What people do with their own body and their own lives is and should always be their sole decision to make. No government body should ever get involved with our personal decisions. Programs to help, if people want and choose to take advantage of them. Great. Educational campaigns and programs Great. But forcing people to act a certain way or restricting their rights in any way is just simply wrong.

You obviously enjoy this type of bantering and quite possibly love to hear yourself talk [...]

I burst out laughing when I read your response. You are so much more worked up about this than I am. To be that worked up and still come back for more demonstrates an enjoyment with this banter that I won’t ever know this side of Glory.

But alas, the compassion is dripping me off me like the chilly morning dewdrops… so let me help you again…

First of all, you should go to the Apologetics.com’s Radio Archive and listen to as much as possible, especially the recent show series titled Apologetics 101. It will help you better present a cogent, rational argument.

In fact, the brilliant folks at Apologetics.com were just recently (within the last 5 shows) talking about people who claim a Christ-follower cannot rightly make judgments. For example, you said:

Following Christ’s examples of compassion does NOT include justification or judgement[sic].

Judgement[sic] from you or I would require a level of narcissism that is NOT Christ-like.

[You are] the farthest thing from a compassionate “Christ-follower”.

So, I guess those are your judgments, huh? So by your own three brief statements above you have established yourself to be an un-Christ-like, narcissistic, non-Christ-follower. Ouch!

Your logical fallacy comes from saying that no Christ-follower can judge, because by merely saying that you’ve made a judgment. You’ve, in a single sentence, contradicted yourself and plummeted your argument into a deep fat fryer. It’s the classic violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It’s the “Fool’s Mate” of discourse. It’s like saying “there is no absolute truth”, to which I would ask, “well then, is what you just said true?”

And yeah, while you’re at it read Kenneth Samples’ book A World of Difference which has a wonderful section about forming a cohesive, internally congruent worldview.

You wrote the following: “I can only guess by your seemingly emotionally-charged irrationale that either you or someone you love has greasy, stubby fingers. That may make it difficult for you to use Google or Webster’s, and I want to be compassionate towards that. So I’ll help you out a bit…” (btw, thanks for the vocabulary lesson!)

You obviously enjoy this type of bantering and quite possibly love to hear yourself talk (or in this case blog), and you’re the farthest thing from a compassionate “Christ-follower”. How’s that for calling a spade a spade?

So let’s take a look at my “repugnant phrases”. If you Google “grossly obese” you’ll get mostly medical hits, because the phrase is a clinical description of extreme obesity and does NOT denote gross as meaning ‘disgusting’. And mammoth (if you check Webster’s) when used as an adjective means ‘huge’ or ‘extremely large’, and would aptly describe the torso of someone grossly obese. And again, Webster tells us that stubby means ’short’ or ‘thick’, and greasy means ’smeared, covered, or soiled with grease’.

I can only guess by your seemingly emotionally-charged irrationale that either you or someone you love has greasy, stubby fingers. That may make it difficult for you to use Google or Webster’s, and I want to be compassionate towards that. So I’ll help you out a bit…

You are applying unconditional absolutes to “true” compassion and “genuine” love. This is a logical fallacy. You are extrapolating ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’ out of its context to where wisdom and discernment must always be silent in the name of “compassion”. This was decidedly NOT Christ’s example. Compassion doesn’t equal silence. There is a much greater lack of compassion in today’s world caused by silence than by calling a spade a spade… which Christ frequently did.

Indeed, by applying “compassion” and “love” without condition you are saying that everyone’s actions must be tolerated by any Christ-followers. Christ-followers would ALWAYS have to turn the other cheek (but didn’t He say that?). Christ-followers would ALWAYS have to give up their cloak when asked for it (but didn’t Christ say that?). In effect, you wouldn’t be able to justify any form of judgment of another’s actions - no courts, no police, no punishment, no brains, no discernment… and ultimately no self-defense, no self-interest, no self-preservation. Christ-followers could not withhold any of their money or possessions from anyone for any reason, otherwise they weren’t UNCONDITIONALLY compassionate toward them. And just forget about going to war or killing evil people (VERY UNcompassionate and judging).

Fortunately Christ showed us better, and gave us what the corporate world calls “full-spectrum leadership”, easily debunking this falsely pious notion of what I’ll call blindly-infinite-compassion. He showed us how to be compassionate to the prostitute, and how to be compassionate to the money-changers in the temple. Compassion can take many forms, I guess… nurse, drill instructor, school teacher, repo man, and of course - blogger.

I get what you’re trying to say about freedom of choice and the universal healthcare idea. This type of opposition would also have to include the irresponsible individuals who choose to smoke and drink excessively, among other things. Where does it end and who decides which ones are “self-inflicted”? Most importantly, would Christ consider a lack of compassion self-inflicted too?

I’d wager that a lack of compassion (as a “huge problem in this world”) is immeasurably dwarfed by irresponsibility.

i can be such a downer. but at least i’m not fat damnit!