I'd like to make an observation about the George Zimmerman case. I'm going to preface my observation by stating that I studiously avoided coverage of the trial.
I have read a number of conservative commentaries on the affair. They denounce the media, governor, prosecutors, and judge. They stick up for Zimmerman, claiming that he acted in self-defense. They draw attention to Martin's rap sheet.
However, in the midst of all that, they usually include a caveat: they hasten to add that Martin's death was "tragic."
I'd like to consider that for a moment. In one sense I agree. Hypothetically speaking, his death was tragic because we can imagine better outcomes. What if he had lived long enough to turn his life around?
Christianity is a redemptive religion, so we celebrate redemptive story endings. And even secular filmmakers like redemptive story endings.
Measured by that counterfactual, his death was tragic. But, of course, there are other counterfactual outcomes that go in the opposite direction. And, if anything, these may be more probable.
We tend to think it's tragic that someone dies at 17. His death was "untimely." "Premature." A life cut short. Think of all the lost opportunities. He had his whole life ahead of him. But whether or not that's tragic depends in part on what the decedent would have done with those opportunities.
What if Tamerlan Tsarnaev had died at 17? Would that be tragic? Well, it might seem tragic at the time. But if we knew where his life was headed, that would not be tragic.
Likewise, if a suicide bomber accidentally detonates the device before reaching his destination, thereby killing himself instead of the target, is that tragic? It's tragic that he was talked into becoming a suicide bomber. It's tragic that he wasted his life on an evil mission. But there's an obvious sense in which his death is a good thing.
What if Martin was going from bad to worse? What if he was on a familiar trajectory of escalating violence? What if he was a murderer waiting to happen?
Under that scenario, there's an obvious sense in which his death was not a tragedy. Rather, his death forestalled real tragedy in the making. If, sooner or later, he was going to kill one or more innocent men, women, and/or children, then Zimmerman's bullet prevented a tragedy. If a junior hoodlum is on the cusp of becoming a truly dangerous thug, then the fact that he died at 17 rather than 30 is a relief. Think of all the prospective victims who were spared his life of crime.
Now you might say that's speculative. True. But, then, calling his death "tragic" is no less speculative, for we don't know how the alternative ending.
In one respect I think it's fine to say his death was tragic. But I also think that can be a cheap, shortsighted sentiment.
"I'm going to preface my observation by stating that I studiously avoided coverage of the trial."
ReplyDeleteSo did I! I didn't even watch a minute of this trial. And I don't even remember watching any pundits opine on this trial either.
However, I did quick-read some commentary on various blogsites about the GZ/TM case over the past year or so. Never watched anything though.
This is one of the vilest things I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteTrayvon's death may have been a good thing because you determined he had a criminal disposition? A 17-year-old boy with whom you have had no acquaintance?
In what possible world do you think it's reasonable to compare Trayvon Martin to Tamerlan Tsarnaev? You cannot preemptively decide a person's fate and punish them for deeds they have not done, and may never do.
This is *precisely* the kind of reasoning that your country was founded to prevent.
What else should we do, preemptively jail the impoverished?
Sure, it could be that a person born into poverty would not commit a crime in their life, but we also know that people born into poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Is not preventing a crime from ever occurring worth the cost? Would it really be so bad, if we saved a future victim?
It's people like you that have justified eugenics and some of the worst kinds of atrocities in history, under the auspices of preemptive justice.
For all I know you could be a pedophile waiting to happen. We already know how rampant that is within religion. Maybe you wouldn't mind being preemptively neutered?
Don't like the comparison because you think I'm unfairly characterizing your religion as being worse than it actually is?
Join the club.
Kalen Christensen
Delete"This is one of the vilest things I've ever read."
Considering that you're an atheist, I'll take that with a grain of salt. Make that a ton of salt.
"Trayvon's death may have been a good thing because you determined he had a criminal disposition?"
