Jesus - the bleeding heart liberal

True. But secular society and Christianity operate from different standards. The former defines its own dynamic moral code. The latter adheres to the timeless principles of the Bible. For Christians, God's will is an absolute. Where we often fail, though, is in understanding and applying that absolute to practical living.

Yes, there are two sides and multiple aspects to that particular issue, as there are in most. But often times, the Bible has the ability to simplify the issue. In the case of abortion, the Bible states people are individuals inside the womb. There is no distinction whether or not a pre-born baby is "independent" as it pertains to having the right to live. Also by Biblical standards, as soon as two people become parents, they are commanded to raise and care for their child. It's not up for debate at that point. And I have yet to see anywhere in the Bible that gives parents permission to kill a child, even if the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother. On the contrary, Jesus said, "There is no greater love than he who lays his life down for his friend." How much more so between a mother and her child?

 

Yours apparently.

 

How much difference is there between the two?

 

I think Jesus is far more concerned with people's situation in the afterlife than he is their situation on this earth. I think it far more important to him that someone be willing to help the poor than they actually get helped. I think he would be just as curious to see how the poor deal with their situation and keep their faith in God as he would how a rich person deals with the poor. In other words, Jesus is concerned with souls, not the conditions of a mortal life.

 

Interesting how this thread gets locked, then unlocked so you can take bs potshots like this at me...

Score one for yet another unfounded, insultive ass-u-mption.

 

In the case of some -- maybe many -- individuals, that's probably true. But I'm not just talking about charity. All I'm saying is, whenever fat cat corporate types go to the polls or choose their Congressional drinking buddies, the GOP remains their primary choice. They know that most Pubs are in their corner when it comes to environmental regulations, wage and benefit requirements, and overall "Adam Smith, let 'em do whatever they want" capitalism. When someone moves to start a government initiative to help people in need, the first cries of "handout" and "pork" come from under the Republican banner. They tend to favor nobility over the expendable commoner.

See above regarding corporate greed. Republicans -- correction; some Republicans -- also lead the charge when it comes to harassing gays and lesbians, both literally and figuratively.

You probably already know I care nothing for turning the other cheek, and never have I said there's no such thing as a justified war. But the teachings of Christ as contained in the Bible make no case for the kind of preemptive hawkism we're seeing today. Post-Nativity references to warfare tend to pertain to "principalities and powers," not "flesh and blood," as I recall...

-----

If it seems I'm picking on the GOP, bear in mind that I'm from Texas, as Red a state as you're likely to find, and have seen the mentality at its worst. Lots of good people there, yes, but there's a flipside to it, where tradition and common sense turn into something uglier: enforced conformity and stubborn inflexibility.

So does this mean everyone agrees with me that Democrats are permissive, wishy-washy wimps?

 

You have GOT to stop making sense elicam. My mind is just not prepared to see it here. I'm going into shock.

I'm with you on the "picking on the GOP" discussion too.

They can be. I think that's a little harsh, because I think they are well intentioned, but it's the selfishness of the benefactors of some of their policies, milking them for all they are worth, or taking a yard when they are given an inch, that really screw it up for everybody.

 

If we had just decided to take out Iraq out of the blue because we did not like arabs then I would agree with what you are saying. The truth however is that they violated agreements they made after the first gulf war, refused to comply with weapons inspections for over five yeas, did not give access complete access to the inspectors when they did return and they would have always been a terrorist haven and threat to us.

The war in Iraq was a consequence of the invasion of Kuwait. Their failure to live up to the surrender agreement they signed led to the latest war.

Some of you look at it like we just invaded Canada or Mexico.

 

Excellent point.