My Favorite new Democract

[FishForLunch]

If there is one Democract that I can trust the Nations security is Josep Lieberman. He is the only candiddate who understands the danger the danger we are in, being threatened by Islamists and their benefactors.

I would not shed a tear if Joe Lieberman beat Bush in next years election.

He was great on TV today no beating round the bush or waffling. Hope you democracts on the board nominate him to run against Bush. That way the nation will not lose is either wins.

[veruca salt]

If you squint, Lieberman looks like a Republican.

edit:typo

[bogey]

Originally posted by: veruca salt
If you squint, Lieberman looks like a Republican.

Genius. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]





I like Lieberman. He speaks straight up and doesn't seem to play the games. Anyways...if he wins the democratic nomination and runs for president he will be my second choice. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Dooby]

People are way overestimating the effect the Saddam capture will have on Howard Dean. They'll be a poll tomorrow or the next day that says that nothing has changed.

[jacktruth]

All I know is that Leiberman is pro-abortion, which is contrary to Mosaic laws. There are many democrats who claim to be Christian and are pro-abortion, which is contrary to the same laws, which also are a guide for Christianity.

Religious hypocrisy makes Leiberman all democrat in my eyes.

[veruca salt]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
All I know is that Leiberman is pro-abortion, which is contrary to Mosaic laws. There are many democrats who claim to be Christian and are pro-abortion, which is contrary to the same laws, which also are a guide for Christianity.

Religious hypocrisy makes Leiberman all democrat in my eyes.

What about the Republicans who are pro-death penalty and say they're Christians, does that make them religious hypocrits and therefor Democrats in your eyes too?

[dallas_esq]

Originally posted by: veruca salt

What about the Republicans who are pro-death penalty and say they're Christians, does that make them religious hypocrits and therefor Democrats in your eyes too?

It certainly does not make them "pro-life."

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: veruca salt

What about the Republicans who are pro-death penalty and say they're Christians, does that make them religious hypocrits and therefor Democrats in your eyes too?

Actually, the Mosaic law includes the death penalty:

Exodus 21
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

And incidentally, the same chapter recognizes the life of an unborn child:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.


A Christian or Jew is consistent with the Word of God if they accept the death penalty, and if they are against abortion.

[veruca salt]

Exodus of course being Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Christians are told to live their lives as they think Jesus would.

[veruca salt]

Originally posted by: Dooby
People are way overestimating the effect the Saddam capture will have on Howard Dean. They'll be a poll tomorrow or the next day that says that nothing has changed.

The last national poll I saw (Last week, pew poll) showed that Dean & Clarke were equal.
Does anyone think that Clarke having military & foreign policy experience & Dean being a doctor for Vermont could come into play here?

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: veruca salt
Exodus of course being Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Christians are told to live their lives as they think Jesus would.

And Jesus would resoundingly agree with the law, as they are the very words of God! The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a replacement.

Matthew 5:17-18
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. I tell you the truth, 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.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: veruca salt
Exodus of course being Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Christians are told to live their lives as they think Jesus would.

But do you think Jesus would say "It's not a baby?"
Do you think Jesus would say, "You can't raise that baby?"
Do you think Jesus would condone the murder of a child before it takes it's first breath?"

I don't see it. I certainly don't see how Joe Leiberman can be pro-abortion.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: jacktruth

And Jesus would resoundingly agree with the law, as they are the very words of God! The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a replacement.

Matthew 5:17-18
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. I tell you the truth, 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.

jacktruth... you stopped too short. If you had gone further you would have read...

21 “You have heard that it was said to our people long ago, ‘You must not murder anyone. Anyone who murders another will be judged.’ 22 But I tell you, if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be judged. If you say bad things to a brother or sister, you will be judged by the council. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “So when you offer your gift to God at the altar, and you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there at the altar. Go and make peace with that person, and then come and offer your gift.
25 “If your enemy is taking you to court, become friends quickly, before you go to court. Otherwise, your enemy might turn you over to the judge, and the judge might give you to a guard to put you in jail. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not leave there until you have paid everything you owe.

[FreshJive]

Watch out girls if you let a guy rape you, you are stuck with him for life:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

Don't ever make fun of bald prophets

2 Kings 2
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

The old testament contains alot of verses that can no longer be applied to the real world by any sane person. Its ridiculous to use bible verses as the sole justification for policy decisions in the secular world.

[veruca salt]

Exactly, but I realised this isn't an argument that I want to get into on here, I'm not going to change jacktruth's mind, and he's definitely not going to change mine....but that's cool.

[Walkerforthree]

religion in politics in America should be taken with levity. And Leiberman is a Jew I believe anyway. So he wouldnt have to follow any christian beliefs jack.

[veruca salt]

Well he's definitely not a Christian, as Jews don't believe in Christ/Jesus.
I'm not going to pretend to know everything about Judaism, but my understanding was that they followed the Old Testament
in some shape or form, and they do have the Ten Commandments (Aseret Hadibrot)....and jack is refering to old testament passages in his argument that Lieberman is a hypocrite.

And jack...

But do you think Jesus would say "It's not a baby?"
Do you think Jesus would say, "You can't raise that baby?"
Do you think Jesus would condone the murder of a child before it takes it's first breath?"

I don't see it. I certainly don't see how Joe Leiberman can be pro-abortion.

But i never argued that Lieberman wasn't a hypocrite, infact I never stated any opinion on the matter in the thread.
I ask you about Republicans, Christianity & the death penalty.

[FreshJive]

And just because a politician concedes a point politically, it doesn't make him a hypocrite as far as his own personal beliefs or behaviors are concerned. This is especially true concerning religious beliefs. I don't even like Lieberman, but to accuse him of being a hypocrite for supporting a woman's right to choose and at the same time being a Jew is not fair IMO.

Edited to hopefully be less offensive to Jack Truth and not sound so personally attacking.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: jacktruth

Actually, the Mosaic law includes the death penalty:

Exodus 21
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

And incidentally, the same chapter recognizes the life of an unborn child:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.


A Christian or Jew is consistent with the Word of God if they accept the death penalty, and if they are against abortion.

Jack, Jack, Jack....Jack, Jack, Jack Jack......

Just preceding the text you cite, in Exodus 21:2-11, you have laws regarding how Hebrew masters should treat their slaves, as well as a couple of tips on daughter-selling, and the intersection of these issues with polygamy.

Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [1] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [2] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

What should a Christian's view on slavery and polygamy be? What about a Democrat's? What about a Republican's?

[jacktruth]

I recognize when I have attempted to represent my Lord and His Word and have failed to do it well. I apologize. I'm not a bible scholar or a degreed theologian.

I admit that my bias against Leiberman and Democrats is based in my belief that an unborn baby is a human and
ending the life of an innocent human is inhuman. I think it is inhuman that we put an unborn baby through horribly
painful death and don't even have the decency to give them pain medication. I think it is reprehensible that we have such low regulations for a procedure that is fatal to one life and dangerous for the other.

I think that is plain ignorant to say we don't have reproductive rights if we don't have abortions. Isn't it enough
to know that if you have sex, the natural result is pregnancy? Isn't that your reproductive right?

I also think it is plain ignorant to call it pro-choice, when the very thing that you call pro-choice
removes the ability for an innocent human to choose anything.

Do I think that the death penalty is inhuman? Well, I think that if a person is indeed guilty of murder, it is
different than if a person has never breathed a breath and has never done anything harmful to anybody.

If serving the death penalty to a guilty murderer serves as a deterent to murder, then
I think it can be justified.

I think there is some doubt as to whether our system can with 100% certainty tell if a person is guilty, and
that makes the death penalty difficult. But I think it is nearly as inhumane to lock a person up for life if
they are innocent, which our system does just as often as it serves the death penalty. At least a defentant has
a right to a fair trial and are judged guilty or innocent by a group of people who to the best of our ability are unbiased.

I think you could reasonably compare abortion to trying a murderer with a jury of the victim's family.

I would trade you a prohibition of the death penalty for unborn children for a prohibition of the death
penalty for criminals anytime.

The bottom line for me is that I would never vote for anybody that can can look at a sonogram, see a beating heart,
then look a person in the face and say, "it's not a baby."

[Usually Lurkin]

the abortion/death-penalty issue is one of the most hilarious (and sadly telling) conflations in American politics.

option Dem:
it's ok to kill unborn babies.
it's bad to kill adult criminals.

option Rep:
it's bad to kill unborn babies.
it's ok to kill adult criminals.

These are the two options. Which is less hypocritical? Which is more Christian?


as for Lieberman: No matter how hard you squint, baby-killing is baby-killing. If Lieberman's saying it's ok for other people to break laws that he himself has determined are the unerring word of God, then that's hypocrisy.


as for the new testemant Jesus, he's got no problem dishing out the proper punishment to people for whom the punishment fits. Even if that punishment is eternal damnation.

And I don't know if this adds anything to anyone's views of scripture, but:
Biblically, the only death is separation from God. If you live as a slave, or God allows Satan to take all your things, cover you in boils, and kill off your family, or if you are beaten and stoned and left for dead, or imprisoned, or thrown in a fire or a pit or a lions den, or whatever, then you should still be grateful because you have the option of eternal life.

[MavKikiNYC]

There are, of course, at least a couple of other options.

One, for example, would be to recognize a society's reponsibility to defend and protect its members against extreme threats, including the declararation of war, which almost always ends in the deaths of combatants, as well as protecting society against individuals who would kill (or threaten to kill) members of said society in a manner inconsistent with the society's laws.

Completely consistent with this stance, in my opinion, is society's recognition that an individual (a woman) has the right to determine whether to perpetuate life (or not), either by conceiving a child (or not), or by bearing a child (or not).

To try to define as "murder" all acts that result in the ending of a human life is problematic in a number of planes. Languages have words such as "kill", "murder", "execute", "assassinate", "exterminate", "euthanize", and "abort", as well as concepts such as "self-defense", "lethal force", "social neglect", "genocide" which recognize that the termination of human lives occur in different situations and contexts, with different motives and justifications.

A doctor following a patient's directive not to administer life-saving measures is not a murderer; any more than Ronald Reagan was a murderer for not pushing for greater funding for research for a cure for HIV; any more than Governor Bush was a murderer for failing to stay prisoners' executions; any more than President Clinton was a murder for ordering retailiatory strikes in Bosnia or Somalia; any more than Preisdent Bush would have been a murderer for ordering the downing of planes carrying civilians believed to be carrying terrorists planning to down the planes in urban areas to inflict mass casualties; any more than a 13-year old rape victim is a murder for not carrying a baby to term; any more than an unmarried, pregnant 19-year old is a murderer for making the painful decision NOT to bring a baby into the world.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
There are, of course, at least a couple of other options.

I meant political options, and any other vote is just for show.

A doctor following a patient's directive not to administer life-saving measures is not a murderer; any more than Ronald Reagan was a murderer for not pushing for greater funding for research for a cure for HIV; any more than Governor Bush was a murderer for failing to stay prisoners' executions; any more than President Clinton was a murder for ordering retailiatory strikes in Bosnia or Somalia; any more than Preisdent Bush would have been a murderer for ordering the downing of planes carrying civilians believed to be carrying terrorists planning to down the planes in urban areas to inflict mass casualties; any more than a 13-year old rape victim is a murder for not carrying a baby to term; any more than an unmarried, pregnant 19-year old is a murderer for making the painful decision NOT to bring a baby into the world.

We could easily conclude that there are no murderers in the world just by saying killing is never unlawful. But that wouldn't make sense (and I don't think that's what you are saying).
A couple ways that your list could be divided up for the purpose of deciding whether or not killing should be lawful:
1) acting to bring about the death of an individual vs. not acting to save the life of an individual.
2) what choice did the victim have in the matter
3) how does society (definable) benefit or lose as a result of the killing?

With questions like these, we could divide your list (and the list of all possible killings) into sections of not at all parallel acts, and decide then what is right and what is wrong.

[MavKikiNYC]

We could easily conclude that there are no murderers in the world just by saying killing is never unlawful. But that wouldn't make sense (and I don't think that's what you are saying).

I agree that that conclusion wouldn't have been warranted. The more natural, less extreme conclusion is that not all killings are murder, nor are they all illegal, nor are they all unjustified, nor are they all immoral.

A couple ways that your list could be divided up for the purpose of deciding whether or not killing should be lawful:
1) acting to bring about the death of an individual vs. not acting to save the life of an individual.
2) what choice did the victim have in the matter
3) how does society (definable) benefit or lose as a result of the killing?

I'm not sure that the division of such a list would be that helpful. The much more fundamental point of the list was that while we may all have heard such examples (or similar examples) referred to as "murder" (with the connotation of an 'unlawful' act) by someone on one or the other side of a given issue, and while all of those examples may have resulted in either the loss of life, or termination of life, or failure to allow human life to continue, all of them were, in fact, legal, and none of them are reasonably classifed as "murder".

[FreshJive]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
the abortion/death-penalty issue is one of the most hilarious (and sadly telling) conflations in American politics.

option Dem:
it's ok to kill unborn babies.
it's bad to kill adult criminals.

option Rep:
it's bad to kill unborn babies.
it's ok to kill adult criminals.

These are the two options. Which is less hypocritical? Which is more Christian?


as for Lieberman: No matter how hard you squint, baby-killing is baby-killing. If Lieberman's saying it's ok for other people to break laws that he himself has determined are the unerring word of God, then that's hypocrisy.


as for the new testemant Jesus, he's got no problem dishing out the proper punishment to people for whom the punishment fits. Even if that punishment is eternal damnation.

And I don't know if this adds anything to anyone's views of scripture, but:
Biblically, the only death is separation from God. If you live as a slave, or God allows Satan to take all your things, cover you in boils, and kill off your family, or if you are beaten and stoned and left for dead, or imprisoned, or thrown in a fire or a pit or a lions den, or whatever, then you should still be grateful because you have the option of eternal life.

I certainly hope none of our leaders make decesions based on what is the most Christian thing to do. Especially since we are supposed to be a nation where one is allowed to practice whatever religion they choose. As far as I know the US is not a Theocracy. I would hope they would make decesions based more on reason, and the goal should be to produce the best free society that they can, not to mimic their own opinions of WWJD.

As for Lieberman being a hypocrite: I don't know many religious people that claim to fully understand the unerring word of God as you put it. Even Jacktruth admitted that he is no biblical scholar. As far as I know, alot of religious leaders do not take the Bible as a literal message from God (especially the Old Testament). The Bible was written, translated, and passed down by man. I don't know of one politician that believes that rapists should be forceably wedded to thier victims. Is George Bush a hypocrite for allowing rapists to be put in jail? I guess so if he believes the Bible to be the unerring word of God. Jacktruth's last post was a much better explanation of why he won't vote for Lieberman, and I fully respect his point of view, but to accuse someone of being a hypocrite for seperating his religious beliefs and political opinions is not right. Especially because we have no idea how Lieberman interprets the Torah. Actually, if you interpret such versus as 2 Kings 2:23-24 literally, then killing a partially formed human doesn't sound so immoral compared to summoning a pack of angry bears down upon some forty or so hapless children for insulting someones hair defeciencies.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

all of them were, in fact, legal,

no debate here

and none of them are reasonably classifed as "murder".

It is quite debateable whether or not everything on your list is reasonably classified outside of murder.
There are some things that cannot be known, such as:
Did Reagan withhold funds for the purpose of killing AIDS sufferers?
Did the state of Texas kill any innocent people?
If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then I bet a lot of people would argue that the deaths should be classified as 'murder'.
There are already a lot of very reasonable people who classify "abortion" as murder, and some who classify abortion in the case of rape as "murder".

What questions are asked at a murder (or manslaughter or whatever) trial to determine whether or not someone should be punished for the death of another?

I certainly hope none of our leaders make decesions based on what is the most Christian thing to do.

Well, that's pretty short-sighted, seeing as how our leaders are citizens of a nation in which they are allowed to practice whatever religion they choose. Making decisions according to the precepts of your religion is what practicing religion is.

And back to Lieberman: I stand by what I said earlier: "If Lieberman's saying it's ok for other people to break laws that he himself has determined are the unerring word of God, then that's hypocrisy."

I don't know of one politician that believes that rapists should be forceably wedded to thier victims.

How many think that rapists should be forced to pay child support? Maybe that old law was in place because that was the only way for the woman and child to be supported. Notice that the bible does not say the child should be killed.

And killing a baby because someone doesn't want to live up to the responsibility of sex does sound more immoral than those couple of bible verses taken out of context. We don't know who those kids from Bethel were, or what they did before or after they mocked Elisha and he sent bears to maul them. We don't know how "hapless" they were, or even how young were these "children". All we know is some youths mocked a prophet of God and that prophet sent bears to maul them.

[MavKikiNYC]

[quote]
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all of them were, in fact, legal,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


no debate here

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and none of them are reasonably classifed as "murder".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is quite debateable whether or not everything on your list is reasonably classified outside of murder.[/q]


UL, at the risk of committing a tautology, if the acts on the list weren't illegal, they weren't "murder".
Murder is by (common, not legal--any attorneys feel free to elaborate) definition: 1) unlawful; 2) intentional; 3) malicious.

The existence of the term "manslaughter" where the unlawful death of a person was neither intentional nor malicious supports the elemental point being made--that not all killings are "murder". Both the law and popular understanding acknowledge that killings occur in different contexts, with different circumstances, different degrees of intent and malice.

I've never seen a scintilla of evidence presented that Reagan intentionally, knowingly, or maliciously denied support for AIDS research so that AIDS sufferers would die. I've never seen any case proven that the State of Texas knowlngly, intentionally, or maliciously unlawfully executed a prisoner, and frankly, given how diffuse the responsibility for that decision is, I doubt that could ever be proven. The same goes for decisions made by U.S. presidents resulting in the deaths of U.S. soldiers, enemy combatants or terrorists.

While people who attempt to villify Reagan, or opponents of capital punishment, or political opponents of this or that American president, both at home and abroad, may attempt to call this or that act "murder", they are doing so based on their own MORAL interpretations, not based on any legal precept.

In the same vein, people who attempt to classify terminated pregnancies as "murder" do so as a result of THEIR moral (not legal) interpretations of the act, usually without any direct knowledge of intent, or knowledge of the presence or absence of malice, which, I believe, makes it a lot more difficult to see these as "reasonably held opinions".

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreshJive: I certainly hope none of our leaders make decesions based on what is the most Christian thing to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UL: Well, that's pretty short-sighted, seeing as how our leaders are citizens of a nation in which they are allowed to practice whatever religion they choose. Making decisions according to the precepts of your religion is what practicing religion is.

Kiki: When leaders make public policy decisions based largely on personal moral interpretations of acts, with such morality often grounded in different, diverse and possibly even divergent religious beliefs, the potential for public policy disaster slowly and inexorably bubbles to the top. If the differences in perspective between Catholics and Protestants, or between Christians and Jews, or within any of these broader classes between Fundamentalists, Moderates and Liberals seem daunting and intractable, then can you imagine the potential for disaster if you inject ADDITIONAL religious perspectives into the mix, which may be divergent, SHARPLY divergent even, with ALL of the above-mentioned?

It's not really far-fetched at all to see that as a possibility--all of which makes the injection of specific religious beliefs (about which there may not even be consensus WITHIN a particular faith) into the formation of public policy dangerous and ill-advised.

[jacktruth]

My last description of why I don't like leiberman is based on what I believe about God and the Bible. The Word of God is a lot of things. It is of course the Bible. It is also Jesus Christ (John 1). It is also the Word of God that lives inside us. According to the New Testament, only in accepting Christ is the Holy Spirit given as an indwelling. This indwelling brings conviction of right and wrong. It also brings biblical understanding. This is not a biblical understanding that can be translated into convincing another person of what you understand. It is biblical understanding that transforms you from the inside out. It includes things that cannot be taught to a person who does not believe in Jesus or repels him and his message. It is an understanding and an ability to make a moral judgement based on what God has deposited in us.

Unfortunately, The world simply does not accept the Word of God and many Christians, when given this revelation regarding moral udgement use it like a club over those who don't have the same revelation. I am guilty of that. When challenged on it by one who does not beleive, I responded with verses that seem to say in plain language what God has convicted me of from the inside. But then the word of God becomes a political argument: tight interpretation vs. loose interpretation and it becomes what it shouldn't. Well, this will never work because prooftexting the bible will only lead to debate on what is written without ever being able to use what is unwritten-the same spirit that wrote the bible lives in us. There are bible scholars that have spend 50 years studying and still can't convict someone from the inside. Only God can do that. I can't describe to you what goes on inside me when I read a verse and it's meaning comes to life. It is easy for me to look at Joe Leiberman, know that what is written for him to follow was written by the same God that lives in me, and judge him based on what I know, and what he doesn't.

The fact is, he will never see what I see until the Grace of God unlifts the veil from his heart and he comes to know Christ and receives the Holy Spirit inside of him.

I beleived in the Woman's right to choose until I found Jesus. When I found Jesus, I read how much he Loves each one of us. And how He sacrificed everything so that we may live. I am sad for the young woman who says that she can't raise her baby and watch as society agrees with her and encourages her to end the life that lives in her. Problem solved? Not exactly, because a lot of women still carry that baby around in the back of thier head for the rest of thier life. I also see the joy a child brings to people. Many people want children but can't have them. Then of course is the baby who has sought life since they day they were conceived, only to have it ended without any choice or fault of thier own. That bugs me now.

Then, I try to look at it and argue it from a world view. It seems that even in the most secular of places, the younger a person is when they die, the more tragic it is, especially if they die at the hand of thier mother. Yet, that tragedy doesn't to carry into the mother's womb, where the life began. It defies logic. Had that woman in houston how killed her 6 children simply aborted them to begin with, there would be the same result for the children. The only difference is that it would be perfectly legal.

The world believes in the big bang theory-that the world grew out of something extremely small that carried the potential of an entire universe, yet they don't translate the same logic into something we know with certainty that started extremely small and carries a large potential. It defies logic.

I'll throw no more pearl to swine. I'll thank God for a President who gets it, and continue to vote with my vote and vote with my prayers and watch as God's will is accomplished, with or without cooperation from politics.

[Usually Lurkin]

The existence of the term "manslaughter" where the unlawful death of a person was neither intentional nor malicious supports the elemental point being made--that not all killings are "murder".

Fair enough. Not all illegal killing is murder. If we want to avoid the vagueries of the common/legal usage of "murder" we can avoid the term. I'm more interested in what is or is not legal.
The point I'd like to make has to do with the tautology we've mentioned. And that is: not all killings that are classified as legal are reasonably classified as legal. You argued a division of the list of killings that you posted would not be helpful. I'd argue that millions of babies would be helped by a division that listed their killing as illegal, and I'm arguing that it is unreasonable not to list their killing as such.

I've never seen a scintilla of evidence presented that Reagan intentionally, knowingly, or maliciously denied support for AIDS research so that AIDS sufferers would die.

(Interesting. Let me know if I've misread the distinction that your [mavskiki] lawyer's brain makes.)
Because such evidence does not exist, you say that murder did not occur. I say that we cannot prove murder, but it does not mean it didn't occur (I'm not arguing that Reagan murdered, it's just a convenient hypothetical). The fit of forensic data to our laws does not create truth, it at best reveals truth.


Isn't the decision to call any act illegal a moral one? The decision to classify abortion as legal is one based on a moral interpretation of the act. To claim that lawmakers (and other leaders) should not make decisions based on a personal moral interpretation of the act is ludicrous. You [mavKiki/Fresh Jive] are suggesting that the use of a highly specified age-old code of ethics is a personal interpretation. If that is the case, then there is nothing but personal moral interpretations.

[XERXES]

Abortion: bad
Death Penalty: good
Lieberman: Jewish Dukakis
Veruca: Alright by me

(btw: jack truth, i do have a degree in theology, can read the king's greek, and yada yada - and i would say that the verses quoted in this thread that are supposedly "anti- death penalty" are taken out of context.)

[MavKikiNYC]

And that is: not all killings that are classified as legal are reasonably classified as legal.

The point you're making of course, is your own opinion, based I may presume, on a relgious-based moral interpretation. Make no mistake, I have absolute respect for the right of an individual such as yourself to make PERSONAL decisions based on religious-based moral interpretations. But I belive that it is dangerous and irresponsible for elected leaders to make decisions and policy based on moral interpretations rooted in a specfic religion, all the moreso when that such decisions impose a set of restrictions on or deny rights to large segments of the society who do not share such views, all the moreso when there isn't even a consensus of opinion within said religion.

Because such evidence does not exist, you say that murder did not occur.

You misread it.

Because no such evidence exists, I say that it's irresponsible, slanderous, demagogic hyperbole for people to attempt to accuse Reagan of murder, the same as it is for anti-abortionists to accuse women who've made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy of murder.

Isn't the decision to call any act illegal a moral one?

Not necessarily, and while there may be plenty of laws which exist to impose some notion of equity or fairness, they certainly don't do so from any particular religious perspective.

The decision to classify abortion as legal is one based on a moral interpretation of the act.

But not on a religious one.

To claim that lawmakers (and other leaders) should not make decisions based on a personal moral interpretation of the act is ludicrous.

You may find it ludicrous, but I find it dangerous (on par with public policy decisions as formerly made in Afghanistan and Iran) for lawmakers to impose their own moral values on the populace, especially when such values are rooted in religious beliefs, and are not shared by large segments of the population.

You [mavKiki/Fresh Jive] are suggesting that the use of a highly specified age-old code of ethics is a personal interpretation. If that is the case, then there is nothing but personal moral interpretations.

Again, what I suggest is that personal interpretation of a religious-based moral code (age-old or not) entails one level of responsibility and one set of consequences when employed for personal decisions, and quite another when used to determine and set policy for a public of diverse views and beliefs.

[MavKikiNYC]

And BTW, with all due respect to KGVet et al, I am not an attorney, nor do I wish to be mistaken for one. I imagine that the attorneys on the board feel the same way.

[FreshJive]

Well Xerxes, if you do have a degeree in theology then I think you ought to be able to agree that no one (not even professors at a seminary) agrees on the context, meaning, or actual validity(inspired by God vs a King trying to control his people or just some random thought by a "prophet") of every verse in the Bible, or even how it should apply in the modern world. Just as UL points out we don't know what else those kids might have done before they called him a baldy. To condemn another Jew or Christian (Lieberman in this example) for not agreeing with you on every biblical point is not a very Jesus way to be, and may cause many a "brother to stumble" as they. It certainly makes me think that relgion is nonsense sometimes the way you guys seem to abandon logic.

Just for the record: I'm not against the death penalty, and I don't consider myself a Dem or Rep.

[veruca salt]

I am not a scholar of theology, but i did spend a lot of time living with 4.
And I know not one of them thinks that the death penalty is the Christian thing to do.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: FreshJive
Well Xerxes, if you do have a degeree in theology then I think you ought to be able to agree that no one (not even professors at a seminary) agrees on the context, meaning, or actual validity(inspired by God vs a King trying to control his people or just some random thought by a "prophet") of every verse in the Bible, or even how it should apply in the modern world. Just as UL points out we don't know what else those kids might have done before they called him a baldy. To condemn another Jew or Christian (Lieberman in this example) for not agreeing with you on every biblical point is not a very Jesus way to be, and may cause many a "brother to stumble" as they. It certainly makes me think that relgion is nonsense sometimes the way you guys seem to abandon logic.

Just for the record: I'm not against the death penalty, and I don't consider myself a Dem or Rep.

A quick look at a religous text (through the scope of "hermeneutics") almost always gives a reliable (and generally agreed upon) context of that specific passage. It's not quite as "up in the air" as you might believe...

...and btw...all i said about leiberman is that (to me) he is a jewish dukakis.

...oh...and also btw...please don't allow me to cause you to stumble...my conscience can barely handly the load its already carrying...

[FreshJive]

Yeah the Lieberman thing wasn't directed at you.

Lol at the stumble comment, Xerxes (also not directed at you). I wasn't asking for sympathy for myself. If I burn in Hell its my fault. I was only attempting to make a point (not very well I guess). The concept of causing your "brother to stumble" is in the Bible though, and if someone believes in following the bible to the letter then they should worry about how their actions, opinions, or declarations are percieved by others. Its hard to believe that you are infact a bible scholar if you are able to be so flippant about it. You must be a hypocrite.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] My blood is on your hands[img]i/expressions/devil.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[FreshJive]

"It's not quite as "up in the air" as you might believe..."

Mabye I am ignorant about the extent of understanding bible scholars have of the meaning of bible text. However, there is no question that the facts concerning the Universe's origins, our possible afterlife, Man's place in the Universe, the existence of God or Satan are all "up in the air" as much as anything can be.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: FreshJive
Its hard to believe that you are infact a bible scholar if you are able to be so flippant about it. You must be a hypocrite.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] My blood is on your hands

I'm a flippant person. I'm genetically predisposed to not get too worked up. I know what I know and I believe what I believe (ala Hebrews 11:1). I'm prepared to answer for that.

However, there is no question that the facts concerning the Universe's origins, our possible afterlife, Man's place in the Universe, the existence of God or Satan are all "up in the air" as much as anything can be.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

[FreshJive]

I'm a flippant person.

As am I. Again, just using the "stumbling" thing as an example. I thought your reply was hilarious.