Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations — such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians — categorized as “mainline” Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
Is anyone surprised?
Oh yeah, link of course to the King James bible chapter 25.
http://tinyurl.com/cd7fsc
#164, Ayatollah1
#163 Christians freed the slaves…Lincoln for example.
Most of those pushing to free the slaves were Christians. Almost all the slave owners and overseers were too. So what is your point?
The KKK still stress their “Christian” roots and beliefs.For years South Africa justified apartheid as something condoned by the bible.
#164 Malfie,
Sorry I got the post # wrong in the prior post. I meant 164.
As for your reference to abortion, please cite one location in the bible that specifically references abortion by name.
Were you aware that both surgical and drug induced abortions were practiced 1550 years before the alleged time of the fictional character Christ?
http://tinyurl.com/cweduz
Surely, he was aware of the practice. Why not list it by name? The bible has no compunctions about discussing sex. Consider the story of Lot and his daughters fucking in a cave. Yes, the man worthy of salvation from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah fucked and impregnated his two youngest daughters. Don’t get it wrong though, it was the daughters who got him drunk and seduced him.
How drunk must one be to not recognize that one is having sex with one’s own daughter? Would one really be capable of performing in such a state?
Oh well, I’d call that another contraDICKtion, but let’s just stick to the murder issue that you have failed to dispute.
#157, Ayatollah1
U don’t respect any Christian…you were on my case the first time I posted…
I have been on your case over the stooopid comments you make. Such as claiming that Obama sold drugs. Several times I asked you for proof, yet you never responded nor retracted your comment. Continuously you post regurgitated Limbaugh slanders as if they were true.
The difference between most normal people and wing nuts is that wing nuts just spout nonsense and never expect it to be challenged. When it is challenged, the wing nuts scoot all over the place trying to look smart while avoiding the issue. Cow-Patty does this more than you but you do it as well.
#165 Malfie,
You’re kidding right? That was the best you can do?
Exodus 32:27: … every man his brother, companion, and even neighbor …
What were the crimes of the neighbors and companions?
I Samuel?
What were the crimes or sins of the infants and sucklings? What were the crimes of the oxen, sheep, camels, and asses?
Is your god some sick bastard who delights in the murder of innocents? If the bible is any indication, yup!
Your god seems a bit heavy on guilt by association to me. I think your god deserves a good punch in the nose. If I am wrong and meet him one day, I intend to do just that. Your god has caused nothing but trouble and deserves to be abhorred not worshiped. Your god has the manners and morals of a badly spoiled child.
Are you listening god? You suck!
Nah. No gods listening. No imaginary friends. Just a bunch of delusional humans.
#168, Scott,
My apologies, I am probably confusing Ayatollah1 while you are trying to get some response.
Good luck, I really hope you get somewhere.
#174 – Mr. Fusion,
No problem. Ralfie Malfie is as confused as one can get with or without your help. Think of how little thought he must have put into post #165 to claim that killing infants and sucklings and sheep is justified because they are somehow sinners.
Original sin my ass!! Babies are born innocent. No baptism or christening or anything else is required to make them good. In fact, original sin is inherently self-contradictory as well. If sex is sinful and even fills those who are the results, then why did god choose sex as our method of reproduction. It all makes no sense.
#175, Scott,
I believe in the past you have commented on how religion is all a control issue. Controlling sex is one way to control the people. This allows men to dominate women and enslave them. Something so basic a drive as sex should somehow be wrong?
Yes, babies are born innocent. Yet, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to why my niece was born with spina bifida*. Her parents went to church religiously (what a pun), and prayed constantly. Yet, their “god” gave them a deformed child. Why? because that is what “god” wanted. So why on earth do they keep praying for “god” to fix her when that is what he wanted?
*NOTE: spina bifida is caused by a lack of folic acid in the mother’s diet in the first three months of gestation.
#176 – Malfie Malfie Malfie,
#173 Judicial execution is not murder, Exod 20:13 forbade murder, therefore there is no contradiction and you lost the argument.
This is not logic. This is simply a statement that if the bible has no contradictions then there are no contradictions. It is total bullshit.
Tell me … what was the apostasy of the infants in I Samuel?
