Sanders: Communism Light...

[simplicio]

Speaking of straw men (something you have shown quite a talent for crafting), it is indeed telling that you had to go back well over a hundred years in an attempt to make your point when we're specifically talking about the second half of the 20th century.

You're working overtime to be misleading this morning. Trying to catch up on a quota or something?

The trend started earlier in the century, the realignment of Christian ethics, which made the acceptance of abortion possible. Ideas, especially Christian ideas, are always intertwined with other ideas.

Abortion was seen as something separate and different, its own category, at the start of the 20th century. By 1975, it was seen as just another procedure, albeit with some moral implications (namely, the act and sin of fornication). That shift in view would not have been possible without advances in medicine, advances which had their start in the 19th century. If the mortality rates had stayed high, even the secular world would not have moved to accept abortion. Mortality rates are NOT the same as total numbers of deaths, even though you conflated the two earlier.

Perhaps you could explain the lack of attention abortion got from virtually the whole of Protestantism, as well as from many Catholics.

[simplicio]

What exactly did you disagree with?

Your post 60 (and 110) which was in response to post 58 on the public weal, in which I made a bald emotional appeal using John Galt and Gordon Gekko. Those two may be fictional characters, but both are built on the objectivism of Ayn Rand.

Which does raise the question of whether you are playing the part of the 'infidel troll', unless you can reconcile the objectivism of the Randians with Christianity. I see Randian philosophy as directly opposed to Christianity, an antichrist idea.

[seer]

Your post 60 (and 110) which was in response to post 58 on the public weal, in which I made a bald emotional appeal using John Galt and Gordon Gekko. Those two may be fictional characters, but both are built on the objectivism of Ayn Rand.

Which does raise the question of whether you are playing the part of the 'infidel troll', unless you can reconcile the objectivism of the Randians with Christianity. I see Randian philosophy as directly opposed to Christianity, an antichrist idea.

What the hell are you taking about, I stated facts, nothing more. I'm not a follower of Rand. So be specific, what did I say that was factually wrong?

[simplicio]

What the hell are you taking about, I stated facts, nothing more. I'm not a follower of Rand. So be specific, what did I say that was factually wrong?

"And now you use Scripture which you don't even believe in? And using one's tax dollars to pay for services like roads, fire and police is one thing, paying for another person's food, housing, health care is another."

You are right, that is factually correct. However, you are using it in your argument, extended in post 110 of the difference between service and charity.

Given the well established principle in Christian ethics and political philosophies of the concept of public good or public weal (read: welfare) as the key principle of good governance. You, as well as others, argue that charitable works have no place in the proper role of government.

[seer]

"And now you use Scripture which you don't even believe in? And using one's tax dollars to pay for services like roads, fire and police is one thing, paying for another person's food, housing, health care is another."

You are right, that is factually correct. However, you are using it in your argument, extended in post 110 of the difference between service and charity.

Given the well established principle in Christian ethics and political philosophies of the concept of public good or public weal (read: welfare) as the key principle of good governance. You, as well as others, argue that charitable works have no place in the proper role of government.

Where did I say that charitable works have no place in the proper role of government?

[rogue06]

We have the example of the Old testament, where both the individuals were supposed to shoulder that responsibility, as well as the 'church', the temple itself. The responsibilites were not kept separate and distinct.

We may not be a direct democracy, but we are a representative democracy with many avenues open to us to influence the government who acts on our behalf.

So Jesus told us that we should get someone else to do "on our behalf" what He expressly instructed us to do ourselves.

Just keep digging that hole sport.

[Sparko]

Why? You discerned that from the post?

Maybe it is because the post contained some difficult reflective questions, and you see no room for reflection in the Christian life. In which case, maybe you are the poseur. Self righteousness is so becoming on the Christian.

Trying to accuse someone else of what you are accused of is a typical troll move. Just admit it guy.

[simplicio]

So Jesus told us that we should get someone else to do "on our behalf" what He expressly instructed us to do ourselves.

Just keep digging that hole sport.

If the government shoulders some of the burden of corporal works of mercy, that in no way precludes individuals or churches from doing those works.

[simplicio]

Trying to accuse someone else of what you are accused of is a typical troll move. Just admit it guy.

A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

Many Christians approach all of theology expecting the church through the ages to think just like we do today. But that is not the case for any number of topics.

