Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

drillman »

Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:33 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Chicago

About killing innocent civilians and Just War Theory. You are confusing two separate issues. Just War Theory is concerned with when a country is justified in declaring war and how that war should be conducted. The killing of innocent civilians (ie collateral damage) is a fact of every war, regardless of why it was started or what ethical principles guide your strategy. The sad but unavoidable fact that civilians are killed is not an argument against any of conflicts that the US has engaged in to date unless you can prove that it was part of our ROE to target and eliminate civilian targets. It's not, BTW. In fact, our current enemies know we are concerned with killing civilians and believe it to be a weakness. This is why they embed themsleves in the civilian population, refuse to don military uniforms and (I have personally witnessed this) will even take women and kids with them to offensive positions so we won't bomb them. Funny, the jihadis seem to know our ROE better than you do.

The battlefield is a messy place. This is not to say that when I have kids come in all blown to smithereens I just say, 'Oh well'. But it is to say that I understand that whenever you are going to engage in any kind of war, especially a low-intensity insurgency like we are involved in now, innocent people are going to die.

I would also add that of all the nations involved in the current engagements, we do more to help the local population than any other country. The socialist nations you seem to love so much do NOTHING for the local nationals unless it can be proved that their injuries were specifically caused by their troops.

This is not to say that I agree with every conflict the US has engaged in. It's just to say that you have yet to make a coherent argument to support what you are saying.

About the Republicans being 'warmongers'. Really? I served as an infantryman under Bill Clinton for his entire term and deployed twice under him. Clinton had us deployed all over the world throughout his entire administration. We waged a massive air campaign in Kosovo (killing civilians), a complete debacle in Somalia (killing civilians), and were engaged in numerous places all over the world. In fact, if you remember, Sudan offered to turn OBL over to the Clinton administration after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center and he refused. Think of all the lives he could have saved, but he didn't. I know you'd love to blame all of the bloodshed in the past 100 years or so on the Republican party, but things are a bit more complicated than that, Chicago. The Dems have plenty of blood on their hands as well.

I'd write more, but this is already a book. Needless to say, I find your support of socialism to be not only naive, but completely unbiblical. But perhaps we can interact elsewhere.

Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sorry, my computer just did something weird. My point is on that, don't be too quick to throw that around unless you know more than what the media paint for you on CNN. Talk to those of us who've been there a few times and then you can speak intelligently on the subject.

About wealth in the hands of the rich...I don't know. I started out in a dirt poor and by joining the military, taking the GI college fund and taking advantage of the numerous opportunities already available, wound up eventually getting a doctorate. My point? The principle of personal fiscal responsibility is something I happen to agree with. Look at Proverbs, it is enshrined there in the illustration of the ant. This is not to say I don't agree with the what the Gospels teach about giving to the poor, because I do agree and practice it. What I question is whether these directives given to believers are rightly ripped out of their original context and then applied to the government of the United States in order to justify a socialist agenda. That is a tactic of liberalism that I disagree with.

And what of the children of gay couples? Or more specifically, gay marriage in general. I personally do not think the republican platform on this issue is unified or strong enough. We all know it is not acceptable to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is political suicide. Republicans are politicians, not a Christian ticket. In the last eight years, they have proven themselves to be willing to abandon their professed core values to try to woo voters on the other side of the aisle. They will test the waters and do what they think they need to do in order to get elected. But let me ask you one question, what, specifically, are you referring to? What social benefits are the children of gay couples currently being denied? This is not a rhetorical question.

As I said, I think it is a mistake to identify a party with your religion, and I resent it when political parties try to support their platform by prostituting Scripture in order to sway Christians. Read your Bible and vote for 1) who you think best lines up with your values (which as a Christian, should be informed by Scripture) and 2) who will protect your and your families' right to practice your religion. If you don't think liberalism can and will try to stomp out Christianity in America, look at Canada and think again.

Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chicago wrote:
"The Republicans have proven to be war-mongers, freely justifying the killing of innocent civilians in other countries."

Really? Have you been to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:56 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Quick clarification: I'm not saying republicans are NOT Christian...I'm just saying that isn't what I look at. Anyone can say they are a Christian. What I try to look at is what they say and what they have done. That is what I meant.

Democrats Strive to Show They Got Religion Too

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

I personally have little faith in either party's 'faith'. I don't believe the republicans are out to bring honor and glory to Jesus. I usually vote republican because on most issues (or at least the one's I feel are most important) the candidates just happen to be on the same side of the issue as myself (not for the same reasons). It is not because I view them as Christian candidates. Sadly, many of them go back on their word once they get elected, but their word and their voting record is all we've got up front.

However, given the dems track record on being incredibly liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, trying to construct an all-powerful nanny state which tries to tell you how you can raise and educate your children, jacking up your taxes and their affiliation with groups like the ACLU which try to stamp out every vestige of Christianity left in our society, I can't help but laugh at these efforts to make themselves into "people of faith" in order to try to pander to faith based voters. I mean really...do they think we all have amnesia? "No, we don't oppress Christians. We don't ban prayer in public places and demand that even the mention of Christianity be struck from the public square while giving privileged status to Islam, atheism and basically everyone else. We aren't trying to pass legislation that holding to biblical morality is akin to a hate crime. We're people of faith! Look!! There's a guy praying at the national convention! Now vote us into office!"

C'mon man. Gimme a break.

How Much of the Bible is Literal?

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

St. John's
"so if God break's God's own natural laws, isn't that God going against God's self?"

Not necessarily. It depends on whether you hold that natural law is transcendent (like the laws of logic) or whether they are simply descriptions of how God controls the universe. The view that natural laws were created by God so that the universe basically runs like a large machine is more characteristic of deistic thought and borrows strongly from the materialist notion that the universe is a closed, self-contained system. Intersetingly, this is the notion of natural law put forth by the LDS Church, expounded by Orson Pratt in his polemics against Christian metaphysics. The problem is, this view makes miracles kind of difficult, logically speaking.

However, I believe a more biblical view is that what we call 'natural law' is merely the description of how God controls the universe. The Bible teaches that God is in immediate control of all aspects of the universe (not a sparrow falls apart from your heavenly Father), not a distant bystander observing the cool machine He made. God made His universe to be inhabited by humans, who are created in His image and were given the command to fill the earth and subdue it. To do this, He put them in a world that apparently operates according to recognizable patterns (my pencil falls EVERY time I drop it) with minds that could discern these patterns and learn from them. It was this believe that since the universe was created by God, and God is a God of order, not chaos, that gave rise to the belief that we could learn about the universe and form hypotheses with predictive power (the birth of modern science).

In this scheme, what we observe is God's normal, orderly way in which He 'runs the world', not a set of impersonal, transcendent laws. Therefore, miracles are not a problem for the Christian theist, as they would be for the atheist. Within the Christian worldview, God is free to do things differently for whatever reason He wishes. Miracles in Scripture are not random happenings, but are signs pointing away from themselves to a message.

Now are there parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken figuratively instead of literally? Sure. The Bible is full of different kinds of literature. There is poetry, hyperbole, figures of speech (as you point out), apocalyptic literature and other types of literature that were never meant to be taken literally (your teeth are a flock of sheep...I am the door...etc...). The discerning Bible student takes this into account as he reads Scripture.

In Christ

Young Evangelical Backs Out of Convention Prayer

drillman »

Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Stan
Please cite as many verses from the Gospels? What does that mean? So we only read and obey what is written in the Gospels? How about the epistles? What about the OT? Do these have no bearing?

Surely, you concede that the 'red words' (those quotes of Jesus) found in the Gospels only cover a fraction of what Jesus taught and said during His earthly ministry. John tells us as much when he says that if everything Jesus did and said were written, the number of books would fill the whole world (hyperbole, but the point is definitely made). We don't NEED Jesus personal pronouncement about these moral issues per se because he came 'not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill the law'. If you want to know what Jesus thought about these issues, read the first five books of the Bible. He explicitly said, more than once, that He in no way came to set the moral law of God aside or make it null and void. Rather, He confronted the way the religious authorities abused the law, concentrating on the minutiae while ignoring the 'big stuff' (straining on a gnat while swallowing a camel, so to speak).

Furthermore, the majority of Jesus' earthly ministry was concentrated on Israel, not the Gentile nations surrounding them. Therefore, much of His teaching is directed towards religious hypocrisy and calling God's elect to repentance and faith in His chosen Messiah. That is what the Gospel narratives concentrate on.

Do you believe that we are only to heed the Gospels? If not, then why the bizarre challenge?

Calif. Court: Docs Can't Withhold Fertility Treatment to Gays

drillman »

Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:53 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Even though not germane to the topic of the article, the subject of whether a gay couple can raise a child is interesting.

Can a gay couple provide the physical requirements for a child to grow? Yes.

Can a gay couple be kind to a child (in other words, be nice, not abusive)? Yes.

Can a gay couple teach a child to be a responsible citizen? Yes, but with an exception seen below.

Can a gay couple model a godly example to a child? No.
1) The bible says that man was created male and female in the image of God. Two males and two females do not model the image of God. Genesis explicitly states that he created them this way SO THAT a man would leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two would become one flesh. We may go back and forth all day long about what the image of God means, but it apparently has something to do with us being male and female.
2) Homosexuality is a violation of creation order and the law of God (sorry feet, old and new testaments). Being that homosexuals have made a conscious decision to embrace a lifestyle that God has declared to be an 'abomination', 'shameful' and unnatural, they are living in open rebellion against God and therefore cannot provide a godly example to a child. Complain all you want, but it would be the moral equivalent to someone who embraced bestiality or pedophilia raising a child. Sure they can be nice and talk about following rules, but can they provide a godly example?

Of course, you may retort that we don't object to unbelievers adopting. They don't provide a godly example, right?

Well, Romans 1 doesn't just say that homosexuality is wrong (which it does). It says that homosexuality is the mark of a people who have rejected the revelation of God that is seen all around them. In fact, some theologians (whom I agree with) would say that homosexuality does not just promise the judgment of God, it IS the judgment of God. It is God giving us over to our own depravity because we have rejected Him. And it seems our society as a whole just can't rush down the path of rejecting God wholeheartedly, silencing those who believ ein His law and removing any reminders of His holiness fast enough.

That is the point. The government is saying that God says is wrong is right (or morally neutral). It says that what God says is an abomination is commendable. It goes even further to say that those who take a stand for righteousness are wrong. They say that black is white and white is black. Evil is good and good is evil. This case is one more example of where we are going as a society. That is why we should be concerned. And yes, we bear responsibility for it, too.

Calif. Court: Docs Can't Withhold Fertility Treatment to Gays

drillman »

Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:34 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Feet
I find your posts very confusing. You do not provide any sort of epistemological grounds to support your assertions. It seems you ground your ethics in pragmatism more than biblical revelation. This might be fine (as far as consistency goes) for an agnostic or atheist, but not for a professing Christian.

Furthermore, you pit the 'ethic of love' against the 'old covenant'. But you are ignoring a few things. First, the ethic of love you cite is a quotation from Dueteronomy as a summation of the whole law. This idea is nothing new or peculiar to the new covenant (in other words, the implicit assumption that the old covenant was all about 'law-keeping' and the new covenant is all about 'love' is completely false...both encompass love and law-keeping, the latter flowing out of the former). Jesus Himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Striving to obey the law, not to gain merit with God or try to earn His favor, but because we love Him is one of the marks of a true Christian. A person who refuses to be subject to God and His law is said to be a false Christian. "Hereby we know we are in Him, if we keep His commands. He that say 'i know Him' and keeps not His commands is a liar and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:3-6)." The ethic of love is lived out in obedience to God. This is what 'loving the Lord your God with all you heart soul, mind and strength' is all about, which according to Jesus is the greatest commandment.

Third, the article is definitely NOT about whether a homosexual couple can provide a loving home (read the title). It is about whether the state or federal government has the right to demand that health care workers provide non-lifesaving medical procedures that violate their religious beliefs and conscience. THAT is the point. Even if you support gay 'marriage' (which is inconsistent with Scripture and almost 2000 years of Christian teaching on that subject), you should still be against this legislation. Think about it, the government has just said that it can require you to do something you truly believe to be a terrible sin. Is that the society you want to live in? What else can the government demand? This gives the government a frightening amount of power and sets a very bad precedent. It would be nice is they extended the same right of conscience to these docs that they have extended to those who object to abortion.

Christians Applaud New Protections for Pro-Life Health Workers

drillman »

Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Diana
Are you suggesting that by refusing to participate in abortions, these health care workers are some how 'ignoring the sins going on right under their noses and within their ranks?' I guess I'm missing how that conclusion follows from the premise. Being that you don't support your post with any facts, I'll take that as a groundless assertion. BTW, the word 'hypocrite' means pretender. So unless you are saying that they are condemning the practice of abortion while either practicing it themselves, or secretly commending it, then the slur does not apply.

That fact is, this type of legislation should concern all Christians in the US, as well as that of the fertilization case in California. Prior to this, the government was basically saying that society had the right to demand that health care workers violate their conscience in order to provide unnecessary (nonlifesaving) medical procedures to people. The broader implications of such legislation are staggering. Think about how far reaching this could become, if carried to it's logical conclusion. What is being said here is that you have the right to legally force someone to do something they truly believe is wrong.

I, for one, am glad that the government can't threaten me with jail or a fine for refusing to violate my conscience, aren't you? Does that make me a 'hypocrite'? Am I ignoring the sins going on right underneath my nose? I don't think so. I means I can thank God that I live in a country that for now hasn't openly declared war on my religious beliefs (though they are getting closer every day).