Atticus Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 bible-thumper Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 bible-thumper Sinner. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 i only skimmed this thread, but i didn't see these folks mentioned yet.... www.godhatesfags.com what a lovely bunch of religious folk. and i'm not here to say that all religious people are loons or bad for this country, but to me, it's nearly a character flaw. a weakness if you will. i urge you all to go to youtube and search Sam Harris. the guy is pretty brilliant and is great for the atheist argument, if you can call it that.Not to reopen this line of "debate," but apparently a huge group of religious people share a serious character flaw that makes them try to force Gulf Coast residents to believe in the fairy tale that their houses can be rebuilt. linky Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Not to reopen this line of "debate," but apparently a huge group of religious people share a serious character flaw that makes them try to force Gulf Coast residents to believe in the fairy tale that their houses can be rebuilt. linky I bet those 92 homes just reek of teh Jesus... Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Not to reopen this line of "debate," but apparently a huge group of religious people share a serious character flaw that makes them try to force Gulf Coast residents to believe in the fairy tale that their houses can be rebuilt. linky Obviously modern day Jesuits spreading the word of God, and the pox, to the natives. Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I Link to post Share on other sites
keylime Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is the apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. I couldn't have said this better myself. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. I couldn't have said this better myself. I am really, really, not going to get involved in the abortion debate, but that only makes sense if every person against abortion is in favor of war, and every person in favor of abortion is against war. Many people who view war as a necessary evil in some cases also feel that abortion is a necessary evil in some cases, but that both war and abortion occur far more often than necessary. Link to post Share on other sites
boywiththorninside Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. I don't know if this adds anything, but I thought it was interesting. It seems to show a pretty consistent "pro-life" stance from the present/recent hiearchy of the Catholic Church. Of course, this is only one (actually two) writers opinion/point of view. Nonetheless, I thought it was a decent read. Link "The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II. From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again! John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified. In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace. John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq." Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. This is the second time we Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 This coming from a person who knowingly lied us into a war with Iraq what's your cite here? I believe that this administration made mistake after mistake, but I would like to read the proof that Bush knowingly lied. There is a difference between an idiot and a liar. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 what's your cite here? I believe that this administration made mistake after mistake, but I would like to read the proof that Bush knowingly lied. There is a difference between an idiot and a liar. There is a mountain of evidence to support the administration was lying or cherry picking intel in support of their wishes to take us to war. Aluminum tubes come to mind. As do mushroom clouds over US cities. Volumes. http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200.../we_489_01.html Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 There is a mountain of evidence to support the administration was lying or cherry picking intel in support of their wishes to take us to war. Aluminum tubes come to mind. As do mushroom clouds over US cities. Volumes. http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200.../we_489_01.html wow. that's a lot of "think"s and "believe"s. again, please show the direct evidence that proves that Bush knowingly lied. Shitty intelligence and bad advice still does not a premeditated lie make. I'm not defending Bush, I just find it hard to believe that he's clever enough to mastermind a plot of deception. Now Cheney on the other hand... Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 A couple thoughts, even though this thread probably doesn't need another opinion The evangelical movement in this country (specifically the megachurch/focus on family/charismatic Christian movements) does really weird me out. I'm all for people having their religious beliefs, but a lot of these groups really seem to co-opt people for their own self-interests. In a lot of cases they've turned the church going/faith process into a giant media blitz that--as the lady in charge of the camp in Jesus Camp says is indoctrinating children and adults--and it just feels really divorced of real religious study and more focused on quick assumptions and a way of life that these groups would like seen spread throughout the country. I wouldn't have a problem so much with it if they weren't so aggressive both in the way that they target younger kids, and the way they aggressively push their religious views as "correct" and ones that need to be overt in things like government. I know plenty of genuinely great and involved Christians (of lots of different denominations), but the tone and stances of these churches tends to be very intolerant and hateful. Everybody should read the Bible eventually (I haven't read all of it), there's a lot of good material, some stuff that seems utterly strange (parts of Leviticus), and ultimately very human and rewarding. Jesus was a great dude, really into helping everyone, equality, ending suffering. Real awesome stuff like that. I don't know what I consider myself these days, I dig a lot of different teachings, I am a big proponent of meditation (not specifically for spiritual purposes, though it can really help clarify the mind), but after just thinking about the vastness and complexity