George Tiller's Murder

[DrRansom]

Originally Posted by jschild

So Jesus thinks it's ok to drop a bomb to kill a bad guy, even if it kills 5 innocent ones?

I'm not sure how you got to that statement from Romans 13 (the authority chapter) or Matthew 8:5-13 (Jesus' discourse with the centurian). You were talking about Jesus being an all-out pacifist. I don't think the scripture supports that statement.. or the one above.

[jschild]

Jesus states pretty clearly that if someone slaps me, I am to offer them my other cheek.

So under what circumstances should I punch the person instead?

And people were saying its perfectly acceptable to kill the enemy in war, but wars are not clean simple affiars. Innocents always die. So would a soldier be held responsible on judgment day for those innocents they have killed (regardless of intent)?

[Aldin]

jschild,

I'm not sure what you really want here. The question has been asked and answered. Don't murder, don't steal, it's okay to go to war for your country, if you have slaves treat them respectfully. How does the presence of God make war any messier than the atheist version of WWII in Russia? War is truly awful, but some things are more awful than war.

~Aldin, wondering if you want to understand a position or merely to castigate those who hold it

[jschild]

I'm trying to understand the position and what you would consider limits on it. SuperflyTNT makes like its simple. US soldiers who go to war go to heaven (assuming nothing before or after the war would exempt them).

But wars are messy. If a soldier kills (by accident) an innocent person, would that be ok according to the New Testament.

As to the Slavery issue, that was in response to whoever said that legal doesn't mean right. Well, at the absolute best case, the Bible condones (with humane treatment) slavery, something that is agaisnt the law. IE, i was countering his "its legal but not right" arguement with "the bible permits it, but its illegal" arguement.

[Aldin]

How is accidentally causing death EVER a problem for anyone from a "do right" perspective? It's an accident.

There's also a difference between allowing something and saying it's good. Look at divorce for another example of something Biblically allowed but not promoted (and no, I'm not equating the two - the Bible treats them quite differently, it is merely an example of allowed, not promoted).

~Aldin, briefly

[dok]

Originally Posted by ollie

Trying to tie it back in to this conversation; to what extent should religious views be used to set policy?

Well, the values espoused by Judeo-Christian religious groups have led to a lot of what western society considers "universal values". So, to that degree, the two can't be separated.

But beyond that, it seems clear, to me anyway, that religion should not motivate what we consider legal. As Fencerjared and I have argued, there's biblical support for the idea that an unborn child is simply part of the mother's body. So it's not as though "religion" has a monolithic view on this.

I don't believe the question of "when does a fetus acquire legal rights" is an easy one even after you set aside purely religious arguments, anyway. It's not as though secularism automatically leads to abortion on demand, up to and including the moment before birth. A strident atheist could be a staunch pro-lifer if he or she believed that an implanted embryo is as distinctly and uniquely human as an adult, and that doesn't strike me as totally unreasonable.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by dok

Well, the values espoused by Judeo-Christian religious groups have led to a lot of what western society considers "universal values". So, to that degree, the two can't be separated.

But beyond that, it seems clear, to me anyway, that religion should not motivate what we consider legal. As Fencerjared and I have argued, there's biblical support for the idea that an unborn child is simply part of the mother's body. So it's not as though "religion" has a monolithic view on this.

I agree with all of this. I've just started reading Beyond the Hoax by Alan Sokal and finished the preface two minutes ago. He looks like he is going to address exactly the question I'm concerned with, and phrases it more eloquently than I did:

Originally Posted by Beyond The Hoax, p. xviii

[Chapter 9] focusses on the central philosophical and political issues raised by religion in the contemporary world: it deplores the damage that is done by our culture's deference toward "faith", and it asks how nonbelievers and believers can find political common ground based on shared moral ideas.

I'm looking forward to reading what he has to say.

Originally Posted by dok

I don't believe the question of "when does a fetus acquire legal rights" is an easy one even after you set aside purely religious arguments, anyway. It's not as though secularism automatically leads to abortion on demand, up to and including the moment before birth. A strident atheist could be a staunch pro-lifer if he or she believed that an implanted embryo is as distinctly and uniquely human as an adult, and that doesn't strike me as totally unreasonable.

Agreed again. I don't know how I feel about late-term abortion. I simply haven't done sufficient research. I do think that that is where the debate needs to be centred however: both exteme positions are, in my opinion, untenable.

[skyknight]

You speak of killing an innocent as if though it is totally unforgiveable. If it is as you claimed, an accident, and in my heart I truly regret my action. Then it is possible to get right with God again....and its not just confessing that makes it right. It has to be heartfelt. Most soldiers do not want to kill I find....they do at first because of what they think it will be like. Envisioning the act and doing the act are two very different things.

I have a feeling if I do make it to Heaven there are going to be quite a few people there who did a lot of bad stuff only to find the Lord in later years. I have a very hard time thinking that a child rapist murderer can go to Heaven. This is a serious character flaw on my part though...if God can forgive then why can't I?

And as for folks who keep saying it is a woman's right, well I disagree...as a father I should have rights as well. I do not believe in abortion but I also think a female should have to carry the child if the male wants the baby and will take care of it, especially if it was consensual sex. My kids are as much my kids as they are my wife's...it is my DNA that course through their veins and that in turn I believes gives me as many rights as my wife gets.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by jschild

Hate to tell you, but the two are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.

EDIT: I'm starting to sound like PGS

On the subject of the murder, I think it shows humans true nature. Despite whatever pacifism anyone taught in the past i.e. Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, etc., human beings are naturally violent creatures. Even in our little peaceful game of Heroscape, the actual subject matter is war and violence and we know this as we play, "I kill your Raelin" "My Nilf is dead" etc.

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by jschild

Jesus states pretty clearly that if someone slaps me, I am to offer them my other cheek.

So under what circumstances should I punch the person instead?

And people were saying its perfectly acceptable to kill the enemy in war, but wars are not clean simple affiars. Innocents always die. So would a soldier be held responsible on judgment day for those innocents they have killed (regardless of intent)?

"if someone slaps you on your right cheek, offer your left as well."

A slap to the right cheek, assuming most people are right handed, is a backhanded insult slap. A slap intended to belittle a person. A slap that was considered legal coming from a "superior." Jesus is not talking about life threatening situations, and is certainly not talking about war.

The context here contains similar instructions such as "if a man forces you to walk with him one mile, go with him two." Roman soldiers had the authority to compel anyone to carry his equipment for up to one mile.

Also, "if a man sues you for your shirt, give him your coat as well."

Quite the opposite of pacifism, these verses are closer to passive aggressiviness (or, if you prefer, aggressivity). But perhaps it is better to understand them as simply a practical application of the command to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Nevertheless, I would agree with you that rightly applying the teachings of Christ in modern situations can be a very challenging task, and even devoted followers will not always come to the same conclusion. In many situations we are dealing with a "lesser of two evils" decision. So while I do not think that war was part of God's original plan for humanity, I think that it is possible to fight a "just" war (I don't even want to begin trying to quantify that term) while maintaining Christian ethics. Others, yourself included I presume, will disagree.

[Drumline3469]

PGS, it sounds like someone has some bitter feelings about a decision that was made for them

All in all, it's a sanitary issue, first off. Second off, it REALLY does not matter. A thing is a thing whether it has an extra flap of skin or not. It still serves its purpose. If we were giving baby boys vasectomies at birth, THEN that would be an issue, but in the end, it's an extremely moot point that really has no relevance to anything ever.

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

All in all, it's a sanity issue, first off.

Yes, if you don't have your foreskin cut off you could go nuts.

Sorry, I know you meant 'sanitary', but I couldn't resist.