Why hate the Jews?

[rtwngAvngr]

I assume there is some point to all this babble?

The fact is, since you are so literal in your translations, Christians MUST believe ALL Jews are doomed to Hell for not accepting Christ as their savior.

Technically, isn't anyone who doesn't accept christ damned?

 

[Gunny]

Technically, isn't anyone who doesn't accept christ damned?

Adhereing strictly to the words of the New Testament, that would be correct.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Adhereing strictly to the words of the New Testament, that would be correct.

I just find it odd that the same people who believe homosexuals are going to hell would give a pass to those not accepting jesus as thier savior.

 

[Gunny]

I just find it odd that the same people who believe homosexuals are going to hell would give a pass to those not accepting jesus as thier savior.

I'm not really following your argument here, as it pertains to me. I consign no one to Hell. That is for God to judge, not me.

The Bible states what it states.

The conversation, IMO, does not center around the worth of Jews, nor homosexuals to God. Rather, it revolves around which societies (or minorities in the case of homsexuals) are and are not contributors to the good of Mankind.

 

[Annie]

I had a good weekend at the coast.

I'm so glad! Thanks for your service! You deserve every damn thing good you can grab!

 

[no1tovote4]

Really? What infanticide? Who is committing these crimes? Have they been charged? Where are they being held?

In waiting rooms at Planned Parenthood where they are forced to read brochures about ovaries and latex prevention methods while they attempt to justify a week 22 abortion because the kid has an extra toe....

 

[jillian]

In waiting rooms at Planned Parenthood where they are forced to read brochures about ovaries and latex prevention methods while they attempt to justify a week 22 abortion because the kid has an extra toe....

I doubt that's ever happened. Wanna try again?

 

[no1tovote4]

I doubt that's ever happened. Wanna try again?

Shoot there is a thread on this very topic on this board with links and all...

But, heck. I'll provide it again, just for you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

I was simply making an off-color joke, but since you take it all so seriously...

Here is a nice excerpt from the story:

(I'll even bold the relevent sections for you... )
Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.


Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.
Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.
Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

So, to answer your question, no I don't want to try again. You were foolish beyond belief to take it so seriously to begin with, then to attempt to say that it never happened? Pease, don't attempt to patronize me!

 

[jillian]

Shoot there is a thread on this very topic on this board with links and all...

But, heck. I'll provide it again, just for you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

I was simply making an off-color joke, but since you take it all so seriously...

Here is a nice excerpt from the story:



So, to answer your question, no I don't want to try again. You were foolish beyond belief to take it so seriously to begin with, then to attempt to say that it never happened? Pease, don't attempt to patronize me!

Apologies if I sounded patronizing. That wasn't my intent. It's just that your post was in response to Grump's inquiry which was part of this exchange:

Originally Posted by rtwngAvngr
It's just that pro life positions are dismissed as being "religion based" and therefore not valid in the legislative process of a secular nation. What's overlooked is that the JUSTIFICATIONS FOR infanticide are ALSO religiously based.


Originally Posted by Dr Grump
Really? What infanticide? Who is committing these crimes? Have they been charged? Where are they being held?

The implication in RWA's post is that first of all, abortion is infanticide. It isn't. Then, after skewing the debate with a word like infanticide (which implies a living infant, not a few cells), he then implies that the justification for abortion is religion-based. Now, looking at the title of this thread, I'd say his meaning was clear. Hence my not thinking it particularly funny. Racism and anti-semitism are rarely funny.

As for your link, which I thank you for, btw, it's got a couple of unsubstantiated anecdotes which hardly represent the norm.

 

[Gunny]

Apologies if I sounded patronizing. That wasn't my intent. It's just that your post was in response to Grump's inquiry which was part of this exchange:



The implication in RWA's post is that first of all, abortion is infanticide. It isn't. Then, after skewing the debate with a word like infanticide (which implies a living infant, not a few cells), he then implies that the justification for abortion is religion-based. Now, looking at the title of this thread, I'd say his meaning was clear. Hence my not thinking it particularly funny. Racism and anti-semitism are rarely funny.

As for your link, which I thank you for, btw, it's got a couple of unsubstantiated anecdotes which hardly represent the norm.

If that is RWA's implication, then I would say he is correct, and that YOU might want to go back and do a little more homework on exactly what an abortion does. In simple English, it is murdering an unborn human being. The attempted dehumanization by labelling them "fetus" and calling them "thing" makes the crime no less what it is.

 

[jillian]

If that is RWA's implication, then I would say he is correct, and that YOU might want to go back and do a little more homework on exactly what an abortion does. In simple English, it is murdering an unborn human being. The attempted dehumanization by labelling them "fetus" and calling them "thing" makes the crime no less what it is.

While I respect your pov, I try not to discuss abortion with people who have a religious basis for the belief that it's murder. I won't change any minds, nor will mine be changed. But your remedy is to choose not to support anyone's choice to have an abortion or not to have a relationship with someone who sees the world differently from you. But imposing it on the majority of people who believe in reproductive choice as one option among many based on your religious viewpoint is inappropriate, IMO.

My view of it is that if women can't be trusted with control over their own bodies, they certainly can't be trusted with care of a baby. Yet, you'd rather substitute the determination of government for that of women.

 

[no1tovote4]

Apologies if I sounded patronizing. That wasn't my intent. It's just that your post was in response to Grump's inquiry which was part of this exchange:



The implication in RWA's post is that first of all, abortion is infanticide. It isn't. Then, after skewing the debate with a word like infanticide (which implies a living infant, not a few cells), he then implies that the justification for abortion is religion-based. Now, looking at the title of this thread, I'd say his meaning was clear. Hence my not thinking it particularly funny. Racism and anti-semitism are rarely funny.

