Contradiction of Evangelical Christians

Remember that many evangelists, including our so-called president, are simplistic egoists. There are exceptions: Jimmy Carter, a moderate Southern Baptist and evangelist is a deep-thinking man deserving everyone's respect, and, as a result, is detested by conservative Baptists and evangelists.

0 Replies

First, I would take issue with your statement that evangelicals are for the death penalty. Is your statement opinion or do you have some study that purports to back that up? I think you would find that the split between those for and against the death penalty among evangelicals will mirror the split in society as a whole.

Personally, I am against the death penalty. I believe that all life has value, even one who has committed crimes worthy of our death penalty. Although I have heard a case made both for and against the Biblical authority for the death penalty, as with the question of abortion and stem cell research, I would rather err on the side of life than on the side of death. And I think you will find that is the case with more Christians (including the Evangelicals) than not.

0 Replies

It is not opinion, i should do more research, find some polls and such but im relying entirely on CNN polls, and the special i saw about Evangelicals on CNN.

0 Replies

TThe correct answer is below

0 Replies

Thanks

0 Replies

I don't know if anyone will actually check this, but as an evangelical, I have some thoughts on the topic. First off, with abortion and the death penalty, I don't see enough continuity for there to be a contradiction. On one side, however, I see the issue you posted, Etruscia, and how the sacredness of human life seems honored on one side and ignored on the other. The can also take the issue into the topic of war; how can a Christian kill people in war. The problem is with blame vs. innocence. It is assumed that a baby is not to blame for any action. With this said, evangelicals then feel the killing of anyone who hasn't been given a chance wrong. Now, a person who has committed a crime severe enough to receive a death sentence judgment has had the opportunity to live and choose to live a certain way that society unanimously agrees to be contradictory to the "agreement" we make as a civilized culture. This is called justification. This person's death is justified in that it is a penalty and a warning to others who might commit the same crime. This is like David Hume and his theories on the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
This question does get tricky when dealing stem cell research. If the death of one baby can drastically alter the standard of living of thousands of people is the death justified. One area where Christians (I am one for the record) flake out is with this. What if it was myself. Would I be willing to sacrifice myself for the betterment of all men?
Certain sects of Christianity believed in ultimate sacrifice. Basically, if you held a gun to their children's head and they had a gun in their hand the gun would be dropped. They wouldn't do a thing.
Any thoughts?

0 Replies

Hope I didnt kill the mood...

0 Replies

You're absolutely right about the death penalty, rmurphy.

On abortion, that's fine too. They aren't people yet, and they haven't had any experiences. They don't know what they are missing. For that matter, killing a baby is not as wrong as killing a ten year old. It's all a matter of degrees. It seems bad, I know, but what seems to be is often misleading. It is against our nature, so it seems wrong. But that does not make it so. Killing a brilliant philosopher is one of the greatest crimes imaginable, while killing an unredirectable wretch is a commendable deed.

Etruscia, the conseratives have the death penalty right. They have abortion wrong.

0 Replies

Obviously, Evangelical Christians vary in this topic.

German Evangelics are against death penalty ... and of course, you can do abortions in their hospitals.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

You're absolutely right about the death penalty, rmurphy.

On abortion, that's fine too. They aren't people yet, and they haven't had any experiences. They don't know what they are missing. For that matter, killing a baby is not as wrong as killing a ten year old. It's all a matter of degrees. It seems bad, I know, but what seems to be is often misleading. It is against our nature, so it seems wrong. But that does not make it so. Killing a brilliant philosopher is one of the greatest crimes imaginable, while killing an unredirectable wretch is a commendable deed.

Etruscia, the conseratives have the death penalty right. They have abortion wrong.

I disagree. By your argument, the older a person gets the more experiences they have, therefore they deserve to die less than a baby who is without experience. If a brilliant philosopher commits genocide in the name of his beliefs, kills a school bus full of children in the name of reason and logic, should we let him live due to his amazing intellectual abilities?
As for abortion, I believe the ability to exerience is as important as one who has experienced. I see it like this: I am finished with my undergrad work, which means I finished 12 grades plus kindergarden before my collegiate experience. If I was only valued as a person based on experience as a two year old, I wouldnt have been able to get to where I am now. The value of human life is on the ability to experience, not on the experience yet recieved. What if Descarte had been aborted due to his lack of experience?

Quote:

It is against our nature, so it seems wrong. But that does not make it so.

Now, this is tricky for me, but if it is against our nature to kill innocent children before they are born, should we still do it??? I agree, it seems against our nature, it feels unnatural. Why then does it still happen? I believe this conscious decision made by a mother to abort is deciding what is the greatest good for me, not for the rest of the world, but for me. It is a tough call though, I must say that.

