Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Oh, the old "judge not" line. How quaint." Yes, it's very "quaint" when you don't want to follow a rule that doesn't go along with your personal preferences.<< What is quaint is how you took the passage out of context like most non-Christians do. I merely put the context back. >>"The context seems to be that you shouldn't go around making RASH judgements about people." You mean like how I know nothing about Christianity? Uh, yeah. Anyway, that quote seems to indicate to me that you simply are not following precisely what it says, by judging others.<< It is one thing to make a conjecture. Judging is more about determining whether a person is in hell or will end up there. Also, notice how Jesus tells us about specks and logs? I checked for logs before I posted. >>It's quite plain in its language. Calling out other people on their religious conviction is wrong,<< That's not what it is saying. That's what people who feel uncomfortable with people saying that something they are doing is wrong think it says. If someone calls me out on something I'm doing wrong, I tend to take a look and see if it's true. But I'm not about to allow myself to be drawn into a weinie-comparing contest with you about this. I consider the argument closed.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I simply questioned Bush's Christianity and the usual insipid "judge not" claptrap " Yes, you get that because it's specifically talks about what you did.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I simply questioned Bush's Christianity and the usual insipid "judge not" claptrap " Yes, you get that because it's specifically talks about what you did.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What is quaint is how you took the passage out of context" You posted the entire passage. Its meaning is very clear.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And that's sayin' something! Hey, anyone hear that Rep. Pete Stark is an athiest? Made me wonder if you folks would vote for someone who admits to being one.
Originally Posted By cmpaley It depends on what the atheist says that he will do. It's doubtful because atheists are not likely to be pro-life (which is important and not merely a one issue deal with me...pro-life doesn't mean anti-abortion, it means pro-LIFE from conception to NATURAL death -- no killing of unborn babies, sick people, criminals, or innocent people in unjust wars).
Originally Posted By jonvn But killing people in a just war is ok? Seems like you just sort of pick who you want to kill and go, ok, them. I think you either have to be completely against killing other people, or admit that your line is no better than someone else's line, it's just drawn a little different.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But killing people in a just war is ok?<< That is not what I said. You are arguing from silence. Seems like you just sort of pick who you want to kill and go, ok, them.<< No, you are construing facts not in evidence in order to twist my words. It is always wrong to kill innocent people. >>I think you either have to be completely against killing other people, or admit that your line is no better than someone else's line, it's just drawn a little different.<< I'm sorry, but either/or arguments are irrelevant in this case. There are moral gray areas and the killing of persons in a just war in one of them. A just war is one that begins under four conditions at one and the same time: 1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3. there must be serious prospects of success; 4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. From the Catechism: 2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes. By the way, our current involvement in Iraq does not meet the conditions of a just war.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You are arguing from silence." No, I am arguing about what you said, and asked you a question. "you are construing facts not in evidence" The phrase is "assuming facts not in evidence," and this is not a courtroom. "There are moral gray areas and the killing of persons in a just war in one of them." In your rather convenient religion there are moral grey areas. In some, there aren't. "A just war is..." A just war is one which appears to be based on whatever you rationalize good sounding reasons to be are. "From the Catechism:" Not interested. It's meaningless. "our current involvement in Iraq does not meet the conditions of a just war." Does to me. We just screwed it up very badly.
