Gary Johnson on abortion

[ChaosControl]

many of my idols weren't either! you gotta catch up on Mark Twain! he wrote great funny things about religion! (i don't write good stuff, but i just want to point out that great people had the trait you're criticizing and made great use of it)

I like some of his novels, but I wouldn't like that trait of his.
Everyone has flaws though, so it is no surprise to learn of this flaw of his.

Not that poking a little fun is bad as long as it is in a playful manner and not a disrespectful one.

 

[low preference guy]

I like some of his novels, but I wouldn't like that trait of his.
Everyone has flaws though, so it is no surprise to learn of this flaw of his.

Not that poking a little fun is bad as long as it is in a playful manner and not a disrespectful one.

well, except i don't call it a flaw at all.

 

[YumYum]

I don't really think that religion could ever win that kind debate in the sense that they cannot have science on their side, unless their opposition was just bad. Ultimately it is about "faith" and such, so it is beyond the realm of science. Not something you can prove or provide a valid testable Theory from.

Yes, but you have probably heard it said "Extraordinary claims have to be supported by extraordinary evidence". The claims made by atheist (that there is no G-d), and the claims made by Christians (there is most definitely a G-d) are extraordinary.

Too bad science and religion cannot work together in solving life's mysteries.

 

[low preference guy]

No hope for some people apparently, I'm not going to bother any more since you're unreceptive to being tolerant or respectful of others.

i'm just calling it like it is. what you call faith is actually brain washing.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Sentient life can be the standard of value and morality. Johnson is simply challenging the false premise that if a 8-month fetus is a sentient human being, a 2-week mass of fertilized tissue must also be a sentient human being. Good for him. Also, being personally pro-life (and wishing to end federal funding of abortion out of respect for other taxpayers who feel the same way) is not necessarily a desire to use the government's initiation of force to stop other people from having abortions. Both positions are defensible but there is a difference between them.

 

[jmdrake]

Should Gary Johnson be the "torchbearer" for the liberty movement in 2012 and lose worse than Ron Paul in 2008 through a combination of his "middle of the road" stance on abortion, and anti-Christians in the movement being douches, don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[YumYum]

and anti-Christians in the movement being douches, don't say I didn't warn you.

What constitutes a person to be defined as "anti-Christian"?

If someone does not want to become a Christian after being given a thorough witness, doesn't that constitute them as a "goat" in Jesus eyes, thus making them also an "anti-Christian", and liable for "the gates of Hell"? According to Jesus, those who reject his message are the "enemy" and would be "anti-Christian". That would make all non-Christians on this forum who do not want to become Christian "anti-Christian" or "douches".

My point is: According to Jesus you "are either for us or against us."

 

[jmdrake]

If someone does not want to become a Christian after being given a thorough witness, doesn't that constitute them as a "goat" in Jesus eyes, thus making them also an "anti-Christian", and liable for "the gates of Hell"? According to Jesus, those who reject his message are the "enemy" and would be "anti-Christian". That would make all non-Christians on this forum who do not want to become Christian "anti-Christian" or "douches".

Nice way to misinterpret what I said. You don't have to be a douche to be an anti-Christian. I'm not a Muslim but you don't see me wantonly attacking Muslims. And even if I did, that would scarcely hurt Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the 2012 primaries. Ron Paul is Christian and a big part of his strategy is attracting Christians with a consistent message that includes the Christian "unjust war" theory. That might win some votes. Saying "You people are crazy because you believe in Santa Clause" isn't going to win votes.

 

[YumYum]

Nice way to misinterpret what I said. You don't have to be a douche to be an anti-Christian. In fact you can be a non Christian without being an anti-Christian.

That is not what the Bible teaches and you know that. I'm not defending those that attack Christianity, but nate himself said he doesn't care who is elected, all he wants to do is confront those on this forum who are "anti-Christian", which, according to the Bible, would be anybody who doesn't accept Christ.

nate is here on this forum to preach/teach and recruit. He himself said he doesn't care about politics or who gets elected, which includes Ron Paul. Does that bother you?

Ron Paul wants to win over to his side atheist/agnostics as much as he wants to win over more Christians.

