Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

I think that's part of the "hate Trump" syndrome.

• Find anything bad that happens as a result of something Trump did (children suffer)
• Exaggerate it beyond actual fact (use pictures of children in cages from PREVIOUS administrations)
• Ignore the fact that the same thing happened in previous administrations
• Declare that the unintended consequences were the DESIRED RESULT of the legislation or policy
• Demonize the person you want to blame for it all

It's a process of not "following the facts", but selecting and arranging the 'facts' to support your narrative.

[Charles]

The quote is there for all to see, Sam -- That's why, unlike some of your supporters, I actually use the quote function.

What is there for all to see is that you cut the quote into this:

I think it's notable that Cow Poke and others can advocate for some standard of Christianity where someone like Buttigieg (or myself) can't be called Christian.... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post703834

And the entire sentence reads like this:

I think it's notable that Cow Poke and others can advocate for some standard of Christianity where someone like Buttigieg (or myself) can't be called Christian or even legitimately commentate on the Gospel without raising anyone's hackles -- but pointing out that cruelty and oppression are greater sins, by the same biblical standards, and are not only exhibited by people on this forum but supported in powerful Christians crafting policy for millions amounts to "sanctimoniousness". http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post703771

Leaving out the "or even" is pure manipulation. And now it is here for everyone to see.

[Sam]

By Sam’s insane logic, any law that separates a parent from a child can be considered immoral.

Both John Kelly and DHS have said that the "zero tolerance" policy of separating children from their parents was implemented for deterrence -- children were being separated from their parents in order to send a message to potential asylum seekers that if you come to the US border seeking asylum, this is what will happen.

The policy was designed such that children were separated without documentation -- or even the intent -- to allow for reunification. In the words of one administration official quoted at the time: "The expectation was that the kids would go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that the parents would get deported, and that no one would care." DHS argued in court that it had no way to reunite thousands of children and no documentation of their separation that would facilitate reunification.

There was so little preparation done before implementation that children were crowded into cages with concrete floors and left virtually unattended for days or weeks, with moldy food and mylar blankets. Five year-olds cared for infants and children who were barely teenagers cared for five year-olds. The trauma -- again, intentionally inflicted as a deterrent measure -- will last these children's entire lives.

There are still children from the original zero tolerance policy who have not been reunited with their parents. All to deter others from seeking asylum in USA.

It's difficult for some people to summon compassion for immigrants at the border, even if they're children. I still remember how people here reacted to the child migrant wave of 2014 and feel sick. But it's easy not to be a ghoul. This was a ghoulish policy -- one that will forever stain the soul of the nation and every supporter of this administration. The only thing that will ever wipe it clean is repentance.

--Sam

[Charles]

Both John Kelly and DHS have said that the "zero tolerance" policy of separating children from their parents was implemented for deterrence -- children were being separated from their parents in order to send a message to potential asylum seekers that if you come to the US border seeking asylum, this is what will happen.

The policy was designed such that children were separated without documentation -- or even the intent -- to allow for reunification. In the words of one administration official quoted at the time: "The expectation was that the kids would go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that the parents would get deported, and that no one would care." DHS argued in court that it had no way to reunite thousands of children and no documentation of their separation that would facilitate reunification.

There was so little preparation done before implementation that children were crowded into cages with concrete floors and left virtually unattended for days or weeks, with moldy food and mylar blankets. Five year-olds cared for infants and children who were barely teenagers cared for five year-olds. The trauma -- again, intentionally inflicted as a deterrent measure -- will last these children's entire lives.

There are still children from the original zero tolerance policy who have not been reunited with their parents. All to deter others from seeking asylum in USA.

It's difficult for some people to summon compassion for immigrants at the border, even if they're children. I still remember how people here reacted to the child migrant wave of 2014 and feel sick. But it's easy not to be a ghoul. This was a ghoulish policy -- one that will forever stain the soul of the nation and every supporter of this administration. The only thing that will ever wipe it clean is repentance.

--Sam

And, as we can witness everyday, tweb is full of people calling themselves Christians who are willing to try to trivialize this cruelty by calling it TDS when they should rather confront it with human decency that is inherent in what they claim to believe.

