Jesus cursed and killed the mustard tree. He went postal at the temple. He was not your 1960s love love long hair.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Jesus cursed and killed the mustard tree. He went postal at the temple. He was not your 1960s love love long hair.
unofan
Well-known member
A) Being locked up in prison for life isn't exactly like staying at a Caribbean resort. In many cases, it's worse than the death penalty.
B) The church's official positions should be based on the ideals. And if its ideal is that all life is sacred, it better adhere to that in all cases. If it fails to do that, out of real politik or whatever, then it does so at the cost of some of its moral authority. It may have good reasons for doing so, but it's tough to say you believe all life is sacred when your next breath is carving out a gaping an obvious exception.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
He wasn't a vengeance freak either. That was the Old Testament.
He wasn't a vengeance freak either. That was the Old Testament.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
We are all aware of, and most have probably participated in, experiments where a group of people observe an event and are then asked 5 minutes later to describe what they saw and heard. The differences in recollection are usually stunning. Yet so many quote with certainty things Jesus allegedly said and did 2000 years ago and first recounted in writing . . . what, 60 years after the event? And many wager their salvation on it.
I understand you are not using those examples to prove the events actually happened as reported, Joe, but it just baffles me when people quote the bible as a factual account of statements and acts that occurred two centuries ago.
We are all aware of, and most have probably participated in, experiments where a group of people observe an event and are then asked 5 minutes later to describe what they saw and heard. The differences in recollection are usually stunning. Yet so many quote with certainty things Jesus allegedly said and did 2000 years ago and first recounted in writing . . . what, 60 years after the event? And many wager their salvation on it.
I understand you are not using those examples to prove the events actually happened as reported, Joe, but it just baffles me when people quote the bible as a factual account of statements and acts that occurred two centuries ago.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Based on my interpretation, I think Jesus would not advocate supporting the death penalty. See casting stones at Mary. I believe he would (and in this case, advocate that we) energize in a peaceful protest to deal with the issue. Think MLK.
Also, Jesus seemed unconcerned about 'worldly government'. It appears that he largely treated the Word as independent of those organized bodies and relevant for individuals. But in the case where a government is way off base...see above. Frankly, I think it makes sense...as I feel its appropriate to assume that the passages therein are written for me.
In general or in the case of the death penalty? Guess it doesn't matter. No.
Jesus' Word reinforces over and over the same themes of peace, compassion and yes, rehabilitation. People try to raise His behavior at the temple as an example of how we can kill people or otherwise treat people poorly. The temple lesson is both means and ends based. The ends is that one should treat God's things with respect...and the means is that sometimes we need to use energy and/or be forceful to make sure outcomes are as they should be. How do we know that there isn't a much harsher Jesus implied at the temple...because there is no other significant examples that validates a harsher Jesus and most that go squarely against it.
Based on my interpretation, I think Jesus would not advocate supporting the death penalty. See casting stones at Mary. I believe he would (and in this case, advocate that we) energize in a peaceful protest to deal with the issue. Think MLK.
Also, Jesus seemed unconcerned about 'worldly government'. It appears that he largely treated the Word as independent of those organized bodies and relevant for individuals. But in the case where a government is way off base...see above. Frankly, I think it makes sense...as I feel its appropriate to assume that the passages therein are written for me.
In general or in the case of the death penalty? Guess it doesn't matter. No.
Jesus' Word reinforces over and over the same themes of peace, compassion and yes, rehabilitation. People try to raise His behavior at the temple as an example of how we can kill people or otherwise treat people poorly. The temple lesson is both means and ends based. The ends is that one should treat God's things with respect...and the means is that sometimes we need to use energy and/or be forceful to make sure outcomes are as they should be. How do we know that there isn't a much harsher Jesus implied at the temple...because there is no other significant examples that validates a harsher Jesus and most that go squarely against it.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
This is where I land on it also. We need a culture that values lives whether unborn or otherwise. But I also recognize that the Bible has verses and stories that cut both ways and where one stands on the death penalty is certainly not one of the central issues of Christianity, so if someone else is pro death penalty, I don't lose any sleep over it. Some issues are clear cut in the bible, some not so much, which is ok. I doubt in eternity people will spend a lot of time worrying about whether they were pro or anti death penalty.
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I highly doubt that Jesus would stand idly by while children were being slaughtered en masse and be okay with it. He was very loving and protective toward children. Beyond that, he did drive demons out of people, he did not stand by and allow evil to proceed unchallenged.
You lecture the rest of us about morality: do you truly believe that it is moral to allow ruthless demented savages to indiscriminately kill everyone in their path while you stand idly by wringing your hands saying "oh, dear, this is dreadful. they should stop." ??
and on the difference between civil authority and religious authority, what part of "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's" do you find so hard to understand?
I highly doubt that Jesus would stand idly by while children were being slaughtered en masse and be okay with it. He was very loving and protective toward children. Beyond that, he did drive demons out of people, he did not stand by and allow evil to proceed unchallenged.
You lecture the rest of us about morality: do you truly believe that it is moral to allow ruthless demented savages to indiscriminately kill everyone in their path while you stand idly by wringing your hands saying "oh, dear, this is dreadful. they should stop." ??
and on the difference between civil authority and religious authority, what part of "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's" do you find so hard to understand?
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
To be morally consistent, one opposes all premeditated murder, be it the murder of the unfortunate child who has yet to take up residence outside the womb, or the murder of a convicted killer in prison.
the moral quandary comes about, not with the death "penalty," but when you have a person so dangerous, so depraved, so thoroughly evil, who delights in inflicting pain and suffering on others, that it is too dangerous to ask anyone to serve as his prison guard. One might try to sidestep the question by saying that the kind of person I just described isn't really human, and putting a creature like that to death is not a "penalty" at all, it is sort of like antibodies taking out a life-threatening disease before it spreads infection and kills the entire body.
If a person believes in the possibility of redemption, then to be morally consistent, that person also must oppose the death "penalty" as well. I suppose that's the way around the quandary: if no redemption ever can be possible.
The "argument" that a woman has the right to control her own body to me seems a bit specious: just because she doesn't want to carry a human being inside her any more, doesn't necessarily mean that the child has to be put to death. There are ways to keep that child alive outside that woman's womb.
To be morally consistent, one opposes all premeditated murder, be it the murder of the unfortunate child who has yet to take up residence outside the womb, or the murder of a convicted killer in prison.
the moral quandary comes about, not with the death "penalty," but when you have a person so dangerous, so depraved, so thoroughly evil, who delights in inflicting pain and suffering on others, that it is too dangerous to ask anyone to serve as his prison guard. One might try to sidestep the question by saying that the kind of person I just described isn't really human, and putting a creature like that to death is not a "penalty" at all, it is sort of like antibodies taking out a life-threatening disease before it spreads infection and kills the entire body.
If a person believes in the possibility of redemption, then to be morally consistent, that person also must oppose the death "penalty" as well. I suppose that's the way around the quandary: if no redemption ever can be possible.
The "argument" that a woman has the right to control her own body to me seems a bit specious: just because she doesn't want to carry a human being inside her any more, doesn't necessarily mean that the child has to be put to death. There are ways to keep that child alive outside that woman's womb.
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Is any post-conception measure considered "putting the child to death?"
Your last comment sounds like you are, in theory at least, adopting some of the Blackmun medical science analysis from Roe.
Is any post-conception measure considered "putting the child to death?"
Your last comment sounds like you are, in theory at least, adopting some of the Blackmun medical science analysis from Roe.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
The discussion on both sides up to now has been over your head, but try to keep up.
The discussion on both sides up to now has been over your head, but try to keep up.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
You basically hit the nail on the head. The only other point on this I have heard is that a murderer has had a period of grace on the earth to accept or reject Jesus as their Savior, whereas an unborn infant has not, so killing the unborn denies it the opportunity to hear about Jesus. I think the murderer should be allowed the opportunity to hear about Jesus until life ends naturally. We are to ultimately follow the laws of God and not man.
You basically hit the nail on the head. The only other point on this I have heard is that a murderer has had a period of grace on the earth to accept or reject Jesus as their Savior, whereas an unborn infant has not, so killing the unborn denies it the opportunity to hear about Jesus. I think the murderer should be allowed the opportunity to hear about Jesus until life ends naturally. We are to ultimately follow the laws of God and not man.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
"Who am I to judge?"
While "life" may indeed begin at conception, when does a human being begin?
Viewing an ultrasound image of one's own child might change an opinion based purely on theory into one that takes into account some serious real-life considerations.
"Who am I to judge?"
While "life" may indeed begin at conception, when does a human being begin?
Viewing an ultrasound image of one's own child might change an opinion based purely on theory into one that takes into account some serious real-life considerations.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
True enough. I was just responding to your words "a child has to be put to death," wondering how inclusive the word "child" is to you in that context and what procedures might, in your view, fall within the definition of "put to death."
True enough. I was just responding to your words "a child has to be put to death," wondering how inclusive the word "child" is to you in that context and what procedures might, in your view, fall within the definition of "put to death."
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Viewing an ultrasound image of a child in the womb is incredibly powerful. I know folks who work in places that counsel women on their options and they always say that if women see the baby inside, the chances of them going the abortion route drop dramatically. If they don't see what's inside, they're more likely to have an abortion.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
This is just a talking point. With abortions early in the trimester the "baby" is an undifferentiated lump of tissue in the ultrasound. Pro-lifers believing what they do they are invested in portraying all abortions as snuffing out a bouncing bundle of joy, but the facts are a lot more boring -- it is usually just the resumption of a period.
People fighting a genocide are not going to let little things like facts get in the way of emotional appeals, which is fine. But at the end of the day it's still an argument about when human life begins, and the vast majority of abortions occur well before the vast majority of people would identity a clump of cells as a human being unless they were operating under a theoretical definition of life beginning at conception.
This is just a talking point. With abortions early in the trimester the "baby" is an undifferentiated lump of tissue in the ultrasound. Pro-lifers believing what they do they are invested in portraying all abortions as snuffing out a bouncing bundle of joy, but the facts are a lot more boring -- it is usually just the resumption of a period.
People fighting a genocide are not going to let little things like facts get in the way of emotional appeals, which is fine. But at the end of the day it's still an argument about when human life begins, and the vast majority of abortions occur well before the vast majority of people would identity a clump of cells as a human being unless they were operating under a theoretical definition of life beginning at conception.
Last edited:
Yes, which is why the pro-life crowd always tries to push ultrasounds onto teenagers - to guilt-trip unfit mothers into bringing unwanted children into the world even as our popularion zooms past 7B. Solid plan.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
But won't someone please think of the chil...wait, what?
But won't someone please think of the chil...wait, what?
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Just because a mother no longer wants a child is not sufficient cause to put said child to death. There is an alternative that neither forces the mother to keep the child in the womb, and allows the child to live.
Under your reasoning as presented (I know there are additional qualifications that you would probably include), one might just as easily justify putting a newborn infant to death, if you have an unfit mother and an unwanted child. Why should childbirth change the underlying rationale in any way?
Just because a mother no longer wants a child is not sufficient cause to put said child to death. There is an alternative that neither forces the mother to keep the child in the womb, and allows the child to live.
Under your reasoning as presented (I know there are additional qualifications that you would probably include), one might just as easily justify putting a newborn infant to death, if you have an unfit mother and an unwanted child. Why should childbirth change the underlying rationale in any way?
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Again, FF, do you define "child" as applying immediately upon conception or somewhere along the line of development?
Again, FF, do you define "child" as applying immediately upon conception or somewhere along the line of development?
- Status