When Christians come on this forum telling people the way it is, they will meet opposition to their proselytizing. They are just as guilty in turning away potential Ron Paul supporters as the "anti-Christians".

 

[jmdrake]

That is not what the Bible teaches and you know that. I'm not defending those that attack Christianity, but nate himself said he doesn't care who is elected, all he wants to do is confront those on this forum who are "anti-Christian", which, according to the Bible, would be anybody who doesn't accept Christ.

The Bible teaches that all anti-Christians are douches? I revised my earlier comment because I knew you are going to take the "not for Me - against me" text out of context, but even still that doesn't mean someone has to be a douche. I suppose using the "Not for = against" logic I am "anti-Muslim" but I don't go around ridiculing and attacking Islam now do I?

nate is here on this forum to preach/teach and recruit. He himself said he doesn't care about politics or who gets elected, which includes Ron Paul. Does that bother you?

I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it. Is nate a continual douche is his recruiting tactics? I've seen atheists here respectfully make their case without being douches. Further more, simply going by the numbers in the republican primary, there is more to be lost than to be gained from LFG's antics than from nate's "recruiting".

Ron Paul wants to win over to his side atheist/agnostics as much as he wants to win over more Christians.

Ron Paul wants to win. And if he won over every atheist/agnostic, but lost 3/4ths of the Christian/other people of faith vote he would lose by a landslide. If nate was being a douche like anti Christians in this thread were being douches that would still be a problem, but numerically a lesser one.

When Christians come on this forum telling people the way it is, they will meet opposition to their proselytizing. They are just as guilty in turning away potential Ron Paul supporters as the "anti-Christians".

Again you ignore the numbers. Again you ignore the difference between simply stating your case and being a jerk about it. I know you are prejudice against Christians and especially proselytizing ones because of your own personal bad experience. But if you will think about this from both a logical and political perspective you should be able to see what I'm talking about. There is a difference between stating your case (Saying "The scientific evidence shows such and such") and being a douche (Saying "All you people are stupid because you believe such and such"). In your heart you know I'm right.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Obvious guy says "Not possible because Huckabee, unlike Ron Paul, doesn't abide the Christian 'just war' theory"? I wonder whats going to happen when some people finally realize that Ron Paul isn't as hostile to Christianity as they are. Aside from being openly Christian himself, and letting Christianity influence his thinking not just on abortion but also war, RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. All are welcome here so I'm flabbergasted when I see folks trying to drive Christians off.

Im not trying to drive Christians off. But events in this world, negative events, are the creation of our own doing, or random events of nature. The idea that God is punishing or rewarding our country, rather than an individual....or is not compatible with most New Testament Theology.

And I would argue that a God who punishes an entire country because of the actions of some people in that country...is not compatible with liberty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[YumYum]

The Bible teaches that all anti-Christians are douches?

I never said that. You called them "douches". They didn't have douche in the Bible times.

I revised my earlier comment because I knew you are going to take the "not for Me - against me" text out of context, but even still that doesn't mean someone has to be a douche. I suppose using the "Not for = against" logic I am "anti-Muslim" but I don't go around ridiculing and attacking Islam now do I?
I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.

Please read carefully. He said it right here:

Yes, all people who are not Christian are anti-Christian. If you do not bow the knee to Christ, you are necessarily in rebellion against Him. That does not mean that non-Christians necessarily go around insulting Christians all time, just that they have a fundamentally anti-Biblical, anti-God, and anti-Christ worldview that will express itself when confronted with the Gospel.
​

He also said:

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.
​

Heathen translation: "I'm here to stir up shit!"

Is nate a continual douche is his recruiting tactics?

I don't call people on this forum a "douche". That is a childish name used on the cartoon "South Park". Douche is a liquid that is inserted inside a woman with a douche-stick to clean out all the bad stuff.

I've seen atheists here respectfully make their case without being douches. Further more, simply going by the numbers in the republican primary, there is more to be lost than to be gained from LFG's antics than from nate's "recruiting".

I've seen Christians on this forum respectfully make their case also without putting non-Christian members on this forum on a guilt trip. But Ron Paul did not authorize you to be a judge in deciding who is more important to be won over to his side. In fact, if you look at what he has said lately about the mosque, he has done more to turn Christians away by defending the Muslim's property rights than any antics by LPG.

Ron Paul wants to win. And if he won over every atheist/agnostic, but lost 3/4ths of the Christian/other people of faith vote he would lose by a landslide. If nate was being a douche like anti Christians in this thread were being douches that would still be a problem, but numerically a lesser one.Again you ignore the numbers. Again you ignore the difference between simply stating your case and being a jerk about it.

I know he wants to win, but he will not sacrifice his principles to win. Not every Christian who comes on this forum just "states their case". They condemn non-Christians for not accepting Christ and for protecting a woman's right to choose. They condemn homosexuals. That is more than just "stating their case."

I know you are prejudice against Christians and especially proselytizing ones because of your own personal bad experience.

Not exactly. I am not prejudiced against Christians. I enjoy reading the peaceful discussions between Christians in the religion forum, but my disdain for having religion shoved down my throat comes from having religion shoved down my throat. That would leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth.

But if you will think about this from both a logical and political perspective you should be able to see what I'm talking about. There is a difference between stating your case (Saying "The scientific evidence shows such and such") and being a douche (Saying "All you people are stupid because you believe such and such"). In your heart you know I'm right.

It works both ways. Christians should be respectful of non-Christians by not condemning them and judging them as nate has done, and non-Christians should refrain from insulting Christians as LPG has done.

 

[fisharmor]

In the end, there are only really around eight denominations, which all recognize each others' claims to being Christian and do not deny the others' Christianity: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed/Low Church Anglican, Continental Reformed (arguably under the Presbyterian banner or visa versa), Lutheran, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, and broader Evangelical "non-denominational" churches.

So, hold on a second... I'm in that list, and I take serious issue with your omission of both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I also take issue with your doctrine that in order to qualify as Christian, one must belong to an essentially unionist denomination.
Paul's admonition to be without division is itself a call for division. A denomination can't say that it stands for doctrine X when it allows contradictory doctrine Y to exist within it. If you believe in Scriptural inerrancy and sufficiency then you have to look outside the one passage as well, like at 2 John 9-11, and realize that Scripture at least frowns on ecumenism if it doesn't outright condemn it.

Would you read Revelations?

Listen... when someone shows up and starts throwing around "Revelations" [sic], it sounds to us the same as it would to you if some pro-Palin burger flipper showed up and started trying to argue against science using quantum theory. Revelation (it is not plural) is an advanced topic which is never even studied by most Christians, and to decry the whole faith based on your infantile understanding of it comes off to us the same way much of what you've been making fun of us for here sounds to you.

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

Actually, I would ask questions before heaping derision on him. I would ask things like: who is the Santa you are referring to? How will he give you presents? Why will he give you presents for doing the thing you are doing? Anything less is, quite frankly, incredibly unscientific.

people have justified heinous crimes with religion.

Yeah.... you wanna stack up the numbers on cold blooded murder and see who wins between atheism and religion?

It's funny that all of the people here who hate Christianity still defend Muslims every chance they get. Interesting.

Well, I am Christian, and I defend Muslims every chance I get. But I do not defend Islam.

because many of them don't take their religion seriously (what's the average number of Christians that marry as a virgin? lol!).

Actually, a Biblical metaphor which is still used to this day is that of the Church being the bride of Christ. As the Church is comprised of sinners, the metaphor is often extended to state that Christ has actually married a whore. The question at that point is not whether it is right to marry a whore: the question is whether or not the woman will remain a whore after the marriage.

Not exactly. I went to a debate at a University that held the Skepticon convention that was sponsored by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... It was held at Skepticon and was sponsored by FSM, and we're supposed to believe for one second that they didn't cherry-pick the debaters?

Look up a guy named Ken Ham. He's one of the best.

True, but he also suffers from speaking to his audience. Whenever I hear him on an occasional podcast, I can find chinks in his armor pretty easily. He might have really good rebuttals, but I'm never right in front of him.


Oh, and regarding the long-forsaken OT: Not one person I know from church would ever vote for Gary Johnson, based on his abortion stance. That's only like 50% of the people I know, but of the other 50%, 5% are libertarians who would vote for him, 20% or so are convinced Democrats, and the remainder don't vote.
He can't win, not even a primary.

 

[Fredom101]

Abortion is a huge issue but the fact that he's not against the war on drugs or the income tax, issues that actually effect you, is no big deal?

 

[jmdrake]

I never said that. You called them "douches". They didn't have douche in the Bible times.

They had the syntactic equivalent.

Please read carefully. He said it right here:

Yes, all people who are not Christian are anti-Christian. If you do not bow the knee to Christ, you are necessarily in rebellion against Him. That does not mean that non-Christians necessarily go around insulting Christians all time, just that they have a fundamentally anti-Biblical, anti-God, and anti-Christ worldview that will express itself when confronted with the Gospel.
​

Now you're just lying or being purposefully ridiculous. I already withdrew then "anti Christian" claim. I'm strictly talking about people being jerks and attacking others. For you to hang on the "anti Christian" argument at this point is just you being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

He also said:

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.
​

Heathen translation: "I'm here to stir up shit!"

More intellectual dishonesty from you. What I said was:

I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.

Now there is a difference between confronting someone and saying "You're stupid because you don't believe the same way I do" as LPG was doing.

I don't call people on this forum a "douche". That is a childish name used on the cartoon "South Park". Douche is a liquid that is inserted inside a woman with a douche-stick to clean out all the bad stuff.

Fine. Nate wasn't being a jerk. Nate wasn't being needlessly antagonistic. Nate wasn't being a YumYum. Whatever you want to call it, in this thread Nate wasn't doing it. Do I agree with everything Nate does? No. And maybe you'll dig up some quote where Nate was acting like LPG and others have been in this thread. But your trying to equate someone stating a position with people running attacking others for their belief system is just silly and you know it.

I've seen Christians on this forum respectfully make their case also without putting non-Christian members on this forum on a guilt trip. But Ron Paul did not authorize you to be a judge in deciding who is more important to be won over to his side. In fact, if you look at what he has said lately about the mosque, he has done more to turn Christians away by defending the Muslim's property rights than any antics by LPG.

I never said who was "more important". I said do the numbers. And further Ron Paul didn't attack Christians in general by defending the Mosque. Many Christians who are of the liberal persuasion might be drawn TO Ron Paul for his position on the mosque. I doubt you'll find any drawn to Ron Paul by LPG's antics. Besides, LPG runs around complaining about truthers "driving people away from Paul". So he should take a little of his own medicine.

I know he wants to win, but he will not sacrifice his principles to win. Not every Christian who comes on this forum just "states their case". They condemn non-Christians for not accepting Christ and for protecting a woman's right to choose. They condemn homosexuals. That is more than just "stating their case."

You're missing the point. I don't know if this is on purpose, or if you are just trolling. (I know you troll whether you admit it or not). Taking a position of not blanketly attacking Christians is NOT sacrificing principle. In THIS thread Nate merely stated his case. He stated that he felt Biblical principles were a firm foundation as opposed to "shifting sand". There was no "Gary Johnson is stupid for not believing as I do". Furthermore that's the same foundation that Ron Paul bases is "just war" theory on.

Speaking of homosexuality and abortion, do you realize that Ron Paul supports the rights of states to have laws banning gay sex? Sure he's against those laws personally, but he supports the rights of the states to have them. On abortion he's for a total ban himself which he thinks should be done through the states. What Ron Paul would actually do as president lines actually lines up quite well with social conservatism, even though Dr. Paul promotes it through a "small government" lens. I'm not sure if everybody here railing against "Christians" really understands Ron Paul's principles or the legislation he has already introduced to advance them. Sometime you need to sit down and read the "We the people act".

Not exactly. I am not prejudiced against Christians. I enjoy reading the peaceful discussions between Christians in the religion forum, but my disdain for having religion shoved down my throat comes from having religion shoved down my throat. That would leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth.

Sorry, but I've read enough from you not to buy that. Your definition of "shoving religion down someone's throat" includes someone silently and peacefully standing on a sidewalk holding out Christian literature for anyone who might come by and take it. If that's "shoving religion down someone's throat" than everyone who cold called, door knocked or did any actual grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Peter Schiff is guilty of shoving politics up someone's colon.

It works both ways. Christians should be respectful of non-Christians by not condemning them and judging them as nate has done, and non-Christians should refrain from insulting Christians as LPG has done.

Nate didn't do it in this thread.

 

[EvilEngineer]

Congratulations... you all have demonstrated why there will never be ANY progress for or against abortion.

 

[jmdrake]

Im not trying to drive Christians off. But events in this world, negative events, are the creation of our own doing, or random events of nature. The idea that God is punishing or rewarding our country, rather than an individual....or is not compatible with most New Testament Theology.

And I would argue that a God who punishes an entire country because of the actions of some people in that country...is not compatible with liberty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Matthew 23:37 - 39
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'[d]"

Matthew 24

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

If Jesus could pronounce woe on Jerusalem it's not theologically incompatible for someone else to think woe might be pronounced on the U.S. Nor is that position "incompatible with liberty". Many people believe that one of the reasons America remains one of the most religious Christian countries on earth is because of religious liberty. Countries where one religion was favored over the other have tended to become a-religious in modern times. Christianity does fine in the "free marketplace of idea". But now there is a growing socio-political-cultural "war on religion." Ron Paul talked about it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

 

[YumYum]

Matthew 23:37 - 39
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'[d]"

Matthew 24

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

If Jesus could pronounce woe on Jerusalem it's not theologically incompatible for someone else to think woe might be pronounced on the U.S. Nor is that position "incompatible with liberty". Many people believe that one of the reasons America remains one of the most religious Christian countries on earth is because of religious liberty. Countries where one religion was favored over the other have tended to become a-religious in modern times. Christianity does fine in the "free marketplace of idea". But now there is a growing socio-political-cultural "war on religion." Ron Paul talked about it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The Bible makes it very clear that the entire world and its governments are under the control of Satan. Do you really think that G-d favors Satan's government of the U.S. over the non-Christian governments?

It says at Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those Kings the G-d of heaven will set up a Kingdom (government) that will never be brought to ruin. And the Kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these other kingdoms, and it itself will stand until times indefinite."

You can see that G-d is going to wipe out all the governments off the Earth, including the United States, and then His government will rule forever.

Satan told Jesus when he was tempting him at Luke 4:6 "and the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it."


Satan is "the ruler of this world", including the United States according to the Bible.

 

[jmdrake]

The Bible makes it very clear that the entire world and its governments are under the control of Satan. Do you really think that G-d favors Satan's government of the U.S. over the non-Christian governments?

It says at Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those Kings the G-d of heaven will set up a Kingdom (government) that will never be brought to ruin. And the Kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these other kingdoms, and it itself will stand until times indefinite."

You can see that G-d is going to wipe out all the governments off the Earth, including the United States, and then His government will rule forever.

Satan told Jesus when he was tempting him at Luke 4:6 "and the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it."


Satan is "the ruler of this world", including the United States according to the Bible.

And you believe Satan?

Here is God speaking through Daniel to king Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 4:32
And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Jeremiah prophesying about Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 28:14

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals.'"

Next?

 

[YumYum]

And you believe Satan?

What? Do you think he was lying to Jesus? If so, Jesus would have rebuked him and he would have told Satan that he wasn't the ruler of all the Kingdoms of the Earth. He made a serious offer here to Jesus. This was his first shot at trying to tempt Jesus, and you think that Satan would blow it by telling a bold face lie?

Here is God speaking through Daniel to king Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 4:32
And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Right, and G-d took away Nebuchadnezzar's power for seven years and then gave it back, and He has done the same with Satan: G-d has given Satan the power to rule all the governments of the Earth and He hasn't taken that power back. Satan is still ruling this Earth and all its governments, including the United States according to the Bible.

Jeremiah prophesying about Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 28:14

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals.'"

Next?

Again, G-d gives to whomever He chooses to be in power. Ever studied Gog of Magog in the book of Ezekiel where G-d puts hooks in the nose of Gog (Satan) and forces him to do whatever He purposes?

Whose Kingdom are you for? The Kingdom or government of the United States that the Bible makes clear is currently under the authority of Satan, or G-d's Kingdom which will wipe out all the governments of the Earth and then rule the Earth for a thousand years?