I thought you believed that infants’ lives were sacred, even prior to birth. Do they become less so after birth? What about the pregnant women who were presumably brutally murdered in I Samuel?
Are you essentially saying that god is just so that proves god is just? Are you thoroughly incapable of even the most basic logic?
#176, Ayatollah,
(forgive me Scott)
Exod 20:13 (KJV) states
Thou shalt not kill.
It does not say “Thou shalt not murder”. Every Christian that I ever questioned has said the bible was written by man with god’s hand guiding them. Therefore, the most common translation in English can’t be wrong, or your quoting it to begin with was also wrong.
Now that is in plain English. What could be more clear than that?
Don’t answer that. Just answer Scott’s claims. So far, he is up by two; slavery and killing.
#179 – Alfred1,
As for infants…in ancient culture they united to their parents…for good or bad.
To you the infant, or preganant [sic] woman suffered wrongfully…
To God, their location changed from earth to heaven…if so predestined…but its father was denied the joy of seeing it grow up…as he was the one being punished and if not one of God’s elect…then into hell he would go, to await the final judgment of his case.
So, what if god predestines that a fetus should die and chooses a doctor as the instrument of that death. Who are you to question the ways of the lord?
Actually though, you are a blithering idiot to say the incredibly self-contradictory statements you have made here on this blog as proof that the bible is not self-contradictory.
You seem perfectly capable of stating that murder is not murder unless it is murder and calling that self-consistent.
Also that the bible states that it is not self-contradictory therefore it is not self-contradictory.
Also that god is just therefore god is just.
Your logic skills are amazing.
In fact, you are perfectly capable of saying that the grass is green and that the grass is blue and that the grass is black, all at the same time while not seeing any contradiction.
How many years of training does this take? Do psychotropic drugs help?
They say ignorance is bliss. You must be one happy mofo.
#181, Ayatollah1
Tell us what sin my niece committed before she exited the womb?
#182, Ayatollah1
Wrong! The King James Version is written in English. You have even quoted it. If the KJV is wrong, then why would you quote an incorrect text and second, what happened to god guiding the translation?
Well, it looks like you lost another one. Three to zero.
Oopps, you challenged god’s plan by questioning why he would allow a doctor to abort a fetus. Make that four to zero.
I’ll wait until you explain what sin the child has committed while still in the womb before adding that to the list.
You keep saying your god is just and interested in justice. Yet Original Sin, the idea of damning an entire race due to the misdeeds of ancestors hundreds of generations removed is ok.
Sounds terribly unjust to me.
#187, Ayatollah,
#185 The KJV is an excellent translation…
So god allowed an imperfect translation of his word? I don’t know why you continue on this point, you already lost.
#186, Ayatollah1
In English, “sin” means to go against god’s commandments.
sin 1 (sn)
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Let’s try another dictionary,
sin 1
Noun
1. the breaking of a religious or moral law
2. any offence against a principle or standard
3. live in sin Old-fashioned, informal (of an unmarried couple) to live together
Verb
[sinning, sinned]
to commit a sin [Old English synn]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
Nope, nothing about “missing the mark” in that definition either. So I guess that makes you wrong here too. BTW, my niece has plenty of marks on her now, stitches do leave scars and she has had several operations to correct the deformity.
This leads to another question though. How can a fetus be innocent if they are full of sin? If they are full of sin, then why would it be incorrect to abort the fetus?
#190, Ayatollah,
Say what? God predestines everything and it is our fault? Someone else is tripping us and it is our fault if we fall?
Sorry, that is asking way too much. The way you describe it is that god is refusing to take any self responsibility for his errors. He created an imperfect world and expected his imperfect children to be perfect. Sort of like building the fastest race car in the world but forgetting the brakes.
Five to zero. Even if this isn’t a hypocritical part of the bible, your explanation is.
Alfred’s answers to simple questions are typical from a religion following sheep like him…overly complicated, with caveats and contradictions, and illogical explanations for EVERYTHING, and none of it making any sense whatsoever. Just like the bible!
Ayatollah,
Are you giving up? Geeze, I really hoped you would make a better fight of it.
Five to zero with one question on the table.
How can a fetus be innocent if they are full of sin? If they are full of sin, then why would it be incorrect to abort the fetus? (Really two questions but they are joined together)
Well, it is 12:30 here in the Med-West. I’m going to bed in a few minutes. Last chance to score.
RE #194,
Damn, I must be tired, last paragraph, first sentence, that should be MID-WEST.
The corollary is that atheists are most likely to be in favor of coddling killers of American soldiers.
RBG
Eideard posts another hit piece stereotyping Christianity.
Is anyone suprised?
Ralfie Malfie,
Just to sum up a few of your beliefs that you’ve posted on this thread. Correct me where I’m wrong, but good luck doing so without further self-contradictions.
1) You believe murder to be wrong.
2) You believe abortion to be murder.
3) You believe hacking a woman and her nursing infant to little bloody bits with a sword to be OK provided that the woman have different religious beliefs than yourself, which you call apostasy, but actually isn’t.
So, regarding the Amalekites, you would have to show that they were Jews who renounced Judaism. They weren’t. So, there was no apostasy. There was merely a difference in belief and a history of war with the Hebrews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalekites
So, all it takes is that one must have a different belief system than yours to make it OK for you to kill the person of differing belief?
Then why would you oppose abortion? Clearly those aborting fetuses have different beliefs than you. So, not only would it be OK for them to have abortions, it would even be OK for you to become a doctor (as if you could) and perform them yourself.
Alfred1,
In all seriousness, I say to you without any condescension and despite all prior comments that were indeed meant to be offensive, I say this without any malice.
You need psychological help.
I believe you are clinically delusional and potentially violent. I believe you are in serious need of many years of psychotherapy and possibly anti-psychotic drugs.
This is genuinely not meant as an insult.
Anyone who thinks Christ (man, God, or symbol, take your pick) would support torture is an idiot, plain and simple. There is no argument.
#202, Smartalix, thanks for attempting to bring this thread back on target, but for Alfred1 I doubt it will stay so for long.
#204, Alfred1, you’re in violation of posting guidelines. I’ll leave the post up just in case anyone is actually interested in reading a bunch of scripture, but hey! Cut it out. Please keep your posts succinct and on topic.
#201, Ayatollah1
The meaning of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words in the Bible are not defined by English Dictionaries.
No shit Sherlock. Maybe because King James I, of England and Scotland, had the scriptures translated into English so the common people could understand them without needing to know Latin.
It was widely reported that this was a work of god and he guided the pens of the men writing the text. Even you have quoted the KJV as authority. Either the KJV is authority, and thus correct, or it isn’t. If the KJV disagrees with another version, how can one be sure the other version is correct? How can one even be sure the original text is what god intended?
OH NO, do I detect a consistency problem in that god’s word is open to interpretation?
I think your argument “misses the mark”
#209, Ayatollah,
#208 No translation is perfect…the English is NOT authoritative
BUT, you did quote the KJV as authority. Are you now telling us NO bible is authority?
Since no one speaks the languages you mention natively, that means ALL interpretation is subjective and thus unreliable, even when quoting the original Greek.
In case you didn’t know, The Greek spoken 2000 years ago is not the same Greek spoken today. The same is true for Hebrew as it died out as a spoken language a couple of times. Aramaic is a dead language with no modern users.
Both Ancient Greek and Hebrew were modified by the addition of new words and changes in the meanings of staid or old words. Few of the original writings, regardless of language used, have survived. Thus we can not be sure of what was written was correct for the exact same reasons you dismiss the KJV and other modern translations.
When languages die, they lose their literal interpretation. Their meanings and nuances get clouded the further in time you get from the originals.
NOTE:, I have yet to find the word “sin” defined as “missed the mark” except in your comment. You must have sinned as you truly missed the mark.
OK, so that is five substantiated contradictions / hypocritical things from the bible. You have yet to offer anything resembling evidence or argument. Instead you continue to offer long diatribes of irrelevant bullshit bible passages that you acknowledge as not being authoritative.
The old expression about “If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit” comes to mind.
I’m done.
Why are who say they are Christian quoting the Old Testament for anyway? Disingenuous fools.