of the universe I really believe that there is some sort of higher something (probably not even a person...though it might be?) that had some role in it. I guess that's pretty vague, but okay! Since this thread kind of morphed into an abortion debate I'll kick in a little there too. I'm against killing, I oppose the death penalty, I oppose almost all wars (the "just war" concept covers almost all exceptions). Abortion is tricky because there's so much moral/scientific ambiguity involved and I think a lot of people get caught up in the emotional battle of it rather than anything else. I would love for abortions not to be necessary and have a day where none happened (I would think/hope that a similar goal would be held by virtually everyone on either the life/choice side of things). I do think that women should have the choice to have an abortion, but I think there are lots of things that could be done to help reduce the number we have each year: more education about contraception (I realize there are religious objections by some to that as well as moral ones...that's another debate), more programs to help support people who are pregnant and not so well off, better adoption services, and more communication between conservative and liberal groups involved in family planning, etc. To me it's about more options and educations, leaving abortions as last possibilities (and for medically necessary situations) and working to reduce the number of pregnancies that would end in an abortion. Not that any of that would be easy to do, I just don't see why there can't just be a common push to the same goal with less condemnation from both sides. Have fun and treat each other nicely. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 wow. that's a lot of "think"s and "believe"s. again, please show the direct evidence that proves that Bush knowingly lied. Shitty intelligence and bad advice still does not a premeditated lie make. I'm not defending Bush, I just find it hard to believe that he's clever enough to mastermind a plot of deception. Now Cheney on the other hand... This ought to do it. http://www.bushlies.net/index.html Link to post Share on other sites
boywiththorninside Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Organized religions silence insofar as the war is concerned is deafening. That Bush Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I am really, really, not going to get involved in the abortion debate, but that only makes sense if every person against abortion is in favor of war, and every person in favor of abortion is against war. Many people who view war as a necessary evil in some cases also feel that abortion is a necessary evil in some cases, but that both war and abortion occur far more often than necessary.I wasn't making a call about how individuals feel about these issues. Most individuals would probably say that abortion and war are 'neccesary evils' but morally questionable at best. I was pointing out that the legal and cultural leniancy supports war making far more than it does abortion. The legal right to terminate a pregnacy feels tenuous. Legal war making seems deeply entrenched. We might debate the morality of 'This War', but what about WWII? Do we debate the general morality of war in the same way we do abortion? The other thing that fails to get mentioned is that pregnancy is, at least for the first trimester, a parasitic relationship. There is no life outside of the mother's permission. Abortion is violence. War is violence. I wish neither experience on anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Abortion is violence. War is violence. I wish neither experience on anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Thou shalt not kill" is apparently the most ambiguous of the commandments. Tell you what, when war is outlawed let me know. Then there might be level playing field for the abortion discussion. Thout shall not kill was followed fairly closely in the bible by god comanding his people to commit genocide against the peoples inhabiting the promised land. So I think religiously and morally war is an exception to the "thou shalt not kill" comandment. Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I wasn't making a call about how individuals feel about these issues. Most individuals would probably say that abortion and war are 'neccesary evils' but morally questionable at best. I was pointing out that the legal and cultural leniancy supports war making far more than it does abortion. The legal right to terminate a pregnacy feels tenuous. Legal war making seems deeply entrenched. We might debate the morality of 'This War', but what about WWII? Do we debate the general morality of war in the same way we do abortion? The other thing that fails to get mentioned is that pregnancy is, at least for the first trimester, a parasitic relationship. There is no life outside of the mother's permission. Abortion is violence. War is violence. I wish neither experience on anyone. I've never heard a pregnancy as a parasitic condition. I'm not sure I would agree with that. I can't think of any parasites that are actually created by its own host. Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I've never heard a pregnancy as a parasitic condition. I'm not sure I would agree with that. I can't think of any parasites that are actually created by its own host."An organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing." The mother's immune system is actually subdued so as not to reject the pregnancy as alien and miscarry. Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "An organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing." Sounds like my ex-wife! Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "An organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing." A very scientific way to look at it...but one could challenge, even in the first trimester, that it contributes so, so much to the mother's mind, heart and soul. That even at such and early stage it can cause a woman to recalibrate her life into a more postive tract and provide an increased sense of purpose. I know you aren't saying that a child doesn't matter until it hits the 3-month mark, but I could never have even thought of our sons as 'parasites'. I am pro-choice, but thinki t should be a choice made only when each and every other option has been exhausted. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts