I no longer consider myself pro-life

[Darth Executor]

If you read Acts, the early Christians set up a communist government where all resources were held by the government and given to each as they had need, and taxation was 100% and those failing to pay it were struck dead by God.

Jesus' own attitudes to money etc are made pretty clear in the gospels.

small groups of people volunteering to share stuff isn't communism. The average family already does that and has been doing it long before socialism was invented.

[Darth Executor]

We shall see as the thread continues whether this change is meaningful. You are proposing going from a Christian to libertarian anarchist. Are you going to change your faith designation?

I am not proposing going from Christian to anything. I am still a Christian and my position on abortion proper is the same. I just don't think trying to criminalize, at this point, is conductive to long term goals (including the eventual elimination of abortion).

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, the crazy visions in the book of Revelation don't bear much resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels.

Are you sure?

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Not revelation. And those enemies would be referring to you in the parable.

[Darth Executor]

That’s incorrect. Most scholars believe that Jesus was similar in appearance to the modern inhabitants of the Middle East, i.e. swarthy or brown.

The modern inhabitants of the Middle East vary wildly in appearance. Google some pictures of palestinians today, many of them are indistinguishable from white europeans and most of them are fairly light skinned.

To add to that, the middle east used to be even lighter skinned than it already is. A lot of the darker hue is a product of African admixture brought into the gene pool by Arab slavery practices after the advent of Mahomet the Devil. IIRC modern Palestinians have about 7% subsahran and east african admixture. Middle eastern populations that avoided interbreeding, like the Durze, mostly look like average white people.

Jesus probably looked like a typical mediterranean today, darker than most of europe but still fairly light skinned.

He wasn’t capitalist. In 2013 pope Francis “released a remarkable 84-page document in which he attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny,” criticized the “idolatry of money,” and urged politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare.” Sounds more like socialism to me,

The Pope is a satanist and even if he wasn't what does that have to do with Jesus?

Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

The first sentence is the essence of capitalism distilled into one sentence. Arguably, the same is true of the second and socialism.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter..._13854296.html

Argument by weblink is forbidden.

Well he sounds like a ball of fun doesn’t he and you actually admire someone who has the intention to slaughter people like me? What’d I do?

Your crimes are legion.

[shunyadragon]

I am not proposing going from Christian to anything. I am still a Christian and my position on abortion proper is the same. I just don't think trying to criminalize, at this point, is conductive to long term goals (including the eventual elimination of abortion).

This is far more rational than your libertarian anarchist first post, which reflects my seriously questioning your first irrational post.

This is very different from the radical 'no longer pro-life.'

The Baha'i Faith's teachings and my view is pro-life, but do not advocate criminalization. I believe education, technology and increased emphasis on spiritual values not laws.

[Darth Executor]

Say it ain't so... D.E. wants to wipe out that race because apparently our white skin (or, sadly currently in my case, red and sunburned skin) is better.

The only thing "our" white skin does is make me want to throw up at the thought of sharing it with you.

[Darth Executor]

You are assuming that their children would follow in their political views

Most do. But no, I'm not assuming that.

or that the parents would not change in the future and regret their abortion like Dee Dee. The Holy Spirit can work on anyone.

I don't think countless lives (and we're not counting entire generations) should be sacrificed because a handful of them "might" change, while turning the increasingly fewer children their way.

I don't think liberal abortion practices, on their own, will solve the problem. But it's a good start. And as far as I can tell even the average American Christian agrees with me. If an abortion until birth guy like Doug Jones can win in Alabama, who is really fighting it anymore? Trump got pilloried by pro life organizations for pointing out the obvious (that the woman who gets an abortion should suffer some sort of legal penalty), and it was at that point that I started evolving on this issue. I spent years and countless hours debating the issue and crafting arguments only to have it hijacked by Goddess Worship conservatives. Evil people seem hellbent on slaughtering their children. And neither of us is gonna physically stop them (and even if we did, it would end quickly before the status quo resumed). In Canada you are increasingly banned from even protesting it. So let them do it and burn in hell.

[Darth Executor]

This is far more rational than your libertarian anarchist first post, which reflects my seriously questioning your first irrational post.

This is very different from the radical 'no longer pro-life.'

No it's not, and it doesn't contradict my first post at all. My reasons for not wanting to criminalize it are entirely different from yours. You don't want to criminalize it because you're not really opposed to the slaughter of innocent children, you just don't want to be honest with yourself about it. I don't want to criminalize abortion because it's a pointless goal that is better served in the long term by the mass suicide of its proponents.

The Baha'i Faith's teachings and my view is pro-life, but do not advocate criminalization. I believe education, technology and increased emphasis on spiritual values not laws.

If you do not advocate criminalization you are not pro-life (unless you also oppose criminalizing other forms of murder). Stop trying to claim the mantle of something that doesn't belong to you.

[Starlight]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Check out some social-context scholars for quite a different interpretation of that parable. Here's someone's blog post discussing the typical social-context reading of it.

[Darth Executor]

Check out some social-context scholars for quite a different interpretation of that parable. Here's someone's blog post discussing the typical social-context reading of it.

I'm already familiar with Malina, Rohrbaugh and the social context of the bible. The article is nonsense. Ignoring the fact that the author doesn't know what a parable is for a minute,

For example, how can I say that the master represents the upside down me-first mentality of this world when Jesus says in Matthew 25:14, “For the Kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country …” Doesn’t Jesus equate the Kingdom of heaven to the master who travels to a far country?

No, actually. If you look in a normal Bible, the words “the kingdom of heaven is” are in italics, which means they are not in the original. Jesus didn’t say these words; our translators added them! The reason the translators did this is because they thought it was a parallel story to the parables that come before and after the Parable of the Talents, but it is just as likely that the middle parable is set in contrast to the surrounding parables.

The version I looked at doesn't have those verses at all. It says '“Again, it will be like", referencing the previous kingdom of heaven line. He also doesn't seem to understand it's not the man being compared to the kingdom of heaven, but the parable. It's the "again, it will be like" that sets the parallel (not the contrast, like the author claims, which doesn't just suffer from a lack of evidence but doesn't even make sense) with the previous and subsequent text.

The author also misuses honor/shame, because he doesn't understand what a parable is, and that the accumulation of money is compared to the accumulation of honor with God. It's not meant to be taken literally that God will reward people with ten cities.

[Tassman]

Let's see...

Revelation 19 (ESV)
The Rider on a White Horse

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

So much for your anti-war socialist nonsense!

Yeah! Well that’s convincing.

You should be more concerned about meeting the REAL Jesus down the road because He IS alive today!

No he’s not. He’s dead and long decomposed.

[Terraceth]

He wasn’t capitalist. In 2013 pope Francis “released a remarkable 84-page document in which he attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny,” criticized the “idolatry of money,” and urged politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare.” Sounds more like socialism to me,

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter..._13854296.html

The document it alludes to isn't actually particularly socialist. Oh, sure, it criticizes completely unregulated capitalism, but it's a hard press to label that socialist, unless anything short of absolutely zero government regulation in the economy is socialism. As for the guarantee of "dignified work, education and healthcare," it refers to both political leaders and financial leaders in that, and does not say what policies are the preferred way of accomplishing it (which makes some sense, economics aren't the focus of the document and there's no point in getting bogged down in such a complicated issue when it's not the main thrust of the work). Someone has to go into it with the assumption that socialistic policies are the best way to accomplish things in order to conclude it's socialist. Incidentally, the newspaper's mention of it being an 84-page document is a bit misleading, because it makes it sound like the whole document is about that subject, when it's actually just a small part of it.

On the whole, it's really just the general suggestions of helping the poor as was found in the Bible and not to focus too much on money and material goods. What it does not do, and what Jesus doesn't do either, is say that governments should be forcing people to do that. People should help others, their own money being a way to do that, but there is no command to do so with other peoples' money.

But even if it was the most socialist thing ever written, Pope Francis isn't Jesus, so exactly how it is supposed to support your point regarding Jesus is unclear.

[rogue06]

The document it alludes to isn't actually particularly socialist. Oh, sure, it criticizes completely unregulated capitalism, but it's a hard press to label that socialist, unless anything short of absolutely zero government regulation in the economy is socialism. As for the guarantee of "dignified work, education and healthcare," it refers to both political leaders and financial leaders in that, and does not say what policies are the preferred way of accomplishing it (which makes some sense, economics aren't the focus of the document and there's no point in getting bogged down in such a complicated issue when it's not the main thrust of the work). Someone has to go into it with the assumption that socialistic policies are the best way to accomplish things in order to conclude it's socialist. Incidentally, the newspaper's mention of it being an 84-page document is a bit misleading, because it makes it sound like the whole document is about that subject, when it's actually just a small part of it.

On the whole, it's really just the general suggestions of helping the poor as was found in the Bible and not to focus too much on money and material goods. What it does not do, and what Jesus doesn't do either, is say that governments should be forcing people to do that. People should help others, their own money being a way to do that, but there is no command to do so with other peoples' money.

But even if it was the most socialist thing ever written, Pope Francis isn't Jesus, so exactly how it is supposed to support your point regarding Jesus is unclear.

0000000000000at.jpg

[JimL]

The document it alludes to isn't actually particularly socialist. Oh, sure, it criticizes completely unregulated capitalism, but it's a hard press to label that socialist, unless anything short of absolutely zero government regulation in the economy is socialism. As for the guarantee of "dignified work, education and healthcare," it refers to both political leaders and financial leaders in that, and does not say what policies are the preferred way of accomplishing it (which makes some sense, economics aren't the focus of the document and there's no point in getting bogged down in such a complicated issue when it's not the main thrust of the work). Someone has to go into it with the assumption that socialistic policies are the best way to accomplish things in order to conclude it's socialist. Incidentally, the newspaper's mention of it being an 84-page document is a bit misleading, because it makes it sound like the whole document is about that subject, when it's actually just a small part of it.

On the whole, it's really just the general suggestions of helping the poor as was found in the Bible and not to focus too much on money and material goods. What it does not do, and what Jesus doesn't do either, is say that governments should be forcing people to do that. People should help others, their own money being a way to do that, but there is no command to do so with other peoples' money.

But even if it was the most socialist thing ever written, Pope Francis isn't Jesus, so exactly how it is supposed to support your point regarding Jesus is unclear.

You people remind me of the rich guy in the bible to whom Jesus said, and I'm paraphrasing of course, "you want to follow me, go, give all your belongings to the poor and then come follow me." And the rich guy said "ah, I don't think so Lord, I didn't realize I'd have to sacrifice my stuff to follow you." If you are truly a christian, then you would support the type of government in which taxes are collected in order to care for the poor.
To me, most of you anti-socialist here are pseudo christians, the plight of other less fortunate people really doesn't matter to you, so long as you can pretend to care, or so long as you can get something out of it for yourself, like the good feeling you get when directly and personally helping someone. If you were truly a christian you'd support the kind of government that would exist if Jesus himself were the head of it, not someone like Trump who, along with the republican congress, is still working at throwing 13 million people off of healthcare with his tax cuts for the wealthy policy.

[Tassman]

The document it alludes to isn't actually particularly socialist. Oh, sure, it criticizes completely unregulated capitalism, but it's a hard press to label that socialist, unless anything short of absolutely zero government regulation in the economy is socialism. As for the guarantee of "dignified work, education and healthcare," it refers to both political leaders and financial leaders in that, and does not say what policies are the preferred way of accomplishing it (which makes some sense, economics aren't the focus of the document and there's no point in getting bogged down in such a complicated issue when it's not the main thrust of the work). Someone has to go into it with the assumption that socialistic policies are the best way to accomplish things in order to conclude it's socialist. Incidentally, the newspaper's mention of it being an 84-page document is a bit misleading, because it makes it sound like the whole document is about that subject, when it's actually just a small part of it.

On the whole, it's really just the general suggestions of helping the poor as was found in the Bible and not to focus too much on money and material goods. What it does not do, and what Jesus doesn't do either, is say that governments should be forcing people to do that. People should help others, their own money being a way to do that, but there is no command to do so with other peoples' money.

There's plenty about what to do with one's own money, namely give it to the poor.

Mark 10:17-31

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!” 24 This amazed them. But Jesus said again, “Dear children, it is very hard[b] to enter the Kingdom of God. 25 In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”.

Tell that to the Donald.

But even if it was the most socialist thing ever written, Pope Francis isn't Jesus, so exactly how it is supposed to support your point regarding Jesus is unclear.

The pope is the Vicar of Christ is he not?

Regardless, they're wise words from a senior Christian figure. Unbridled capitalism in the face of of great poverty is an offence against humanity.