It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

page: 20
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




No, you only see that


Anyone that reads your posts can see that, you wrote it in black and white. Do I need to go back through and quote you, again, because you deny that you've written what you've written?




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?


Is that your way of saying that you think that abortion is wrong, that you're against it, and that, even though your a man, who can't get pregnant or carry a baby, you still have the right to dictate what's right and wrong to women who disagree with you, and/or seek out abortions?







I haven't said abortion is wrong. In fact, the only value judgment I have stated was that abortion is justifiable as self defense because all individuals have the right to self defense.

The honest answer? I don't know if abortion is "right" or "wrong" and I find this very troubling. Obviously a newly fertilized egg is not a person and statistically will never become one so I can't see an argument against abortion at that stage. OTOH, I can't see a medical or scientific difference between a newborn just before he is born and just after he his born so, outside the aforementioned self defense, I cannot see a justification in killing him as he is just as human as you or I at that stage. I hope you can see the conflict there and my reasons for being thus conflicted.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




No, you only see that


Anyone that reads your posts can see that, you wrote it in black and white. Do I need to go back through and quote you, again, because you deny that you've written what you've written?




That I pointed out that about BOTH sides of the issue, the salient fact that you choose to ignore? No, I don't deny that.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I never said a man cannot understand, I said it's none of your business. You can dislike it all you want, but it's really none of your business.


originally posted by: NavyDoc
But what is that difference that makes them not a person one moment and a person the next moment?


It's not an individual, separate being. Then, after it is separated and OUT of the other's body, it is an individual, separate being that constitutes a "Person". It is born and it has legal rights.

You have your opinions and that's fine. You can think that my views are simplistic if you want. In fact, they are. That doesn't indicate a flaw in my thinking however. Some things ARE simple. Unless you insist on making them more complex. That, too, is your choice.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?

If not, why not?


That's naturally occurring right?

Like a heart attack or stroke would kill.

Or is there a "difference" in your learned opinion?




Perhaps, except that 50% of the population is not dropping dead of a heart attack or stroke every day.

While, every day, every where, 50% of fertilized ova are aborted, almost by design, or as you say "naturally occurring."

Perhaps you are accusing God of being an abortionist?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I never said a man cannot understand, I said it's none of your business. You can dislike it all you want, but it's really none of your business.


originally posted by: NavyDoc
But what is that difference that makes them not a person one moment and a person the next moment?


It's not an individual, separate being. Then, after it is separated and OUT of the other's body, it is an individual, separate being that constitutes a "Person". It is born and it has legal rights.

You have your opinions and that's fine. You can think that my views are simplistic if you want. In fact, they are. That doesn't indicate a flaw in my thinking however. Some things ARE simple. Unless you insist on making them more complex. That, too, is your choice.


Life and death issues are every citizen's business. If the baby is not a human being then yes, it is nobody's business just as the choice of mastectomy or not is nobody's business but if it is another human being, then it is everybody's business just as any killing of another human being is society's business and therein lies the entire crux of the matter.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
A poster above claimed that "sometimes stuff just happens" and then compared the rate of spontaneous human abortion to grandmothers falling down the stairs ... and medical abortions to murdering grandma.

Despite the speciousness and outlandishness of the comparison, let us consider the proposition.

If grandmothers fell down the stairs at a rate of 50% of the time, day in, day out, the comparison might make sense.

Spontaneous abortion does at times "just happen" however, most medical professionals are well aware that there are also factors such as conditions and/or activities that are fully within the range of volitional control of a woman, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to environmental toxins, infections present in the body, obesity, and smoking, that contribute directly to a spontaneous abortion.

In most US states, therefore, the charge of criminally negligent involuntary manslaughter could apply in any of these cases ...

So again, superfluous counter-examples aside, if human life and personhood begin at conception, who is to pay the price for the 50% of the unborn population that is removed by spontaneous abortion, all the time, everywhere?
edit on 15Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:24:36 -050014p032014866 by Gryphon66 because: Typo.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




I can't see a medical or scientific difference between a newborn just before he is born and just after he his born so, outside the aforementioned self defense, I cannot see a justification in killing him as he is just as human as you or I at that stage.


Nobody is going around aborting nine month old fetuses, unless they are severely deformed or diseased. Even if the mother's life in endangered by the fetus, late in a pregnancy, if the fetus is healthy, it won't be aborted to save the mother, it will be delivered. So, your argument has no legs.

Abortions are NOT done on healthy fetuses after viability!


edit on 27-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
This guy is in no way representative of real Christianity. If you believe that he is, then you're being willfully ignorant.

He's a nutjob that fails to see the hypocrisy in his own teachings. Being that he views homosexuality as a sin, and as such, he wishes to have homosexuals locked up for 10 years at hard labor, then he must also ask for the same for liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, (Insert Sin Here), as they are ALL equally disgusting, and wrong before God (example: If I knowingly steal from someone, or lust after another man's wife, I'm just as guilty before God as any Homosexual is).

He has the right to say what he wishes, and to believe what he wishes, but that certainly doesn't preclude him from being considered a complete fool.

I have seen replies in this thread asking why this is news. It's news because a Gay Pride blog chose to flag his video. Otherwise, he'd be as ignored as he was prior to this story coming out (pardon the pun).

To those using this thread as yet another soap box to bash Christians, or the religious in general: Stop it. My time on ATS has shown me that there are a great many members that are extremely intelligent, and should know better than to waste their time and energy doing so.

