What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[logical4u]

Do not "murder". That is the whole thing about abortion. The rest, maybe you are not seeing enough into it.appreciate

Abortion is not murder, it is the termination of a pregnancy. There is no prohibition against abortion in the Bible, and if you believe God created woman, He created women who miscarry. If God is so opposed to abortion, why do 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a sponteneous miscarriage?

A woman is either "with child" or "not with child". There is no in between. A miscarriage is not usually a willful termination of a pregnancy. An abortion is the deliberate "termination" (murder) of a pregnancy.

Active homosexuals do bear false witness (according to convenience). Any time they want to walk among straight people, they "pretend" to be straight, for employment, to get things, etc. If they are trying to "seduce" a future partner or want to swing a person to their way of thinking, they use deception (false witness).

Bearing false witness is lying about others. Lying about yourself is simply lying. There are no jobs applications I know of which ask whether you are gay or straight. Pretending to be straight isn't bearing false witness. Telling someone that your friend is straight when he's gay, is bearing false witness. If being gay could get me killed, I'd say I'm straight too. Until stupid people stop attacking and sometimes killing those who are gay just because they're gay, I'll give gay people a pass on saying they're straight.

Bearing witness that you are one way, when you are really another way is "false witness". So yes, "pretending" to be straight is false witness. Being gay will not get you killed in the USA. Acting on homosexual tendencies with someone that is not homosexual, might get you killed, anywhere. If someone is murdered because "they are gay", it is murder and a punishable offense. It IS against the law (human and the LORD's)

God makes gay people and straight people. They have been gay people in every society since the dawn of time. Some societies honour their gays and treat them well. There are differences in the brains of gays and straights, and there is some indication that being gay is genetic. And yet God doesn't make mistakes. So one has to conclude that God makes people gay on purpose. Who am I to question or reject a person whom God has made?

The LORD makes people prone to SIN (all people). Each person has their own temptations. Homosexuals are tempted by sexual perversion. Addicts, are tempted by drugs or alcohol (and we encourage them to resist those sinful ways). Kleptomaniacs are tempted to "covet" (and we encourage them to resist that sinful behavior). There are people that are tempted to do violence, even murder (we teach them that they can control those urges, and overcome them). I do not have to "question or reject a person" to know their "actions" are sinful. I am called to point that sin out to them (if I don't, I am held accountable for their sins, as well as mine on judgment day).

Jesus said nothing about sex. He was absolutely silent on the subject. You'd think if sexual behaviour was all that important in the eyes of God, Jesus would have had SOMETHING to say about it. Instead, Jesus talked about loving one another as I have loved you. Doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we treat one another with love and respect, the rest falls into line.

What did the Savior say to the adulterous woman? Was HE "absolutely silent on the subject"? HE did say something about it. And yes HE did say that promiscuous, lewd, and perverse behavior was right up there with the other sins. How is encouraging sinful behavior treating another with "love"? You are setting them up to be punished by the LORD for that same sinful behavior. Where is the "love" in that?

Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments. Adultery is defined as voluntary sexual relations where one or more of the partners is married but not to the other partner. The act of adultery is the ONLY sex act which is prohibited in the Bible.

Apparently, you didn't read the Bible for content. Bestiality is a no no, along with promiscuous, lewd and perverse (this would be "homosexual) sex.

The male dominated Catholic Church has been using the Bible to control and repress human sexuality, especially FEMALE human sexuality, since the earliest days of the Church, but the bald fact is that the Bible doesn't ban or bar most acts of human sexuality except adultery. And while society likes to blame the single "other woman" for seducing the innocent husband, it is the man who has committed the sin, not the woman.

If a single woman is "seducing", she is "coveting" (against one of the Commandments). She is sinning. The man, if he lusts after her in his heart or in actions, is also sinning. Personally, I think the "Catholic Church" is one of the few places (there are some other Christian Churches also) that demonstrate how special sex is for a married couple, and how if you are not married, sex is not about "love" but personal gratification and exploitation of others (blunt truth). These churches teach to watch your married partner to please them, and to be patient (natural birth control requires personal discipline). Sex is to be approached as very loving. Children are the "result" of that "love". How is that "controlling and repressing female human sexuality"? It raises sexuality above the animal level where it is blessed by the LORD.

The Bible contains some sex stories that the Fundamentalists ignore utterly, like Lot and his Daughters, or the story of Onan. And when they do use a story, they get the wrong message, as in the story of Onan. His sin wasn't that he masturbated, it was that he disobeyed God. God told him to have sex with his brother's wife and Onan spilled his seed on the ground instead. Even as a kid in Sunday School, before I even knew what sex was, I knew that God killed Onan because he didn't do what he was told.

Lot and his daughters? Was that promoted as "good"? Was that a result of raising daughters in a sinful city?
Onan did disobey the LORD. If you are sinning, aren't "you" disobeying the LORD?

What I would really appreciate is if all you half-assed religious zealots would read the Bible and start living by it's principles instead of telling ME how I should live my life. I read the Bible. I read it from cover to cover, and I am a strong Christian woman.

Where did I tell you how to live your life? How do you know that I do not live by the Bible's "principles", even though liberals tend to mock and ridicule "Biblical principals". For a "strong Christian woman", you seem to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to follow. Do you have the authority to tell others that what the LORD declared sinful, is NOT (sinful)?

I read the Bible when I was a teenager, because I wanted to make good and sure, that I didn't cross too many lines that would keep me out of heaven. So don't try to tell me that having premarital sex is wrong or that having an abortion is going against God, or any other shit that isn't in the Bible because I ain't buying it.

"Premarital sex" is sinful behavior. You are breaking the same Commandments homosexual acts do.
Abortion: read about Mollech, and then get back to me. The LORD told the freed Hebrew slaves to kill all the people in the region of the "promised land" that followed this god. Today, his name is "abortion". And yes, the LORD was very much against this practice.

You cannot corrupt God's word and use it to control and represss women because it's doesn't. God would not have issued the equipment if he didn't intend for us to use it.

Egads, are you suggesting men should rape every person and everything because "God would not have issued the equipment if he didn't intend for" men to use it? Talk about a ridiculous statement.....
How am I trying to "control and repress women"? Do you think telling them that they have more worth than being a penis receptacle is controlling them? Do you think that telling them they should have responsible sex is "repressing" them? I am a voice in the wilderness. I have no "authority" over what people do. I can call it like I see it, but that does not give me one ounce of control over anyone. Nor do I want to be responsible for other people's lives, I want them to be responsible for their own lives. As a taxpayer, I am getting really, really tired of trying to live my life, according to what I know is "right", and having those that ignore, mock and ridicule my beliefs, holding their hand out so that I (the taxpayer) will be responsible (pay for) their mistakes and poor choices, including the poor choice of abortion.

 

[Dragonlady]

I repeat, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, other than mention of herbs to help induce abortion. There is no mention of abortion whatsoever. Those who oppose abortion on religious grounds are projecting something that the Bible is mute on.

Rape violates the do unto others code. Even God sought Mary's permission she became pregnant with Jesus.

If a single woman is "seducing", she is "coveting" (against one of the Commandments). She is sinning. The man, if he lusts after her in his heart or in actions, is also sinning. Personally, I think the "Catholic Church" is one of the few places (there are some other Christian Churches also) that demonstrate how special sex is for a married couple, and how if you are not married, sex is not about "love" but personal gratification and exploitation of others (blunt truth). These churches teach to watch your married partner to please them, and to be patient (natural birth control requires personal discipline). Sex is to be approached as very loving. Children are the "result" of that "love". How is that "controlling and repressing female human sexuality"? It raises sexuality above the animal level where it is blessed by the LORD.

Notice how the writer gets all hot and bothered about the sex stuff. I looked up a Christian Family website for guidance on all of the sex stuff and it told me that's it's only adultery if the woman is engaged or betrothed to another man. If the woman is single, it's not adultery. IOW's the Bible gives men a free pass to screw around with unmarried women. But women who do the same thing should be put to death. This isn't what the Bible actually says, it's just that this is a Christian Marriage website interpretation of the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" clause of the 10 Commandments.

Adultery In Your Heart - It's Not What You Think :: Christian Marriage :: Preaching and Teaching Biblical Christian Marriage

Yup. The Christian Church has never twisted the meaning of the Bible to repress women's sexuality. No siree, Bob, not them boys. The Christian Church is big on family values and teaching women to value themselves, not be thought of as what happens in their vaginas. Christian men have way too much respect for women than that.

This is a website that says it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage, as long as the woman in single and not engaged. The sin is only having sex with a married woman if you are not her husband. It then goes on to say that if a woman has sex with a man outside of marriage, she is a harlot (see link to definition of "harlot"). But if a woman lays with her betrothed, it's the same as being married. So sex before marriage is also permissable.

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=23

One has to assume that not all betrothals will end in marriage. The man dies after the relationship is consumated but before it is solemnized and you have a single woman who is no longer a virgin.

I read all of the passages in the Bible that they have twisted to get to the point that sex outside of marriage for men is not that big a deal as long as the woman involved isn't married, as well as their definitions of fornication, harlot, etc., and that is some seriously misogynistic shit.

Women shalt not have fun in bed - ever. Only for procreation. It is this kind of thinking that causes Muslims to veil their women and right-wingers make their daughters take virginity pledges.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok. I do support the moral teachings of the church and don't do any of those other things. You'll have to ask other liberals how they feel about it. Since that's probably not the answer you'd expect, given your stereotyping of liberals, I don't know what to tell you about that.

I object to the term "liberal" being applied to the current (Khmer Rouge) democrats. There is nothing even remotely liberal about democrats - it is a leftist party, authoritarian in bent.

But it is curious you speak of "morality" in conjunction with leftism. One of the major shifts in my lifetime came when Bill Clinton purged integrity from the left - not just in practice, Obama knows that both parties have serious problems in practicing ethical behavior. But Clinton purged ethics from the democratic party as a matter of policy. The shift to the concept that there is no right or wrong, only the party. There is no truth or lies, only the interests of the party. A lie told, even under oath, to protect the party is good. Truth that damages the party is the only concept of "evil" that remains for the left.

I don't believe it to be possible to be a democrat AND have integrity - this is an "either/or" proposition.

 

[Dragonlady]

I object to the term "liberal" being applied to the current (Khmer Rouge) democrats. There is nothing even remotely liberal about democrats - it is a leftist party, authoritarian in bent.

The Khmer Rouge killed hundred of thousands of people in the name of politics. When you suggest that the US Democratic Party is similar, you make a total ass of yourself. Nothing you say after comparing Democrats to murderers is going to be read because you are an idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I object to the term "liberal" being applied to the current (Khmer Rouge) democrats. There is nothing even remotely liberal about democrats - it is a leftist party, authoritarian in bent.

The Khmer Rouge killed hundred of thousands of people in the name of politics. When you suggest that the US Democratic Party is similar, you make a total ass of yourself. Nothing you say after comparing Democrats to murderers is going to be read because you are an idiot.

actually our liberal Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb so it makes perfect sense!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Khmer Rouge killed hundred of thousands of people in the name of politics.

And Obama has only killed 3 Americans - but he is trying..

When you suggest that the US Democratic Party is similar, you make a total ass of yourself.

The democratic party IS similar. There was a lot more to the Khmer Rouge than the killing fields. That the democrats have not yet engaged in democide doesn't alter the general similarity.

Nothing you say after comparing Democrats to murderers is going to be read because you are an idiot.

That you dislike the comparison does nothing to invalidate it.

The democratic party places;

• Party above family
• Loyalty to party members above integrity
• Loyalty to party goals ahead of individual aspiration
• Personal loyalty to party rulers ahead of support of the Constitution
• duty to party leaders ahead of dedication to laws
• The transformation of language to promote party goals
• The promotion of foreign culture to promote party goals
• Nationalizing of industry, particularly in health care
• Enforcement of party goals through authoritarian means
• Creation of a police state

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Khmer Rouge killed hundred of thousands of people in the name of politics.

And Obama has only killed 3 Americans - but he is trying..

When you suggest that the US Democratic Party is similar, you make a total ass of yourself.

The democratic party IS similar. There was a lot more to the Khmer Rouge than the killing fields. That the democrats have not yet engaged in democide doesn't alter the general similarity.

Nothing you say after comparing Democrats to murderers is going to be read because you are an idiot.

That you dislike the comparison does nothing to invalidate it.

The democratic party places;

• Party above family
• Loyalty to party members above integrity
• Loyalty to party goals ahead of individual aspiration
• Personal loyalty to party rulers ahead of support of the Constitution
• duty to party leaders ahead of dedication to laws
• The transformation of language to promote party goals
• The promotion of foreign culture to promote party goals
• Nationalizing of industry, particularly in health care
• Enforcement of party goals through authoritarian means
• Creation of a police state

yes exactly!!! without the Jeffersonian Republicans holding them back for 200 years America would be as Nazi Socialist as the entire world has always been. Jefferson was and is the worlds last best hope for freedom!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

actually our liberal Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb so it makes perfect sense!!

In all fairness though, John and Bobby Kennedy were both avid anti-Communists.

 

[logical4u]

I repeat, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, other than mention of herbs to help induce abortion. There is no mention of abortion whatsoever. Those who oppose abortion on religious grounds are projecting something that the Bible is mute on.

Rape violates the do unto others code. Even God sought Mary's permission she became pregnant with Jesus.

If a single woman is "seducing", she is "coveting" (against one of the Commandments). She is sinning. The man, if he lusts after her in his heart or in actions, is also sinning. Personally, I think the "Catholic Church" is one of the few places (there are some other Christian Churches also) that demonstrate how special sex is for a married couple, and how if you are not married, sex is not about "love" but personal gratification and exploitation of others (blunt truth). These churches teach to watch your married partner to please them, and to be patient (natural birth control requires personal discipline). Sex is to be approached as very loving. Children are the "result" of that "love". How is that "controlling and repressing female human sexuality"? It raises sexuality above the animal level where it is blessed by the LORD.

Notice how the writer gets all hot and bothered about the sex stuff. I looked up a Christian Family website for guidance on all of the sex stuff and it told me that's it's only adultery if the woman is engaged or betrothed to another man. If the woman is single, it's not adultery. IOW's the Bible gives men a free pass to screw around with unmarried women. But women who do the same thing should be put to death. This isn't what the Bible actually says, it's just that this is a Christian Marriage website interpretation of the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" clause of the 10 Commandments.

Adultery In Your Heart - It's Not What You Think :: Christian Marriage :: Preaching and Teaching Biblical Christian Marriage

Yup. The Christian Church has never twisted the meaning of the Bible to repress women's sexuality. No siree, Bob, not them boys. The Christian Church is big on family values and teaching women to value themselves, not be thought of as what happens in their vaginas. Christian men have way too much respect for women than that.

This is a website that says it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage, as long as the woman in single and not engaged. The sin is only having sex with a married woman if you are not her husband. It then goes on to say that if a woman has sex with a man outside of marriage, she is a harlot (see link to definition of "harlot"). But if a woman lays with her betrothed, it's the same as being married. So sex before marriage is also permissable.

Fornication, Adultery & Divorce :: Christian Marriage :: Preaching and Teaching Biblical Christian Marriage

One has to assume that not all betrothals will end in marriage. The man dies after the relationship is consumated but before it is solemnized and you have a single woman who is no longer a virgin.

I read all of the passages in the Bible that they have twisted to get to the point that sex outside of marriage for men is not that big a deal as long as the woman involved isn't married, as well as their definitions of fornication, harlot, etc., and that is some seriously misogynistic shit.

Women shalt not have fun in bed - ever. Only for procreation. It is this kind of thinking that causes Muslims to veil their women and right-wingers make their daughters take virginity pledges.

Apparently, you have difficulty understanding very simple ideas: ...." If a single woman is "seducing", she is "coveting" (against one of the Commandments). She is sinning. The man, if he lusts after her in his heart or in actions, is also sinning. Personally, I think the "Catholic Church" is one of the few places (there are some other Christian Churches also) that demonstrate how special sex is for a married couple, and how if you are not married, sex is not about "love" but personal gratification and exploitation of others (blunt truth). These churches teach to watch your married partner to please them, and to be patient (natural birth control requires personal discipline). Sex is to be approached as very loving. Children are the "result" of that "love". How is that "controlling and repressing female human sexuality"? It raises sexuality above the animal level where it is blessed by the LORD.".....

Do you see how the progressives act when "sex" is made into a human act and elevated above basic "lust"? She wants to go ballistic, pretending other things were not said. Do you not "get", that sex between a married couple is absolutely amazing, fulfilling and trusting? How is that repressing women? How is telling them that there is a great option out there: marriage (you are less likely to end up in poverty, you can raise the children you conceive with your husband, your children are more likely to graduate high school, live better than those born to single mothers, and less likely to end up in prison), controlling them? Do you really think that some intellectual elites that have no consideration for wisdom, can be correct in disregarding eons of lessons learned by all the peoples before us, that came to the conclusion that marriage was the "best" way to build society, and immoral sex was the "best" way to DESTROY society? Do you not see that other types of sex make both partners less? They are less trusting, less giving if they think their partner will leave them or their partner is sharing the bed with another. They are less likely to marry, successfully, as the number of partners, increases. They are more likely to be the "victim" of domestic violence or worse.

Basing any relationship on lies, deceit, false witness is sinful (wrong). Telling someone of the same sex that you can fulfill them, just as well as a person of the opposite sex is wrong (you might be able to go thru the motions, but you are built emotionally and physically close to your partner, there is not much "mystery"). In this country homosexuals are not prevented from participating in their sexual preferences. They are aware that it leads to an unhealthy lifestyle, and living a life of deceit, they can do that. In this country, I do not have to agree with their choices. I do not have to give them "emotional", fraudulent support to be "politically correct". I do not have to agree with "Christians" that KNOWINGLY ignore the LORD's will when it comes to "sin". I do not have to agree that a woman "with child" is not MURDERING the CHILD (she is not longer "with child", after an abortion).

You can pretend that "abortion" and "homosexual acts" are not in the Bible, because the name has changed since the Bible was written, and since it was translated. The meaning is crystal clear. That is "your" choice. Personally, I would not want to look into the face of the Savior, and see the look of "pity", Love, and hurt because you "chose" to be wrong about HIS word. I hope the HOLY SPIRIT visits you, and gives you the gift of WISDOM, that you may read the Bible, and comprehend it, so you are not teaching against HIS word.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually our liberal Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb so it makes perfect sense!!

In all fairness though, John and Bobby Kennedy were both avid anti-Communists.

but exceptions really, much like the labor unions adopted the same anti-communist pose to be accepted in a free country, but now the party has drifted home to the mighty Barak who had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and supports single payer.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

 

[thereisnospoon]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Equality of outcome.
Redistribution of wealth from the producers to non-producers.
Increasing dependency upon government.

 

[tjvh]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?
Whatever unrealistic utopian dream they have at any given moment. I mean we all saw how that unified message worked out so well with the OWS crowd.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?
Whatever unrealistic utopian dream they have at any given moment. I mean we all saw how that unified message worked out so well with the OWS crowd.

Principle??? buying votes with welfare entitlements is not a principle its subversion of our democracy