Jesus's words on abortion

[hiphop]

LivLuv and nbc -- just ignore this guy. He's just a shit stirrer. And don't think he speaks for most of the liberals on here any more than Robertson and Falwell and their ilk speak for you.

I´m so glad I´m NOT a liberal.

 

[indra]

I´m so glad I´m NOT a liberal.

If you can't see that U2Scot is just trying to cause dissension and not any sort of open, honest and worthwhile dialog then I am also very happy you aren't a liberal.

 

[Liesje]

You see, the Christian Right has a problem.

I have discussed that problem at length in another thread.

If there is that overwhelming majority of the Christian Right you are talking about that does not believe in what Falwell or Robertson have to say, why not take distance from him, and condemn his views openly

Because honestly I have much more constructive things to do with my time - like studying in Africa, helping fellow students sends letters to their congressmen and women, and attending other rallies and lectures on world hunger/poverty/social justice - than ranting about people like Robertson and Falwell, people that really aren't worth two seconds of my thoughts. They're so rediculous to me, I can't belive that just because I'm a Christian and fall slightly right of the center, I'm expected to define myself against them in order to not be stereotypically dropped into some catagory. Do we assume everyone is racist unless they speak out against racism? Do we assume everyone is anti-semetic unless they speak out against anti-semetism? No, because those things are rediculous and the people that support them are rediculous!

I don't think I, or any of my Christian peers, owe anyone an explanation as to why we're NOT this or that.

Sorry, but I define myself based on who I am and what I do, not by who I'm not and what I don't do.

Besides, it would be refreshing if you, as a member of the Christian Right, could stop to point out that your Falwells and Robertsons are harmless extremists no one really cares about. Like deep pointed out, these traitors of Christianity attract large groups of lemmings.

What is it you are doing against this danger?

Like I said above, what I'm doing is this: educating myself about issues like AIDS, world hunger, global economics, third world development, etc. I'm not spending $20,000+ a year on a liberal education just to rant publicly about people I couldn't care less about.

I suppose the problem with this whole thing is the definition of "Christian right".

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If there is that overwhelming majority of the Christian Right you are talking about that does not believe in what Falwell or Robertson have to say, why not take distance from him, and condemn his views openly?

While I understand what you're getting at here, at the same time, why should they have to make it abundantly clear they don't support people like Falwell or Robertson? I would hope that most people would realize that people like Falwell and Robertson are not representative of Christianity, and if people do think that, that's rather sad. It's kinda like how Muslims shouldn't have to constantly point out that they don't support the actions of terrorists-I would hope most people would know that already.

I'm guessing that most Christians make it clear they don't support people like those guys simply by continuing to act like good-hearted people, i.e., treating everyone around them with respect and helping them when they need it and just being the best person they can be. If a Christian wants to publicly denounce someone like Jerry Falwell, be my guest, I have no problem with that. But if they don't, I still trust that they most likely don't agree with the guy in the slightest.

Angela

 

[hiphop]

Because honestly I have much more constructive things to do with my time - like studying in Africa, helping fellow students sends letters to their congressmen and women, and attending other rallies and lectures on world hunger/poverty/social justice - than ranting about people like Robertson and Falwell, people that really aren't worth two seconds of my thoughts. They're so rediculous to me, I can't belive that just because I'm a Christian and fall slightly right of the center, I'm expected to define myself against them in order to not be stereotypically dropped into some catagory. Do we assume everyone is racist unless they speak out against racism? Do we assume everyone is anti-semetic unless they speak out against anti-semetism? No, because those things are rediculous and the people that support them are rediculous!

I don't think I, or any of my Christian peers, owe anyone an explanation as to why we're NOT this or that.

Sorry, but I define myself based on who I am and what I do, not by who I'm not and what I don't do.

That´s okay. It´s good to do constructive things. But then don´t be surprised when people who only hear of the extreme religious right (Falwell and the like) will throw you in the same box until you say (like you did). these are extremists and I have nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Also, your compare re: racism or anti-semitism doesn´t work. Because racism is not bound to a certain group, so there would be no reason to think that the next guy you meet on the street is racist. We are talking about a different thing here: about a social/ religious group with a certain profile.

You could compare it to a party. Let´s make another example.. someone is a witness of Jehova. Now all you see of these Witnesses is they´re standing on the street with their weird magazines. You assume that all witnesses support what´s written in this magazine. Then one witness tells you: "oh no, this is not what we are about, in reality we think everyone should be free to do what he wants, and there is no such thing as sin anyway". You would probably raise your eyebrow and ask, well why does everyonhe associate a Jehova´s witness with the magazine/ or just with being damn stupid?

Well, because of the image they have.

As long as the Christian Right does not actively promote another image, it´s just natural to assume they support the positions of their "leaders" (that´s what people interprete when they see F or R on TV - that these are religious leaders of the Christian Right).

Like I said, maybe that´s not 100% fair, but don´t be surprised when people throw you in a box.

 

[hiphop]

While I understand what you're getting at here, at the same time, why should they have to make it abundantly clear they don't support people like Falwell or Robertson? I would hope that most people would realize that people like Falwell and Robertson are not representative of Christianity, and if people do think that, that's rather sad. It's kinda like how Muslims shouldn't have to constantly point out that they don't support the actions of terrorists-I would hope most people would know that already.

I´m not saying anyone has to. People don´t think F or R are representative of Christianity - I´m a Christian too and here people think the rep is the Pope (at least the Catholics) - no,no, people think F and R are reps of the Christian RIGHT.

I agree, also Muslims shouldn´t have to point out that they do not support terrorists. Still, they must point it out all the time if they don´t want to be roasted in sweeping generalizations. However, religious muslim leaders did condemn the terrorists - they clearly took sdistance, in order to not be confused with their extreme counterparts.

 

[hiphop]

I'm not spending $20,000+ a year on a liberal education just to rant publicly about people I couldn't care less about.

Cool

So can you tell me some prominent spokespersons of the Christian Right who are not extreme like F or R, but moderate.

Also, what is the Christian Right about, if not anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage or killing democratically elected leaders? Plkease note: the Christian Right - not Christianity. What is the Christian Right specifically about and what qualifies that as "right" in compare to "left"?

 

[hiphop]

again double post

I just wanted to edit the fucking k out of please.

 

[U2Scot]

LivLuv and nbc -- just ignore this guy. He's just a shit stirrer. And don't think he speaks for most of the liberals on here any more than Robertson and Falwell and their ilk speak for you.

Yeah, don't think I do something I never once claimed to do !!


[/B][/QUOTE]
We might have fundamental differences (pun kind of intended ) in how we view the world, but most of us here are actually interested in the views of others here, even when we vehemently disagree with them. U2Scot is just raising hell. Ignore him -- if no one plays his nasty little game he'll eventually get bored and go away. [/B][/QUOTE]

I left the thread after I got my answer. If you want to make personal attacks on me you're welcome to bring it personally, or you can just do it here and continue the thread I started, that'll show me.............dumbass

 

[clarityat3am]

Oh geez.

 

[anitram]

No, because those things are rediculous and the people that support them are rediculous!

You know, that might be the easy answer, but you ask a gay man how "ridiculous" the amount of clout and support that Falwell's and Robertson's and their ilk's views have. Ask a woman who strongly believes in her right to choose how ridiculous it is. I mean it's easy to write them off as nutbags that they are, but the reality is that they are NOT just crazy people. They are political figures in their own right with a huge following, a powerful lobby. These are people who got your ineffective and stupid Congress to get on planes in the middle of the night so they could go vote to save a vegetative corpse of Schiavo. Now you tell me that it's all just ridiculous. It may be in principle, but they are getting some things done, so you don't have the luxury of just saying who cares, they're crazies.

I will always speak out about the nutbags within Christianity, be it left wing, right wing, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever. I feel it is partly my responsibility because they reflect on me as a Christian, and because any change and any revolution comes from within. If we are not willing to put up a fight, then who is?

Frankly, I think it's dangerous to say that these fundamentalists are simply crazy or simply ridiculous. It does nothing to solve the problem of their influence in our secular society. And yes, many of us have interests like AIDS in Africa or, personally for me, cancer research, but that doesn't mean that you turn a blind eye on what's going on in your own backyard.

 

[verte76]

LivLuv and nbc -- just ignore this guy. He's just a shit stirrer. And don't think he speaks for most of the liberals on here any more than Robertson and Falwell and their ilk speak for you.

We might have fundamental differences (pun kind of intended ) in how we view the world, but most of us here are actually interested in the views of others here, even when we vehemently disagree with them. U2Scot is just raising hell. Ignore him -- if no one plays his nasty little game he'll eventually get bored and go away.

I agree, indra. I don't have time for posters like this.

 

[nbcrusader]

You see, the Christian Right has a problem.

I have discussed that problem at length in another thread.

If there is that overwhelming majority of the Christian Right you are talking about that does not believe in what Falwell or Robertson have to say, why not take distance from him, and condemn his views openly?

I am sure the media would report other leaders of the Christian Right taking distance.

I would really like to know what the Christian Right is standing for except of the well-known issues. It seems they are against abortion and against gay marriage. If the Bible never mentioned abortion, well..

A couple of principles should be addressed here:

First, the principle of definition. Seems everyone likes to point to the “Christian Right” but there is no set definition of the group. Unlike the Catholic Church, which is clearly defined and has a recognized spokesman (the Pope), the “Christian Right” is no different than the Protestant Church. They are all different, with different statements of faith – and no clear spokesperson. Sometimes we see a definition that simply lists of issues with which a person disagrees. Far easier to point at a group of people than to discuss the various issues.

Second, who gets to assign you to a group? I’m sure many would assign me to the Christian Right (even using their own definition). Frankly, I was surprised that you declared yourself “not a liberal” when many of the positions you take would lead many to believe you are liberal. By that very principle, is it not fair for me to say “I am not part of the Christian Right (as you’ve defined it)?

Third, the idea of guilt by association. Should you ascribe the words of one individual to an entire group? Especially, when they are not a designated spokesperson (like a Pope)? If no, then we have no problem here. If yes, you may have your own problem. As an open supporter of Hugo Chavez, I did not see any objection to his anti-semetic remarks. By your own principles, what does that say about you?

 

[nbcrusader]

I thought the Christian Right takes the Bible literally. In reality when I hear stuff like that:
"But, we could go through plenty of Scripture regarding life, marriage, sex, etc. that would provide the framework for your answer - if you were really interested"
- apparently the Christian Right just makes up its own agenda.

Either you take it literally or not. If the Bible hasn´t mentioned abortion, where do you get your ideas from?

If the Christian Right took the Bible literally, it would INDEED have to rethink its agenda.

This is one of my favorite straw man arguments as if fails on many levels. Conservative Christians hold the Bible as inerrant, not literal. This is a VERY BIG difference. A simple reading of Scripture reveals the use of parables and imagery (especially in prophetic statements) that are not to be taken literally.

The literal argument creates a false “all or nothing” dichotomy. Since it is very easy to show why it is not “all”, the argument defaults to nothing. Biblical interpretation then becomes a pick and choose process – one that is ripe for its own agenda.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but Jesus did speak against casting stones. So, I’d be careful about pointing the agenda finger anywhere when it is clear that it comes from an agenda driven ideology.

And just to play your game, the words “capital punishment” do not appear in Scripture either, yet some will claim that it is an absolute.

 

[nbcrusader]

The point that U2Scot probably wanted to make - and lol, I got a kick out of seeing the rest of the thread, especially how the "fine" liberals react - the point was that the life and words of Jesus are full, fuller, overflowing - on the topic of social justice, equality, the nobility of giving away and poverty, and of turning the other cheek. In compare to that there is nothing about abortion and samesex marriage.

This simply raises a couple of different issues:

First, the stereotype that the conservative Christians do not take part in helping the poor is unfortunate. There are plenty of conservatives who do more than just talk about issues and actual invest of themselves for these causes.

Second, as a matter of interpretation, the use of only Jesus’ words and actions simply opens up interpretation to another agenda (irrespective that you think the agenda is better than someone elses) Now we are only overlaying our own ideas on certain aspects of Jesus’ behavior (as we choose to view his behavior). And does this not also diminish other parts of Scripture to a lesser status – kind of a “red letter” interpretation methodology?”

You can champion the ideals of social justice, equality, helping the poor – but you can do that without Scripture. Selective addition of Scripture should not add authority to the argument since it is taken out of the context of our standing before a Holy God.

 

[nathan1977]

First, the stereotype that the conservative Christians do not take part in helping the poor is unfortunate. There are plenty of conservatives who do more than just talk about issues and actual invest of themselves for these causes.

Robertson did, after all, participate in the ONE campaign.

