Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI can't speak for all Christians, but the verse to which you refer in this letter from Paul to the Romans was speaking to the Christians of that city, and by no means should be misconstrued to be God's dictum on how governments are to conduct the affairs of the body politic.
Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Romans 12:19
Learn your bible.
So, one is tempted to ask: why do Christians come across as so blood thirsty for the whole 'eye for an eye' stuff?
Because Christians realize that law and order which promotes the sanctity of human life is also a system which will ensure their own survival.
Without the rule of law which has at its core the magnificence and importance of the creature known as man, all bets are off.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYeah that's probably it [/sarcasm]
I can't speak for all Christians, but the verse to which you refer in this letter from Paul to the Romans was speaking to the Christians of that city, and by no means should be misconstrued to be God's dictum on how governments are to conduct the affairs of the body politic.
So, one is tempted to ask: why do Christians come across as so blood thirsty fo ...[text shortened]... has at its core the magnificence and importance of the creature known as man, all bets are off.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat is your stance, straightforward? Don't mince words.
It's not as straightforward as some seem to believe.
A couple of questions to start:
Is the Bible unambiguous as to when life begins?
Is the Bible unambiguous that an embryo or fetus are to be valued the same as breathing child?
1 edit
Originally posted by leunammiMy stance is "it's not as straightforward as some seem to believe."
What is your stance, straightforward? Don't mince words.
It's not straightforward from a Biblical perspective.
It's not straightforward from a sociological perspective.
Some people pretend that it is. But the fact is that it isn't. It is what it is.
What's your stance? How about answering the questions from my previous post?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy stance.....
My stance is "it's not as straightforward as some seem to believe."
It's not straightforward from a Biblical perspective.
It's not straightforward from a sociological perspective.
Some people pretend that it is. But the fact is that it isn't. It is what it is.
What's your stance? How about answering the questions from my previous post?
The unborn is a unique human life distinct from the mother.
The mother is little more than a biological life support system for the human life within her.
To abort is to kill the unique human life in the mother.
We generally call the senseless taking of another human life murder.
Originally posted by EladarSo you're pro-life, pro-death penalty, and wish we had nuked Iran eh? Bit of a mess of contradictions, ain'tcha.
My stance.....
The unborn is a unique human life distinct from the mother.
The mother is little more than a biological life support system for the human life within her.
To abort is to kill the unique human life in the mother.
We generally call the senseless taking of another human life murder.
Originally posted by whodeyThe FFathers were flirting with theocracy.
So where did the right to privacy come from? Was it not a group of theists who introduced the concept of God given natural rights?
Are you saying that the right to privacy is more important that the right to life?
Privacy and freedom not to bear life, vs life of the unborn. Good examples of debate on both sides of the matter are readily available by search to anyone who is actually seeking answers.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou have not answered anything, you only minced your words. 😕
My stance is "it's not as straightforward as some seem to believe."
It's not straightforward from a Biblical perspective.
It's not straightforward from a sociological perspective.
Some people pretend that it is. But the fact is that it isn't. It is what it is.
What's your stance? How about answering the questions from my previous post?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThat would be a fallout of war. Iran has been part of the war against us and Israel.
Does/did/would your desired nuclear attack on Iran not involve "innocent lives"?
We should have nuked Tehran during the time of the hostage crisis. If we had, maybe we could have avoided this terrorist crap. Perhaps a few more islamic cities turned to glass would be reqired.
Just because many people want to pretend terrorism is life that just means they don't know a war when they see it. When the locals fear us enough to keep their own in check the war is won.
Originally posted by EladarSo taking innocent lives with a weapon that clearly maximizes the taking of innocent lives, and intentionally so [in itself arguably the ultimate kind of "terrorist act"... as you said "...When the locals fear us enough..."] jives with your 'sanctity of unique distinct innocent human lives' thing?
That would be a fallout of war. Iran has been part of the war against us and Israel.
We should have nuked Tehran during the time of the hostage crisis. If we had, maybe we could have avoided this terrorist crap. Perhaps a few more islamic cities turned to glass would be reqired.
Just because many people want to pretend terrorism is life that just means ...[text shortened]... war when they see it. When the locals fear us enough to keep their own in check the war is won.