Christian Abortion Hypocrisy [W: 439]

Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Lursa said:

LOL As a Christian I should probably be insulted by that but I often see Christians, writing and speaking in the name of the Lord, in ways that are an embarrassment or even doing direct harm to the religion.

I cannot hold myself up as an example of a good Christian but I do know many. Those that live their religion, not just talk about it. THeir actions speak for them. It's scary to imagine how someone like Bassman would act in the name of (his interpretation of) God if our laws didnt (seemingly) prevent it.

Click to expand...

Christian or not, my favorite thing about you is that you're not quick to be offended. I often worry that my criticisms of the religious, which are admittedly not done with kid gloves, will cause collateral damage among my allies. Bassman, were the laws not what they are, would be an extremist, no better than any jihadi in Afghanistan.

To the point of your post, though, I struggle to understand the difference between someone who "lives" their religion through action and someone who doesn't. If the result of them living their faith is no different than if someone was just kind, thoughtful, generous and loving, then why must faith get the credit? Certainly, there are as many who are as good for NO supernatural reasons. Even for those examples, a good action can never legitimize a faith for which so much harm is done. I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't believe that good actions demonstrate a good faith, necessarily, but I'll take that over faith being the canned excuse to be a dick.

I've also come to understand that a Christian is not a set thing. Different people have a different idea of what a Christian is and what it is to be a good one. In my opinion, you're as good as they get. Because I ascribe no default moral value to believing in Jesus, I allow christians to be imperfect, as they have no choice. Where I place value is in their ability to recognize the distinction between secular results and spiritual ones. The spiritual ones are often as meaningless as a prayer for a starving child when you had a sandwich to give. I say get the secular results first and worry about how god feels about it later.

Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

D_NATURED said:

Christian or not, my favorite thing about you is that you're not quick to be offended. I often worry that my criticisms of the religious, which are admittedly not done with kid gloves, will cause collateral damage among my allies. Bassman, were the laws not what they are, would be an extremist, no better than any jihadi in Afghanistan.

To the point of your post, though, I struggle to understand the difference between someone who "lives" their religion through action and someone who doesn't. If the result of them living their faith is no different than if someone was just kind, thoughtful, generous and loving, then why must faith get the credit? Certainly, there are as many who are as good for NO supernatural reasons. Even for those examples, a good action can never legitimize a faith for which so much harm is done. I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't believe that good actions demonstrate a good faith, necessarily, but I'll take that over faith being the canned excuse to be a dick.

I've also come to understand that a Christian is not a set thing. Different people have a different idea of what a Christian is and what it is to be a good one. In my opinion, you're as good as they get. Because I ascribe no default moral value to believing in Jesus, I allow christians to be imperfect, as they have no choice. Where I place value is in their ability to recognize the distinction between secular results and spiritual ones. The spiritual ones are often as meaningless as a prayer for a starving child when you had a sandwich to give. I say get the secular results first and worry about how god feels about it later.

Click to expand...

Thank you, those are kind words to read on the Internet.

IMO, everyone can live by "the Golden Rule" and that IMO, is the basis for following the Word of God. Not fire and brimstone punitive Old Testament that someone like Bassman quotes. He ignores the reason that Jesus came to us. ANd the birth of Jesus begins the New Testament.

That's also why I tried to show him that morality certainly exists outside of any religion...and then he only claims that "his" version of Old Testament 'morality' is valid. :doh

Again, people like that make all Christians look bad.

Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Lursa said:

Thank you, those are kind words to read on the Internet.

IMO, everyone can live by "the Golden Rule" and that IMO, is the basis for following the Word of God. Not fire and brimstone punitive Old Testament that someone like Bassman quotes. He ignores the reason that Jesus came to us. ANd the birth of Jesus begins the New Testament.

That's also why I tried to show him that morality certainly exists outside of any religion...and then he only claims that "his" version of Old Testament 'morality' is valid. :doh

Again, people like that make all Christians look bad.

Click to expand...

I think we've all seen enough moral diversity under the umbrella "Christian" for it to have lost all clarity of definition. I understand, though, what YOUR interpretation is and I approve.

There is a point where I think some religious people think their belief MUST be treated as truth, by them, for it to BE true and to avoid any complications of hypocrisy. Then, that newly minted truth becomes their license to act, even in ways that are objectively harmful, according to the fickle whims of a deity. The word "Christian" might as well mean "hates broccoli" for all the predictable moral weight it carries. Who knows how much of your suffering their god can tolerate?

I appreciate the intention of people to seek and adopt a moral philosophy that is impeccable. But, we are not impeccable beings and even were the bible or Koran perfect tools, which they're not, we are imperfect practitioners thereof. Why, because spiritual fulfillment is an abstract matter of thought for the fulfilled, not a measurable, material thing that can be rationally applied and, after all, we are just animals.

It's better to be a good human who is Christian than a good Christian who is human.

calamity said:

Good article exposing the faux cries for life.

That quote pretty much mirrors arguments I've made in here for years.

Moreover:

Click to expand...

You know how I know that the HuffPo journalist doesn't know many conservative Christians?

THat story is about as useful as the argument "Pro-Choice Progressives are hypocrites because they're vegan and won't eat eggs!"

jmotivator said:

You know how I know that the HuffPo journalist doesn't know many conservative Christians?

THat story is about as useful as the argument "Pro-Choice Progressives are hypocrites because they're vegan and won't eat eggs!"

Click to expand...

Most pro-choice progressives are certainly not vegan. But, vegans who refuse to eat honey for the sake of bee rights while gobbling up almonds by the pound certainly are hypocrites. I would explain why, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

calamity said:

Most pro-choice progressives are certainly not vegan. But, vegans who refuse to eat honey for the sake of bee rights while gobbling up almonds by the pound certainly are hypocrites. I would explain why, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

Click to expand...

You seem to understand my argument while willfully ignoring it. Conservative Christians don't all support war, and they don't all oppose abortion. The basis of the HuffPo argument is a false premise.

Essentially the HuffPo article took a self explanatory premise of "hypocrites are hypocrites" and then took a cartoon caricature of "Christian Conservative" and used it to define the group as a whole. It was a stupid article built on ignorance.

Catholicism, for examnple, is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and is very conservative, and yet has it's share of pro-life pacifists and pro-choice hawks.

jmotivator said:

You seem to understand my argument while willfully ignoring it. Conservative Christians don't all support war, and they don't all oppose abortion. The basis of the HuffPo argument is a false premise.

Essentially the HuffPo article took a self explanatory premise of "hypocrites are hypocrites" and then took a cartoon caricature of "Christian Conservative" and used it to define the group as a whole. It was a stupid article built on ignorance.

Catholicism, for examnple, is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and is very conservative, and yet has it's share of pro-life pacifists and pro-choice hawks.

Click to expand...

The primary driver for the anti-choice position is religion. Is it 100%? No. But, it's certainly the main driver for way over 75% of those opposing legal abortions.

Vegans make up fewer than 10% of the pro-choice progressives. See my point?

calamity said:

The primary driver for the anti-choice position is religion. Is it 100%? No. But, it's certainly the main driver for way over 75% of those opposing legal abortions.

Vegans make up fewer than 10% of the pro-choice progressives. See my point?

Click to expand...

You aren't making a point. You are making half of a point. THe point of the article is the call Christian Conservatives hypocrites because they support bombing babies. You don't support that argument by saying "... wull... most pro-life people are Christian!" You are ignoring the point of your own argument.

What is the intersection of pro-life Christians and conservative hawks? THAT is the argument, not the dodgy half argument you are trying to make.

My example of the pro-abortion vegans (I'll just use the same stupid confrontational lingo you do) is specifically a generalization to demonstrate to you the misleading generalization you and the writer use.

