Are radical Christians . . .

I have to go with both Fedup and Campbell on this one.


If there's one thing I've agreed on in principle with the Christian right it's the abortion issue...as a person of faith I can't condone the free availability of abortion as birth control, but don't feel that it's an absolutely black-and-white, yes-or-no question either...there has to be room for difficult decisions and circumstances.

In the post-Vietnam era I've always felt comfortable voting Repub, through Bushie in 2000, but sat the 2004 election out and couldn't bring myself to vote for either side last tues...that's a guilt trip for me, as I consider voting a responsibility.

Fedup, you're right on with the Iraq situation...a sickening disgrace and I'm happy that the American people came out strongly against it.

 

Fedup...

Scientifically it can be seen that cellular growth begins at conception. As a believer that a spiritual soul is required to initiate the growth of any organism, the only logical conclusion available to me is that viable life begins at conception, and to interrupt this life for no good reason does indeed carry sinful reaction or "bad karma" of the heaviest kind.

But, there are practical and human factors involved as well, as you have pointed out...you can be assured I'm well aware of that.

It's a difficult issue, to say the very least.

 

Absolutely. Abortion the most divisive issue in American politics since Vietnam, and it's not going away.

I think out of pocket medical expenses for pregnancy at all stages are already deductible, as long as they're in excess of the standard percentage cutoff point.

Some people celebrate both events.

Yes, we could both present arguable cases.

The spiritual dimension is the one that's hard to argue...it's beyond sensory perception and is a matter of faith, conviction, and hopefully some God-given insight...which others are often prone to regard as "insanity".

It's a toughie.

 

Yes, it is a medical procedure, on a par with capital punishment, often thought of as a medical procedure as well. Both procedures boil down to muder, but who cares, as long as it's not your pound of flesh being destroyed. And according to you, it's better to murder the child than allow it to live anyway, because who knows, it might not be wanted. And lets just forget about all the couples who would give anything to have a child, and can't. Lets just assume none of these kids would ever have a chance in this world, and kill them all. I don't believe this, but I think you do. And if a 15 year old gets knocked up, its always better to compound a pregnancy with a muder. This will make everything so much better.

 

Fedup, buddy...that's grasping at a straw.

 

Calling a baby a fetus is just another dishonest way of avoiding the real truth. A FETUS IS A BABY. The reason they call it a fetus, is to attempt to take away the fact that it is a human being. They thought of the Jews in World II in the same way. Only now we have legal death camps.

Any child born out of wed lock only has a rare chance to become a productive human being? Where did you get those facts? I can't wait to hear your answer.

Woman will find a way to have an abortion just like they use to? Abortions use to number in the thousands when it was illegal, now they number in the millions.

And lets be honest, a womans choice is nothing but her legal right to murder her child. Oh I'm sorry, I not being politically correct. I ment to say, to murder her FETUS. If she lost her Fetus in a car accident, the news media would would say she lost her BABY or CHILD, but if the same woman has an abortion, they call it a FETUS.

 

WHO, other than a wack job religious nut considers Captol punishment a medical procedure?

Thats right, by law lethal injection is a medical procedure, and medical personnel must administer it.

FedUp, you need to do the research.

http://www.wral.com/news/7622860/detail.html

 

Sorry FedUp, I can't read your mind, I just responded to your statement. The point I was trying to make is, that medical procedures are used to kill in both cases.

 

Actually there is no difference. If a pregnant woman losses her fetus as you might say in a car accident, the media reports her baby was killed. They only say Fetus, when they do abortions to hide the stigma of killing a human being. As if the word inserted changes the reality of the murder.
I don't believe in capital punishment. And abortion is just another form of capital punishment, except the child was never convicted of anything. And it is the childs mother, who ok's the death sentence.

 

Heh, its always interested me how the Media has found away through this by what words they use.

Understand that the term 'Fetus' is in the same line of term words like: Toddler, Adolescent, etc.
Its describing a stage of life and in this case just of 'mammals' in general heh.
But,
When we have something like the 'car accident scenario' you used - the reporter often now says 'Fetus'.

I have heard 'Unborn Child' being used alot now.
That seems alot more reasonable.

 

FedUp about a month ago the meida reported that a woman that was pregnant lost the baby in a car accident. Apparently that news person was not politically correct yet. I wonder if that reporter still has his job. I care about the meida, especially when they tell the truth like that reporter did.

 

Actually, a "radical" Christian or Muslim would not be dangerous.
Radical: a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
By this definition, as someone previously posted, a Christian would not be spouting off about peace and love, but engaging in the practice of peace and love.
A Muslim would not commit murder. In the Qu'ran there is a verse that says he who kills one person has killed all of society. Meaning as I was told, is that it means murder harms the entire community. As we all saw when those suicide pilots killed all those people, now their country is being attacked and people are dying.
So, neither would commit outright murder. Both could defend their beliefs, and defend themselves and their country against attacks.
This is by the definition of a radical.
Now, there are many different interpretations of biblical passages, but I can not think of anywhere that it says go and attack people of other faiths just to irradicate them. Same with the Qu'ran. For those of you that may jump in with jihad, Muslim scholars say that it means to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle....Military are using a broad definition of the word to wage a Holy War. Which I find the term Holy War a sort of oxymoron.

 

They dont say 'Baby' in those situations.
Thats what was suggested.

Do you even read posts you reply to anymore?

I have cared about the media as long as I have worked in the Media, which is a long time now.
Even still, I would care about the media and its presentation or misrepresentations.
Dont you?

 

Probably more dangerous. That's because so called christian countries like the US have WMD. They are more powerful, and thus present more of a threat.

The belief systems of both though are equally spurious and illogical.

 

There are Muslim scholars who will take an extremely 'liberal' or 'moderate' approach to interpretation of the Koran.
Unfortunately for them, its near impossible to stretch the Koran that far.
Jihad does mean 'Holy War' and its a real military term alright.
Just ask Muhammed - he engaged in Holy War plenty of times.
Ancient Israelites did too.

The Koran and the Hadith are an absolute horror show of Jihad, torture, executions and non-stop violence and death against those who do not submit to Islam.
I dont know if I can be bothered to quote them all now but to put some things in a comparison:

- People have tried to wage war and conquer 'in the name of Christianity'... but the problem is that you would have to twist and stretch any actual Christian teaching beyond all belief to justify this.
You cant even get anything from the New Testament for that and you have to forget or ignore teachings.
- People have waged war in 'the name of Budhism' but there is nothing in actual Budhist teachings to justify that. You have to twist and stretch it beyond reason.
BUT
Islam is the very opposite.
You actually have to stretch and use extreme liberal interpretations, forget certain passages, ignore others, stretch and twist it in order to NOT WAR .

I know people hate prophet of doom but the fact is that these verses are from the Koran and please feel free to study them in the proper context.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes.aspx?g=405
If you do take the 'liberal moderate' interpretation then thats good and I wish all Muslims did too!

 

I spent a month in Jordan, this is what was explained to me by people that are Muslims. The entire month was spent discussing politics and religion, their views on September 11th, the war, etc. The people I hung out with were telling me how crazy the pilots were, that it wasn't the Muslim way.

 

There are many Muslims out there (and Id say a majority maybe) who will insist that the most effective way to bring the world under Islam will be through evangelism and popular culture FIRST.

In other words, you would resort to violence only as the very LAST resort.
I think they can make a good case for this from the Koran.
Right now, its not possible for Islam to defeat the West thru violence anyways so this is not a good option in their minds.
Its much better to take over by using immigration and then using the court systems of host countries.
Then establish Sharia, establish media and mosques etc.

 

1. I'm a third generation Seventh day Adventist Christian. I was baptized when I was 12 y/o. My father is a Seventh day Adventist Minister with a Masters Degree in Theology.

2.The democratic party never pushed the murder of 50 million American children by abortion.(I'd like to see your source for that stat). All they did was stand up for the concept of Freedom of Choice. I think that abortion is wrong but I believe in the Freedom of Choice upon which the Kingdom of God is founded upon.

3.Stating that one is a tree hugger means that you believe that Christians should take care of the world that God has created instead of exploiting,polluting and destroying for personal gain. You can not serve both God and money"-

How can you as a Christian support a party that initiated an unprovoked war of aggression based on falsehood that has killed over 3,000 Americans and anywhere from 50,000-200,000 Iraqi lives. You say that you're against killing unborn humans but have no problem killing adult humans.

Don't get me started on people like Tom Delay,Ted Haggard,Mark Foley,Jack Abramoff etc...

It seems that many Christians make a big deal over abortion,gays and the Ten Commandments but they blatantly ignore the Fourth Commandment.

 

Check out www.theocracywatch.org if you think Radical Right wing Christians aren't dangerous.

 

So you believe that Abortion is wrong, but you support a womans right to murder her child. That's like haveing your cake, and eating it to. And you support the party that believes it is a womans right to murder her baby. I support the party that does the least killing. You only look at the war as evil, I'm looking at the whole picture. And the party that supports a womans right to murder her children has a greater number of deaths to account for. The Presidents war has killed tens of thousands, the prochoice party has tens of millions to answer for.
So you believe because you were baptized into a religion, and your father is a Adventist Minister with a Masters Degree in Theology that makes you a Christian?
Jesus tells us that on the day of judgement many would come before Him and say Lord Lord have we not done many wonderful things in your name, and in your name have done many wonderful works. Jesus tells us He will say to them, depart from me, I never knew you. Do you think Jesus is going to give you eternal life over them because your father has a Masters Degree in Theology?