[Ed Dantes]

Seriously. If you were doing a fist pump when Tiller was murdered, then you are what's wrong with Christianity in America.

Wow...now im doing a fist pump? Do you see any fist pumps in my posts? Nope. I said I didn't condone it, but that I didn't feel bad for him either. *checking post...* Yep. ZERO fist pumps there.

Ed Dantes for "Poster most likely to make up statements attributed to other posters."

Oh, and one more thing... I'm pretty sure that Malcom X was a Muslim, and MLK Jr. was a Baptist. Not really relevant to the topic at hand.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about generalities. Someone has a guilty conscience.

The religion of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr is the discussion that's not relevant to what's at hand. Their debate was about Civil Rights. It's a common parallel when someone talks about passive vs. active protest. You would have realized that if you decided to think, instead of reflexively frothing at the mouth.

[GoUNCA]

The Judges story of Ehud's assassination of the Moab king says very little about murder in general, but I agree it serves as an interesting story when juxtaposed to the murder of Tiller, but for different reasons.

The Judges story really has more to do with attempting to keep Yahweh present. The key verse is actually after what you quoted in verse 26, "While they waited, Ehud got away. He passed by the idols and escaped to Seirah." It has to be remembered that it was very commonplace in that day for a conquered nation to take the conquering nations' God(s) because their God(s) was victorious and Yahweh "failed" to protect them. It would have been easy to say that Ehud killed the Moab king and then got away, end of story. But the author goes through great pains after verse 23 to tell that Ehud walked away from idols, thus presenting the idols just as weak as Yahweh looked when the Moabs took control of Israel. It should be noted that Exodus 20:3 says, "You shall have no other gods before me" which doesn't say other Gods don't exist, just that Israel can't worship them. So this is really just one of many old testament stories about maintaining Yahweh's presence and importance in a land of many "powerful" (at least in war) gods.

The interesting juxtaposition comes about because Ehud is a religious believer backed into a corner with his beliefs (remember that his god has failed him) which is probably not all that dissimilar to a guy who protests and prays everyday that something is done and his prayers are never answered, so eventually he kills in the name of God.

It is also interesting to note that Ehud is left-handed. Which is considered a negative thing in the bible. (See Genesis 24:49, 48:14, Ecclesiastes 10:2, Also probably alluded to in the turn the other cheek story, just to name a few).

[matshark]

Seriously. If you were doing a fist pump when Tiller was murdered, then you are what's wrong with Christianity in America.

Wow...now im doing a fist pump? Do you see any fist pumps in my posts? Nope. I said I didn't condone it, but that I didn't feel bad for him either. *checking post...* Yep. ZERO fist pumps there.

Ed Dantes for "Poster most likely to make up statements attributed to other posters."

Oh, and one more thing... I'm pretty sure that Malcom X was a Muslim, and MLK Jr. was a Baptist. Not really relevant to the topic at hand.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about generalities. Someone has a guilty conscience.

The religion of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr is the discussion that's not relevant to what's at hand. Their debate was about Civil Rights. It's a common parallel when someone talks about passive vs. active protest. You would have realized that if you decided to think, instead of reflexively frothing at the mouth.

No actually, I certainly DON'T have a guilty conscience. One thing I don't have and NEVER WILL have is a guilty conscience for standing up for what I believe to be true.

And I wasn't ALIVE for Malcom X and MLK Jr. so the only thing I have to go off of is the Muslim/Baptist thing. Why is that the only thing I have to go off of? Simple. I don't care about Malcom X, or what he stood for, or his history or anything surrounding him. As far as MLK, more power to him. Certainly a great civil rights activist who gave one hell of a speech in D.C. That's as far as my knowledge and concern for the subject go.

And I'm certainly not surprised you were talking about generalities b/c that's all you ever talk about. Maybe if you stop talking about platitudes and generalities, and START talking about solutions and specifics, you might have something worthwhile to say on here about, well... SOMETHING.

[Ed Dantes]

And I wasn't ALIVE for Malcom X and MLK Jr. so the only thing I have to go off of is the Muslim/Baptist thing. Why is that the only thing I have to go off of? Simple. I don't care about Malcom X, or what he stood for, or his history or anything surrounding him. As far as MLK, more power to him. Certainly a great civil rights activist who gave one hell of a speech in D.C. That's as far as my knowledge and concern for the subject go.

I think this paragraph speaks more to a lack of education than anything else. You really are an ignoramus. Permit this history lesson, because clearly you didn't receive one at LCA.

Early in Malcolm X's life, his house was burned down by the KKK. His father was a... guess what... Baptist preacher!, who may or may not have been murdered by white supremacists. His brother was lynched. Motivated by these events, Malcolm X wanted to disassociate himself with white people, advocating separatism and vowed revenge on whiteys.

Martin Luther King was a pastor, whose father was also a pastor. Facing oppression in the South, MLK organized peaceful boycotts. He helped organize the famous March on Washington, delivered 'one hell of a speech', and helped turn public opinion against the 'separate but equal' laws that disenfranchised blacks.

Why is this important? (See, there are two things you are supposed to learn in school, especially history classes. What happened, and why it's important. The "why" is key. It gives us a better understanding of current events.)

Malcolm X hated MLK's methods. He said it was a farce. He was a "fight the power" person. But there's two things to take away from that: X stoked racial divisiveness. He made things worse. MLK won the respect of white and african-americans, layman and politicians. Eventually, his peaceful approach won the day. We still have racial problems in America, but at least a black guy can walk into a restaurant, sit down next to a white guy, order a drink, and not worry about being lynched. Such was not the case 40 years ago.

(I know that you weren't alive during these times, but it's still relatively important. Believe it or not, important events happened before the world was blessed with the arrival of Baby Matshark. It may be hard to believe, but you are not the epicenter of humanity.)

Since the days of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, the 'passive vs. violent' debate has been widely discussed. When Tiller was murdered, it was because one person took the "violent" side, under the "the ends justify the means" reasoning.

The sensible ones among us, though, were saddened. The murder of one abortion doctor will not stop one abortion. The murder of one abortion doctor gives a black eye to the entire pro-life movement. Pro-choicers point to this event and say that it is the result of one person taking a fanatical movement a step too far. It strengthens the pro-choice movement -- at a time when public opinion was finally shifting to the pro-life side.

I should excuse you for the 'no guilty conscience' thing. It would require someone to be able to think first. That's asking a bit much from you. But you really should try. I'd recommend sitting down when you get dizzy, though.

As for not speaking in generalities, I offer the same specific that I did many days ago. It is wrong to kill an abortion doctor. And it is wrong to justify murder.

[matshark]

And I wasn't ALIVE for Malcom X and MLK Jr. so the only thing I have to go off of is the Muslim/Baptist thing. Why is that the only thing I have to go off of? Simple. I don't care about Malcom X, or what he stood for, or his history or anything surrounding him. As far as MLK, more power to him. Certainly a great civil rights activist who gave one hell of a speech in D.C. That's as far as my knowledge and concern for the subject go.

I think this paragraph speaks more to a lack of education than anything else. You really are an ignoramus. Permit this history lesson, because clearly you didn't receive one at LCA.

blah blah blah

Malcom X = black nationalist (i.e. racist), muslim preacher (i.e. preacher of a religion of hate that advocates killing any and everyone that isn't a muslim)
that is the only info that needs to be taught about Malcom X. lots of other people came from similar situations. did they revert to doing what he did? nope. just him. so apparently, the situation he came from wasn't the reason he did what he did. otherwise, everyone else from that situation would've done the same thing.

Malcom X is an irrelevant footnote in history held on a pedestal by racists who consider themselves hyphenated americans because they don't love the country they live in enough to consider themselves americans first, foremost and only. as a gentleman from Palestine who is now an american citizen said this past saturday, "people are hyphenated americans only because the whole man has not come over. when the whole man has come over - body, heart and mind - the hyphen will drop of its own weight."

It is wrong to kill an abortion doctor. And it is wrong to justify murder.

nowhere did i say it WASN'T wrong to kill an abortion doctor. i just said i didn't feel bad for the dead guy and that he reaped what he sowed... a violent death.


as far as being wrong to justify murder... sure. but then you certainly have a huge theological problem with a whole host of biblical heros then don't you? let's see... Joshua, Gideon, Deborah, Ehud, David, Saul, Jonathon just to name a few... oh, and then there's the whole thing with elijah on mt carmel with the prophets of baal that the people chopped up afterwards. or does that all depend on what you consider murder? oh, and then there's the whole thing with God condemning his own son to death on the cross for crimes he didn't commit. it would seem to me then that you have a problem with a lot of people you heard stories about in sunday school. why don't you go take that up with God.

sure you can say, oh he's God, he can do whatever he wants... but how far does that go? does that extend to David killing Goliath? How about Joshua and the conquest of the Promised Land? sure you might say, oh God told him to do it. well how do you know God hasn't told other people to do other things? and who are you to determine what he has and hasn't told them?

so maybe you should just sit back and say, it is what it is and let God sort it out.

nowhere did i say this guy getting killed was a good thing. yes it comes at a really bad time. but you know what, God still allowed it to happen.


here's where you run into theological issues:
if it wasn't a part of God's plan, then it wouldn't have happened.
(if you say it happened outside of God's plan, then God is not omnipotent and omniscient)

if it was part of God's plan, then God allowed it to happen. (if you say God didn't allow it to happen, then you have the same issues as before)

if God allowed it to happen, then it happened for a reason. (if you say it didn't happen for a reason, then you have the same issues as before)

if God allowed it to happen, and it happened for a reason, then wouldn't you HAVE to admit that PERHAPS God allowed it to happen to this guy as a result of his violently murdering 60,000 unborn babies? (Be sure your sins will find you out; God is not mocked - what a man sows that will he also reap)

it certainly wasn't a coincidence that a guy that violently murdered 60,000 unborn babies was violently killed in a church. to believe in co-incidence is to believe that God isn't in control of the world. and to not believe that God is in control of the world... well, i'll let you take that up with him.

So here you're left with two options:

A. It was a coincidence in a world "God" isn't powerful enough to control

B. It was part of God's divine plan that he, knowing it would happen from the beginning of time, allowed to happen as part of the freewill of mankind to chose to sin or obey God, and used despite the act to bring about his kingdom come and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Take your pick.

[LUconn]

Calvinistsayswhat?

[GoUNCA]

Oh my. There are a lot of things to address

Malcom X = black nationalist (i.e. racist), muslim preacher (i.e. preacher of a religion of hate that advocates killing any and everyone that isn't a muslim)
that is the only info that needs to be taught about Malcom X.

Truly an ignorant statement that disregards many things not only about Islam as a faith but also the softening of Malcolm X's positions after he left the nation of Islam (a very radical sect). Also note that Malcolm has two "L"s.

Malcom X is an irrelevant footnote in history held on a pedestal by racists who consider themselves hyphenated americans because they don't love the country they live in enough to consider themselves americans first, foremost and only. as a gentleman from Palestine who is now an american citizen said this past saturday, "people are hyphenated americans only because the whole man has not come over. when the whole man has come over - body, heart and mind - the hyphen will drop of its own weight.".

I'm just going to use the south park "they took er jobs" to describe your thought. Clearly Malcolm X is more than a footnote in history because you are talking about him....so you kind of contradict yourself there.

as far as being wrong to justify murder... sure. but then you certainly have a huge theological problem with a whole host of biblical heros then don't you? let's see... Joshua, Gideon, Deborah, Ehud, David, Saul, Jonathon just to name a few... oh, and then there's the whole thing with elijah on mt carmel with the prophets of baal that the people chopped up afterwards. or does that all depend on what you consider murder? oh, and then there's the whole thing with God condemning his own son to death on the cross for crimes he didn't commit. it would seem to me then that you have a problem with a lot of people you heard stories about in sunday school. why don't you go take that up with God.

I already tried to help to explain one biblical hero (Ehud) in an above post. You clearly didn't read it. It is asinine to think that just because it happened in the bible that it was somehow condoned by God. This is especially the case with wars for reasons mentioned in my previous post.

sure you can say, oh he's God, he can do whatever he wants... but how far does that go? does that extend to David killing Goliath? How about Joshua and the conquest of the Promised Land? sure you might say, oh God told him to do it. well how do you know God hasn't told other people to do other things? and who are you to determine what he has and hasn't told them?

so maybe you should just sit back and say, it is what it is and let God sort it out.

nowhere did i say this guy getting killed was a good thing. yes it comes at a really bad time. but you know what, God still allowed it to happen.

here's where you run into theological issues:
if it wasn't a part of God's plan, then it wouldn't have happened.
(if you say it happened outside of God's plan, then God is not omnipotent and omniscient)

if it was part of God's plan, then God allowed it to happen. (if you say God didn't allow it to happen, then you have the same issues as before)

if God allowed it to happen, then it happened for a reason. (if you say it didn't happen for a reason, then you have the same issues as before)

if God allowed it to happen, and it happened for a reason, then wouldn't you HAVE to admit that PERHAPS God allowed it to happen to this guy as a result of his violently murdering 60,000 unborn babies? (Be sure your sins will find you out; God is not mocked - what a man sows that will he also reap)

it certainly wasn't a coincidence that a guy that violently murdered 60,000 unborn babies was violently killed in a church. to believe in co-incidence is to believe that God isn't in control of the world. and to not believe that God is in control of the world... well, i'll let you take that up with him.

So here you're left with two options:

A. It was a coincidence in a world "God" isn't powerful enough to control

B. It was part of God's divine plan that he, knowing it would happen from the beginning of time, allowed to happen as part of the freewill of mankind to chose to sin or obey God, and used despite the act to bring about his kingdom come and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Take your pick.

Firstly, of course God allowed it to happen, but you thinking that this leads to it happening for a reason can be proved wrong Biblically. When Jesus was asked about the Tower of Siloam (in Luke 13), he basically said that bad things happen to good people at random and that you should just have your own house in order in case it happens to you. Jesus didn't mention that God is less because of this, did he? Nope. So you coming up with only those two options is complete crap and faulty reasoning and really ignores a point Jesus addressed. Calvinistic thought always has to dance around the Siloam story.

[FlameNForest]

I hear it didn't take them long to find the shooter. He had a coat-hanger stuck in the side of his head and was pleading self-defense...

[matshark]

I hear it didn't take them long to find the shooter. He had a coat-hanger stuck in the side of his head and was pleading self-defense...

lol

[matshark]

Truly an ignorant statement that disregards many things not only about Islam as a faith but also the softening of Malcolm X's positions after he left the nation of Islam (a very radical sect). Also note that Malcolm has two "L"s.

re: islam. it has a 1700 year history of murdering/raping/conquering any and everything that isn't muslim.
this talks about many of the 109 "peaceful" passages in the koran
http://nowscape.com/islam/koran_sura.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... olence.htm

*noted* malco"l"m has 2 l's...
*still don't care about malcoLm*

I'm just going to use the south park "they took er jobs" to describe your thought. Clearly Malcolm X is more than a footnote in history because you are talking about him....so you kind of contradict yourself there.

No, he's only being talked about because Ed brought him up. (and was irrelevant upon being brought up i might add) I've already stated that he is of no importance.

I already tried to help to explain one biblical hero (Ehud) in an above post. You clearly didn't read it. It is asinine to think that just because it happened in the bible that it was somehow condoned by God. This is especially the case with wars for reasons mentioned in my previous post.

I clearly did read it. I also clearly rendered an opinion on it. Further, I never said all actions in the bible were condoned by God, merely that he knew they were going to happen and still allowed them to happen anyway and was using all things as part of his plan. Ever read Romans 8:28? And no, it has nothing to do with Calvinism. I'm certainly NOT a Calvinist.

Firstly, of course God allowed it to happen, but you thinking that this leads to it happening for a reason can be proved wrong Biblically.

Romans 8:28 says you're wrong.

When Jesus was asked about the Tower of Siloam (in Luke 13), he basically said that bad things happen to good people at random and that you should just have your own house in order in case it happens to you. Jesus didn't mention that God is less because of this, did he? Nope. So you coming up with only those two options is complete crap and faulty reasoning and really ignores a point Jesus addressed. Calvinistic thought always has to dance around the Siloam story.

Again, I'm pretty darn sure I've already stated the free will involved in man's actions. why? b/c God can't make people sin. (hello anti-calvinism)

let's not forget this little gem here though.

John 9: 2-3 "And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Which goes to illustrate my point about God working things out regardless of what man CHOOSES to do. (again, anti-calvinism)

lastly, why do you people keep thinking I said it was good that the doctor got shot. i said I didn't condone it. (like 4 times already, i just said it again... make it 5 times)

there's a difference between saying you don't feel bad for somebody and saying you're glad it happened to them. and apparently you can't tell the difference. i don't understand what the difficulty is with thinking, hmm... maybe God let this guy reap what he sowed (I mean its ONLY A BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE!)

[GoUNCA]

Truly an ignorant statement that disregards many things not only about Islam as a faith but also the softening of Malcolm X's positions after he left the nation of Islam (a very radical sect). Also note that Malcolm has two "L"s.

re: islam. it has a 1700 year history of murdering/raping/conquering any and everything that isn't muslim.
this talks about many of the 109 "peaceful" passages in the koran
http://nowscape.com/islam/koran_sura.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... olence.htm

*noted* malco"l"m has 2 l's...
*still don't care about malcoLm*

I'm just going to use the south park "they took er jobs" to describe your thought. Clearly Malcolm X is more than a footnote in history because you are talking about him....so you kind of contradict yourself there.

No, he's only being talked about because Ed brought him up. (and was irrelevant upon being brought up i might add) I've already stated that he is of no importance.

I already tried to help to explain one biblical hero (Ehud) in an above post. You clearly didn't read it. It is asinine to think that just because it happened in the bible that it was somehow condoned by God. This is especially the case with wars for reasons mentioned in my previous post.

I clearly did read it. I also clearly rendered an opinion on it. Further, I never said all actions in the bible were condoned by God, merely that he knew they were going to happen and still allowed them to happen anyway and was using all things as part of his plan. Ever read Romans 8:28? And no, it has nothing to do with Calvinism. I'm certainly NOT a Calvinist.

Firstly, of course God allowed it to happen, but you thinking that this leads to it happening for a reason can be proved wrong Biblically.

Romans 8:28 says you're wrong.

When Jesus was asked about the Tower of Siloam (in Luke 13), he basically said that bad things happen to good people at random and that you should just have your own house in order in case it happens to you. Jesus didn't mention that God is less because of this, did he? Nope. So you coming up with only those two options is complete crap and faulty reasoning and really ignores a point Jesus addressed. Calvinistic thought always has to dance around the Siloam story.

Again, I'm pretty darn sure I've already stated the free will involved in man's actions. why? b/c God can't make people sin. (hello anti-calvinism)

let's not forget this little gem here though.

John 9: 2-3 "And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Which goes to illustrate my point about God working things out regardless of what man CHOOSES to do. (again, anti-calvinism)

lastly, why do you people keep thinking I said it was good that the doctor got shot. i said I didn't condone it. (like 4 times already, i just said it again... make it 5 times)

there's a difference between saying you don't feel bad for somebody and saying you're glad it happened to them. and apparently you can't tell the difference. i don't understand what the difficulty is with thinking, hmm... maybe God let this guy reap what he sowed (I mean its ONLY A BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE!)

hahahhahahhahahahhahahahahahaha

I usually have to watch cable news for bad arguments and seemingly bipolar behavior.

You're playing cafeteria christian by picking and choosing verses and their interpretation. The Romans 8 section "More than Conquerors" says that even bad situations cannot keep us from God's love not that God allows things to happen or that they happen for a reason. It's not saying that anything that happens is for the better in the end in God's Plan. Verses 35-39 help to sum up this point, but of course you leave those out in order to hide behind a narrow interpretation of verse 28.

You also help to butcher the coolness of John 9. Now you can read that section and say, "God wanted this man to be blind to fulfill something in God's Plan." But if you read verses 4 and 5 you'll realize that Jesus is just using the fact that the man is blind to illustrate that he is the light in a world of darkness. The gospels love the dark/light interplay. Soooooo verse 2 isn't really meant to be taken literally lest you lose the real meaning of the passage. But yet again you left those verses out, sadly.

You really need to read more than individual verses. This is three times you have left out the larger meaning of stories in order to just use a single verse or a narrow band of verses that suit what your argument needs are at the time.

Are you just googling things you want to find in the bible and using whatever verse comes up? Awesome! That means Job 25:5-6 explains that the moon isn't the source of its own light and that man and worms have a common ancestor. All this way before Darwin. I love Biblical Darwinian precedent.

[4everfsu]

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/the-fi ... losed.html

God works in mysterious ways

[Ed Dantes]

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/the-fi ... losed.html

God works in mysterious ways

And yet, it won't stop one abortion from taking place.

(Darn it, I thought this topic was done after UNCA's epic pwnage of Matfarce.)

[4everfsu]

True, but I know one place where the murders will not take place

[kel varson]

I would assume there will be fewer 3rd trimester abortions as he was one of just a few performing the procedures.

[Ed Dantes]

I would assume there will be fewer 3rd trimester abortions as he was one of just a few performing the procedures.

And now there's a Nebraska doctor who says he'll go to Kansas to take up the void left by Tiller's murder.

Way to go, psychos. You wanted to end abortion, and in doing so, you're creating more.

[GoUNCA]

I would assume there will be fewer 3rd trimester abortions as he was one of just a few performing the procedures.

3rd trimester abortions are extremely delicate procedures which pose significant risk to the mother. Tiller was renown for his skill within a small field. The vast majority of late term abortions are due to massive neural defects. I mean there is still about a 1% chance of being infected with HCMV and the chance of Down Syndrome is still about 1 in 800 (and that is just two things), so the small patient pool for late term abortions isn't changing anytime soon (I'm not trying to turn this into a eugenics discussion, but it can argued that it might grow or shrink). A patient pool will always make doctors.