Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad

[Foxfyre]

Advertiser: Planned Parenthood - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times

Good point... I wonder if they felt the same about TV stations taking sides when they ran these ads.



Immie

Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does. But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.

In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising. So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.

My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?

PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?

Immie

Oh I see what you mean. But that isn't what they're doing in this case. What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl. They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd. Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.

FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed. But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl. Of course their public protests have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.

 

[Immanuel]

Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does. But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.

In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising. So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.

My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?

PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?

Immie

Oh I see what you mean. But that isn't what they're doing in this case. What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl. They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd. Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.

FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed. But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl. Of course their public protests have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.

Chances are it will be canceled before the Super Bowl because PP is making it a political ad.

But, thank you for clearing up PP's stance on the issue and I do understand a little better where they are coming from.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

You'd be amzaed how afraid the pro-abortionists are.

They are deathly afraid of the public becoming aware of whats going on in abortion clinics around the country.

They are afraid it will cause outrage, and will lead to action and new legislation to protect unborn babies and possibly outlaw abortion.

The American people have not had any voice, we've been told all our lives that it is a "right" for women yet it is no where to be found in the Constitution. We've never voted on it. We just need to accept what one Supreme Court decided decades ago. That's not how our government is supposed to work. We all have the right to change laws as we see fit. Isn't it funny how this is such a hot issue with voters, but they won't let the country vote on it nationally?

You need to pass out free beer and chronic with this shit.

Welp, must of hit it pretty close to the mark if all you have left are personal insults.

That wasn't a personal insult. If I said you are a pathetic **** turd, now that would be an ad hom. My comment was about the rhetoric used....the shit was so stale it's hard to believe anyone still tries to say that crap with a straight face.

Let's get back to the real issue. Why did you create a false title and ignore the facts in article?

 

[CurveLight]

Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does. But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.

In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising. So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.

My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?

PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?

Immie

Oh I see what you mean. But that isn't what they're doing in this case. What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl. They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd. Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.

FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed. But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl. Of course their public protests have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.

After all this time and all your useless posts you still fail to address the reason given in your OP article. Damn this board is full of some jokers.

 

[Toronado3800]

They can advertise all they want.

It'll give me an excuse to say something about big government getting into my womb in front of the room full of Republicans I'll be watching the game with and by the end of the night the Republicans will be soo divided on the issue they'll do less to stop abortion over 20 of the next 28 years than they did over the last 20 of the last 28.

lol. Them years started to confuse me, but you get the point.

 

[Foxfyre]

My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?

PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?

Immie

Oh I see what you mean. But that isn't what they're doing in this case. What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl. They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd. Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.

FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed. But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl. Of course their public protests have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.

After all this time and all your useless posts you still fail to address the reason given in your OP article. Damn this board is full of some jokers.

What OP article? Geez, I usually get gigged for over explaining. You mean I actually under-explained something?

 

[Otter_Creek]

Kudos to Tebow and CBS.

 

[CurveLight]

Kudos to Tebow and CBS.

They know how to make money off of suckers.

 

[CurveLight]

Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.

Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question. Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible. I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means. You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.

Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.

I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too. I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.

As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting. I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.

Immie

Missed this post earlier. Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar. He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom. The key is historical context. Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam. People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.

 

[jeffrockit]

Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one? She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.

Medical advice to save your life? She got lucky. Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.

Try again.

You are correct but rather than being selfish and thinking only about herself, she had the courage to have the baby. She made a commitment when she got pregnant. Convenience of the mother is not a reason to abort a baby. BTW luck had nothing to do with it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.

Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question. Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible. I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means. You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.

This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.

As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.

Hey There Ya Fucking CONVICT!!!!!!!!!!

No fucking wonder you like ass sex. Apparently you've had a LOT!

So tell me......does Bubba still write you about the hot and steamy nights.​

You're right. You didn't complain about anyone editing the Bible.

I did.

Why? Because of the KJV (most widely used Bible) was heavily edited by the Niceine Council.

Book of Daniel is a wonderful example. So is the refusal to include the Gnostic Texts.

By the way cock smoker.......feel froggy?

 

[Immanuel]

Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question. Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible. I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means. You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.

Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.

I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too. I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.

As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting. I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.

Immie

Missed this post earlier. Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar. He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom. The key is historical context. Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam. People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.

I think we are somewhat in agreement if I understand what you meant by "Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar". Jesus did not command us to pay taxes in this case, nor did he tells us not to pay taxes. That was not the point of the passage. The point was the value that these men put upon earthly riches. He was not talking about paying your taxes. He was talking about where these men put their faith... in Caesar or God and to whom they paid tribute. In my layman's understanding of the passage, I think Jesus was pointing out that the values of both groups, the Pharisees and Herodians, were in the wrong place.

I'm not sure I have ever seen an argument affirming Separation of Church and State from this passage. I have seen people argue that Jesus was telling us we should pay our taxes, but that ignores the context of the passage.

There were two different set of people, of different beliefs, trying to trap Jesus. The Pharisees who self-righteously preached adherence to God's laws (as interpreted by Pharisees) including tithing and the Herodians who were minions of King Herod who would have profited from the taxes being collected. If Jesus gave a direct answer to the question he was bound to tick off one of the two groups. Instead he basically shrugged his shoulders and said give what is due to Caesar to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

In trying to put this into words, I found this passage and will admit that it helped me to form my answer, but it was basically what I was attempting to say anyway:

Give Unto Caesar | The Brown Bible

Jesus was being confronted by two different groups of men who had two different sets of beliefs but were conspiring together to get Jesus. The disciples of the Pharisees ascribed to the doctrine of the Pharisees including their strict intrusive rules about tithing. The Herodians were Herod’s partisans. They were far more interested in not allowing anything to detract from Herod’s activities on Caesar’s behalf, including collection of taxes. The two groups together posed a question to Jesus that was unanswerable without giving one group or the other ammunition to accuse Jesus, or so they thought. Had Jesus given a direct response, he would have been attacked no matter what the response was.

Jesus recognized their wickedness and avoided the confrontation. His response was essentially a non-response, a line that could be interpreted just about any way. He didn’t even so much as specifically admit to owing either party anything; just give to Caesar what is his and to God what is His. This was an avoidance of the confrontation, not a teaching.

Note: I know nothing about the site, The Brown Bible or about the author of the above quote. I do not endorse the site or its teachings. I simply found that passage while trying to describe the context of the passage and happen to agree with this point.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one? She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.

Medical advice to save your life? She got lucky. Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.

Try again.

You are correct but rather than being selfish and thinking only about herself, she had the courage to have the baby. She made a commitment when she got pregnant. Convenience of the mother is not a reason to abort a baby. BTW luck had nothing to do with it.

This is why earlier I pointed out some people see women as performance products instead of people. It's also superlicious silly to use this one example to extrapolate anything about abortion. If someone said Tim Mcveigh's mom was in the same situation then it could be said his terrorism is proof women should abort when advised.

 

[CurveLight]

Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.

I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too. I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.

As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting. I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.

Immie

Missed this post earlier. Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar. He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom. The key is historical context. Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam. People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.

I think we are somewhat in agreement if I understand what you meant by "Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar". Jesus did not command us to pay taxes in this case, nor did he tells us not to pay taxes. That was not the point of the passage. The point was the value that these men put upon earthly riches. He was not talking about paying your taxes. He was talking about where these men put their faith... in Caesar or God and to whom they paid tribute. In my layman's understanding of the passage, I think Jesus was pointing out that the values of both groups, the Pharisees and Herodians, were in the wrong place.

I'm not sure I have ever seen an argument affirming Separation of Church and State from this passage. I have seen people argue that Jesus was telling us we should pay our taxes, but that ignores the context of the passage.

There were two different set of people, of different beliefs, trying to trap Jesus. The Pharisees who self-righteously preached adherence to God's laws (as interpreted by Pharisees) including tithing and the Herodians who were minions of King Herod who would have profited from the taxes being collected. If Jesus gave a direct answer to the question he was bound to tick off one of the two groups. Instead he basically shrugged his shoulders and said give what is due to Caesar to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

In trying to put this into words, I found this passage and will admit that it helped me to form my answer, but it was basically what I was attempting to say anyway:

[snipped]

Note: I know nothing about the site, The Brown Bible or about the author of the above quote. I do not endorse the site or its teachings. I simply found that passage while trying to describe the context of the passage and happen to agree with this point.

Immie

The separation of C+ S is used by those who argue Jesus was saying pay tribute to both Caesar (state) and God (church.) There are two fundamental problems. The concept did not exist and Caesar was not secular. Many Jews viewed Rome's imperial rule over them as punishment for failing to obey God thus they were being trampled by a false god for the price of not honoring the true God. This is one reason why the Gospels are so full of conflict over what laws and commandments should be followed.

The above Brown interpretation misses the point of Jesus' answer because it tries to make Jesus look like a coward. He had no problem publicly condemning the Temple or its rulers. It was his outspoken and loud opposition that lead to his Crucifixion. Claiming Jesus tried to avoid conflict misses Jesus' entire ministry. Look at the reaction from his inquisitors when he answered. If he had avoided answering do you think they would have been marveled and simply slinked away? No. They would have pointed out he refused to answer which would have caused him to lose credibility with his followers. Instead they walked away baffled because they could not claim he did not answer and the way he worded the answer could not be used against him.

Brown's reading is trying to make it significant that both Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus and that is used to support the interpretation of Jesus avoiding giving an answer. Technically they were different groups but they formed the same problem (Roman rule through the Temple) and both were equally threatened by Jesus for the same reason: if Jews stopped paying then both groups were subject to getting whacked by Rome. In looking at Jesus' answer we need to fill in the blanks to see how he said to not pay. The "what belongs to" phrase is the key. What belonged to Caesar? The Roman empire is the common response. What belongs to God? The earth and everyone and everything on it. If they were to give to God what belongs to God then what is left over to give to Caesar?

 

[geauxtohell]

M'eh, run the ad. FOTF has a right to speak their mind.

After it, they should run a PSA that states: "Tim Tebow will never play in a Superbowl."

 

[logical4u]

If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue? Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension. You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles. Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis? Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so, do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement? Where do you stand on Q? Does it have credibility? What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple? Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans? Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants? Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly? Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself. All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts. Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.

My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible. It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it. Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins). He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.

Killing a child is a terrible SIN. You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact. When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce). I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child. Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?

 

[saveliberty]

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis? Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so, do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement? Where do you stand on Q? Does it have credibility? What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple? Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans? Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants? Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly? Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself. All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts. Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.

My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible. It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it. Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins). He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.

Killing a child is a terrible SIN. You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact. When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce). I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child. Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?

Curvelight is using his gay Bible. He can look at a passage and come to the complete opposite meaning. Have fun. Logic4u has a good understanding. Sin has consequences here too. I suppose it will now be brought up we are not to judge. Yet the Bible clearly states you are to go to those who have sinned against you and work it out. That requires a judgement.

 

[Immanuel]

Re Curvelight post #334:

Good answer, but I believe this is detracting from the rest of the thread and won't continue the discussion here.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis? Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so, do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement? Where do you stand on Q? Does it have credibility? What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple? Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans? Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants? Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly? Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself. All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts. Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.

My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible. It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it. Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins). He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.

Killing a child is a terrible SIN. You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact. When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce). I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child. Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?

So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture. Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies." I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google. You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it. I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial. You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance. When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.

 

[CurveLight]

What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis? Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so, do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement? Where do you stand on Q? Does it have credibility? What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple? Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans? Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants? Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly? Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself. All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts. Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.

My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible. It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it. Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins). He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.

Killing a child is a terrible SIN. You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact. When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce). I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child. Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?

Curvelight is using his gay Bible. He can look at a passage and come to the complete opposite meaning. Have fun. Logic4u has a good understanding. Sin has consequences here too. I suppose it will now be brought up we are not to judge. Yet the Bible clearly states you are to go to those who have sinned against you and work it out. That requires a judgement.

Gay Bible? Oh, I get it. The Bible has the Good News and Gay means happy. But doesn't that mean all bibles are gay bibles or are you saying not all Bibles have the Good News?

As for your accusation, you're completely full of shit. The proof is I will invite you and logical4u, and anyone else you want to a debate on any narrative of your choosing. You will completely avoid it because you know you can't handle it so you'll call me dumb or a waste of time or any other childish remarks you can dream up to try and justify your refusal to back your own claims.