Republicans and the 10 Commandments

[BaliBabyDoc]

^^I think you may be misrepresenting Jesus' message. I believe Jesus does indeed say explicitly that man should keep the Commandments. Considering he was a Jew . . . that's not exactly a radical position. Yet Jesus did fundamentally change man's relationship to one another. In essence, making it clear that it's pretty obvious when you've wrong your fellow man . . . virtually any time you put your desires ahead of the needs of others.

You can talk about 'ultimate' sacrifice but it's a reasonable argument that Jesus' death was not only a 'payment' for human sin but also a call to 'serve' one another instead of ourselves. Point being it's pretty easy to stay within the 'human' Commandment confines if your heart (and mind) are in the right place.

You need to spend a little more time with your Bible. The story of David and Goliath is Old Testament (Samuel). The inferior force (Israelites) were invaded by the Philistines. Ultimately, the undoing of the Philistines wasn't a testament to 'self-defense.' It's a great allegory (if you believe it isn't historical) for how being powerful can lead to arrogance and poor decisions which can lead to defeat even in the context of an overmatched opponent.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^I think you may be misrepresenting Jesus' message. I believe Jesus does indeed say explicitly that man should keep the Commandments. Considering he was a Jew . . . that's not exactly a radical position. Yet Jesus did fundamentally change man's relationship to one another. In essence, making it clear that it's pretty obvious when you've wrong your fellow man . . . virtually any time you put your desires ahead of the needs of others.

You can talk about 'ultimate' sacrifice but it's a reasonable argument that Jesus' death was not only a 'payment' for human sin but also a call to 'serve' one another instead of ourselves. Point being it's pretty easy to stay within the 'human' Commandment confines if your heart (and mind) are in the right place.

You need to spend a little more time with your Bible. The story of David and Goliath is Old Testament (Samuel). The inferior force (Israelites) were invaded by the Philistines. Ultimately, the undoing of the Philistines wasn't a testament to 'self-defense.' It's a great allegory (if you believe it isn't historical) for how being powerful can lead to arrogance and poor decisions which can lead to defeat even in the context of an overmatched opponent.

Please don't tell me what I believe. I was raised in church, and i'm not going to spend time here preaching to those who don't want to hear or listen to what I believe. I will agree with you and support you on those other things that you take away from the stories told in the bible. I do not deny or have a problem with the fact that what you take away from the crucifiction of Jesus could be/is that it was one to serve one another instead of ourselves or that the story of David and Goliath also taught us that arrogance is a negative thing. However, you can't dispute that the story of David and Goliath also showed that at that time, and under those circumstances, God supported self-defense. This story did not only teach these things, but also taught that God will support you in the time of need and that "we can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

This is the great thing about the bible. Each story in the bible can teach you multiple things. Now, i'm not saying you can't disagree with me about the way i'm interpreting this story. But rather than telling me what I believe, please use the scripture to explain to me how I am wrong. I will stand by my statement that the story of David and Goliath is a story of self-defense inspired by God.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

This is part of your problem.....not all Dems are pro-choice whereas all Repubs still support the war (just not the management of it now).

Any Democrat who votes for Pelosi, or any other current Dem leader, as speaker of the house is in effect casting a Pro-choice vote. Because the leadership of the Democratic party is nearly all pro-choice.
It should be very telling that a Democrat like Al Gore was very pro-life as seen in this 1984 letter:
""It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life?."
He also had a anti-abortion rating of 84%. Then in 1988 he started to vote pro-choice, he also changed his position on gay rights at this time, where before he said homosexuality is not "an acceptable alternative that society should affirm"

The point of the two things I point out is this, it is ok for a local or state Democrat to pro-life, however any Democrat who wants to achieve a national position, such as President, HAS to be pro-choice, or else they have NO chance at all of winning. The year Al changed his position on all these things is the year he ran for President, coincidence?

As for the "all Repubs still support the war" There are varying degrees of support for the war within the party, we are not all walking lock step with the same ideas, as much as the left wants to paint that picture. There are also some Democrats who still support the war.
Also, I don't see anything inherently wrong with supporting the war, nor with not supporting it (i.e. wanting withdrawal) I do object to the level of attacks on our soldiers and our country that some people have taken. Pointing to Abu Gharaib and acting as if what happened there was official government policy or that all soldiers are doing similar. The many claims that Bush lied, committed treason etc etc.

 

[ayabe]

Prof you are assuming that because Gore or anyone else thinks abortion is wrong, they also think it should be illegal. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Many people hold that opinion, they would not have an abortion, but they don't think it should be illegal.

I still firmly believe that if men were the ones having children, there would be drive-thru abortion clinics.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^I think you may be misrepresenting Jesus' message. I believe Jesus does indeed say explicitly that man should keep the Commandments. Considering he was a Jew . . . that's not exactly a radical position. Yet Jesus did fundamentally change man's relationship to one another. In essence, making it clear that it's pretty obvious when you've wrong your fellow man . . . virtually any time you put your desires ahead of the needs of others.

You can talk about 'ultimate' sacrifice but it's a reasonable argument that Jesus' death was not only a 'payment' for human sin but also a call to 'serve' one another instead of ourselves. Point being it's pretty easy to stay within the 'human' Commandment confines if your heart (and mind) are in the right place.

You need to spend a little more time with your Bible. The story of David and Goliath is Old Testament (Samuel). The inferior force (Israelites) were invaded by the Philistines. Ultimately, the undoing of the Philistines wasn't a testament to 'self-defense.' It's a great allegory (if you believe it isn't historical) for how being powerful can lead to arrogance and poor decisions which can lead to defeat even in the context of an overmatched opponent.

Please don't tell me what I believe. I was raised in church, and i'm not going to spend time here preaching to those who don't want to hear or listen to what I believe. I will agree with you and support you on those other things that you take away from the stories told in the bible. I do not deny or have a problem with the fact that what you take away from the crucifiction of Jesus could be/is that it was one to serve one another instead of ourselves or that the story of David and Goliath also taught us that arrogance is a negative thing. However, you can't dispute that the story of David and Goliath also showed that at that time, and under those circumstances, God supported self-defense. This story did not only teach these things, but also taught that God will support you in the time of need and that "we can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

This is the great thing about the bible. Each story in the bible can teach you multiple things. Now, i'm not saying you can't disagree with me about the way i'm interpreting this story. But rather than telling me what I believe, please use the scripture to explain to me how I am wrong. I will stand by my statement that the story of David and Goliath is a story of self-defense inspired by God.

1) I'm not telling you anything except for what's in the text and my opinion of its relevance to Christianity.

2) You can believe whatever you like.

3) Don't care how you were raised.

4) David and Goliath is an Old Testament story. I'm a New Testament kinda guy (I have a history minor in Early Christianity). I could certainly be wrong but I doubt Jesus ever mentions David's triumph over Goliath. Accordingly, it seems kind of specious for a Christian to look to the Book of Samuel to justify the treatment of their fellow man.

5) The story of David and Goliath doesn't tell us jack about what God supported. If you believe that then does it mean that God supports cutting off the head of your enemy and taking it with you?

51: Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Hmm, cutting the head off your enemy . . . where have I heard this . . .

54: And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent.
---
57: And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.

Maybe it's just me . . . but that just seems so . . . unChrist-like.

Edit for the fact that some scholars don't think proper credit was given for the triumph over the Philistines.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16
I just want to know how you reconcile this.

With some common sense.

Most Christians didn't think it was a sin for the police to shoot (& kill) the shooters at Columbine.

Whereas, it was a sin for the shooters to murder innocent students.

Like said above, it's about murder, not killing.

Your car could hydro plane on a wet highway, causing to you to careen into oncoming traffic. Someone could be killed in the accident. But most wouldn't see that as a "sin" etc.

Fern

So I guess it is easy if you think the war is justifiable? And that we made the right choice in invading Iraq?

At this point, what will result in less harm? Pulling out and leaving Iraq in chaos controlled by thugs, or staying and trying to achieve stability & safety for the average Iraqi citizen?

If one thinks staying and trying to achieve stability/safety is supporting war, well so be it. However, I'm guessing those people don't think of it that way.

You could just as well position the debate as either supporting safety/stability (instead of "pro war"), or supporting chaos & mayhem (instead of "anti war").

E.g., is it "pro choice" or "pro abortion", and "anti abortion" or "pro life"?

Fern

Nice false dichotomy. By the nature of the intervention, the Bush Regime intentionally CREATED chaos in Iraq. Unfortunately, neither the US nor fledgling Iraqi government is in a position to impose order in the country. The question isn't about leaving precipitously or continuing to (sort of) tread water. The question is what changes (STRATEGIC) in policy that will lead to good (not necessarily best) intermediate- and long-term outcomes. The most striking aspect is that it took Democrats to even create a discussion about Iraq. Left to their own devices, we would be hearing more and more platitudes like inhofe's miracle in Iraq.

The take home (and relevance to the OP) is that anyone that truly follows the teachings of Christ realizes this war was neither started nor executed with the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Having wronged our fellow man (I'm not talking about deposing Saddam - that's good - I'm talking about the wanton disregard for the Iraqis) . . . the question is how to go about correcting our ways.

Yes, the question IS about how to implement peace & stability in Iraq at least for me. That's why its not a false dictomy.

I see many expressing the opinion that we should just leave, they don't want any more of troops killed, our money spent or inncocent Iraqi killed in this so called war etc. But I think they're ingnoring the other half of the equation: What will happen to the Iraqi's?

I'm just saying I don't want to see it left to chaos and suffering for the average Iraqi. I won't support any position which just ignores their plight and abandon's them.

I find the term "Support the War" to be erroneous. We are not at war with Iraq, haven't been for a long time. But it is said if you are for anything other than withdrawl you "support the war".

So, the original question is how can Christians "support the war"? Or, more appropriately phrased, how can Christians not suport immediate withdrawl? I say maybe they can't support it because of their concern for the innocent/average Iraqi left behind to fend for themselves against the thugs and murders.

Fern

 

[dahunan]

God supported Nuclear bombs as evidenced by the ones he dropped on sodom and gomorrah?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16
I just want to know how you reconcile this.

With some common sense.

Most Christians didn't think it was a sin for the police to shoot (& kill) the shooters at Columbine.

Whereas, it was a sin for the shooters to murder innocent students.

Like said above, it's about murder, not killing.

Your car could hydro plane on a wet highway, causing to you to careen into oncoming traffic. Someone could be killed in the accident. But most wouldn't see that as a "sin" etc.

Fern

So I guess it is easy if you think the war is justifiable? And that we made the right choice in invading Iraq?

At this point, what will result in less harm? Pulling out and leaving Iraq in chaos controlled by thugs, or staying and trying to achieve stability & safety for the average Iraqi citizen?

If one thinks staying and trying to achieve stability/safety is supporting war, well so be it. However, I'm guessing those people don't think of it that way.

You could just as well position the debate as either supporting safety/stability (instead of "pro war"), or supporting chaos & mayhem (instead of "anti war").

E.g., is it "pro choice" or "pro abortion", and "anti abortion" or "pro life"?

Fern

Nice false dichotomy. By the nature of the intervention, the Bush Regime intentionally CREATED chaos in Iraq. Unfortunately, neither the US nor fledgling Iraqi government is in a position to impose order in the country. The question isn't about leaving precipitously or continuing to (sort of) tread water. The question is what changes (STRATEGIC) in policy that will lead to good (not necessarily best) intermediate- and long-term outcomes. The most striking aspect is that it took Democrats to even create a discussion about Iraq. Left to their own devices, we would be hearing more and more platitudes like inhofe's miracle in Iraq.

The take home (and relevance to the OP) is that anyone that truly follows the teachings of Christ realizes this war was neither started nor executed with the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Having wronged our fellow man (I'm not talking about deposing Saddam - that's good - I'm talking about the wanton disregard for the Iraqis) . . . the question is how to go about correcting our ways.

Yes, the question IS about how to implement peace & stability in Iraq at least for me. That's why its not a false dictomy.

I see many expressing the opinion that we should just leave, they don't want any more of troops killed, our money spent or inncocent Iraqi killed in this so called war etc. But I think they're ingnoring the other half of the equation: What will happen to the Iraqi's?

I'm just saying I don't want to see it left to chaos and suffering for the average Iraqi. I won't support any position which just ignores their plight and abandon's them.

I find the term "Support the War" to be erroneous. We are not at war with Iraq, haven't been for a long time. But it is said if you are for anything other than withdrawl you "support the war".

So, the original question is how can Christians "support the war"? Or, more appropriately phrased, how can Christians not suport immediate withdrawl? I say maybe they can't support it because of their concern for the innocent/average Iraqi left behind to fend for themselves against the thugs and murders.

Fern

Uhm.. Christians supported the SHOCK AND AWE campaign ...

WAR.. really scary once again how we have allowed this word to happen over and over throughout humanity.. and WAR just covers everything that happens to the people we attack because since we attacked them they must deserve to have 1000's and 1000's of innocents die by our hands

Is this what we came to do
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You again keep tossing up a false dichotomy.

The few people proposing a precipitous 'damn the consequences' withdrawal are just as misguided as those that claim CURRENT leadership in Iraq/US are in a position to bring peace and stability to Iraq. The difference is that the 'withdraw NOW' crew can point to the Bush Plan that has NOT worked. While Bushistas have to appeal to 'progress' . . . that nobody else sees or 'secret' plans for success . . . that have to wait until after US elections for implementation.

It's a specious argument that CURRENT policy is clearly superior to a precipitous withdrawal:
1) Aside from the US raid today (which Maliki promptly disavowed), US forces are largely on the sidelines as sectarian violence tears the country apart.
2) Terrorists are largely overshadowed by the sectarian violence. Sectarian violence that grew out of the poorly planned US occupation and weak Iraqi government/security forces.
3) Insurgent attacks are difficult to gauge. But obviously insurgent attacks on US forces would become ZERO if there aren't any US forces. It would sux to be the Iraqi security forces, though.

By definition, the US position has ALWAYS ignored the plight of the average Iraqi. So again, it makes no sense to ascribe such sentiments to current (or proposed) policy by this administration as 'standing by the Iraqi people.' If that was truly the goal, we would have seen a DRAMATIC change in strategy YEARS ago.

Iraq in short:
1) Depose a leader we didn't like . . . use any means necessary . . . regardless of the consequences . . . Bush/Blair doctrine.
2) Send in our own dictator (Chalabi . . . remember him) . . . yep that's in the Iraqi's best interests.
3) Secure the Oil Ministry but not power plants, water treatment facilities, or hospitals . . . yep that's in the Iraqi's best interests.
4) Send in our own dictator that doesn't know the culture or language . . . you're doing a heckuva job Paulie.
5) Hold elections to put a country on a path towards democracy . . . despite the fact that the country largely has no concept of democracy and subsequently just votes along religious/tribal/sectarian lines.
6) Pretend that Iraq 2006 looks better than Iraq 2005 or even Iraq 2004 . . . despite clear evidence to the contrary.

There's nothing particularly Christian about our policies in that country. If removing Saddam was a Christian act, US forces would be on the march throughout Africa. Instead, US policy towards regimes like Sudan seems to be quite flexible . . . particularly if they give us info on the turrurrists . . . they can kill as many innocent/average Sudanese as they desire.

 

[piasabird]

So when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, what would you have done?

Would you just say Japan can have these islands?

If you say that, then maybe US would be one big territory of Japan.

Sooner or later you have to fight for what is yours, or someone else will take it. What do you think the aim of the muslims is? It is to make everyone else a muslim or shop off their head. It is kind of like the crusades in reverse.

I guess you would have just kissed Hitler on the cheeck and then layed down to die!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, what would you have done?

Would you just say Japan can have these islands?

If you say that, then maybe US would be one big territory of Japan.

Sooner or later you have to fight for what is yours, or someone else will take it. What do you think the aim of the muslims is? It is to make everyone else a muslim or shop off their head. It is kind of like the crusades in reverse.

I guess you would have just kissed Hitler on the cheeck and then layed down to die!

What BS arguments. The topic is about whether it is Christian....not what is human nature (self-defense).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, what would you have done?

Would you just say Japan can have these islands?

If you say that, then maybe US would be one big territory of Japan.

Sooner or later you have to fight for what is yours, or someone else will take it. What do you think the aim of the muslims is? It is to make everyone else a muslim or shop off their head. It is kind of like the crusades in reverse.

I guess you would have just kissed Hitler on the cheeck and then layed down to die!

Interesting argument . . . is the oil in the Persian Gulf 'ours?'

Technically, we TOOK Hawaii in the first place so does preference go to whoever took it last?

We are not fighting for survival or even our basic human liberties in Iraq. If we were we would have started the fight in Africa, central Asia, east Asia, etc.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

Either way it looks like you are screwed huh?

I think most would rather vote for a war in defense of their beliefs and freedom over abortion.

Don't forget this war is against people who would take away their right to practice their Christian beliefs.

This is an extremely false dichotomy, as it implies that 1. republicans don't support abortion
2. Democrats do

Bothe of those implications are false. Republicans are the ones who support legislation that increases the number of abortions, while they vote against any legislation democrats try to pass which would decrease the number of abortions that occur. It is well established that "abstinance only" programs increase rates of teen pregnancy and abortion, while decreasing contraceptive usage. These programs are mostly supported by republicans. Furthermore, funding for contraception, laws requiring equitable insurance coverage of contraception, and support for family planning are all things that reduce the number of abortions, and are opposed by republicans.

In actual practice it is the republican party that is pro-abortion. The democratic party is anti-abortion, but pro choice. If republicans really wanted to end abortion than the birth control pill would be over the counter, especially now after so many years of republican rule.

The majority of republican supporters are decieved into their support, many through emotional manipulation.