Will the National Media Run with this Story?

[RoyalShock]

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I really hate when people demonize the other side. You can't really believe that half of our country is just lying. You can have different opinions from someone without it having to be something sinister.

As for the first point, you can't be on the right without being pro-life? According to a Gallup poll from May, 26% of both Republicans and conservatives are pro-choice: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/am...ion-views.aspx

No political issue is ever black and white. Debate and disagreement are good.

You may not have a dog in the fight, but I wonder if you gave away which way you lean, since you jumped on one person for calling one side a liar, but not the other for basically calling all of one political party pro-death after birth. If I'm going to call one out, I'll go with the one virtually calling people absentee killers (in two posts in two different topics) vs. liars.

[1979Shocker]

The insinuation that Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone on the right ISN'T pro-life from birth to death is insulting, demeaning and a flat out lie. Of course, lying is the benchmark of the Democratic platform. Without lying, they really have nothing with which to debate.

So why do they support going to war and killing people? That doesn't sound like pro-life from birth to death to me. Of course, both sides are like that (i.e. killing the other side). But I guess I'm in the minority in this regard.

[RoyalShock]

So why do they support going to war and killing people? That doesn't sound like pro-life from birth to death to me. Of course, both sides are like that (i.e. killing the other side). But I guess I'm in the minority in this regard.

That's one area where there's a divide in the party. But in the bigger picture, you can't equate going to war (which you'd have to include BOTH parties in the war-mongering category) with a pro-life stance. That's silly. Do the people you hang around with swallow such strawmen so easily?

[Rlh04d]

You may not have a dog in the fight, but I wonder if you gave away which way you lean, since you jumped on one person for calling one side a liar, but not the other for basically calling all of one political party pro-death after birth. If I'm going to call one out, I'll go with the one virtually calling people absentee killers (in two posts in two different topics) vs. liars.

I certainly didn't intend to jump on anyone. I have a lot of respect for the good doctor and by no means was that intended as "jumping on" him. Why is the immediate jump to something aggressive?

As for the other point -- how many people do you need to "jump on" one comment? Five or six people have already called him out for that. I responded to the point that hadn't been questioned yet. I'm not interested in piling on a point that's already been made.

If you want me to comment on his point: a pacifist absolutely has a good argument that the "pro-life" argument does not fit with people who actively promote war. I only disagree on that point that one side is any more hypocritical on that than the other, because both sides "war monger," as you said. And, quite frankly, I'm not a pacifist, so I'm not involved there. I don't think we should go to war indiscriminately, and I hate the civilian losses that come with war, but it's necessary sometimes. The link to gun control was stupid.

*Edit: And generally I lean more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues. I still think a lot of liberal social points are idiotic, and a lot of the conservative fiscal points are idiotic. Is there some political viewpoint test I need to take?

[1979Shocker]

That's one area where there's a divide in the party. But in the bigger picture, you can't equate going to war (which you'd have to include BOTH parties in the war-mongering category) with a pro-life stance. That's silly. Do the people you hang around with swallow such strawmen so easily?

I did mention that "both sides are like that." I know plenty of Christians that believe in the sanctity of life, of turning the other check, loving your enemies etc. Of course, in the type of society we live in today, that's almost impossible to do.

[Kung Wu]

No, I didn't know that was a requirement for being pro-life. I haven't, as far as I know, posting any link for one side or the other.

And that's the point. The only links you have ever posted for years are links to talking points furthering a liberal argument. What conclusion would you expect us to draw?

We can't read your mind on the one and only conservative viewpoint that you agree with. So if you aren't putting it out there what are we supposed to think? 1,000 posts with links to leftist viewpoints. 0 on the one conservative viewpoint you hold.

[Kung Wu]

You can't really believe that half of our country is just lying. You can have different opinions from someone without it having to be something sinister.

He doesn't have to believe that. He only needs to believe that half of the country has been duped and is blindly following the liars that are leading them based on promises they don't intend to keep and/or knowingly cannot keep. Both parties are chock full of liars in the leadership, but the base of one party knows their leaders are two faced liars and don't trust them and wants them out of their private affairs. The other party's base buys into the lies and is willing to sell their freedom in little bite size morsels as long as they are gettin' some handouts. Eventually the morsels aren't so small and the platter of freedom starts to look pretty empty. Can you tell it's dinner time?

[Rlh04d]

He doesn't have to believe that. He only needs to believe that half of the country has been duped and is blindly following the liars that are leading them based on promises they don't intend to keep and/or knowingly cannot keep. Both parties are chock full of liars in the leadership, but the base of one party knows their leaders are two faced liars and don't trust them and wants them out of their private affairs. The other party's base buys into the lies and is willing to sell their freedom in little bite size morsels as long as they are gettin' some handouts. Eventually the morsels aren't so small and the platter of freedom starts to look pretty empty. Can you tell it's dinner time?

Hah ;) Good points.

I don't think that's exclusive to party the way you're putting it, though. I think most polls are clearly showing that almost everyone at this point, regardless of party, distrusts their leaders.

I don't think the "handouts" thing explains nearly as much as people want to think it does, either.

[SubGod22]

For the record, turning the other cheek and loving your enemy doesn't 100% mean never fight. Should we be eager to go to war? No. But you make it sound like if you're pro life you can't ever go to war which is absurd. Sometimes, to protect life, life does, unfortunately, have to be taken.

[1979Shocker]

For the record, turning the other cheek and loving your enemy doesn't 100% mean never fight. Should we be eager to go to war? No. But you make it sound like if you're pro life you can't ever go to war which is absurd. Sometimes, to protect life, life does, unfortunately, have to be taken.

You can go to war all you want if you're a non-Christian. You can be pro-life and not be Christian. But if you believe what it says about your enemies, someone that says they are a follower of Christ (i.e. a Christian), can't say they love their enemies and then go out and kill them.

I've said this on here in the past. Those that say you shouldn't go to war (i.e., the pacifist Christians), are thankful for those professing Christians, agnostics, atheists, and others who go to war to protect our freedom. But in the end, everyone has to give an accord of what they did in this life, even the atheist.

[Rlh04d]

For the record, turning the other cheek and loving your enemy doesn't 100% mean never fight.

I think that's actually exactly what those two phrases mean.

I don't recall Jesus slaughtering Roman soldiers to protect life by taking life.

Those that say you shouldn't go to war (i.e., the pacifist Christians), are thankful for those professing Christians, agnostics, atheists, and others who go to war to protect our freedom. But in the end, everyone has to give an accord of what they did in this life, even the atheist.

And on the other side of the spectrum, if you acknowledge that as a pacifist, you're still thankful for the non-pacifists for defending you, how much of a pacifist does that really make you when you enjoy the benefits from war?

You're still participating in the system. I also don't recall Jesus allowing his followers to slaughter the Romans while he stood back and enjoyed the benefit of their protection.

That's like people that talk about how they wouldn't ever hurt an animal but love eating steak. Who cares if you were the one that killed the animal or not when you benefit from its death? I have far more respect for the people that are willing to kill the animal for themselves rather than letting someone do it for them so they don't have to see it.

Pacifism is easy when you live in America and have the strongest military in the world and a fairly solid justice system to protect you. Go be a pacifist in the Middle East or Colombia and I'd have far more respect for that decision >=) Pacifism doesn't mean much when you never have to actually test your pacifism.

[SubGod22]

You can go to war all you want if you're a non-Christian. You can be pro-life and not be Christian. But if you believe what it says about your enemies, someone that says they are a follower of Christ (i.e. a Christian), can't say they love their enemies and then go out and kill them.

I've said this on here in the past. Those that say you shouldn't go to war (i.e., the pacifist Christians), are thankful for those professing Christians, agnostics, atheists, and others who go to war to protect our freedom. But in the end, everyone has to give an accord of what they did in this life, even the atheist.

That is absurd. The Bible doesn't tell us to lay down and be walked on no matter what. I have no problem with those who are pacifists, other than you accept to be walked on and never stand your ground no matter what. The defense of life is necessary and isn't against Biblical teachings. To twist it in such a way and take it to such an extreme as you do makes me sad. There's a difference between murder, and killing in defense of self and others.

[Rlh04d]

That is absurd. The Bible doesn't tell us to lay down and be walked on no matter what.

Of course it does.

The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus:
38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

—Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV

In the Sermon on the Plain[1] in the Gospel of Luke, as part of his command to "love your enemies", Jesus says:
27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

—Luke 6:27–31 KJV

Jesus was the utter definition of a pacifist.

Jesus was entirely opposed to violence in all forms, regardless of "defense of self and others." He even is quoted specifically as nullifying the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" proverb from the Old Testament.

“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

[SubGod22]

I just want to clarify my last post in case it didn't come off as hoped. I respect the views of certain denominations and their belief that one should never defend oneself with any sort of violence. But I did take exception to your statement that essentially said that anyone who doesn't believe that is a fake Christian. There are multiple times in the Bible where soldiers were commended for their faith and not told to leave their profession and lay down their arms. Many of the non violence talk came to an individual basis and had nothing to do with the armies of the world. Jesus never addressed such issues directly but by not condemning the soldiers and their profession seems to state that it's an honorable enough profession as long as it's not used to extort or abuse. You can check out Matthew 8 or a number of examples in Acts. In Luke 22 Jesus even instructs his disciples that the'll need swords in the future. And then there's Romans 13 which he instructs Christians to submit to the government that bears the sword and is charged with punishing evildoers.

I will agree that we aren't to seek out war and violence, but that armies are necessary and do not stand against God or the teachings or Jesus. Using violence as simple vengeance and whatnot is another matter, but soldiers and war and the defense of others isn't against the teachings or inherently non-Christian.

[Dave Stalwart]

I've always understood the teachings to be in the personal level. When it is about you personally being wronged, those teachings are about how you need to react. Personal humility, not retaliating, showing love, valuing others over yourself, etc.

To me, it stops once it is about more than yourself. Sometimes you need to serve and protect others based in love, by fighting for what is right. Once it leaves the personal level...