[jlisenbe]

If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?


No abortion.

1. Who makes the decision of what is a "darn good reason", and how would that be enforced? By law?
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.

[Wondergirl]

1. Who makes the decision of what is a "darn good reason", and how would that be enforced? By law?

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.

2. What would a "darn good reason" be?

To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.

[jlisenbe]

To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.

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?

I have the funny feeling that A is about to become B.

[Wondergirl]

Well, that's 1 or 2 percent of abortions. So you would outlaw the remaining 98%?

What does the law say?

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?

[jlisenbe]

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?

[Wondergirl]

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.

And if the doctor told you that your daughter's body was not developed enough to carry a child to term?

And if she did indeed carry it to term, then what? an open adoption? you would raise it? a relative would adopt it?

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?

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.

[Athos]

I don't have a perception of Matthew. I have an acceptance of Matthew.

Acceptance/perception - for you it comes down to the same thing.

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?

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?

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.

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.

No, according to the Bible, that is what the God you don't like did. [This refers to my (Athos) citation of the Flood]

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.)

The text is clear and plain. [This refers to your citation of the verse in Matthew]

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?

The only question left is will you understand how your reply was self-defeating.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

join together as a family and raise the child.

And the baby's irresponsible father?

[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?

[Wondergirl]

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?"

[jlisenbe]

Always changing the conversation, and never staying on topic -- typical conservative, afraid to answer honestly.

Huh. Who does that remind you of?

[Wondergirl]

Huh. Who does that remind you of?

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?"

[jlisenbe]

Remember? A is B.

[Wondergirl]

Remember? A is B.

A was "Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?"

(I hear only crickets chirping.)

[jlisenbe]

No! That's not what I said. I said B! Why are you so hateful?

(I'm really enjoying playing your character.)

[Wondergirl]

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?

[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?

[Athos]

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.

Here is YOUR problem. You can avoid it, but it will follow you wherever you go.

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.

[jlisenbe]

Your NO to all those statements shows you deny God carried out all those things.

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".

how do you explain the diametrically opposite commands of Jesus and God?

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.

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.