Simply “caring” about quality of life is not enough.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

So what’s your plan to feed, house, clothe, ensure health care for all who need it without government programs, Christian?

It’s my opinion that progressives working to enact/expand government programs to help the poor is far more in keeping with Jesus’ teachings than anything conservative Christians do, and your snark isn’t enough to disprove it.

I’m sorry – what conversation are you having?

You can’t possibly be equating one particular view of how health care can be done – that government should do it – with Jesus’ teaching and saying that anyone who cares about “quality of life” must obviously believe government should take care of X, Y, and Z social issues. You just can’t be.

If right-to-birthers/conservatives would spend as much time fighting for and ensuring quality of life as much as they demand quantity of life, they might have some moral standing to force a woman to make a lifelong commitment. But they don’t and they don’t.

That’s nonsense, and either you know it and you’re ignoring it, or you’re willfully being ignorant and not learning a thing about the people you oppose. There are lots of Christians who believe abortion is wrong and care very much about quality of life.

I’d get all “offended” by your broad-brush slam on “conservatives,” but I don’t see where Jesus recommended indulging in hurt feelings and being all offended all the time.

Or consistently misrepresenting what someone has written in order to claim offense, for that matter.

Infanticide is illegal, as it should be, and abortion is legal, as it should be.

There is a very clear and distinct difference between the two, and it’s been one of my guiding philosophies that if I have to exaggerate the severity of something, the original must not be that bad.

Jesus scorching scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites about their selective adherance to the law said, “… these ye ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

That description certainly fits as advice we each can share with another. Starting with ourselves.

The post is doing no such thing, and this has already been covered. The post is giving a literary example of an entirely different world where progressivism caused a certain type of evil, to illustrate that progress is not always a good thing – we need to be careful what we’re progressing toward. Come on, now. You really want to tell me that progressive, utopia-driven, humanity-loving agendas have never resulted in tyranny and oppression?

Now, if you’d kindly direct me the portion of “truth of the Gospel” that matches conservative values…

I think the point of follow-up comments is that everyone else in the conversation isn’t interested in forcing the gospel into the conservative vs. progressive debate. In other words, despite the fact that I could easily demonstrate where some values of conservatism match biblical values (as well as how some progressive values match some biblical values), no one else wants to play that game. The gospel is not a tool to win whatever side of America’s culture war you happen to be on. It corrects both sides and offers something different, better, and more healing to the world.

Not more progressive, more humane since cognizance is the greater part of cruelty. If right-to-birthers/conservatives would spend as much time fighting for and ensuring quality of life as much as they demand quantity of life, they might have some moral standing to force a woman to make a lifelong commitment. But they don’t and they don’t.

No matter how it’s spun, the post is obviously equating progressives with slavery proponents and that’s very much offensive.

Now, if you’d kindly direct me the portion of “truth of the Gospel” that matches conservative values…