Jesus and abortion

[johnnyrodgers20]

Christians who do bad things don't do them because they are Christian.

Christians who do bad things don't do them because they are Christian . . . but . . . Muslims who do bad things do them because they are Muslim!

 

 

(sarcasm)

 

 

Yes and no!! A Christian who steals and then feels remorse and asks for forgiveness does not do it because he is a christian but rather that he gave into temptation. The same could be said for a muslim if they stole and then repented of their sin. But the same can't be said when a muslim slams a plane into a building yelling praise allah. Then that falls on the muslim faith of that person and what and who taught him to be that way.

 

Can the same thing be said of a "Christian" who takes part in mass killings, like the Norway mass-murderer? There are obvious examples of people who claim to be Christian doing very un-Christian things. That doesn't mean we get to blame Christians for those things any more than we get to blame Muslims because some nut-jobs flew some planes into some buildings.

That would be a good point knapplc . . . but Christian=good and Muslim=bad.

 

No - The situation is critical and how they acted also. You seem to like to lump everything together yet you bash people for lumping a class of people together.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I'm pretty sure God has enough understanding to ultimately do the right thing with me and I just don't think he can take much offense at my attempts to defend attacks on Mary or her son.

Who is attacking Jesus? I think you might be confusing criticism of modern Christianity with criticism of Jesus. They are most definitely not synonymous.

You are correct in that sometimes it is hard to discern an attack on modern Christianity from an attack on the basic tenets of a religion, from a personal attack on me or my beliefs, or from an attack on Jesus or Mary. You asked who is attacking Jesus; call me crazy but when someone suggests that Mary should've aborted Jesus and mocks the widely held Christian belief of the immaculate conception and virgin birth, I think I am well within reason to construe that as an attack on Jesus, an attack on Christianity (modern or otherwise), and an attack on me and my beliefs. You and others may very well be only commenting on modern Christianity (example your cute little poster of militant right-wing Jesus). I understand, sort of, how a person may get to that point, I just fail to see the usefulness of it if the intent is to have a calm rational discussion and not simply bait people and be overly inflammatory. I realize a lot of crappy things have transpired in the name of religion. I am pretty successful at attributing those shortcomings to the humans who have gone off the track somewhere along the way. However, it seems some others, maybe yourself included, want to turn those human errors and shortcomings into some sort of indictment against religion itself or hold all members of a specific religion accountable for the actions of a few. That's not how I choose to do it and I would hope others would not do it. If a person wants to give up on a religion because of all the bad things that have transpired in it's name, fine, give up on it. I just don't understand the need to go on a mission to destroy that religion (such as attacking modern Christianity) when the only purpose is to help justify a persons own decision or to demonstrate that person thinks they know something nobody else understands.

 

 

They are quick to jump on the crusade bandwagon ( lump all christians together) but notice their indignant behavior if you use the term muslim to explain the twin tower bombings.

[carlfense]

I'm pretty sure God has enough understanding to ultimately do the right thing with me and I just don't think he can take much offense at my attempts to defend attacks on Mary or her son.

Who is attacking Jesus? I think you might be confusing criticism of modern Christianity with criticism of Jesus. They are most definitely not synonymous.

You are correct in that sometimes it is hard to discern an attack on modern Christianity from an attack on the basic tenets of a religion, from a personal attack on me or my beliefs, or from an attack on Jesus or Mary. You asked who is attacking Jesus; call me crazy but when someone suggests that Mary should've aborted Jesus and mocks the widely held Christian belief of the immaculate conception and virgin birth, I think I am well within reason to construe that as an attack on Jesus, an attack on Christianity (modern or otherwise), and an attack on me and my beliefs. You and others may very well be only commenting on modern Christianity (example your cute little poster of militant right-wing Jesus). I understand, sort of, how a person may get to that point, I just fail to see the usefulness of it if the intent is to have a calm rational discussion and not simply bait people and be overly inflammatory. I realize a lot of crappy things have transpired in the name of religion. I am pretty successful at attributing those shortcomings to the humans who have gone off the track somewhere along the way. However, it seems some others, maybe yourself included, want to turn those human errors and shortcomings into some sort of indictment against religion itself or hold all members of a specific religion accountable for the actions of a few. That's not how I choose to do it and I would hope others would not do it. If a person wants to give up on a religion because of all the bad things that have transpired in it's name, fine, give up on it. I just don't understand the need to go on a mission to destroy that religion (such as attacking modern Christianity) when the only purpose is to help justify a persons own decision or to demonstrate that person thinks they know something nobody else understands.

 

 

They are quick to jump on the crusade bandwagon ( lump all christians together) but notice their indignant behavior if you use the term muslim to explain the twin tower bombings.

Uhhhh . . . . no.

 

We're pointing out the hypocrisy in doing one or the other. That hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother you.

[carlfense]

That would be a good point knapplc . . . but Christian=good and Muslim=bad.

 

No - The situation is critical and how they acted also. You seem to like to lump everything together yet you bash people for lumping a class of people together.

Nope. You missed the point. You can try again or I'll explain it to you if necessary.

[carlfense]

But the same can't be said when a muslim slams a plane into a building yelling praise allah. Then that falls on the muslim faith of that person and what and who taught him to be that way.

You've just outed yourself.

as what?

I'm sure you can figure it out.

[johnnyrodgers20]

But the same can't be said when a muslim slams a plane into a building yelling praise allah. Then that falls on the muslim faith of that person and what and who taught him to be that way.

You've just outed yourself.

as what?

I'm sure you can figure it out.

No i can't. If you want to call me something have the guts to do it.

[knapplc]

carlfense gets coy sometimes and likes to give those vague answers as a joke. He's a jokester.

