Hillary, Democrats and their hatred of Catholics

[Votto]

I think laws against murder are needed for society in order to maintain civility.

What say you?

But you are right in that laws restrict our freedom so passing them should be done with great trepidation.

I guess that's why the US federal government passes about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

No one ever flinches about that, do they?

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Dear ding as long as you share your convictions with others, that is enough influence to get the ball rolling.
Don't worry, it will catch on.

See my other msg about forming a petition to Governors and Senators starting with TX:
to separate health care by tracks, to respect right to life beliefs equally as right to health care beliefs.

that is one huge step in the right direction.
many people will join in response.

I don't plan on holding my breath. I've studied too much history for that, but I do wish you all the luck in the world.

You are funny ding it's going to happen sooner or later.
I say sooner. There were other people besides Rosa Parks
that cases were made about. But hers was the one remembered
in the media and history. So this is going to spark the keg
one way or another. if not you and me, then someone else.
the conflict is there and just ready to blow the roof off.

Have you ever heard of the book, "The 4th Turning?" Have you ever read Alexander Shafarevich's Harvard Address? Because you are thinking linearly instead of cyclically. Now neither of those two mentions what I am discussing but anyone who is awake will come to the same conclusion. A people who have no virtue will not keep their liberty or freedom for long. Our Founding Fathers knew this. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but when it does happen, I hope you will think of me.

If you have a nation of convicts, the only way to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and give them a warden. That is why I think those who are pushing for centralized control over the populace are also waging a war against morality. Their ideal society is a jail cell, free meals, free shelter, free medical care, and gay pride day is everyday.

 

[Votto]

So now that at least two people agree that human life begins at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life, I'd like to ask this question...

Is it virtuous to do the right thing if someone is making you do it?

I think laws against murder are needed for society in order to maintain civility.

What say you?

But you are right in that laws restrict our freedom so passing them should be done with great trepidation.

I guess that's why the US federal government passes about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

No one ever flinches about that, do they?

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Yes and no. Our morality is formed by figures of authority. For example, your parents, your teachers, your peers, your pastor, and the state all play a part. These all contribute to our morality in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as not being ideal but OK, but after centuries of being outlawed everyone now considers it immoral

Abortion is no different. Before Roe vs. Wade the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but after the decision the consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is OK.

It is hard to admit that we are mere lemmings, but the laws on the books definitely shape our morality, especially those who revere the state more than the church.

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

 

[emilynghiem]

If we deal with them on their terms, it leads to genocide.

It's probably going to lead to that anyway, or at least to the next big war. It is called the saeculum cycle. It takes two generations to forget. It is the account of the OT. We are doomed to repeat these cycles.

ding I compare the same way the Catholic church went through the Reformation
and people argued the Catholic authority was sold out to money and not following the laws,
today the US is going through this where the people rise up and argue the govt is following
money and not following the laws.

So we are going through the same Reformation through natural laws and not the govt acting as middle man,
as similar to when the Reformation put the focus on scriptural laws and not the church acting as middle man.

Yeah, no. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the reformation. I'm not going to get into it, but I will say, that if Luther had seen what came of it all, he probably would have wished he had done things differently. I know people believe that money is at the root of all evil, but it is really pride that is. Furthermore, the cosmic battle between good and evil is being fought between free enterprise and socialism and free enterprise is losing. May God help us all. I have no doubt that we will all experience a major societal upheaval in our time. The only question is when and what will it be that triggers it.

Dear ding I think this right to life right to health care issue, and right to prayer right to marriage issue,
is enough to trigger a movement among the states and governors.

I have prolife friends ready to petition our Congress reps and Govt
to separate health care policies by track:
* if ACA mandates right to health care which free market believers don't believe in
then right to life believers should have that mandate that prochoice believers don't believe in
* if states are forced to recognize right to marriage in full and in public and also LGBT expressions
then states should also recognize right to prayer in full including all Christian references without discrrimination

Since you believe as my prolife friends do, who don't want abortion legal at all,
and since our TX Governor is conservative and so is Ted Cruz prolife and against gay marriage,
I think we can make this argument.

Would you like to join in writing and signing petitions on this issue?
To treat political beliefs equally
and not push right to health care without right to life included equally
(or else separate tracks for taxpayers to choose which to fund)
and not push right to marriage without pushing right to prayer
(or else separate school funding so people can choose which track to participate in)

Let me know if you are interested.
As I said before I am just as dedicated as a Constitutionalist
to defending your beliefs from infringement as my own.

