- Moderator
- #21
And exactly is wrong with God delivering justice to those who do bad things?
NYC say's "no way" to the queers!
- Thread starter jimnyc
- Start date
W
wonderwench
Guest
Hmmmm. If I remember my catechism correctly, Jesus said:
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How about just letting God do his job and quit obsessing about someone else's private behavior?
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How about just letting God do his job and quit obsessing about someone else's private behavior?
conservative86
Rookie
Thank you, Avatar. It is people like you that keep this country alive.
conservative86
Rookie
Your secularism and liberalism are clear. A civilized and disciplined society put restrictions on personal behavior. I WILL judge people. What do you think we have a criminal justice system for? If people conduct themselves in such ways that hurt other people, it is NOT a private matter.
W
wonderwench
Guest
Actually, I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I do believe that the Constitutional role of the government is a secular one. Religious and philosophical beliefs are personal - and should be taught by parents, not the government.
When religion and government join forces, the results are generally disastrous.
When religion and government join forces, the results are generally disastrous.
conservative86
Rookie
That is widely fallacious. What do you think the crime rate was 250 years ago in this country? How many mothers murdered their children each day? How many rapes were there? Were there homosexuals? Were there 10- time offenders walking through the streets. Were there fractious teenagers? Was there pornography?
- Moderator
- #27
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
Taken out of context. You have to ignore Christ's other statement in John 7.24 in which Christ commands us to judge
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
Who is throwing stones? While I think its wrong to condemn someone to hell, I dont think its wrong to point out what someone is doing is wrong or to encourage them to live a better life. I think we can all do without the crudeness. it doesnt help our cause.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Well, I want people to let me know when Im doing something I shouldnt so I can do alittle better. So why would i not encourage people to be alittle better myself? I dont know that telling someone they are going to hell really does that. I dont do that myself. But admitting that there is a place where those who do bad will pay for their crimes is not outdated at all. we reap what we sow.
"How about just letting God do his job and quit obsessing about someone else's private behavior?"
Im letting God do His job with the final judgement. But He has commanded me and others to preach His Gospel. To bring people closer to Him. to help them repent and overcome their bad behavior. He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourself. How am i loving my neighbor if i dont care what they do as long as it doesnt affect me? What is so compassionate about letting people live below their potential with no effort to lift them up? And what is compassionate about letting someone deaden their spirituality with crudeness.
Taken out of context. You have to ignore Christ's other statement in John 7.24 in which Christ commands us to judge
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
Who is throwing stones? While I think its wrong to condemn someone to hell, I dont think its wrong to point out what someone is doing is wrong or to encourage them to live a better life. I think we can all do without the crudeness. it doesnt help our cause.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Well, I want people to let me know when Im doing something I shouldnt so I can do alittle better. So why would i not encourage people to be alittle better myself? I dont know that telling someone they are going to hell really does that. I dont do that myself. But admitting that there is a place where those who do bad will pay for their crimes is not outdated at all. we reap what we sow.
"How about just letting God do his job and quit obsessing about someone else's private behavior?"
Im letting God do His job with the final judgement. But He has commanded me and others to preach His Gospel. To bring people closer to Him. to help them repent and overcome their bad behavior. He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourself. How am i loving my neighbor if i dont care what they do as long as it doesnt affect me? What is so compassionate about letting people live below their potential with no effort to lift them up? And what is compassionate about letting someone deaden their spirituality with crudeness.
conservative86
Rookie
Well said. Kudos!
W
wonderwench
Guest
It is not fallacious - it is in the founding documents.
How about reading them?
All of the social ills you are listing result from not holding individuals accountable for their own behavior - and from not respecting the relationship of individual rights and responsibility.
You are also being rather myopic. Hideous people have always existed, and have done horrible things. We have communication and information resources that are unprecedented in human history. I would hesitate to assume that just because we have more knowledge about child molesters and rapists that such activities did not occur in the past.
The only solution is to hold people who commit crimes accountable - not to micromanage the private behavior of legally consenting adults. It is completely orthogonal.
There is also another thing to keep in mind. Do not patronize businesses which provide pornography if you don't like it. The most powerful vote is with one's pocketbook. But as you do so, you should also respect the rights of others who do wish to vote for it. That is their right.
How about reading them?
All of the social ills you are listing result from not holding individuals accountable for their own behavior - and from not respecting the relationship of individual rights and responsibility.
You are also being rather myopic. Hideous people have always existed, and have done horrible things. We have communication and information resources that are unprecedented in human history. I would hesitate to assume that just because we have more knowledge about child molesters and rapists that such activities did not occur in the past.
The only solution is to hold people who commit crimes accountable - not to micromanage the private behavior of legally consenting adults. It is completely orthogonal.
There is also another thing to keep in mind. Do not patronize businesses which provide pornography if you don't like it. The most powerful vote is with one's pocketbook. But as you do so, you should also respect the rights of others who do wish to vote for it. That is their right.
W
wonderwench
Guest
Self-serving in the extreme. It is not for you to judge what is their potential. Fine, preach on street corners all you want. But the U.S. Constitution is not your instrument to convert the infidels. Leave it alone.
conservative86
Rookie
Are you going to sit there right now and tell me that what we need right now is tolerance and acceptance and respecting "rights". The one thing that tells me I am right about all these things is that most people disagree with me. Most people are liberal. And what is that picture under your name, Wonder. Have you no shame? I'm not interested in "lightening up dude" or "chilling out". You and your counterparts fail to acknowlede that there is a right and there is a wrong. And while you never fail in adhering to and acknowledging constitutional law, you utterly fail to understand that at the time the constitution was written anyone bearing and endorsing pictures like you have under your name would most definitely be punished by death. That would be the statuatory law of that era. Aren't you ashamed to accomodate such monstrocities?
- Moderator
- #32
"Self-serving in the extreme. It is not for you to judge what is their potential. Fine, preach on street corners all you want. But the U.S. Constitution is not your instrument to convert the infidels. Leave it alone."
No one is arguing that we use the Constitution to convert people. Where the heck are you getting this? Because we need a stinkin ammendment to protect marriage? The fact is we shouldnt need it. If the courts and civil "servants" werent violating the right of the people to govern themselves, we wouldnt need it. We are seeking the ammendment because government officials are trying to deny people the right to govern themselves. Marriage has a deffintion. It has a purpose. And a majority of Americans see no purpose of changing the deffinition and purpose to legitimize the actions of a few deviants. We are trying to ammend the constitution because if we dont and special interest groups in a minority continue to enforce their views on America by circumventing the Democratic process America will no longer be free.
No one is arguing that we use the Constitution to convert people. Where the heck are you getting this? Because we need a stinkin ammendment to protect marriage? The fact is we shouldnt need it. If the courts and civil "servants" werent violating the right of the people to govern themselves, we wouldnt need it. We are seeking the ammendment because government officials are trying to deny people the right to govern themselves. Marriage has a deffintion. It has a purpose. And a majority of Americans see no purpose of changing the deffinition and purpose to legitimize the actions of a few deviants. We are trying to ammend the constitution because if we dont and special interest groups in a minority continue to enforce their views on America by circumventing the Democratic process America will no longer be free.
W
wonderwench
Guest
All I can say is that you would benefit from a literal reading of the Consitution and other founding documents.
Your intolerant, judgemental attitude is the type of thing we are combatting in the War on Terrorism. Do you think women should have to wear burqas?
Your intolerant, judgemental attitude is the type of thing we are combatting in the War on Terrorism. Do you think women should have to wear burqas?
conservative86
Rookie
Yes, I do. And white socks do tantalize men. Is it supposed to be a derogatory statement to call me intolerant and judgemental. Alas, we finally agree on something. I am VERY intolerant and very judgemental. I seriously agree with how they treat women. You are a post-modern pacifist.
- Moderator
- #35
well thats not one i havent heard before. Im intolerant boo hoo. Cant defend the institution of marriage without being intolerant i suppose. But the fact is I am intolerant. I dont tolerate stupidity or bad behavior. Not in myself, not in anyone else. Wo is me im such a horrible person.
Contrary your opinion. we are not fighting the war on terror against intolerance. We are fighting the war on terror against tyranny, those who exercise absolute power abusively unretrained by Constitution or law. Or in other words we are fighting against people who are trying to force their views on other people contrary to law and the legal process...like the so called gay rights groups.
Contrary your opinion. we are not fighting the war on terror against intolerance. We are fighting the war on terror against tyranny, those who exercise absolute power abusively unretrained by Constitution or law. Or in other words we are fighting against people who are trying to force their views on other people contrary to law and the legal process...like the so called gay rights groups.
conservative86
Rookie
Good analogy. What is so wrong about intolerance? We have WAY too many freedoms in this country.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
And you, sir are a throwback to the dark-ages. You sound more like a member of the Taliban than a Christian.
W
wonderwench
Guest
Specious comparison. Wanting to be left alone in order to live one's private life is not the same as forcing others to live in the same manner.
- Moderator
- #39
No ones forcing them not to have sex with each other. We are protecting our right to define marriage as we choose.
BTW New Jersey has now gone the SS marriage way.
BTW New Jersey has now gone the SS marriage way.
W
wonderwench
Guest
Then you are mistaken about the legal nature of marriage. As far as government is concerned, a marriage is a legally binding arrangement in which the two parties share certain rights and responsibilities. It has nothing to do with sex.
What you wish to deny gays and lesbians is the contractual protection which heterosexuals receive.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Look closely at the photo and tell us what you believe- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 3
-
Sec. State Marco Rubio Shutters ‘Disinformation’ Agency at State Department- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 6
-