Also, the greatest crime imaginable is to not give anyone a chance. That brilliant philosopher was once given a chance.

0 Replies

havent read this in a while , but . . .

on the death penalty, i think it is stupid. The americans use it just to clear room in the jails, which is understandable.

The reason why i think it is stupid is because we are deciding who should live, and who should die. The difference between this and abortion is that the baby is inside the mother, and so it is a part of her. Making it her decision. If you want to kill yourself, and after everyone trying their absolute best to conivnce you otherwise, and you still want to (because you are suffering or terminally ill) then no one, NO ONE, should be able to stop you.

A murderer is not a part of anyone, and so we dont decide whether to kill them, or not. We try and make them better, (which of course is next to impossible in our self-destructive culture).

0 Replies

I find the potential for experience argument mildly compelling, BUT...

If we're going to talk about potential for experience...

We have to start somewhere.

Some choose to start at the point where the egg is fertilized. In this case, 80% of all humans are killed by the female's system automatically. So for us to not immediately find a way to prevent this is terrible.

Some choose to start at birth. These are the typical abortionists.

Others choose to start several weeks/months before birth... something about brain functions or something.

Why could we not start before the sexual act? To not fertilize as many women as possible is wrong for me. In locking up a rapist, we are committing a terrible atrocity. How about starting before I was born?

Some say sentience. I submit that sentience is a scale. Some of the retarded are little more sentient than the smarter apes. It is clear that sentience is the line most people shoot for. They kill stuff (or have it killed) to eat all the time. So it's not potential for life. It's either sentience or potential for sentience. And since potential for sentience is absurdity, since the kids I will have in the future have potential for sentience... there is plenty of potential for sentience in every sperm-egg combination in my and most women's gonads in a 5-block radius of my house... then this means we must go on SENTIENCE and not POTENTIAL for sentience. And since sentience is a scale, so is value of life.

And as I say...

It's NOT about experiences. An old retarded person (if they get old... come to think of it I guess they die by mid-life) would have plenty of experiences. But his life would be as worthless as a cow's if they had about the same amount of sentience. Cows are playful and nice, and make good pets to kids that live on farms. But we cut their carcasses up and eat them, because that's just what we do. I can't say I like it, but I also can't say I'm going to stop eating beef just because I'm killing a lovely playful animal.

0 Replies

Etruscia, I don't know about the making room in jails...

I think even if we were plenty rich enough to support them we wouldn't. There are things about our culture related to our willingness to kill. We kill animals for food. And we're dern sure not about to pay taxes to pay for food for some bonehead that eats people and rapes boys and dissoves their bodies in acid and drills holes into their skulls and pours boiling water onto their living brains and watches their lives deteriorate (jeff dahmer).

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I find the potential for experience argument mildly compelling, BUT...

If we're going to talk about potential for experience...

We have to start somewhere.

Some choose to start at the point where the egg is fertilized. In this case, 80% of all humans are killed by the female's system automatically. So for us to not immediately find a way to prevent this is terrible.

Some choose to start at birth. These are the typical abortionists.

Others choose to start several weeks/months before birth... something about brain functions or something.

Why could we not start before the sexual act? To not fertilize as many women as possible is wrong for me. In locking up a rapist, we are committing a terrible atrocity. How about starting before I was born?

Some say sentience. I submit that sentience is a scale. Some of the retarded are little more sentient than the smarter apes. It is clear that sentience is the line most people shoot for. They kill stuff (or have it killed) to eat all the time. So it's not potential for life. It's either sentience or potential for sentience. And since potential for sentience is absurdity, since the kids I will have in the future have potential for sentience... there is plenty of potential for sentience in every sperm-egg combination in my and most women's gonads in a 5-block radius of my house... then this means we must go on SENTIENCE and not POTENTIAL for sentience. And since sentience is a scale, so is value of life.

And as I say...

It's NOT about experiences. An old retarded person (if they get old... come to think of it I guess they die by mid-life) would have plenty of experiences. But his life would be as worthless as a cow's if they had about the same amount of sentience. Cows are playful and nice, and make good pets to kids that live on farms. But we cut their carcasses up and eat them, because that's just what we do. I can't say I like it, but I also can't say I'm going to stop eating beef just because I'm killing a lovely playful animal.

Ok, straight off the bat, I dont agree with the chain of events: i.e. "start before the sexual act". And yes, a certain percentage of humans are killed by the mother's body, but scientists are looking for a way to fix this problem with options such as medications and clinics.
THe question was not on the topic of when human life begins, but rather protecting human life as it develops, both in and out of the womb. We can argue all day long about the different views doctors have as far as when "life" truly begins. I truly dont know enough about the argument, except that I only hear the word fetus in reference to abortion. I have never met an expectant mother who feels the kick of a child inside her refer to the kick as being caused by a "fetus". Im sure someone has heard this happen before, but I havent.
I worked on my best friends dairy farm growing up and I can tell you that cows are NOT playful. But, in contrast, my Mother worked at a school for mentally retarded children, and they are extremely playful. The point is, my wife can only have a baby. He/she might be born retarded or autistic, or have some ailment, but they would still be a baby. And how would you take a metally retarded individual and tell them that their life is worth less than a cow??? This now becomes less of a sanctity of human life issue and more of a "if you cant hang, get the f**k out" issue.
So, if it isnt about "experience", can you consider cultural genocide an option for certain situation?
I dont think for a minute you would give your newborn child to science. Nor would I. So, would you argree that experience is only a part of being human, there must be something else to being human that should be preserved?

0 Replies

cmon, to be honest you guys dont pay very much tax anyway:P

But i see your point, and the issue cannot create an eventual concrete definite solution.

It is the way we live that causes crime, totalitarian agriculture makes us want to conquer, control and subdue the earth. Cultures (the very very few) who have not adopted or been exposed to our culture(the whole world except them) do not have crime, or drug abuse, or need laws to keep people from killing one another.

As for the killing cows for food thing, it is a fact that everything is good for some and bad for others. Eating the cow is good for us but bad for the cow, and not eating the cow is good for it, but not for us as we lose nutrition.

0 Replies

Etruscia wrote:

havent read this in a while , but . . .

on the death penalty, i think it is stupid. The americans use it just to clear room in the jails, which is understandable.

The reason why i think it is stupid is because we are deciding who should live, and who should die. The difference between this and abortion is that the baby is inside the mother, and so it is a part of her. Making it her decision. If you want to kill yourself, and after everyone trying their absolute best to conivnce you otherwise, and you still want to (because you are suffering or terminally ill) then no one, NO ONE, should be able to stop you.

A murderer is not a part of anyone, and so we dont decide whether to kill them, or not. We try and make them better, (which of course is next to impossible in our self-destructive culture).

At what point does the baby stop being just another organ inside a woman and start being a seperate entitiy? Why are babies always considered things until... well, until they become cute and everyone wants one. Why dont we have a 13 year trial period with all children. Yea, until they are able to be self sufficient we are able to kill them. Why not, until this point, they are just a hinderance.
COME ON!
The "its my body" justification for abortion is nothing but an excuse for women who are unable to live with the consequences of their sexuality and dont want anything to hinder their life. Yes, there moments where girls are raped by their father, or the mother is terminally ill, and this is of course more than just the fear of a change of pace. But this isnt the topic is it? Its called the right to choose what I want for me and my baby---whoops, I mean fetus. Thats like me telling my wife im going to sleep with another woman tonight and you cant say anything or even get alittle upset, because its my body and I will do what I want.
I cant see a growing baby and not think about the child that will be. I have a couple friends that have had abortions. Everyone one of them has issues now thanks to that little wonder and miracle of modern science.
America- we fight for the right to kill that which is inside of us, but cry if that same baby was thrown in the trash.

0 Replies

It is different, because as you revealed, its all in the definition of when a baby become as such, and not part of the mother. I would say it is anytime before there is solid** brain activity. before then it is a "thing" with potential for human life.

By potential i mean, it can still miscarriage, a natural event, which kills the potential baby. (since your evangelical, wouldnt you just say that the death is all part of gods plan?)

0 Replies

Dahmer, I am not...

But I am glad that I don't have to prove my worth to you, Binnyboy

0 Replies

ok...

I'm sorry.

I resurrected an old discussion and threw some of the latter points at you without bringing you slowly into what I mean, and that was a mistake.

Let's start over and go more slowly.

rmurphy wrote:

THe question was not on the topic of when human life begins, but rather protecting human life as it develops, both in and out of the womb.

So the question is protecting human life. Cool. No problem. Tell me when human life starts and when it ends, so I can protect it. Or at least say "it's some time before..." and "it's some time after..."
Because in order to protect human life, you have to know what human life is. For instance, need we protect corpses? That's just an illustrator to help you with the where to start question. It is more important to our question of protecting life than you have implied.

And yes, I would turn over my child if that child would never have a chance to understand anything. There are apes that can use sign language and recognize themselves in the mirror (nothing but apes and people can do that).

And you are quite wrong about cows. It is likely that in growing up you never gave much effort to playing with the cows when they were young. If you left a person locked in a fence with no contact with anything but cows for its childhood and expected it to react positively to you, you would be sadly disappointed. Cows ARE quite playful if you mess with them when they are young. Same as with many mammals.

0 Replies

Contradiction of Evangelical Christians

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know