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.

Didn't Jesus attack the merchants?

So firebomb a !@#$ing Macy's instead. What does that have to do with anything?

The fact that Jesus would in fact "not look the other way". But in fact confront the sinners.

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.

right

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?

What difference does it make. He was in effect making it non-useful. Again, I believe Jesus would have no issue with firebombing the clinics so long as noone is killed doing so.

Do I support them, no. Do I think it's okay that it is happening, yes, so long as noone is killed.

don't go pulling scripture out of the Bible when it fits your argument....but reject the rest of it when it doesn't fit your position.

for the record...i do not in any way support firebombings of any organization...and that includes baby killing clinics, and sodomite bathhouses, or whatever.
i don't give those so called "christian" organizations any more license to do what they are doing than the abortion clinics. I think they should be sought after and prosecuted at the fullest extent. If a bombing takes place and a death occurs during the carrying out of that bombing, I think the bomber should be eligible for the death penalty.

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..."?

Nowhere did I say you wouldn't go to jail. In addition, I shoot at people that try to firebomb my house. But I have no problem with what they are doing.

But I guess you don't understand when I say I have no problem with it.

Actually, that was entierly not the point of the story of the money changers in the temple. The point was that one should not profit of worshipping the Lord, as they were doing.

So you'd have a point...if abortions were performed in churches.

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.

So which one is right?

"Blessed are those who prefer others before themselves." -- Baha'i Faith


"Hurt not others in ways that you would you yourself would find
hurtful."
-- Buddhism

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
--Christianity

"This is the sum of all duty: treat others as you yourself would be
treated."
-- Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you
desire for yourself."
-- Islam

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as
you would regard your own self."
-- Jainism

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."
-- Judaism

"Be not estranged from another for God dwells in every heart."
-- Sikhism

"Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is
not good for its own self."
-- Zoroastrianism

You forgot:

"Hate the sin and firebomb the sinner".
--VABills.

i have no problem with someone misquoting scripture. what i have a problem with .... as i stated....is using it when it fits your arguement but rejecting it when it doesn't fit your arguement.

VA didn't use quotations and i already stated that i disagreed with his position when he compared the two as being ok.

whats the matter? you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas....errr.....X-Mas this year?

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.

Actually, he didn't use it to support his position. He used it to disprove VABills...which was entirely appropriate, since VA was using it himself.

What Mickey did is actually fundamental logic. He was using those wacko's own literature (the Bible) to point out an inherent contradiction in their thinking. Mickey doesn't have to buy their logic to do that; he's just noting the inconsistency in their own thinking.

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?

when will the so called self proclaimed intellectuals on this board that consistently proclaim the Bible as wacko literature and contradictory ever take some time away from their Anton LeVey reading to do a study on Dispensational Truth?

Actually, he didn't proclaim the Bible as wacko. He proclaimed VABills as wacko.

Geez, can't anyone read today?

oh.....are you a christian? you must be one of these firebombing nuts then.

Maybe I am a wacko, but I don't go around killing little kids, who can't defend themselves, nor support the idiots who think it is okay to do so.

Who is the wacko here, Tommy boy?

unless VA was referred to as "their" i think you are wrong on this one.

How can one be Christian and support abortion? I believe the Bible has enough indicators that to show that abortion (killing) is a sin. I also believe that there is a passage to the effect of killing his children is the worst sin of all.

I didn't call you a wacko, I said Hamilton called you a wacko.

But, if it makes you feel any more vindicated: you're a wacko.

There's also a passage where God sends bears to rip apart 40 kids who are making fun of a bald guy. 2 Kings 2:23-24:



And then there's Psalms 137:9:



I'd say the Bible's a little...well...ambiguous on the subject.

It was 42, get your facts straight. Secondly, the story, is about Elisha who while being taunted about being bald was in fact being kept from spreading the word to the people of Bethal, which was a center of sin at the time. Hence God removed the "road block" and Elisha went on to teach on Mount Carmel.

But go ahead and change the facts to suit your need again.

You mean like Jesus firebombing the merchants at the temple because they were sinners?

What book was that in? The Gospel according to Rambo?

Firebombing merchants. WTF, you have a reading problem today, boy?

Hold on a second. There is no way that The Gospel accourding to Rambo is canonical. It may have all gone down just as Sly said so, but that doesn't mean we have to believe it.

Testy today?

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?

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

The Church of Satan founder.


Too fcuking funny OTR, too funny.

Start a thread with Jesus, abortion, firebombing, and homosexuality in the first paragraph and wait for ferment...

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.

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

Where did I say I was "more" Christian then anyone, little man? I said I don't see how anyone who condones the murder of children can call themselves Christian. But alas, the wolf called himself a sheep.

Yet you condemn the firebombers asking how they can be so holy as to do that while condemning abortion.

Hypocrisy is thy name.

Really, what could go wrong?

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?"

You call these people "false christians". Yet they fight for a cause that God and Jesus believed was the worst sin of all? Who are you to call them "false christians" and then get your feathers ruffled when I question anyone who tries to call themself a Christian (note it is capitalized), who condons the murder of children.

Since your memory is failing this is your quote questioning other christians, "Not that anyone around here ever sounds even faintly like these false christians".

You maybe a "better Christian" then me. However, you do condon baby murder, and you did just lie about saying these are false Christians.

Congratulations! You have now achieved BF status with that f***ed up logic.

In your opinon. I believe there are many others who would disagree. What other reason would he have had to attack them, other then to put them out of business?

Uh, perhaps to get them out of the temple?

you post something as unintelligable as this and think I have nothing useful to say?
that is classic.

actually no...i take that back. it isn't classic at all. just typical.

You see, the problem I have with this logic is that they are trying to replace someone else's right with their religious views. Why should someone who doesn't believe or believe in the same thing have their rights infringed upon? This question applies to more than just abortion. No, I don't want to hear the Christains (note the capitalization) are in the majority crap. You would have your panties in a wad if you were in the minority and the majority was trying to do it to you.

Here's what I said.



I injected the brackets to be clear. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that Mickey was both refuting VABills and the Army of God folks. Either way, in no instance did I refer to the Bible as wacko. It's the Army of God people that are seriously messed up, and VABills is moderately so.

As to your high moral ground a few posts ago calling me one of the board intellectuals who feel free to insult the Bible, get off your high horse: I don't disparage the Bible. You know little if anything about my spiritual life so stop this moral superiority BS.

don't presume to know what i presume to know.