Sentences with phrase «who kills another human being»

Not exact matches

«Horrific mass killings receive the most media attention, but as can be seen by the numbers, they only represent a small portion of the total costs - human and medical - of gun injuries in the United States,» said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, who was not involved with the study.

Its a WAKE UP CALL to all the human beings of the world but Muslims, these r the people who r responisible for killing of innocents all over the world, Americans have to understand that ISLAM does not have the concept of co-existenc this is the words of Jinnah, if they are not stopped then the days are not far behind when US and European countries will have Kashmirs where Muslims out numbered the Natives and now dominate the place.

William just thinks that we should just kill everyone who doesn't agree with him and then the world will be perfect, because he is the greatest human being alive.

The Holocaust was not all about the Jews, it was about Nazi Germany's attempt to kill off ALL who did not comply with their standards of a human being.

I believe that human actors who fail to give pride of place to moral boundaries that must never be crossed, such as the direct killing of the innocent, and who instead are ready to see their obligations in terms of moving beyond them in favor of «good results,» will be harder put «to take seriously the role that divine authority plays in morality»; for they will to that extent lose a sense of the moral limits that remind us of our finitude and anticipate consideration of a law of our being that is not one of our making.

If we actuall had a Congress who cared about the People they swore to serve and did not take vacations 1 week for every 2 they work (new Boehner rule when he became Speaker), actually did work and created bills that were other than ending abortion rights or killing Medicare, stopped opposing ending the fraud Bush wars that raise our debt by more than a trillion a month (and Republicans then blame Obama for the rising debt from their wars), and acted like humans we would already be well into recovery.

From the colonial period through the twenty - first century, federal, state, and territorial governments have an unbroken tradition of protecting conscientious objectors who can not abide the government's mandate to kill, cut, or medicate another human being.

Those are not human beings who are brothers, fathers, or sons that we are killing in our wars; no, they are «Krauts,» «Japs,» «Chinks,» «V.C.,» communists or mercenaries.

So the politician who votes in favour of abortion really does formally co-operate in a very serious ethical offence: the killing of innocent human beings who are part of our human family.

Hundreds of pro-life protesters listened to the leading Catholic and pro-life peer who condemned the «willful killing of the smallest and most helpless member of the human family in the very place she should be safest - her mother's womb».

to show this, i would like to have any human who believes that hitler was doing «gods work» to come over and let me give them a acid shower, or just not feed them, or maybe kill all the people they know in front of them and them not feed them.

Anyone who worships a god that would send natural disasters to kill people is a worthless human being.

No individuals who live in civil societies require weapons designed to hunt and kill other human beings... even if the target is a Christian evangelical (but then again).

After all, in the Holocaust they were killing actual human beings, people who were undeniably, not just potentially or marginally, real people with real rights.

He had to mislead some followers of the Vedas who were killing animals on the plea of some Vedic sacrifices which allow animal sacrifice to give the animal a human birth in it's next life.

I was making a not so veiled putdown of the average xtian believer who wears his WWJD lapel pin while cleaning his stash of high powered guns hoping to one day use them to kill other human beings.

Unfortunately, as a former Christian, well acquainted with sin and confession and the whole bloody business of sacrifice to appease Someone who thinks that shows «love,» I question the whole ancient story, all the animals killed, all the trees cut down (for temples and churches and crosses and «holy books») and all the human beings left to feel separated again and again from the universe, Nature, each other and their «gods.»

i wonder whih god will be more pleased with its slave — the one who murdered a man for his beliefs or the one who allowed his follower to die for his faith either way — god is a man made belief system that is only a few thousand years old — and in that time, no one single thing has killed more humans, than a man claiming to know the will of some kind of god Faith is good thing, faith in one's self.

Those who claim that it is morally wrong for human beings to eat meat because it involves killing an animal must logically claim that predation itself — in all contexts — is evil.

Many who favor the abortion right understand that humans are being killed.

It is not good enough merely to refrain from killing your enemy; you must love him too: «Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly» (Lk 6, 27 - 28) Jesus» words seem a divine madness and entirely contrary to human nature.

The author Naomi Wolf, who favors the right to abort, has challenged the feminists whose rhetoric seeks to disguise the truth that a human being is killed by abortion.

They know that abortion is the killing of an innocent, unborn human being, a child who is recognisably such.

People do not need the God of Abraham to live a moral life, no more than the millions of religious zealots who use their interpretation of religious dogma to dominate, subjugate and kill other human beings.

In fact, they must be killed when the interests of those who are more fully human require it.

People should realize that this is the Voice of those who have a voice because they have their dollars and they have the power to kill, with a button, the whole human race and under their own roof the power to kill, day by day, with counterinformation their own sickly conscience.23

Until we figure out that the only real truth out there is that we are all equally human and treat each other as we would want to be treated as a fellow human being, we will continue to stupidly hate and kill over myths and stories and eventually utterly destroy ourselves over who has the better imaginary friend.

If what you interpret Paul as saying is that before creating all the myriad galaxies and star systems God decided that They would put some humans on the third planet from an insignificant star on a little arm of a middling galaxy and that the first hominids chosen role would be to perform pretty much to spec and do something silly and rebellious (arguably without sufficient information as to consequences for themselves and their off spring, oh, and for serpents) and cause affront to the tripartite godhead warranting separation of Gods grace from all their offspring; then we are left with people being chosen from way back before the Big Bang to do some terrible things like killing babies or betraying Jesus who was chosen on the same non date (time didn't exist before creation) to die in a fairly nasty fashion and thereby appease the righteous wrath of himself and his fellow Trinitarians by paying a penalty as a substitute for all future sins (of believers?)

And we've got a filicidal personality who purposely chooses to kill his / her own child, ostensibly as the propitiation for what human beings (whom God created in the first place, mind you) do as a result of being human.

With all of God having been said to order the murder of nations, who drowned an Egyptian army and sent an angel of death to kill children, and so on, it's easy to say that most every religion's gods encourage «action» based on their deities being all too human.

Say: «Come, let me convey unto you what G - D has [really] forbidden to you: «Do not ascribe divinity, in any way, to anything (or anyone) beside HIM; and [do not offend against but, rather,] do good unto your parents; and do not kill your children (born or unborn) for fear of poverty --[for] it is WE who shall provide sustenance for you as well as for them; and do not commit any shameful deeds, be they open or secret; and do not take any human being's life -[the life] which G - D has declared to be sacred - otherwise than in [the pursuit of] justice: this has HE enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason; and do not touch the substance of an orphan — except to improve it - before he comes of age.»

Why is it acceptable to bring up choice when it comes to killing an extremely immature human life, or who straight people go home with from the bar, but not with gays?

It rather represents the rule of the law over the human being as long as he or she doesn't believe in the Redeemer Jesus, the kind bridegroom, who kills the bridegroom «law».

Instead, the film would be about a clown who comes riding into town on a donkey; he's with a rather motley circus; he experiences the human failings of the circus people; he encounters Magnus, who wants to dominate and control; he substitutes himself for a poor human - puppet and is killed by Magnus.

Jeremy good message and quite relevant for today God is still looking at our hearts and motives for serving him or are we serving our own agenda as Jonah was.He did nt feel compassionate towards his enemies and who could blame him they had cruelly killed many Jews it was a question of life or death to his own people.The Jewish nation was no more deserving of Gods grace than the other nations that is revealed by sending Jonah to preach a message of hope and life.Ultimately God calls all by faith in him and is willing to be merciful to all nations and peoples that do not not deserve it just like us it is by grace that we all are forgiven.I am pleased that God is sovereign and knows whats best he is merciful to us.Our human nature is that it is better to kill our enemies before they can kill us and that is essentially Jonahs message that is why he struggled to be obedient to Gods will.Gods message is to forgive those that trespass against us and show mercy.Its complicated and it is natural to protect ourselves and our families from those who would seek to destroy them but ultimately its about trusting God with everything easier said than done.If it comes to a choice we will have to trust God and ask for his strength because we cant do it in ours.As Christ laid down his life for us are we ready to lay our lives and the lives of our families as a sacrifice for him.To me that is where the story of Jonah is leading to we have the choice to fight our enemies or to love them as God loves them.brentnz

Its astonishing to me that people who purport to follow Jesus would twist his intent and advocate for weapons that are designed to kill humans, rapidly.

By declaring that it was unnecessary to decide when human life begins, and by refusing to inquire into what or, more precisely, who is being killed when the woman exercises her «right to choose,» the Court made it possible to pretend that abortion was in effect a victimless crime.

But, how can people who supposedly worship a god of love applaud the killing of human beings?

When morality is based on religious text, its OK to: • behead one's daughter to restore a family's «honor» • deny emergency medical aid to a child • kill gays, children who misbehave, anyone who works on a particular day of the week, entire groups and races of peoples, and many others for equally capricious reasons • buy and sell humans as chattel, including one's own family members • kill anyone who visually depicts Muhammad

Right... But then later, the «repopulated» humans killed the «repopulated» dinosaurs (without holding onto a single souvenir, a tooth, a claw, a nice triceratops rack mount...), but then these dinosaurs too somehow ended up fossilized far beneath the earlier humans who had already been drowned and buried in the flood.

Destroyed means gone forever, so by killing all human death and reviving the spiritual life that isn't destroying nothing but the lost souls who don't have any faith so those in faith will continue on not destroyed but alive.....

Rabbi Allen who fought for the conviction on the innocent Rubashkin is now trying to make his own Ethical Heksher through killing any human that stands in his way.

Canada's pending legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide raises a question: What shall we call people who are legally involved in the destruction of human life — particularly those who do the actual killing?

Just so for pro-lifers, who find dignity in every human individual: To say that killing such a prized being doesn't count if he or she is still developing in the womb strikes them as outrageously absurd.

And who ever out of those fights for his land and freedom is called terrorist and killed like a dog or thrown out of land if not in mass jails for future exchange against Israeli soldiers... what a life what a freedom, what a human rights, what united nations what all the camouflage we are surrounded with in this unreal world.

And yet there are vast numbers of Christians who believe that God commands people to slaughter others, that God drowned people in a flood, and that God is the one who killed His own Son on the cross to appease His own wrath and anger against human sin.

It involves the planned, deliberate killing of someone in custody who is not a present threat to human life or safety.

First, since human society always employs violence to enforce some set of standards, Christians» whom Christ called to live out a radically different form of community, one in which it is the crucified rather than his judges who is vindicated as God's Word» should simply take up the burden of civic order and abandon the Gospel where prudentially necessary because, you know, someone absolutely has to kill heretics, and so we should make sure the right heretics get killed.

Alaso, ArthurP seems to be engaging in a form of personal «transference» by ascribing his own feelings and then «transferring» them to other people who he doesn't know, and then making assumptions about the way things «should be» without asking them, or, in fact, assuming that they were somehow better off killed and then goes on to say things that to a human who is basically coherent, can appear fatalistic and perhaps even suicidal.

Who will be killed today at the hands of a human saying that they know God's thoughts and they are going to be God and take life?