Radorth

Thank you Sabine. And of course I never said I objected to abortions which threatened the mother's life, or even those which might do her permanent harm.

I think the guilt some women feel after an abortion of convenience is proof of my assertion. I doubt those who might have been seveerly harmed in childbirth feel as much guilt. I don't wish them undue guilt, but I do think they ought to admit they took the most convenient way out at the time. I have no doubt God would remove their guilt if they did. Guilt which leads to repentance and honesty is not a bad thing, in any circumstance.

Rad

Radorth

Ah, but that is the goal. Jesus is not saying to condemn your family, just that if they refuse to accept you after you've found the one means to salvation, it would be wrong to validate their beliefs. I have no doubt many unbelievers will wish their Christian family members had said more.

So what?

Well another "contradiction" in the Bible is found not to be.

Too bad about that fig tree though. I do hope it was saved.

Rad

Radorth

Re: Opera nut

Don't you love it? He has "all" the characteristics of Mithrai. How typical of the pre-30 year old JM'er crowd to make such absurd and simplistic statements.

Yeah, so "worthless" that Jesus died for you. I guess "love the sinner and hate the sin" is too deep for you. Take a Zen course and don't have any kids until you can grasp the simpler paradoxes.

Funny Luther told his converts to go out and sin once in awhile- apparently to break them of some old phony religious habits. No, your priest was a purveyor of religion, not a Christian, apparently a proponent of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," an approach Paul calls useless. Such a religion is evil IMO for it gives people a "form of godliness, denying the power" of God. He should read Hebrews if he thinks Christianity was ever about making people feel guilt. I'm afraid nascent Christianity has the unique power to free one from guilt.

Nice try though.

Er, well, maybe not.

Rad

mike_decock

Moral wisdom is really quite simple. Only those who believe that it "infinite moral wisdom" is somehow necessary continue to confuse the issue.

The finititude of the wisdom in the Bible isn't really as much of an issue as that fact that there is very little moral wisdom in the Bible. It is often morally ambiguous or morally reprehensible.

I'm not "quick" to draw conclusions on little evidence. Just because I don't provide all my reasoning doesn't mean my reasons aren't well-defined or thorough.

To break out of a 5 century tradition of Protestant beliefs and 30 years of indoctrination wasn't a "quick conclusion".

-Mike...

Daggah

This is a non-sequitur and an utterly ridiculous statement. Teenage boys raised in certain environments can feel just as guilty after masturbating...hell, you can raise someone to feel guilty when they take a piss! That they feel guilty is not proof of anything other than that they were raised in an environment that fostered guilt.

That's one of Christianity's grand contributions. (/sarcasm)

Philosoft

You said God's intervening would violate free will, then you said God does intervene but not without "humble and open invitation." I'd like to know why the qualities of the request bear on the consequences of the outcome - why is it no longer a free-will violation?

Huh? You've observed "virtually all" people choose to live where they live? It's a mere choice that some people live in the tornado-happy midwest? Nothing to do with the location of fertile soil?

Your assertion is laughably simplistic. It's hardly a single free-will decision to live in a particular place.

I fail to see why my alternate solutions would be of any use here. Get this: I'll trust that God, in his infinite wisdom, could better even my suggested improvements. Do you doubt that?

Who said anything about an "infinitely better world"? How about just 10% fewer babies killed?

Whatever you say, Mr. Gallup.

Now, if the statistics are correct, this is probably one of the stronger individual ethical arguments against aborting. Good luck convincing women to go through with childbirth just to give away the kid, though.
Sorry, dude. You're using the wrong kind of bait.

Radorth

Now you're just being inane Philosoft. That's what you do in my observation. Rather than argue the point, or give up, you ask more misleading and inane questions, getting more and more detailed or asking for an explanation as if you didn't understand, until people forget what the point was. That's because you can't agree to disagree, apparently.

But I will try to fill in the blanks, however obvious it seems to me.

I'm saying people would live ON EARTH if God told them it was the best he could create, yes. And they already choose to rebuild on flood plains and earthquake faults when they have other choices, AS YOU WELL KNOW, so you have no case. Those who do not have a choice are oppressed by their governments in virtually all cases. You are simply blaming God for anything that goes wrong with the world, including that caused by stupid, irresponsible governments and stupid people. You are effectively saying GOD forces them to live in dangerous places and leaves them no other choice.

The marvel is that you don't vote for Bush, who took the initiative to do something about giving people more freedom and which he says is their GOD GIVEN right. (I think he's too idealistic and there will be much fallout from his actions, but he gets an A for bold idealism if not the most creative effort)

Rad

Radorth

Yes I do.

How about overturning Roe V Wade? Oh wait, those aren't babies even in the third trimester. I forget.

Yes it is rather inconvenient as I said. Glad at least you are admitting it.

Rad

Opera Nut

Rad, your assumptions about me are wrong.

Pre-30 crowd who thinks Mithra is just like Jesus?? I saw 30 quite a while back. To quote from the Jews for Judaism website:

"Actually, there are ancient sources that have explicit reference to a supernatural, virgin-born savior, who dies by murder to achieve salvation for believers who can experience him by eating of his blood and body...You can read all about it in the mythologies about Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, Isis, etc. "



Don't have any kids?? excuse me I have one. Almost grown, in fact, and a good kid, despite or possibly because of my godless moral values.

"My priest"?? That was not my priest. I am talking about an ex-priest psychologist who writes best selling books named John Bradshaw, Ph.D. You use the argument that he was not a "true Christian" when he wrote about unearned guilt and shame. You're not familiar with the books he wrote, and you're using the same argument that every Christian does when they see a Christian with an opinion they don't like, or an ex-Christian they don't like, as well.

Hate the sin and love the sinner?? I got told I was a worthless person, over and over, and I stand by those insults. I was told I had no right to charge money for my work I did for them, even though I was unemployed and desperately needed a job. That's what sent me over the edge and slashing my wrists. They didn't love me, they loved to scare people and have power over them. Scare them and extract money from them. Tell them their lives are totally worthless, even if they "accept Christ", because "Our righteousness is as filthy rags" ??? This crap we got from the choir director about not being "anointed" when we sang really got to me. I asume the preacher told the choir director to "crack down" on us or something.

I sat in church and cried all the way thru these sermons that you assume were "loving". You don't know much about human nature. Healthy people do not put up with verbal abuse. Insecure people let others tell them what to think, how to believe, what their self worth is, etc. I will never make that mistake again.

I don't think Jesus needed to die for me, and the whole business of Jesus atoning for my sins (which were not committed by me, but by fruit munching simpletons in the Garden of Eden) is a bunch of bullcrap. You don't get it about the presumption of innocence, do you??

Another quote about Jesus from the Jews for Judaism website:

"What did Jesus teach and preach? Looking at how those who proclaimed to be his followers have acted over the centuries one might suspect that the teacher was himself full of hate. And that is exactly right. Does it surprise anyone that the New Testament's Jesus advocates persecution of those who do not follow him? The Gospels speak for themselves. In particular, it is the Jewish people who are singled out for attack.

"It was to the Jewish people that the Gospel's Jesus presented himself and it was they who rejected his hypocrisy, arrogance and false claims. As a result, it was those "unbelieving" Jews who he condemned and ordered his followers to murder (Luke 19:27). For the Gospel's Jesus, the dictum, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), did not rule out the oppression and slaughter of those who did not accept him. Jesus' supposed prayer, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34a), an interpolation not found in the earliest manuscripts of Luke, is carefully crafted to exonerate the soldiers who physically affixed him to the cross. The Jews remain unforgiven. The claim of a gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is simply not true.

"The Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew says, "learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart" (Matthew 11:29). In compliance, many of his followers, throughout the centuries, have hypocritically perpetrated a façade of pseudo- piety declaring the "Christ-like" gentleness and humility of some of the most loathsome haters of Jews. They have learned well for Jesus, "gentle and humble in heart," was one who viciously called for the death of all who did not believe in him. Indeed, it has led to the slaughter of Christians deemed heretics by other Christians as well as millions of others who would not accept the "peace Christ has to offer."

"If Christianity is judged solely on the person of Jesus, as the Gospels depict him, the result is a negative one. One does not have to point to the horrible persecutions perpetrated over the centuries in the name of Jesus, but only to what is taught by the Gospel's Jesus.

"Jesus is recorded as forgiving the sins of those who sinned against others (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, John 8:11); he is even supposed to have told God to forgive (Luke 23:34), but, he himself forgave no one who disagreed with him (Luke 19:27) or did anything against him (Matthew 26:24). Jesus did not live by his own precept that you must love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you (Matthew 11:20-24). He taught others to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) but did not heed his own teaching (John 18:22-23).

"The New Testament Jesus did not love or pray for his Jewish adversaries in any interaction with them. Those who disagreed with him were vilified, called unrepentant sinners, and condemned.

"The Gospels' Jesus condemns the entire Jewish people, not for what may be classified as their own sins, but for the shedding of all righteous blood throughout history (Matthew 23:35, Luke11:50-51). The Gospels' Jesus irrationally denounced the entire Jewish people for murders neither they nor their fathers committed. He holds them liable for sins they could have had no part in because they were committed even before the birth of Abraham, the progenitor of the nation of Israel.


"John's Jesus is portrayed as though he is no longer a member of the Jewish people. He willfully disassociates himself from the Jews (John 8:17, 10:34).

"Moreover, Jesus identifies the Jews as being the children of the devil; they want to carry out the desires of their father and so are murderers and liars (John 8:44).

"The students have learned their lessons well. Unfortunately, the teacher's message includes a great deal that is evil. Often, Jesus' pronouncements are nothing more than seedbeds for future destructive accusations and mayhem (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51). The religious context in which they are taught only provides moral justification to the immoral. The students are who they are. How they interpret and carry out or ignore their teacher's dictums may be debated, but what their teacher taught plain and simple tells us about the teacher.

"Yes, it's about Jesus, the Jesus of the New Testament. It's about what he actually taught. What was good was not new and what was new was not good.

"Yes, it's about Jesus and it's not good."

Philosoft

Ye gods. You really do think is that simple, don't you? Nah, you know better. You're just fallaciously simplifiying the situation so that it fully supports your argument. That's really bad form, Rad.

Rad, every place on earth is a "dangerous place"! No person is completely safe from natural disaster. You're speaking from an enlightened position, in any case. What exactly did the gold prospectors know about fault lines in 1849?
Still with the political bait?