sustainability, and who gets to extract the most from the pie. I've just got back from Lisbon Portugal so this is fresh in my mind. When Portugal was at its richest it was extracting gold from Brazil and remainders of this gold can be seen as large collections of religious artefacts in Lisbon museums. These religious artefacts are just a brazen example of the general economic model that has kept our beds comfy and warm in the West.

In the last 70 years or so I think the West recognising that "empire" is a bad thing has gone into denial as to the tools of empire is continues to avail itself of, and tools like the World Bank and IMF that are newer innovations.

I look around and I see the West doing very well at the expense of the rest of the World and this has gone on for several hundred years through one empire or another. Yes we felt the benefits of economic growth and were innovative in finding new ways to stay ahead of the rest of the world and gained a high standard of living, but the back bone of our success has not been a free spirit of innovation (e.g. Ford, IBM, Apple etc.) but the much more old fashioned exploitation of others that provides the underlying wealth. The 50 governments toppled by US and since the 1950s gives evidence to the more old fashioned methods at play. The way the US props up and protects an absolute monarchy on the promise of regular supplies of cheap oil and the petrodollar is another example.

And just as standards of living in India and China and Russia and South America begin to rise we in the West find that our standards of living going into decline. Maybe I'm being economically naïve but too often I see examples of economic growth coming at someone else's expense. Be that the shifting of wealth from West to East we are presently witnessing, or from the 99% to the 1%.

Systems that don't incentivize innovation tend to destroy much of the pie, or at least stop it from getting any bigger.

I'm not against incentivizing innovation, but innovation can also destroy when it is not focused on the good of the community and the single motivating factor is profit. I think this comes down to believing in or not believing in Adam Smith's invisible hand. I just do not believe that if every individual sets out to maximise their own gains this somehow works out for the good of all. I find this to be false. Blatantly false actually, and I find it difficult to believe some people still believe it. I suggest some kind of restraint on the ratio of earnings for this reason. Unbridled personal profit is anti social as I think the evidence shows.

I'm no longer sure that Marxism spawned systems of greater abuse or is inherently more open to abuse. It all depends on what slice of history we look at and how honest we want to be. There is a hidden history of Western abuse going back to WWII that marks the era of American Empire (we could go back further and include the British Empire). If we looked at the last 20 years or so and compare the West to say China, China manages a look the lesser evil. Whilst China had the stain of Tiananmen Square and a history of supressing and imprisoning political dissidents, the West have 500,000 dead Iraqi children, the mess that is the middle east, the propping up of totalitarian regimes, drones etc. I think the major difference is that the West has tended to export its abuse to foreign lands on to yellow and brown people....but it is still abuse.

If we want to include the 60million or so that died under Mao, then we need to compare this to the death toll due to the toppling of 50 governments around the world by the US (usually with Britain playing mini-me to the US) since the 1950s, along with all the aggressive wars it has engaged in. If we sum the death tolls of Mao and Stalin I think that will likely out pace the West for the moment. But we've got a few more wars and interventions left in us yet. But maybe I'm wrong about this and the death toll of Western capitalism is already directly comparable to the Soviet and Mao eras. How do we quantify the poverty and death rates in all those plantations and factories around the world in Western backed oligarchies that exploited their poor. Suharto's Indonesia being a paradigm. In addition to the million or so he had killed there are then the millions of workers packed into sweat shops denied basic decent living conditions, subject to lock ins, 24hr shifts etc. so that Suharto could promote Indonesia to the world as a place of cheap labour. Suharto was put in place by American and Britain, who then supplied him with the military capability to secure his position, and who extoled his virtues for the next 20 years. Or how about Saddam Hussein who the West courted, aided and abetted from 1979 to 1990. Or how about the depleted uranium the still poisoning Iraq. Not sure how to quantify all this.

What does this have to do with economic systems?

We were comparing the downside of Marxist based systems, and I was pointing out that Western economies have blood on their hands as it has gone about its business of economically exploiting the rest of the world. So basically I'm saying capitalism in it search for profit is inherently unjust and exploitative and leads to abuse.

The last point allows me to get back on thread. Seems to me Agenda 21 can be interpreted in a way that makes it an antidote to the destructive excesses of capitalism......or it can be a conspiracy to take over the world and kill us all.

