The Lefts' Attack on Religion Exposed

[Avatar4321]

It what way is promoting morality contrary to everything Christ preached? If you think encouraging people to be moral and creating a moral culture is contrary to the message of Christ, i think you are alittle confused about what Christ taught.

What was it that Christ told the woman condemned of adultry? "Go and sin no more He didnt say go and continuing sinning all you want im going to tolerate your bad behavior. He said sin no more.

 

[hylandrdet]

It what way is promoting morality contrary to everything Christ preached? If you think encouraging people to be moral and creating a moral culture is contrary to the message of Christ, i think you are alittle confused about what Christ taught.

What was it that Christ told the woman condemned of adultry? "Go and sin no more He didnt say go and continuing sinning all you want im going to tolerate your bad behavior. He said sin no more.

Promoting morality, as taught by Jesus, can be done so long as you're NOT hypocritical about it. A drunk cannot tell me to control my drinking; a whore cannot tell me who I can and cannot sleep with; a thief cannot tell me to not steal; and a president cannot tell me he will bring morals values to the presidency when there is evidence to suggest that he'd lied about the war.

 

[freeandfun1]

Promoting morality, as taught by Jesus, can be done so long as you're NOT hypocritical about it. A drunk cannot tell me to control my drinking; a whore cannot tell me who I can and cannot sleep with; a thief cannot tell me to not steal; and a president cannot tell me he will bring morals values to the presidency when there is evidence to suggest that he'd lied about the war.

what you don't get is that, in a way, everybody is hypocritical as we all commit sin and often, we do it knowing that we are doing it. Only Christ is without sin. The difference between you and a Christian is that a Christian knows that when they sin, through Christ, they can/will be forgiven. We all commit sins, but knowing that we can ask Christ for forgiveness and that it will be granted is what gives us comfort and what makes us strive toward a life without sin. We know that salvation is available, if we seek it; we try to live up to God's expectations, but we also know that sometimes we will falter. God knew that and that is why he sacraficed his son for our sins.

You haven't a clue do you?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I may not agree with every position the ACLU takes, but you have to admit they have taken them on all sides.....on one extreme and the other.

You will notice that they pick and choose their cases, an inordinate number of which attack Christianity, while ignoring many valid cases except for the occasional one that makes them look "fair". For instance, notice how they "sided" with Rush Limbaugh regarding privacy of his medical records. Not something they needed to do but it was a political trick to make themselves look unbiased. These people are extremely dangerous to our country.

Generally what people do is look at a situation and determine what would be considered a "good" outcome. Then, they begin to place higher values on beneficial qualities or acts called virtues. And, to be moral would be to conform to these virtues.

You are probably referring to situational ethics. That is nice and all, but more is needed when dealing with a large society. Laws need to deal with many issues and people draw upon their established value systems when making them. Most value systems today are based upon major religions which have dealt with almost every situation mankind has experienced so far. Liberals like to think they are inventing something new but surprise, surprise, been there, done that.

You and I have rights and duties to the state, but your beliefs in what is "good" are your own. The most important thing is to cooperate and understand why a person believes that a certain outcome is "good". That requires, not to focus on the doctrine, which is divisive and, frankly, beyond ourselves, but requires a pragmatic humanism and a belief in benevolence.

No "moral" society has ever been corrupt?

"Secular humanism" is not working in our society. Just look at the degenerate corruption taking place due to Secularism being promoted by the liberals. You can believe what you want in this free country of ours but you must obey the laws that the MAJORITY sets in place. Our country has become fed up with the liberal degeneracy and wants it to stop. Our children and our future culture are at stake.

Our country has had Christianity at its core since the beginning. Until the liberals took over in the 60s with the sexual revolution, society was pretty decent. The past 40 years, mostly under the leadership of secular Democrats with lots of help from the ACLU especially regarding pornography, our country has slid into immorality. "If it feels good, do it" is the motto of Secularism. Today we are living in a Secular sewer. This election has affirmed that this is not what America wants anymore. We are better than that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Promoting morality, as taught by Jesus, can be done so long as you're NOT hypocritical about it. A drunk cannot tell me to control my drinking; a whore cannot tell me who I can and cannot sleep with; a thief cannot tell me to not steal; and a president cannot tell me he will bring morals values to the presidency when there is evidence to suggest that he'd lied about the war.

News Flash Hyland: Simply asserting statements like "Bush lied" or "Bush is stupid" etc does not make it true. Nor does it constitute evidence that he lied. You see in order to have evidence to suggest President Bush lied about anything you need something called F-A-C-T-S. You don't have any.

I think its rather ridiculous to believe that you have to be perfect to teach morality. No one was perfect except Christ. The hypocrisy of others does not excuse your own immorality.

Contrary to what you believe i think a Drunk can and should encourage people to control their drinking so that others dont go through the misery they have.

I think Whore's should warn people not to end up like them. same with thieves.

I think its rather arrogant to ignore those who have made mistakes and who warn of the mistakes they made. Its also pretty foolish.

Morality is good and noble regardless of whether their are people who arent perfect. Its absolutely silly to let the actions of others determine whether you do whats right or whether you listen to their good counsel or not.

 

[Mariner]

record. When he made the State of the Union speech in which he referred to Iraq getting uranium from Niger, his administration had already been informed by the CIA that this was untrue. Bush has now admitted that this was not true. When Condoleeza Rice said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," the administration already knew from the Energy Dept. that the aluminum tubes (their "hard evidence") were perfect for rocket launchers and inadequate for nuclear centrifuges. Either these two high offficials were thoroughly incompetent (because they later said they didn't know these things at that time, even though there's a documentary trail to show the CIA and Energy Dept. reports) or they lied to justify a war they wanted for other reasons. Take your pick, it's not a pretty picture.

The evidence I'm referring to was in an extensive (and extensively documented) New York Times investigative piece a few weeks ago. It's not Michael Moore talking.

The Bible says some contradictory things. I'm no expert, and not even a Christian, but it seems to me that the Old Testament God is angry and jealous, willing to condemn and quick to violence. The New Testament Jesus is an entirely different character, and a very lovable one. But on one hand the Bible says "don't judge others." On the other, it tells people to "spread the news" and it talks about a hell of permanent torture as punishment for earthly sins. (By the way, how are all the blameless millions of humans who lived befor 2000 years ago supposd to get into heaven?)

I personally wish Christians spread the news by example rather than evangelism; Christian missionaries, for all the good they've done in the world, also wiped out numerous cultures, e.g. traditional Hawaiian culture, whose surfing swimsuits offended the prudish missionaries.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

record. When he made the State of the Union speech in which he referred to Iraq getting uranium from Niger, his administration had already been informed by the CIA that this was untrue. Bush has now admitted that this was not true. When Condoleeza Rice said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," the administration already knew from the Energy Dept. that the aluminum tubes (their "hard evidence") were perfect for rocket launchers and inadequate for nuclear centrifuges. Either these two high offficials were thoroughly incompetent (because they later said they didn't know these things at that time, even though there's a documentary trail to show the CIA and Energy Dept. reports) or they lied to justify a war they wanted for other reasons. Take your pick, it's not a pretty picture.

The evidence I'm referring to was in an extensive (and extensively documented) New York Times investigative piece a few weeks ago. It's not Michael Moore talking.

The Bible says some contradictory things. I'm no expert, and not even a Christian, but it seems to me that the Old Testament God is angry and jealous, willing to condemn and quick to violence. The New Testament Jesus is an entirely different character, and a very lovable one. But on one hand the Bible says "don't judge others." On the other, it tells people to "spread the news" and it talks about a hell of permanent torture as punishment for earthly sins. (By the way, how are all the blameless millions of humans who lived befor 2000 years ago supposd to get into heaven?)

I personally wish Christians spread the news by example rather than evangelism; Christian missionaries, for all the good they've done in the world, also wiped out numerous cultures, e.g. traditional Hawaiian culture, whose surfing swimsuits offended the prudish missionaries.

Mariner.

All people including Christians and politicians have made mistakes. Some catastophic, some insignificant. I think if we learn from the mistakes and take measures to do better next time, we have a chance to help the suffering in the world . Coming up with new sacrifices and ideas will do much more to alleviate todays suffering than focusing on past mistakes and atrocities. Bashing Christians, Bush does nothing to help those in need. Spend you time wisely. Although criticizing others may make you feel better it does nothing to improve anyone elses life. Does that not also make you as guilty as anyone else of serving your own self-interest?

 

[Bonnie]

it was condescending and a smack of ignorance. she just doesn't get it. they continue to insult those that believe and then wonder why they won't vote for their (the left's) candidates.

and it wasn't a smile, it was a smirk.

A lot of truth said in jest NE this is what they really think!!

 

[Mariner]

I have no intention to bash Christians, only to speak the truth. I agree that simply criticizing others is bad for one's karma. Speaking the truth is important because it allows us to confront reality as clearly as we can. Getting at the truth can be hard, and I find discussions like this helpful.

I only started posting on this forum a few days ago, but I've had several years of learning from others and sharing my views on some other forums. As a result of my disappointment about Bush's re-election I decided to interact with some more conserative folk, to help me understand better where they were coming from. Hence my appearance here.

If I offended any Christian with my comments, I apologize. On the other hand, if I speak what I see as well-documented truth (e.g. the Christian missionaries did harm as well as good) or reasonable opinion (e.g. taking a good versus evil, us versus them approach against Islamic countries might be a dangerous path for America in a nuclear age given the history of conflict between these religions), I can't apologize for that. I feel my own and my family's safety is at stake when "mistakes" are made around such issues.

Mariner.

 

[Bonnie]

Pick a link--any link---You will find numerous claims by pundits, celebs, etc that the conservative Christians are trying to take over America and force their beliefs on others. I (as a lot of you already know) am very anti-evangelical right but a staunch supporter of Bush. While this issue was always hinted at and inferrred, the left has finally OVERTLY launched the anti-christian movement. (You think they waited until the election was over to get a few believers to vote their way?).
This is the VERY essence of attacking our constitutional right to worship as we please and act accordingly. If I believed in hate crimes, this would certainly qualify in my book and deserving of punishment, not excused as free speech. The Jewish Community has the anti-defamation league to protect itself from exactly this kind of attack and the Christians may be wise to consider a similar form legal protection for no other reason than to stop the hateful propaganda so that real issues can be discussed.
What kind of faction would have as it's platform gay marriage, abortion rights, overt sexual behavior disguised as free speech etc. Is their whole agenda in their crotch? I guess it is---about 2 inches behind their genitalia.

It all boils down to a conserted effort to remove all religious expression from the public, and further to make fun and impune the religious in an attempt to shame us into submission. Take a look at books like The New Left, Marxism, and the Little Red Cookbook by Mao, you will see examples of this as a way to bring down a country. It's called the darkening of the intellect. Those responsible know that once you remove religion people are much more vulnerable to being brainwashed into socialism/secular humanism.

 

[Bonnie]

Promoting morality, as taught by Jesus, can be done so long as you're NOT hypocritical about it. A drunk cannot tell me to control my drinking; a whore cannot tell me who I can and cannot sleep with; a thief cannot tell me to not steal; and a president cannot tell me he will bring morals values to the presidency when there is evidence to suggest that he'd lied about the war.

Well if that's truly how you feel you better get ready to turn that perspective on yourself, Kerry, the Democrats, the Media, and Hollywood the epitome of Hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

When he made the State of the Union speech in which he referred to Iraq getting uranium from Niger, his administration had already been informed by the CIA that this was untrue. Bush has now admitted that this was not true.

Naturally. Stating that the British have given us intelligence that Iraq was trying to get yellow cake from Niger, a statement the Brits still verify and claim as true, is somehow evidence that Bush lied. Right...

Look the best you have here is that the President was misinformed. Quite frankly i dont even think you have that much considering the yellow cake that was found smuggled out of Iraq in scrap metal.

 

[Bonnie]

Naturally. Stating that the British have given us intelligence that Iraq was trying to get yellow cake from Niger, a statement the Brits still verify and claim as true, is somehow evidence that Bush lied. Right...

Look the best you have here is that the President was misinformed. Quite frankly i dont even think you have that much considering the yellow cake that was found smuggled out of Iraq in scrap metal.

Also Avatar I would add that there are quite a few links between Al qaeda and Hussein and all anyone need do is look at what is happening in Fallujah right now, and no it wasn't like that BECAUSE of the war, this was Al qaeda territory way before.

 

[shadrack]

.....notice how they "sided" with Rush Limbaugh regarding privacy of his medical records.......

don't tell me........you listen to that blow-hard

You are probably referring to situational ethics. That is nice and all, but more is needed when dealing with a large society. Laws need to deal with many issues and people draw upon their established value systems when making them. Most value systems today are based upon major religions which have dealt with almost every situation mankind has experienced so far. Liberals like to think they are inventing something new but surprise, surprise, been there, done that.

I would guess most, if not all, of your concerns have already been addressed in the social contract of the US of A. Your concerns that haven't are probably unconstitutional. You'd be praising the "wisdom" of the constitution if the shoe were on the other foot.

"Secular humanism" is not working in our society.

I think it's accepted that a person's self-realization through reason is a cornerstone of this nation, so I suppose you would think our country is a failure.

Our country has had Christianity at its core since the beginning.

Correction, this country's people have had freedom of religion at its core since the beginning. This country's politics have had freedom from religion at its core from the very beginning. It sounds like you wish it was 16th century England.

And, what does the U.S. government have to do with your own salvation, anyway?

 

[5stringJeff]

Well if that's truly how you feel you better get ready to turn that perspective on yourself, Kerry, the Democrats, the Media, and Hollywood the epitome of Hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed... the hard, DU Kool-Aid Drinking Left does not like religion at all.

 

[Bonnie]

Agreed... the hard, DU Kool-Aid Drinking Left does not like religion at all.

Whats worse is the idea that they don't like those who do like religion.

 

[dilloduck]

Science and Spiritualty were bound to meet head on sooner or later. Middle ground is hard to come by these days although many claim there is some.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Promoting morality, as taught by Jesus, can be done so long as you're NOT hypocritical about it. A drunk cannot tell me to control my drinking; a whore cannot tell me who I can and cannot sleep with; a thief cannot tell me to not steal; and a president cannot tell me he will bring morals values to the presidency when there is evidence to suggest that he'd lied about the war.

This is where the left is dead wrong. The message should be evaluated, not the messenger. THe left tries to shutdown any discussion of right and wrong with adhominem attack and shouts of hypocrisy. Even an an alcoholic can recognize alcohol is bad for you. Here is your line of thinking dramatized:

"This alcoholic tells us alcohol is bad for us, but what does he know, he's an alcoholic."

Do you see how utterly without merit your thoughts are?

 

[Mariner]

occasional ad hominem attack yourself, Right Wing, haven't you?

I agree that there is a tension between a multicultural viewpoint and any absolutist morality. It's important to remember where multiculturalism came from: it resulted from the work of anthropologists, who discovered that other cultures were as complicated and consistent as our own (beginning with "The Golden Bough," long ago). This undermined the sense of inherent superiority which had permitted such practices as colonization and Empire-buildling, displacement of the American Indians, and slavery. I don't think most conservatives feel that we should return to the time when the white, Christian man was obviously "superior" to the heathen and the colored man.

On the other hand, I think conservatives can make a valid point that multiculturalism can be taken too far. For example, what do we do with cultures that do not permit women to be educated or to vote, or which support bodily mutilations (although our Judeo-Christian culture does too, in the form of circumcison), or where corporal punishment that we see as child abuse is considered acceptable. In these situations there seems to be a need for a shared and more absolute morality--but I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater: just because multiculturalism can go to far doesn't mean that it's not a very valid and important idea, which has produced profound feelings of acceptance and participation for millions of non-white, non-Judeo-Christian Americans, including me.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

occasional ad hominem attack yourself, Right Wing, haven't you?

Show me one place i've insulted you, diptardo!

On the other hand, I think conservatives can make a valid point that multiculturalism can be taken too far. For example, what do we do with cultures that do not permit women to be educated or to vote, or which support bodily mutilations (although our Judeo-Christian culture does too, in the form of circumcison), or where corporal punishment that we see as child abuse is considered acceptable. In these situations there seems to be a need for a shared and more absolute morality--but I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater: just because multiculturalism can go to far doesn't mean that it's not a very valid and important idea, which has produced profound feelings of acceptance and participation for millions of non-white, non-Judeo-Christian Americans, including me.

Mariner.

This hand is where we are right now in this world: Deluded extremist multiculturalists, tolerant of intolerance, are willing to destroy their own countries for the sake of their idiotic ideology of appeasement. Bush has no intention of instituting a theocracy. That's just leftist hysteria. Why is the left siding with jihadi islam?