Your Vote, Your Reasons

[TheMadHatter]

looks like someon sucks balls at trolling. Rookie mistake.

damn you ers are quick........i swear i edited that out in less than 15 seconds and you still caught it.

[timvp]

People with aliases may want to take out Obama because they are showing signs of schizophrenia and are unstable. We should lock them up.

[Extra Stout]

The great dodge is saying "We can never understand God's thinking", "The ways of God are a mystery" or something to that effect. It is sometimes followed with a brow-beating admonishment against hubris and/or an affirmation of the humility attained in that statement. This dodge is frequently employed by Christians who are too fair and just to abide such immortal discrimination, but recognize how a divine loophole undermines the core mission of the church (to spread the good word). It's funny you should mention Thomas Aquinas, as his philosophy actually doesn't allow for the great dodge regarding the knowing of God in this instance.

I would agree that one could never fully comprehend God's ways, as a finite being will only have finite and therefore incomplete intellectual comprehension of an infinite God. This is where religious experience comes into play.

I invoked Aquinas because he formulated the speculation about "invincible ignorance." It is just a speculation, though, just like the one where fundamentalists condemn all the unreached to . All the Bible says on the subject is that people are held accountable for what they know, and believers should proclaim the Good News to them.

God cannot be less than perfectly just, perfectly righteous or perfectly anything else. To argue that God operates on some special "unknowable" form of justice and right action beyond our grasp is bull . If it were true, his "more perfect" brand of justice and right actions would have to be beyond our understanding of justice and right actions.

The attributes of perfect justice, perfect righteousness, etc. are part and parcel of holiness, i.e. they are defined by God's nature. As such, humans have a finite understanding of justice and righteousness. The perfect standard is always still ahead, being pursued, never fully attained.

That would mean God never imparted within us the ability to fully recognize and act on "real" justice to begin with, which means God could never have expected his "free-willed, made in his image" children capable of ever being "truly" just, or "truly" righteous, or "truly" whatever else is supposed to be understood as core essence of God.

Well, indeed in this life, we don't attain perfect holiness, or at least I don't believe so. We spend our lives striving for it, but only attain it fully in the next life. That's what Jesus was talking about when he gave the Sermon on the Mount. The Jews were accusing him of brushing aside the Law, and he responded by saying, hey, you want to follow the Law to the letter? Let me tell you what that REALLY means. You still going to follow that whole thing?
It's supposed to be an incredibly hard standard of justice and righteousness. That no man can attain it by his own power is central to the Gospel message.

"Original Sin" isn't the answer either; taking a bite out of a piece of forbidden fruit doesn't nullify our divinely created capacity to recognize what cons utes the character and essence of God.

It is not the eating of the fruit that impairs man's ability to commune with God; rather, it is the introduction of corruption and death that does so. So man maintains the capacity to recognize and act according to God's commands, being still made in his image, but this ability is impaired and made finite, and holiness becomes impossible by one's own power.

but without the ability to know God's "secret edition" of justice and fairness, that just leaves them with appeals to (religious) authority. That wouldn't be good enough for Thomas Aquinas, although sadly, that's good enough for some people. And for many others, there is the great dodge, which allows them to maintain their compartmentalization of religion and reason.

Or, in lieu of infallible religious authority, one could strive towards perfection anyway, even while realizing it lays just beyond his grasp, trusting instead in grace, and experience God's character through his noetic faculty rather than relying solely upon intellect.

[ratm1221]

There are volumes of conflicting information, each with its own agenda and misleading half-truths. With any controversy like this, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. Jesus (or somebody resembling his character) likely existed and was a local folk hero who lived on in tales passed from people who knew him. Keep in mind the first books of the New Testament weren't written until years after his death. Much like any story passed on by word-of-mouth, details begin to change (quite dramatically in some cases) and the story takes on a life of its own. While Jesus may have been a real person, the deification assigned to him was certainly the product of exaggeration. Sadly, these supernatural claims about Christ drown out the positive aspects of Christian philosophy, causing the myths to become the focal point instead of the message.

I'd like to add that it was very unlikely that Jesus received a burial. The punishment of the crucifixion wasn't the torture, but what came after it. The torture was just a bonus. Romans would leave the corpses hanging on the crosses as a warning to keep the people oppressed. You were not allowed to take the bodies down. So the idea that Jesus was resurrected is very unlikely if he was never buried.

It's also very unlikely that Mary traveled, pregnant, all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem. 70 miles is a heck of a journey for a pregnant woman ready to burst.

And no, Jesus was not a 6 foot white dude with long hair and blue eyes. He looked like a terrorist, average height for the time (5 foot), he would have been about 110 pound soaking wet with boots on, and he would have had short hair. Believe me, you would not have been impressed if he walked through your door.

And none of the gospels make any sense what-so-ever when you look at them side by side. Christians have tried to make them fit together for centuries and it just does not work.

[ElNono]

I forgot to add to my last post: It's also worth calling out their intolerance with anything that doesn't align with their beliefs, such as the unfounded, ignorant claims that the world has been worse off when non-christians have been in a position of power. This is truly disgusting.

[Tully365]

And no, Jesus was not a 6 foot white dude with long hair and blue eyes. He looked like a terrorist, average height for the time (5 foot), he would have been about 110 pound soaking wet with boots on, and he would have had short hair. Believe me, you would not have been impressed if he walked through your door.

Funny. Years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a painter and when we first started dating she one night went on a rant about how much she hated Michelangelo because his depictions of Jesus made him look like a muscle-bound marvel comics hero.

[timvp]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

[Jekka]

I cannot say that my mind is completely set at ease- that I feel assurred that Senator Obama is not the anti christ.
But all the information in this thread was thrown at me quickly and I have not had adequate time yet to process it.

I brought up the topic with Reverend Mom to see if she'd heard much about the idea of Obama being the anti-Christ, and this is what she said:

"Yes, I' ve heard it a bunch. Conservatives are really afraid of him. I think that alot of it is because he doesn't fit in the "box"."

If it's taking this long for real evidence to "sink in" for you, Angel, it's entirely possible that your box is just too small.

The Anti Christ's, whoever he is, war is ultimately with God. I will let God handle him.

Well, if you're going to be completely unreasonable, at least you aren't armed.

[LnGrrrR]

The only religious interpretation of Christianity I've found to make sense is Calvinism. And the God they believe in is not, in my estimation, a moral God.

Also, (and please forgive me for the tangent) what is with all the crazy "Jesus = Warrior" people? What about turning swords into ploughshares? Turning the other cheek? Yeesh. Do these people even read the Bible?

[Tully365]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

Paul McCartney? (The real one that rose after dying in 1968?!)

[Jekka]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

Voldemort?

[ElNono]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

angel_luv's brother?

[anakha]

If it's taking this long for real evidence to "sink in" for you, Angel, it's entirely possible that your box is just too small.

Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...

I
Well, if you're going to be completely unreasonable, at least you aren't armed.

This reminds me of one of my favorite insults:

"You're an unarmed man participating in a battle of wits".

[Tully365]

Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...

[PixelPusher]

Or, in lieu of infallible religious authority, one could strive towards perfection anyway, even while realizing it lays just beyond his grasp, trusting instead in grace, and experience God's character through his noetic faculty rather than relying solely upon intellect.

And what does your noetic faculty tell you about the justice of the arbitrary doom of some pre-Columbian Incan message runner or the millions of souls damned to without any chance of "hearing the good news"?

Let me put it this way...God calls down upon you and charges you with the responsibility to determine if these "no heards" should go to or go to heaven. Bear in mind, you have no access to God's "secret form of justice", you can only use your God given capacity (apparently stunted) to recognize what is good and just and fair. What do you think should happen to them?

Before you protest, saying God, in his infinite wisdom would never entrust the souls of his children to a base and sinful mortal such as yourself, recognize that he has, in fact, done exactly that, as the salvation of souls for the past 2000 years has depended entirely on the abilities of mere mortals to organize, traverse and communicate with other fellow mortals. Is it any wonder millions of souls have fallen through the cracks since then? Couldn't almighty God have stationed angels with megaphones every quarter mile to announce the good news to everyone everywhere, all day, every day?

[MannyIsGod]

Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...



This reminds me of one of my favorite insults:

"You're an unarmed man participating in a battle of wits".

This totally reminds me of the Curb episode where the nurse has the giant vagina hahahahahahahahahah.

[timvp]

I wonder what Manu's thoughts are on this subject.

[Extra Stout]

Is this Angel Luv person for real? How do we know he/she isn't just trolling?

I'm still waiting for the fundies to respond to this:

That snippet claims the gospels were written in the 2nd century, which is impossible since we have papyri dating from the late first century, and do ents quoting them from the early 2nd.

It would make little sense for Roman records to do ent the exploits of an executed itinerant preacher in the eastern reachers of the Empire, at least until a group of followers that believed him to be God grew enough in size and distinctiveness from the Jews to be noticed.

How that writer claims to know the diverse views of first-century Christians is beyond me, since until the apostles grew old most teaching was oral, and all we have in addition to the New Testament is a couple of the near-miss books in the Apostolic Fathers. Are they claiming the Gnostic texts are first-century? That's anachronistic at best. What we see in the NT is some invective against people who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh and other nascent heresies. To extrapolate from that to say that Jesus must not have been real is specious to say the least.

Indeed, there are plenty of theologians who deny essential Christian doctrines. "Theologian" is not the same thing as "professing Christian."

There are a fair number of legends in the Near East about heroes who had virgin births. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ in that sense was not unique, though it has theological importance for the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Nor would it be unusual for a hero to do miracles. What is unusual about the claims of the Christian church is the bodily resurrection.

That said, in the liberal theology schools in the 1960's, there was a tendency to become so speculative in finding parallels between the gospels and pagan myths as to be silly. Much of that has been discredited.

The snippet you quote is relying on out-of-date skepticism, which nevertheless still serves the purposes of some people looking for reasons not to believe. If you would like some more up-to-date skepticism, you have to step away from the debunked "historical Jesus never existed" arguments, or the "every first-century source is reliable except the New Testament because we say so" arguments, or the "magic jelly beans will tell us what Jesus really said" movement, and steer more towards the "Jesus didn't come back when he promised he would" school of thought. That's where the action is today.

[ElNono]

The only religious interpretation of Christianity I've found to make sense is Calvinism. And the God they believe in is not, in my estimation, a moral God.

Also, (and please forgive me for the tangent) what is with all the crazy "Jesus = Warrior" people? What about turning swords into ploughshares? Turning the other cheek? Yeesh. Do these people even read the Bible?

In luv's case, she let's the bible do the talking for her...

[Tully365]

That said, in the liberal theology schools in the 1960's, there was a tendency to become so speculative in finding parallels between the gospels and pagan myths as to be silly. Much of that has been discredited.

The snippet you quote is relying on out-of-date skepticism, which nevertheless still serves the purposes of some people looking for reasons not to believe. If you would like some more up-to-date skepticism, you have to step away from the debunked "historical Jesus never existed" arguments, or the "every first-century source is reliable except the New Testament because we say so" arguments, or the "magic jelly beans will tell us what Jesus really said" movement, and steer more towards the "Jesus didn't come back when he promised he would" school of thought. That's where the action is today.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Reasonable skepticism doesn't go in and out out style quickly like styles of furniture and music. The questions comparing the Gospels to other very popular mythologies that pre-dated the NT-- virgin birth, walking on water, dec. 25th birth, etc.-- I think are still relevant and not easily dismissed as "out-of-date." For me, the skepticism of a Socrates or Montaigne is more relevant than ever today-- time and change have not diminished their appeal at all.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Epic fun. Had to join. I could not stop reading this thread (yes, just that bored, thank you).

To reply to the intent of the first poster, there are several reasons I could cite as why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain (whom I supported prior to this campaign), but only one matters. The simple possibility of a President Palin terrifies the life out of me and the fact that John McCain - a 72 year old cancer survivor picked her as his running mate is the ultimate sign that he's either lost his mind, suc bed to the worst case of hubris in modern times or has complete and utter scorn for more than half the country he would lead. Palin, hands down, ends any other debate for me. Granted, it wouldn't end the debate if there were something truly awful about Obama. But...President Palin. It just makes my blood go cold.

Speaking of hubris....(Please feel free to ignore everything below in the name of tl;dr)

While the wisest posts in this wonderful thread are obviously those who chose not to engage the illogic, I can't resist. Since we've already had the anti-Christ debate, the history of the Bible debate and the Nazi debate, I just have to represent for the underdog --- the mighty A --- abortion. No forum debate can be considered complete without a shout-out to the mighty A.

What I find most interesting is that evangelical-leaning individuals so often cite abortion as the leading issue of their vote. With all that is going on in the world, everything at stake for our nation's future - dictating the morality of other people's lives overrides all else. This is an incredibly selfish and intolerant position, but because it is presented without swear words it is supposed to be afforded a measure of superior respect somehow. Sadly, it is pandering to this issue that has completely kneecapped the Republican party (which, at one time, actually did serve as a very necessary counterpoint to the Democratic party). It is because of abortion that a whacko like Palin has appeal to anyone. But the simple fact is that abortion is not an issue of religion, but of civics. As I believe Obama himself has said (and many people before him) no one is pro-abortion. Such a term is a construct to generate hype and emotion. No one hopes that one day they'll be able to have their very own abortion. It's not on anyone's wish list. I myself continue to hope I'll never have to face that sort of situation, and that no one I love will, either. I do, however, have nothing but sympathy and compassion (remember compassion, Christians?) for those who find themselves dealing with the dilemma. And when it comes to government, I would hope that my government would lean on the side of sympathy and compassion.

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.

It is very telling that any Christian could spend time earnestly contemplating whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ, but claim absolute stances on knowing things like abortion is murder, or exactly what a 2000+ year old book literally means to tell us.

I am not an atheist, and I will not own the le Christian or any other religion - the same way I will not claim Republican or Democrat. les invariably get tainted. But, if, in fact, to know Jesus is the way to salvation, then it is difficult to believe there is a time limit. If the soul is immortal, then only giving us these few silly years on earth to decide the fates of our immortal souls makes no sense. It makes much more sense that everyone - souls that died before Jesus came to spread the message, people who live and die not knowing about Christianity, etc has infinate time to discover and come to the counter of salvation. Therefore, accepting or not accepting Jesus here on Earth grants no one a VIP ticket on morality. It is a personal relationship between the individual and their God. Everyone will or will not come to accept Jesus in their own time. Christians have an obligation to judge not lest they be judged, to pursue fellowship, and to treat their fellows with sincere Christian charity and kindness. Nearly everything else is just the industry of ins utionalized relgion trying to keep control over individuals. If Jesus indeed died for our sins -- all our sins -- then our sin is between us and God. Not the government. Still, this view cannot be "proved" any more than any other view. Faith cannot be the basis of law because it simply cannot be proven by law. To do so would be to claim to know the "mind" of God. The only way to approach civil law is to base it on logic and fairness for all as best we can. That America is strongly Judeo-Christian and we have included some of the ideals of those dogmas within our civics makes sense as a great deal of this history of human law has evolved from Judeo-Christian cultures. But that doesn't mean that religion should have any special place in the laws that govern America.

Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying " you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But " " is just a word and " you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Sorry for the long introductory post from unknown noobX. Blame Sullivan for sending crazy folk like me here.

(PS - MadHatter, if you really want to get him going, start talking about Mithras)

[Extra Stout]

And what does your noetic faculty tell you about the justice of the arbitrary doom of some pre-Columbian Incan message runner or the millions of souls damned to without any chance of "hearing the good news"?

Let me put it this way...God calls down upon you and charges you with the responsibility to determine if these "no heards" should go to or go to heaven. Bear in mind, you have no access to God's "secret form of justice", you can only use your God given capacity (apparently stunted) to recognize what is good and just and fair. What do you think should happen to them?

If I were given that authority, hypothetically, I would proclaim the Gospel to them in their post-mortem disembodied state, so they could choose. That is what I hope happens. But I don't know. I also believe, purely speculatively, that most would still recoil from God and his heaven and choose the place as far away from him as possible as the better alternative, even if that means jumping in a lake of fire, so to speak. I've come to understand that heaven on earth is about self-denial and servanthood, and there are a lot of people who will look at the eternal version of that and run quickly in the other direction.

For those that did choose him, they would have missed out on the joys of following God in their temporal lives, but would not have been denied all chance for forgiveness. They might be like the laborer who gets hired at the eleventh hour. But all that is speculative.

