Sarah Palin and Holy War in Iraq?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, I certainly think you ought to provide some reasons for that claim of yours that Nemesio cited -- a claim that appears to be, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Well, I do not.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Even if that is true, that doesn't seem sufficient to warrant your total insensitivity to their suffering. For example, suppose I don't much like you. Even so, that wouldn't seem to imply that I am justified in totally ignoring any considerations regarding your rights or suffering.

It is sufficient for me.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
No. and No, I don't agree. Job said "though He slay me I will still follow Him (paraphrased)."

Yeah, your god is real moral exemplar. He visited suffering on Job despite Job's faithfulness. Why would take yourself to have any good reasons for trusting such a person as your god? And, by your very own lights, if god were to decide to simply smite you -- even if for no good reason at all -- then you are in no position to think ill of his motives. One thing that is interesting is that you place human interests and suffering on a pedestal and yet you do not require the same constraints on god's thinking.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I place humans so far above the lower animals that you might as well be talking to me about the rights of amoebas. It's really simple--I'm not an animal person. I don't support PETA, or Save the Whales; I don't mind if a rat or an ape is sacrificed to make a weapon or a deterrent to a weapon, or even a cosmetic. It just doesn't enter my sphere of concern.

It just doesn't enter my sphere of concern.

Right, but now you are just repeating yourself instead of answering my question. My question was in regards to whether or not you can present some reasons for this.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Well, I do not.

Well, that is because you debate irresponsibly.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
It is sufficient for me.

Yeah I know you take it to be sufficient. But, in fact, it is not sufficient to demonstrate what you take it to demonstrate.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Because I don't like animals.

What about people who don't like blacks?

They are giving an equally valid argument for their discrimination as you are giving for your
discrimination of animals.

The fact that you show little interest in discussing it strikes me as a tacit confession that you
actually acknowledge your position as an inferior one.

Among other things, Jesus commands His followers to be compassionate. Why would you
think that this would only apply to humans?

He also commands His followers to be contemplative. Can you offer a Christ-centered excuse
for your active disdain for pursuing this line of questioning?

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
I like how in another current thread josephw explains that he only sounds foolish because he is so much more enlightened. Yeah, that must be it.

Sometimes, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at some of the things levied in these forums.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Sometimes, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at some of the things levied in these forums.

Nemesio

Yes, it is a bit stupefying at times.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't think He would have condoned it.

No.

So it seems like you acknowledge that Jesus gave moral consideration to the experiences of animals.

If you take Jesus to be your role model for behaving morally, how can you so flippantly dismiss the same sorts of moral considerations that you presume Jesus found to be important?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
It is sufficient for me.

Suppose, hypothetically, you come across a child viciously beating a dog in the street. Would you take this a sufficient reason to intervene? Would you take this as evidence that the child is cruel?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
And you, the font of all knowledge, gets to decide this? I don't think so, Sue. Now, if you were to say that I'm too sensitive IN YOUR OPINION, then that might be correct (not to mention a lot more courteous). But you see, your opinion is like your anal orifice: everybody's got one, but not everybody wants to hear yours.

And you, the font of all knowledge, gets to decide this?

What? I never claimed to be the "font" of all knowledge. Is that helvetica? Or did you mean fount? No, I didn't claim to be that either.

I didn't decide anything, I just expressed my opinion.

Sue. Now, if you were to say that I'm too sensitive IN YOUR OPINION, then that might be correct (not to mention a lot more courteous).

Oh, so you have a problem that I didn't say that it was my opinion? Whose opinion did you think I was stating? When I say something, it's by default my opinion. Do you see how that logic works?

I didn't disrespect you at all. Simply because I asked you to back up your claim with evidence (not rudely at all mind you), you think I've somehow given you reason for offense!

If you had simply said "I don't have any evidence for this and it's just my faith that it's so" well, that'd be an answer. Of course, you'd rather go off about how disrespectful I am for questioning your sacred faith based beliefs. GOD FORBID you have to actually answer a question.

Yes, this is MY OPINION.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What? I never claimed to be the "font" of all knowledge. Is that helvetica? Or did you mean fount? No, I didn't claim to be that either.

font
1. a receptacle, usually of stone, as in a baptistery or church, containing the water used in baptism.
2. a receptacle for holy water; stoup.
3. a productive source: The book is a font of useful tips for travelers.
4. the reservoir for oil in a lamp.
5. Archaic. a fountain.

It's pretty common to find the word 'font' in hymnody (e.g., Come, Thou Font of Every Blessing), which is why I find it unsurprising that he uses the term in this fashion, even if it's
a bit archaic.

If you want to attack a person's argument, then that's one thing.

If you want to attack his character, spelling, or grammar, that's another, but it's meaningless
except to show he is of low character, a bad speller, or poor grammarian.

But, if you choose to do the latter, you ought to be right, otherwise you just have egg on your
face and expose the nature of your own character.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
font
1. a receptacle, usually of stone, as in a baptistery or church, containing the water used in baptism.
2. a receptacle for holy water; stoup.
3. a productive source: The book is a font of useful tips for travelers.
4. the reservoir for oil in a lamp.
5. Archaic. a fountain.

It's pretty common to find the word 'font' in hymnody (e.g., Come you just have egg on your
face and expose the nature of your own character.

Nemesio

I agree that it's meaningless and I admit it was just being a smart arse. I didn't mean it to be a real argument against him in any case.

You're right I was wrong about that and I admit it and I'm sorry about that part. I don't think it says much about my character, well, other than yeah, I tend to be a smart arse at times.

Pink was right to use that and I apologize to him about that part too.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It just doesn't enter my sphere of concern.

Right, but now you are just repeating yourself instead of answering my question. My question was in regards to whether or not you can present some reasons for this.[/b]

I just don't like them. How's that for a reason?