Hypothetically speaking, if he'd continued on the course he was going...
"A 17-year-old boy with whom you have had no acquaintance?"
Don't be duplicitous. His life became a matter of public record.
"In what possible world do you think it's reasonable to compare Trayvon Martin to Tamerlan Tsarnaev?"
Since you're personally unacquainted with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, where does that leave your original objection?
And, yes, I can compare them at the level of counterfactual outcomes.
"This is *precisely* the kind of reasoning that your country was founded to prevent."
The U.S. was founded to prevent counterfactual scenarios?
"What else should we do, preemptively jail the impoverished?"
The question at issue is whether his death was tragic. That involves a future-oriented hypothetical. Try to get a grip on your emotions and deal with the actual argument.
"Sure, it could be that a person born into poverty would not commit a crime in their life, but we also know that people born into poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Is not preventing a crime from ever occurring worth the cost? Would it really be so bad, if we saved a future victim?"
If we knew ahead of time that someone was going to commit murder unless we used lethal force to prevent him, why not?
"It's people like you that have justified eugenics and some of the worst kinds of atrocities in history, under the auspices of preemptive justice."
You're confusing foreknowledge with hypotheticals. Try to learn how to think.
"For all I know you could be a pedophile waiting to happen. We already know how rampant that is within religion. Maybe you wouldn't mind being preemptively neutered?"
The question at issue isn't whether Zimmerman's action was justified, but whether Martin's death was tragic. Try to learn how to reason.
"Don't like the comparison because you think I'm unfairly characterizing your religion as being worse than it actually is?"
Actually, the comparison illustrates the irrationality of atheists like yourself. Thanks for shooting your own side in the foot.
"Join the club."
I'd never join any club you belong to.
A religious person telling an atheist to learn how to think and reason.. priceless.
DeleteKalen Christensen
Delete"For all I know you could be a pedophile waiting to happen. We already know how rampant that is within religion. Maybe you wouldn't mind being preemptively neutered?"
i) Since I'm not Roman Catholic, you're barking up the wrong tree. That's not my religion.
ii) As an atheist, what's your basis for opposing pedophilia?
iii) Does that also mean you oppose homosexuals in positions of authority over minors (e.g. public school teachers, Boy Scout leaders?)
Trayvon's death may have been a good thing because you determined he had a criminal disposition?
DeleteYour comments don't take seriously the qualifications made in Steve's statements. Steve was speaking in hypotheticals using thought experiments and talking in the philosophical term of counterfatuals. He didn't say that Martin's death was good or even that it *may* have been good because of a known criminal disposition. That's a strawman representation of what Steve said. He said it may have been good IF it turned out that he would have worsened and become someone like Tsarnaev. Steve wasn't saying that Martin would have or wouldn't have become a murderer. Only that it was a possibility which wasn't implausible given his alleged rap sheet.
You cannot preemptively decide a person's fate and punish them for deeds they have not done, and may never do.
Steve didn't. Again, he was speaking in hypothetical terms. Though, Steve might think God may have that prerogative. I don't know if Steve does. In previous posts Steve seemed to suggested that God might have that prerogative.
Don't like the comparison because you think I'm unfairly characterizing your religion as being worse than it actually is?
As a matter of fact you have unfairly characterizing Steve's relatively simple post. So, it's not implausible that you would unfairly characterize the Christian religion as well (which is vastly more complex by comparison). Steve's theological blog posts are much more intricate and detailed than this current blog post where he makes passing comments on Trayvon Martin's death, as well as on other people's comments on it.
My god this is such a vile, disgusting attitude. How about We were to say YOUR death might not be a tragic thing,How about an extraordinary good thing. With such an attitude, I'm sorry but applauding the death of anyone so young is vile. You may not consider yourself applauding it but denying its tragedy is the same thing to me. your call yourself a christian, this is about as christian a sentiment as the westboro baptist church.
DeleteA christians claim the high moral ground. this only serves to confirm my opinion that the Worshippers of Paulian christianity are EVIL.
I was under the impression that in the USA, people were innocent until proven guilty. This is the law. It doesn't matter what religion you are.
DeleteThis man did nothing to deserve his death. Of course it is tragic. Even if he had committed certain crimes, would he have automatically deserved death because of it? It could be tragic even then. Criminals have families too.
This boy wasn't even a criminal, so that's irrelevant.
I agree with Kalen. What you say is vile.
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"My god this is such a vile, disgusting attitude."
Another example of emoting rather than reasoning.
"How about We were to say YOUR death might not be a tragic thing,How about an extraordinary good thing."
I'm not asking anyone to evaluate my life or death. Try again.
"With such an attitude, I'm sorry but applauding the death of anyone so young is vile."
i) Since "applauding his death" was no part of the argument, your reaction is illiterate and irrational.
ii) To say the death of *anyone* so young is tragic is mindless. If Pol Pot had died at 17, would that be tragic?
"You may not consider yourself applauding it but denying its tragedy is the same thing to me. your call yourself a christian, this is about as christian a sentiment as the westboro baptist church. A christians claim the high moral ground. this only serves to confirm my opinion that the Worshippers of Paulian christianity are EVIL."
You're long on adjectives and short on arguments. But thank you for once again illustrating the intellectual vacuity of atheism.
sekhet666
Delete"I was under the impression that in the USA, people were innocent until proven guilty. This is the law. It doesn't matter what religion you are."
Irrelevant to the actual argument of the post.
"This man did nothing to deserve his death. Of course it is tragic. Even if he had committed certain crimes, would he have automatically deserved death because of it? It could be tragic even then. Criminals have families too."
Since that wasn't a premise or presupposition of the argument, your complaint is illogical.
"I agree with Kalen. What you say is vile."
Because you can't think for yourself. But thanks for offering yourself as another intellectually-challenged atheist.
Over on her blog, Kalen has a post entitled "Trayvon: deserved it?" where she alleges that: "I just stumbled across a post in which a Christian literally justified the murder of Trayvon Martin because Martin may have, possibly, someday become a mass murder like Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Apparently, Trayvon was at a high risk for committing a crime, so maybe killing him wasn't so bad?"
Deletei) My post took no position on whether or not Zimmerman was warranted in shooting Martin.
ii) Assuming, for the same of argument, that he was warranted in shooting Martin, that wouldn't be "murder"–that would be justifiable homicide (i.e. self-defense).
iii) Justifiable homicide doesn't presume that the decedent "deserved" it. Take the use of human shields to deter national defense. If a nation kills the human shields to protect its citizens from an act of military aggression, that's not because the human shields "deserved" it.
iv) My argument didn't involve a direct comparison between Martin and Tsarnaev. Rather, I was using a counterexample to illustrate the question of whether dying young is inherently tragic.
Kalen is your typical village atheist. She reacts and emotes. Is seeking a pretext to feel morally outraged.
Atheists sure are illiterate for being so smart.
ReplyDeleteIt's generally considered a tragedy by default when the individual is so young, not because we assume they could have gone on to do great things, but because the future isn't set in stone and we give people the benefit of the doubt by not saddling them with crimes they haven't actually committed.
ReplyDeleteThe suicide bomber example is a very tenuous link to this case as it's a self imposed death. They made the decision to strap explosives to themselves and the relief is not that the individual died, but that they died before they could take out others which is clearly their intention. To say that of Trayvon Martin would be entirely dishonest. Again, the tragedy here is that his fate is now sealed, there won't be any chance to see how he turned out after what was a perfectly avoidable confrontation.
Also, equating homosexuality to paedophilia is pretty low. They're not one in the same, so to assume anyone is against gay people looking after children shows a complete lack of thinking on your part.
