Persecution (Dec 2)

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:51 pm

Yep. Both sides have been declaring a genocide on nations, be they a nation-state, a nation of people, or a nation of ideals. Either way, no such words have a place in modern society. I think logic and sense seem to be a part of Western life, in that we understand basic human rights. Any belief, no matter how innately pure, can be perverted into being used for hate. You just have to realize that all people have basic rights and then a good society typically forms around such things.

As to the whole airport incident, that IS mighty suspicious. There is nothing to apologize for, really. If a fourty year old man is seen walking around a pre-school fence, snapping pictures, I'm betting that the first-reaction won't be that he's a Calvin Klein Photographer. It's just how it is. You have to accept that certain suspicious actions will warrant equally suspicious reactions.

And by the way, just a suggestion to Right-to-Lifers... I have nothing against your view, it's entirely up to you to believe it or not. I just suggest you protest at civic centers (Such as a city hall) and not an Abortion Clinic. Mob mentality has a way of getting out of hands, and by no means do you want blood to be on yours, right? And even if it is a peaceful assembly, it causes discomfort to the people going there. They're emotionally vulnerable as is, and a chanting protesting group is definitely not going to help them. The whole point of a peaceful protest is to maintain the boundaries of the law, and the fact is, these people have a legal right currently standing to these things. By protesting, whether directly or not, you are in a way infringing on that right. It also could be pointed out that you're protesting around people who work at/use abortion clinics, so the chance of changing their mind is slim at best. Protest at a city hall, or a mall, or some place where you can get your information to the people, rather than just disturbing people exercising legal rights and doing their job.

Soooo, to sum up: Protest all you like but if you wish to be both effective and polite (Believe me, being polite is a HUGE bonus typically), protest away from Abortion Clinics and near a place people frequent often. You spare one group whose opinions won't change anyway the annoyance, and bring your message to those who count.

That's my two cents.

Axel, out.

Tom Mazanec · Post by **Tom Mazanec** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:06 pm

I also vote the straight pro-life ticket.
If even one mother is turned away by our demonstration, we have saved a human life. Someone said "Who saves a single life is as if he saved the whole world."

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:16 pm

Tom Mazanec wrote:I also vote the straight pro-life ticket.
If even one mother is turned away by our demonstration, we have saved a human life. Someone said "Who saves a single life is as if he saved the whole world."

Pro-choice, for me. Mother made her choice, and it was to have me; had Vietnam lasted a little longer, she was going to change her mind.

It is a woman's body, and her responsibility.

Yours wolfishly,

The loyal,

Wanderer

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:23 pm

It's not like you'll turn them away, you'll just make them feel ashamed, kinda like stripping for a medical exam. You feel bad about it, but you do it anyway because you know you want the end result. Personally, I'm Pro-Choice but I won't argue with you. I support you for your conviction, but like I said, if it's gonna happen, you're just really making the experience worse.

Anyway, I'm not gonna stop you, I'm just suggesting something. Take it how you will.

Tom Mazanec · Post by **Tom Mazanec** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:29 pm

Once conception occurs, it is two bodies.

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:32 pm

Technically even BEFORE conception it's two bodies, isn't it? The ovum is seperate the moment it leaves the ovary.

Tom Mazanec · Post by **Tom Mazanec** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:37 pm

It does not have a complete human genome until it unites with a sperm.

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:53 pm

True, but really, at that point, it's just a stem cell. Ah biology, how fascinating you are...

Anyway, I'm gonna abandon this now. If you're bored, I suggest reading Lords of Madness. Great book, lots of fun.

Trillan · Post by **Trillan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:02 pm

Lazerus wrote: Do you believe christ was the son of god, that he died for our sins, and that only through belief in him can we find salvation? If yes, you are a Christian. Peroid. Any qualifiers after that just clarify which sect of christianity your a part of.

We were discussing ideal vs. moderate followers, and bombing abortion clinics was put forth as an example of an ideal follower. This discussion has nothing to do with the definition of a Christian, but what a Christian is supposed to do - and that doesn't include bombing abortion clinics.

Lazerus wrote:The reverse is also true.

No, it is not. In a couple spots in the OT, the Jewish people were commanded to destroy specific nations because of their actions. Nowhere in the NT will you see people commanded to kill nations because of their beliefs.

Tom Mazanec · Post by **Tom Mazanec** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:02 pm

As devil's advocate, the existence of identical twins and fraternal twin chimeras (where two fertilized ova fuse) does pose some problems. But even if I were 90% sure a "stem cell" does not have a soul, I am not 10% willing to stand aside while mege-murder may be in process by mothers. And most abortions occur several months into gestation, when such arguments do not apply.

Madmoonie · Post by **Madmoonie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:33 pm

Lazerus wrote:The reverse is also true.

Now, I must say that THAT surprised me. I was going to get offended and but that would not do anything and besides, I got curious.....where in the Bible does it say that Christains are supposed to kill the unbeliever (Jews and Muslims, specially?) Where? I do wish to know.

And to those arguing about abortion....about its the woman's body and its her rights, what about the child's rights? Do they not get a choice? And if your mother had choosen differantly, you would not be sitting there.

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:50 pm

Tom Mazanec wrote:As devil's advocate, the existence of identical twins and fraternal twin chimeras (where two fertilized ova fuse) does pose some problems. But even if I were 90% sure a "stem cell" does not have a soul, I am not 10% willing to stand aside while mege-murder may be in process by mothers. And most abortions occur several months into gestation, when such arguments do not apply.

My logic is mostly ABC logic here. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C. Stem Cells are identical to Cord Cells, Cord Cells have no soul, therefore Stem Cells have no soul. Potential is not really the same as the end product. Still, you have a valid argument, and the truth is, I doubt I nor my potential wife will ever need an abortion clinic (The only reason I could ever think of is if it threatens my wifes life, and that is done at hospitals rather than AC's and I'm male, so I would never need it), but I do not deny it to others.

Lazerus · Post by **Lazerus** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:11 pm

We were discussing ideal vs. moderate followers, and bombing abortion clinics was put forth as an example of an ideal follower. This discussion has nothing to do with the definition of a Christian, but what a Christian is supposed to do - and that doesn't include bombing abortion clinics.

They would disagree.

No, it is not. In a couple spots in the OT, the Jewish people were commanded to destroy specific nations because of their actions. Nowhere in the NT will you see people commanded to kill nations because of their beliefs.

The crusades?

Tom Mazanec · Post by **Tom Mazanec** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:13 pm

Souls are immaterial spirits infused by God. You cannot detect one with science. That argument can become A=B, B=C, C=D...Y=Z so A=Z and you do not have a soul, so I can kill you.

Gengar003 · Post by **Gengar003** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:38 pm

Just going to pop in for a second...

Madmoonie wrote:I got curious.....where in the Bible does it say that Christains are supposed to kill the unbeliever (Jews and Muslims, specially?) Where? I do wish to know.

First thing that comes to mind is

Deuteronomy 13:12-15 wrote:12: "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
13: that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
14: then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
15: you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.

Madmoonie wrote:And if your mother had choosen differantly, you would not be sitting there.

And then I wouldn't be here to care!

. Serious point being that I do not believe the fact that "xxxx wouldn't be here" is a valid argument. It assumes that a.) xxxx being here is a good thing, and b.) xxxx could never have developed anywhere else, except by that one mother/pregnancy... neither of which can be proved, in my opinion, leaving the arugment without weight.

Tom Mazanec wrote:Souls are immaterial spirits infused by God. You cannot detect one with science. That argument can become A=B, B=C, C=D...Y=Z so A=Z and you do not have a soul, so I can kill you.

a.) Soul or not, you (in most cases, probably) shouldn't kill him, and b.) eventually the "stem cells" in question undergo a change and are no longer

Axelgear wrote:identical

to whatever they become, so the A=B, B=C .... Y=Z; A=Z chain breaks down.

Madmoonie · Post by **Madmoonie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:46 pm

Lazerus wrote:The crusades?

Last time I checked...the Bible was written almost a millienia BEFORE the first crusade.

And technically, the Crusades 'official' purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land from....Ottomans? (not sure about that) Mass slaughter of the 'heathen Sarasons' they considered more a perk. Where they wrong? Yes.

Namrepus221 · Post by **Namrepus221** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:39 pm

bout time I posted this again...

Frigidmagi · Post by **Frigidmagi** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:07 pm

The 1st Crusade was launched against the Sejuk Turks, nomadic tribesmen who had more in common with the Mongols then the Arabs at this point in time. Yes, the Turks were muslim, that didn't stop them from attacking and killing the holders of Jeresulem the Fatimids who were muslim themselves. The Fatimids however under treaty with Byzantium allowed and granted safe passage to Jeresulem to Christian pilgrims and allowed both Greek and Western Christians along with Jews freedom to worship (they killed pagans however, bad news for the Wicca among you). Sejuks, like the Huns and Mongols were waging a war of conquest against... Well everyone from Byzantium to Egypt and Persia and they didn't play nice. Muslims were brutalized by them, what they stand accused of doing to Christians isn't subject for polite company, expect to note that while having a good chunk of truth in it, it got a bit overblown as it journeyed west.

The First Crusade were designed to fulfill the following objectives:

Answer a cry for help form Byzantium Emperor Alexis II for reinforements. Alexis II wanted a solid corps of western knights to act as a react squad/fire bridage and shore up his beleaugered armies.

Make Pope Urban II look good in front of the Eastern Greek Christians and increase his leverage in the hopes of reunion of the two branches... Under the Pope of course.

Decrease Christian on Christian violence. (Lets be blunt, most people don't care if the fighting moves far away, as long it isn't taking place on thier front lawn).

Raise Church Authority in Europe (because the competition is a bunch of scruffy nobles who think burning farms is funny, long as it ain't their farms).

Make life generally uncomfortable for the Turks who have murdered Christians and taken the "navel of the world" and maybe even reestablished Christian rule over Jeresulem which hasn't been there for centuries.

Now the solders went for their own reasons

Money: Anything you took you could keep. Most of them were poor commoners or even poorer 2nd sons.

Land: Anything you took you could keep.

Paradise: Travel to strange new lands, met strange new people... And kill them. Take their strange new money and be forgiven of all your sins in the bargin. Thus says the Pope and the Pope would never lie to me!

Each following Crusade had different objectives and designs but usually the motives of the solders held true even the disasterous 4th Crusade which was hijacked by Venitians bankers and operated against Popal orders (this is the one that ended up torching the captial of Byzantium).

McFrugal · Post by **McFrugal** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:25 pm

I may be horribly late for the discussion, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

I believe that when some people, such as myself, hear the word "Christian", they think of one of more of the following: Intelligent Design, prejudice against homosexuals, choir boy molestation, the Ten Commandments in(front of) government buildings, Jack Chick, and Jack Thompson.

Jack Chick is the only one in my list that was in the public spotlight two (or was it three?) years ago. My point? There's been a lot of misbehavior going on by people associated with Christians lately. I realize that there's nothing wrong with the faith itself but I do have solid reasons for my desire to have its influence reduced.

In conclusion, I believe that RHJunior is just making a "straw man argument". Christians aren't being persecuted, they've just got a lot of bad publicity.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:58 pm

McFrugal wrote:In conclusion, I believe that RHJunior is just making a "straw man argument". Christians aren't being persecuted, they've just got a lot of bad publicity.

Can I get an "Amen"?

Chritianity is the founding religion of this nation, for all that our founding fathers did their best to avoid another situation like Bloody Mary or the Anglican situation. By disallowing laws respecting religion, they sought to limit the ability of our government to endorse or persecute the beliefs of others and the authority of Popes.

Because of this, Christianity is, and is likely to always be, the biggest target around. When something, anything goes wrong in or around a house of worship, Christianity will have fallout because of it.

To use a secular parallel: In the '80's, two people were murdered in a strip mall. Because a store which carried Dungeons and Dragons games was present, they were called "The D&D Murders" by the media. (As one more rational person pointed out, they could just as easily have been called the "Dry Cleaning Murders".)

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer