Mickey

You call them abortionists, others call them doctors. You call them murderers, others call them law abiding physicians. You seem to beleive that you are right, right, right and if others don't agree, too bad. Your view is the only view because it is the right view. You know you are right and that is that. What's more, even God says you are right. That is the very definition of righteousness. You are not content with deciding this issue for yourself, you want to decide it for everyone else using the law. Those who disagree, you beat over the head calling them baby killers. What I am not against, you declare I am for. Again, you decide the rules and declare the results. I am against abortion so I will never have one. Any pregnant woman who has asked my advise on the issue, not many but some actually have, I have advised them and tried to persuade them against an abortion. If they changed their minds, great, if they didn't, I didn't firebomb their house. I let them decide for themselves their course and leave to them to live with the consequences of their own decisions. I don't berate them as baby killers, a ridiculous term. An example. If you kill someone who you thought was a threat to you, it is not murder and you are not a murderer. You acted in self defense. If it turns out that you were wrong in that belief, that the other person was a threat, are you then a killer, a murderer? Certainly not if you believed in your heart that he was a threat and that you had no choice. You are therefore not a killer. These doctors and these women do not think the embryo is a human life thus they do not believe they are killing anyone, let alone a baby. They may be mistaken, they may be closing their eyes to what is happening, I don't know. I do know however that they aren't running around intending to "murder babies". You and yours don't care about that because the "baby killer" rhetoric is just too valuable, too emotionally appealing to you to consider for a moment whether or not it really fits. Do you really think that is they way to persuade a woman contemplating an abortion to have the baby, call her a baby killer? Its okay though, you can throw around those allegations those hysterical accusations of the worst kind. It is all justified because you are right, right, right, right. The knower of all things. So why not, firebomb away, VABills says it is just.

His answer would depend upon whether or not he is for or against the death penalty. VABills: The Lawgiver.

What is with the dove selling? Was the dove market a major thing back then? Were they the pornagraphers of their day or something? Of all the things to make it into the Bible, the holiest book in Christendom. Dove merchants? Can you imagine the conversation when Matthew is trying to remember what happened years later and write it down or whoever it was writing it down? "Let me see now, what kind of merchants were there? Well, there had to be moneychangers, afterall, what is a market without moneychangers after all. What else though, what other merchants were there....hmmmm.....Oh, oh, oh, I remember now, doves, there were lots and lots of doves. Big sale, huge sale on pidgeons, lines around the temple, everyone looking for a good deal on a pidgeon." It's like a Monty Python skit.

That is why I thought that particular post, the firebombing Jesus one, would be a good candidate for pinning, just so no one thinks I made it up. Really, I thought that was one post where everyone would pretty much agree. I didn't anticipate that firebombing and the "Godhatesfags.com" folks would have any fans here.

If I had not called them "false" I would have been besieged with complaints that I was lumping all christians with these lunatics giving advise on how to best launch molotov cocktails. Thus I injected the qualifier to avoid tagging christians on this board with the actions of those people. Little did I know that you see yourself as one them and hence find the "false christian" label I aimed at them, not you, to be offensive to you because you identify with them. Why do you keep saying that I "condon [sic] baby murder". How exactly do you leap from being against firebombing to therefore being in favor of murdering babies? Again, you just keep making the point for me, over and over. You have decided what is right and wrong and want to force it on to the rest of us and all who disagree, to any extent, are condoning baby murder. At the very heart of it, that is the basic argument of many people in the so-called pro-life movement. They have made a decision as to what is right and wrong and they will tolerate no dissent on the issue and are dedicated to using the law to force their beliefs on to everyone else. There is conceit there on so many levels. They understand the Bible better, are better Christians and on top of all that, they are saving babies from slaughter. What a wonderful self image of purity, courage an righteousness that conceit must paint for them. Appeals to delusions of self importance are always effective. What could be a more compelling, more persuasive tactic than to convince another that they are destined to save mudered babies? You can tell how well you are doing in an argument with them by the number of times they call you a baby killer. When they run out of ideas, that is the cudgel they go back to over and over. Again, you are a perfect example and I have to thank you for the assist.

