|
Priests sexually molesting children... would that be an example of moral relativism? The Pope hiding them and pretending nothing's happening, until the media brings it out in the open, AND THEN the Pope says it wrong. Is that an example of moral relativism? Christians hating gays... Would that be an example? Thou shall not kill... but ordering or causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children... Would that be an example? Exactly what the heck is moral relativism? Those who employ situational morality accuse others of moral relativism? That is a laugh! Did you read what I wrote or are you making it up as you go along? I was talking about those who talk about Moral Relativism when they themselves are guilty of Situational Morality. I said nothing of thousands murdered. Yeah to talk to you. I guess I should stop as you might get hurt from the overload. I'm sorry if I hurt whatever neurons you have left. Enjoy your ignorance, I heard it is bliss. Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.I am surprised that Dobson's mentions abortion, since I would think it should be easy to come up with anti-abortion arguments based on values that appeal to everyone regardless of religion. (e.g. destroying the life of the fetus, rights of the unborn, etc) AFAIK, in the Bible killing a fetus is a minor offense , one that warrants a fine (Exodus 21:22-26). So the irony is that secular reasons for opposing abortion are more persuasive than religious-ba... Well, given your remarks JK, it seems that Dobson's point is perfectly made. Why focus on the appeal of an argument? An argument is not made worthy based on whether or not it has broad appeal. It seems to me that it is obvious that this is just an attempt to control the framework of an argument and to disparage parts of some debates with which Obama does not agree. Why focus on the appeal of an argument?Because saying "X is wrong[right] because the Bible says so" won't cut it with people who don't believe in a literal reading of that particular scripture. It seems to me, based on this clip, that Dobson thinks those arguments should should carry weight simply because they are grounded in his particular religion. Especially when it leads to this kind of hypocrasy: An Oregon City woman who dated congressional candidate Mike In interviews with The Oregonian, the woman said she met Her story is backed up by medical ... Aces, there is no such thing as moral relativism. That is my point. Period. Priests, doctors, politicians, anyone molesting anyone is wrong. Aces, you also have no idea what Christianity is all about. I have sat here day after day and heard you spew out you hatred towards Christians and said zip. Christians don't hate gays you moron. You can be an atheist and hate gays. And abortion is murder. Plain and simple. Now some people think that it doesn't become murder until the third trimester, some people think that abortion is murder any point after conception and some people like the wack job Peter Singer think you should be able to kill your children up until the age of 2 and aft... Wilhelm, thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious to the other posters. I suspect they were in such a hurry to trash Dobson they missed the point of the argument entirely. Just more attempt to force your views on others. I would never say someone of a different faith could not express their opinion that is based in their values, and use the synthesis of faith, values, and reason to express themselves and persuade others. To follow your logic to the extreme, we could just say your opinion is invalid because you are Marxist ideologue with no interest in anything outside of the faith of Materialism, therefore, your arguments should be kept to yourself because they will not appeal to everyone. Above comment to Jklugman. Sorry. AFAIK, in the Bible killing a fetus is a minor offense , one that warrants a fine (Exodus 21:22-26 Actually the verse is as follows: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she GIVES BIRTH PREMATURELY, yet NO harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him, AND he shall pay as the judges determine." The verse has nothing to do with abortion, BUT does say that even causing a woman to have a baby early (not killing the child, simply causing premature labor) is punishable. @SillySam Aces, there is no such thing as moral relativism. That is my point. Period. Priests, doctors, politicians, anyone molesting anyone is wrong.That's exactly my point, as shown by my examples of the pope, his priests, and the president. I have sat here day after day and heard you spew out you hatred towards Christians..No you haven't. You've heard me spew out example after example of so-called religious folk who hate others, molest others, lie and kill others while claiming to be moral paragons of god. Funny how you identified that with Christian! The fact that Christians do this is no more or less hypocritical than the Muslims who kil... @sillysam Just wondering... Would you risk you life to save a child from a burning building with a 40% chance of survival for yourself? Most of us would, I would, wouldn't you? Now, would you risk your life given the same chance of survival to rescue a petri dish containing a fertilized human egg? I wouldn't. Would you? Sillysam, in my NJPS translation of the Hebrew Bible, the verse explicitly refers to a miscarriage: "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues..." Aces: And hence you take someone's screwed up view of Christianity and apply it to every Christian walking on the face of the earth. And yes you have. If I had the time and inclination I could go back to post after post of you denegrating Christianity. Why don't you bad mouth atheists. For example Stalin, he killed about 25 million people, many because they were followers of Christ or Abraham. Yous always fall back on the same instances. A priest molesting a child, the inquisition or Galileo. You say nothing about how Christianity has chjanges the world for the better. How America was founded by Christian colonists. How Christians fought to end slavery. How Christians fought for ... Klugman, I don't see much difference in the translation except that the woman has a miscarriage, the point is that they don't pay a small fine. That is not in the bible. It says they are subjected to not only the judges fine (which could be death) but also a fine can be imposed by the man who lost a child. Aces: thanks for making my point even clearer. Most Christians (I would say more than the rest of the population) do not hate gays. People hate. SOme of them might be Muslim, Christian or Atheists. What you are saying (and then not saying as you seem to disavow yourself of the statement) is that because one Christian might hate a gay person that somehow it must be part of the religious teaching of Christianity. Now that might not be what you were trying to say but that is how, I as a Christian and a Pastor am taking it. It says they are subjected to not only the judges fine (which could be death) but also a fine can be imposed by the man who lost a child.The NJPS translation explicitly refers to a "payment" (...the one responsible shal be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning [as the judges determine]." And in the very next verse it goes on to say "But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." This suggests to me that the scripture only prescribes death to the perpetrator only when the life of the mother is taken. I don't see a way to read that passage as anything but saying ... Not quite. Let me break it down a little for you (not that you aren't capable but I think you are misunderstanding the verse). It says that if two guys are fighting and a pregnant woman gets accidentally hurt in the process then the guy who hurt the woman is on the hook for a penalty. This is a lot different than a woman getting in her car, driving to a clinic, and opting for an abortion. It also says that the penalty is more severe (life for a life) if that child is harmed, in other words, if the woman gives birth prematurely but no further harm comes to the infant fine, but if that infant dies because of the premature birth then the man owes the ultimate punishment. Sillysam, I see where you are coming from but I have to make two points: 1. The NJPS explicitly says that if a miscarriage results the guy has to pay a fine. That to me says, if the fetus dies (which is what happens in a miscarriage), the perpetrator has to pay a fine. 2. Now granted, there probably was not a word in ancient Hebrew for "miscarriage" and so the NJPS translators inferred "miscarriage" from the metaphorical language of the Bible (the regular 1917 JPS translation refers to the mother's "fruit departing"). But I think the translators' inference is more plausible than yours. I am guessing that physical assaults on a pregnant women causing the fetus to exit the womb are much... Again the difference is that the baby was accidentally (hypothetically)brought into the world in the verse. An abortion isn't an accident. SOmeone has to choose to have an abortion. No one was having an abortions when this verse was written. Besides it specifically states that the woman has premature labor due to the actions of two men. Then it states that IF the baby is fine then their are two judgments, one from the father and one from a judge. If on the other hand the baby isn't fine then the judgment is life for a life. Now, if the baby was miscarried then there is no reason to have the second part of the verse stating that ..."if no harm follows" Because if the baby was miscarri... SillySam, it seems to me you keep on asserting your interpretation of the verse without really justifying it. I'll just end by repeating that your interpretation is clearly at odds with that of the scholars who made the New Jewish Publication Society English translation. I think we can both agree that Christianity is against abortion. And that is probably enough for this argument.I don't know what that means. Is there anywhere else in the Hebrew-Christian Bible that justifes this comment? If not, I don't know if you can say there is a "true" Christian stand on anything. People tend to take from scripture what they want to take, and conveniently ignore the stuff that d... @ss And hence you take someone's screwed up view of Christianity and apply it to every Christian walking on the face of the earth.I'm surprised you didn't catch your error immediately. Here's what I said: "So don't say Christians don't hate gays. Some do, some don't. Most, I am certain, don't buy into that hate crap." If I had the time and inclination I could go back to post after post of you denegrating Christianity.That part would be true. There are some who believe in and practice the social gospel of Jesus Christ. They are the good Christians. And there are some who preach hate because their holy book tells them god hates, and who god hates. So they hat... @ss As for your hypothetical...a womb is NOT a petri dish.Nor was it the question. The question is "would you risk your life given the same chance of survival to rescue a petri dish containing a fertilized human egg?" (Either that fertilized egg is a human, or it's not!) What you are saying ... is that because one Christian might hate a gay person that somehow it must be part of the religious teaching of Christianity.Though that's not remotely what I said, it is however IN FACT what many teach from the bible. And many are the high profile Christian leaders doing the teaching. Jimmy Swaggart [a worldwide multi-million-dollar ministry], Pat Ro... |
View the Top Clips from June 24, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