 

What he's saying is that it looks like you're making excuses for the Christians, or at the least giving them an easier out (if they feel remorse and ask for forgiveness then they just gave in to temptation) while the Muslim, who does get the same out (the same can be said for a Muslim who repented of their sin) but then you go on to talk about slamming planes into buildings. The double-standard comes from not making equal assertions for both.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I'm pretty sure God has enough understanding to ultimately do the right thing with me and I just don't think he can take much offense at my attempts to defend attacks on Mary or her son.

Who is attacking Jesus? I think you might be confusing criticism of modern Christianity with criticism of Jesus. They are most definitely not synonymous.

You are correct in that sometimes it is hard to discern an attack on modern Christianity from an attack on the basic tenets of a religion, from a personal attack on me or my beliefs, or from an attack on Jesus or Mary. You asked who is attacking Jesus; call me crazy but when someone suggests that Mary should've aborted Jesus and mocks the widely held Christian belief of the immaculate conception and virgin birth, I think I am well within reason to construe that as an attack on Jesus, an attack on Christianity (modern or otherwise), and an attack on me and my beliefs. You and others may very well be only commenting on modern Christianity (example your cute little poster of militant right-wing Jesus). I understand, sort of, how a person may get to that point, I just fail to see the usefulness of it if the intent is to have a calm rational discussion and not simply bait people and be overly inflammatory. I realize a lot of crappy things have transpired in the name of religion. I am pretty successful at attributing those shortcomings to the humans who have gone off the track somewhere along the way. However, it seems some others, maybe yourself included, want to turn those human errors and shortcomings into some sort of indictment against religion itself or hold all members of a specific religion accountable for the actions of a few. That's not how I choose to do it and I would hope others would not do it. If a person wants to give up on a religion because of all the bad things that have transpired in it's name, fine, give up on it. I just don't understand the need to go on a mission to destroy that religion (such as attacking modern Christianity) when the only purpose is to help justify a persons own decision or to demonstrate that person thinks they know something nobody else understands.

 

 

They are quick to jump on the crusade bandwagon ( lump all christians together) but notice their indignant behavior if you use the term muslim to explain the twin tower bombings.

Uhhhh . . . . no.

 

We're pointing out the hypocrisy in doing one or the other. That hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother you.

 

 

What are you talking about? How do you know what bothers me and what doesn't, most lawyer should know they can't determine what someone else is thinking, you need to work on that. If you said that Christians organised and were in the crusades I wouldn't have a problem with that, they were there. If you say muslims bombed the twin towers I wouldn't have a problem with it, they did it. I have never used the twin towers to say all muslims are evil or that their religion is evil. I am stating fact, but people on here are using the Crusades and the Salem witch hunt to bash christians today. Much different IMO

[johnnyrodgers20]

carlfense gets coy sometimes and likes to give those vague answers as a joke. He's a jokester.

 

What he's saying is that it looks like you're making excuses for the Christians, or at the least giving them an easier out (if they feel remorse and ask for forgiveness then they just gave in to temptation) while the Muslim, who does get the same out (the same can be said for a Muslim who repented of their sin) but then you go on to talk about slamming planes into buildings. The double-standard comes from not making equal assertions for both.

 

 

No that's wrong, I never made an excuse for the Crusades or even said anything one way or the other. I was saying muslims slammed planes into the towers, where am I wrong? I know Christians were in the crusades who said any different.

 

And Carl getting Coy isn't just sometimes, he can't figure anything out unless it is worded precisely to his liking and puts on the act that it is the other poster who is at fault. He has to have the text to be specifically spelled out until it is to his liking. Unless like, oh let's say the first amendment, then it is what the fore fathers intended not what is written, pretty convenient.

[knapplc]

People claiming to be Muslim crashed planes into the World Trade Center, despite the fact that Mohammad didn't teach that murder of innocent women and children was the correct way to combat your enemy.

 

People claiming to be Christian fought "Crusades" in the Holy Land where they murdered women and children despite the fact that this is pretty much the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

 

Looks like the problem isn't Muslims or Christians, but PEOPLE using religion to meet their own ends.

[robsker]

People claiming to be Muslim crashed planes into the World Trade Center, despite the fact that Mohammad didn't teach that murder of innocent women and children was the correct way to combat your enemy.

 

People claiming to be Christian fought "Crusades" in the Holy Land where they murdered women and children despite the fact that this is pretty much the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

 

Looks like the problem isn't Muslims or Christians, but PEOPLE using religion to meet their own ends.

 

Quite the reasonable statement.

[carlfense]

carlfense gets coy sometimes and likes to give those vague answers as a joke. He's a jokester.

 

What he's saying is that it looks like you're making excuses for the Christians, or at the least giving them an easier out (if they feel remorse and ask for forgiveness then they just gave in to temptation) while the Muslim, who does get the same out (the same can be said for a Muslim who repented of their sin) but then you go on to talk about slamming planes into buildings. The double-standard comes from not making equal assertions for both.

You got it. You're a more patient man than I.

[carlfense]

No i can't. If you want to call me something have the guts to do it.

A hypocrite. Somehow I mustered the courage to say it.

[carlfense]

Unless like, oh let's say the first amendment, then it is what the fore fathers intended not what is written, pretty convenient.

What?

[carlfense]

People claiming to be Muslim crashed planes into the World Trade Center, despite the fact that Mohammad didn't teach that murder of innocent women and children was the correct way to combat your enemy.

 

People claiming to be Christian fought "Crusades" in the Holy Land where they murdered women and children despite the fact that this is pretty much the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

 

Looks like the problem isn't Muslims or Christians, but PEOPLE using religion to meet their own ends.

Well put knapplc. I have no problem with Christians. I have no problem with Muslims. I DO have a problem with either using their religion as justification for bad actions.