Scott McClellan flustered by question about obeying Ten Commandments

[kage69]

"try to do so by actually addressing it instead of just pretending to be knowledgeable. This seems to be your favorite trick. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it. "


This is even more amusing than listening to THC decry childish posts and hyperbole right after using both! Wow...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Grow up and stop acting like such a little b!tch!

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Dari
Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

The Ten Commandments

1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

5) Honor thy father and thy mother.

6) Thou shalt not murder.

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8) Thou shalt not steal.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.

10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.

I pin the president with way more than just one.

How about "2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"? Because this guy definitely worships the almighty dollar. And let's not forget "8) Thou shalt not steal," "9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor," and "10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor."

See Iraq if you're having a problem making the connection.

Also, "5) Honor thy father and thy mother."

See Social Security reform.

Originally posted by: Dari
God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

Everything living dies at some point. "6) Thou shalt not murder" has nothing to do with vultures and maggots (although I understand your confusion due to their similarity with the current occupants of the White House ).

"Thou shalt not murder" is self explanatory. It has nothing to do with Mother Nature's clean-up crew. :roll:

 

[conjur]

You'd think Bush would be more concerned with the Beatitudes instead of Mosaic law



Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Dari
Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

Seek help. Then come back and try to explain just WTF you are talking about.
kthxbye

Agreed, however, as has been pointed out by many on this forum "Dari is a collective of many different people with a lot of sometimes conflicting viewpoints".

Therefore it may take a while to get everyone an appointment.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for proving that you rarely contribute to a thread.


Geez...what's with the trolls today?

I'm the only one here who has done anything but jerk off another liberal in here. If you want to mock what I posted, try to do so by actually addressing it instead of just pretending to be knowledgeable. This seems to be your favorite trick. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Just War theory is extremely fungible. Although you allegedly subscribe to Thomas Aquinas' machinations you then punt when the rubber hits the road ie "was Bush War 2003 just".

The killing of your fellow man (by the teachings of Jesus Christ) is an unambiguous wrong. Jesus did not speak to many topics in detail but the notion of Christ "endorsing" a war with mortal weapons is ridiculous.

Only had to read to #2 to see that you didn't read any of it either. BBD, meet Conjur.

Perhaps the problem here Cyclo, is that you haven't taken a position either way on whether Iraq is a "just war" or not. Given your predisposition, I would assume that you do think it is a just war, yet I'd still rather hear it from the source.

My 2nd point still stands -- that this post, as framed by the OP, is still a religious one because the question was effectively, "How does the President ratify his wartime actions with the ten commandments." Your response seems to be a philisophical one, yet still a caveat to the religious edicts that brought this topic up in the first place. In other words, yes certainly thou shall not kill, except in the instance of "just war."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for proving that you rarely contribute to a thread.


Geez...what's with the trolls today?

I'm the only one here who has done anything but jerk off another liberal in here. If you want to mock what I posted, try to do so by actually addressing it instead of just pretending to be knowledgeable. This seems to be your favorite trick. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Just War theory is extremely fungible. Although you allegedly subscribe to Thomas Aquinas' machinations you then punt when the rubber hits the road ie "was Bush War 2003 just".

The killing of your fellow man (by the teachings of Jesus Christ) is an unambiguous wrong. Jesus did not speak to many topics in detail but the notion of Christ "endorsing" a war with mortal weapons is ridiculous.

Only had to read to #2 to see that you didn't read any of it either. BBD, meet Conjur.

Perhaps the problem here Cyclo, is that you haven't taken a position either way on whether Iraq is a "just war" or not. Given your predisposition, I would assume that you do think it is a just war, yet I'd still rather hear it from the source.

That's a common symptom among the diseased Bush-God fanbois up here. They keep avoiding answering questions with actual thoughts.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Part II Question 40

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Let's be honest . . . much of the war in Afghanistan was revenge . . . albeit misdirected to a large degree.

1) Bush had neither the legal nor moral authority for war against Iraq. Just b/c tools like Arsecroft and Gonzales lined up to "create" authority for Bush doesn't make it real and it's certainly not just.
2) According to Bush, the "fault" of Saddam's regime was pre-emption against a future attack from the weapons he was developing. Oops. The new "fault" was the oppression of his people. I say "new" since apparently it was a non-issue for over a decade up until the Gulf War. Curiously, Bushistas scarcely mention oppression in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has fallen off the map, China is our most favored trading partner, Uzbekistan an ally, and the egregious behavior of Sharon directed at Palestinian civilians.
3) Those no-bid contracts were not an act of goodwill. The "planned" military bases in Iraq are not good intentions. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the various "ghosts" of this war are FAR from "avoidance of evil". In fact, many of the belligerents (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Arsecroft, etc) actually ENDORSE "fighting by any means necessary."

 

[imported_Ivan244]

DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.
Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.
Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Ivan244
DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.
Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.
Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

Those commandments are rules for humans to live by, not God.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Ivan244
DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.
Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.
Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

Those commandments are rules for humans to live by, not God.

Bingo . . . granted, you might argue that the New Covenant (God coming and dying as a human) represents all in the Universe (from God downwards) are subject to the rule of law.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Ivan244
DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.
Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.
Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

Those commandments are rules for humans to live by, not God.

Bingo . . . granted, you might argue that the New Covenant (God coming and dying as a human) represents all in the Universe (from God downwards) are subject to the rule of law.

You might also argue, as many do, that Jesus was simply God's human son, and not God Himself. Do you capitalize "himself" in that context? However, I don't know exactly what you mean by the "New Covenant". Is that some specific religious sect? A core doctrine of all sects of Christianity? I'm not really a Biblical scholar, I am simply familiar with the basic concepts and lore.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Ivan244
DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.
Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.
Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

Those commandments are rules for humans to live by, not God.

Bingo . . . granted, you might argue that the New Covenant (God coming and dying as a human) represents all in the Universe (from God downwards) are subject to the rule of law.

You might also argue, as many do, that Jesus was simply God's human son, and not God Himself. Do you capitalize "himself" in that context? However, I don't know exactly what you mean by the "New Covenant". Is that some specific religious sect? A core doctrine of all sects of Christianity? I'm not really a Biblical scholar, I am simply familiar with the basic concepts and lore.

"New Convenant" refers to the Jesus movement. Old Testament is Old Covenant (Mosaic law)...New Testament is New Convenant (preachings of Jesus).

But, fwiw, the most recent biblical research indicates that Jesus was purely man, not son of God. The early Christian church worked to deify Jesus. In fact, evidence exists that Jesus was merely one of several preachers at the time. Jesus was just preaching a bit differently, that Heaven was attainable to anyone. That seemed to be a hit with the non-Jews which is why it spread readily through the rest of the Roman Empire. The early Jesus movement fractured, though, as each city or region would have varying teachings. It wasn't until a couple of hundred years after the death of Jesus that a consolidation effort was made to homogenize the movement into one religion.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Admittedly, I cannot escape my theological roots despite a minor in Early Christianity. My perspective is largely congruent with the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). God sent Moses (a man) with arguably the 2nd Covenant . . . technically Eve messed up the first one. God then sent Jesus (more than a man) with the New Covenant.

I don't believe in the Virgin Birth so my true inclination is essentially the same as Conjur states. Regardless, the take home is that we are all God's children and commanded to love one another regardless of transgression . . . at least that's my take.

 

[lozina]

Who would Jesus have bombed?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: lozina
Who would Jesus have bombed?

The hearts of evildoers . . .

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: lozina
Who would Jesus have bombed?

The hearts of evildoers . . .

Something has been on my mind the last couple of days.

On March 19, 2003, the first Iraqi to die was probably some lackey in Saddam's army that would rather have been at home with his family. Remember how the army surrendered by the thousands in 1991 and just laid down their weapons and faded into the citizenry in 2003? What did that first guy who died have to do with anything? Did he ever want to attack the U.S.? Maybe...probably not, though. Rather, he was most likely forced to be there lest his family be tortured.

I'm not trying to evoke sympathy for the Iraqi army rather, I'm trying to point out that the invasion was misdirected and unnecessary. Cheney was so fanatically in favor of war he was noticeably dismayed that the war might have been unnecessary when the DB/ROCKSTARS relayed intelligence as to Saddam's location at Dora Farms (and where the bunker busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles injured Saddam and almost killed him). Cheney really wanted the full-scale war. Probably explains his multiple trips over to the CIA.

"Thou shalt not kill (murder)." Think Cheney gives a sh*t? Pffffft.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: lozina
Who would Jesus have bombed?

The hearts of evildoers . . .

Something has been on my mind the last couple of days.

On March 19, 2003, the first Iraqi to die was probably some lackey in Saddam's army that would rather have been at home with his family. Remember how the army surrendered by the thousands in 1991 and just laid down their weapons and faded into the citizenry in 2003? What did that first guy who died have to do with anything? Did he ever want to attack the U.S.? Maybe...probably not, though. Rather, he was most likely forced to be there lest his family be tortured.

I'm not trying to evoke sympathy for the Iraqi army rather, I'm trying to point out that the invasion was misdirected and unnecessary. Cheney was so fanatically in favor of war he was noticeably dismayed that the war might have been unnecessary when the DB/ROCKSTARS relayed intelligence as to Saddam's location at Dora Farms (and where the bunker busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles injured Saddam and almost killed him). Cheney really wanted the full-scale war. Probably explains his multiple trips over to the CIA.

"Thou shalt not kill (murder)." Think Cheney gives a sh*t? Pffffft.

Well, Cheney's version of the 10 commandments reads:

"Thous shalt not kill unless it may lead to profit"

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Perhaps the problem here Cyclo, is that you haven't taken a position either way on whether Iraq is a "just war" or not. Given your predisposition, I would assume that you do think it is a just war, yet I'd still rather hear it from the source.

My 2nd point still stands -- that this post, as framed by the OP, is still a religious one because the question was effectively, "How does the President ratify his wartime actions with the ten commandments." Your response seems to be a philisophical one, yet still a caveat to the religious edicts that brought this topic up in the first place. In other words, yes certainly thou shall not kill, except in the instance of "just war."

I already stated, pretty clearly, that I'm in no position to make that call. However, that won't stop me from calling out people who post ignorant things regarding just war theory.

The problem is that you think everything religious for Christians is in the Bible. I don't know whether or not Bush is a fundamentalist (someone who takes the Bible exactly literally without acknowledging other sources of input), but I certainly am not. In any case, there are Biblical passages that allude to justifications for war. In short, it's more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's be honest . . . much of the war in Afghanistan was revenge . . . albeit misdirected to a large degree.

1) Bush had neither the legal nor moral authority for war against Iraq. Just b/c tools like Arsecroft and Gonzales lined up to "create" authority for Bush doesn't make it real and it's certainly not just.
2) According to Bush, the "fault" of Saddam's regime was pre-emption against a future attack from the weapons he was developing. Oops. The new "fault" was the oppression of his people. I say "new" since apparently it was a non-issue for over a decade up until the Gulf War. Curiously, Bushistas scarcely mention oppression in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has fallen off the map, China is our most favored trading partner, Uzbekistan an ally, and the egregious behavior of Sharon directed at Palestinian civilians.
3) Those no-bid contracts were not an act of goodwill. The "planned" military bases in Iraq are not good intentions. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the various "ghosts" of this war are FAR from "avoidance of evil". In fact, many of the belligerents (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Arsecroft, etc) actually ENDORSE "fighting by any means necessary."

Bush, as a head of state, does have the authority as defined. "For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war" means that only a proper government has this ability, or that the use of foreign mercenaries/private armies in war is unjust. You, nor I, nor anyone can really know the true intention for Bush's call to invade. You can speculate until you're blue in the face, but there is a possibility that he truly believed there were WMD and that he was doing what was necessary to protect us. I'm not saying this is true or not, only that you can't pretend to know for certain.

As Augustine says, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69
"try to do so by actually addressing it instead of just pretending to be knowledgeable. This seems to be your favorite trick. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it. "


This is even more amusing than listening to THC decry childish posts and hyperbole right after using both! Wow...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Grow up and stop acting like such a little b!tch!

Take the advice yourself and stop acting like a little pr!ck.

And do not bring my handle up in another thread in which I haven't participated in previously in the fashion you just did unless you'd like the mods notified of your antics. It's my understanding that's grounds for a vacation around here.

 

[Infohawk]

When did he use your handle? THC? Aren't you TLC?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
When did he use your handle? THC? Aren't you TLC?

Who is this "THC" that he's talking about then?

Figure it out, Infohawk.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk
When did he use your handle? THC? Aren't you TLC?

Who is this "THC" that he's talking about then?

I dunno... the H and the L key aren't too close. But you know what? I'll go with your choice since you seemed to have identified yourself in the description "decry childish posts and hyperbole right after using."

 

[CQuinn]

I know this has already been addressed, but I have to nitpick a little here (apologies in advance).

Originally posted by: Ivan244
DealMonkey-I think you are misreading the Ten Commandments. Don't forget, it was God who sent the Death Angel to whack the first born of all the Egyptians and their livestock.

IIRC, a warning was given on how to avoid that last plague, a warning that even the Pharoah could have learned of and chosen to act on.
Without acting on that warning, even the first born of the Israelites were at risk.

Would not make much sense for God to say don't kill and then turn around and do it himself.

Technically, the visitation from the Angel of Death came before the Commandments were delivered to Moses.

In modern terms it would probably be said that the use of deadly force was authorized after all other forms of persuasion
(the other plagues) had failed.

Thou shall not murder. Do you understand the diff between murder and kill?

The plague killed many, Cain murdered Abel. Unfortunately, in a discussion that involves religion that distinction can get blurry
around the concept that God could use a plague itself as a weapon.

Edit: After reading my post I don't think I was clear in that I understood that the commandment states "Thou shall not kill" I was equating the meaning of it to murder. My apologies for any confusion.

Your post sought to clarify and explan, not confuse. It is a benefit to our understanding, not a hindrance.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Dari
Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

Seek help. Then come back and try to explain just WTF you are talking about.
kthxbye

Agreed, however, as has been pointed out by many on this forum "Dari is a collective of many different people with a lot of sometimes conflicting viewpoints".

Therefore it may take a while to get everyone an appointment.

Actually I'm one person. Nevertheless, I don't confirm to any specific viewpoint. I am an aggregate of diverse experience(s) and learnings. I'm sorry you can't easily categorize me.


EDIT: The quip about vultures and maggots was from Clint Eastwood's Outlaw Josey Wales.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk
When did he use your handle? THC? Aren't you TLC?

Who is this "THC" that he's talking about then?

I dunno... the H and the L key aren't too close. But you know what? I'll go with your choice since you seemed to have identified yourself in the description "decry childish posts and hyperbole right after using."

You never fail to elicit chuckles, oh ironic one.

:laugh: