Question for all you Pro Life people

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2019, 11:22 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I hope that cooler heads prevail with the scotus. I think Trump's election had a LOT to do with the scotus specifically because of R v W. I've heard people say they voted for Trump because they didn't want the Democrats replacing Scalia and Kennedy with liberal judges, making it a 6 to 3 majority, which would kill the ability to overturn R v W for another 30 years at least. The fact that two of the 4 liberal judges are in their 80s right now is already terrifying enough haha.

This is extremely accurate. It is the basis of the support from the evangelical right. They knew they could mold Trump because he has no real ideology himself and so is easily manipulated a lot of the time. This does also mean his positions are constantly shifting, so not all good.

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2019, 09:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: He makes a good point.  Many pro-choice arguments are based in bashing religion.  Now, you calling people things like "uneducated" and "stupid", is really showing your lack of argumentation skills, counselor..

Pro choice would never have any reason to bring religion into the discussion if the Pro Life movement was so deeply rooted in religion.

But I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong if you want. Post a list of all the non-religious based Pro Life organizations and we can match it against the list of religious based ones i will post.

Deal?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 09:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hard time aside; innocent is not synonymous with religion. As a retired Soldier you should understand the concept of taking innocent lives, you even explain your dissonance in this very post. Do you think innocent lives are lost in combat? If so, did you consider them to be without sin or just not deserving of death?   

I'm not retired or a Christian.  I don't believe in sin.  I don't think my soul will go to hell because I broke a commandment.  So my question to you is how does a soldier who is a Christian justify killing when your Bible tells you not to kill?  Because soldiers killing soldiers is morally right because a government tells you to kill? LOL  We invaded Iraq over a bunch of lies and they were defending their country.  There was nothing morally right about those killings.  Also, we created a situation which was so much worse than before we invaded.

So would you like to answer the question or are you going to dance around it some more?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 09:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not retired or a Christian.  I don't believe in sin.  I don't think my soul will go to hell because I broke a commandment.  So my question to you is how does a soldier who is a Christian justify killing when your Bible tells you not to kill?  Because soldiers killing soldiers is morally right because a government tells you to kill? LOL  We invaded Iraq over a bunch of lies and they were defending their country.  There was nothing morally right about those killings.  Also, we created a situation which was so much worse than before we invaded.

So would you like to answer the question or are you going to dance around it some more?

My mistake I read it as you were talking about yourself. When you said "as a retired...." I see now you were talking about me.

I live with myself because I believe God knows what is in my heart. I never once pulled the trigger out of anger, spite, or vengeance; although I did hate at times. I don't even hold ill-will toward those that tried to kill me and pray they find peace in their hearts. I felt I was working toward the bigger good and prayed God gave those appointed over me the wisdom to work toward that end. Furthermore, I know there is only one unpardonable sin and killing in combat is not it.

Now, do you care to answer the question I posed in my reply?

[*Nately120*]

(05-22-2019, 09:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not retired or a Christian.  I don't believe in sin.  I don't think my soul will go to hell because I broke a commandment.  So my question to you is how does a soldier who is a Christian justify killing when your Bible tells you not to kill?  Because soldiers killing soldiers is morally right because a government tells you to kill? LOL  We invaded Iraq over a bunch of lies and they were defending their country.  There was nothing morally right about those killings.  Also, we created a situation which was so much worse than before we invaded.

So would you like to answer the question or are you going to dance around it some more?

I can wrap my head around the logic of a Christian justifying killing someone in a war, but I know plenty of Christians who openly fantasize about heroically gunning down home intruders or the government coming to take their guns, etc.  At any rate, just believe in Jesus and you're good.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 10:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My mistake I read it as you were talking about yourself. When you said "as a retired...." I see now you were talking about me.

I live with myself because I believe God knows what is in my heart. I never once pulled the trigger out of anger, spite, or vengeance; although I did hate at times. I don't even hold ill-will toward those that tried to kill me and pray they find peace in their hearts. I felt I was working toward the bigger good and prayed God gave those appointed over me the wisdom to work toward that end. Furthermore, I know there is only one unpardonable sin and killing in combat is not it.

Now, do you care to answer the question I posed in my reply?

First, I didn't ask you how you live with yourself.  I asked why killing is okay.  There's a difference.

So killing humans that don't deserve to be killed is forgivable.  Pretty simple rationalization.  I wouldn't worry too much about abortion then, it's forgivable.

To answer your questions, I know collateral damage happens to non-combatants.  Does being a non-combatant make one "innocent"?  Innocent in what way? Innocent as they haven't sinned? Or they aren't a criminal? Or they aren't a soldier? And if they are a soldier does that make them "guilty"?  Would you consider Iraqi soldiers defending their country against our invasion based upon lies "innocent"?  What were they guilty of? Defending their country?  Following lawful orders? Joining the military?  Were we justified in killing them because our government lied about what their government was doing or rather wasn't doing?

[Lucidus]

(05-20-2019, 05:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament.  


While some of the teachings of the Old Testament were justified, Christ came to this world to correct the teachings that were wrong and to save humans.


Stop making this so easy.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18).

“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

[BFritz21]

(05-23-2019, 04:07 PM)Lucidus Wrote: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18).

“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

That really doesn't contradict what I posted in any way because, like I said, He did come to just update everything and correct the paths that people had wrongfully taken.

Want proof?

Quote:Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also

[Lucidus]

(05-23-2019, 04:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That really doesn't contradict what I posted in any way because, like I said, He did come to just update everything and correct the paths that people had wrongfully taken.

Want proof?

Is not the Lord of the New Testament also the God of the Old Testament? 

Which portions of the Old Testament -- absent correction / updating -- are still applicable?

[Benton]

(05-22-2019, 11:22 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I hope that cooler heads prevail with the scotus. I think Trump's election had a LOT to do with the scotus specifically because of R v W. I've heard people say they voted for Trump because they didn't want the Democrats replacing Scalia and Kennedy with liberal judges, making it a 6 to 3 majority, which would kill the ability to overturn R v W for another 30 years at least. The fact that two of the 4 liberal judges are in their 80s right now is already terrifying enough haha.

Ideally, the Democrats take the 2020 election as seriously as the Republicans took the 2016 election (re: scotus nominations), because I don't know if Ginsburg and potentially Breyer can hold out for 6 more years. And with every conservative judge added to that court, the chances of R v W being overturned increases exponentially (because, maybe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh don't choose to vote against it, but the next batch of judges may).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh][/url]

I agree. And, unfortunately, I think Democrats are going to respond in kind. Republicans rallied support off of "think about the babies!" I'm afraid Democrats are going to present the opposite option, saying "think about individual rights!"

And that's where they're going to screw up. 

Instead of saying "look at the corruption and cronyism" or "look at the ballooning deficit as we borrow money from China to pay American companies/farmers to not produce things" or "look at their proposals to cut things you've already paid for" Democrats are going to draw the line at individual rights... which isn't really going to spark a lot of interest in voters. A few select donors, sure, but not the average voter. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 01:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: First, I didn't ask you how you live with yourself.  I asked why killing is okay.  There's a difference.

So killing humans that don't deserve to be killed is forgivable.  Pretty simple rationalization.  I wouldn't worry too much about abortion then, it's forgivable.

To answer your questions, I know collateral damage happens to non-combatants.  Does being a non-combatant make one "innocent"?  Innocent in what way? Innocent as they haven't sinned? Or they aren't a criminal? Or they aren't a soldier? And if they are a soldier does that make them "guilty"?  Would you consider Iraqi soldiers defending their country against our invasion based upon lies "innocent"?  What were they guilty of? Defending their country?  Following lawful orders? Joining the military?  Were we justified in killing them because our government lied about what their government was doing or rather wasn't doing?

You seemed pretty much wrapped up in the semantics of the thing. Innocent lives lost is a universal term for someone dying/being killed that did nothing to deserve that death. So when I say abortion takes an innocent life, I am saying someone was killed that did nothing to deserve to be killed.

Not for one second do I think everyone who has an abortion is going to burn in hell, just as I don't think everyone who takes an innocent life in combat is going to burn in hell. This is why I said God knows my heart, just as he knows the heart of everyone who seeks  an abortion. Matt mentioned perhaps there are women that have abortions for the "welfare" of the baby. Although, personally I find that stance to be absurd; that doesn't mean it does not happen.

If your looking for justification (it's okay) from man then I can tell you it is decided in a court. But IMO you are looking the wrong place for the justification; that is why I stated I find it's "okay" in my relationship with God.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-23-2019, 04:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That really doesn't contradict what I posted in any way because, like I said, He did come to just update everything and correct the paths that people had wrongfully taken.

Want proof?

Sounds like someone tried a software update to fix a firmware conflict.  You're going to need open a new ticket.  

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2019, 05:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If your looking for justification (it's okay) from man then I can tell you it is decided in a court. But IMO you are looking the wrong place for the justification; that is why I stated I find it's "okay" in my relationship with God.

Right.  That whole "Thou shalt not kill" rule is really just a suggestion.  Not really a moral code to live by or anything.

Obviously not nearly as important as political beliefs or the cost of oil or anything like that which justifies killing thousands of people.

Not like anyone ever made up their own mind about what was okay to kill over and just claimed God was cool with it.  No one ever did anything like that before.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 06:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right.  That whole "Thou shalt not kill" rule is really just a suggestion.  Not really a moral code to live by or anything.

Obviously not nearly as important as political beliefs or the cost of oil or anything like that which justifies killing thousands of people.

Not like anyone ever made up their own mind about what was okay to kill over and just claimed God was cool with it.  No one ever did anything like that before.

None of you BS changes the original assertion that my biggest problem with abortion is an innocent life is taken.

Now quick, ask me what my biggest problem with combat is.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2019, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now quick, ask me what my biggest problem with combat is.

You don't have much a problem with combat at all if you chose a career in the military.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't have much a problem with combat at all if you chose a career in the military.

Nobody hates combat more than those that have seen it first hand.

I chose to do it in hopes my children wouldn't have to do it.

Of course one of them has chosen to do it as well to keep you safe behind your keyboard.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody hates combat more than those that have seen it first hand.

I chose to do it in hopes my children wouldn't have to do it.

Of course one of them has chosen to do it as well to keep you safe behind your keyboard.

I agree with this sentiment and believe if more people had military experience they would be more reluctant to send service members into harms way.  Or at least seem less excited by the proposition of kickin' some foreign country's ass over something stupid.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2019, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody hates combat more than those that have seen it first hand.

Of course not.  It is nasty and dangerous.  But if you had any MORAL objections to it you would not have done it.

Basically you adjusted your God to say "Thy shalt not kill except for political or economic reasons."

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course not.  It is nasty and dangerous.  But if you had any MORAL objections to it you would not have done it.

Basically you adjusted your God to say "Thy shalt not kill except for political or economic reasons."

Are you safe and MORAL behind your keyboard? 

Basically you adjusted your life to say: "I love being safe and free, but let's see if I can shame those who allow me to have these securities and freedoms"

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't have much a problem with combat at all if you chose a career in the military.

That is a blatantly unfair point to make.