Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 168 (213252)
06-01-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
06-01-2005 6:01 PM


Re: Papal Influence
There are PROTESTANTS that believe pro-life means just that PRO-LIFE and so any termination of life is wrong.
Pardon me I should have said BIBLE BELIEVING PROTESTANTS who know the commandment is about murder.
I mean for god's sake faith, are you telling me the Amish and Mennonites aren't Protestant? How about the Quakers? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many many protestant groups, and some most certainly hold a more strict notion of PRO-LIFE.
More STRICT? Hardly!! Less true to the Bible. You can't believe the death penalty is wrong if you believe the Bible.
Thou shalt not kill ALWAYS meant shall not "murder" and murder is the taking of INNOCENT life.
Perhaps the position should be called "anti-murder" then, instead of pro life.
Perhaps, who knows. The point is that "pro life" was designed to specifically counter the obfuscating term "pro choice"
No rational person can be against all killing for "ANY reason."
Jesus would disagree you. At least that's what several PROTESTANTS told me. Now are you disagreeing with Jesus?
What are they Protesting since they agree with the Pope? And the world, the flesh and the devil to boot. Clearly they are not Bible believers.
Jesus is YAHWEH, the God who instituted the death penalty for so many sins. He also threatened hellfire, so certainly he believes that some are worthy of losing their lives. Of course perhaps your "Protestants" don't believe He is Yahweh. Again, sorry I neglected to remember that anybody can call themselves anything these days and even be taken for the standard. Mea culpa.
By the way why would it be against reason not to kill for any reason? I certainly don't agree with that position but some very sane people have.
They are insane in denying the need to put to death certain classes of criminals for the good of society. That's an absolute necessity in an orderly society.
Ghandi for example? He led a successful revolution and life with that very concept.
Are you calling Ghandi irrational? Weird.
Yes I consider his thinking on these things to be irrational, despite what good he accomplished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2005 6:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 06-02-2005 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 168 (213253)
06-01-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
06-01-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Thou shalt not kill
No, that's very confused logic. Maybe this will straighten it out: I think that the commandment is against the criminal killing of innocent human beings, period, because there are also many kinds of literal "killing" the Bible justifies as righteous, including the death penalty -- for such crimes as killing the innocent.
Even if this were the case, you would think that, given human fallibility, Christians would tend to be on the safe side and not kill anybody unless there was no choice (that is, the 'murderer' being an imminent threat to the lives of others), instead of 'pro-death penalty.' After all, God does say 'Thou shalt not kill/murder/whatever' a number of times; I don't remember any passages that say 'Thou shalt avenge me for any murders committed.' So given the near certainty, especially in light of recent DNA evidence, of perhaps murdering an innocent 'criminal,' I would expect NO Christians to be on the side of the death penalty.
In fact, the supposition that 'thou shalt not take innocent life' doctrine makes the death penalty morally acceptable poses a number of problems. According to this logic, vigilanteeism is also morally acceptable if you are fairly certain that you are taking non-innocent life. It would also make it more than okay to kill every abortion doctor and every woman that has ever had an abortion in this country, as both consciously took innocent life, and thus renounced their own claim to innocence. Doesn't vigilanteeism and the killing of millions of these women rub you at least slightly the wrong way?
This message has been edited by zyncod, 06-01-2005 06:57 PM
This message has been edited by zyncod, 06-01-2005 07:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 9:48 PM zyncod has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 168 (213294)
06-01-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by zyncod
06-01-2005 6:56 PM


Re: Thou shalt not kill
The death penalty as exemplified in the Bible is not a vigilante affair, and in fact it appears to be a corrective to the sort of vigilante justice that tended (and still tends) to occur in the Middle East, as it restrains the tendency to disproportionate punishment enacted by offended family members.
As required by God, it's a legal matter conducted by the elders of the community by due process to determine guilt and the appropriate punishment, and often carried out before the community, the way law is always rightly processed, whether by a small tribe or a large nation.
"Thou shalt not kill" on the other hand is one of the commandments to individuals, a whole other thing. Confusing the two contexts is the root of the problem.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-01-2005 09:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by zyncod, posted 06-01-2005 6:56 PM zyncod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by berberry, posted 06-01-2005 10:29 PM Faith has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 168 (213308)
06-01-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
06-01-2005 9:48 PM


Re: Thou shalt not kill
Faith writes:
quote:
The death penalty as exemplified in the Bible is not a vigilante affair, and in fact it appears to be a corrective to the sort of vigilante justice that tended (and still tends) to occur in the Middle East, as it restrains the tendency to disproportionate punishment enacted by offended family members.
As required by God, it's a legal matter conducted by the elders of the community by due process to determine guilt and the appropriate punishment, and often carried out before the community, the way law is always rightly processed, whether by a small tribe or a large nation.
Huh? Due process? Where was due process when god killed everybody in the flood? Where was due process when god ordered the Amalekites slaughtered, and went out of his way to specify that even suckling infants be killed? Where was the due process for those little babies?
What about god's premeditated slaughter of the innocent firstborns of Egypt? Is that what you call due process?
This is the most telling aspect of biblical literalism. You fundies will excuse anything, including the slaughter of innocent babies, so long as you think it's "god's will".
You say that when the bible uses the word 'kill' it means 'murder'. Would these examples of god's megalomaniacal slaughter of innocents qualify as murder?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 9:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 11:26 PM berberry has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 168 (213311)
06-01-2005 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Monk
06-01-2005 10:33 AM


quote:
So is it any wonder why he avoided the 2004 NAACP convention? Would you fault Kerry for not appearing before the swift boat veterans? I wouldn?t, it would be political suicide.
The NAACP is a legitimate, longstanding political organization with over a million members.
The "Swiftboat Veterans" was a political smear group created by Karl Rove and a man who had held a seething hatred for John Kerry for decades.
The fact that he was heckled should not have kept him from meeting with the NAACP leadership for his entire first term in office.
In fact, the heckling should have prompted him to meet with the leadership to discuss their concerns.
By contrast, he meets with conservative Christan leaders who are crazy, radical people like Pat Robertson who believes that Florida hurricanes were caused by homosexuals and feminists and Ted Haggard who preaches that demons are everywhere and you can "catch" them by being near a sinful act, like homosexual sex, and that the US should be actively evangelizing for Christianity in Iraq.
Bush finds all the time in the world to meet with these people, but not with the NAACP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 10:33 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 10:53 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 168 (213312)
06-01-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Monk
06-01-2005 10:47 AM


Re: Papal Influence
quote:
Schraf's contention is that only radical fundamentalist evangelicals have the ear of Bush.
Nope.
Big Business, especially Big Oil, also has his ear.
Like his buddy, Ken Lay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 10:47 AM Monk has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 168 (213314)
06-01-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tal
06-01-2005 12:56 PM


Re: Papal Influence
quote:
There is a difference between killing the innocent in the name of convenience and punishing those convicted of heinous crimes.
Is it important only that they be convicted, or that they be guilty?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tal, posted 06-01-2005 12:56 PM Tal has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 168 (213319)
06-01-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
06-01-2005 2:46 PM


Re: Papal Influence
quote:
No rational person can be against all killing for "ANY reason."
You mean like Buddhists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 2:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 11:32 PM nator has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 84 of 168 (213320)
06-01-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
06-01-2005 10:38 PM


Schraff writes:
In fact, the heckling should have prompted him to meet with the leadership to discuss their concerns.
I agree, the heckling should have prompted Kerry to meet with veterans and discuss their concerns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 10:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 10:59 PM Monk has replied
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2005 11:00 PM Monk has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 168 (213324)
06-01-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Monk
06-01-2005 10:53 PM


quote:
I agree, the heckling should have prompted Kerry to meet with veterans and discuss their concerns.
Ha.
Look, if you can't or won't address my points at least try to appear as though you are taking the converstaion seriously.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-01-2005 11:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 10:53 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 11:30 PM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 86 of 168 (213325)
06-01-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Monk
06-01-2005 10:53 PM


I agree, the heckling should have prompted Kerry to meet with veterans and discuss their concerns.
He did meet with veterans, many times. Didn't you see him at the DNC national convention? He was introduced by the veteran whose life he saved in the war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 10:53 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Monk, posted 06-01-2005 11:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 87 of 168 (213331)
06-01-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
06-01-2005 11:00 PM


Those weren't the veterans that had concerns. It was the Swiftboat Veterans who raised so many issues about Kerry's record. Kerry ignored this group and that mistake was one of many that cost him the election.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2005 11:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 06-02-2005 12:43 PM Monk has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 168 (213335)
06-01-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by berberry
06-01-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Thou shalt not kill
I said something that relates to a specific context, the judging of crimes WITHIN the nation; you are extending to something else altogether and insisting I regard it as all the same thing. Apples and oranges.
Huh? Due process? Where was due process when god killed everybody in the flood? Where was due process when god ordered the Amalekites slaughtered, and went out of his way to specify that even suckling infants be killed? Where was the due process for those little babies?
What about god's premeditated slaughter of the innocent firstborns of Egypt? Is that what you call due process?
God is the judge of the universe. You misapply the concepts to him just as those who are against the death penalty misapply it.
This is the most telling aspect of biblical literalism. You fundies will excuse anything, including the slaughter of innocent babies, so long as you think it's "god's will".
That is correct. God is the final judge of everything, and we are consistent because the Bible is consistent. The fault is with those who would presume to judge God.
You say that when the bible uses the word 'kill' it means 'murder'. Would these examples of god's megalomaniacal slaughter of innocents qualify as murder?
No, they are the death penalty, God's just punishment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by berberry, posted 06-01-2005 10:29 PM berberry has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 89 of 168 (213336)
06-01-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by nator
06-01-2005 10:59 PM


Look, if you can't or won't address my points at least try to appear as though you are taking the converstaion seriously.
For most folks I can do that, but with you it's different. Must be your clever wordsmithing skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 10:59 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 168 (213338)
06-01-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
06-01-2005 10:50 PM


Re: Papal Influence
You mean like Buddhists?
Of course. Anybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 10:50 PM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024