Alan
Delete"It's generally considered a tragedy by default when the individual is so young…"
Actually, I don't consider the death of the young to be inherently more tragic than the death of the aged.
"…not because we assume they could have gone on to do great things, but because the future isn't set in stone and we give people the benefit of the doubt by not saddling them with crimes they haven't actually committed."
So you admit that you're making an ignorant prejudgment. But in that event, shouldn't you withhold judgment?
To claim the "future isn't set in stone" cuts both ways. For all we know, it could turn out good or bad. That's another reason to suspend judgment.
"The suicide bomber example is a very tenuous link to this case as it's a self imposed death. They made the decision to strap explosives to themselves and the relief is not that the individual died, but that they died before they could take out others which is clearly their intention. To say that of Trayvon Martin would be entirely dishonest. Again, the tragedy here is that his fate is now sealed, there won't be any chance to see how he turned out after what was a perfectly avoidable confrontation."
That just proves my point. The example of the suicide bomber is meant to be different, precisely because we know how that turned out. We're viewing his life in hindsight. It's because we lack that extended retrospective context in the case of someone like Martin that judging his death to be tragic is necessarily uniformed.
"Also, equating homosexuality to paedophilia is pretty low. They're not one in the same, so to assume anyone is against gay people looking after children shows a complete lack of thinking on your part.""
Kalen alluded to the abuse scandal in the Roman Church. But there's an overwhelming same-sex correlation between the gender of the perpetrators and the gender of the victims. It's a homosexual scandal. She stepped into her own trap.
1. I never said i was an atheist. I just don't happen to follow any of the large self righteous christian faiths.
Delete2. Your assumptions are based on what might have been, yes he might have gone on to be a killer, but he might also have gone to be a loving caring hard working family man. The fact that we'll never know is tragic in itself, his death was needless anyone who says otherwise is spurting hate and is evil. Equating him with pol pot, hitler or anyone one else that went on to commit horrendous crimes has no basis in fact and is just silly.
3. His family have a right to mourn his passing and remember him in peace. Your vitorol on here is denying them that just as the WBC deny soldiers families that right.
I only hope that one day you find the light and see the word of Jesus for what it was truly meant to be
1. While Christians may sometimes be self-righteous, you can't argue that Christianity itself is self-righteous. And isn't it unfair of you to make a sweeping condemnation about Christians as self-righteous?
Delete2a. Steve admits that his scenarios are speculative. He never said his death was not actually tragic. Rather, he questioned whether it was tragic.
2b. How is not knowing whether someone turns out to be a Hitler or a Gandhi tragic? You must be living a very tragic life since the fact is that you'll never know how 99% of people's lives turn out.
2c. Needless in what sense? If you mean preventable that may be true. Steve's post wasn't really about that though. And I don't think denying the preventability of an action makes one a spurter of hate and evil.
2d. Steve didn't equate him with Hitler or Pol Pot. He speculated how he might have gone on to live a life exhibiting the same sort of evil as Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
3. Sometimes people create a fiction around a dead person. At funerals they heap this fictional rosy picture onto the deceased. Do people have a right to create a fictional past and/or fictional future for a dead person? I guess they are free too, but then I think other people are free to point out the fictional nature of that.
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"1. I never said i was an atheist. I just don't happen to follow any of the large self righteous christian faiths."
Which clouds your judgment.
"2. Your assumptions are based on what might have been, yes he might have gone on to be a killer, but he might also have gone to be a loving caring hard working family man."
I make no assumptions about what might have been. That's the point. Any judgment in that respect would be premature.
However, considering the fact that he was bashing Zimmerman's skull against the concrete, there's certainly no presumption that the direction of his life was auspicious.
"The fact that we'll never know is tragic in itself…"
That's an irrational comment. If Tamerlan Tsarnaev had died at 17, would it be "tragic in itself" not knowing that he was on the path to becoming a mass murderer? You're in no position to make these sweeping, fact-free generalizations.
"...his death was needless anyone who says otherwise is spurting hate and is evil."
My post took no position on that question. That said, it wouldn't be "hateful" or "evil" to suggest that Zimmerman feared for his life and was acting in self-defense. Someone can make a perfectly reasonable argument for that proposition. It may be mistaken, but it's not "hateful" or "evil."
"Equating him with pol pot, hitler or anyone one else that went on to commit horrendous crimes has no basis in fact and is just silly."
Like other hostile commenters, you exhibit a persistent inability to follow the argument. In the nature of the case, the hypothetical is counterfactual rather than factual.
Did I "equate" him with Pol Pot? No. Rather, I pointed out that we are in a position to judge Pol Pot by what he became. Had he died at 17, that might seem to be "tragic" at the time, but only because we lack perspective.
"3. His family have a right to mourn his passing and remember him in peace. Your vitorol on here is denying them that just as the WBC deny soldiers families that right."
Do you take the same position on anti-Zimmerman rallies?
It would be nice if his family could mourn in private. But this became a media circus long ago. I'm not responsible for that development.
All the "vitriol" is coming from commenters of your ilk. There was no vitriol in my post.
"I only hope that one day you find the light and see the word of Jesus for what it was truly meant to be."
You give me no reason to accept your interpretation.
supportforqcincanadda said:
Deleteyour call yourself a christian, this is about as christian a sentiment as the westboro baptist church...this only serves to confirm my opinion that the Worshippers of Paulian christianity are EVIL.
Funny how you deny that which the apostle Paul has taught, but then you adopt the same hateful attitude the WBC adopts by calling those who don't do what you do "EVIL."
While the WBC is highly hateful, I don't know enough about them to say whether they're also heretical. However, you're heretical if you deny the Pauline corpus. So which is worse - an orthodox Christian who demonstrates little evidence of the fruits of the Spirit, or a heretical Christian who is loving toward anyone and everyone except for Christians who believe Paul's writings are likewise God-breathed along with the rest of the Bible?
I don't know enough about them to say whether they're also heretical.
DeleteI do. They are. Just for the record. :-)
I never said i was christian either, I happen to believe their was a man called Jesus, who did some very enlightened preaching, I also believe his teachings have been grossly distorted starting with his disciples and Paul. I do not consider myself Christian though because i do not believe he is the Son of God.
DeleteI also believe that the Roman Catholic church and the descendants their off are basically trying to be good but are corrupted by evil. I am a seeker, a believer in enlightenment that is all, and yes i am fully aware of my failings in this endeavor and doubt i will find it in this lifetime.
Accusing me of heresy has no more meaning to me than an islamic cleric condemning me for having a beer. I am not a Christian nor a Jew nor a muslim as such i don't need to concern myself with committing crimes against these religions. Icommit enough against my own believes as i am after all human.
What you have stated above might be speculation but doing so about someone in no position to defend themselves i consider to be evil. If you do not that is your opinion. I pray for Mr Martins soul and hope he has found the light.
As for Mr Zimmerman, he has been found not guilty by the courts, He knows if his actions were truly justified. I do not judge him, that is for forces beyond me. I'm not a judge but believe he will face his judgement as will we all.
@Paul I single out individual acts i consider to be evil. This happens to be one of them, Killing someone is another, not exactly something unheard of so called Christians doing. I'm not without fault and there are people better than me. I have no expectation that people believe as i do or do as i do.
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"@Paul I single out individual acts i consider to be evil. This happens to be one of them, Killing someone is another, not exactly something unheard of so called Christians doing."
There's nothing intrinsically evil about killing someone. Sometimes that's murder, but sometimes that's justified homicide (e.g. lethal force in self-defense). Depends on the situation.
Individual cases maybe, but i use of deadly force in my opinion is really a last resort option, much better to disable or wound. Burning of witches, slaughtering of Cathars, burning people for heracy, the crusades etc etc weren't exactly acts of self defense though, sorry you'll never convince me Christianity as its practiced has been a force for good in the world.
DeleteI'm under no obligation to convince you of anything. That's your loss, not mine.
DeleteAnd the body count of secular regimes dwarfs anything committed in the name of Christendom.
I won't argue your last point except to say followers of a man who preached Love thy neighbour, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Do unto others as you'd have them do to you etc etc, you'd expect to have no blood on their hands, especially the first commandment from their god in dealing with other humans is THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I may be out to lunch here but i can think of no atrocities committed by Hindu's, Budhists, confuscionists or Wiccans in the name of their gods.
Deletei) The first commandment is a prohibition against murder, not "killing."
Deleteii) You're failing to distinguish between "followers" and nominal believers.
iii) Since, according to Christian theology, Christians are sinners, the fact that Christians fall short is consistent with Christian theology, even though that's inconsistent with Christian ethics.
iv) Christian theology isn't pacifistic.
v) No, Jesus didn't say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That story is a scribal interpolation.
vi) BTW, the Samurai were Buddhists.
You need to get beyond simplistic, bumpersticker one-liners.
1. that is a difference in translation the King James version has the word Kill, newer versions say murder. The difference between the 2 is justification, as I've previously stated my personal belief is very few killings are justified.
Delete2. Most of what i mentioned was sanctioned by the pope of the time. If the leader of the Catholic church and all western Christianity is a nominal believer well what more to say
3. Agree we all have failings, however very few are willing to publicly admit them
4. Christian theology as descended from the teachings by Paul as a rule isn't, some sects are.
5. that is a matter of opinion. The reality is nothing can be proven to be said by Jesus himself. The line is in the biblical text 'John 8:2-11' that is said to canonical. Some say this was added later, maybe it was but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just as the translation was changed from Kill to Murder maybe this was later found to be missing. From all of Jesus's teachings we interpret him to be a man of peace, love and forgiveness, but most christian churches certainly are none of these things.
6. yes as such they were soldiers with a code of honor, not saying everything they did was right and just but attrocity their may be, but not that i'm aware of
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"1. that is a difference in translation the King James version has the word Kill, newer versions say murder. The difference between the 2 is justification, as I've previously stated my personal belief is very few killings are justified."
Since the Mosaic Law includes numerous capital offenses, as well as codifying the laws of warfare, it's obvious that killing, per se, is not inherently evil by the standards of the Mosaic Law. "2. Most of what i mentioned was sanctioned by the pope of the time. If the leader of the Catholic church and all western Christianity is a nominal believer well what more to say"
i) Since I'm not Roman Catholic, you're barking up the wrong tree.
ii) In fairness to the papacy, Urban II was basically right about the First Crusade while Pius V was basically right about the Battle of Lepanto. "4. Christian theology as descended from the teachings by Paul as a rule isn't, some sects are."
Christian theology isn't descended from Paul in particular. Although he's very influential, the Gospels are arguably more influential. "5. that is a matter of opinion."
Not all opinions are born equal.
"The reality is nothing can be proven to be said by Jesus himself."
That's an assertion in search of an argument.
"The line is in the biblical text 'John 8:2-11' that is said to canonical."
The Gospel of John is canonical, but the Pericope Adulterae is not. Read Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the NT.
"Some say this was added later, maybe it was but that doesn't mean it didn't happen."
Our only source of information on that alleged incident is an scribal interpolation of unknown date.
"Just as the translation was changed from Kill to Murder maybe this was later found to be missing."
You're just making things up on the fly.
"From all of Jesus's teachings we interpret him to be a man of peace, love and forgiveness, but most christian churches certainly are none of these things."
You have a truncated Christology. For one thing, you fail to distinguish between the first and second advents of Christ. Christ is also the eschatological judge. In that capacity he will forcibly subjugate his enemies. In addition, NT Christology equates Jesus with Yahweh. Therefore, whatever is attributable to Yahweh in the OT is attributable to Jesus.
Forgiveness is contingent on repentance and faith in Christ. Unbelievers are consigned to hell.
"6. yes as such they were soldiers with a code of honor, not saying everything they did was right and just but attrocity their may be, but not that i'm aware of"
You don't think the Samurai committed atrocities?
supportforqcincanadda said:
Deletei can think of no atrocities committed by Hindu's, Budhists, confuscionists or Wiccans in the name of their gods.
Hindus and Buddhists in places like India and Myanmar have violently attacked non-Hindus or non-Buddhists in their countries (e.g. here). You might want to watch the movie Slumdog Millionaire which had a few scenes depicting the Bombay Riots between Hindus and Muslims.
Check out what a scholar and expert on world religions like Winfried Corduan has said as well (e.g. here, here).
I assume David Marshall's weblog Christ the Tao likewise has some relevant things to say on the topic.
I'm no expert, but my take is Confucian societies and cultures pay lip service to Confucian principles about harmony, order, right conduct, being a superior gentleman, and so forth, but when it suits their purposes, then they use Confucianism as well as other considerations to justify violence as a means to keep the peace and order. It's quite a pragmatic way of thinking. Besides, Confucianism in Chinese history (not sure about other nations) has been quite ethnocentric and, in fact, arguably racist. Not to mention arguably sexist.
supportforqcincanadda said:
DeleteWhat you have stated above might be speculation but doing so about someone in no position to defend themselves i consider to be evil.
So "speculation" involving the defenseless is always "evil"?
Anyway, at least from what I've read, both sides agree Martin was the one almost certainly on top and pummeling Zimmerman. If so, I wouldn't say Martin was "someone in no position to defend themselves."
BTW, given your username, I take it you're from Quebec. As such, it's possible your views on Christianity have been significantly shaped by the Catholicism there. But that's hardly who we are.
I'm originally british and have never been catholic.
DeleteIt should be pointed out however that all Protestant sects originated from the Catholic church and the split was well after the doctrine of the church was determined and all of the atrocities i mentioned.
Back to the original subject and my last word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg
SAYS IT ALL
supportforqcincanadda said:
DeleteI'm originally british and have never been catholic.
As far as this goes, it's possible a Brit living in Quebec could likewise be influenced by the Catholicism there, for example.
It should be pointed out however that all Protestant sects originated from the Catholic church and the split was well after the doctrine of the church was determined and all of the atrocities i mentioned.
For a start, this is biased toward a Catholic interpretation of church history.
Back to the original subject and my last word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg
SAYS IT ALL
How is Martin Bashir's opinion on the matter equivalent to Steve's post? Steve didn't make any of the claims Martin Bashir is railing against in this segment. So your "last word" is totally irrelevant.
I actually never knew a Catholic growing up. Never met one until i was at least 13, I grew up in a very small rural village. There was 1 Anglican church, 1 school, and 1 circle.
DeleteSteve's post was insinuating, ok maybe harsh, speculating then that Trayvon Martin would end up a murderer, Yet 10 years older and more mature Mr bush was commiting more serious crimes than Mr. Martin and he became president. Its just as plausible that Mr Zimmerman killed the possible 60th president as a potential murderer. the 3 facts at the end are the only known truth, so no Mr Zimmerman is not legally guilty of murder in the state of Florida, But in my book he's responsible for a unjustified killing.
so ok yes its all speculation, but sorry my teachings tell me thinking bad of the dead is evil.
Everyone has a chance of finding the light (heaven would be your interpretation). I pray in my own way following my beliefs that Mr Martin has done so.
I just find it sad that so called Christians fail to do the same, but then of course your interpretation of Jesus nowhere near matches my teachings that he was an enlightened one, but just the son of YHWH
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"Steve's post was insinuating, ok maybe harsh, speculating then that Trayvon Martin would end up a murderer, Yet 10 years older and more mature Mr bush was commiting more serious crimes than Mr. Martin and he became president."
i) What "more serious crimes" was George W. Bush committing at 27?
ii) Since I doubt you approve of his presidency, doesn't your comparison backfire?
"Its just as plausible that Mr Zimmerman killed the possible 60th president as a potential murderer."
My post wasn't based on probabilities, but hypotheticals. "so ok yes its all speculation, but sorry my teachings tell me thinking bad of the dead is evil."
So it's evil to think bad of Genghis Khan?
"Everyone has a chance of finding the light (heaven would be your interpretation)."
Beyond wishful thinking, to do have any evidence for that sentiment?
"I pray in my own way following my beliefs that Mr Martin has done so."
To whom or what do you pray?
"I just find it sad that so called Christians fail to do the same, but then of course your interpretation of Jesus nowhere near matches my teachings that he was an enlightened one, but just the son of YHWH"
Your notion of Jesus is a hippie Jesus: a flower child, a la Godspell. A Jesus who's interchangeable with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
the link i posted quite clearly states what bush was doing in his 20's.
Deleteits too early to judge Bush's presidency, Your right as of this moment i think he was a pretty bad president, however you have to respect the president. Things change, in 1980 maggie was the worst prime minister britain had ever had by 1990 she was probably 3rd best only behind Churchill and disraeli. In 2000 Clinton was probably one of the best presidents, after 2008 (not sure how much he was to blame) but the banking collapse and the banking policies in place during his term sure turned out to be bad judgement somewhere.
It is not evil to think of the crimes of genghis khan, hitler, polpot etc as evil or bad, but Trayon Martin is hardly in that category, so he smoked a little weed (come on thats not even a crime in a fair number of countries and certainly no worse morally than drinking). to even remotely think that Mr Martin was in that kind of category is a great disservice to the boy. It is evil to bear false witness Even your bible says that's a sin. Suggesting evil where no evidence exists especially of the dead is the same as bearing false witness.
I pray to the spirits of the enlightened ones, beyond that i'm not qualified to specify as i'm neither an enlightened one, priestess or teacher. I can not teach you how to become one with the light.
No Jesus was an enlightened one and a teacher, his teachings clearly indicate that to us as they very closely match the sayings of the others.
supportforqcincanadda
Delete"It is not evil to think of the crimes of genghis khan, hitler, polpot etc as evil or bad, but Trayon Martin is hardly in that category, so he smoked a little weed (come on thats not even a crime in a fair number of countries and certainly no worse morally than drinking). to even remotely think that Mr Martin was in that kind of category is a great disservice to the boy. It is evil to bear false witness Even your bible says that's a sin. Suggesting evil where no evidence exists especially of the dead is the same as bearing false witness."
You need to learn how to think. Was I comparing Trayvon Martin to Genghis Khan? No. Pay attention to the actual argument.
I was responding to something you said. Keep track of the actual flow of argument. You made a blanket statement. You said: "sorry my teachings tell me thinking bad of the dead is evil."
That's what I'm responding to. Get it? You'd laid down a general maxim.
So I cited a counterexample. Genghis Khan is dead. Is it therefore evil to think bad of Genghis Khan?
Does that mean I'm comparing Genghis Khan to Trayvon Martin? No. Rather, I'm testing your claim. If it is not evil to think bad of Genghis Khan, then it is not evil in principle to think bad of the dead. Get it? That's not a hard argument to follow.
BTW, why did you switch from thinking bad of Genghis Khan to thinking bad of his crimes? Do you think his crimes are just accidentally related to his character? Or do evil crimes manifest an evil character?
supportforqcincanadda
ReplyDelete"...you'll never convince me Christianity as its practiced has been a force for good in the world."
That's a thankless, ignorant statement. You need to bone up on history. Try reading Kenneth Scott Latourette's Anno Domini: Jesus, History, and God.