Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seem to remember God destroying quite a few people in the bible. It's very christian to disagree with aspects of evil as you see them. Liberals tend to forgive everyone and align themselves with people I would describe as horrible, vile people because they themselves are criminals, liars, and deviants. It's also for this reason they tend to reject religion on principle.
Super ignorant post.
Many "liberals" are religious, against abortion, own guns etc.
The difference is that libs are concerned with social justice and cons are filled with the hate that Satan loves so much he deceives the cons into seeing their all embracing, xenophobic,racist hate as "righteous indignation".
If you had ever bothered to turn off Rush Limbaugh and read a little theology, you would know that you will receive the same mercy you show others.
God bless you .
This comment by Fleet is in regards to the death penalty; I myself am a left-wing liberal who has very mixed feelings about the death penalty. I don't agree that the government is never justified in putting someone to death so, in principle, I don't have a problem with the death penalty in the abstract. However, I do have a huge problem with the way the death penalty is implemented here in the US and if given the choice between maintaining the death penalty as is and banning the death penalty completely I'd support the ban. Now, if the death penalty were reformed I would be more apt to support it. The problem is that it is not applied uniformly; in some states it's relatively easy to get put to death, in others you can't be put to death at all. Furthermore, it's pretty much been proven that the death penalty is much more likely to be used against minorities and the poor; this is egregiously unjust (so your notion that the death penalty is justice is definitely problematic, at least in light of the way the death penalty is handled here). Furthermore, the death penalty is often used when the evidence against the person to be executed is less than conclusive; this should not be the case.
Finally, I think the death penalty should only be used for 'extreme' crimes; it's use should be more restricted than it currently is. In my opinion, the death penalty is only just when used against those who have either committed crimes against humanity (genocide; I believe that it was just to execute Saddam Hussein, I think it would be just to execute Mugabe and Kim Jong-il) or for those who commit pre-meditated murder without any sense of guilt (mostly serial killers or those who murder and torture). In no other case would I support the death penalty.
My biggest problem with your position is that you equate the death penalty to justice without any justification or reservation; you don't mention the problems that I mentioned above and don't offer a reason why you consider it justice. I see it as just because I believe that in committing crimes against humanity you forfeit your own humanity. However, I'm an atheist; it seems to me that the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seems to indicate that taking a Christian approach to the death penalty necessitates taking an anti-death penalty position. The way you put it also seems so absolute, as if you really honestly believe that you have been so honored as to be endowed with a perfect understanding of what justice entails and that anyone who disagrees just can't see the light, can't see the truth you've been blessed with. I, for one, am not so sure of the legitimacy of my position, I know I believe it but I have doubts regarding my ability to fully perceive the nature of justice. Such doubt allows my thoughts to evolve over the time; absolute faith in your opinion precludes such a possibility and I find that rather... well, arrogant and perhaps even dangerous.
As a gay man I clearly take offense to this. I really believe that Christians who take this position are rather hypocritical and have failed to critically think over the issue with an objective mind. For one, the famed passage that seemingly refers to homosexual acts as a sin is in the same book of the Bible (Leviticus) that says eating shell-fish is an abomination against God, that says that lying in the same bed as a woman who is menstruating is an abomination, that says wearing polyblended clothing is a terrible sin. Now, it is extremely hypocritical to pick and choose which passages one will follow; if you are going to call homosexuality a sin based on the Bible then you damn well better feel just as strongly about those who eat oysters, those who wear clothing made out of a mixture of wool and cotton, about being in the same be as your wife when it's that special time of the month. I have yet to hear a Christian give a satisfactory response to this problem; they'd rather pick and choose which verses to follow based on their own deeply held cultural prejudices. They fail to recognize that evangelical fundamentalist Christianity today doesn't even remotely resemble Christianity circa the centuries immediately following the life and death of Jesus Christ. They fail to recognize that their views don't always reflect what the Bible actually says and that much of the far-right views they espouse come from the Old, rather than the somewhat more 'liberal' New, Testament (assuming, of course, that terms like conservative and liberal aren't too anachronistic for this discussion).
Additionally, I've yet to hear a good reason given by a Christian for why homosexuality is bad and immoral other than because the Bible says so. My problem is that relying on a book for moral advice shows a lack of critical thought or real morality. If you don't do something for no other reason than because a book told you are you really moral? If you act 'morally' only out of fear of eternal damnation, are you really moral or are you just scared and self-interested? Why is homosexuality bad? What are the criteria by which something becomes immoral? Simply saying that its because God says so isn't a good response, shouldn't morality be based on some sort of reasoning?
What would you do in their situation? You speak of justice but is it just that so many people in this world suffer terribly simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong country? You know, 1 billion people live on less than a dollar a day and another billion live on less than 2 dollars a day. Approximately 900 million people, most of whom are women and children, are chronically malnourished. It's no wonder that these people are willing to go to extremes to secure better lives for themselves and their families. If you want to talk about justice then where is the concern for these individuals; isn't it unjust to prohibit these people from having an easier time coming to places like the US to improve their lives? Also, I'm guessing you find many of our laws 'unjust' due to them being in contradiction to your own religious beliefs so you probably don't mind people breaking some of those laws. I may be wrong, but if that's the case then again you are picking and choosing which laws you want to follow. If this is the case then you are either being hypocritical or your problem really isn't that they are breaking the law, it must be something else.
Ahhh a voice of reason....but reason and thinking is not well respected on this topic.
Why don't YOU stop deflecting by telling everyone else that they are deflecting or trying to discredit you?
Why don't you answer posts that are replying to your rants and tell all what you think you know after having spent so many years schoolin' up on Christianity?
Well, for one thing, the 10 commandments says, "Thou shall not murder." It does not say, "Thou shall not execute murderers."
I admit I am no Christian but I had always heard it as being 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' rather than 'Thou Shalt Not Murder.' An almost trivial distinction, really, and likely not entirely true to the original script and language. You, of course, are wading into a tricky problem here; one man's execution is another man's murder. It's not clear that these are mutually exclusive, in fact one could make a convincing argument that all executions are also murders. Virtually synonymous.
Of course, as I said, the original language probably doesn't translate perfectly into English, but I wouldn't be surprised if your handy little justification, the distinctions you make in English, are even possible in the Bible's original language. You're not very convincing.
The only thing I don't like about the death penalty is that it should be used more.
No offense intended. According to my religion and beliefs, homosexuality is a sin and I have every right to think so.
I would try to immigrate to the U.S. legally.
The U.S. already accepts more (legal) immigrants than any other country. We can't help the entire world! If you are so concerned about those in other countries, leave your address and I'll send 10 or 20 to your house.
One sentence responses? How about, oh... I don't know, actually responding to my arguments? I spend time writing about the death penalty and how it could be seen as unjust due to the way it's implemented, yet you don't seem to have anything to say about the justness of its application. Strange for someone who is so willing to appeal to justice to legitimize his more controversial views.
More interesting to me, though, is your complete disregard to my comments on homosexuality. Fine, you think its a sin, I get that. Now tell me how, precisely, you justify being against homosexuality because the Bible tells you so without being against the other sins listed in the VERY SAME BOOK OF THE BIBLE that says homosexuality is a sin! Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus also says that eating oysters and clams is an abomination, a sin! Leviticus says wearing clothing made out of more than one type of fabric is sin. Leviticus says lying in the same bed as a woman who is on her period is a sin. You can't just pick and choose; you either believe everything called sinful in the Leviticus is, in fact sinful, or you don't. It would be unbelievably hypocritical to say you think homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so without also saying that people who happen to wear shirts made out of both wool and cotton are equally sinful. Can you explain your justification for this?
Well, for one thing, the 10 commandments says, "Thou shall not murder." It does not say, "Thou shall not execute murderers."
That is so. Thank you for pointing that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
More interesting to me, though, is your complete disregard to my comments on homosexuality. Fine, you think its a sin, I get that. Now tell me how, precisely, you justify being against homosexuality because the Bible tells you so without being against the other sins listed in the VERY SAME BOOK OF THE BIBLE that says homosexuality is a sin! Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus also says that eating oysters and clams is an abomination, a sin! Leviticus says wearing clothing made out of more than one type of fabric is sin. Leviticus says lying in the same bed as a woman who is on her period is a sin. You can't just pick and choose; you either believe everything called sinful in the Leviticus is, in fact sinful, or you don't. It would be unbelievably hypocritical to say you think homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so without also saying that people who happen to wear shirts made out of both wool and cotton are equally sinful. Can you explain your justification for this?
You are on a slippery slope. According to your theory then, pedophilia is also permissible, as is marrying a very underage girl, and having multiple wives and add to that anything else you would like to add.
BTW, your posts seem to indicate that you don't quite grasp the difference between the law and the age of grace. Grace does not mean you can do everything you decide pleases you. There are still rules and guidelines, and sin is still sin that has to be dealt with. The advent of the age of Grace did not dissolve the law. Christ fulfilled the law by keeping it perfectly because man could not. That does not mean we should go on sinning. Read Paul's letters about this. He knew the law through and through, and did not have your interpretation of it, that's for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