Second, as a matter of interpretation, the use of only Jesus’ words and actions simply opens up interpretation to another agenda (irrespective that you think the agenda is better than someone elses) Now we are only overlaying our own ideas on certain aspects of Jesus’ behavior (as we choose to view his behavior). And does this not also diminish other parts of Scripture to a lesser status – kind of a “red letter” interpretation methodology?”

The Jesus Seminar takes it to the next level by actually going through and figuring out what they'd like to think Jesus actually said -- red letters within red letters, so to speak. A highly subjective methodology used to buttress an allegedly unbiased agenda.

 

[For Honor]

Well, this thread has made me realize one thing: I'm hungry. TIme for breakfast.

 

[nbcrusader]

the point was that the life and words of Jesus are full, fuller, overflowing - on the topic of social justice, equality, the nobility of giving away and poverty, and of turning the other cheek.

Was the other cheek turned for David Irving?

 

[Irvine511]

You know, that might be the easy answer, but you ask a gay man how "ridiculous" the amount of clout and support that Falwell's and Robertson's and their ilk's views have. Ask a woman who strongly believes in her right to choose how ridiculous it is. I mean it's easy to write them off as nutbags that they are, but the reality is that they are NOT just crazy people. They are political figures in their own right with a huge following, a powerful lobby. These are people who got your ineffective and stupid Congress to get on planes in the middle of the night so they could go vote to save a vegetative corpse of Schiavo. Now you tell me that it's all just ridiculous. It may be in principle, but they are getting some things done, so you don't have the luxury of just saying who cares, they're crazies.

I will always speak out about the nutbags within Christianity, be it left wing, right wing, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever. I feel it is partly my responsibility because they reflect on me as a Christian, and because any change and any revolution comes from within. If we are not willing to put up a fight, then who is?

Frankly, I think it's dangerous to say that these fundamentalists are simply crazy or simply ridiculous. It does nothing to solve the problem of their influence in our secular society. And yes, many of us have interests like AIDS in Africa or, personally for me, cancer research, but that doesn't mean that you turn a blind eye on what's going on in your own backyard.

 

[deep]

'Justice Sunday' hails religious liberty

January 9, 2006

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Conservatives rallied in defense of religious liberty and in favor of reforming the federal courts on the eve of Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The evening rally, dubbed "Justice Sunday III," was held in the state where Judge Alito sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, told the gathering that liberal judges are "destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent."
"The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito," Mr. Santorum said. "Unfortunately, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee seem poised to drag these hearings into the gutter so they can continue their far left judicial activism on the Supreme Court."
The Rev. Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also attended the event.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which organized the event, said the event was a response to rulings such as last year's 5-4 Supreme Court decision prohibiting a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky, and a federal judge's declaration that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
"The demand by judges that a Christian check his or her faith at the door before entering the public realm is a tyrannical use of judicial power, and it must cease," Mr. Perkins said at a press conference before the event.
Liberal groups and some religious leaders organized a protest at the rally, maintaining that the sponsors of "Justice Sunday" back a dangerous mixing of church and state and an agenda that threatens civil rights.
The Rev. Herbert Lusk, pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist Church, where "Justice Sunday III" was held, drew the ire of some activists when he endorsed President Bush during the 2000 Republican National Convention. The church's charitable arm was awarded nearly $1 million in federal money in 2002 to help low-income Philadelphians with mortgages. Mr. Bush spoke at the church in 2004.

people can say what they want

there is a religious right that holds a lot of sway within GOP politics

and especially with this Administation

The Rev. Jerry Falwell and

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson


and

Santorum

and

Faith based taxpayor money


it's all there

some just turn there heads and say

I don't see it.

 

[nbcrusader]

people can say what they want

there is a religious right that holds a lot of sway within GOP politics

and especially with this Administation

The Rev. Jerry Falwell and

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson

All you have here are quotes from Falwell, Dobson, etc. weighing in on matters of national significance.

To equate this to "a lot of sway within GOP politics" is a convenient leap in logic. Instead of dealing with the issues, this tries to bypass discussion with demonized individuals.

It is no better than avoiding a topic because it was linked to by Drudge.

 

[deep]

All you have here are quotes from Falwell, Dobson, etc. weighing in on matters of national significance.

To equate this to "a lot of sway within GOP politics" is a convenient leap in logic. Instead of dealing with the issues, this tries to bypass discussion with demonized individuals.

It is no better than avoiding a topic because it was linked to by Drudge.

did you miss this part?

and

Santorum

and

Faith based taxpayor money

Rev. Herbert Lusk, pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist Church, where "Justice Sunday III" was held, drew the ire of some activists when he endorsed President Bush during the 2000 Republican National Convention. The church's charitable arm was

awarded nearly $1 million in federal money

in 2002 to help low-income Philadelphians with mortgages. Mr. Bush spoke at the church in 2004.

 

[deep]

To equate this to "a lot of sway within GOP politics" is a convenient leap in logic. Instead of dealing with the issues

it is a given

by any reasonable observer

that the Religious Right took out Hariet Miers.

 

[martha]

Boy, this sure has gotten off-track.

Could it be that no one has an answer for the original question?

 

[nathan1977]

^
The original question, as has been universally agreed, was posted by a troller.

One could ask the question, "What were Jesus' words on anti-semitism/pornography/child abuse?" Since He was silent on such issues, one could assume that He had no opinion on the issue...

...instead of realizing that deeper principles undergirded His teachings, and intelligently address those.

 

[nbcrusader]

it is a given

by any reasonable observer

that the Religious Right took out Hariet Miers.

Great.

No longer need facts.

Its all just a given.

 

[nbcrusader]

^
The original question, as has been universally agreed, was posted by a troller.

One could ask the question, "What were Jesus' words on anti-semitism/pornography/child abuse?" Since He was silent on such issues, one could assume that He had no opinion on the issue...

...instead of realizing that deeper principles undergirded His teachings, and intelligently address those.

I wish we could get to that level of analysis. We've only lightly touched on interpretive methodologies and how to apply them in a consistent fashion.

 

[Zoocoustic]

Can someone point out what Jesus actually had to say about abortion.

I would think Jesus CHRIST would have had something to say on the matter as it's existence is such a hot topic for CHRISTians

Well, he had a lot to say about murder. And to the majority of Christians, abortion = murder.

What is unclear about that?

 

[hiphop]

Was the other cheek turned for David Irving?

No, and if Hitler personally crawled out of his dirty grave, I would also not recommend turning the other cheek.

Did I ever say I am a perfect Catholic?

:mild smile to your rhetorical perry masonity:

 

[hiphop]

A couple of principles should be addressed here:

First, the principle of definition. Seems everyone likes to point to the “Christian Right” but there is no set definition of the group. Unlike the Catholic Church, which is clearly defined and has a recognized spokesman (the Pope), the “Christian Right” is no different than the Protestant Church. They are all different, with different statements of faith – and no clear spokesperson. Sometimes we see a definition that simply lists of issues with which a person disagrees. Far easier to point at a group of people than to discuss the various issues.

Second, who gets to assign you to a group? I’m sure many would assign me to the Christian Right (even using their own definition). Frankly, I was surprised that you declared yourself “not a liberal” when many of the positions you take would lead many to believe you are liberal. By that very principle, is it not fair for me to say “I am not part of the Christian Right (as you’ve defined it)?

Ok so .. I will just call you a conservative Christian from now on and assume that you are not part of the Christian Right - not of the Christian Right we hear of in the mass media. That ok with you?

It surprises me that it suprprised you that I´m not a liberal. I´ve stated multiple times that I use my own head. I like some positions of the liberals, but I despise the general economic liberalism those groups also stand for.. Traditionally.. was it the Tories or the Whigs who favored free trade?

Historically, free trade is a liberal idea. And I despise the arrogance liberals sometimes display.. some of them (and please, my liberal friends, do not count yourself in! this is just a general impression) seem to think they make the world go round when they´ve done nothing but contribute a few good ideas and fought for equality a century or longer ago (while lots of non-liberals did that too and lost just as many people in their fight for political freedom). The liberals are mollycoddled, just like the social democrats in Austria who were too afraid to call themselves socialists after the fall of the USSR. Well ok, American liberals are just waking up and I appreciate some of their efforts to bring Bush down.

But me? Me of all people? A wishy-washy liberal? Excuse me, but you´ll have to put me far more left on some issues, and more conservative on others

I will leave the guilt of association argument out since I don´t know when Hugo Chavez said anything anti-semitic and I´m also not the biggest fan of Hugo Chavez (just because I defended his life and his policies towards American imperialists) and third.. I got a lot of work to do, really.. what about you?