Abortion and religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know much about Jesus, but I do know that he loves guns.

I really don’t think so …

Gun toting survivalists are a perverted interpretation of Christianity …

Jesus advised us to:
Turn the other cheek when offended;
Love our neighbors/ others as ourselves;
Lay down our own lives in loving service for others.

None of these commands are well served by gun ownership.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^Yeah not a fan of biblical literalism - apart From being ridiculous to not take social and historical context into account, it nearly always involves cherry picking texts ..,
What texts are you referring to regarding sexuality?

It does not sound like you are terribly familiar with the Old Testament’s surprisingly progressive approach to sexuality.

I highly recommend starting with:

Sexuality and Scripture: What Else Does the Bible Have to Say?
Debra W. Haffner


“Many people think they know what the Bible teaches about sexuality. They believe that the Bible teaches that sex is only for procreation and that masturbation, abortion, and contraception are wrong, when actually the Bible is silent on each of these issues. On the other hand, some assume that it is hopelessly patriarchal and should be disregarded completely, when there are actually texts that emphasize mutuality and equality.”

“How fair and pleasant you are

O loved one, delectable maiden.

You are stately as a palm tree,

And your breasts are like its clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree, and
Lay hold of its branches.

Oh, may your breasts be like
Clusters of the vine.
And the scent of your breath like apples,
And your kisses like the best wine that
Goes down smoothly

Gliding over lips and teeth…
She answers:
That pleases my lover, rousing him
Even from sleep.

I am my lover’s,

He longs for me,
Only for me.
He answers:
Come my beloved,

Let us go out into the fields,

And lie all night among the flowering henna.
Let us go early to the vineyards…

There I will give you my love.”
Song of Songs 7:6–14

The Song of Songs is a delightfully erotic, sensual dance between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, who, given what we know about marriage at the time the Bible was written, are probably in their early teen years. Their desire for each other is mutual; their passion is mutual; their fulfillment is mutual. The emphasis is on passion and intimacy; there is no discussion of marriage or fertility. And, it is only one of the places in Scripture where physical beauty is affirmed; where pleasure is good, where there are many forms of blessed relationships, and where sexuality is a source of pleasure and pain in our lives.

Are trying to introduce a new doctrine based on one verse in Song of Songs? Did you even look up the translation from the original language?
There is no way for any of the religions to give people a free pass on fornication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right simply dioesn't believe in the First Amendment anymore

Does that really say Jesus, Guns, Babies behind her?

WTF is wrong with these people?

Lower IQ + corporal punishment + poor quality education + a lifetime of propaganda = maga

That’s what’s wrong with these people.

Are they redeemable? What do we do with the millions of people like this?

Let them live their lives but keep their beliefs the hell away from public schools and government.

If only they would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:christianity is the third biggest threat to this country after climate change and republicans. I find them particularly reprehensible and disgusting.

+1

Anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on me and my family - and my country - is a vile POS.

Ditto. Frankly, I judge religious people. I find that the vast majority of them lack the ability to think critically and rationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:christianity is the third biggest threat to this country after climate change and republicans. I find them particularly reprehensible and disgusting.

+1

Anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on me and my family - and my country - is a vile POS.

What are you talking about?
You have freedom of religion. You are not oppressed
Mormons and JW's have a right to recruit new members, as do country clubs and gyms

Sure.. they just don't have a right to form a government that would govern us all - those who don't belong and don't want to belong to their religion. There is this pesky thing: separation of church and state. When government starts enforcing the laws of some specific religion.. what happens to all other citizens who aren't its loyal followers? They lose their freedoms.

What you are referring to is off topic
Nobody is banning or restricting your freedom to practice your religion
A law about abortion has nothing to do with religios freedoms.
Perhaps what you are referring to is the influence of religion in today's American politics. That is very different from having a kaxk of religious freedom.

Religious freedom was curbed in Soviet union. People had to congregate in secret, people were imprisoned for being Sunday school teachers. Secret police tried to crack down on babtisms, you lost your job if it was found out you believed in God

As someone who grew up in the former USSR, I have to say the absence of religion (and the associated dumbing down and brain washing of the population) was definitely the silver lining of life under communism. Instead of wasting our time in church, we studied, read, played… It might explain why people from the Soviet block still to this day kick Americans’ behind in math, science etc.

[Anonymous]

One day someone should start a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

Long practicing Catholic here- I know very few people, under the age of 60, who would support no abortion for anyone before 12 weeks.
Or in the case of medical necessity.

I do know a lot of people who don’t see this as their top 3 voting issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long practicing Catholic here- I know very few people, under the age of 60, who would support no abortion for anyone before 12 weeks.
Or in the case of medical necessity.

I do know a lot of people who don’t see this as their top 3 voting issue.

Doesn’t matter who you know. The extremists have the power in red states now. Sounds like your moderate friends are fine with that and with the extremist agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long practicing Catholic here- I know very few people, under the age of 60, who would support no abortion for anyone before 12 weeks.
Or in the case of medical necessity.

I do know a lot of people who don’t see this as their top 3 voting issue.

Your Church is the largest forced birther cabal in the world.

[Anonymous]

I keep reading about how abortion is central to Judaism. It’s clear to me that the founders always believed in a clear separation between synagogue and state.

I’m not sure why Jews think that exposing abortion as a Jewish thing is a good idea, but clearly Jewish religious dogma has no place in our laws or government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading about how abortion is central to Judaism. It’s clear to me that the founders always believed in a clear separation between synagogue and state.

I’m not sure why Jews think that exposing abortion as a Jewish thing is a good idea, but clearly Jewish religious dogma has no place in our laws or government.

Don't post the same exact post in numerous threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading about how abortion is central to Judaism. It’s clear to me that the founders always believed in a clear separation between synagogue and state.

I’m not sure why Jews think that exposing abortion as a Jewish thing is a good idea, but clearly Jewish religious dogma has no place in our laws or government.

It isn't that "abortion is central to judaism" but rather some religions consider life to start at birth, not conception, so when Evangelicals try to foist their religious beliefs on the rest of us, that is a violation of the First Amendment. It's too bad the SCOTUS is tainted, otherwise they would have realized it. Or, perhaps this is the game:

But let's not say that abortion is central to any religion, because it isn't and your language undermines and delegitimizes the broader point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading about how abortion is central to Judaism. It’s clear to me that the founders always believed in a clear separation between synagogue and state.

I’m not sure why Jews think that exposing abortion as a Jewish thing is a good idea, but clearly Jewish religious dogma has no place in our laws or government.

It isn't that "abortion is central to judaism" but rather some religions consider life to start at birth, not conception, so when Evangelicals try to foist their religious beliefs on the rest of us, that is a violation of the First Amendment. It's too bad the SCOTUS is tainted, otherwise they would have realized it. Or, perhaps this is the game:

But let's not say that abortion is central to any religion, because it isn't and your language undermines and delegitimizes the broader point.

I’m responding to all this sudden push by Jews to say that the ability to abort an unborn child is fundamental to Judaism. They’re saying it - not me. But then they are trying to say that because abortion access is a fundamental Jewish value, the People cannot (via the democratic process) restrict or outlaw it. That’s Jews trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the country.

[Anonymous]

No it isn't. If Evangelicals don't want abortions, then they don't have to have them, but they cannot restrict other people's options and choices.

See the difference?