That is the thing. None were rejected, just modified. My understanding is that on appeal, they all were ultimately granted. The administration were in some dutch with the court when it became clear in a number of cases that they were not being honest in their allegations or, to be fair, were simply overstating things to a degree where it gave the court concern.

You questioned how a christian could beleive as I. I won't even get into how you convert my opposition to firebombing clinics to one where I condone the murder of children. Given your ability to leap synaptic canyons in a single bound, that bit of sleigth of mind certainly must have posed no difficulty for you. You don't see the conceit in questioning the bona fides of another christian's faith or in demanding that your conclusion that abortion is murder be the conclusion that all must reach? Again, you make the point perfectly. Your argument on abortion in a nutshell is that what you believe is the correct belief and the only belief, so much so that even firebombing clinics is defensible. All who disagree condone baby murdering. End of story, end of thought. I disagree with you and in so doing, all I really said on the issue was that I was against fire bombing clinics. From that you leapt to my not being christian enough and a baby murder fan to boot. And in all of that you see no conceit, not a drop of "Holier than thou?"

Really, what could go wrong?

Well, there you go again, quoting the bible for the nefarious purpose of showing what the bible says.

Well, I guess if I don't agree with your version and interpretation of christianity, I must not be a good christian. You must therfore indeed be holier than me. And that my friends is ultimately the argument on abortion from the VABills wing of the debate. He says it is wrong, un-christian and even worthy of the attention of a firebombing Jesus. I or you or others might disagree to one extent or another but that matters not. We are all wrong. He is right because he is more christian than I or you. I think it is wrong but I think I have no right to decide that for others who don't share my beliefs. I don't claim to be holier than thou and therefore able to condemn those with whom I disagree to the firebombers of the world. My thanks to VA for getting to the point so quickly.

You could have just wrote "I surrender" or "I have nothing useful to say". Shorter and conveys the same point.

Who the eff is Anton LeVey and where was I when the "self proclaimed intellectuals" proclaiming "the Bible as wacko literature" thread was active? How did I miss that one?

Doesn't explain them not using the FISA procedure by which they can tap for a year without having to ask the FISA court for a warrant. So....Barbara Streisand was talking to Al Queda cell leaders and activist judges on the FISA court were protecting her. Is that your theory?

The why of it is mystifying. There had to be a reason they took the risk of this coming out. Either they felt they had to from a security standpoint or they are hiding something they did that was either monumentally stupid or monumentally wrong. Something like what Bib has suggested that there was some technical reason they had to do it that way or something like having tapped Patrick Fitzgerald's blackberry.

I think what we are seeing is a transparently obvious scramble for some sort of justification for what they did. Again, even accepting those numbers as some sort of legit concern that the rubber stamp wasn't so rubber, it doesn't explain not using the procedure by which they could tap absolutely anyone they wanted with no FISA court order or even review for up to a year with additional extensions available for the low, low price of just notifying the court and a few committe heads from congress. Offering the notion that the FISA Court approval of a tap request was not a slam dunk doesn't nullify the total slam dunk that was available with the "no warrant" procedure. An alternative explanation as to why they avoided using even that unfettered "procedure" could be that they were tapping some people for whom there would be no reason on earth for them to tap or perhaps taps that were obviously political in nature. Taps so bad that the court and the committemen would have screamed bloody blue murder if they knew, even if they did so privately in letters to the President. Hard to believe but at this point, I have no faith in this administration's judgment, discretion or honesty.

Please show where it is that I have ever rejected Matthew 21:12 in the past and now embrace its teachings? Better yet, you apparently have reached a conclusion as to the merits of my faith including its sincerity. Totally inappropriate I think for this board but if that is the can of worms you want to open up, fine, show me what scriptures I have supposedly rejected that was the basis for your position. Isn't there something in the commandments about bearing false witness? Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to quote scripture according to you, the self appointed judge of such things. Don't you get it? I am not professing the principles inherent in the quote (see CTM's explanation), I presented it simply to show he was twisting the proverb by using the word "attack" so that it meant something it didn't. Was there a better way to show that he was wrong besides presenting the quote from the bible? Am I not allowed to do that unless I am christian enough for you?

Oh, so you would actually jail firebombers, how comforting. You don't like abortion so its okay to firebomb clinics, I get it. I also have some principled objections to things other people do but I guess I'm just a different kind of Christian as I would have a serious problem with firebombing those people. I think I understand all too well what you are saying here.

Look to thine own house. Seems like "christians" do a lot of that now-a-days. ....Oh, and for the record, the next time someone misquotes scripture as was done here by characterizing what Jesus did as an "attack" similar to firebombing a clinic, I will dig up the scripture to see if the quote was wrong or not whether that bothers you or not. Are only your type of Christians allowed to quote scripture? Interesting how my use of scripture, word for word accurate in this case, troubles you more than VA's inaccurate use of it to justify, of all things, firebombing clinics.

That is the thing about firebombing, it tends to kill people. No difference then, is that it? Tell you what, let me firebomb your house and you can tip over a table at my local church and then we will compare notes to see if there is a difference. Really, that is your version of Christ? A firebombing Jesus? Wow. Can we pin this post so that I won't be accused of having made that up? Would it be okay for anti-war protesters to firebomb a recruiting station "so long as noone [sic] is killed..."??? Can I firebomb the Dolphins' training camp "so long as noone [sic] is killed..."?

I pointed out in that thread that in the history of that court, 99.939% of requests were granted. Your post points out that for Bush specifically, 97% were approved as is with 3% being approved with some modification. My point was that the FISA court is a rubber stamp and thus there was no need to avoid it with secret, illegal taps. What is yours? That 97% approved as is and the rest approved with modification is not a rubber stamp and that it did need to be avoided with secret, illegal taps? What say you to the FISA procedure which allowed tapping any person for any reason without a FISA court warrant for up to a year, with additional extensions available, simply by notifying the court and a few committee heads in congress? Was that also, like the 3% of requests approved with modifications, too cumbersome so that the law had to be tap danced around, no pun intended?

Seems like I was not too far off: "Jesus entered into the temple of God, and drove out all of those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers' tables and the seats of those who sold the doves." Matthew 21:12 Does that seem like the equivalent to you of firebombing a clinic? Does it seem to you to be a relevant issue to bring up during a discussion of what Jesus might think of Elton John and people firebombing clinics?

So......let me get this straight, the court "modified", ie didn't reject, 3% of his requests and that is a big deal?

I'm no Bible scholar but I don't think he "attacked" them in the firebomb sense of an attack. He tipped over a few tables and scale of the money lenders and tossed them out of the Temple. If you think what these people are doing, firebombing clinics and such, is okay, don't be coy about it, come out and say so.

The good Jesus loving folk who have had it with abortion are willing to take God's mission into their own hands. For them, I provide this link to Christian News, a site lovingly provided by those lovely souls at ArmyofGod.com. Today's helpful headlines inform us of a firebombing of a Shreveport clinic and cheerfully provide tips and links for the most effective use of molotov cocktails. As a good christian you might want to check out their link to "homo news" which provides links to interesting stories about that "filthy sodomite" Elton John or about the long kept secret that all the Nazi's were gay and their persecution of homosexuals an elaborate cover up. Hate the sin, firebomb the sinner, Amen. I have to believe that if Jesus were here today he would be much more concerned with these "christians" than with Elton John, filthy sodomite though he may be. Not that anyone around here ever sounds even faintly like these false christians. I rather think though that if there was a website where gays were advocating the firebombing of christian churches, it would be big news. I certainly do not mean that all christians are like these, just that they exist, make plenty of noise and are more than occasionally dangerous. I wonder if these hate groups advocating firebombing are coming under much scrutiny intellegence wise. The danger they pose may be limited in comparison to foreign terrorists but still, it isn't as if they have sleeper cells or are impossible to find. I think they have firebombed three clinics so far this year.

Or perhaps by then you will have learned some manners.