One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
A question for all you conservative Christians
Page <<first <prev 8 of 23 next> last>>
May 16, 2019 20:14:19   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Quote:
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
As long as they were practiced in private or Church would you allow:
S***ery?
Child marriage?
Forced circumcision? (of either sex)
Mob punishment?
Polygamy or polyandry?

It isn't up to me to allow or disallow. All the things you just listed have been (and are probably being) done in various sectors of our society as we speak.


Yes... I see my mistake...
I should have used "we" as in society as a collective, rather than "you" as a singular...

Should we justify the morality of these actions based upon the premise that because they occur they must be moral?


Quote:
Quote:
Also... Giving birth is not a religious practice... Pregnancy is not limited to any one religious group...
On this issue Christian will stand with Muslim will stand with Jew will stand with Hindu will stand with Buddhist will stand with Sihk will stand with Taoist...
Why? Because it is an affront to all humanity...

Maybe I'm misreading, but I'm not sure of what you're saying here. I have to assume you're talking about a******n here, but I'm missing something.


Apologies... Yes, I was referencing a******n...
All faiths stand united in their opposition if the practice...

Quote:
Quote:
Only atheists (and not all.. many recognize the intrinsic value of human life...) support (wholeheartedly.. there are far too many people of faith who turn a blind eye) the practice of a******n by claiming it is not a moral issue.

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a moral issue ... which is not shared by large numbers of other people, both religious and not.


Whether the position is held by adherents of a faith is irrelevant concerning whether the faith itself finds the position abhorrent...

Popular opinion does not change a universal law... If we as a species collectively decide that we don't believe in gravity that will in no way negate the t***h of gravity...

I may be wrong.. But by your reasoning could we not justify s***ery? Or rape? Or any other action/ practice that strikes our fancy?

Quote:
If I may digress a bit here ...
What of the situation where you force the woman to carry to term and then abandon her. She cannot afford to support the child and the child winds up in foster care if they're lucky. Compound the issue if the mother is crack addicted and the baby is also by definition. Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case. The mother is incapable, so the government has to take the baby (or not), support it until it is eighteen (maybe) and then turn it loose onto a society that it is unready to enter because of the severe psychological problems that it probably has. Crack babies are notoriously hard to find adoptive parents for, and triple that if the mother is African-American.
Another situation is where an unborn child is diagnosed in-utero with severe brain damage that will require 24 hour care for the entire life of the person. Usually there is no physical impairment, which means that this person is in someone's care for at least the next fifty years. The family will be destitute and eventually the state has to pick up the care, which means you and me plus many others. They can't be adopted and are a burden.
If I may digress a bit here ... br What of the sit... (show quote)


Excellent points...

So for convenience sake we shall resort to eliminating the unwanted consequences of our actions?

May we apply this to welfare recipients and the homeless as well?

Or perhaps we could work to correct the factors/ influences that lead to these situations...

Perhaps we should discourage birth outside of wedlock... And stop promoting the idea of "free" (consequenceless) sex...

Certainly we should promote safe sex and provide birthcontrol to all members of society..

We could work to prevent drugs from entering our society.... Border security and execution of dealers sounds good to me...

Greater emphasis on the responsibility of sex on the male's part... And stronger enforcement of moral codes in our school systems...

I will grant that there are cases where children have medical complications... And I can understand the argument to "spare" them and their families from the burden that is life... m
But what percentage of a******ns do they make up? Are the young women patronizing Planned Parenthood all the unfortunate victims of random chance?

Quote:
In many "uncivilized tribes" these kinds of babies are left to die or are put on an ice floe because the tribe knows that it will impair the ability of the tribe to survive in their environment.


These examples are non-applicable to this argument....

Yes... There were tribes that were forced by necessity to make hard choices concerning defective children... They had no way of knowing before the birth, and the action was done for the survival of the entire tribe...
That certainly doesn't apply to society today..

And yes... There were/ are societies that k**l children based on sex or other factors... This is a devaluation of life... And is certainly not based on a moral code...

Quote:
You will flame me for not valuing a human life.


Most certainly not....
I would never be so assinine as to make such a foolish accusation....
And I know you better than that....

But we certainly have areas that we disagree on... Our definitions of where life starts, and its relative value to society, for example....

Quote:
I would point out that forcing the woman to carry to term and then abandoning her to her own resources is also not valuing the human life you required her to produce.
Let's assume that we do force all women to carry to term and give birth. How many of you that promote this concept are willing to adopt that child and raise it regardless of its psychological or physical problems.


Excepting cases of rape, no woman has ever been "forced" to carry a child to term...
All individuals are required to accept the responsibilities and consequences of their actions... Not simply women, but men as well..

Rather than allowing men and women to escape those consequences by conveniently eliminating them, we as a society must enforce/ promote standards/ codes of conduct on all of our members...

And as pointed out there are many of us who are Pro-life who do indeed take such children into our homes and make sacrifices for them...


Looks like we are finally having our discussion on a******n.... So far it has been most civil...
Please be sure to inform me if I cross a line or misinterpret anything you have stated...

This is a most excellent thread

Reply
May 16, 2019 20:26:17   #
Morgan
 
PJT wrote:
Who is forcing Christianity on anyone?
Why do atheists force their "religion" on us?


How about the people who come knocking at my front door disturbing my peace and relaxation on a Sunday morning to preach his word of God.

In return, I've never had an atheist come knocking at my door to tell me God doesn't exist.

I've heard this ridiculous argument before to try and evoke atheists as hypocrites, siting atheism as a religion, another fallacy. That sounds something like making a double negative a positive. No, I'm sorry but not believing in a God does not create a religion. There isn't a practice, nor worship, a ritual, or even a belief, unless you want to call reason a belief. There isn't any argument here on those grounds, its an empty argument.

Reply
May 16, 2019 20:35:17   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
Morgan wrote:
How about the people who come knocking at my front door disturbing my peace and relaxation on a Sunday morning to preach his word of God.

In return, I've never had an atheist come knocking at my door to tell me God doesn't exist.

I've heard this ridiculous argument before to try and evoke atheists as hypocrites, siting atheism as a religion, another fallacy. That sounds something like making a double negative a positive. No, I'm sorry but not believing in a God does not create a religion. There isn't a practice, nor worship, a ritual, or even a belief, unless you want to call reason a belief. There isn't any argument here on those grounds, its an empty argument.
How about the people who come knocking at my front... (show quote)


They must have been Seventh Day Adventists, since other Christians would have been in church. Put up a “No Solicitors” sign.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2019 20:48:01   #
Morgan
 
amadjuster wrote:
They must have been Seventh Day Adventists, since other Christians would have been in church. Put up a “No Solicitors” sign.


I was thinking of a welcome sign by invitation only

Reply
May 16, 2019 20:54:01   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
Morgan wrote:
I was thinking of a welcome sign by invitation only


Invite them in and show them just who you are! Pretty soon the only people knocking at your door will be selling windows or aluminum siding.

Reply
May 16, 2019 21:31:36   #
Morgan
 
amadjuster wrote:
Invite them in and show them just who you are! Pretty soon the only people knocking at your door will be selling windows or aluminum siding.


With that comment, I can see who you are, ah yes, that Christian love strikes again...
I thought you could take a little joke, I was wrong, my apologies.
Let's just try and stay on topic, shall we.

Reply
May 16, 2019 22:52:52   #
whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
 
What is morality? Outside of the universal commandments of no k*****g, no stealing, no adultery, all the rest of what we call morality depends on what your religious or personal preferences are. That's why I continue to maintain that while I find s***ery abhorrent to my own way of thinking, it is not such to other cultures around the world and even some here at home.
Child marriage was/is practiced by a splinter Mormon group headed by Warren Jeffs as recently as this century.
Forced circumcision is practiced in Judism and most times, the child has no say in the matter.
Mob punishment (aka lynching) was widely practiced in the South well up until (and maybe after) the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Polygamy was widely practiced in the Mormon church well into the last century, and is still a staple of some subsets of the religion, even though the Mother Church has eliminated the requirement.
I find all of these acts repugnant, but do I have the right to inflict my displeasure on those that practice them? If you tell me that majority rule should prevail, then you violate my rights by making me submit to your moral code. In the case of rabid religionists, that doesn't matter so long as you get to save my immortal soul, whether I want it saved or not.
Unless I commit an act that is detrimental to public safety (driving while intoxicated, speeding, assault or somesuch), I should be free to live my life as I see fit.
Inherent in that concept is the premise that since there is so much inconsistency as to when life actually begins, I should therefore be allowed to define it for myself, and take appropriate action should there be circumstances that would be detrimental to my life or well-being.
This is inimical to personal freedom. So long as I do not endanger public safety or commit a felonious act, there is no moral ground to allow you to dictate my lifestyle or other actions.
This is my personal opinion and I'm sure that your mileage may vary.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2019 23:06:14   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
whitnebrat wrote:
What is morality? Outside of the universal commandments of no k*****g, no stealing, no adultery, all the rest of what we call morality depends on what your religious or personal preferences are.
Five minutes of your time. You might learn something. Why are you so afraid of subjective moral reasoning?

Reply
May 16, 2019 23:09:36   #
badbob85037
 
whitnebrat wrote:
The question is as follows: As a practicing Christian, can you support both anti-a******n and capital punishment at the same time?
It would seem that there is a fundamental conflict between those two viewpoints. On one hand we have the commandment "Thou shalt not k**l" (KJV Exodus 20:13), and on the other hand you have the Biblical imperative of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."(KJV Exodus 21:23-25)
To my way of thinking, you can't have it both ways. I have to give the Catholic church credit for their viewpoint on this, which states that they are against both a******n and capital punishment.
If you take the viewpoint that capital punishment is the act of a society and not the individual, I would posit that capital punishment is an act for which every member of that society is responsible, and therefore is equally guilty of violating the Sixth Commandment.
You also have "Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV Romans 12:19) This would seem to negate any possibility of either an individual or a society to take revenge on a perpetrator that violates the Sixth Commandment.
How do you reconcile these seemingly contradictory viewpoints?
The question is as follows: As a practicing Christ... (show quote)


An eye for an eye has nothing to do with the murder of the most helpless and innocent of us all.

Reply
May 16, 2019 23:21:45   #
whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Five minutes of your time. You might learn something. Why are you so afraid of subjective moral reasoning?

Interesting video. But there are limits that I spoke of ... k*****g, stealing, adultery ... it is the rest of the moral codes that are subjective. I have no dispute with the necessity for making the basics work. Where I have the dispute is with the stuff that has no relevance to anyone's life but their own. What Stalin did was wrong. What the N**is did was wrong. No question. But that was a violation of the basic 'morals' that exist in every society known to man (the three mentioned above.)

Reply
May 17, 2019 00:21:38   #
Ricktloml
 
Pennylynn wrote:
First, the commandment is not "you will not k**l" it is thou shall not "murder." (לֹא תִּרְצָח ; lo tirṣaḥ) Second, there is a difference between an innocent baby that has done nothing to warrant the taking of its life. It is a clean slate, an innocent. Now then, the bible references..... only Saul/Paul implies that vengeance is improper. The "old" Testament gives specific reasons to putting a person to death. The major, of course is for murdering .... disobeying the 6th Commandment. Now before you get into the price for causing death of an unborn child, that is for "accidental loss." The "old" testament does not permit or allow the murder of an unborn with one exception, to spare the life of the mother.

In very rare circumstances a******n is the only medical treatment. And those circumstances does not include "for the convenience" of anyone or for getting rid of an unborn child. I am pro prevention. As for criminals who has murdered, I am torn. I can see the merit for having them jailed for the rest of their lives without any possibility of parole. However, that could be seen as cruel punishment and it is very expensive. And there has been a number of cases where errors have happened and the wrong person is jailed. The bible, if you go further into it than just using it to prove your point, says that a trial for murder...... the accused must confess, there must be three accusers; even if one saw the murder happen, at least two other people have to have direct knowledge that the individual standing accused committed the crime. The modern day method of trial has strayed from the original intent of the law. So, in rare cases I think the person should be put to death.....if "he confesses and three people have direct knowledge." Otherwise, life without parole.
First, the commandment is not "you will not k... (show quote)



As usual, PennyLynn, well said!

Reply
 
 
May 17, 2019 00:25:33   #
Ricktloml
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I doubt many would consider me to be a "Conservative Christian"... Though I am both a Conservative and a Christian...
But I do enjoy your topics...
Here goes....


KJV Exodus 20:13 should be t***slated as "thou shall not murder"....

There are plenty of verses in the OT that support capital punishment for those who commit serious crimes...

A******n is a form of murder...

There is no conflict...


Exodus 21:23-25 references tha e punishment suiting the crime... We should not Execute a man for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family...

Romans 12:19 is in reference to the ultimate punishment one faces at the Lord's hand...
As a society we are still required to protect ourselves....



Execute the scum who murder, rape, steal, abuse, etc...

Pray for the souls of those who commit a******n... It is a practice that should only be reserved for the direst of circumstances... Amen...
I doubt many would consider me to be a "Conse... (show quote)



Great response. And the death penalty is for a convicted murderer, (although it is worrisome that mistakes could be made.) An a******n is an innocent life not only ended, but butchered, for the crime of conception.

Reply
May 17, 2019 00:36:44   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
Zemirah wrote:
What do you suppose the nation's junk yards are assembling themselves into as we speak?


Ha! That's a good one...T***sformers, I guess. How about R2D2 and C3PO...
Here's one...take a slab of bacon and put it in a swamp...will it become a hog? Nooooo...I don't think so!!!

But seriously, take the fly for example. 98% of flies die out each year. They are easy to k**l. Has a fly evolved as far as it can go? How much has the fly changed in the last...oh...say 100,000,000 years? Is what we see today the best flies will ever be? How about a snake...wouldn't a snake be better off with a couple of grabbing arms close to the head? Would a snail not be better off with some other mode of t***sportation?

Reply
May 17, 2019 02:20:06   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
whitnebrat wrote:
What is morality? Outside of the universal commandments of no k*****g, no stealing, no adultery, all the rest of what we call morality depends on what your religious or personal preferences are. That's why I continue to maintain that while I find s***ery abhorrent to my own way of thinking, it is not such to other cultures around the world and even some here at home.
Child marriage was/is practiced by a splinter Mormon group headed by Warren Jeffs as recently as this century.
Forced circumcision is practiced in Judism and most times, the child has no say in the matter.
Mob punishment (aka lynching) was widely practiced in the South well up until (and maybe after) the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Polygamy was widely practiced in the Mormon church well into the last century, and is still a staple of some subsets of the religion, even though the Mother Church has eliminated the requirement.
I find all of these acts repugnant, but do I have the right to inflict my displeasure on those that practice them? If you tell me that majority rule should prevail, then you violate my rights by making me submit to your moral code. In the case of rabid religionists, that doesn't matter so long as you get to save my immortal soul, whether I want it saved or not.
Unless I commit an act that is detrimental to public safety (driving while intoxicated, speeding, assault or somesuch), I should be free to live my life as I see fit.
Inherent in that concept is the premise that since there is so much inconsistency as to when life actually begins, I should therefore be allowed to define it for myself, and take appropriate action should there be circumstances that would be detrimental to my life or well-being.
This is inimical to personal freedom. So long as I do not endanger public safety or commit a felonious act, there is no moral ground to allow you to dictate my lifestyle or other actions.
This is my personal opinion and I'm sure that your mileage may vary.
What is morality? Outside of the universal command... (show quote)


Was this in response to my response?

Reply
May 17, 2019 02:26:06   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
maximus wrote:
Ha! That's a good one...T***sformers, I guess. How about R2D2 and C3PO...
Here's one...take a slab of bacon and put it in a swamp...will it become a hog? Nooooo...I don't think so!!!

But seriously, take the fly for example. 98% of flies die out each year. They are easy to k**l. Has a fly evolved as far as it can go? How much has the fly changed in the last...oh...say 100,000,000 years? Is what we see today the best flies will ever be? How about a snake...wouldn't a snake be better off with a couple of grabbing arms close to the head? Would a snail not be better off with some other mode of t***sportation?
Ha! That's a good one...T***sformers, I guess. How... (show quote)


Flies are still evolving... All life is...
Fruit flies have been used to demonstrate evolutionary mechanisms..

Evolution does not involve perfection... That is a false premise...

Flies are far more likely to survive a planet k**let than we are

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 23 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.