Social Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed

[PainIsLIfe]

So this thread is just about abortion now?

Well, it started as Kirk deserved it, transformed to Kirk was a fake Christian, then morphed into the party that cheered on this; and others, murder are actually the good Christians.

 

[deviake]

Boom.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

"You said people need cough syrup because they have a cold? Then why are there still people who have colds!"

This is you. Cough syrup doesn't stop people from getting sick. It treats people who are already sick. Just like welfare doesn't stop people from becoming poor, but it treats people who already are. I'm not sure how you don't understand this.

Not what I said.

Both. It has ebbed and flowed throughout the last 30 years alongside the economy in general. The welfare reform act was passed in 1996. Poverty had been dropping since 1993, and bottomed out in 2000, when it started rising again, before peaking in 2010, where it began dropping again. You are, again, confusing solving the problem with treating the problem.

There's nothing wrong with welfare reform when done properly, but you seem to be arguing that reform is simply less, and therefore better, when the data shows that this is not the case.

But the percentage is lower now than it was before Welfare Reform.

So what does this mean to you regarding, say, LGBTQ both in terms of personal reaction, and public policy?

It means nothing personally - you dont have to have my world view. Live and let live.

Public policy - If they want to live gay or trans thats fine, but you can't force the rest of the world to accept your delusions if you think you are a woman.

Your right (not you per se) to live and act like a women ends at my daughter's right to have women only safe spaces and to compete at sports againt other females.

No, I'm pretty sure you missed something. According to the Bible, only God can judge right from wrong. I'm not sure how you don't understand that, but it's clear this is one of the main issues with modern Christianity. They feel that they not only can, and should, judge people, but they should also seek to vilify and control them. This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said modern Christians have perverted their own religion to an evil, anti-Christian end. As soon as you find yourself using Christianity to promote hate, intolerance, and control, you have strayed far afield from its teachings.

How does a Christian decide what is good and pure from that which is evil?

So are you insinuating here that even though the Democrat party is more Christian than the Republican party, Christians vote for the Republican party because they "do enough" by themselves? I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I didnt say they were more Christian - I don't think most politicians even believe in God.

I'm saying that I can't and shouldn't vote for a party with an evil platform because they are better on social welfare systems.

Instead I should vote for the lesser evil and increase my charitable giving. As such I give to my church, an orphanage in TN, the United Way, along with every youth charity drive that comes along, and volunteer my time with a couple charities.
BTW, none of that makes me a good person or better than anyone else. Its just the way I see things.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Boom.

Cliff notes of 27 minute vid?

 

[kflo]

You do realize that the apostles were the ones spreading the message in the 1st century?

Perhaps you think they were all teaching different messages.

No they weren’t. Quote the apostles saying anything about life at conception.

Still much earlier than a 12th century Pope.

The idea of life at conception or after wasn’t a singular message until the 1800s. You’re making up the position of the church. It didn’t exist.

And a moot point since the Didache had already banned abortion as unchristian.

yet it had a different context depending on when.

The Didache said no to abortion. The ealiest writings say no to aborition and a soul at conception.

Again you’re making up the point about life at conception. Abortion applied to a “child”.

But you; in your infinite wisdom, have decided that since people in the 12th century started questioning when a humman received a soul that there "was no consensus view" up to that point. Ok.

Again you are fabricating a timeline and then arguing against it. There was NEVER a consensus view about life at conception. The dominant view was life WASNT from conception for over 1000 years.

I can lead you to water, but you have to drink on your own.

Again the idea that it’s clear what Jesus teachings were on the topic is obviously a joke. Unless you simply want to ignore actual history. Or intentionally lying.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No they weren’t. Quote the apostles saying anything about life at conception.

I'll stand on the biblical passages that I already posted.

You post anything from any church leader before 1200 saying different.

The Didache was considered to be written by the apostolic fathers and said you cant murder unborn babies, period.

The idea of life at conception or after wasn’t a singular message until the 1800s. You’re making up the position of the church. It didn’t exist.

You are making up the position that it was a question in the early church, say within the first 1000 years.

yet it had a different context depending on when.

How do you get different context? The Didache says no abortion more than once, there is no other context. No means no.

You may want to argue why it said not to commit abortion, but the obvious answer won't support your claim.

Again you’re making up the point about life at conception. Abortion applied to a “child”.

Now you claim it was talking about infanticide? The Didache mentions abortion and infanticide separately.

Again you are fabricating a timeline and then arguing against it. There was NEVER a consensus view about life at conception. The dominant view was life WASNT from conception for over 1000 years.

Ok, give any logical reason the Didache forbid the practice besides that it was a life with a soul.

And again, you cant cite a single Christian source for this even being a question before 1200.

Again the idea that it’s clear what Jesus teachings were on the topic is obviously a joke. Unless you simply want to ignore actual history. Or intentionally lying.

If you read the Bible then it is certainly clear what his thoughts were. Only a depraved or twisted mind would claim that Christ was cool with abortion.

 

[deviake]

Cliff notes of 27 minute vid?

Defends himself, plays 5,000 hours of Charlie Kirk being all about that political violence, debunks goofs who said George Floyd died from an OD, so forth

 

[kflo]

I'll stand on the biblical passages that I already posted.

That said nothing about when after conception there is a child.

You post anything from any church leader before 1200 saying different.

The Didache was considered to be written by the apostolic fathers and said you cant murder unborn babies, period.



You are making up the position that it was a question in the early church, say within the first 1000 years.




How do you get different context? The Didache says no abortion more than once, there is no other context. No means no.

You may want to argue why it said not to commit abortion, but the obvious answer won't support your claim.



Now you claim it was talking about infanticide? The Didache mentions abortion and infanticide separately.

No shit. Didache says nothing about when a fetus is a “child”. Which is why the question about when after conception there is a “child” matters. And why it became a key concept the church took on. And actually concluded it wasn’t yet a child at conception.

Ok, give any logical reason the Didache forbid the practice besides that it was a life with a soul.

It forbid abortion of a child.

And again, you cant cite a single Christian source for this even being a question before 1200.



If you read the Bible then it is certainly clear what his thoughts were. Only a depraved or twisted mind would claim that Christ was cool with abortion.

How can you possibly claim that when the official position of the church was different for hundreds of years. You wouldn’t have needed a “human life at conception” movement if it was actually clear from scripture. It wasn’t. That’s why tertullian actually mattered (but was also a nut). And his view wasn’t widely adopted.