As for your link, which I thank you for, btw, it's got a couple of unsubstantiated anecdotes which hardly represent the norm.

It also has actual substantiated numbers at the end of the article. The article was actually pretty well-written, though rather one-sided with a good mix of anecdote as well as substantiated numbers to back it up.

And I know that my response was in response to the "infanticide" thing, hence the reason I said their punishment was to sit in waiting rooms reading brochures...

I also knew that an off-color joke such as that would be met with people saying that I am tasteless. I just didn't think that it would be taken as a serious comment. People can be extreme in every case. Some look for perfection in their offspring, and if it is not found will end its life while still legal to give it another go rather than deal with minor surgery. It's a theme in humans. People go to extremes... Some choose to blow up the abortion clinic, others use it as a form of human eugenics.

Oh, and the article provides numbers for late-term abortions, not for "clumps of cells". These fetuses have brain activity, and even display curiosity when met with lights and fiber cameras in the womb.

 

[jillian]

It also has actual substantiated numbers at the end of the article. The article was actually pretty well-written, though rather one-sided with a good mix of anecdote as well as substantiated numbers to back it up.

And I know that my response was in response to the "infanticide" thing, hence the reason I said their punishment was to sit in waiting rooms reading brochures...

I also knew that an off-color joke such as that would be met with people saying that I am tasteless. I just didn't think that it would be taken as a serious comment. People can be extreme in every case. Some look for perfection in their offspring, and if it is not found will end its life while still legal to give it another go rather than deal with minor surgery. It's a theme in humans. People go to extremes... Some choose to blow up the abortion clinic, others use it as a form of human eugenics.

Well, as you said, the article was pretty one-sided. As with most things, there are at least three.

And yes, people tend to go to extremes on this issue. I'd say though that most people don't either blow up abortion clinics or use it as a form of eugenics. Most people, when the decision has to be made, do so thoughtfully and agonize over it, though.

Sorry if my sense of humor on the subject is lacking. I suppose I can get a little techy about both the subject of choice and the thread topic. I'm usually much funnier.

 

[no1tovote4]

My view of it is that if women can't be trusted with control over their own bodies, they certainly can't be trusted with care of a baby. Yet, you'd rather substitute the determination of government for that of women.

And my view is that it gives Women the choice of life or death over every life without regard to the value of the life. That they too have a right to life that is being taken indiscriminately in most cases, not to save another life, but just because they choose so.

I personally believe that we should remove the fetus in an attempt to save the life of the "clump of cells" as you so describe it to take the flavor of humanity from that progeny. This gives both the new life and the mother their rights in this matter. This would give rise to a new form of medical science where, in time, all mothers could chose whether to self-incubate or have the child incubated ex-utero as soon as they find out they are pregnant. And society would not find itself determining these lives to be valueless, simply because of an accident of conception.

Those children released by the mother would be open to adoption by all takers, in a far more efficient and less-expensive process than the current one which finds parents going to international sources to adopt because at the end they spend less.

 

[no1tovote4]

Boy have we gone far off topic...

 

[Gunny]

While I respect your pov, I try not to discuss abortion with people who have a religious basis for the belief that it's murder. I won't change any minds, nor will mine be changed. But your remedy is to choose not to support anyone's choice to have an abortion or not to have a relationship with someone who sees the world differently from you. But imposing it on the majority of people who believe in reproductive choice as one option among many based on your religious viewpoint is inappropriate, IMO.

My view of it is that if women can't be trusted with control over their own bodies, they certainly can't be trusted with care of a baby. Yet, you'd rather substitute the determination of government for that of women.

You assume MUCH. Isn't it you lefties who are so quick to throw out that morals do not have to be religion-based? MORALLY, God or no, it is taking the life of a human being who's only "crime" is conception.

Ethically, it allows irresponsible people an easy out from suffering the consequences of their actions. You attempt to justify murder by deflecting the issue to women controlling their bodies. Why not start them out "controlling their bodies" by keeping their damned legs shut if they are not in a position to raise a child?

And no, I DON'T have sympathy for people who have to face the consequences of their actions. It used to be an integral part of life for mature, responsible people.

And it's you libs that continually erode it with crap such as this.

 

[Annie]

Boy have we gone far off topic...

Oh I don't know, it's probably the fault of the Jews...

 

[Gunny]

Oh I don't know, it's probably the fault of the Jews...

I think we should break off all diplomatic relations with Israel over it.:bangheads

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh I don't know, it's probably the fault of the Jews...

DAngit! I still have to spread it around some more...

I think it is a conspiracy to get us talking about anything other than the border, which should be closed...



I still find it amazing when less than 3% of the population is blamed for so many of the problems... The SuperPowerful...

It almost reminds me of the Libs saying Bush is stupid, then in the next breath saying he heads an evil cabal in a worldwide conspiracy and is able to keep his complicity in every major crime in the US a secret all at once....

 

[Gunny]

DAngit! I still have to spread it around some more...

I think it is a conspiracy to get us talking about anything other than the border, which should be closed...



I still find it amazing when less than 3% of the population is blamed for so many of the problems... The SuperPowerful...

It almost reminds me of the Libs saying Bush is stupid, then in the next breath saying he heads an evil cabal in a worldwide conspiracy and is able to keep his complicity in every major crime in the US a secret all at once....

Border? WHAT border?:scratch: