Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[Dragon2010]

Their plan to make it a neutral zone? Or the dated Jewish claim to the city?

Might as well give Rome back to the Goths.

Both. I'm not saying that was the religious facet of the issue. Just saying, Jerusalem was a big issue in the conflict for a range of reasons. Still till this day, it's disputed.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism can all call strong "claims" to that area.

 

[Misanthrope]

Both. I'm not saying that was the religious facet of the issue. Just saying, Jerusalem was a big issue in the conflict for a range of reasons. Still till this day, it's disputed.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism can all call strong "claims" to that area.

I might contend that, on a purely religious basis, it should go to us Christians. We're considerably less merkinish than the Jews or Muslims these days, too.

Unless you're a 9 year old boy.

 

[Dragon2010]

I might contend that, on a purely religious basis, it should go to us Christians. We're considerably less merkinish than the Jews or Muslims these days, too.

Unless you're a 9 year old boy.

I'm sure they'd both love that given the issues that have surrounded one city. The UN need to call the shots, man-up and call it an International zone. Not in Israel, not in Palestine. A zone that is one for all. Sounds impossible given laws, police and such - but it's certainly possible if they plan it and manage it.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Christians should have no interest in Jerusalem. At least, not before the second coming.

To be honest, the Jews and Muslims can have it. There's nothing there of any interest or meaning.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm sure they'd both love that given the issues that have surrounded one city. The UN need to call the shots, man-up and call it an International zone. Not in Israel, not in Palestine. A zone that is one for all. Sounds impossible given laws, police and such - but it's certainly possible if they plan it and manage it.

I doubt you'll get either side to agree to it, let alone abide by it.

 

[Misanthrope]

Christians should have no interest in Jerusalem. At least, not before the second coming.

To be honest, the Jews and Muslims can have it. There's nothing there of any interest or meaning.

On the basis of sharing the same Old Testament, I'd argue that we do. Given Jesus is said to have taught there and that is where he died for our sins, I'd say it very much holds a place in the hearts of Christians.

(You have no interest in visiting Calvary? Seriously?)

It's perhaps not as important as Bethlehem or Nazareth, but to say Christians should have no interest in it is a surprisingly odd answer from somebody with your interest in the religion.

I'd certainly like to be able to visit all three places without risk of harm or having to fund what amounts to a terrorist regime in sheep's clothing.

 

[Drew-Sta]

On the basis of sharing the same Old Testament, I'd argue that we do. Given Jesus is said to have taught there and that is where he died for our sins, I'd say it very much holds a place in the hearts of Christians.

(You have no interest in visiting Calvary? Seriously?)

It's perhaps not as important as Bethlehem or Nazareth, but to say Christians should have no interest in it is a surprisingly odd answer from somebody with your interest in the religion.

I'd certainly like to be able to visit all three places without risk of harm or having to fund what amounts to a terrorist regime in sheep's clothing.

I think you misunderstand.

The city itself has no intrinsic value to it for the purposes of worship. Nor do Christians need to go there or somehow gravitate there at any time in their life.

Muslims and Jews, however, need the site itself. It holds value to their actual worship. They need access to it for their religious worship. Ergo, they fight for it.

I'd love to visit and I'd love to wander its streets and soak up the history. As a Christian tourist, it would be very moving.

But as anything else - it holds no value for my worship of God and it is not necessary to have anything to do with it. Jesus is the Temple, and the Spirit is our accrss to God. As such, from a purely human point of view, Christians should steer clear and avoid it unless giving humanitarian aid to those there.

 

[Misanthrope]

I think you misunderstand.

The city itself has no intrinsic value to it for the purposes of worship. Nor do Christians need to go there or somehow gravitate there at any time in their life.

Muslims and Jews, however, need the site itself. It holds value to their actual worship. They need access to it for their religious worship. Ergo, they fight for it.

I'd love to visit and I'd love to wander its streets and soak up the history. As a Christian tourist, it would be very moving.

But as anything else - it holds no value for my worship of God and it is not necessary to have anything to do with it. Jesus is the Temple, and the Spirit is our accrss to God. As such, from a purely human point of view, Christians should steer clear and avoid it unless giving humanitarian aid to those there.

I see your point that there's no religious requirement for us to go there, but to say it's something Christians have 'no interest in' is wrong, and you've admitted that by expressing your own interest in going there.

By my belief, it's infinitely more holy and worthy as a site of worship than the tacky buildings we've erected all around the world and forced people to shuffle into dispassionately on Sunday mornings.

 

[BunniesMan]

I might be in the extreme minority but I don't blame the couple who didn't want the downs syndrome baby from the surrogate mother.

 

[HowHigh]

Scumbag

 

[BunniesMan]

They paid the surrogate. They told her to abort the baby (who also has a heart defect). If she wasn't willing to do that the baby is her responsibility.

 

[HowHigh]

Well they still took the twin..

 

[BunniesMan]

In an ideal world you wouldn't split up twins but we don't live in an ideal world. Or the couple would have been fertile in the first place. Siblings get split in the foster system sometimes.

And part of the problem is the surrogate not being able to afford to take care of this baby, she'd be in even more of a hole if she had 2. Taking none would have made the problem even worse.

I just think if you're a surrogate and the circumstances change and very early on in the pregnancy the parents tell you they don't want a baby with a problem and you choose to keep it then the baby becomes your responsibility.

I completely understand the side of the argument of everyone who disagrees but I also understand how this couple feels.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

I might be in the extreme minority but I don't blame the couple who didn't want the downs syndrome baby from the surrogate mother.

And now you know how we feel about you.

 

[Twizzle]

he loves you

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Few would....

 

[Misanthrope]

They paid the surrogate. They told her to abort the baby (who also has a heart defect). If she wasn't willing to do that the baby is her responsibility.

They told her to commit what many people believe to be murder and, because they'd paid her, she should have complied? :?

 

[sportive cupid]

It's a sad world when we think we are advanced because we control science .

This case shows me that we aren't advanced until we can reconcile science with what is morally and ethically right .
Until then we are savages with science knowledge.

 

[afinalsin666]

They told her to commit what many people believe to be murder and, because they'd paid her, she should have complied? :?

They were ready to do what many people consider a responsible decision, and because the carrier refused to drop them, they have to take responsibility?

 

[Misanthrope]

They were ready to do what many people consider a responsible decision, and because the carrier refused to drop them, they have to take responsibility?

Are you of the belief, then, that the father in a pregnancy should have the right to force the mother to have an abortion?