I could also use the pro-abortion anti-death-penalty pairing to make the same point.

jmotivator said:

You aren't making a point. You are making half of a point. THe point of the article is the call Christian Conservatives hypocrites because they support bombing babies. You don't support that argument by saying "... wull... most pro-life people are Christian!" You are ignoring the point of your own argument.

What is the intersection of pro-life Christians and conservative hawks? THAT is the argument, not the dodgy half argument you are trying to make.

My example of the pro-death vegans (I'll just use the same stupid confrontational lingo you do) is specifically a generalization to demonstrate to you the misleading generalization you and the writer use.

Click to expand...

Do the pro-life Christians vote for conservative hawks and other Republicans who also strip children of health benefits and defund public housing, education and food stamps? Yes they do. I win. You lose.

calamity said:

Do the pro-life Christians vote for conservative hawks and other Republicans who also strip children of health benefits and defund public housing, education and food stamps? Yes they do. I win. You lose.

Click to expand...

Do the pro-life Christians volunteer in soup kitchens and donate to causes that help mothers and children? Yes, yes they do. Your myopathy is that of a typical progressive that assumes that if government isn't doing it then nobody is. It is precisely that "11 foot pole" view of charity that I found in the majority of progressives that eventually broke me of my progressivism. Many will scream that the government isn't redistributing wealth, but will step over a homeless person on the street without making eye contact.

Many Christians see helping others as a personal job, not one you hand off to the government. I win, you lose.

jmotivator said:

Your myopathy is that of a typical progressive that assumes that if government isn't doing it then nobody is.

Click to expand...

NOT QUITE. The problem is that there is not enough charity from individuals to support all those in need. The Fact that you (and other selfish greedy conservatives) oppose government help just supports the idea that you would give less to charity than the government charges you in taxes that would go to help others. Because if you-all would give the same amount or more, then you should have no complaint about the government doing that job.

jmotivator said:

Do the pro-life Christians volunteer in soup kitchens and donate to causes that help mothers and children? Yes, yes they do. Your myopathy is that of a typical progressive that assumes that if government isn't doing it then nobody is. It is precisely that "11 foot pole" view of charity that I found in the majority of progressives that eventually broke me of my progressivism. Many will scream that the government isn't redistributing wealth, but will step over a homeless person on the street without making eye contact.

Many Christians see helping others as a personal job, not one you hand off to the government. I win, you lose.

Click to expand...

It is certainly the government's job to protect the rights of women over those of the unborn.

FutureIncoming said:

NOT QUITE. The problem is that there is not enough charity from individuals to support all those in need. The Fact that you (and other selfish greedy conservatives) oppose government help just supports the idea that you would give less to charity than the government charges you in taxes that would go to help others. Because if you-all would give the same amount or more, then you should have no complaint about the government doing that job.

Click to expand...

"Selfish greedy conservatives" is a myth. They give more to charity and give no less to the government than their counterparts.

The problem I have found with the Government welfare system is that it is seems more interested in purchasing votes than with getting people off of welfare. When I really needed to get help for people in real crisis, it wasn't the government that I turned to, it was the network of local, largely Christian, charities who had a bed, a hot meal, and counseling ready on a moments notice.

calamity said:

It is certainly the government's job to protect the rights of women over those of the unborn.

Click to expand...

Heh! Wow, that lame attempt to change the subject is lame.

jmotivator said:

"Selfish greedy conservatives" is a myth. They give more to charity and give no less to the government than their counterparts.

The problem I have found with the Government welfare system is that it is seems more interested in purchasing votes than with getting people off of welfare. When I really needed to get help for people in real crisis, it wasn't the government that I turned to, it was the network of local, largely Christian, charities who had a bed, a hot meal, and counseling ready on a moments notice.

Click to expand...

There is no country on earth that effectively deals with its poor exclusively thru charities. It is the role of government to help the poor

vegas giants said:

There is no country on earth that effectively deals with its poor exclusively thru charities. It is the role of government to help the poor

Click to expand...

Government has a more dependable trend as the CAUSE of poverty than as the solution.

jmotivator said:

Government has a more dependable trend as the CAUSE of poverty than as the solution.

Click to expand...

I see. All those successful areas without government attest to that. LOL

jmotivator said:

"Selfish greedy conservatives" is a myth.

Click to expand...

A STUPID LIE. Look at the history of political scandals in this country, and you will see a trend: Most scandals involving liberal politicians were about sex and/or drugs, and directly harmed only a few people. Most scandals involving conservative politicians were about money and/or power, and detrimentally affected lots and lots of people. (The most recent such scandal to break is about a payoff to someone who, if had gone public, might have caused Trump to lose the election. But he won, and his policies are detrimentally affecting lots and lots of people --all so that selfish greedy conservatives (mostly business owners) can get richer.

jmotivator said:

They give more to charity and give no less to the government than their counterparts.

Click to expand...

THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO MY POINT. If various forms of government assistance were all eliminated, would they still be giving the same total amount to charities, plus the amount that currently goes as taxes toward assisting others? Because the Fact remains, before the existence of those government assistance programs, the impoverished were much worse-off than they are today, entirely because not enough was given to charities.

AND HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE. Usually I start off with this, when I encounter folks blathering idiotic complaints about how taxes get spent on social programs. Think about the things you want the government to do. Defend the nation, perhaps? Pay salaries of members of the armed forces, and buy the weapons they need to win? Can your taxes alone pay for all that? Now think about peaceniks who who don't want government money spent on weapons, but do want to help the poor. There are lots of folks all across the spectrum, between those end-points. MEANWHILE, the US Constitution starts off with "We the People", specifically grants Congress the power to tax, and is signed by Representatives of the People. The National Budget is usually a compromise that Congress creates. You are perfectly free to imagine all your taxes going to pay for the things you want the government to do, while all the taxes of others go to pay for the things they want the government to do, like social programs. Who are you to say they can't do that?

(Now imagine that the System was a bit different, such that the IRS sends you two different sets of forms to fill out. The first set is the normal tax forms. The second set contains a list of all the ways the government might spend YOUR tax dollars --and you get to specify how much of what you are required to pay (per the first set of forms) goes to each of those possibilities. The two bottom lines, of the two sets of forms, must match, of course. Now imagine every taxpayer in the country doing the same thing. I guarantee that social programs will continue to be funded! --probably much like they currently are funded.)

[quote snipped]
I AGREE THAT GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE CAN BE DONE BETTER. Certainly lots better than the experiences that caused this novel to get written.

Funny, we live in a country that has about the stingiest social welfare benefits in the developed world, and the right seems to claim that is to much. (Do you know what general assistance is in your state or county?) I worked hard all my life, yet I suck more from SS and Medicare than I ever paid in. Lost my job in my late fifties with an incurable disease, got a slot in a limited government program like "assigned risk" for uninsurables. Big deal. Others may work for years and die young, collecting nothing. Big deal. We are a community, albeit an immense one. If you complain about social workers, complain about cops and firemen, or else put out your own house fire, catch your own rapists, etc. All jobs are necessary for a civilized society.

FutureIncoming said:

A STUPID LIE. Look at the history of political scandals in this country, and you will see a trend: Most scandals involving liberal politicians were about sex and/or drugs, and directly harmed only a few people. Most scandals involving conservative politicians were about money and/or power, and detrimentally affected lots and lots of people. (The most recent such scandal to break is about a payoff to someone who, if had gone public, might have caused Trump to lose the election. But he won, and his policies are detrimentally affecting lots and lots of people --all so that selfish greedy conservatives (mostly business owners) can get richer.

Click to expand...

LOL!!! So you call what I say a "lie" when it is true and then defend your statement with absurdly formulated attempt to prove liberal charity by the type of crimes you think they commit most? Your argument needs to go back to the drawing board...or the incinerator.

THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO MY POINT. If various forms of government assistance were all eliminated, would they still be giving the same total amount to charities, plus the amount that currently goes as taxes toward assisting others? Because the Fact remains, before the existence of those government assistance programs, the impoverished were much worse-off than they are today, entirely because not enough was given to charities.

AND HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE. Usually I start off with this, when I encounter folks blathering idiotic complaints about how taxes get spent on social programs. Think about the things you want the government to do. Defend the nation, perhaps? Pay salaries of members of the armed forces, and buy the weapons they need to win? Can your taxes alone pay for all that? Now think about peaceniks who who don't want government money spent on weapons, but do want to help the poor. There are lots of folks all across the spectrum, between those end-points. MEANWHILE, the US Constitution starts off with "We the People", specifically grants Congress the power to tax, and is signed by Representatives of the People. The National Budget is usually a compromise that Congress creates. You are perfectly free to imagine all your taxes going to pay for the things you want the government to do, while all the taxes of others go to pay for the things they want the government to do, like social programs. Who are you to say they can't do that?

(Now imagine that the System was a bit different, such that the IRS sends you two different sets of forms to fill out. The first set is the normal tax forms. The second set contains a list of all the ways the government might spend YOUR tax dollars --and you get to specify how much of what you are required to pay (per the first set of forms) goes to each of those possibilities. The two bottom lines, of the two sets of forms, must match, of course. Now imagine every taxpayer in the country doing the same thing. I guarantee that social programs will continue to be funded! --probably much like they currently are funded.)

[quote snipped]
I AGREE THAT GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE CAN BE DONE BETTER. Certainly lots better than the experiences that caused this novel to get written.

Click to expand...

Writing in all caps is not a great substitute for a sound argument. Also, creating what ifs and then "guaranteeing" an outcome as a form of proof is not particularly compelling.

jmotivator said:

LOL!!! So you call what I say a "lie" when it is true and then defend your statement with absurdly formulated attempt to prove liberal charity by the type of crimes you think they commit most? Your argument needs to go back to the drawing board...or the incinerator.

Writing in all caps is not a great substitute for a sound argument. Also, creating what ifs and then "guaranteeing" an outcome as a form of proof is not particularly compelling.

Click to expand...

The cliche/joke has been that (in recent years) democrats get into trouble over sex, republicans over money... Trump, of course, has both kinds of troubles.

jmotivator said:

LOL!!! So you call what I say a "lie" when it is true

Click to expand...

A PARTIAL TRUTH DOES NOT MAKE WHAT YOU WROTE LESS A LIE. Not to mention that you quoted an opinion piece, clearly labeled as such. Anyway, who has more disposable income to give away, conservatives or liberals? The political perceptions about that are quite clear, that conservative politics benefits the wealthy, and it is well-known that folks vote in favor of their own personal pocketbook (it is even encouraged!). You can't get all hoity-toity about doing something nice, donating lots to charity, that others are not able to do!

FURTHERMORE, no matter how much you complain about it, both liberals and conservatives do know that significant tax dollars are used to help the impoverished. Are liberals actually smarter, thinking that that's good enough to not need to donate more? Or are conservatives so greedy and selfish that they only want assistance to happen to entities they know (a kind of nepotism), and that's the real reason they both do the extra donations, and complain about taxes spent on entities they don't know?

jmotivator said:

and then defend your statement with absurdly formulated attempt

Click to expand...

FACTS ARE FACTS. Shall I name some famous conservative money-and-power scandals? Like Watergate, Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra, have a list.

jmotivator said:

to prove liberal charity by the type of crimes you think they commit most?

Click to expand...

NOT QUITE. The point was to present evidence of the greed and selfishness of conservatives. I might not have a problem with them wanting to conserve their own wealth, but I do have a problem with them trying to arrange things so that the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. That's pure greed and selfishness.

jmotivator said:

Your argument needs to go back to the drawing board...or the incinerator.

Click to expand...

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

jmotivator said:

Also, creating what ifs and then "guaranteeing" an outcome as a form of proof is not particularly compelling.

Click to expand...

I DON'T SEE YOU OFFERING A RATIONALE SHOWING THAT WHAT I WROTE COULD NOT HAPPEN. Tsk, tsk!

FutureIncoming said:

A PARTIAL TRUTH DOES NOT MAKE WHAT YOU WROTE LESS A LIE. Not to mention that you quoted an opinion piece, clearly labeled as such. Anyway, who has more disposable income to give away, conservatives or liberals? The political perceptions about that are quite clear, that conservative politics benefits the wealthy, and it is well-known that folks vote in favor of their own personal pocketbook (it is even encouraged!). You can't get all hoity-toity about doing something nice, donating lots to charity, that others are not able to do!

Click to expand...

Did rich people ever stop getting richer under Democrat leadership? No? Again, your reasoning is profoundly broken. Your leadership is all millionaires and billionaires. Looking at it another way, Republican policy helps create rich people while Democrat policies help protect rich people.

FURTHERMORE, no matter how much you complain about it, both liberals and conservatives do know that significant tax dollars are used to help the impoverished. Are liberals actually smarter, thinking that that's good enough to not need to donate more? Or are conservatives so greedy and selfish that they only want assistance to happen to entities they know (a kind of nepotism), and that's the real reason they both do the extra donations, and complain about taxes spent on entities they don't know?

Click to expand...

LOL!! So your argument is that liberals don't donate to charity because they're too smart? Oh broooother. :lamo

FACTS ARE FACTS. Shall I name some famous conservative money-and-power scandals? Like Watergate, Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra, have a list.

Click to expand...

So you are sticking with tat "Democrats aren't greedy, they just rape people" gambit? LOL. Run with that. That is almost better than the "Liberals are too smart to be charitable" argument. Almost.

NOT QUITE. The point was to present evidence of the greed and selfishness of conservatives. I might not have a problem with them wanting to conserve their own wealth, but I do have a problem with them trying to arrange things so that the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. That's pure greed and selfishness.

Click to expand...

Are they greedy and selfish and too stupid to not donate to charities? If only the raped more and donated less like the Democrats? :lamo

I DON'T SEE YOU OFFERING A RATIONALE SHOWING THAT WHAT I WROTE COULD NOT HAPPEN. Tsk, tsk!

Click to expand...

You are arguing in what ifs. If only you were smart enough to know what that isn't a valid debate.

Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

As Margaret Sanger believed...the "lower classes" should be eliminated prior to birth, which is the case in a great majority of abortions. Long live the memory of Margaret Sanger!

Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

One of the ironies of abortion, is abortion tends to eliminate mostly future Democrat voters. A much lower proportion of future right wingers voters are eliminated by abortion. For example, since 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, there's been "well over" 54 million abortions as of Mar 18, 2012. These lost souls were mostly bio-waste from liberals. The irony is, the left has unknowingly sabotaged their own quest for power, by seeking a single aspect of power, that reduces their own numbers.

Say the left had moderated abortion, to only extreme cases. They may have won the last presidential election by 10-20 million votes. Over 19 million black were aborted since 1973, with this future voter block, 90+ percent Democrat. I wonder if the left is being baited, by the right, to act on pride, so they don't use their common sense? The left appears to be like a 2 year old child, who does the opposite of what the adults say. The adults learn to use this to manipulate the child. The adult will say, you need to up the number of leftist by getting rid of abortion. The left goes the opposite in terms of its numbers, using self inflicted attrition.

If the left sees hypocrisy, this may be due to the baiting!