We don't have to agree for me to argue
you have a right to equal protections and inclusion
without discrimination by creed. Let me know.

The ACA was sold to the country with the understanding that it would not fund abortions.

Naturally, once Dims got the thing passed they will now tack it on, probably by Executive Order by Hillary.

It's called being lied to.

Dear Votto It was also passed through Congress as a public health bill not a tax which would have failed, but then approved by Court as a tax bill, but not a general welfare measure which failed as an argument. Thus, it was not the same bill that went through both branches; and this does not pass Constitutional standards.

So this violates "no taxation without representation" as well as violating the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service on putting partisan interests before public duty.

It contradicts the Democratic Party principle of free choice and keeping federal govt out of personal decisions.
And it constitutes discrimination by creed to promote legislation through govt
respecting an establishment of belief (in health care as a right) while denying
the same protection of laws to the belief in right to life, struck down as against beliefs in free choice.
Well so are the health care mandates a violation of free choice.

So this is discrimination by creed.

The right to life advocates have the right to argue to separate tracks
and let them fund right to life if right to health care is going to be mandated.

It also imposes involuntary servitude to impose right to health care
unless all the people providing the resources labor and costs AGREE to that belief that
health care should be provided at the mandated levels.

It deprives people of liberty to choose how to pay and provide for health care
who weren't convicted of any crime, thus violating due process of laws.

The proper procedure would be to first pass an Amendment
where people and states authorize federal govt to manage or regulate health care policy
as a right, and then laws can be passed pursuant to that expanded duty and right.

But Congress and Courts cannot make up a new right without such
a Constitutional Amendment.

Because Democrats believe they can, that is an additional political belief
they are imposing on Constitutionalists who believe otherwise
who are discriminated against by this process run amok.

Not only was the bill passed as one measure by approved by Courts by another,
but even the vote in Congress was split among political parties by BELIEFS.
So all those parties to the vote were guilty of violating the beliefs of others
by not contesting this entire bill as unconstitutional because it involves BELIEFS.

Congress the President and Court Justices who failed to recognize this breach
and kick it back to legislators to write laws without imposing beliefs about
health care should be required to correct it by making it optional to follow,
such as by allowing separate tracks by party for members who choose to
follow their own version or policies on health care. But if people and states
don't agree to give up authority on health care choices to the federal govt,
they cannot be forced to by law. That's a political belief, and unless such
persons are convicted of a crime, they can't be deprived of such liberty.

 

[ding]

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Dear ding as long as you share your convictions with others, that is enough influence to get the ball rolling.
Don't worry, it will catch on.

See my other msg about forming a petition to Governors and Senators starting with TX:
to separate health care by tracks, to respect right to life beliefs equally as right to health care beliefs.

that is one huge step in the right direction.
many people will join in response.

I don't plan on holding my breath. I've studied too much history for that, but I do wish you all the luck in the world.

You are funny ding it's going to happen sooner or later.
I say sooner. There were other people besides Rosa Parks
that cases were made about. But hers was the one remembered
in the media and history. So this is going to spark the keg
one way or another. if not you and me, then someone else.
the conflict is there and just ready to blow the roof off.

Have you ever heard of the book, "The 4th Turning?" Have you ever read Alexander Shafarevich's Harvard Address? Because you are thinking linearly instead of cyclically. Now neither of those two mentions what I am discussing but anyone who is awake will come to the same conclusion. A people who have no virtue will not keep their liberty or freedom for long. Our Founding Fathers knew this. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but when it does happen, I hope you will think of me.

If you have a nation of convicts, the only way to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and give them a warden. That is why I think those who are pushing for centralized control over the populace are also waging a war against morality. Their ideal society is a jail cell, free meals, free shelter, free medical care, and gay pride day is everyday.

Sure. A sure sign of a deteriorating society is an increase in laws. A society of good men and women have no need for laws.

 

[ding]

So now that at least two people agree that human life begins at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life, I'd like to ask this question...

Is it virtuous to do the right thing if someone is making you do it?

I think laws against murder are needed for society in order to maintain civility.

What say you?

But you are right in that laws restrict our freedom so passing them should be done with great trepidation.

I guess that's why the US federal government passes about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

No one ever flinches about that, do they?

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Yes and no. Our morality is formed by figures of authority. For example, your parents, your teachers, your peers, your pastor, and the state all play a part. These all contribute to our morality in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as not being ideal but OK, but after centuries of being outlawed everyone now considers it immoral

Abortion is no different. Before Roe vs. Wade the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but after the decision the consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is OK.

It is hard to admit that we are mere lemmings, but the laws on the books definitely shape our morality, especially those who revere the state more than the church.

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

 

[Votto]

I think laws against murder are needed for society in order to maintain civility.

What say you?

But you are right in that laws restrict our freedom so passing them should be done with great trepidation.

I guess that's why the US federal government passes about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

No one ever flinches about that, do they?

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Yes and no. Our morality is formed by figures of authority. For example, your parents, your teachers, your peers, your pastor, and the state all play a part. These all contribute to our morality in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as not being ideal but OK, but after centuries of being outlawed everyone now considers it immoral

Abortion is no different. Before Roe vs. Wade the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but after the decision the consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is OK.

It is hard to admit that we are mere lemmings, but the laws on the books definitely shape our morality, especially those who revere the state more than the church.

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

But that is the reality. The only question is as to why.

The love of money is the root of all evil. That is Biblical. Both abortion and slavery fit the bill. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that allows people to maintain their economic standard of living and slavery drove the economy of the South, therefore, there was an emphasis on rationalizing it as OK as I have shown they did. You simply say that the slave/unborn are subhuman, if that, in order to justify treating them so poorly

The Bible says we are sheep, which is another way to say we are lemmings. That is also Biblical. Who we view as our ultimate authority will shape our morality. That is why Christ said that all shepherds other than himself is but a thief and robber. Only follow him.

And that is the ultimate disconnect. People who are not of faith or who do not follow Christ are looking to the state and elections to "fix" things when in reality society turning to Christ is the only solution.

 

[ding]

Sure, same thing I just told Emily. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. If we want order we will have to have laws that promote order, but that does not make its people virtuous as there is no virtue in being forced to do the right thing. Unless our people are virtuous on their own, there is no hope for liberty and freedom in this country. Abortion is just a sign of our disease. It isn't the disease. Our disease is that we are no longer a virtuous people and there will be consequences. History is littered with examples. Our Founding Fathers knew these things. We have forgotten them.

Yes and no. Our morality is formed by figures of authority. For example, your parents, your teachers, your peers, your pastor, and the state all play a part. These all contribute to our morality in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as not being ideal but OK, but after centuries of being outlawed everyone now considers it immoral

Abortion is no different. Before Roe vs. Wade the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but after the decision the consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is OK.

It is hard to admit that we are mere lemmings, but the laws on the books definitely shape our morality, especially those who revere the state more than the church.

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

But that is the reality. The only question is as to why.

The love of money is the root of all evil. That is Biblical. Both abortion and slavery fit the bill. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that allows people to maintain their economic standard of living and slavery drove the economy of the South, therefore, there was an emphasis on rationalizing it as OK as I have shown they did. You simply say that the slave/unborn are subhuman, if that, in order to justify treating them so poorly

The Bible says we are sheep, which is another way to say we are lemmings. That is also Biblical. Who we view as our ultimate authority will shape our morality. That is why Christ said that all shepherds other than himself is but a thief and robber. Only follow him.

And that is the ultimate disconnect. People who are not of faith or who do not follow Christ are looking to the state and elections to "fix" things when in reality society turning to Christ is the only solution.

No. The question isn't why. Moral relativity is based on principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general that do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. There is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.

 

[Votto]

It's probably going to lead to that anyway, or at least to the next big war. It is called the saeculum cycle. It takes two generations to forget. It is the account of the OT. We are doomed to repeat these cycles.

ding I compare the same way the Catholic church went through the Reformation
and people argued the Catholic authority was sold out to money and not following the laws,
today the US is going through this where the people rise up and argue the govt is following
money and not following the laws.

So we are going through the same Reformation through natural laws and not the govt acting as middle man,
as similar to when the Reformation put the focus on scriptural laws and not the church acting as middle man.

Yeah, no. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the reformation. I'm not going to get into it, but I will say, that if Luther had seen what came of it all, he probably would have wished he had done things differently. I know people believe that money is at the root of all evil, but it is really pride that is. Furthermore, the cosmic battle between good and evil is being fought between free enterprise and socialism and free enterprise is losing. May God help us all. I have no doubt that we will all experience a major societal upheaval in our time. The only question is when and what will it be that triggers it.

Dear ding I think this right to life right to health care issue, and right to prayer right to marriage issue,
is enough to trigger a movement among the states and governors.

I have prolife friends ready to petition our Congress reps and Govt
to separate health care policies by track:
* if ACA mandates right to health care which free market believers don't believe in
then right to life believers should have that mandate that prochoice believers don't believe in
* if states are forced to recognize right to marriage in full and in public and also LGBT expressions
then states should also recognize right to prayer in full including all Christian references without discrrimination

Since you believe as my prolife friends do, who don't want abortion legal at all,
and since our TX Governor is conservative and so is Ted Cruz prolife and against gay marriage,
I think we can make this argument.

Would you like to join in writing and signing petitions on this issue?
To treat political beliefs equally
and not push right to health care without right to life included equally
(or else separate tracks for taxpayers to choose which to fund)
and not push right to marriage without pushing right to prayer
(or else separate school funding so people can choose which track to participate in)

Let me know if you are interested.
As I said before I am just as dedicated as a Constitutionalist
to defending your beliefs from infringement as my own.

We don't have to agree for me to argue
you have a right to equal protections and inclusion
without discrimination by creed. Let me know.

The ACA was sold to the country with the understanding that it would not fund abortions.

Naturally, once Dims got the thing passed they will now tack it on, probably by Executive Order by Hillary.

It's called being lied to.

Dear Votto It was also passed through Congress as a public health bill not a tax which would have failed, but then approved by Court as a tax bill, but not a general welfare measure which failed as an argument. Thus, it was not the same bill that went through both branches; and this does not pass Constitutional standards.

So this violates "no taxation without representation" as well as violating the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service on putting partisan interests before public duty.

It contradicts the Democratic Party principle of free choice and keeping federal govt out of personal decisions.
And it constitutes discrimination by creed to promote legislation through govt
respecting an establishment of belief (in health care as a right) while denying
the same protection of laws to the belief in right to life, struck down as against beliefs in free choice.
Well so are the health care mandates a violation of free choice.

So this is discrimination by creed.

The right to life advocates have the right to argue to separate tracks
and let them fund right to life if right to health care is going to be mandated.

It also imposes involuntary servitude to impose right to health care
unless all the people providing the resources labor and costs AGREE to that belief that
health care should be provided at the mandated levels.

It deprives people of liberty to choose how to pay and provide for health care
who weren't convicted of any crime, thus violating due process of laws.

The proper procedure would be to first pass an Amendment
where people and states authorize federal govt to manage or regulate health care policy
as a right, and then laws can be passed pursuant to that expanded duty and right.

But Congress and Courts cannot make up a new right without such
a Constitutional Amendment.

Because Democrats believe they can, that is an additional political belief
they are imposing on Constitutionalists who believe otherwise
who are discriminated against by this process run amok.

Not only was the bill passed as one measure by approved by Courts by another,
but even the vote in Congress was split among political parties by BELIEFS.
So all those parties to the vote were guilty of violating the beliefs of others
by not contesting this entire bill as unconstitutional because it involves BELIEFS.

Congress the President and Court Justices who failed to recognize this breach
and kick it back to legislators to write laws without imposing beliefs about
health care should be required to correct it by making it optional to follow,
such as by allowing separate tracks by party for members who choose to
follow their own version or policies on health care. But if people and states
don't agree to give up authority on health care choices to the federal govt,
they cannot be forced to by law. That's a political belief, and unless such
persons are convicted of a crime, they can't be deprived of such liberty.

There is more to it than that. Before the ACA was passed, Senator Kennedy learned he had brain cancer and knew that his vote was needed in order to pass the ACA. So what did he do? He tried to get the laws changed so that there would be no election that might elect someone who would vote against the ACA. He failed. Then entered Scott Brown who ran for his seat after he Kennedy died on the premise of stopping the ACA. The most ironic part of all is that a Republican had not been elected there in decades because it was a Dim stronghold, however, he still won. Apparently the people in MA wanted to keep their Romneycare and did not want the federal plan, so they elected him to stop it. It would have worked had the Dims not bypassed the Senate via Reconciliation, and unconstitutional act that bypassed democracy.