[oxmixmudd]

I think that's part of the "hate Trump" syndrome.

• Find anything bad that happens as a result of something Trump did (children suffer)
• Exaggerate it beyond actual fact (use pictures of children in cages from PREVIOUS administrations)
• Ignore the fact that the same thing happened in previous administrations
• Declare that the unintended consequences were the DESIRED RESULT of the legislation or policy
• Demonize the person you want to blame for it all

It's a process of not "following the facts", but selecting and arranging the 'facts' to support your narrative.

These two posts do illustrate the made up little fantasy land you happen to be living in. You should note that sam and I and Charles etc. are not inventing little fantasy lists detailing your dastardly plans.

[Mountain Man]

Not very many of them rogue. You are not thinking clearly. I'm not saying abortion on demand is OK. I'm saying the reason it is not ok can't be found in the idea that a fetus at 6 weeks is at that point a human person, or that a blastocyst is a human body. Making claims like that are not valid ways of arguing against the idea of abortion on demand because they are not true assessments of the realities for the developing fetus at that time.

What I am challenging are dogmas rogue, not realities. Dogmas like the world must be 6000 years old or the Bible is not God's word. Dogmas like the Earth must stand still or the Bible is not God's word. Dogmas like the Christ comes as a King and not as a suffering servant. These ideas around abortion are dogmas built up by human beings that reflect neither reality nor the scripture.

And yes, I'm challenging them. But that doesn't mean I reject the idea that a developing human life is a precious and wonderful thing that deserves the protection and respect of society. That killing, aborting a child is not something that we do because we made a mistake, or don't want our career path messed up.

But neither am I saying that the 4 week old fetus is the equivalent of a newly born baby, or that a 4 week old fetus is the equivalent of 6 months gestation. I know your dogma won't allow you to accept it, but Exodus makes it very clear, especially when you look at how it was translated into the Septuagint, that 4week old fetus == 4 week old baby equivalence is not a Biblically based equivalence.

And as Sam has pointed out, the Biblical standard for life is breath, to the point the Jewish tradition does not recognize the fetus as a human person until it takes its first breath. But the respect for life is so high in that same Jewish tradition that once the babe has seen the light, not even the imminent death of the mother can justify killing it to save her.

These are all elements that must be factored into a Christian view of abortion. And I don't believe that when they are it opens much of a door. It certainly slams shut the idea that a woman can view the baby is a part of her body she can do with what she likes. And it certainly closes the door on late term abortions except as self-defense. The only door it opens is to the idea that there are extreme circumstances that are perhaps less than the imminent threat to the life of the mother that can justify early term abortion, like perhaps rape and incest.

It may leave open the door to the idea that aborting a fetus very early is not the same as killing a child or late term abortion. And perverse minds will view that as permission. But the truth is the truth. And I would be willing to bet if we focused on the truth here and recognized that simple fact, it would open the door to defining the human person as beginning long before birth, at the point of independent brain activity. And that would stop the most heinous abortions - those of children in the womb that are viable outside it. And those that have developed to the point they are aware on some human level of what is happening to them.

So I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my words. I'm not giving license to abortion on demand. But I am challenging irrational, unBiblical dogmas surrounding the issue.

The problem for you is that your understanding of scripture is at odds with your social views. If your interpretation of Exodus is correct (or at least how you understand it to have been interpreted) then it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion if she catches it early enough, and there is nothing Biblical you can say against it even though this apparently rankles you. Is that dogma I see creeping into your post? "Hoisted by your own petard", as the saying goes.

I do not think it is proper to use the passage in Exodus as a guideline for abortion because its purpose is to establish case law for an unintentional action and is not meant to define the "value" of the child at various stages of its prenatal development.

[Cow Poke]

These two posts do illustrate the made up little fantasy land you happen to be living in.

Very Christian brotherly of you. Again.

You should note that sam and I and Charles etc. are not inventing little fantasy lists detailing your dastardly plans.

It's not a fantasy list, Jim.

You guys pretty well accuse Christians who voted for Trump (against Hillary) of voting FOR the dastardly deeds which you seem to think Trump set out to purposely cause.

[Cow Poke]

And, as we can witness everyday, tweb is full of people calling themselves Christians

Ox, is this the part you're amening?

who are willing to try to trivialize this cruelty by calling it TDS

This is a lie. Nobody is "trivializing the cruelty" by calling it TDS. The TDS is about false implications that any Christian voted for Trump BECAUSE he, in the minds of those afflicted with TDS, actually intentionaly created policies to purposely cause the cruelty. That, sir, is insane.

when they should rather confront it with human decency that is inherent in what they claim to believe.

In my case, I "confront" it every week as part of my regular job, rather than just endlessly blogging idiocy on a fairly obscure website.

But, hey, blog away, Charles --- you're got Ox singing your praises!

[Cow Poke]

These two posts do illustrate the made up little fantasy land you happen to be living in. You should note that sam and I and Charles etc. are not inventing little fantasy lists detailing your dastardly plans.

So, Charles is making this sound like a very serious topic, accusing us of trivializing it, and here you are yukking it up like it's some kind of joke.

[Cow Poke]

What is there for all to see is that you cut the quote into this...

It was gutless gossip on his part. I called him out for it, and he dug deeper.

[oxmixmudd]

The problem for you is that your understanding of scripture is at odds with your social views. If your interpretation of Exodus is correct (or at least how you understand it to have been interpreted) then it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion if she catches it early enough, and there is nothing Biblical you can say against it even though this apparently rankles you. Is that dogma I see creeping into your post? "Hoisted by your own petard", as the saying goes.

The text of exodus establishes that the accidental killing of a fetus that is unformed (this takes into account research into the Septuagint translation and some unsurety of the correct translation of certain words in the text) does not incur the same punishment for the killer as the accidental killing of a fetus that is formed, or that has already taken on the recognizable form of a baby. It says only that an unformed fetus does not have the same intrinsic value as a child. Specifically that accidental killing of such a fetus does not invoke the death penalty.

I do not think it is proper to use the passage in Exodus as a guideline for abortion because its purpose is to establish case law for an unintentional action and is not meant to define the "value" of the child at various stages of its prenatal development.

[oxmixmudd]

Ox, is this the part you're amening?

I thought amen's were trivial, and that people that took offense at amen's were a few nuts short of a full set. That certainly is what you and others told me when I took offense at amens.

And it was also mentioned quite forcefully that amening a post does not necessarily amen the entirety of the post.

You need to hold to your own standards CP.

This is a lie. Nobody is "trivializing the cruelty" by calling it TDS. The TDS is about false implications that any Christian voted for Trump BECAUSE he, in the minds of those afflicted with TDS, actually intentionaly created policies to purposely cause the cruelty. That, sir, is insane.

You and others most certainly do. You and others consistently attempt to trivialize legitimate concerns about Trump's policies and actions by accusing those raising those concerns as irrational and afflicted with "TDS".

In my case, I "confront" it every week as part of my regular job, rather than just endlessly blogging idiocy on a fairly obscure website.

But, hey, blog away, Charles --- you're got Ox singing your praises!

You post here more than I do CP - by something close to a factor of 10.

[Charles]

It was gutless gossip on his part. I called him out for it, and he dug deeper.

So after I clearly showed how you manipulted you are now leaving that part out and trying to focus on something else. Anyone who cares about what was actually written should read this and not your versions in which you leave out what is inconvenient for you: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post703960

[Cow Poke]

So after I clearly showed how you manipulted ....]

So, as long as I provide an "or", I can accuse you of being a serial rapist OR a Tweb Nanny, and as long as one of those can be defended.....

Thanks, Charles, for the entertainment.

[Charles]

So, Charles is making this sound like a very serious topic, accusing us of trivializing it, and here you are yukking it up like it's some kind of joke.

I am not making it sound like it is a very serious topic. It is a very serious topic for anyone with just a basic human concern for others. It really is that simple CP. Your idea that Ox's concern is a joke is dishonest and absurd. And it is yet another example of how you are trivializing this very serious topic pretending it is some sort of game.

Read Sam's post again and try to come up with a serious answer: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post703966