It seems this contradiction is most visibly demonstrated by fundamentalist Christians in the United States. It seems they love children when they are still in the womb, but once you pop out, they wouldn't even piss on you if you were on fire. What gives? :shrug:
How can people be Pro-Life and Pro-War?
- Thread starter Lord Hillyer
- Start date
Yup, KennyC, you got it in one.
I just don't understand why you can say that. I know many religious people and they take damn good care of their children as well as others that they know. You make a broad statement without any proof of what your stating why is that? It's like me saying that you don't read anything worth a damn without backing up what I say. Just by saying something doesn't make it true as you would like us to think.
I just don't understand why you can say that. I know many religious people and they take damn good care of their children as well as others that they know. You make a broad statement without any proof of what your stating why is that? It's like me saying that you don't read anything worth a damn without backing up what I say. Just by saying something doesn't make it true as you would like us to think.
do you live around fundie christians? i do and all of them are not that bad a lot are.
I just don't understand why you can say that. I know many religious people and they take damn good care of their children as well as others that they know. You make a broad statement without any proof of what your stating why is that? It's like me saying that you don't read anything worth a damn without backing up what I say. Just by saying something doesn't make it true as you would like us to think.
Jesus said that there is no real virtue in loving your own children or those you know, for even Pharisees do that. He was all about loving your enemy, and loving those who hate you, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's not what you stated to begin with. Stick to your original statement and I know that you are misguided as to how all religious people treat their kids.
Are you serious? That is such a cliche. It's the same reason you can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. We respect and want to protect innocent life. Can you see the difference? Is there no difference in your mind between an innocent child and a murderer? Is that too fine a hair to split?
Two people fucking can produce 10 or 12 new virgins for a net gain of 8-10. Conversely, without fucking, all the virgins would soon die out leaving us with none.
So just as you must fight for peace, you must fuck for virginity.
that's not logical
And seeing that this thread scares away the fundamentalists on this forum. Not one fundamentalist has even replied.
God doesn't love little children because he allows them to be born in sin, i.e., he punishes them for what Adam and Eve got up to. As to the other part, an awful lot of smiting went on in the past and will continue into the future, as we are cast into the lake of fire.
Repent before it's too late. You are all sinners.
Repent before it's too late. You are all sinners.
However those children would ultimately come second place to an invisible sky fairy. I find it dispicable personally. If god was on line 1 and my child was on line 2, god would be put on hold. That is something no religious person could ever manage but who do they look up to.. a father that drowned all his children :bugeye:
How is it not? If not for fucking, there'd be no virgins. There'd be no people.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Furthermore, you only lose a virgin the first time you fuck. Every other time there is no decrease in the number of virgins and a potential for an increase.
It's birth control that decreases the number of virgins.
why do so many christian republicans oppose healthcare for children, support charging teenage juveniles in adult courts, support sending 17-18 yos off to a war based on a pack of lies, yet go batshit crazy over preventing abortion of 'innocent life'...? you are implying seriously that everyone who has died in iraq is a murderer? in any case, jesus didn't say, 'turn the other cheek, with the following convenient exceptions'.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Actually, the Republican Party leadership, years ago, saw the Pro-life Movement as a way of stealing the Traditionally Democratic Catholic Vote from the Democrats. The Republicans simply started salting the Midwest with Pro-Life Clubs, put out the Propaganda, and waited for all the crazies to show up. It worked. The Catholics can't vote Democrat anymore because the Republicans simply reached out and stole one of their issues.
No one in any position of power gives a real rats-ass about Pro-Life or whether it is consistent with anything or nothing. They just wanted the Catholic Vote, and got it.
and the crazies that joined all the Clubs that were set up... well, they're just crazy. Who cares what they think.
What Jesus meant was that we shouldn't go out seeking personal vengence via violence. He never intended that Christians should be pacifists. Here's another quote for you:
Jesus said in Luke 22:36, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
He was advising his apostles to take their weapons or, if they had none, to buy them! Clearly, he was not opposed to all violence. Furthermore, it's well known that when the Romans came for Christ one of his apostles drew his sword and cut off the ear of a Roman soldier. Why did he have a sword if all violence was forbiden by Christ?I noticed with a lot of pro-life groups telling you not to abort and to give the child up for adoption, but then they rarely volunteer to adopt. And to answer the question its a cross of political idealogies. Pro-life because they believe it to be murder and pro-war because just like christianity they want everyone to be like them because being like them is the only way to be happy. But isn't it the same thing as aborting an innocent child when 18 year olds are drafted and shipped off to war usually never to return?
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Yes, there has got to be practical objections to the idea of raising a child whose biological mother is some stupid party girl and whose biological father could be, well, anybody. Its not as though these silly girls nowadays would dare offend anybody at a party by saying no.
Years ago, when the Science was saying that children were mostly the product of nurture, not nature, then people could have taken such babies, supposing that by properly raising such children, they could turn out decently. But it turns out the Nurture over Nature argument was supported by false data -- some doctor made up a study on twins, just typing in the data as he went and nobody bothered to check for some 30 years (it was noticed that he increased the size of his sample over the years, and people began to wonder where he was finding all these twins, and if he had 100 sets for 10 years, why he only had 20 sets for 5 years... it all finally busted open).
Now the science tells us that a whore mother and a gangbanger father will likely result in a kid that nobody in their right mind would ever want to be held liable for.