18 Jul 07
Originally posted by torch71First, I distrust someone who reduces tough issues to one-sentence sound bites.
Sorry I read your last post in error, I agree with the above. Which do you disagree with?
Some people are poor because they continually waste the little extra money they have. Lottery tickets aren't the only thing they waste it on. And poor people aren't the only ones who play the lottery.
There are some good arguments for the moral permissibility of abortions, especially in the first two trimesters. In light of this, a simple dogmatic statement to the contrary isn't good enough.
I agree with #3 - shooting abortionists is obviously wrong. Even in my Christian days, I argued with other people in the church who supported it.
#4 is vague. Although I'm disgusted with parents who can't be bothered to control their children, especially in public places, I also have seen many who are too repressive, and really do harm their child's self-esteem.
With #5, people who call abuse of power 'politics' are using that word in a way that implies skepticism and disapproval.
"Ambition" doesn't entail wanting other people's stuff. It's more wanting stuff of your own, or a better job, or a better quality of life.
Which is more profane, dropping the f-bomb, or reading a story of two daughters getting dad drunk and having sex with him? Hint: One is deemed inappropriate for children, while the other is encouraged for children.
Which is more perverse: One adult admiring the physical form of another, or a priest admiring and handling the physical form of a child? Which one causes harm, and which one does not?
What about 'time-honored' values like slavery? Our forefathers legalized this. Are we 'unenlightened' for having abolished it?
Do you think our forefathers were all evangelical Christians? Do you think they all shared the same set of values?
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperThe statements are all of the form:
So, these are the two you dissagree with?
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have done X, and (wrongly) called it Y.
It's important to state which part you disagree with.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitFirst, I distrust someone who reduces tough issues to one-sentence sound bites.
First, I distrust someone who reduces tough issues to one-sentence sound bites.
Some people are poor because they continually waste the little extra money they have. Lottery tickets aren't the only thing they waste it on. And poor people aren't the only ones who play the lottery.
There are some good arguments for the moral permissibility of abortio ...[text shortened]... ll evangelical Christians? Do you think they all shared the same set of values?
First I don't think that the Rev. would have had enough time to go into detail on all subjects.
Some people are poor because they continually waste the little extra money they have. Lottery tickets aren't the only thing they waste it on. And poor people aren't the only ones who play the lottery.
Lottery in my view was a scam from the get go, so it makes no difference to who plays it but many porr spend thier few extra hard earned dollars to try to hit it. Irresponsible? Yes
There are some good arguments for the moral permissibility of abortions, especially in the first two trimesters. In light of this, a simple dogmatic statement to the contrary isn't good enough.
Again, I think he did not have time to address it in full, but my opinion on this is it should only be allowed only in tramatic rape cases, or if the mother life should be in danger, not for every horny little girl who does not have respect enough for herself to have safe sex or no sex.
I agree with #3 - shooting abortionists is obviously wrong. Even in my Christian days, I argued with other people in the church who supported it.
#4 is vague. Although I'm disgusted with parents who can't be bothered to control their children, especially in public places, I also have seen many who are too repressive, and really do harm their child's self-esteem.
I am for a parent to have the right to correct thier children and in extreme cases spank them on the rear end. Lets face it if a parent wants to abuse thier children, they will, weather there is a law against it or not, but don't take the right from the thousands of parents who do know right from wrong in the case of spanking.
With #5, people who call abuse of power 'politics' are using that word in a way that implies skepticism and disapproval.
Not much to say here other than most politics are skewed.
"Ambition" doesn't entail wanting other people's stuff. It's more wanting stuff of your own, or a better job, or a better quality of life.
Which is more profane, dropping the f-bomb, or reading a story of two daughters getting dad drunk and having sex with him? Hint: One is deemed inappropriate for children, while the other is encouraged for children.
OK where did you hear that having sex with your father is encouraged?
Which is more perverse: One adult admiring the physical form of another, or a priest admiring and handling the physical form of a child? Which one causes harm, and which one does not?
BOTH!!!!
What about 'time-honored' values like slavery? Our forefathers legalized this. Are we 'unenlightened' for having abolished it?
Absolutely not.
Do you think our forefathers were all evangelical Christians? Do you think they all shared the same set of values?
No. Many of the same values yes.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by torch71
First, I distrust someone who reduces tough issues to one-sentence sound bites.
First I don't think that the Rev. would have had enough time to go into detail on all subjects.
Some people are poor because they continually waste the little extra money they have. Lottery tickets aren't the only thing they waste it on. And poor people aren't the only one ...[text shortened]... they all shared the same set of values?
No. Many of the same values yes.
First I don't think that the Rev. would have had enough time to go into detail on all subjects.
If he couldn't give the issues the time they deserved, he should have left some of them out.
Lottery in my view was a scam from the get go, so it makes no difference to who plays it but many porr spend thier few extra hard earned dollars to try to hit it. Irresponsible? Yes
Not much of a scam when everyone knows that the odds of winning are very very low, yet continue to play anyway.
Again, I think he did not have time to address it in full, but my opinion on this is it should only be allowed only in tramatic rape cases, or if the mother life should be in danger, not for every horny little girl who does not have respect enough for herself to have safe sex or no sex.
Motivation of pregnancy is irrelevant. What if the condom breaks? Then you must make a determination based on the real issue at hand: Does the fetus have the right to live, or not?
OK where did you hear that having sex with your father is encouraged?
Not what I said. Kids are routinely given bibles and encouraged to read them, with no warning about certain perverse stories therein. Contrast this with the f-word, which is often used as a simple expletive with no sexual connotation whatsoever.
BOTH!!!!
What's wrong with an adult admiring the physical form of another? Who is harmed by it?
Absolutely not.
But now you can't say that you agree with the Rev's statement anymore. See the problem?
No. Many of the same values yes.
And many of their values were different. They had different political parties, like we do today. Rev's statement is the usual sad attempt to pretend that all our founding fathers were Christians, and their brand of Christianity was like the conservative-right's brand today. This doesn't hold up if you read some history. For example, in his autobiography, Ben Franklin states that he is a Deist.