Bush supporter thread closed? Is this a mistake?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.

I admit that I, in my own personal arrogance, place the importance of human lives a little higher than that of animals. That's not to say that I would EVER intentionally harm an animal. Hell, I'm the guy who crawls around the floor with a plastic cup to catch spiders (or crickets, etc.), and then releases them outside. And that's an insect... a lifeform considered to be even lower than that of an animal.
But, admittedly, I eat the meat of animals already killed by someone else... though I couldn't kill said animal myself. It's a matter of justification, I admit. But I own up to it, and I admit the inherent hypocrisy of it.

And, while I'm vehemently against cruelty to animals, I understand the importance of studying medical procedures on animals that have characteristics similar to our own. As long as it's done humanely, I can understand the practice.
I'm not going to lie and say that if a medical procedure tested on an animal saved the life of someone I love, that I wouldn't be very grateful.

My problem is with people who scream, "life is precious! abortion is murder!," while advocating the killing of God's creatures. It's a life. Created by God. Should it not be respected? We ALL have blood on our hands, if you really sit down and think about it.

(I also have a problem with people who, in the comfort of their warm homes, decide that it's THEIR business whether or not a woman has an abortion. Every single person who condemns abortion better get up off their asses and start adopting the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of children who are growing up without parents, without family, and without a home to call their own.
Or how about the children who have parents, but are neglected and/or abused because they weren't wanted? What are the Pro-Lifers doing to help THOSE lives? Or does it not matter what kind of quality of life a child has, so long as he's allowed to be born?)

Originally Posted by sodascouts

The difference between death penalty and abortion is one of innocence. If one truly believes life begins at conception, which I recognize not all people do, wouldn't you at least in theory agree it is more heinous to kill a baby than a murderer, and see the difference between the two? Put yourself in the shoes of one who believes life begins at conception and I think you'll understand the distinction we make, even if you disagree.

I understand the idea behind the distinction just fine, I just don't understand why it's made.
A life is a life is a life. By executing someone, we are putting ourselves above God.
I thought the bible was quite clear on the fact that HE is supposed to decide when and where we die.
Isn't that the whole reason behind the furor over assisted suicide? That it should be outlawed because we're "playing God"?
I guess if you have inoperable cancer, and your fate is to live in agony for who knows how long, and you have nothing left to hope for but your own swift death, just murder someone and THEN the Republican party will gladly end your life.

By the same token, it's considered immoral to create life through cloning, because, again, it's "playing God."
Well, I'm sorry, but taking the life of another human being is "playing God," too. Whether they're "innocent" or not.

(Oh, and for the record, according to the idea that we're all born sinners... "original sin," and all that... then I guess none of us, even children, are totally "innocent" if you're going to take the Bible completely to heart.)

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I believe the war had good results. War is sometimes necessary. There are pacifist Christians, and I understand their moral objection, but as I said in an earlier posts, I do not classify war as murder.

My problem with the war in Iraq lies first with the pretenses under which it was started.
The "War On Terrorism" I understood. The feeling that we needed to disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda, and take out Osama Bin Laden, were things that I understood and agreed with.

But Osama is running free, the al Qaeda is as strong as ever (and recruiting millions more to fill their ranks, thanks to our inept handling of the situation in Afghanistan), and the only dictator we've captured is someone who had absolutely no connections to the whole reason we spear-headed the "War On Terrorism" in the first place.

Can you not appreciate the anger many of us feel over the fact that we have lost 1,200+ American lives, in a country attacked under false pretenses by the decree of George W. Bush, while we have not yet even captured the mastermind behind the terrorism that cost yet another 1,200+ American lives?

And let's not forget that he dragged other allied countries into this mess with us, costing the loss of countless more lives.

AND, to top it off, our president lambasted and threatened any country that disagreed with him. (By "threatened," I'm not referring to a potential act of violence, but with the threat of denying trade, aid, etc.)

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I realize you don't believe this, but the Bible is considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. That's why we can overlook that.

I believe it. I was raised Catholic, and am surrounded by deeply Catholic people, so I know exactly how the bible is viewed.

It just seems very, very odd to me that, people who claim to feel the way they do, and act the way they do, because it's "what the Bible says," can find so many ways to justify all the things in the Bible that they conveniently overlook.

You mentioned that some of the older laws in the Bible were practical in an age rampant with disease, which, to me, implies that progress dictates that portions of the Bible have become archaic.

So, if something is no longer practical, we can decide arbitrarily to no longer follow it... even though it still "says it in the Bible"?
If so, then why the stubborn need to hold onto other "laws" attributed to the Bible, if they, too, have become archaic?

Have we not progressed from an age in which women were considered subserviant to men, and a woman's sole duty in life was to honor her husband and keep him happy?

Why must the progression stop there?

By the way, I wasn't at all clear when I brought up "human sacrifices." Sacrifices made to God are definitely condemned.
However, I want to point out that in Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 1 through 5, it, quite ironically, calls for the genocide of religious minorities (a "religous minority" being any faith other than Christianity):

"If there arise among you a prophet, ... saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them...And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death...So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee...."

And in Psalms, chapter 79, verse 6:

"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

There are plenty of other examples throughout the Bible of how to best handle the unbelievers (ie: heathens), and none of them mention love and compassion (or even the Sixth Commandment).
So, basically the Bible (specifically the men who wrote the bible) is promoting the murder of those who don't believe in God/Yahweh.

It's how the Crusades were justified after all.

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I hope that helps you to understand to some degree why I do not consider myself a gleeful hypocrite, although it may not change your judgment on the matter.

I understand the language with which the various things I've mentioned are justified, I just don't understand the inability to see why I have a problem with people who have obviously decided which passages of the Bible THEY can ignore without fear of retribution, as they tell me which passages of the Bible I must follow lest I be condemned to hell (and, prior to that, justifiably murdered for having not followed them).

[dissention]

Johnny, when are you finally gonna come to your senses and move to MA?

(Read that article I posted! It might lift your spirits...)

[amber]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

On the other side of that, why is it illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg, but OK to destroy a human fetus? At any rate, you obviously see a difference between killing humans and killing animals, and value human life over animal life, yet you can't understand why Christians make the same distinction? That puzzles me.

Just for the record, I don't. In fact, humans aren't endangered, and we use the most resources and make the most heinous chemical pollutions. I really, really, don't "agree" with valuing human life over animals. Of course i also understand that each species tries to further itself, so...of course most people will value human life over others.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I admit that I, in my own personal arrogance, place the importance of human lives a little higher than that of animals. That's not to say that I would EVER intentionally harm an animal. Hell, I'm the guy who crawls around the floor with a plastic cup to catch spiders (or crickets, etc.), and then releases them outside. And that's an insect... a lifeform considered to be even lower than that of an animal.
But, admittedly, I eat the meat of animals already killed by someone else... though I couldn't kill said animal myself. It's a matter of justification, I admit. But I own up to it, and I admit the inherent hypocrisy of it.

And, while I'm vehemently against cruelty to animals, I understand the importance of studying medical procedures on animals that have characteristics similar to our own. As long as it's done humanely, I can understand the practice.
I'm not going to lie and say that if a medical procedure tested on an animal saved the life of someone I love, that I wouldn't be very grateful.

My problem is with people who scream, "life is precious! abortion is murder!," while advocating the killing of God's creatures. It's a life. Created by God. Should it not be respected? We ALL have blood on our hands, if you really sit down and think about it.

(I also have a problem with people who, in the comfort of their warm homes, decide that it's THEIR business whether or not a woman has an abortion. Every single person who condemns abortion better get up off their asses and start adopting the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of children who are growing up without parents, without family, and without a home to call their own.
Or how about the children who have parents, but are neglected and/or abused because they weren't wanted? What are the Pro-Lifers doing to help THOSE lives? Or does it not matter what kind of quality of life a child has, so long as he's allowed to be born?)



I understand the idea behind the distinction just fine, I just don't understand why it's made.
A life is a life is a life. By executing someone, we are putting ourselves above God.
I thought the bible was quite clear on the fact that HE is supposed to decide when and where we die.
Isn't that the whole reason behind the furor over assisted suicide? That it should be outlawed because we're "playing God"?
I guess if you have inoperable cancer, and your fate is to live in agony for who knows how long, and you have nothing left to hope for but your own swift death, just murder someone and THEN the Republican party will gladly end your life.

By the same token, it's considered immoral to create life through cloning, because, again, it's "playing God."
Well, I'm sorry, but taking the life of another human being is "playing God," too. Whether they're "innocent" or not.

(Oh, and for the record, according to the idea that we're all born sinners... "original sin," and all that... then I guess none of us, even children, are totally "innocent" if you're going to take the Bible completely to heart.)




My problem with the war in Iraq lies first with the pretenses under which it was started.
The "War On Terrorism" I understood. The feeling that we needed to disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda, and take out Osama Bin Laden, were things that I understood and agreed with.

But Osama is running free, the al Qaeda is as strong as ever (and recruiting millions more to fill their ranks, thanks to our inept handling of the situation in Afghanistan), and the only dictator we've captured is someone who had absolutely no connections to the whole reason we spear-headed the "War On Terrorism" in the first place.

Can you not appreciate the anger many of us feel over the fact that we have lost 1,200+ American lives, in a country attacked under false pretenses by the decree of George W. Bush, while we have not yet even captured the mastermind behind the terrorism that cost yet another 1,200+ American lives?

And let's not forget that he dragged other allied countries into this mess with us, costing the loss of countless more lives.

AND, to top it off, our president lambasted and threatened any country that disagreed with him. (By "threatened," I'm not referring to a potential act of violence, but with the threat of denying trade, aid, etc.)



I believe it. I was raised Catholic, and am surrounded by deeply Catholic people, so I know exactly how the bible is viewed.

It just seems very, very odd to me that, people who claim to feel the way they do, and act the way they do, because it's "what the Bible says," can find so many ways to justify all the things in the Bible that they conveniently overlook.

You mentioned that some of the older laws in the Bible were practical in an age rampant with disease, which, to me, implies that progress dictates that portions of the Bible have become archaic.

So, if something is no longer practical, we can decide arbitrarily to no longer follow it... even though it still "says it in the Bible"?
If so, then why the stubborn need to hold onto other "laws" attributed to the Bible, if they, too, have become archaic?

Have we not progressed from an age in which women were considered subserviant to men, and a woman's sole duty in life was to honor her husband and keep him happy?

Why must the progression stop there?

By the way, I wasn't at all clear when I brought up "human sacrifices." Sacrifices made to God are definitely condemned.
However, I want to point out that in Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 1 through 5, it, quite ironically, calls for the genocide of religious minorities (a "religous minority" being any faith other than Christianity):

"If there arise among you a prophet, ... saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them...And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death...So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee...."

And in Psalms, chapter 79, verse 6:

"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

There are plenty of other examples throughout the Bible of how to best handle the unbelievers (ie: heathens), and none of them mention love and compassion (or even the Sixth Commandment).
So, basically the Bible (specifically the men who wrote the bible) is promoting the murder of those who don't believe in God/Yahweh.

It's how the Crusades were justified after all.



I understand the language with which the various things I've mentioned are justified, I just don't understand the inability to see why I have a problem with people who have obviously decided which passages of the Bible THEY can ignore without fear of retribution, as they tell me which passages of the Bible I must follow lest I be condemned to hell (and, prior to that, justifiably murdered for having not followed them).

Yep.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE SINGLE AND AVAILABLE!

~Alex

lol Alex! Give me a call if you ever come to Indiana.

And thanks for the compliment, Jason! You're quite a handsome man yourself. And I have the pictures to prove it, lol.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

lol Alex! Give me a call if you ever come to Indiana.

And thanks for the compliment, Jason! You're quite a handsome man yourself. And I have the pictures to prove it, lol.

Why thank you!!!! BTW - You will be taken to an undisclosed Four Seasons ot Ritz Carlton if you release those pics!!!!

I cannot believe you and Alex did not meet in Madison??????

[sodascouts]

A general reply to all those who responded to my statements:

I see where you guys are coming from and you all make good points. I think most people here have good hearts and are well-intentioned, even the ones who now seem to be the most angry, mean-spirited, and bitter due to the recent election. I hope that we can look beyond political views to respectfully disagree, and remember to define people on a human level rather than by what they register as.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Why thank you!!!! BTW - You will be taken to an undisclosed Four Seasons ot Ritz Carlton if you release those pics!!!!

I cannot believe you and Alex did not meet in Madison??????

We did - for about five seconds! I did get a hug out of him! lol

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

A general reply to all those who responded to my statements:

I see where you guys are coming from and you all make good points. I think most people here have good hearts and are well-intentioned, even the ones who now seem to be the most angry, mean-spirited, and bitter due to the recent election. I hope that we can look beyond political views to respectfully disagree, and remember to define people on a human level rather than by what they register as.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the present administration is willing to do that. But, I am.

[SuzeQuze]

MA rules! It's the best blue state there is! IMHO

Originally Posted by dissention

Johnny, when are you finally gonna come to your senses and move to MA?

(Read that article I posted! It might lift your spirits...)

[dissention]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

MA rules! It's the best blue state there is! IMHO

Bet your ass! The MOST progressive state in the union.

[jadegypsy]

Hey Johnny Stew

I totally agree with most of what you said, it's cool you can be so well versed in the bible and yet actually see some of the "double standered" in it as well...You remind me a bit of one of my college friends who shocked me by telling me she was a Catholic since she was so liberal (pro-choice, pro stem cell...)

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Bet your ass! The MOST progressive state in the union.

but after our discussion months ago, i did read up on your racism problem, and it's fairly accute For a blue state, i mean...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

but after our discussion months ago, i did read up on your racism problem, and it's fairly accute For a blue state, i mean...

Yeah, when you get into areas like Boxford, but those are the same cities and towns that vote for Dimson. Otherwise, I fail to see it.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, when you get into areas like Boxford, but those are the same cities and towns that vote for Dimson. Otherwise, I fail to see it.

One article i read was specifically about Boston...but i'll get back to you. It was a while ago. And i'm glad you fail to see it.