[Furrowed Brow]

Okay got to say I'm not getting anywhere following arian's attempt to articulate the evils of Agenda 21. So - given arian is not making much sense to me - I feel forced to find an articulation of what is wrong with Agenda 21 elsewhere. I have been trying some videos on YouTube and still not getting very far with some of the stuff available. But one guy I usually find gives a good analysis is James Corbett. He too does not like Agenda 21, and in the following video he manages to articulate his fears in a way that at least make more sense to me.
[youtube][/youtube]
At the start of this video he quotes Agenda 21 and what it says about "buffer zones". He takes these to be a recipe for a totalitarian state that micro manages society penned into "sustainable" communities and which have to get a government permit to do anything in a buffer zone. At around the 8 minute mark his interviewee Rosa Koire states that agenda 21 is a blue print to control "all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, means of production, all information, all energy, all education, and all human beings". at around 11 minutes she state agenda 21 is an attack on private property ownership as it is motivated by previous meetings of the United Nations in 1972 and a1976 (Habitat 1 and 2) that state privately owned land is a threat to social equity. She then connects Agenda 21 to giving permission to control of the individual through surveillance, drones, and control of all activities. This sounds a stretch to me.

If Rosa Parks is even half way right then we ought to be deeply suspicious of Agenda 21. But I wonder if she is just joining the dots badly?

The interview then gets into the communitarian philosophy that underlies Agenda 21 in which individual rights have to be balanced with the rights of the community. Koire sees this as a threat to the rights guaranteed to an individual in the US constitution and she sees balancing rights as a dangerous move because the rights of the community will always be found to outweigh the rights of the individual. This is probably true I think. But she turns this into individual rights being a threat to the community which pushes the point further still and does not necessarily follow.

At around 15mins Corbett gets Koire to name names as to who is pushing Agenda 21. Her first answer is the "ultra wealthy" and those who through hereditary ownership of property own huge parts of the world. Not sure how this can be squared with the anti private property theme she claims for Agenda 21. So she goes on to identify English royalty, the Catholic Church, Maurice Strong and enormously wealthy people not satisfied with their own personal wealth who want to control all assets. So things like water are going to privatised and owned by these people. Corbett fails to pull her up on the contradiction at the heart of her argument regarding how she can square this private "land grab" with the communitarianism she says informs Agenda 21.

Basically as far as I can see the likes of Rosa Koire are in a muddle. Either Agenda 21 is communitarianism and there will be no privatisation of water, land etc. because that is a promotion of private property, or Agenda 21 is really a form of facism. Just don't see how it can be both. And given that her analysis is badly flawed on this point it then draws into question her whole analysis.

I think that behind Koire's critique of Agenda 21 is the idea that we do not actually need "sustainable communities", that the problem of unsustainability is invented, and the introduction of this idea is just an excuse to introduce totalitarianism.

However whilst Corbett lets Koire off the hook his opening point I think is still sound. There seems to be a vision for Agenda 21 that does imply some form of statist solution.

[arian]

Wouldn't influencing 90% of the population to become gay lower birth rate? I mean you guys have bee doing a great job of it for a while now, passing gay-marriage laws, prosecuting anti-gay slurerers, .. anti-gay slurer laws, born this way music videos, .. I mean at this rate in a few generations you'll have to turn the modern abortion clinics into fertility clinics, or face extinction.

How does protecting gays from bullying and giving them the same rights as everyone else influence straight people to become gay?

Who are gays?

These are people, .. tax paying citizens no different then the rest of us, right? When were rights taken away from these citizens, these same ones we work with, we go to school with, we share the same public bathroom with, public showers, .. I have NEVER in my entire life seen a fellow citizen kicked out of a public bathroom, or shower because they were fellow taxpaying law abiding citizens have you?

So why do some of our fellow taxpaying, law abiding citizens 'demand' the SAME rights everyone else has? WHAT RIGHTS are they talking about? Men to go in the public mens room? Or be allowed into the men's public shower? Or women to go into the women's public bathroom or public shower? Or is it that these fellow men and women citizens want to sit at restaurants with the other citizens? They want the right to be served like other citizens, and to be able to become waiters, waitresses, actors, businessman, business women just like the rest of us citizens? Is it that they want to go into stores of their choice like other citizens? What equal rights are you talking about?

No. These citizens want more than us average citizens, a lot more and they named this privilege the 'gay/lesbian' special privilege. Hey, I'm short, .. so I want special privileges like everyone else! I DEMAND that all shelves in the world be lowered where I could reach them just like everyone else that is taller than me. Kleptomaniacs then should demand that they be treated the same love and respect as the rest of the citizens, like 'everyone else' who are not kleptomaniacs. This goes for those that can't help molesting children, rapists and wife beaters, child abusers, .. should I go on? What laws are there that discriminates between law abiding, tax paying citizens?

But we know what THEY really want don't we, what you really mean? The men want to go into the public Ladies Room, and these fellow women citizens want to go into the public mens room anytime they want. They want to pass laws where boys could use the public showers in public school right there with the girls, and the girls to be able to take showers with the boys. THIS is these what 'THEY', our fellow citizens want.
The men want to be able to be allowed by law to have anal sex when and wherever they want, even if its at Disney Land right in front of the rest of the citizens and their children. These men already parade in tutus, dressed as female hookers, fairy princesses, holding the but cheeks of their fellow male partners at Disney World and Disney Land, .. they give each other blow jobs right there in public in other places like New Orleans, .. what the hell else would they like to be able to do legally?

THEY always had the same rights as everyone else, what THEY want is to abolish all moral laws, and make Biblical morality discriminating, and those who would take action to uphold these laws, as 'hate crimes'.

Oh yea, the equal rights amendment: a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that civil rights may not be denied on the basis of one's sex.

What THEY mean is that a boy in school should have the same rights as girls, and visa-versa. If a little 3rd grader girl wishes to take a shower in the high schooler's boys shower-room, it would be discrimination not to let her. And of course vis-versa. Or women should have the right to run around beaches or other public places topless at same places boys can.

Yes, .. let's make all laws equal for every citizen, homosexuals, child molesters, thieves, murderers, from the charitable to the greedy, .. another word what is going on is an Agenda to abolish all laws, thus everyone will have equal rights!

[help3434]

[Replying to arian]

I am talking about the right to marry who they want to marry. And having the same legal benefits that everyone else has that is married like hospital visits, taxes ect. Do you know how many people have been bullied, and even attacked and killed simply because bigots did not like that they were gay? Do you know how many of committed suicide because of this bullying, and because religions have told them that they were evil because of who they were attracted to?

[arian]

Okay got to say I'm not getting anywhere following arian's attempt to articulate the evils of Agenda 21. So - given arian is not making much sense to me - I feel forced to find an articulation of what is wrong with Agenda 21 elsewhere. I have been trying some videos on YouTube and still not getting very far with some of the stuff available. But one guy I usually find gives a good analysis is James Corbett. He too does not like Agenda 21, and in the following video he manages to articulate his fears in a way that at least make more sense to me.

articulate
adjective
1 (of a person or a person's words) having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently

Guilty as charged.

[youtube][/youtube]

Nothing has been said in this above video that I haven't touched upon many times, .. only my poor articulation, and our different world-views (Believer vs Unbeliever) puts a damper on your ability to accept to understand my posts. But I can understand that.

The difference between Mr. Corbett's view and mine regarding Agenda 21 is that mine is from a more personal experience, and his is more from a political view. I also understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that you just became aware of this agenda, while I have been living it for many years now. I know that this is a plan of pure evil, and those that are advocating and enforcing this know that I know, but for some still unknown reason I keep being spared from each deathblow the powers that be behind this Agenda throw at me?

At the start of this video he quotes Agenda 21 and what it says about "buffer zones". He takes these to be a recipe for a totalitarian state that micro manages society penned into "sustainable" communities and which have to get a government permit to do anything in a buffer zone. At around the 8 minute mark his interviewee Rosa Koire states that agenda 21 is a blue print to control "all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, means of production, all information, all energy, all education, and all human beings". at around 11 minutes she state agenda 21 is an attack on private property ownership as it is motivated by previous meetings of the United Nations in 1972 and a1976 (Habitat 1 and 2) that state privately owned land is a threat to social equity. She then connects Agenda 21 to giving permission to control of the individual through surveillance, drones, and control of all activities. This sounds a stretch to me.

Wait, after what's been happening around the world and especially in the US, why would the "control of the individual through surveillance, drones, and control of all activities" sound a stretch to you?

If Rosa Parks is even half way right then we ought to be deeply suspicious of Agenda 21. But I wonder if she is just joining the dots badly?

You sound like the promoters of Agenda 21, just as she explains it; 'The Agenda pretends to understand and offer a solution to all social and economical problems, while planning a world wide take over!'. Joining the dots badly? Are you serious? Where have you been for the past 112 years of your life Furrowed Brow?

The interview then gets into the communitarian philosophy that underlies Agenda 21 in which individual rights have to be balanced with the rights of the community. Koire sees this as a threat to the rights guaranteed to an individual in the US constitution and she sees balancing rights as a dangerous move because the rights of the community will always be found to outweigh the rights of the individual. This is probably true I think.

You think?

But she turns this into individual rights being a threat to the community which pushes the point further still and does not necessarily follow.

Really? So you don't think getting shot, imprisoned, falsely diagnosed with cancer, all your good teeth drilled out so they rot in your mouth is a threat to individual rights by this New World Sustainable Development community?

At around 15mins Corbett gets Koire to name names as to who is pushing Agenda 21. Her first answer is the "ultra wealthy" and those who through hereditary ownership of property own huge parts of the world. Not sure how this can be squared with the anti private property theme she claims for Agenda 21. So she goes on to identify English royalty, the Catholic Church,

The "ultra wealthy" know how to remain 'ultra wealthy', and they know it is not by killing all the people with their I-Phones and I-Pads. They (ultra wealthy), just as the English royalty and all the religions are being used, then blamed for the destruction THEY (the Agenda 21 initiators) are causing. The rest of us are being subdued by video games, pornography, with drugs from THEM doctors, drugs in our food, in our water into a stupor for the Final Solution.

This Agenda is a suicide-mission like I said Heavens Gate was. Listen to what Applewhite said before he killed himself: "RECYCLED, .. the earth is about to be recycled, so hurry and come with us before you die! Trust me for I am 'he', the Messiah!"
Exact same premise Agenda 21 is based on, and it is orchestrated by no other than Satan himself.

Maurice Strong and enormously wealthy people not satisfied with their own personal wealth who want to control all assets. So things like water are going to privatised and owned by these people. Corbett fails to pull her up on the contradiction at the heart of her argument regarding how she can square this private "land grab" with the communitarianism she says informs Agenda 21.

Because it is NOT, .. I repeat 'it is NOT' about land grabbing, NOT about communitarianism, NOT about a world where the animals roam free with butterflies flying around from flower to flower, and ESPECIALLY NOT 'sustainable development', .. but a plan of total extinction of the human race, .. the 'Final Solution' for mankind.

Basically as far as I can see the likes of Rosa Koire are in a muddle. Either Agenda 21 is communitarianism and there will be no privatisation of water, land etc. because that is a promotion of private property, or Agenda 21 is really a form of facism. Just don't see how it can be both. And given that her analysis is badly flawed on this point it then draws into question her whole analysis.

Exactly. Because as I keep saying that these ideologies are just being USED to bring this all about. Every country is given some political or religious ideology they can associate with. The Jews are obviously very fond of atheism, human rights for homosexuals, for women IF they decide on abortion, .. everyone and every devious ideology is being used. Didn't you see the last Olympics? A perfect example, and proof to what I am saying.

I think that behind Koire's critique of Agenda 21 is the idea that we do not actually need "sustainable communities", that the problem of unsustainability is invented, and the introduction of this idea is just an excuse to introduce totalitarianism.

No, .. unsustainability has NOT been invented as some kind of excuse, it has been ACHIEVED to help bring this Agenda about!

However whilst Corbett lets Koire off the hook his opening point I think is still sound. There seems to be a vision for Agenda 21 that does imply some form of statist solution.

Snicker, .. snicker, ... Yes people, write and e-mail your politicians, Rosa Koire said so. We'll show these rich people they cannot take away our land, .. our politicians will surely save us if we just keep encouraging them with e-mails and tweets! Right along with Naomi Wolf, .. and Infowars giant Alex Jones. Please, ..

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

I am talking about the right to marry who they want to marry. And having the same legal benefits that everyone else has that is married like hospital visits, taxes ect. Do you know how many people have been bullied, and even attacked and killed simply because bigots did not like that they were gay? Do you know how many of committed suicide because of this bullying, and because religions have told them that they were evil because of who they were attracted to?

I know my friend, I know. We all have some problems we have to deal with, not just the gay people, yet you don't see us try to change the world to put up with us do you?

"Hey, .. I'm a bully and everyone hates me. Change the laws so if anyone doesn't take my crap they could be arrested. Then change them some more to where they couldn't even complain." Please, .. I know what discrimination feels like. But if you reject the teachings of the Bible these moronic reactions will happen. We'll just have to turn the other cheek that's all, and hopefully they will get our message. Love my friend, .. it's all about love, and speaking out in love.

