Agree. Until the final theocracy is put into place.Well, we have an entire world history that pretty much shows unequivocally that Theocracies are a disaster... not to mention current events.
Agree. Until the final theocracy is put into place.Well, we have an entire world history that pretty much shows unequivocally that Theocracies are a disaster... not to mention current events.
I think you mean Bernard Shaw. Damn liberal media setting up Dukakis like that.Jessie Jackson was huge in that race, too. That is also the campaign that featured Lloyd Bentson destroying Dan Quayle with the most epic putdown of all time. Dukakis had a huge lead until the Bush team broke out Willie Horton and Bernie Sanders asked the most inappropriate question in modern debate history. Helluva campaign and I enjoyed it from start to finish.
He is saying to use the bible to make laws. Women have to keep their heads covered, making homosexuality illegal, etc. You know the book better than me. Use your imagination.Absolutely would not want to force religion on anyone. What Christian law would be bad?
Let's start with the 10 commandments. Which one is a bad thing? NT .....treat others as you'd want to be treated? Love your enemies? The Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong. Let's say homosexuality is a condition. You can be homosexual and abstain from sex...All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is male+female.He is saying to use the bible to make laws. Women have to keep their heads covered, making homosexuality illegal, etc. You know the book better than me. Use your imagination.
Let's start with the first one. You shall have no other gods before me. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, but a lot of folks in this country don't even believe in a god. And a large number of other folks worship different gods and goddesses and all sorts of shit. Are we going to throw them in jail? Stone them? So we are off to bad start from the jump. Let's take a look at thou shall not commit adultery. What are we going to do? Punish people who cheat on their spouses? And then how do we define adultery? Is it considered adultery if you remarry? I think I'm going to stop there and say using the Ten Commandments to rule the land is probably not the best idea.Let's start with the 10 commandments. Which one is a bad thing? NT .....treat others as you'd want to be treated? Love your enemies? The Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong. Let's say homosexuality is a condition. You can be homosexual and abstain from sex...All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is male+female.
I'm not asking what you or anyone else wouldn't like. I'm asking which Christian law would be bad.
In some ways this is true. Take the issue of immigration. What a liberal may pursue from a sense of guilt or other motivation (future voter support) a religious conservative may also pursue on moral basis.
So do I really need to quote the Old Testament, or bring up the fact that Christianity has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths?Absolutely would not want to force religion on anyone. What Christian law would be bad?
So if people had no other gods and worshipped God...would that be bad? If people didn't commit adultery...would that be bad? Obviously, it won't happen, but if Christian law was the law of the land, how would that hurt society? How would it be detrimental? Loss of freedom to do things that hurt society? Would that be a bad thing? Why do people think the tenets of the Christian faith are bad? They are absolutely good for any society. Many of the people I know that don't like them, don't simply because they want to do what they want to do...wrong or right.Let's start with the first one. You shall have no other gods before me. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, but a lot of folks in this country don't even believe in a god. And a large number of other folks worship different gods and goddesses and all sorts of shit. Are we going to throw them in jail? Stone them? So we are off to bad start from the jump. Let's take a look at thou shall not commit adultery. What are we going to do? Punish people who cheat on their spouses? And then how do we define adultery? Is it considered adultery if you remarry? I think I'm going to stop there and say using the Ten Commandments to rule the land is probably not the best idea.
So do I really need to quote the Old Testament, or bring up the fact that Christianity has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths?
Don't be obtuse. Also making Christian law the law of the land is silly for multiple reasons. I'm glad you want the government regulating how we should think. I don't.
Let's start with the 10 commandments. Which one is a bad thing? NT .....treat others as you'd want to be treated? Love your enemies? The Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong. Let's say homosexuality is a condition. You can be homosexual and abstain from sex...All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is male+female.
I'm not asking what you or anyone else wouldn't like. I'm asking which Christian law would be bad.
Who's interpretation of Christian law do we follow? The Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist?...Maybe Church of Christ? While the 10 Commandments might be the same, the thought behind them, what adheres to them is different.Let's start with the 10 commandments. Which one is a bad thing? NT .....treat others as you'd want to be treated? Love your enemies? The Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong. Let's say homosexuality is a condition. You can be homosexual and abstain from sex...All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is male+female.
I'm not asking what you or anyone else wouldn't like. I'm asking which Christian law would be bad.
Gawker uncovered emails from HRC assistant Reines giving instructions to The Atlantic on how to frame coverage of a meeting, which were followed to a T. Color me as shocked as the time I heard that liberals like the liberal late night host that skewers republicans.
1) You in your own voice describe [the speech] as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from [Richard] Holbrooke to [George] Mitchell to [Dennis] Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
It would be bad if you were Buddhist, Hindu or atheist...So if people had no other gods and worshipped God...would that be bad? If people didn't commit adultery...would that be bad? Obviously, it won't happen, but if Christian law was the law of the land, how would that hurt society? How would it be detrimental? Loss of freedom to do things that hurt society? Would that be a bad thing? Why do people think the tenets of the Christian faith are bad? They are absolutely good for any society. Many of the people I know that don't like them, don't simply because they want to do what they want to do...wrong or right.
It's scary you exist. Not a single fact supports your claim. Not one. There is literally infinite evidence against you. Yet you argue against the evidence. And no, it's not faith, it's insanity.Christianity is practiced by flawed people; just as any other religion. Christianity responsible for millions and millions of deaths? When and where? So atheists, non-believers, muslims, etc.... are not responsible for deaths? Don't confuse people who call themselves Christians and their actions with the practice of Christianity. With that said, I'd have to think hard to find even one death done within the practice of Christianity as taught by Christ (except maybe His own).
It's not that these tenets are bad from an ideological standpoint, rather it's bad for the sheer fact that you can't reasonably legislate morality and expect society to simply accept it and go about their merry way. Free will is funny that way. My question is this, if Christian conservatives want "One nation, under God," so bad, why are they asking the government to do the job for them? Especially considering that in every other facet of politics they cry for less intrusion, allowing society to be free to prosper without the chains of over regulation? To me, it's that many of them are scared to go out and actually do the Lord's work. It's way more convenient to elect representatives to waste your tax dollars policing everyone's actions. Talk about having to walk on egg shells! Point of this diatribe- if you want people to change, do what the bible tells you to do and "make disciples of the world." You may find that changing human nature is far more challenging than you previously assumed.So if people had no other gods and worshipped God...would that be bad? If people didn't commit adultery...would that be bad? Obviously, it won't happen, but if Christian law was the law of the land, how would that hurt society? How would it be detrimental? Loss of freedom to do things that hurt society? Would that be a bad thing? Why do people think the tenets of the Christian faith are bad? They are absolutely good for any society. Many of the people I know that don't like them, don't simply because they want to do what they want to do...wrong or right.
With that said, I'd have to think hard to find even one death done within the practice of Christianity as taught by Christ (except maybe His own).
It's not that these tenets are bad from an ideological standpoint, rather it's bad for the sheer fact that you can't reasonably legislate morality and expect society to simply accept it and go about their merry way. Free will is funny that way. My question is this, if Christian conservatives want "One nation, under God," so bad, why are they asking the government to do the job for them? Especially considering that in every other facet of politics they cry for less intrusion, allowing society to be free to prosper without the chains of over regulation? To me, it's that many of them are scared to go out and actually do the Lord's work. It's way more convenient to elect representatives to waste your tax dollars policing everyone's actions. Talk about having to walk on egg shells! Point of this diatribe- if you want people to change, do what the bible tells you to do and "make disciples of the world." You may find that changing human nature is far more challenging than you previously assumed.
So Trump calling Mexicans rapists, and vowing to ban all Muslims after the Paris attacks isn't a calculated play on Americans fear......right.
Today is Lincoln's birthday. Elected with just 40% of the vote, I don't know how he held the country together during that time, crazy wife and all. His 2nd inaugural is a great, great speech.
Carry on.
Fair enough; however, given the conditions needed to create the kind of society that could exist within the scope of your question I'll ask this- would society, at that point, need to establish legislation based upon the tenets of Christianity? In that case , wouldn't the bible be sufficient? By the way, I'm posing this in a philosophical sense. I think to answer your question, no it wouldn't be bad to live by Christian if everyone believed in the same interpretation of Christianity. Reality is that there are too many divergent viewpoints for Christian laws to be good for society as it presently exists. (Back to actual politics) Politicians who campaign on social issues are just pandering to largely uninformed masses. The first Christian candidate who comes out of the gate and says "go and make disciples, don't expect the government to do it for you" would gain serious consideration for my vote (not that it's worth much). I think that sort of candidate would be a breath of fresh air.I'm not advocating a theocracy, though if it was a theocracy under the rule of Christ, it would be and ultimately will be good. I'm just asking what Christian laws, if they were observed by society, would be bad for society. Who am I to question free will? God created us with free will.
Forcing people to do things against their will is NOT Christian. Jesus never advocated taking that approach. I'm simply asking how would society be worse off if there was no theft, killing, lying, adultery and society as a whole practiced the teachings of Jesus. How would society be worse if people treated others as they would want to be treated?
it can be a fine line on hypocrisy.
I never said Trump was racist, and I never mentioned Islam. You can split hairs all you want. Trump knows what he is doing, and he is doing it well. The south will be fertile ground for him.That's not what your initial claim was. You said Trump was being racist by using racial fear mongering. Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Also, being Mexican is not a race any more than being a US citizen is a race. It's a nationality, and Trump was specific in his usage of examples as pertaining to sexual assaults conducted on women who were being smuggled across the border.
In the examples you're using, Trump is using xenophobia to gain support, because he's waging warfare on nationalities and religions, which if you're inclined to do so, will give you more than enough to label Trump a bigot. But Wallace actually made claims against the color of people's skin. The examples you're using in reference to Trump - like I first said - not so much.
I never said Trump was racist, and I never mentioned Islam. You can split hairs all you want. Trump knows what he is doing, and he is doing it well. The south will be fertile ground for him.
You were wrong by putting words in my mouth when you wrote that I said "Trump was being racist". And I never mentioned Islam at any point. I'm really not sure why you are doubling down on that inaccurate claimI agree that he knows what he is doing, but you said he was running a campaign on "racial fear mongering", thereby implying that he was using racist tactics.
Also, you mentioned Islam twice when you mentioned Trump's attack on proponents of Islam - real Muslim people.
I take it your understanding of history only goes back 6 thousand years and involved Jesus riding around on dinosaurs... sorry folks but I can't let this kind of ignorance stand:Christianity responsible for millions and millions of deaths? When and where?
You could say that. In many cases that labeling might be opportunity - the result of individuals who do not understand fully their own ideology, nor precisely that of political leadership. And I've read enough of your posts to know that you understand perfectly too well that "fine line" door swings both ways (sides of the aisle). I think you understand this tons better than I do.
Using the example of immigration I offered, I could resist your "far right" component, as that particular style of religious conservative would more often be a centrist, a moderate perhaps. This particular example is precisely why John Kasich is not my preferred candidate. It applies to him. He is certainly not "far to the right."
Never forget historical leaps of the extreme left. Where socialism's tender embrace to the working class turn nationalist, and goals are achieved through the appeasement of every industrial whim and want, militaristically, by going all-in where the far right had put a lot of chips, but never all of them. The seats in congress are arranged in a semi-circle, but the visions of a dangerous few who sit at the extreme opposites are often connected through only symbolic incompleteness.
Appreciate your response. The differences in viewpoints would be difficult to overcome. Religion has done a good job bringing confusion and division to the faith. The Bible would be sufficient, but again, people (me included) don't always know how to read it; the context of it; what the original writings meant to the average guy on the street at that time. Divergent interpretations would be a problem. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement re: discipleship. You don't change matters of the heart with legislation. Trying to make people subscribe to a belief actually pushes them away.Fair enough; however, given the conditions needed to create the kind of society that could exist within the scope of your question I'll ask this- would society, at that point, need to establish legislation based upon the tenets of Christianity? In that case , wouldn't the bible be sufficient? By the way, I'm posing this in a philosophical sense. I think to answer your question, no it wouldn't be bad to live by Christian if everyone believed in the same interpretation of Christianity. Reality is that there are too many divergent viewpoints for Christian laws to be good for society as it presently exists. (Back to actual politics) Politicians who campaign on social issues are just pandering to largely uninformed masses. The first Christian candidate who comes out of the gate and says "go and make disciples, don't expect the government to do it for you" would gain serious consideration for my vote (not that it's worth much). I think that sort of candidate would be a breath of fresh air.
Only when you use it in the context of your understanding and not its true meaning. But of course do go on. BTW, I agree in the separation of church and state. If you want to serve GOD, by all means do so. If not, it is your/our/anybody's choice.Let's start with the first one. You shall have no other gods before me. Not sure if you are aware of this or not, but a lot of folks in this country don't even believe in a god. And a large number of other folks worship different gods and goddesses and all sorts of shit. Are we going to throw them in jail? Stone them? So we are off to bad start from the jump. Let's take a look at thou shall not commit adultery. What are we going to do? Punish people who cheat on their spouses? And then how do we define adultery? Is it considered adultery if you remarry? I think I'm going to stop there and say using the Ten Commandments to rule the land is probably not the best idea.
Ah yes. It's true meaning.Only when you use it in the context of your understanding and not its true meaning. But of course do go on.
I seriously wonder what it feels like to be wrong on everything like you must feel.That's not what your initial claim was. You said Trump was being racist by using racial fear mongering. Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Also, being Mexican is not a race any more than being a US citizen is a race. It's a nationality, and Trump was specific in his usage of examples as pertaining to sexual assaults conducted on women who were being smuggled across the border.
In the examples you're using, Trump is using xenophobia to gain support, because he's waging warfare on nationalities and religions, which if you're inclined to do so, will give you more than enough to label Trump a bigot. But Wallace actually made claims against the color of people's skin. The examples you're using in reference to Trump - like I first said - not so much.