These folks care nothing about democracy unless if furthers their agenda.

 

[Votto]

Yes and no. Our morality is formed by figures of authority. For example, your parents, your teachers, your peers, your pastor, and the state all play a part. These all contribute to our morality in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as not being ideal but OK, but after centuries of being outlawed everyone now considers it immoral

Abortion is no different. Before Roe vs. Wade the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but after the decision the consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is OK.

It is hard to admit that we are mere lemmings, but the laws on the books definitely shape our morality, especially those who revere the state more than the church.

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

But that is the reality. The only question is as to why.

The love of money is the root of all evil. That is Biblical. Both abortion and slavery fit the bill. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that allows people to maintain their economic standard of living and slavery drove the economy of the South, therefore, there was an emphasis on rationalizing it as OK as I have shown they did. You simply say that the slave/unborn are subhuman, if that, in order to justify treating them so poorly

The Bible says we are sheep, which is another way to say we are lemmings. That is also Biblical. Who we view as our ultimate authority will shape our morality. That is why Christ said that all shepherds other than himself is but a thief and robber. Only follow him.

And that is the ultimate disconnect. People who are not of faith or who do not follow Christ are looking to the state and elections to "fix" things when in reality society turning to Christ is the only solution.

No. The question isn't why. Moral relativity is based on principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general that do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. There is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.

How then was my post based upon moral relativity? I've already explained my position based upon Biblical principles.

 

[ding]

Ahhh, the allure of moral relativity. No thanks.

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

But that is the reality. The only question is as to why.

The love of money is the root of all evil. That is Biblical. Both abortion and slavery fit the bill. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that allows people to maintain their economic standard of living and slavery drove the economy of the South, therefore, there was an emphasis on rationalizing it as OK as I have shown they did. You simply say that the slave/unborn are subhuman, if that, in order to justify treating them so poorly

The Bible says we are sheep, which is another way to say we are lemmings. That is also Biblical. Who we view as our ultimate authority will shape our morality. That is why Christ said that all shepherds other than himself is but a thief and robber. Only follow him.

And that is the ultimate disconnect. People who are not of faith or who do not follow Christ are looking to the state and elections to "fix" things when in reality society turning to Christ is the only solution.

No. The question isn't why. Moral relativity is based on principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general that do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. There is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.

How then was my post based upon moral relativity? I've already explained my position based upon Biblical principles.

Your post wasn't. The fact that our society has changing morals that are a lowering of the standard is. You post stated the changing moral standard of our society.

 

[DOTR]

How is that moral relativity? We all have an innate sense of right and wrong which is the Golden Rule. No moral relativity there, it is Biblical. To bypass it we must play some mental gymnastics. For example, those in the West are "infidels" worthy of death. The unborn are a "fetus", a parasite, etc. It is only when we do this we can then treat the other party how we wish because the Golden Rule no longer applies. It would be akin to killing a cow and eating it.

This was also done with the slaves. They were pegged as glorified animals, not human.

Well, given that abortion was wrong and then later deemed ok, that would imply relative morals, would it not?

But that is the reality. The only question is as to why.

The love of money is the root of all evil. That is Biblical. Both abortion and slavery fit the bill. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that allows people to maintain their economic standard of living and slavery drove the economy of the South, therefore, there was an emphasis on rationalizing it as OK as I have shown they did. You simply say that the slave/unborn are subhuman, if that, in order to justify treating them so poorly

The Bible says we are sheep, which is another way to say we are lemmings. That is also Biblical. Who we view as our ultimate authority will shape our morality. That is why Christ said that all shepherds other than himself is but a thief and robber. Only follow him.

And that is the ultimate disconnect. People who are not of faith or who do not follow Christ are looking to the state and elections to "fix" things when in reality society turning to Christ is the only solution.

No. The question isn't why. Moral relativity is based on principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general that do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. There is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.

How then was my post based upon moral relativity? I've already explained my position based upon Biblical principles.

Your post wasn't. The fact that our society has changing morals that are a lowering of the standard is. You post stated the changing moral standard of our society.

Our institutions have been turned against us to lower moral standards. I will admit the standards have fallen but it is repression that has caused it. Schools, the arts the very government have worked to sock and destroy the moral values of society rather than reflect them. We created a government to protect our culture...not change it.
We have been ruled for years. It is time to recognize that. And where no democratic change is possible violence becomes the only alternative.

 

[talksalot]

Wikileaks first dumped emails showing Clintons staffers discussing the "backwards" Catholic Church. This should come as no surprise of course. In another email Podesta describes setting up fake Catholic groups to try and change the religious beliefs of Catholics. The Democrat party and Christian beliefs are directly opposing of course so you can see the logic and necessity.
But the important part, faith wise, is their complaint that the Bishops refused to bend. Despite fooling "98%" of Catholics not one Bishop would bow and backtrack on church teachings to help the Democrats in their game of fooling people. And Hillarys staffers were PISSED about it.
But here is the interesting thing to me. Going all the way back to St Ignatius he said

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

This is from the late 1st early 2nd centuries of Christianity. Over and over you see early Christian saints saying the same thing...stick with your Bishops. Have the Democrats found the truth of this matter inadvertently? That no matter how many laymen and even priests they may fool the Bishops continue teaching Christianity?

The Podesta email with complaints about the Bishops can be found here. The email calling Catholics backwards, retrograde and unable to understand democracy is found here.

A statement from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which condemns the Democrats efforts to "interfere in the internal life of the church" can be found here.

There is an easy explanation for that.... they see it as a rival religion.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it. They are modern American liberals.

Please feel free to post as your own, in parts or in entirety. Socialism is based on deceit and has always defied examination. They don't want their beliefs exposed.

So do you want to be controlled by the government or the elitist?

No. You do.

I do what. I want to be controlled by the government, who has lots of people in it, not the elitist. I believe in paying taxes, equality in healthcare, education and well everything, if that makes me a Democrat so be it. I also believe in global warming and the ACA, I want a stronger EPA that is allowed to enforce rules, and I want a real strong IRS , and I guess I am as far as saying our natural resources in the US should be owned by all , not a few rich billionaires.

You're not a Democrat, Penelope....you're a socialist.

 

[talksalot]

Wikileaks first dumped emails showing Clintons staffers discussing the "backwards" Catholic Church. This should come as no surprise of course. In another email Podesta describes setting up fake Catholic groups to try and change the religious beliefs of Catholics. The Democrat party and Christian beliefs are directly opposing of course so you can see the logic and necessity.
But the important part, faith wise, is their complaint that the Bishops refused to bend. Despite fooling "98%" of Catholics not one Bishop would bow and backtrack on church teachings to help the Democrats in their game of fooling people. And Hillarys staffers were PISSED about it.
But here is the interesting thing to me. Going all the way back to St Ignatius he said

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

This is from the late 1st early 2nd centuries of Christianity. Over and over you see early Christian saints saying the same thing...stick with your Bishops. Have the Democrats found the truth of this matter inadvertently? That no matter how many laymen and even priests they may fool the Bishops continue teaching Christianity?

The Podesta email with complaints about the Bishops can be found here. The email calling Catholics backwards, retrograde and unable to understand democracy is found here.

A statement from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which condemns the Democrats efforts to "interfere in the internal life of the church" can be found here.

There is an easy explanation for that.... they see it as a rival religion.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it. They are modern American liberals.

Please feel free to post as your own, in parts or in entirety. Socialism is based on deceit and has always defied examination. They don't want their beliefs exposed.

So do you want to be controlled by the government or the elitist?

These people are hypocrites.

They say its Christian to forgive trump for sexual assault and derogatory comments against women, hispanics, muslims, veterans, the disabled, etc., even though he hasn't expressed any remorse or stopped being such a low life, but Hillary sent some emails through a private server and should be drawn and quartered for years and then publicly executed.

There goes their false claim to Christian forgiveness and moral authority right out the window.

These people are hypocrites.

They say its Christian to forgive trump for sexual assault and derogatory comments against women, hispanics, muslims, veterans, the disabled, etc., even though he hasn't expressed any remorse or stopped being such a low life, but Hillary sent some emails through a private server and should be drawn and quartered for years and then publicly executed.

There goes their false claim to Christian forgiveness and moral authority right out the window.

There isn't shred of truth in your statement and "Hillary sent some emails through a private server," wins the prize for deceptive understatement and hypocrisy.

 

[talksalot]

You believe in the right to life but are a prochoice democrat?

How so?

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others. Sorry thought you were talking to me, anyway here is my opinion for what its worth.

You can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion.

 

[Penelope]

Dear Votto
1. If you look at how all prolifers work by education, helping mothers and prevention, all that can be done by prochoice, without making it illegal by banning abortion. So I'm saying to support prolife efforts by free choice, to prevent abortion 100%, and then we can have both prolife and prochoice.

2. This is like how people can be against the death penalty but still keep it a legal choice on the books.
You can still prevent capital punishment 100% by preventing murder.
Most capital murders I have seen can be prevented because they are premeditated.
The killings that can't be helped tend to be accidental or unforeseen, or with some other
elements that make it not a capital offense.
Capital punishment can still be avoided without banning it completely as a choice.
I think it should be kept as a choice to use as leverage, and more people would plead and work with authorities
if full cooperation was necessary for due process in order to qualify for life in prison. So it would help to prevent
the death penalty if it were kept as a choice to require people to confess to all their crimes to avoid that path.

As with abortion, it can be prevented 100% without banning it.
In fact, it helps not to ban it because threatening to do that divides groups and wastes money campaigning in conflict
when those resources and advertising dollars could go into promoting solutions to prevent abortion in the first place.

I find cooperation between prolife and prochoice groups is the key to preventing abuse that
leads to abortion. So why not take the path of both prolife and prochoice and work toward that common goal.
All the money should go toward stopping rape, incest, sexual abuse, relationship abuse, and anything else
that contributes to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

See also www.nurturingnetwork.org and www.choices4life.org

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others. Sorry thought you were talking to me, anyway here is my opinion for what its worth.

You can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion.

sure I can pro life and pro choice.

 

[talksalot]

The ACA is the reason why so many people are only employed part-time and it needs to be repealed. Hillary intends to repeal the Hyde Amendment and make taxpayers pay for abortions for any reason. Hillary also approves of abortion right up to the day a baby would be born....that's just sick! And condoms are only 85% effective as contraception, so it's not a matter of, if pregnancy is going to happen, but when.

 

[talksalot]

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others. Sorry thought you were talking to me, anyway here is my opinion for what its worth.

You can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion.

sure I can pro life and pro choice.

It's life or death. Anyone who is truly pro-life would want to stop women from choosing death. Abortion isn't a choice it's a death sentence.

 

[Penelope]

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others. Sorry thought you were talking to me, anyway here is my opinion for what its worth.

You can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion.

sure I can pro life and pro choice.

It's life or death. Anyone who is truly pro-life would want to stop women from choosing death. Abortion isn't a choice it's a death sentence.

I am not one to force my belief onto others. If you want that , I think a country like SA might be best for you.

 

[Penelope]

The ACA is the reason why so many people are only employed part-time and it needs to be repealed. Hillary intends to repeal the Hyde Amendment and make taxpayers pay for abortions for any reason. Hillary also approves of abortion right up to the day a baby would be born....that's just sick! And condoms are only 85% effective as contraception, so it's not a matter of, if pregnancy is going to happen, but when.

No due to so many companies hiring part time employees to get out of having to pay for benefits, is the reason the ACA is needed.

 

[emilynghiem]

The ACA is the reason why so many people are only employed part-time and it needs to be repealed. Hillary intends to repeal the Hyde Amendment and make taxpayers pay for abortions for any reason. Hillary also approves of abortion right up to the day a baby would be born....that's just sick! And condoms are only 85% effective as contraception, so it's not a matter of, if pregnancy is going to happen, but when.

No due to so many companies hiring part time employees to get out of having to pay for benefits, is the reason the ACA is needed.

Penelope
Why isn't ACA optional to use like the postal service where you don't pay additional fines if you don't use them at all. The problems with the post office need to be fixed internally, and so does the VA. My point is why not fix the given systems we already pay for and make them work better. Why try to micromanage all the other carrier services instead of fixing the govt services we already have that aren't forced on anyone to use. For the private care why not reward citizens and businesses for setting up more teaching hospitals that offer medical education and public health services under the same program. You act like insurance and exchanges are the only solution. Why not invest directly into developing health providers instead of messing with corporate insurance that merely profits and doesn't produce more doctors nurses providers or facilities?