[Furrowed Brow]

Wait, after what's been happening around the world and especially in the US, why would the "control of the individual through surveillance, drones, and control of all activities" sound a stretch to you?

Control, surveillance, drones are no surprise. Just can't see how this can be blamed on Agenda 21. These things look far more like the product of empire. If the Roman Empire or the Ottomans or the British Empire had modern technology would the world look so much different. All that has changed is that the methods of oppression and control have become more ingenious.

You sound like the promoters of Agenda 21, just as she explains it;

But I don't trust how she explains it because her account as far as I can see requires reading between the lines of Agenda 21 and because her analysis says a philosophy of communitarianism (with the dismantling or private property) is being pushed by the ultra wealthy and land owning classes. This makes no sense.

'The Agenda pretends to understand and offer a solution to all social and economical problems, while planning a world wide take over!'. Joining the dots badly? Are you serious? Where have you been for the past 112 years of your life Furrowed Brow?

I've been watching a world run by the incompetent and the self serving.

]But she turns this into individual rights being a threat to the community which pushes the point further still and does not necessarily follow.

Really?

Yes really. It does not follow.

So you don't think getting shot, imprisoned, falsely diagnosed with cancer, all your good teeth drilled out so they rot in your mouth is a threat to individual rights by this New World Sustainable Development community?

These things are terrible, but what is the connection to Agenda 21 and how do they shed light on why individual rights are a threat?

The "ultra wealthy" know how to remain 'ultra wealthy',

On this we are agreed. Which makes me ask why the dismantling of property rights helps them remain wealthy.

Exact same premise Agenda 21 is based on, and it is orchestrated by no other than Satan himself.

OK I guess you already figured out I don't believe in Satan. And you are pointing to Agenda 21 as evidence of Satan? Presently I'm struggling to see how 21 is evidence of an evil master plan.

Because it is NOT, .. I repeat 'it is NOT' about land grabbing, NOT about communitarianism, NOT about a world where the animals roam free with butterflies flying around from flower to flower, and ESPECIALLY NOT 'sustainable development', .. but a plan of total extinction of the human race, .. the 'Final Solution' for mankind.

For one nanosecond let's grant you this as true. Where is the evidence and cogent argument? How do you get from a position of you knowing it is true to explaining your knowledge in anything like a convincing way?

Here's the problem. I was failing to find a coherent argument in your posts so I go looking around the internet for something I can work with, and the first few videos were plain kooky, and so I went to Corbett because I tend to trust or at least appreciate his analysis....but even there I find problems. You are not going to convince me Agenda 21 is Satan's plan but I might persuaded it is a bad thing, but until now I am failing to find an evidence based coherent argument anywhere that shows 21 is a pressing danger to humankind.

If you know of a video or article that lays it out clearly with evidence I will take a look and give you my analysis. But I really suggest nothing that posits an evil fairy or Satan behind it all.

Exactly. Because as I keep saying that these ideologies are just being USED to bring this all about. Every country is given some political or religious ideology they can associate with. The Jews are obviously very fond of atheism, human rights for homosexuals, for women IF they decide on abortion, .. everyone and every devious ideology is being used.

Okay so there is what is being said and there is a hidden plan behind what we think is going on. Hmm ok. To trust this kind of thinking I need to see someone who promotes this idea who does it with evidence and without fallacy and without hyperbole and without looking like they are just wildly joining the dots. Because to be honest that is all I am finding.

Didn't you see the last Olympics? A perfect example, and proof to what I am saying.

The last Olympics was in Stratford which is the East side of London, and it is a termination station for me. I am a train driver and ferried the crowds to the Olympic park. So yes I saw the Olympics. As far as I can tell it all went well was a great success and the trains ran on time. Really what part of the Olympics irritated you?

No, .. unsustainability has NOT been invented as some kind of excuse, it has been ACHIEVED to help bring this Agenda about!

If you are right then empire, capitalism, the rise of America to world super power, the invention of the motor car and the steam engine are part of the plan of unsustainability. When human's first wiped out the mega fauna this too was a foundation stone building towards the end point of "unsustainability". Seriously you think we needed an evil guiding hand to get where we are? Does the movement of history really need a grand chess master? Or can we just get there with our own ingenuity for trouble?

Moreover if you are saying unsustainability is real what is the solution that does not venture into the kind of initiatives promoted by Agenda 21?

[Bust Nak]

Wouldn't influencing 90% of the population to become gay lower birth rate?

Hypothetically yes, but I live in the real world where I want solution that would work.

I mean you guys have bee doing a great job of it for a while now, passing gay-marriage laws, prosecuting anti-gay slurerers, .. anti-gay slurer laws, born this way music videos, ..

None of which are means of influencing anyone to become gay.

I mean at this rate in a few generations you'll have to turn the modern abortion clinics into fertility clinics, or face extinction.

At what "rate" exactly?

Any attempt to fight against mother-natures extinction is fighting evolution, or haven't you seen the Jurassic Park movies?

I've seen two. "Mother nature" is a process too. We are part of it, not fighting against it.

.. which is extinction by overpopulation for the human race! Why would you want to deny the rest of the apes their line in evolution?

Loaded question cannot be answered.

Haven't they waited patiently for millions of years swinging in trees?

No.

Leave evolution alone, .. it's their turn now, and we shall move on to become one with the universe. Isn't this what Evolution is all about?

No.

"Don't mess with Mother Nature!" remember the commercials?

No. And we are not messing with mother nature.

Then a purposeless evolution is a lie! See you just admitted that there has to be a Planner, a Designer, .. someone with an Agenda to have created and maintain biological life especially for us humans, or else it's extinction!

Non sequitur fallacy. What you claim here, does not follow from what I said.

Evolution is the gradual development of something, simple to a more complex form.

Incorrect. Typical creationist misconception. That we are move complex than say mushrooms, is incidental; mushrooms are as evolved as we are - the product of 3.5ish billion years of evolution.

And that goes right along with what the Bible says Gods plan is, that we evolve from a simple, to a higher, more complex spiritual body! We have an Agenda for not just to save the species from extinction, but to achieve eternal life, and it's all written out and explained in the Bible.

I am only interested in real world solutions.

Why not?

Because we are not non-human, and we like our easy life.

We're all one big happy ape family according to your Evolution, except the other apes are not facing extinction, man is from overpopulation. Or that's what this Agenda is telling us anyways.

And how is this reason for living as non-human animal?

Why not consider and re-implement Christ's agenda to save man doomed for extinction? He seen it coming over two thousand years ago, and His plan is all written out and already in practically every home in the world.

Because it is not going to work.

What makes the UN's resolution so much better?

Because it might work.

Haven't we tried plans like this already and it failed miserably every time?

No, can't say we have tried.

Can a plan of extinction solve our extinction problem?

No. Which is why we are not trying a plan of extinction.

It's the child vs convenience, .. one must be sacrificed, right?

Sure, but no one gets sacrificed. The child in question is not a person.

Why keep alive the old sick and dying when this Agenda already conspires to wipe out 90% of human population? Because THEY need the money to make this long planned conspiracy a reality.

Which is why your scenario makes no sense. Letting people die is a more effective way of wiping people out that keeping them alive.

Thank you, .. as I said, changed the definition of marriage.

But not the definition of hetrosexual.

welcome for what? To kill her underaged child. Can't you see the horror in this?

No more than any other medical procedures.

The younger the child, the closer she is to the child she is sacrificing, and for what?

Convenience for most cases.

Some fairytale delusion that things will be better this way. How did a child get pregnant in the first place? By aborting the baby she is relieving the father of the responsibility, and right back into the very problems that the vultures in the clinic promised to save her from.
Why? Because they KNOW that she'll be back and THEY get money to rip another child apart

Funny how it's not the pro choice side who are against sex education and contraceptives. It's the pro life side who are causing this problem.

...and also pushing the soul of the young mother deeper in the depths of hell of guilt, regret and shame.

It is the pro choice people who are doing that. You are the one doing that.

Yes they can, and much, much worse.

You are incorrect, you cannot rape anyone in that game, you can however save someone from being raped.

> the rest is circular reasoning, samo-samo with you're short prove it, .. prove it comments.<

Well, you can't prove it can you?

Did I say milk won't go bad? See what I mean, then you'll twist what I answer to this, and again and again, .. circular reasoning, derailment, distorting my words, anything but a straight answer.

Come on, you claimed food expiring is "THEIR" fault. How does that not imply that without "THEM" food wouldn't expire? If I say the smashed vase is the cat's fault, I am saying the vase wouldn't be smashed without the cat.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 56 by arian]

Really? So Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, John Lewis etc should have hoped that people noticed how nice and loving they were not bothered with the civil rights movement?