[Trainwreck2100]

I just figured out what this thread needs two words










rappin antichrist

[Tully365]

Epic fun. Had to join. I could not stop reading this thread (yes, just that bored, thank you).

To reply to the intent of the first poster, there are several reasons I could cite as why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain (whom I supported prior to this campaign), but only one matters. The simple possibility of a President Palin terrifies the life out of me and the fact that John McCain - a 72 year old cancer survivor picked her as his running mate is the ultimate sign that he's either lost his mind, suc bed to the worst case of hubris in modern times or has complete and utter scorn for more than half the country he would lead. Palin, hands down, ends any other debate for me. Granted, it wouldn't end the debate if there were something truly awful about Obama. But...President Palin. It just makes my blood go cold.

Speaking of hubris....(Please feel free to ignore everything below in the name of tl;dr)

While the wisest posts in this wonderful thread are obviously those who chose not to engage the illogic, I can't resist. Since we've already had the anti-Christ debate, the history of the Bible debate and the Nazi debate, I just have to represent for the underdog --- the mighty A --- abortion. No forum debate can be considered complete without a shout-out to the mighty A.

What I find most interesting is that evangelical-leaning individuals so often cite abortion as the leading issue of their vote. With all that is going on in the world, everything at stake for our nation's future - dictating the morality of other people's lives overrides all else. This is an incredibly selfish and intolerant position, but because it is presented without swear words it is supposed to be afforded a measure of superior respect somehow. Sadly, it is pandering to this issue that has completely kneecapped the Republican party (which, at one time, actually did serve as a very necessary counterpoint to the Democratic party). It is because of abortion that a whacko like Palin has appeal to anyone. But the simple fact is that abortion is not an issue of religion, but of civics. As I believe Obama himself has said (and many people before him) no one is pro-abortion. Such a term is a construct to generate hype and emotion. No one hopes that one day they'll be able to have their very own abortion. It's not on anyone's wish list. I myself continue to hope I'll never have to face that sort of situation, and that no one I love will, either. I do, however, have nothing but sympathy and compassion (remember compassion, Christians?) for those who find themselves dealing with the dilemma. And when it comes to government, I would hope that my government would lean on the side of sympathy and compassion.

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.

It is very telling that any Christian could spend time earnestly contemplating whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ, but claim absolute stances on knowing things like abortion is murder, or exactly what a 2000+ year old book literally means to tell us.

I am not an atheist, and I will not own the le Christian or any other religion - the same way I will not claim Republican or Democrat. les invariably get tainted. But, if, in fact, to know Jesus is the way to salvation, then it is difficult to believe there is a time limit. If the soul is immortal, then only giving us these few silly years on earth to decide the fates of our immortal souls makes no sense. It makes much more sense that everyone - souls that died before Jesus came to spread the message, people who live and die not knowing about Christianity, etc has infinate time to discover and come to the counter of salvation. Therefore, accepting or not accepting Jesus here on Earth grants no one a VIP ticket on morality. It is a personal relationship between the individual and their God. Everyone will or will not come to accept Jesus in their own time. Christians have an obligation to judge not lest they be judged, to pursue fellowship, and to treat their fellows with sincere Christian charity and kindness. Nearly everything else is just the industry of ins utionalized relgion trying to keep control over individuals. If Jesus indeed died for our sins -- all our sins -- then our sin is between us and God. Not the government. Still, this view cannot be "proved" any more than any other view. Faith cannot be the basis of law because it simply cannot be proven by law. To do so would be to claim to know the "mind" of God. The only way to approach civil law is to base it on logic and fairness for all as best we can. That America is strongly Judeo-Christian and we have included some of the ideals of those dogmas within our civics makes sense as a great deal of this history of human law has evolved from Judeo-Christian cultures. But that doesn't mean that religion should have any special place in the laws that govern America.

Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying " you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But " " is just a word and " you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Sorry for the long introductory post from unknown noobX. Blame Sullivan for sending crazy folk like me here.

(PS - MadHatter, if you really want to get him going, start talking about Mithras)

Impressive first post. Welcome.

[Classic Thread]

As God is my Witness, I approve this thread.