Another question is whether seeing this post as having validity is some betrayal of the faith, or a rejection. (I know, two questions is a bit much)

Yes, I recognize that Tassman and Star are atheists AND they support permissive abortion laws, even seeing it as a right.

Dude, just admit you are posing as a Christian. Your posts make it so obvious!

Why? You discerned that from the post?

Maybe it is because the post contained some difficult reflective questions, and you see no room for reflection in the Christian life. In which case, maybe you are the poseur. Self righteousness is so becoming on the Christian.

Well Sparko, my question remains: What in that post makes you think I am not a Christian?

Iasked

1.) if the post, read in isolation was pro-abortion or anti abortion

2. Some expect the church through the ages to think as we do today

3. Is agree with a pro abort atheist necessarily a betrayal of the faith

Which one of those is evidence I am not a Christian?

[rogue06]

If the government shoulders some of the burden of corporal works of mercy, that in no way precludes individuals or churches from doing those works.

The fact is that when the government steps in to these areas many people start shirking their own responsibility figuring "that's what I pay taxes for."

Back in August of 2003 a blistering heat wave gripped Europe resulting in 30,000 deaths with nearly half of them in France. Instead of checking in on ill or elderly relatives themselves folks tended to figure that it was the government's job and went on holiday (what we call vacation here). Of course government workers also go on holiday so very few of those who died were ever checked in on resulting in the tragedy.

I guess that's why Christ explicitly told us, as individuals, to take care of the poor and helpless rather than decreeing that we should have the government take over that responsibility for us.

[rogue06]

[i][indent]A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

Neither. It wasn't about that as anyone with at least one working brain cell could plainly comprehend.

It's akin to asking whether or not your post, read in isolation, is pro or anti-gun control.

[Sparko]

A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

Many Christians approach all of theology expecting the church through the ages to think just like we do today. But that is not the case for any number of topics.

Another question is whether seeing this post as having validity is some betrayal of the faith, or a rejection. (I know, two questions is a bit much)

Yes, I recognize that Tassman and Star are atheists AND they support permissive abortion laws, even seeing it as a right.

Dude, just admit you are posing as a Christian. Your posts make it so obvious!

Why? You discerned that from the post?

Maybe it is because the post contained some difficult reflective questions, and you see no room for reflection in the Christian life. In which case, maybe you are the poseur. Self righteousness is so becoming on the Christian.

Well Sparko, my question remains: What in that post makes you think I am not a Christian?

Iasked

1.) if the post, read in isolation was pro-abortion or anti abortion

2. Some expect the church through the ages to think as we do today

3. Is agree with a pro abort atheist necessarily a betrayal of the faith

Which one of those is evidence I am not a Christian?

It's not just one post Simplicio. It's your entire demeanor here. All of the various attack threads you start, the way you talk about Christians as if you were not part of the group (calling us "them" for example, referring to Christians in the third person, excluding yourself from the group, "a question for Christians here" instead of "A question for other Christians here" for example. I am not the first person to question you about it.

[Leonhard]

Actually there is a stream within the pro life movement who do argue that abortion is murder, and the abortionist is a murderer, and the woman partakes in the act of murder, even going so far as arguing that the woman, along with the abortionist, should be held accountable to the state for crime of murder.

The former is universally held by pro-life groups. If you have an abortion you committed murder. The question of how this should be legally regulated is a seperate issue however, and you'll be hard pressed to find any mainstream group calling for capital punishment of women who get abortions.

[Leonhard]

Perhaps you could explain the lack of attention abortion got from virtually the whole of Protestantism, as well as from many Catholics.

It has received some attention, there's a rather consistent condemnation of it by Christians throughout history. We've already more than adequately shown the early Christian community condemned, as well as jewish rabbis in their own time. You won't find a bishop giving approval of it at any time.

If the subject is treated much less frequently in the past it's because its occurrence was much lower. You have more frequent condemnation of parents who intentionally exposed their children to cold to kill them. A person obtaining abortificant poisons back then was a rather rare occurrence, and selling poisons like that was also condemned.

[Leonhard]

It's not just one post Simplicio. It's your entire demeanor here. All of the various attack threads you start, the way you talk about Christians as if you were not part of the group (calling us "them" for example, referring to Christians in the third person, excluding yourself from the group, "a question for Christians here" instead of "A question for other Christians here" for example. I am not the first person to question you about it.

Yeah I'm beginning to smell that simplico is just larping.