Your donations pay for the CIH Forum hosting and software.
Please help the CIH Forums by disabling AdBlock Plus on this page.
Forum Home Forum Home :: Super Bowl Commercials :: 2010 Superbowl Commercial Reviews
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Focus on the Family - Tim Tebow
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedFocus on the Family - Tim Tebow

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
jeroboam View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Location: Portland, Or
Status: Offline
Points: 2266
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jeroboam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 8:22pm
That is true about the two hebrew words. One of the big ones they taught us in hebrew. (just like the multiple context words for "create" and "life" and "time")

King James was a politician for one thing and in providing a simplified text translation he knew he could not only unify a divided body of believers he could garner the favor of the common man.  In turn he also was very manipulative to the men he had translating the greek, latin and hebrew texts that were being taught from the pulpits.

I heard it said before that God hits a straight ball with a crooked stick and many have used the KJV as an example of this. That in the twisted errors of the KJV and the less than righteous motive in its commission the truth is still delivered and the divinity of God and Christ are not compromised in the story.
That being said, minor things have been molded to fit the readers' own agendas.
Though I have a feeling that even in the earliest more pure versions of any text, there was someone interpreting these words to support their own politics, ideals or dogmas.

I feel I may have stirred the nest in mentioning the preacher who stated God was pro choice.
I left it vague on purpose as he did as well.
It created dialogue and debate. It prompted research and study.
We were on a campus and were primed for such things. Not a website about commercials.
Perhaps I was hasty but I also have much faith in my fellow man and so far I have been impressed in the level of tact I am seeing. I commend both Richard and Jimbo for their unintentional truce on this common ground and for such a "hot button issue" there is little mud slinging and name calling.

The gentleman who said this at my chapel abhorred abortion, and even thought it was wrong and sinful on most accounts (he clarified later that week)
but he stands by his assessment that he  serves a God who allows the choices of His creation to govern the world we live in.
Hence the "bad things in a world made by a loving God" argument.

Death is in our hands.
We exact revenge, justice and judgment up on our fellow man on a daily basis.
On a biological basis we carry out various forms of genocide in order to better or own existence. Whether it is through murder, death penalty, war, or murder.

Abortion can be a moment where we as humans decide,  "this isn't for me, it is a mere cluster, a blastocyst or cellular division that can not live outside of me"
or, "this fetus is going to die up on birth or it can not live a normal , healthy life outside of me"
"this baby will kill me" (a rarer one nowadays)
Within those are variations and the mindsets of the parents are also as variable.

To some it is murder, a killing of an innocent life. But how can one truly argue about the "life" of a child that is only able to be alive through the life of the host mother?
What of the late term abortion, when does that become viable and "ok" to carry out?
Perhaps when the child is highly deformed, or dangerous to the mother?
Again, that is rarer and rarer due to genetic pretesting and more in depth ultrasound and other tests.
We catch things early on nowadays.

I've made statements before on here and show where I stand.
It is a wordy and as rambling as this post if not more.

in the end, we humans wipe one another out on a regular basis. We decide who lives and dies.
When Christ died on the cross, the Christians believe< he in turn handed the reins to us. No longer was there the need for the pomp and circumstance of the Old Testament with Holy of Holies, and the burning sacrifice. No more flames from Heaven and rumbling voice of God from a mountain I guess.
His wrath, focused on him as a man incarnate, was now in our hands.
Sadly some have taken a murderous tone with such power whereas most show grace and mercy.

I myself choose the latter. But acknowledge the former.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links



Back to Top
RichardCranium View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 1466
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RichardCranium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 10:08pm
My point was simply the hypocrisy Thor buys into. That someone can be "pro-life" yet "pro-death" is preposterous.
 
The church does that all the time, which is why I think they should be taxed if they wish to be involved in politics like any other corporation.
 
They campaign against candidates who are pro-choice (and even against those who have not taken a stance, assuming that by not saying one is pro-life one by default is pro-choice), and then campaign for candidates whos own voting record shows them to support war, which the last time I checked isn't pro-life. Semantics aside, when someone drops a bomb that kills a baby, that is murder by the churches own definition. Or was that a God sanctioned killing?
 
I just find it funny that Thor feels the need to cloud the issue with quotes from dubious sources (wikipedia) and doesn't acknowledge the simple fact that the church is just as hypocritical and corrupt as any other entity. They just try to justify it by dragging God and Jesus into it.
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 11:31pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

So, do you think that Jesus meant that if someone wants to murder your kid, you should let him...maybe give him your other child to kill, too?  I highly doubt it.  Jesus wasn't about supporting evil, as far as I know.  I think he was about countering it.
This is why I don't think "turn the other cheek" is a call to let people do whatever they want to you.
 
No, I think Jesus was referring it more as a standard of righteousness to be strived for, albeit one that most humans could never attain.
 
That of course, being the whole purpose of the forgiveness thing.
 
I think that you should do everything you can to protect your kids short of killing the attacker & if killing the attacker becomes necessary, then I suppose it would be forgiven if you repented, prayed, confessed your sin & were truly remorseful about it.
 
That having been said, going back to what I was originally talking about, your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" being interpreted by NRA nuts as meaning "except for in certain situations".... I think many of the "nuts" I was referring to wouldn't need their kids' lives being threatened to trigger the "certain situation" interpretation. I think that liberal interpretation of "Tsnk" would kick in if someone was coming in their house at night, or stealing their car. I think a lot of pro-war types would find nothing wrong with waging war against a country based on questionable reasons (Iraq for instance) & if innocent men, women & children are killed, they would still not only consider it justified, but take a "who cares?" attitude towards those innocents' deaths, all while claiming to be "good Christians".
 
IOW.... the "Tsnk" commandment would be interpreted by them in a similar way as you described, for the purpose of assuaging their guilt, be it for killing an intruder into their home when they conceivably could have taken other action, or be it for their participation in or support for a war, no matter how questionable the reason for waging that war was to begin with.
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:05am
Originally posted by RichardCranium RichardCranium wrote:

My point was simply the hypocrisy Thor buys into. That someone can be "pro-life" yet "pro-death" is preposterous.
 
The church does that all the time, which is why I think they should be taxed if they wish to be involved in politics like any other corporation.
 
They campaign against candidates who are pro-choice (and even against those who have not taken a stance, assuming that by not saying one is pro-life one by default is pro-choice), and then campaign for candidates whos own voting record shows them to support war, which the last time I checked isn't pro-life. Semantics aside, when someone drops a bomb that kills a baby, that is murder by the churches own definition. Or was that a God sanctioned killing?
 
I just find it funny that Thor feels the need to cloud the issue with quotes from dubious sources (wikipedia) and doesn't acknowledge the simple fact that the church is just as hypocritical and corrupt as any other entity. They just try to justify it by dragging God and Jesus into it.
 
Where's the hypocrisy?  Pro-life is quite compatible with both the death penalty (though that's another subject) and participation in a just war, as they all uphold the value of life.  Now, whether a particular war is "just" is something that can be argued.  But can you really argue that the defeat of the Nazis or retaliation against the Japanese, for example, was "pro-death"?
 
As far as dropping bombs on innocents...that's why I mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas.  He addressed the need to avoid this as much as possible.
 
As far as using Wikipedia as a source, I used it as it's generally pretty accepted, and about as neutral as one can expect.  Had I used a Christian source, you would've said it was biased.  I really don't know what source you would find more acceptable in matters of religion.  Besides, it wasn't as if what Wikipedia said wasn't something you've never heard.  You have heard of Biblical translation, haven't you?
 
And as far as taxing the church, Richard...there are separation of church and state issues.  Besides, a church doesn't dictate how their members vote; if anything, its members decide what their church puts out there (politically).  And those members are already taxed.
 
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:20am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

So, do you think that Jesus meant that if someone wants to murder your kid, you should let him...maybe give him your other child to kill, too?  I highly doubt it.  Jesus wasn't about supporting evil, as far as I know.  I think he was about countering it.
This is why I don't think "turn the other cheek" is a call to let people do whatever they want to you.
 
No, I think Jesus was referring it more as a standard of righteousness to be strived for, albeit one that most humans could never attain.
 
That of course, being the whole purpose of the forgiveness thing.
 
I think that you should do everything you can to protect your kids short of killing the attacker & if killing the attacker becomes necessary, then I suppose it would be forgiven if you repented, prayed, confessed your sin & were truly remorseful about it.
 
That having been said, going back to what I was originally talking about, your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" being interpreted by NRA nuts as meaning "except for in certain situations".... I think many of the "nuts" I was referring to wouldn't need their kids' lives being threatened to trigger the "certain situation" interpretation. I think that liberal interpretation of "Tsnk" would kick in if someone was coming in their house at night, or stealing their car. I think a lot of pro-war types would find nothing wrong with waging war against a country based on questionable reasons (Iraq for instance) & if innocent men, women & children are killed, they would still not only consider it justified, but take a "who cares?" attitude towards those innocents' deaths, all while claiming to be "good Christians".
 
IOW.... the "Tsnk" commandment would be interpreted by them in a similar way as you described, for the purpose of assuaging their guilt, be it for killing an intruder into their home when they conceivably could have taken other action, or be it for their participation in or support for a war, no matter how questionable the reason for waging that war was to begin with.
 
Yes.  War is supposed to be avoided as much as possible.  And peace is something that must be strived for.  And war must be waged to combat evil.  And innocent deaths must be avoided as much as possible.  In fact, this is what Thomas Aquinas' writings re war were all about.
 
You may say that St. Thomas Aquinas' writings were not from the Bible, but nevertheless, these are the beliefs at least of the Catholic Church.  Beyond that, we'd have to get into the argument as to whether Catholics are actually Christian (Catholics don't rely exclusively on the Bible, so many believe Catholicism isn't Christianity).  That's a whole other topic.
 
As I said in my previous post to Richard, while there is such a thing as a just war (for which certain criteria must be met), whether a particular war or action or response is "just" is up to individual interpretation.  For example, your words:  "...then I suppose it would be forgiven if you repented, prayed, confessed your sin & were truly remorseful about it."  Interpretation.
 
 
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:26am
Originally posted by jeroboam jeroboam wrote:

That is true...
 
Good, thoughtful post, Jeroboam.
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:30am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Pro-life is quite compatible with both the death penalty and participation in a just war, as they all uphold the value of life.  Now, whether a particular war is "just" is something that can be argued.
 
And therein lies part of the problem. There are people who will argue that a military action like the invasion of Iraq was "just" when anyone with an ounce of common sense & intelligence can (& could back in 2003 also) see that there was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq.
 
Nobody in their right mind could've possibly believed that Iraq posed an imminent threat of attacking &/or invading America. They hadn't invaded one of our allies as they had done with Kuwait either.
 
The invasion of Iraq was totally voluntary & as it is being reported by more than credible sources, preordained & pre-planned.
 
Yet, many so-called "good Christians" applaud the invasion & support it. And this, despite all the innocent people, children included who've been killed or maimed.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:45am
What about those weapons inspections?  Not that I want to get into the Iraq war (and who did or didn't support it), but part of what St. Thomas said was that other options must be tried first.  The UN weapons inspections might qualify.  Iraq hadn't complied as the UN decreed, yet the UN wouldn't allow the use of force to make them comply, so Bush did what he did.  Anyway, whether that fits in with what St. Thomas said, is up to interpretation.
 
In fact, it's all up to interpretation, and each war is different.
 
 
Back to Top
RichardCranium View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 1466
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RichardCranium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:19am
If an innocent person is killed, it is murder. Plain and simple. Regardless of the "justness" of a war.
 
Either you support the death of innocents, or you don't.
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:36am

For the death of an innocent to be considered murder, the intent to kill them must be present.  No one wants to kill innocents or purposely target them.  Well, some do, I guess.

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:42am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

What about those weapons inspections?  Not that I want to get into the Iraq war (and who did or didn't support it), but part of what St. Thomas said was that other options must be tried first.  The UN weapons inspections might qualify.  Iraq hadn't complied as the UN decreed, yet the UN wouldn't allow the use of force to make them comply, so Bush did what he did.  Anyway, whether that fits in with what St. Thomas said, is up to interpretation.
 
In fact, it's all up to interpretation, and each war is different.
 
War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.
 
There was no way in hell that Iraq could've ever done any of that to us.
 
Non-compliance with inspections is the flimsiest of reasons to launch an invasion.
 
And claiming "it's up to interpretation" is exactly the kind of dodge I was talking about.
 
Somebody claiming that your Christian values are suspect because you supported an unnecessary war? Just claim that you don't interpret it that way. Then tell yourself that the lip service you pay to Christianity will make it all right & will be your free pass into Heaven.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:46am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

For the death of an innocent to be considered murder, the intent to kill them must be present.  No one wants to kill innocents or purposely target them.  Well, some do, I guess.

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
Not really. There is non-premeditated murder.
 
When it's done in the heat of the moment without thinking.
 
But it's still murder.
 
And dropping bombs on civilians, whether intentional or not, if it's done during the prosecution of an unjust, unnecessary invasion, calling it murder is not much of a stretch.
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
RichardCranium View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 1466
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RichardCranium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:46am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

For the death of an innocent to be considered murder, the intent to kill them must be present.  No one wants to kill innocents or purposely target them.  Well, some do, I guess.

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
I'd say dropping a bomb pretty much clears up any ambiguity surrounding "intent".
 
But that's just me.
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:52am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
Yes, but in those cases it can also be argued that dropping those bombs ended the war & saved untold numbers of lives.
 
That is certainly a grey area if there ever was one, but there are much more blatant examples.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 3:53am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

 
War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.
 
 
That's not what the Catholic Church says.  It's what you say.  And that qualifies it as---guess what?---an interpretation!
 
 
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 4:14am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

 
War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.
 
 
That's not what the Catholic Church says.  It's what you say.  And that qualifies it as---guess what?---an interpretation!
 
 
 
Oh please tell us what the Catholic Church says about justification for war.
 
And keep in mind, I'm not claiming I'm a Christian while I use some loose interpretation of what is a credible justification for war.
 
So it doesn't really matter much what my interpretation is.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Synesthesia View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2083
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Synesthesia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 4:14am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
Yes, but in those cases it can also be argued that dropping those bombs ended the war & saved untold numbers of lives.
 
That is certainly a grey area if there ever was one, but there are much more blatant examples.
 
 


I hate that argument. Especially when you realize the horrible details of those events. Read Barefoot Gen and also this book about a girl who got  cancer after those bombings. That would be One Thousand Cranes? Not so sure.
Is this love big enough to watch over me?
Big enough to let go of me
Without hurting me,
Like the day I learned to swim?-Kate Bush The Fog
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 4:19am
Originally posted by Synesthesia Synesthesia wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
Yes, but in those cases it can also be argued that dropping those bombs ended the war & saved untold numbers of lives.
 
That is certainly a grey area if there ever was one, but there are much more blatant examples.
 
 


I hate that argument. Especially when you realize the horrible details of those events. Read Barefoot Gen and also this book about a girl who got  cancer after those bombings. That would be One Thousand Cranes? Not so sure.
 
I read the book "Hiroshima".
 
It was very graphic in it's description of the horrors of that incident.
 
Told by people who lived thru it, too.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Synesthesia View Drop Down
Junior Executive
Junior Executive
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2083
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Synesthesia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 4:22am
I'll have to read that, but I still hate that argument, because folks have no way of knowing if killing those folks in that horrible way saved millions of lives.
Is this love big enough to watch over me?
Big enough to let go of me
Without hurting me,
Like the day I learned to swim?-Kate Bush The Fog
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Honor Roll
Honor Roll
Avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Online
Points: 46228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jimbo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 4:31am
Originally posted by Synesthesia Synesthesia wrote:

I'll have to read that, but I still hate that argument, because folks have no way of knowing if killing those folks in that horrible way saved millions of lives.
 
Well, I personally am not making that argument, but the argument is there to make which is more than the Iraq war has in it's favor.
 
But there is no question that those two bombs ended the war much sooner than it otherwise would have ended.
 
 
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 9:28am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

 
War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.
 
 
That's not what the Catholic Church says.  It's what you say.  And that qualifies it as---guess what?---an interpretation!
 
 
 
Oh please tell us what the Catholic Church says about justification for war.
 
And keep in mind, I'm not claiming I'm a Christian while I use some loose interpretation of what is a credible justification for war.
 
So it doesn't really matter much what my interpretation is.
 
 
 
Just saying that that's your interpretation of what Christianity says about war.  Here's the Catholic Church's, based on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas: 
 
 
(1) Just cause — The war must confront an unquestioned danger. "The damage inflicted by the aggressor or the nation or community of nations must b lasting, grave and certain, assets the Catechism (#2309).

(2) Proper authority — The legitimate authority must declare the war and must be acting on behalf of the people.

(3) Right Intention — The reasons for declaring the war must actually be the objectives, not a masking of ulterior motives.

(4) Last resort — All reasonable peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted or have been deemed impractical or ineffective. The contentious parties must strive to resolve their differences peacefully before engaging in war, e.g. through negotiation, mediation, or even embargoes. Here too we see the importance of an international medial body, such as the United Nations.

(5) Proportionality —The good that is achieved by waging war must not be outweighed by the harm. What good is it to wage war if it leaves the country in total devastation with no one really being the winner? Modern means of warfare give great weight to this criterion.

(6) Probability of success — The achievement of the war's purpose must have a reasonable chance of success.

 

(1) Discrimination — Armed forces ought to fight armed forces, and should strive not to harm non-combatants purposefully. Moreover, armed forces should not wantonly destroy the enemy's countryside, cities, or economy simply for the sake of punishment, retaliation or vengeance.

(2) Due proportion — Combatants must use only those means necessary to achieve their objectives. For example, no one needs to use nuclear missiles to settle a territorial fishing problem. Due proportion also involves mercy — towards civilians in general, towards combatants when the resistance stops (as in the case of surrender and prisoners of war), and towards all parties when the war is finished.

 
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 9:51am
Originally posted by Synesthesia Synesthesia wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.
 
Yes, but in those cases it can also be argued that dropping those bombs ended the war & saved untold numbers of lives.
 
That is certainly a grey area if there ever was one, but there are much more blatant examples.
 
 


I hate that argument. Especially when you realize the horrible details of those events. Read Barefoot Gen and also this book about a girl who got  cancer after those bombings. That would be One Thousand Cranes? Not so sure.
 
Well, it most likely prevented further American deaths.  And that's what mattered.  Keep in mind, Pearl Harbor was pretty ugly, too.  And, even before that, the Japanese were pretty brutal.  Have you ever read about the things they did to Chinese men, women and children when they captured Nanking in the 1930s?  There's actual footage of Chinese soldiers doing such things as herding townspeople into a department store, setting it on fire causing the people to escape to the next floor, and finally to the roof.  Japanese soldiers laugh as they watch the people on the roof jump to their deaths. 
 
Tying families up with rope and setting them on fire.
 
Feeding anthrax-laced candy bars to children.
 
Raping and then bayoneting babies.
 
Burying people alive.
 
And many other things.  Check out the Nanking Massacre.
 
Or Iris Chang's book/film The Rape of Nanking:
 
 
To this day, the Japanese government denies all this stuff.
 
 
 
 
As a result, considering the ugly history of the Japanese, it's kind of hard to garner unmitigated sympathy for that girl getting cancer as a result of the atomic bomb.  Even the Nazis thought that the Japanese were beyond brutal.  The things Japan did before and during WWII make it kind of easy to say "F*ck 'em.  Nuke 'em".
 
 
Back to Top
RichardCranium View Drop Down
Commercial Hater
Commercial Hater
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 1466
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RichardCranium Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 1:30pm
OH MY GOD
 
All that typing, cutting and pasting, and all the other ridiculous church ordered bull$hit.......
 
And yet THOR makes NO SENSE!!!!!!
 
LMFAO!!!!!!
 
LOSER!
Back to Top
PaWolf View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar
Hoary Ol' Chestnut... doncha know....

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Location: GreatWhiteNorth
Status: Offline
Points: 37419
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaWolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:12pm
(...hmmmm...another day, another thread gone to hell, or, well...better suited for another section...)
~~~~
Saw the commercial only once - and that was one time too many.
 
 
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike
Back to Top
Thor View Drop Down
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Location: Rockaway, NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 56685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:31pm
Originally posted by RichardCranium RichardCranium wrote:

OH MY GOD
 
All that typing, cutting and pasting, and all the other ridiculous church ordered bull$hit.......
 
And yet THOR makes NO SENSE!!!!!!
 
LMFAO!!!!!!
 
LOSER!
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah...ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz...Oh, did someone say something?
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.



"CANDIE!"