And when that severely disabled baby is born? Then what? Or the mother, who has been told her life is at risk, dies during delivery? Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
And when that severely disabled baby is born? Then what? Or the mother, who has been told her life is at risk, dies during delivery? Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well, what happens when any severely disabled baby is born? Do you kill it, or do you raise that child in the same loving way you do any child? Good grief. What on earth are you suggesting? Should we have a gun in the delivery room now? "Sorry kid, but you're a little too imperfect. See ya later!"
We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth. OBs do have tests to determine the health of the fetus and how the pregnant woman is faring.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
First of all, that is NOT what you said. "And when that severely disabled baby is born? " That was your question. Now, as is your habit, you want to back out of your corner and reverse course.
But at any rate, how convenient. We can just kill the little beggar during pregnancy so it's nice, quiet, and hidden from view. What does that kind of thinking remind you of?
Why you so obsessed with killing???Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm talking with a liberal dem who loves abortion and asked the absolutely disgusting and sickening question of what to do when a severely disabled baby is born, and then wanted to lie and suggest she did not say that. Is that plain enough for you?
And this is the same person who either lives on a moderate income or is a monied republican, depending on what political point she is trying to make.Quote:
And when that severely disabled baby is born?
We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth.
Talk to someone else. I dislike your dishonesty.
Nope, you totally misunderstood my question. Please quote me correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Passing by to read WG's posts, the abortion discussion continues. I probably shouldn't jump in, but in for a penny in for a pound.
Any child? Let's see what God says about that. And, "Sorry kid, but you're a little too imperfect. See ya later". God seems to have a mixed message regarding the sanctity of life. Surely, born life is at least as important as unborn life! Here's a smattering of Old Testament Bible references on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
“Thou shalt not kill” (or, as reflected in the original Hebrew text, “Thou shalt not murder,” which refers to unlawful killings), but how can you get from that to some sort of universal declaration regarding the sanctity of life ?
Life is sacred, unless somebody is a homosexual, in which case you are commanded (not just permitted) to stone them to death.
Or, unless that life belongs to a disobedient child, in which case, once again, you are commanded to kill him or her. And don’t forget the time a bunch of children mocked a prophet by calling him “Baldy” and God sent a couple of bears to eat them.
Does somebody claim to be a witch? Her life is forfeit.
What about all the times in the Bible where God commanded his chosen people to commit outright genocide by slaughtering all the men, women, children and, yes, even little infants of various competing nations? Who can forget that wonderful time when God had Moses tell all the Levites to go out and kill their brothers, their companion, and even their neighbors, just to show how devoted they were?
After all, nothing shows “sanctity of life” like being told to kill random people just to show how much you love God.
The Bible even includes instructions on how to induce a miscarriage of a woman if she is suspected of having cheated on her husband? How is that any different from abortion?
Life is so important to God that He just can’t help commanding his people to slaughter others at the drop of a hat. And you think He would actually care if a woman wanted to have an abortion? Maybe some other deity, but not the God of the Bible.
Speaking of the sanctity of life, there’s also that bit about wiping out ALL LIFE ON EARTH in a flood, except for a tiny group that could fit on a wooden boat.
Pro-life is misnamed - it should be pro-SOME life.
So you don't like God. What else do you have to offer?
Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
First you said, "And when that severely disabled baby is born?" Then you said, "We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth." Then you tell me to quote you correctly?Quote:
Nope, you totally misunderstood my question. Please quote me correctly.
Honestly, I don't know if you are intentionally lying, if this is a big joke to you, or if you just can't remember what you typed thirty minutes ago. One way or the other, I know our exchanges always go like this.
WG. "I think it's A."
JL. "Why do you think it's A?"
WG. "I didn't say it was A! I said it was B!"
JL. "OK. Why do you think it is B?"
WG. "Have you considered option D? And why are you obsessed with killing?"
And on and on it goes. I'm worn out with it. Done.
You're repeating only MY questions (and only partially, at that), which are responses to your comments as I tried to clarify your thinking. My initial questions that apparently threw you off the rails were:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
1. "And when that severely disabled baby is born? Then what?"
JL, your focus was on my supposedly killing that baby. No! What happens when the baby survives the birth and yet has virtually no chance of any kind of decent life (e.g., thalidomide baby or DES baby)? What about the parents? siblings? expenses ahead? Will charities or the government help?
2. "Or the mother, who has been told her life is at risk, dies during delivery? Then what?"
Should the mother, who could survive if the baby is aborted, be allowed to die and leave her frantic husband without a wife and her children, including the new baby, without a mother?
I don't expect you to respond any further, but do hope you read my responses, questions that will face the mother -- and father.
After he reads your responses re the mother and father, I hope he answers this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Read Matthew 25:31-46. Perhaps the problem is an incorrect perception of Christ of the part of the 2 of you.Quote:
I hope he answers this one.
Hogwash.Quote:
You're repeating only MY questions (and only partially, at that), which are responses to your comments as I tried to clarify your thinking. My initial questions that apparently threw you off the rails were:
So according to your perception of Matthew, Jesus commands us to;Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Kill homosexuals?
Kill disobedient children?
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears.
Kill witches?
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT?
Jesus commands all these killings so that you can show your love for him? How do you love your enemy and kill him at the same time? Please provide the Bible verse for that. I'm sure you have one.
Just in case you missed it, Jesus also, and finally, approved of wiping out the entire human race in a flood? According to you.
Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception?
I don't have a perception of Matthew. I have an acceptance of Matthew.Quote:
So according to your perception of Matthew
Jesus commands us to;
Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT? No, though I might add that it seems strange that you and WG would be critical of that one since you both vote your approval of abortion now. Strange indeed.
Your idea, not mine.Quote:
Jesus commands all these killings so that you can show your love for him? How do you love your enemy and kill him at the same time? Please provide the Bible verse for that. I'm sure you have one.
No, according to the Bible, that is what the God you don't like did.Quote:
Just in case you missed it, Jesus also, and finally, approved of wiping out the entire human race in a flood? According to you.
The text is clear and plain.Quote:
Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception?
When and where have I (and Athos) approved of abortion? If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason, as per my previous examples!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Thus, JL's conclusion is that the NT Jesus is as murderous as is the OT God?
When you vote for Biden, you are in favor of abortion.
First you said, "All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together." Now you say, " If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason." So we are back to saying A, and then saying B.
If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?
I know Trump believes in it and has made sure some of his offspring have been aborted.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yep! A woman and her doctor should make that decision together. If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason.Quote:
First you said, "All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together." Now you say, " If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason." So we are back to saying A, and then saying B.
No abortion.Quote:
If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?
Only if you're a one issue voter. Would you side with the devil if he were against abortions? Or said he was as I suspect the dufus does. Frankly I doubt he cares one way or another unless it's his.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're assumption has flaws.
1. Who makes the decision of what is a "darn good reason", and how would that be enforced? By law?Quote:
If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?
No abortion.
2. What would a "darn good reason" be?
I'm going to take a guess at the answers.
1. The doctor and the woman. How to enforce? It would not be enforced since it would not be law.
2. Whatever the doctor and woman think a "darn good reason" is.
In other words, we will maintain the status quo of abortion for pretty much any reason, and as to the life of the unborn, who cares? In the view of many, the despicable little pest just picked the wrong place and the wrong time. Too bad.
Obstetrician, pediatrician, social worker, professional counselor, lawyer, patient's minister/priest or holy man would meet with the mother and probably father, then confer amongst themselves. Why enforced by law? They would be following the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.Quote:
2. What would a "darn good reason" be?
Well, that's 1 or 2 percent of abortions. So you would outlaw the remaining 98%, or whatever the figure actually is? Those should be outlawed?Quote:
To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.
I have the funny feeling that A is about to become B.
What does the law say?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If your 12 y/o daughter was (cunningly or forcefully - choose one) impregnated by the lazy and annoying 16 y/o son of your neighbor, would your daughter go full term and have the baby?
Well, we're back to the ole switch a roo. Too bad. Too afraid to answer the question, so just change the subject.
If the doctor told me that she could carry the baby safely, then yes, we would do that. I would not put her life at risk, but I would not also just kill a human being out of convenience.
So would you summon up your courage and answer the question? Would you outlaw the overwhelming number of abortions that lie outside your good reason?
And if the doctor told you that your daughter's body was not developed enough to carry a child to term?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And if she did indeed carry it to term, then what? an open adoption? you would raise it? a relative would adopt it?
No courage is needed or required. Again I ask, what is the law? Plus, it is not within my purview to outlaw or allow abortions. I am responsible only for myself.Quote:
So would you summon up your courage and answer the question? Would you outlaw the overwhelming number of abortions that lie outside your good reason?
Acceptance/perception - for you it comes down to the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Too bad, you've already painted yourself into a corner by equating Jesus with the God of the Old Testament who approved/started all those things you said "NO" to. Please read Matthew again - YOUR reference. Do you still claim Jesus and the God of the OT are one and the same? If so, how can you possibly say NO to all those actions of God? See what I mean by painting yourself into a corner?Quote:
Jesus commands us to;
Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT?
The "strange indeed" is all yours. I can't speak for WG but I have never voted to approve abortion. Nor have I ever voted to disapprove abortion. The decision is up to the woman.Quote:
No, though I might add that it seems strange that you and WG would be critical of that one since you both vote your approval of abortion now. Strange indeed.
So here again you are saying the God of the Flood and Jesus are not the same. Deny all you want, but you are betrayed by your own words. (It's that paint in the corner thing again.)Quote:
No, according to the Bible, that is what the God you don't like did. [This refers to my (Athos) citation of the Flood]
Then you have proved your claim to be incorrect. If by "clear and plain", you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?Quote:
The text is clear and plain. [This refers to your citation of the verse in Matthew]
The only question left is will you understand how your reply was self-defeating.
Well, that answer so typifies the average liberal, and it's why I so much regret ever trying to have a discussion with one. You try to put on a brave front, and claim that "they better have a darn good reason". Except, of course, there is no legal enforcement to the "better have", and so it is meaningless drivel. At least with Clete I know where he stands. Tal would also answer questions, but his endless postings of what certainly seemed to be sexual fantasies about men's rear ends were just too disgusting, so I had to block him. But you will never take a stand. It's A, then B, then C, and on and on it goes. It is impossible to know what you believe, and I'm not convinced you even know what you believe yourself. It is just largely, it seems to me, the ethics of convenience.Quote:
No courage is needed or required. Again I ask, what is the law? Plus, it is not within my purview to outlaw or allow abortions. I am responsible only for myself.
I answered your question. As to once we had a delivered, live baby, I don't know what we would do with such a hypothetical. I don't know that anyone does. I do know we would not kill the unborn child as you would allow, and I know we would love that child and do the best we could for him/her. And, of course, our daughter would have a say in that as well. I rather suspect we would join together as a family and raise the child.
And the baby's irresponsible father?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I didn't say that! I said the baby's father was responsible, and that it was the baby who was irresponsible! And what color shoes should the baby wear?
Always changing the conversation, and never staying on topic -- typical conservative, afraid to answer honestly. And I'm still waiting for your answer to Athos' question, "If by 'clear and plain', you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Huh. Who does that remind you of?Quote:
Always changing the conversation, and never staying on topic -- typical conservative, afraid to answer honestly.
And I'm still waiting for your answer to Athos' question, "If by 'clear and plain', you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Remember? A is B.
A was "Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
(I hear only crickets chirping.)
No! That's not what I said. I said B! Why are you so hateful?
(I'm really enjoying playing your character.)
Now you're REALLY confused! I'm the one who asked A. Is it your bedtime yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I didn't realize Athos had posted above. Didn't see it. At any rate, this was Athos' original question. "Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception?" So far as I know, he's never stated his "perception" of Matthew 25. I simply replied that I do not attempt to put my own "perception" on what Jesus said in that passage, bur rather I just accept what He said. And the passage clearly portrays Him as the Judge of the earth.
Here is your problem. You are critical of how God acted in the OT. I said that you are free to say you don't like God, and that's fine, but I suspect you are trying to say that Jesus is different in nature from God in the OT. But Mt. 25 clearly showed He is not. He judges masses of people for sin and condemns them to an eternal hell. Even in His earthly ministry he routinely was very harsh with Pharisees and other leaders. Now you are free to not like that if you want to, and you are free to not believe it or put your own spin (perspective) on it. But when you do that, you are reduced to cherry picking both the OT and NT for passages that agree with your preconceived notions. You are, in effect, setting yourself up as God's judge. Just beware that the day is coming when He will judge you, and He will not care about the silly ideas you cooked up from outside of the Bible. And having said that, I have fulfilled part of my responsibility to you. You will not be able to say you did not know.
I really don't know what you are after. Do you want me to tell you to just blow off the OT and pay no attention to it, or to just forget about the many passages about judgment and hell in the NT because, after all, you find them offensive? What do you want out of this?
Very disappointing having to go back to my direct self. I was enjoying the privilege of dissembling by playing the part of WG. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. And btw, did you ever decide if you are living on a modest income, or are a "monied" republican?
Here is YOUR problem. You can avoid it, but it will follow you wherever you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
To wit: Your words,
"Jesus commands us to;
Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT? No"
Your NO to all those statements shows you deny God carried out all those things. Yet your own Bible is precise in claiming God carried out every one of those actions.
You believe Jesus and God are one and the same so how do you explain the diametrically opposite commands of Jesus and God? You can't, of course. Unless you DO believe Jesus kills disobedient children, et al. In that case, please provide Bible verses supporting your belief of Jesus' killing all those people.
Even worse, you flee from the question which has now been asked of you three times. Each time you avoided answering.
Your "just accepting what he said" is NOT an answer. It is an escape.
Your question read, "Jesus commands us to." As Christians, we are not "commanded" to do those things. You did not ask me if God "carried out all those things".Quote:
Your NO to all those statements shows you deny God carried out all those things.
The OT law reflects the extraordinary holiness of God. The death of Christ on the cross met the demands of justice and opened the door, "that all might come in." We are no longer living in OT Israel, and the legal requirements of the law of Moses do not apply to those of us who have accepted and follow Jesus. But if you think that Jesus is all sweetness and light, then you are greatly mistaken. He said that all judgment had been given over to Him, and His own words in Mt. 25 show the terrible day that will result from that.Quote:
how do you explain the diametrically opposite commands of Jesus and God?
Now you say the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically" opposed to those of the OT, but when Jesus was asked to give his view of the greatest of the commandments, He gave two. Where did He get those two from? It was, of course, the OT.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked WG. "I really don't know what you are after. Do you want me to tell you to just blow off the OT and pay no attention to it, or to just forget about the many passages about judgment and hell in the NT because, after all, you find them offensive? What do you want out of this?" I am not going to discount the Bible because you do not like the God of the OT, and I certainly will not use as a "filter" the concept of whether or not you find a passage to be personally offensive.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 AM. |