I don't view this man as Christian in any sense of the word, and rather than this thread devolving into bashing of Left or Right, Christian or Non (as it has, unfortunately), it should be about what a jackass this guy is, and how laughable it is that he even thinks for a second that any proposal as asinine as his, would be remotely considered for a vote.

Apologies for the semi-rant, but the bickering that emerged within this thread really upset me. Especially considering the ridiculous nature of the topic.
edit on 8/27/2014 by ProfessorChaos because: typo (spacing)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
This guy is in no way representative of real Christianity.

.


What exactly is REAL Christianity; And who decides? My Southern Baptist grandma told me to avoid Methodist because they "had the devil in em" and I would violate the T&C if I told you what she thought of Catholics.


Does this guy represent Real Christianity?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps the REAL Christians should tell the UNreal Christians to STFU because this type of bat **** crazy rhetoric gets a lot of attention just by it's bizarre nature. This type of hyperbole is designed to get attention...guess what...It works!!!

Maybe instead of wanting to censor the messenger....censor the source.




edit on 27-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

As the Bible states, you shall know them by their fruits; that's how a real Christian is determined.

Based on the libelous remarks made by that GOP candidate, no, he shouldn't be considered representative of true Christianity.

To your statement about real Christians telling the others to stfu, what good would that do? They aren't real Christians, so what weight would condemnation carry in their hearts? It's the same idea as people who complain about non-fanatical Muslims needing to shut up the fanatics; it won't work. The fanatics will continue on, regardless of the more moderate members of the faith, especially if they believe that they are already correct.
edit on 8/27/2014 by ProfessorChaos because: clarification and typo



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

What are the "fruits" of a real Christian? Are Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman true Christians, in your mind?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: olaru12

As the Bible states, you shall know them by their fruits; that's how a real Christian is determined.




You said "Fruits" heh, heh, ....you're just full of puns today!


Sorry, Butthead genetics can't be denied.
edit on 27-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

What are the "fruits" of a real Christian? Are Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman true Christians, in your mind?



Obviously not. A "real" Christian would be too humble to be a public figure. Lots of misunderstandings/misconceptions in this thread. If you want to know the truth about any religion, go to the source(s). Read the Bible or appropriate main texts. Google. Duckduckgo. Your library, neighbors, etc.

A true Christian respects people, helps without expecting rewards, learns to see the positives in a person and not the negatives, etc. Public figures, not so. They're mostly part of the system responsible for divisive tactics such as pitting the religious against the non religious.

We're all humans and no matter what it may be, we came from the same source.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

What are the "fruits" of a real Christian? Are Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman true Christians, in your mind?



Being they're politicians, I have strong reservations in that regard. Santorum, primarily due to his Catholicism (which I do not view as Christian, but that is not on topic, and beside the point).

There isn't a single politician or candidate for any office that I would cast a vote for based on their "Christianity", as I believe that any political office requires its occupier to compromise their beliefs.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: olaru12

As the Bible states, you shall know them by their fruits; that's how a real Christian is determined.




You said "Fruits"....you're just full of puns today!


Sorry, Butthead genetics can't be denied.


Lol! I actually missed that one!



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos


“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. That’s why the rich need a separate entrance to Heaven. That needle one smells all camely.” Jesus and Mark 10:25

Stephen Colbert


LOL



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ProfessorChaos


“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. That’s why the rich need a separate entrance to Heaven. That needle one smells all camely.” Jesus and Mark 10:25

Stephen Colbert


LOL


That's an interesting choice of quotes. There's a belief that Jesus may have been referring to an actual gate in Jerusalem:

The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed.


I realize that this has nothing to do with the discussion, but your excerpt choice struck me.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
To your statement about real Christians telling the others to stfu, what good would that do? They aren't real Christians, so what weight would condemnation carry in their hearts?


Maybe it's not about shutting them up so much as it might show the rest of the world who "Real" Christians are and what they stand for. After all, isn't it the Christians who are always saying, "For evil to thrive all it takes is for good men to do nothing." Too bad that only applies when they want to point out some other groups sins.

The way I see it, there is a large part of the populous who aren't Christian and doesn't know or can't tell who the "Real" ones are supposed to be. What they do see is a lot of these Hate monger Pastors spreading their hate around all in the name of Christianity. You might imagine that it's a big part of why so many people now have a negative view of Christians and Religion in general. Seem to me like if what you say is true and these kind of people don't represent your Religion, this is a good opportunity to show everyone what "Real" Christians are all about.

Otherwise, it's guys like this that our going to be the new Public Image of Christianity.
edit on 27-8-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
And herein lies the problem. Because the bible is not just full of the good stuff, it's also full of the terrible stuff (and you must believe that the old testament is also the word of god if you are a Christian - Matthew 5:17-18). And cherry picking and interpretation (which all Christians do) is really just up to the whim of the reader. Their justifications for hate, calls for acts of hate, etc. are just as valid as your cherry picked acts of goodness... it's just amazing that anyone looks to a bronze age book to dictate these concepts. "True Christian", like any of you have any right to state this, the narcissism is strong. So you have some sort of secret understanding with god? I bet he's told you that you are super important and you are right and other people are wrong. Boooooo.

And mOjOm, this isn't focused at you in any way, I know you are using this term in order to seek condemnation among christians.
edit on 27-8-2014 by okrian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join