Print Page | Close Window

Focus on the Family - Tim Tebow

Printed From: Commercials I Hate!
Category: Super Bowl Commercials
Forum Name: 2010 Superbowl Commercial Reviews
Forum Description: Post your reviews of the all the commercials from Superbowl XLIV
URL: http://www.commercialsihate.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7022
Printed Date: 23 Nov 2017 at 6:21pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Focus on the Family - Tim Tebow
Posted By: ForumAdmin
Subject: Focus on the Family - Tim Tebow
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2010 at 11:50pm
I don't get it!



Replies:
Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2010 at 11:54pm
BLEGH! 

-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: ThreadKiller
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 12:30am
I liked it. That said...much ado about nothing.

-------------
Hundreds of threads killed.


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 12:36am
Quote Topic: Focus on the Family - Time Tebow
    Posted: Today at 6:50pm
 
Why did his mother, after choosing not to abort him, then name him "Time"?
 
Odd.
 
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: FaithSF
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 12:50am
They just said "Time runs out on the first half."  Did Tebow do that?


Posted By: not_a_dumb_dad
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 1:01am
eh.

because of the uproar about it, I expected something along the lines of 'Unlike the godless liberal heathen Democrats, I chose to keep my baby!'

wouldn't have surprised me in the least if it had been something like that.


-------------
Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero.


Posted By: Ad Endless Nauseum
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 1:13am
My local AM talk station in Los Angeles got a copy late last week and played it one time. They played interviews about it before playing the ad spot. Even then, it seemed "much ado about nothing", as ThreadKiller mentioned earlier.

But as the host mentioned on the radio show, after playing the spot, it opens the door for more political spots (in the Super Bowl) in the future.

Blah!Tongue


-------------
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Defense de fumer et de cracher

A message brought to you by this station and the Ad Council.


Posted By: applepiemommy
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 3:19am
I didn't mind it...

-------------
What does Dr Traci have to say about it? http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Dr-Traci


Posted By: FaithSF
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 4:31am
Originally posted by Ad Endless Nauseum Ad Endless Nauseum wrote:

My local AM talk station in Los Angeles got a copy late last week and played it one time. They played interviews about it before playing the ad spot. Even then, it seemed "much ado about nothing", as ThreadKiller mentioned earlier.

But as the host mentioned on the radio show, after playing the spot, it opens the door for more political spots (in the Super Bowl) in the future.

Blah!Tongue


Yes, but apparently only their side of politics.


Posted By: Ad Endless Nauseum
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 4:35am
Actually, Faith, the radio show specifically mentioned that this ad opened the door for Planned Parenthood, and others of that ilk,  placing ads in the future. And not just about abortion, but other issues as well.

-------------
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Defense de fumer et de cracher

A message brought to you by this station and the Ad Council.


Posted By: FaithSF
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 4:40am
Yeah, you're right.  Although Planned Parenthood didn't have the money to run an ad during the Superbowl.

This is the second time I can think of that CBS (not sure if it was the Superbowl) refused ads of a more liberal bent.




Posted By: Moochamoocha
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 4:05pm
Thumbs%20Up


-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: regulus
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 5:10pm
Nothing offensive from what I saw. It was certainly better than the POS moveon.org sneaked into the 2004 Super bowl via the Local TV Slots. (They did this after CBS Refused to carry their Ad.) Many Advertisers, knowing their Ads contain offensive material will do this because the Local Stations don't have the money to take on any Legal Challenges the advertiser may toss their way if they refuse to carry the Ad. This is why you see things like "ED Pill' Ads aired during Childrens Shows!Angry
 
(It was during the 2004 Super Bowl I began questioning WHY was I paying for the "Priviledge" of watching TV, you all know what I did three years later!)LOL


-------------
A recent poll says all the bad boys and girls would prefer getting lumps of coal from Santa Claus instead of a Pay-TV subscription!


Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 6:38pm
the news had so much to say about it before it aired, the mom was talking to low for me to understand what she was saying. It didnt bother me, i had no clue what she was saying lol


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2010 at 8:18pm
wow the left needs to pick their battles a lot better... (speaking from the left) this was a rather uneventful if not thoughtful ad.
"waaah they shared their beliefs and wanted to share it in order to convey the message that theirs is right and others are wrong! "




Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2010 at 2:39pm
Feminists are "NOW" pissed-off over the violence in this commercial.  They say that Tim tackling his mother promotes violence against women.
 
from Terry O'Neill, president of NOW:
 
"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss - http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss
 
No statement issued about the violence against Betty White in her commercial. 
 
 


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2010 at 5:24pm
Well, it's not nice to tackle your mother... or old ladies.

I don't really care, but I HATE Focus on the Family so much!


-------------
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


Posted By: blue
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2010 at 6:30am
I thought it was kind of sweet and harmless.


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2010 at 11:49am
I kept waiting for the rebuttal commercial featuring some grief stricken father who would tell the tale of convincing his wife to go through with her pregnancy when they had the same diagnosis only to watch his baby anguish in pain until it finally died in her arms and then she went crazy and took an overdose of pills a month later.
 
Never saw it though.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Moochamoocha
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2010 at 7:37pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Feminists are "NOW" pissed-off over the violence in this commercial.  They say that Tim tackling his mother promotes violence against women.
 
from Terry O'Neill, president of NOW:
 
"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss - http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss
 
No statement issued about the violence against Betty White in her commercial. 
 
 


It's not the violence they're really complaining about. You KNOW they wanted to complain about the whole abortion issue, stating that it's a woman's right to choose, blah blah blah. Well, Mrs. Tebow chose to have her baby instead of kill it...doesn't that constitute as a woman's right to choose?


-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2010 at 7:46pm
When I went to bible college back in 91 we were often met with the standard anti abortion dialogue one would expect at a conservative Christian college.
One morning at chapel this highly respected and nearly revered minister was guest speaker and was talking about hot button issues and the church. He then said, "God, is pro choice"
The sound of an administration and 500+ kids choking back bile and discomfort was telling.
He then went on further to talk of free will and Christ taking ownership of the keys to life and death from the devil during the "three days" and so on.

Needless to say the campus was divided that day and that moment was talked about and referenced for the rest of the year.

One of the greatest moments of my time there.
I witnessed a man of God who thinks.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2010 at 8:25pm
Well, supposedly the Bible refers to the unborn as humans and "children".  And combined with "Thou shalt not kill", I can't see how a minister or priest or rabbi could put forth the pro-choice sentiment.  Otherwise, from what I understand, the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion per sé.  The only pro-choice argument I've ever heard from the standpoint of the Bible is that God gives us free will.  But that argument doesn't mean he approves.  We have the free will to do all sorts of things---it doesn't mean it's all OK.
 
So, from a religious or Biblical standpoint, I don't see how abortion could be considered OK.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2010 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by Moochamoocha Moochamoocha wrote:



It's not the violence they're really complaining about. You KNOW they wanted to complain about the whole abortion issue, stating that it's a woman's right to choose, blah blah blah. Well, Mrs. Tebow chose to have her baby instead of kill it...doesn't that constitute as a woman's right to choose?
 
That's why they didn't bother with the fact that Betty White was tackled, too.  Had White stated she was anti-abortion, they'd probably have complained about her commercial, too.
 
 
 


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2010 at 9:19pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Well, supposedly the Bible refers to the unborn as humans and "children".  And combined with "Thou shalt not kill", I can't see how a minister or priest or rabbi could put forth the pro-choice sentiment. 
 
And yet the church supports pro-war candidates. I thought war killed humans and children as well?


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 3:39am
You might wanna do some research on the translation and meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" (has to do with killing versus murder).  In addition, the Bible found just grounds for numerous wars.  It never said that war was never justified.
 
 


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 3:53am
Originally posted by Moochamoocha Moochamoocha wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Feminists are "NOW" pissed-off over the violence in this commercial.  They say that Tim tackling his mother promotes violence against women.
 
from Terry O'Neill, president of NOW:
 
"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss - http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story?track=rss
 
No statement issued about the violence against Betty White in her commercial. 
 
 


It's not the violence they're really complaining about. You KNOW they wanted to complain about the whole abortion issue, stating that it's a woman's right to choose, blah blah blah. Well, Mrs. Tebow chose to have her baby instead of kill it...doesn't that constitute as a woman's right to choose?


Good point well said. Clap


-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 3:58am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

You might wanna do some research on the translation and meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" (has to do with killing versus murder).  In addition, the Bible found just grounds for numerous wars.  It never said that war was never justified.
 
Or at least that's the right wing's cockeyed twist on it.
 
A convenient misinterpretation for the benefit of the NRA gun wackos who want to blow people away & call themselves Christians at the same time.
 
Jesus never condoned violence or killing of any kind, whether it be for retribution, self-defense or whatever.
 
Every Christian faith for centuries has been based on the idea that Christianity espoused complete non-violence & that "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:00am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Well, supposedly the Bible refers to the unborn as humans and "children".  And combined with "Thou shalt not kill", I can't see how a minister or priest or rabbi could put forth the pro-choice sentiment.  Otherwise, from what I understand, the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion per sé.  The only pro-choice argument I've ever heard from the standpoint of the Bible is that God gives us free will.  But that argument doesn't mean he approves.  We have the free will to do all sorts of things---it doesn't mean it's all OK.
 
So, from a religious or Biblical standpoint, I don't see how abortion could be considered OK.
 
 
 
 
 
I thought you just said in your other post that "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to murder.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:01am
You have no idea what you're talking about, Jimbo.
 
Do you really think that Jesus said that if someone was trying to murder you, you have to let them?
 
And I didn't realize that St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, was an "NRA gun wacko".
 
Do some research.
 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:05am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Well, supposedly the Bible refers to the unborn as humans and "children".  And combined with "Thou shalt not kill", I can't see how a minister or priest or rabbi could put forth the pro-choice sentiment.  Otherwise, from what I understand, the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion per sé.  The only pro-choice argument I've ever heard from the standpoint of the Bible is that God gives us free will.  But that argument doesn't mean he approves.  We have the free will to do all sorts of things---it doesn't mean it's all OK.
 
So, from a religious or Biblical standpoint, I don't see how abortion could be considered OK.
 
 
 
 
 
I thought you just said in your other post that "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to murder.
 
 
It's not what I said; it's what others have said. 
 
But I don't get your point.  Many say that abortion is murder.  It's certainly not war or self-defense.
 
 


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:08am
I agree with Thor, which is rare. 

-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:09am
Oh wait...I think I get your point, Jimbo.  Nevertheless, you'd have to do research on the translation of the original Hebrew text.  Supposedly, "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not murder".


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:16am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about, Jimbo.
 
Do you really think that Jesus said that if someone was trying to murder you, you have to let them?
 
And I didn't realize that St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, was an "NRA gun wacko".
 
Do some research.
 
 
So you're telling me that over a thousand years of Christian teaching has been wrong & it took you to come along & set them straight??? ShockedLOLLOL
 
Gimme a break!!!!
 
Jesus said "Turn the other cheek". That meant that if someone commits violence against you, your faith in Him should be enough to protect you. And if they kill you, as a good Christian, you will spend eternity in Heaven.
 
IOW.... staying alive on Earth is supposed to have no meaning for the true Christian, Einstein.
 
I can't believe I have to explain this.
 
You obviously don't "get" the concept of Christian faith, Thor.
 
YOU do some research.
 
But this time, not on some goofy right wing propaganda website.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:19am
I agree with Jimbo he GETS it. 

-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:23am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh wait...I think I get your point, Jimbo.  Nevertheless, you'd have to do research on the translation of the original Hebrew text.  Supposedly, "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not murder".
 
Show me where in the New Testament Jesus admonished his followers something along the lines of.... "If thou art assaulted by thine enemy, counter thine enemy's assault with a swift kick to the balls followed up with a left uppercut then a right cross to the temple. This should knocketh his ass out sufficiently. If thine enemy tries to slayest thou, popeth a cap in his ass with thine nine."
 
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:26am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Oh wait...I think I get your point, Jimbo.  Nevertheless, you'd have to do research on the translation of the original Hebrew text.  Supposedly, "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not murder".
 
Show me where in the New Testament Jesus admonished his followers something along the lines of.... "If thou art assaulted by thine enemy, counter thine enemy's assault with a swift kick to the balls followed up with a left uppercut then a right cross to the temple. This should knocketh his ass out sufficiently. If thine enemy tries to slay thou, popeth a cap in his ass with thine nine."
 
 


LOL


-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:26am
Originally posted by Ad nauseous Ad nauseous wrote:

I agree with Thor, which is rare. 
 
Originally posted by Ad nauseous Ad nauseous wrote:

I agree with Jimbo he GETS it. 
 
Why do I get the idea that you're playing both sides of the fence just to egg us on? WinkLOL


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:34am
Ugh. I hate arguing about abortion. I find myself in between pro-life and pro-choice but mostly I'm pro why not prevent abortion with decent sex education, even if it means having to give out condoms and teach something besides abstinence, which is not to say that you can't teach abstinence, it's just that telling teens and adults alike not to have sex is like herding cats and making them run an obstacle course. Ain't going to happen.
But I don't really CARE as much about fetuses as I do about children who are already born. I hate focus on the family because how can you go on and on about abortion and be for raising children using techniques that are not only outmoded but borderline abusive? Angry I despise that hypocritical organization.


-------------
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


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:41am
I think abstinence should be taught as PART OF a larger program which would also include birth control & STD protection.
 
It should be an all encompassing program with an emphasis on abstinence.
 
IMO.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:45am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

I think abstinence should be taught as PART OF a larger program which would also include birth control & STD protection.
 
It should be an all encompassing program with an emphasis on abstinence.
 
IMO.
 


Yeah, teens are too young to have sex anyway. I wasn't even thinking about that at that age.
But I was a strange kid. Folks just tend to be so... cagey about something that is natural and healthy. It's kind of depressing.


-------------
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


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:50am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about, Jimbo.
 
Do you really think that Jesus said that if someone was trying to murder you, you have to let them?
 
And I didn't realize that St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, was an "NRA gun wacko".
 
Do some research.
 
 
So you're telling me that over a thousand years of Christian teaching has been wrong & it took you to come along & set them straight??? ShockedLOLLOL
 
Gimme a break!!!!
 
Jesus said "Turn the other cheek". That meant that if someone commits violence against you, your faith in Him should be enough to protect you. And if they kill you, you will spend eternity in Heaven.
 
IOW.... staying alive on Earth is supposed to have no meaning for the true Christian, Einstein.
 
I can't believe I have to explain this.
 
You obviously don't "get" the concept of Christian faith, Thor.
 
YOU do some research.
 
But this time, not on some goofy right wing propaganda website.
 
As usual, you grossly oversimplify, taking the pop version of "Turn the other cheek".
 
Look at the interpretations of "Turn the other cheek".  From the "goofy right-wing website" known as Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
 
Do you really think that Jesus believed we should allow ourselves to be overtaken by evil??  I highly doubt it.
 
 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:51am
Hey ladies!  Jesus said that if you're about to be raped, just lay back and take it.
 
Or was that Tex Antoine?
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 4:53am
Originally posted by Synesthesia Synesthesia wrote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

I think abstinence should be taught as PART OF a larger program which would also include birth control & STD protection.
 
It should be an all encompassing program with an emphasis on abstinence.
 
IMO.
 


Yeah, teens are too young to have sex anyway. I wasn't even thinking about that at that age.
But I was a strange kid.
 
If you were a boy you would've been!!!! LOL
 
That's almost ALL my friends & I thought about!!!! Big%20smile
 
I remember around 12 y/o, riding our bikes up to the local drug store & heading for the magazine rack to sneak peeks at Playboy Magazine, which amazingly enough, they kept right out on the rack with the rest of the magazines.
 
I remember the first time we "saw it all".
 
WOW!!!!! Tongue
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 5:03am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

As usual, you grossly oversimplify, taking the pop version of "Turn the other cheek".
 
Look at the interpretations of "Turn the other cheek".  From the "goofy right-wing website" known as Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
 
Do you really think that Jesus believed we should allow ourselves to be overtaken by evil??  I highly doubt it.
 
You miss the entire point of Christianity, Thor.
 
As a true Christian, you are not even supposed to be worried about your Earthly self. Being a Christian is SUPPOSED to be all about the SPIRIT. If you lower yourself to the level of those who would commit violence against you, how can your spirit be worthy of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven?
 
Obviously, those teachings sound ridiculous in the context of today's world, & I certainly wouldn't turn the other cheek myself, but that's also why I've stated before & do so again, that there are no true Christians in the world today.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 5:18am

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.


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 5:22am
No, but it probably means not running around making the situation even worse. Even Jesus cracked the whip on folks desecrating the house  God, but he had a good reason for that.
He did, however, without malice or hatred, endured and suffered under the Romans.
So maybe it's more about not having malice and hatred? Knowing when to crack that whip and when to just turn the other cheek instead, but I say turn the cheek more than crack the whip on other people's cheeks.


-------------
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


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 5:54am
Originally posted by Synesthesia Synesthesia wrote:

So maybe it's more about not having malice and hatred? Knowing when to crack that whip and when to just turn the other cheek instead...
 
That's what I think, too.  'Cause Jesus also said to get a sword.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 6:14am
But it does help to not go around plucking out people's eyes.

Lest no one has any eyes and that would not be fun. It would make the internet less entertaining...

I lean a bit towards buddhism.


-------------
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


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

You might wanna do some research on the translation and meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" (has to do with killing versus murder).  In addition, the Bible found just grounds for numerous wars.  It never said that war was never justified.
 
 
 
I was always under the impression that killing innocent people was murder.
 
Perhaps your Bible is different than the ones I saw as an impressionable youth.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2010 at 3:20pm
No. I'm just saying that it's not as simple and clearcut as you've been led to believe.  As I said, it's in the translation.
 
From the section "Thou shalt not kill", in Wikipedia:
 
The Old Testament's examples of killings sanctioned by God are often cited in defense of the view that "murder" is a more accurate translation. Additionally, the Hebrew word for "kill" is הרג (harog), while the Hebrew word for "murder" is רצח (retzach), which is found in the Ten Commandments לא תרצח (lo tirtzach). In the fullness of the Old Testament Exodus 20:13 is abundantly evidenced as prohibiting unjust killing, rather than a universal injunction against all killing, as retzach is never used in reference to the slaying of animals, nor the taking of life in war, while its most frequent use is in reference to /wiki/Involuntary_manslaughter - involuntary manslaughter and secondarily for /wiki/Murderers - murderers .
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Killing_or_murder - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Killing_or_murder
 
 
I remember being taught the Ten Commandments as a kid in Catholic school.  But what I don't remember is going into any detailed studies of all the nuances, or really analyzing them at all.  Hell, I was what?  Seven years old maybe?  Seven year-olds don't do nuance and analysis.
 
I think the teachings of the Bible are very complex, and can't be taken as a series of sound bites.
 
 


Posted By: jeroboam
Date 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.


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date 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.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 2:26am
Originally posted by jeroboam jeroboam wrote:

That is true...
 
Good, thoughtful post, Jeroboam.
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date 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.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date 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.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date 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!
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date 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


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date 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


Posted By: Jimbo
Date 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!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html
 


Posted By: Thor
Date 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
 
Or Iris Chang's book/film The Rape of Nanking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_%28book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book )
 
 
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".
 
 


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date 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!


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: PaWolf
Date 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


Posted By: Thor
Date 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?
 
 


Posted By: Synesthesia
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 5:46pm
I don't deny that Japan was pretty brutal during the war, but that doesn't mean there weren't innocent people who had nothing to do with such atrocities that were hurt and killed. I always feel bad for the people on every side who are just living their lives trying to survive who get hurt by stupid foolish wars which shouldn't exist in the first place.
Man, war is stupid on every single level.


-------------
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


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 6:09pm
That stuff is real about the Japanese. Archival videotape confirms it. They show a lot in mil history classes on bases.
sh*tty things.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 6:13pm

That's why people should fight such horrible regimes being put into place in the first place.  Bad things can happen.  Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden.  Had Hitler not garnered such widespread support, Dresden would never have been seen as more than a spot on a map.

 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 10:10pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

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.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html
 
 
Bush's invasion of Iraq meets none of the first 6 criteria.
 
Ergo, it was an unjust war.
 
Ergo, the innocent people killed in it were murdered.
 
Ergo, the so-called "Christians" who support the war in Iraq support murder.
 
Hence, the bastardized interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" that you described, allows them to support violence, love guns & still call themselves righteous & holy.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 10:49pm
...he says, as Obama increases troops in Afghanistan.
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 11:00pm
And what does Afghanistan have to do with Iraq?
 
Had Bush concentrated on Afghanistan (where Al Quaeda & the Taliban actually were....) I wouldn't be bringing him up right now.
 
At least Afghanistan meets ALL the criteria you listed in your post.
 
The Iraq invasion met none.
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 11:07pm
Ok, yeah.  Let's debate these wars.  We haven't done that enough.  LOL
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2010 at 11:17pm
Well, it fits in the direction the discussion took.
 
Just vs. unjust wars & what constitutes murder, etc.
 
Just sayin..... Wink


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2010 at 3:58pm
Yeah, I see how the discussion led here, but at this point, it'd only veer off in a direction we've gone a million times before. 
 
At one point, I thought it'd be more interesting if the Hiroshima or Dresden sidebar took off.  Well, maybe another time for that one. 
 


Posted By: RichardCranium
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2010 at 4:21pm
Why? Because it's easier for you to justify killing innocent people in those cases than in Iraq?
 
At least I'm not a hypocrit, in that I am pro death all around. How hard it must be to walk that fine line between pro-life/anti-choice/pro-death-if-God-sanctions-it.


-------------
REUNITE PANGEA!


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2010 at 5:42pm

(from 'Today's News')

 
RELIGION
Church Promotes Mixed Martial Arts to Lure Young Men
Drawing large congregations for “Sunday Morning Death Match.”


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2010 at 8:46pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Yeah, I see how the discussion led here, but at this point, it'd only veer off in a direction we've gone a million times before. 
 
At one point, I thought it'd be more interesting if the Hiroshima or Dresden sidebar took off.  Well, maybe another time for that one. 
 
 
There was more to Hiroshima than saving lives invading Japan. Germany was working on The Bomb but never came close. Stalin knew about it but knew even less about them.
We, the U.S. wanted to show Stalin(our allie at the time) that we had one & wanted to show it.
But this should be in another forum, though.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2010 at 10:36pm
Yeah, that's true, too.  But Germany had already surrendered, and the Japanese were not surrendering, fighting on even at the expense of its own people (cutting its own nose off to spite its face, I guess).  I think, by that point, America just wanted it over already.  But, you're right...the dropping of the bomb is not only seen as the end of WWII, but the beginning of the Cold War, as well. 


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2010 at 2:24am
Even before the bomb was dropped. His B29s couldn't hit the broad side of a city at their designed high altitude, so he changed strategy and went low level with napalm & incendiary bombs on Tokyo. No military targets.
Murder, war crimes?
..................................... 
GENERAL CURTIS LE MAY. In air campaigns against Japan in 1944 and 1945, General Curtis LeMay of the U.S. Army Air Corps also defied the established wartime policy of the United States. That policy called for precision daylight bombing of military targets. Instead, LeMay retrofitted his planes with napalm cannisters (jellied gasoline), and dropped them at night over the northern suburbs of Tokyo, which were then the most densely populated areas in the world. Of course there were no men of fighting age present; there were only women, children, and the elderly packed in their wooden homes. On one evening, March 9, 1945, LeMay’s pilots were particuarly lucky: there was a brisk wind that carried the flaming napalm across wide distances. The heat that was generated was so great that the few people who could get out of their homes in time and jump into the nearest river or lake were boiled to death. General LeMay had successfully presided over the murder of 100,000 innocent people. He also had a quip to give to posterity: “There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

When I participated on a war crimes panel at West Point some years ago, I brought up LeMay’s name as an arch war criminal. Despite my saying this in a room packed with cadets and high brass, no forcible action was taken against me. Perhaps the reason for the restraint was that the West Pointers were prepared for remarks such as mine. All eyes turned to one of the observers in the first row, an Army officer who was also a professor at West point. After standing up and establishing his credentials as a major student of aerial warfare, he sharply disputed my assertion that LeMay dropped bombs on non-military targets. He said that the women in the targeted area were active participants in furthering the Japanese war effort: they were darning socks and mending army uniforms.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2010 at 2:43am
That may all be true, and we doubtlessly did some ugly things.  But whoever wrote the above has to remember that WWII wasn't a war we asked for or wanted to participate in.  The Japanese should've realized (and ultimately, did) that, sometimes, you need to be careful what you ask for.  Their own innocent people ended up paying the price, but so did ours.


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 2:34am
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

(from 'Today's News')

 
RELIGION
Church Promotes Mixed Martial Arts to Lure Young Men
Drawing large congregations for “Sunday Morning Death Match.”
 
I took martial arts lessons at a Baptist Church for about a year when I was in high school.
 
It was part of an organization called "Judo & Karate for Christ".
 
A group of us went to a martial arts summer camp in Brownsville Ky. that was sponsored by said organization.
 
Great fun. Stayed in a big two story dorm type building with a swimming pool & a large open meadow where we worked out in the mornings & a covered outdoor chapel where we had church services at night.
 
Went to visit Mammoth Cave one day. 
 


-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 2:55am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

(from 'Today's News')

 
RELIGION
Church Promotes Mixed Martial Arts to Lure Young Men
Drawing large congregations for “Sunday Morning Death Match.”
 
I took martial arts lessons at a Baptist Church for about a year when I was in high school.
 
It was part of an organization called "Judo & Karate for Christ".
 
A group of us went to a martial arts summer camp in Brownsville Ky. that was sponsored by said organization.
 
Great fun. Stayed in a big two story dorm type building with a swimming pool & a large open meadow where we worked out in the mornings & a covered outdoor chapel where we had church services at night.
 
Went to visit Mammoth Cave one day. 
 
!!! HOLY KARATE!
Ol'Mule, THAT may be the funniest fuc'in thing I have read in AGES!! *I* think Nathan NEEDS to send you $50 and a six-pak!!! If HE doesn't, *I* will (PM me)...I'm STILL in tears! 


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: Moochamoocha
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 10:05pm
Ohhh...all of this is hurting my head! Make it stop! It's funny how a topic about a commercial has turned into a war debate. But around here, that's business as usual.

BTW, if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have had to bomb them in the first place. Can you say "asking for it"?


-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 10:16pm
Originally posted by Moochamoocha Moochamoocha wrote:

Ohhh...all of this is hurting my head! Make it stop! It's funny how a topic about a commercial has turned into a war debate. But around here, that's business as usual.

BTW, if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have had to bomb them in the first place. Can you say "asking for it"?


There are some who speculate the war was close to ending before we did the bombing of both cities. One of the reasons we chose less populated cities as tokyo was essential to keep intact as disrupting the government of Japan was predicted to unleash chaos and warlord rule all over again.
These again are analysts postulating their too little too late ideas and theories but there is data to support it.
In the end, the a bomb was kind of a weird, "no really we mean it, the war's over"
Like using a sledge hammer to kill an ant, I heard once (I don't really agree with that as Japan was pretty dangerous)



Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 10:37pm
Wow this thread has veered off course!

-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2010 at 12:12am
Originally posted by jeroboam jeroboam wrote:

Originally posted by Moochamoocha Moochamoocha wrote:

Ohhh...all of this is hurting my head! Make it stop! It's funny how a topic about a commercial has turned into a war debate. But around here, that's business as usual.

BTW, if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have had to bomb them in the first place. Can you say "asking for it"?


There are some who speculate the war was close to ending before we did the bombing of both cities. One of the reasons we chose less populated cities as tokyo was essential to keep intact as disrupting the government of Japan was predicted to unleash chaos and warlord rule all over again.
These again are analysts postulating their too little too late ideas and theories but there is data to support it.
In the end, the a bomb was kind of a weird, "no really we mean it, the war's over"
Like using a sledge hammer to kill an ant, I heard once (I don't really agree with that as Japan was pretty dangerous)

 
Nagasaki was a secondary target as the original city was cloud covered. Pres. Truman was the one who OK'd dropping the bombs but also chopped Gen. McArthur off at the knees when he wanted to go into China and even use nukes during the Korean War.Clap
As for this topic veering off, neither Nathan or the Mods(that never post here) have said anything.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2010 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by Tiz Tiz wrote:

 
Nagasaki was a secondary target as the original city was cloud covered.
 
...and then, Nagasaki became cloud-covered.
 
 


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2010 at 10:12pm
Thought the bombadier caught a break in the clouds or something. The bomb did hit the outter edge of town.
They couldn't very well try to land back home with a live Abomb on board.Shocked


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 19 Feb 2010 at 6:39am
The crew on the Enola Gay could see people working in their gardens below.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 19 Feb 2010 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by jeroboam jeroboam wrote:

The crew on the Enola Gay could see people working in their gardens below.
 
Whether or not the bombings were justifiable, I'd hate to have been the pilots/crew who dropped those bombs.  I'm not sure I could live with myself.  Oh well, moot point.
 
 
Enola Gay
Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark
 
Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday
Aha words can't describe the feeling and the way you lied

These games you play, they're gonna end in more than tears someday
Aha Enola Gay, it shouldn't ever have to end this way

It's 8:15, and that's the time that it's always been
We got your message on the radio, conditions normal and you're coming home

Enola Gay, is mother proud of little boy today
Aha this kiss you give, it's never ever gonna fade away

Enola Gay, it shouldn't ever have to end this way
Aha Enola Gay, it shouldn't fade in our dreams away

It's 8:15, and that's the time that it's always been
We got your message on the radio, conditions normal and you're coming home

Enola Gay, is mother proud of little boy today
Aha this kiss you give, it's never ever gonna fade away
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk