Competing World Views Of Religious Liberals And Conservatives

[BrassFusion]

again, spelling errors have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. Don't you have to go practice speaking French?

It's not a spelling error if you're not even in the phonetic ballpark. There's only one "N" in "tenet" and I defy you to pronounce it correctly with two Ns separated by a vowel.

G'wan. TRY IT.

[Blackmail]

The author was quoting an *evangelical* author (Sider) who used those statistics in his book. The author did not claim that "the right" was not practicing what it preached; but that some Christians are seeing an apparent "moral decay" in their own ranks and are frustrated and angered by it.

When you say "the whole article blasts the religious right for telling people how to live then the article condemns those same people for doing "immoral" things like viewing pornography" you are missing the ENTIRE point. The thesis of the paper is that: The "right" is upset that the "right" is doing immoral things and blaming the "left"; so instead of waving the "freedom banner" everywhere, maybe the "left" should explain to the "right" that we have MANY of the same values as the "right" does. The ideological "war" may be won by promoting the understanding that "lack of prescription does not equal dereliction" instead of allowing the media to paint the "left" as hedonists.

I guess you missed it when the author makes these baseless claims:

"Like most religious liberals, we Unitarian Universalists imagine ourselves to be nice people. It is those in the Christian Right, we believe, who want to force their moral code on everyone else and use public resources to proselytize for their faith. We, on the other hand, believe in tolerance, free choice, and letting people be what they have to be. What’s so scary about that? If the rank-and-file of organizations like Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition feel threatened by us, we think, it can only be because they have been duped by their unscrupulous leaders."

The author later admits the "Statistics" he quoted are questionable. The author also makes the point that the liberal and conservative christians have some middle ground, but then blasts the religious right in the rest of the article.

The right nor left can claim Christianity.

[Blackmail]

It's not a spelling error if you're not even in the phonetic ballpark. There's only one "N" in "tenet" and I defy you to pronounce it correctly with two Ns separated by a vowel.

G'wan. TRY IT.

It is late and I am typing fast. Please stop derailing this thread. You know what I was trying to say, I have no idea why this is the tact you choose to debate, which is very similar to "I have nothing to add so I'll make up something"!

[sinmantyx]

When I said Cristian can not support murder (as it is a basic christian law) I assumed everyone here would be adult enough to know I was talking about killing as in murder.

So there is no room for interpretation there? So, no Christian could be pro-death penalty or pro-war? Not that I disagree with that, but I think many other people would.

[Blackmail]

Oh gosh..I should *really* be going to bed, but I am SO curious how being anti-abortion is somehow a scriptural "basic tenant". I guess you could go the "Thou shalt not kill/murder", but then you have to link that to abortion which is frankly a stretch (especially considering that the Catholic church through that fetuses had an "animal or vegetable" soul until the "kicking time" for a great many years). I think there is a law explained somewhere that you needed to pay a fine or something for beating a pregnant woman causing the death of her fetus. It was considered a crime. That is also a large stretch. "Basic Tenant" I don't get.

I addresed this above.

1. Scripture says the unborn are life.

2. The scripture says you can not take life.

Only on DGN will I get debated on this. I should have known.

[BrassFusion]

Maybe Ted should write another book to the Bible to sum up his position, being that he's the one true prophet. It would be a lot easier to refer to than all this herky-jerky back-'n'-forth.

[sinmantyx]

I guess you missed it when the author makes these baseless claims:

"Like most religious liberals, we Unitarian Universalists imagine ourselves to be nice people. It is those in the Christian Right, we believe, who want to force their moral code on everyone else and use public resources to proselytize for their faith. We, on the other hand, believe in tolerance, free choice, and letting people be what they have to be. What’s so scary about that? If the rank-and-file of organizations like Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition feel threatened by us, we think, it can only be because they have been duped by their unscrupulous leaders."

The author later admits the "Statistics" he quoted are questionable. The author also makes the point that the liberal and conservative christians have some middle ground, but then blasts the religious right in the rest of the article.

The right nor left can claim Christianity.

Yes, the author blasts the religious right in some parts of the article...because they ARE in many respects the enemy. However, the author is characterizing the prevalent views of UU and then going on to say that these views should be revised with a better understanding of *why* the religious right acts the way they do INSTEAD of assuming "they have been duped by their unscrupulous leaders".

[Blackmail]

So there is no room for interpretation there? So, no Christian could be pro-death penalty or pro-war? Not that I disagree with that, but I think many other people would.

Since the unborn have nothing to do with war or the death penalty I am not sure how this is relevant. Certainly, the unborn have commited no act of atrocity which would validate any justification of war or execution.

By the way, I am not a hard core Christian and I have no opinion on abortion. I have however read Scripture a hundred times and have had several theology classes. Like I said, I find it hard to find anything that is "open to interpretation" on the issue of the unborn.

[BrassFusion]

It is late and I am typing fast. Please stop derailing this thread. You know what I was trying to say, I have no idea why this is the tact you choose to debate, which is very similar to "I have nothing to add so I'll make up something"!

You just don't appreciate nuance. As for derailing the thread... MY posts are just as relevant to the original topic as YOUR logically questionable anti-abortion rhetoric.

And mine are full of graceful irony.

I addresed this above.

1. Scripture says the unborn are life.

2. The scripture says you can not take life.

Only on DGN will I get debated on this. I should have known.

You left out points 2a. through 2z'''. listing all the instances where the Bible condones killing.

[Blackmail]

Maybe Ted should write another book to the Bible to sum up his position, being that he's the one true prophet. It would be a lot easier to refer to than all this herky-jerky back-'n'-forth.

Why exactly are you doing this? Is this a pissing contest to you?

I assume you won't give a direct answer to that.

[BrassFusion]

Since the unborn have nothing to do with war or the death penalty I am not sure how this is relevant. Certainly, the unborn have commited no act of atrocity which would validate any justification of war or execution.

By the way, I am not a hard core Christian and I have no opinion on abortion. I have however read Scripture a hundred times and have had several theology classes. Like I said, I find it hard to find anything that is "open to interpretation" on the issue of the unborn.

Fetuses have everything to do with war AND the death penalty because a large oppressive segment has deemed that a non-sentient cellular potential for life has more right TO life than an experienced, often wise sentient being with experience and emotional attachments.

I think it's cute that you call fetuses "the unborn." It sounds like a great title for a horror movie.

So if they overturn Roe v. Wade, would that make the fetuses that WOULD have been aborted but aren't the... "undead?" I think that one's taken.

[Blackmail]

You just don't appreciate nuance. As for derailing the thread... MY posts are just as relevant to the original topic as YOUR logically questionable anti-abortion rhetoric.

Granted, my point is off topic, but if this was a court, I would be using my argument to establish a pattern of the author, which makes the rest of his argument shaky. Your posts are not constructive and certainly your grace and irony rnks right up there with your french speaking skills.

And mine are full of graceful irony.

You left out points 2a. through 2z'''. listing all the instances where the Bible condones killing.

I already touched on this, in any case the bible condones killing does not involve the unborn. You're really reaching now. Maybe you should go back to attacking my spelling if this is the best you've got.

[BrassFusion]

Why exactly are you doing this? Is this a pissing contest to you?

I assume you won't give a direct answer to that.

Pissing contest bah. I'M not the one trying to push my interpretation of someone else's work.

[Blackmail]

Fetuses have everything to do with war AND the death penalty because a large oppressive segment has deemed that a non-sentient cellular potential for life has more right TO life than an experienced, often wise sentient being with experience and emotional attachments.

We are not talking about the "oppressive segment", we are talking about scripture. There is no relation in scripture to the death penalty or war and abortion.

I think it's cute that you call fetuses "the unborn." It sounds like a great title for a horror movie.

"the unborn" is the term used in scripture several times.

So if they overturn Roe v. Wade, would that make the fetuses that WOULD have been aborted but aren't the... "undead?" I think that one's taken.

see above.

[sinmantyx]

I addresed this above.

1. Scripture says the unborn are life.

2. The scripture says you can not take life.

Only on DGN will I get debated on this. I should have known.

Yeah, finding every piece of scripture that mentions "womb" and one verse referring to a law concerning a woman being BEATEN into a miscarriage...THAT makes it a basic tenant?

The fact that the old testament verse actually mentions the whole "eye for an eye, life for a life..." thing is pretty upsetting. I suppose that's a "basic tenant" as well and all this touchy-feelly "turn the other check" new testament stuff is horse shit.

Seriously, you can believe VERY STRONGLY that abortion is wrong for religious reasons, just don't pretend like scripture backs you up any more than scripture backs up slavery. Religious conviction isn't just about scripture.

The author of the original article DID mention abortion. He also claimed that anti-abortion sentiment had less to do with scriptural prescriptions and more to do with the culture of Christianity. I totally agree with the man.

[Blackmail]

Pissing contest bah. I'M not the one trying to push my interpretation of someone else's work.

I know, you're the one pointing out spelling errors because you don't know scripture very well. Or French, apparently.

[BrassFusion]

Granted, my point is off topic, but if this was a court, I would be using my argument to establish a pattern of the author, which makes the rest of his argument shaky. Your posts are not constructive and certainly your grace and irony rnks right up there with your french speaking skills.

I already touched on this, in any case the bible condones killing does not involve the unborn. You're really reaching now. Maybe you should go back to attacking my spelling if this is the best you've got.

Attacking his character doesn't make him wrong. I'd look up the specific name for this logical fallacy, but as usual, cbf.

Saying that the bible doesn't condone killing the unborn but DOES condone the killing of just about everything else is like saying... You know, I can't even dig up a simile for this because I can't think of any ethical references, INCLUDING your precious Bible, that I reserve any faith for. Use your brain, man, and draw your logical arguments from that, maybe? Or would you use a Univac instead of your Ibook because it's withstood the test of time?

[Blackmail]

Yeah, finding every piece of scripture that mentions "womb" and one verse referring to a law concerning a woman being BEATEN into a miscarriage...THAT makes it a basic tenant?

The fact that the old testament verse actually mentions the whole "eye for an eye, life for a life..." thing is pretty upsetting. I suppose that's a "basic tenant" as well and all this touchy-feelly "turn the other check" new testament stuff is horse shit.

Seriously, you can believe VERY STRONGLY that abortion is wrong for religious reasons, just don't pretend like scripture backs you up any more than scripture backs up slavery. Religious conviction isn't just about scripture.

The author of the original article DID mention abortion. He also claimed that anti-abortion sentiment had less to do with scriptural prescriptions and more to do with the culture of Christianity. I totally agree with the man.

Scripture backs up the anti-abortion view. This debate has long been settled. I have no idea why I am wasting my time with this.

Do you seak Hebrew? Because if you do, look into the word "yeld" and then read exodus. It is clear the author has never read it or has forgotten it.

You guys can claim anythng you want, theologians have already written on this and it's already been settled.

Well I have nothing more to add to this since this is off topic and apparently DGN knows more about scripture than every single religion except the UU.

Reading this COULD help, but I doubt it.

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa010301a.htm

[BrassFusion]

Fuck scripture.

[Blackmail]

Attacking his character doesn't make him wrong. I'd look up the specific name for this logical fallacy, but as usual, cbf.

Illogical. I was not attacking his character, I was attacking an assumed opinion which would underscore his oter points.

Saying that the bible doesn't condone killing the unborn but DOES condone the killing of just about everything else is like saying... You know, I can't even dig up a simile for this because I can't think of any ethical references, INCLUDING your precious Bible, that I reserve any faith for. Use your brain, man, and draw your logical arguments from that, maybe? Or would you use a Univac instead of your Ibook because it's withstood the test of time?

The bible does not condone the killing of "just about everything else" but snce you don't know scripture I am not suprised. That invalidates the rest of your post. You suck at debating. Which is why your reduced to spelling comments. Maybe I'll just not post here out of fristration, you seem good at making people do that. ow many has DGN lost because of you again?

[sinmantyx]

There is no relation in scripture to the death penalty or war and abortion.

"the unborn" is the term used in scripture several times.

see above.

You've made this connection yourself. If you say that because a fetus is considered a "life" in that in a law forbidding beating a woman to the point that she miscarries was punishable by death because of a life-for-a-life standard was imposed; and that there is a law that says "Thou shalt not kill"..THEREFOR abortion is killing and therefor against the ten commandments...

THEN

In order to be self-consistent, you would have to assert that people on death row and those involved in war are except from "Thou shalt not kill" because they are not alive?!

I have no doubts that many Christians do believe that anti-abortion sentiment is straight from scripture...but it REALLY isn't.

Of course, you could also assert that abortion is wrong because beating a woman until she miscarries is wrong...but then (to be self-consistent) you would have to completely disregard the difference between an act of violence toward a woman and procedure she chooses to undergo. Of course, in the old testament, women are basically property...so I guess there wouldn't be a difference at all.

[BrassFusion]

The bible does not condone the killing of "just about everything else" but snce you don't know scripture I am not suprised. That invalidates the rest of your post. You suck at debating. Which is why your reduced to spelling comments. Maybe I'll just not post here out of fristration, you seem good at making people do that. ow many has DGN lost because of you again?

Does my admittedly half-hearted knowledge of scripture invalidate the post where I said "Fuck scripture?"

[sinmantyx]

Does my admittedly half-hearted knowledge of scripture invalidate the post where I said "Fuck scripture?"

Totally not.

My hubby is actually reading through the old testament currently. I haven't read it since I was a little kid (talk about too young to "get it"). He periodically shares what he has read with me and it just makes me madder and madder.

What's really fun is seeing a Muslim scholar debating at the Conservative conference. Islam and Christianity are SO in the same boat...tied to sacred texts that, without enlightened interpretation, condone all sorts of horrible shit. When the Muslim man even IMPLIED that the old testament also had passages that could be interpreted as condoning violence the crowd GASPED.

I seriously think some people are entirely ignorant of their own religion. It's like the cognitive dissonance is too much to actually resolve and they just "turn off".

[sinmantyx]

Scripture backs up the anti-abortion view. This debate has long been settled. I have no idea why I am wasting my time with this.

Do you seak Hebrew? Because if you do, look into the word "yeld" and then read exodus. It is clear the author has never read it or has forgotten it.

You guys can claim anythng you want, theologians have already written on this and it's already been settled.

Well I have nothing more to add to this since this is off topic and apparently DGN knows more about scripture than every single religion except the UU.

Reading this COULD help, but I doubt it.

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa010301a.htm

If it is there...show me. So far, all you've linked is passages that mention "god molding someone in the womb" and passages of that nature. That is a weak argument...and didn't even work for Catholicism for a VERY long time before they decided that *human* life began at conception.

Theologians have certainly written about this and decided this or that or the next thing. Many also claim that wearing a rubber is godless because you shouldn't be "spilling your seed" and basically because St. Augustine had SERIOUS sexual dysfunction and he wrote a lot of books.

I don't care what *they* have settled. You claimed that being anti-abortion was a *basic tenant* of the Christian religion (not just...scripture implies that it's not cool...but that TO BE A CHRISTIAN you had to be anti-abortion)...and that anyone who even SIDE STEPPED this issue had no right to talk about scripture.

I call B.S.

[Shade Everdark]

Attacking his character doesn't make him wrong. I'd look up the specific name for this logical fallacy, but as usual, cbf.

Saying that the bible doesn't condone killing the unborn but DOES condone the killing of just about everything else is like saying... You know, I can't even dig up a simile for this because I can't think of any ethical references, INCLUDING your precious Bible, that I reserve any faith for. Use your brain, man, and draw your logical arguments from that, maybe? Or would you use a Univac instead of your Ibook because it's withstood the test of time?

It's called 'ad hominem', or more formally, 'argumentum ad hominem'.