Post Reply
Page 39 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39
Switch to Forum Live View Yet another "evangelical Christian" caught in sexual affair
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 1:18PM #381
REteach
Posts: 14,796

Jun 3, 2010 -- 12:50PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Sure, I admit that. The interpretation I'm going with has historically been the interpretation of that verse and has many theologians and many millions of people who believe and support it.




Oh, the same way Christians used the Bible to approve of slavery for thousands of years?  You still in favor of the traditional interpretations about slavery too?

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 1:21PM #382
REteach
Posts: 14,796

Jun 3, 2010 -- 12:52PM, Girlchristian wrote:

You still haven't answered my question. Is ackowledging sin slander? If I say murder is sin (very clear directive in the Bible) is that slander? If I say pride (also very clear) is sin is that slander? Or is it only slander when you don't believe the sin in question is actually a sin?




Yes, I did. I said acknowledging your own sin is not slander. 


What is murder?  God told Joshua to kill babies in Jericho.  Was that murder?  We have capital punishment in many US states--is an executioner a murderer?  Was Gen. Rommell attempting murder against Hitler?  It is not quite as clear as you think.


Not to mention there is a clear harm to someone who is killed, or from whom something is stolen.  What is the harm to you if someone is gay?

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 2:10PM #383
Larosser
Posts: 413

Jun 3, 2010 -- 8:53AM, TemplarS wrote:


Larosser-


Good post, restating some things which, though obvious, we can tend to forget.


But- there are grey areas.  There are laws, which I'd bet the vast majority of people would not want to change, which do not neatly fit the criteria you mention.


For example- it is very hard to see what harm would come to anybody if you or I were to walk down the street naked. Yet I know of noplace where this is legal, nor of any widepsread sentiment to make it legal, even though the current law might be said to infringe on the personal rights of somebody who might wish to do so.


Closer to the contentious issue at hand: polygamy is illegal, though it does no harm to anybody; the vast majority of us, again, want to keep it so, at the price of infringing on the rights of a few individuals in Utah.


These are laws, perhaps, of social convention. To some degree, behaviors like this do impact what  we consider to be the norms of our society, so in that sense they might be thought of as doing collective harm, though not personal harm.


But social conventions can change; and when they do, there is no point to hanging on to anachronistic laws.  


The converse is true also; in the old days, smoking was legal anyplace, on the theory that it harmed none but the smoker.  Now we know better; and our laws has been changed to reflect that.


 





Hey, Templar.  In general, I agree that these are laws of social convention.


The "naked" one doesn't bother me too much, because a) I believe that going naked in public in this society is really just a special case of maintaining an attractive (or perhaps UNattractive) nuisance and b) I do not want to share public seating with nekkidy folk. :)


The multiple marriage one vexes me a bit - why CAN'T I have two husbands (assuming that I'm crazy enought to want two), although I admit that if I were a lawmaker, I would run screaming from this one just because of the complications it would bring to community property, inheritance, and child custody.


Someone else brought up the marijuana prohibition as another example, and THAT one burns my shorts. I lobby for legalization every chance I get on both practical and humanitarian grounds.


It's my opinion that if we would reduce the number of "conventional" and "special case" laws on the books and be more careful that the laws on the books actually both comply with the intent of our first principles and specifically address the root concern in play, we'd all be better off.


 


Best


La

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 5:11PM #384
TemplarS
Posts: 6,865

Larosser, on the issue of marijuana-


I can see the legitimate interest on the part of government in regulating "private vices" which cause damage to society as a whole. 


The problem, of course, is that certain of these private vices cause vastly more public harm than marijuana.  Alcohol, for one, and especially tobacco.  But these are so engrained in the fabric of our society that attempts to ban them entirely are not (yet) workable.  This was of course tried (and failed) in the case of alcohol; though  I can see the day when public opinion might allow a total ban on tobacco.  But the other factor in these cases is the large financial vested interest on the part of the alcohol and tobacco industries; marijuana has no such lobby in DC.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 5:16PM #385
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Yeah, man...


(toke, toke)


One of these days we're gonna REALLY lobby Washington.


(toke, toke)


Man, we'll be so stromg, and all our reasons........uh, reasonable.


('ear, you hit it.)


Quit bogartin', man.


(toke, nose hit)


Yep, all those congressmen will just, they'll just, they'll, SHIT, man, they'll just shit cause we're so cool.


One of these days, man.  You got any chips and dip?

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 6:41PM #386
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 3, 2010 -- 5:16PM, Christianlib wrote:


Yeah, man...


(toke, toke)


One of these days we're gonna REALLY lobby Washington.


(toke, toke)


Man, we'll be so stromg, and all our reasons........uh, reasonable.


('ear, you hit it.)


Quit bogartin', man.


(toke, nose hit)


Yep, all those congressmen will just, they'll just, they'll, SHIT, man, they'll just shit cause we're so cool.


One of these days, man.  You got any chips and dip?






Marijuana is going to be legalized in this country before you know it...and, when it does, all the hysteria and all the stereotyping and all the overused cliches about potheads will simply evaporate into the sky and float away like all the others that came before.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 7:36PM #387
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Sirron,


I'm not sterotyping "potheads", I'm remembering my youth, and making fun of the stereotypes.


(Op. Cit. Cheech and Chong)

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2010 - 11:08PM #388
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Actually, most states have expanded their DUI to include driving under the influence of any drugs. I think they should go ahead and legalize pot simply so they can sock it with all the same taxes that tobacco sales continue to generate. everybody was sure it was going to be legalized or at least decriminalized. Indiana (my home state) laws were overkill when I was a teen. Having any on you--even a joint--was a felony. so when the narcs came and talked to us and  stressed that if we were really someone's friend we should tell their parents or turn them in to the police it went over like the proverbial lead balloon.


You'd think the politicians who are screwing around would be thrilled to have more of the voters too m ellow to care about how hypocritical they were. My mother's boss was a conservative Republican who got targetted by the religious right for having said that he didn't think the government should be involved in abortions and it should be between a woman, her doctor and God. He never said he was for them, just that the government should stay out of it. I passed along the comment that I'd never dreamed I'd see the day that he would be the liberal in an election. He lost--who could match those war chests? I understand some of the commercials were vicious.


which gets us back to Mr.Wonderful, who played his virtues and God-fearing Family Values roles as often and as loudly as he could get someone else to pay for it. It's amazing how vicious some of these chest-thumpers are until they get caught isn't it? They certainly want more sympathy, forgiveness, and amnesia than they've ever dished out themselves.


Too bad we have such a long line of hypocrites slathering to take their place, isn't it?


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2010 - 9:41AM #389
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,244

To bring this thread back to topic and make it more relevant to it's new home.... Yet another politician who professes to be an evangelical Christian has been caught with his pants down. Charges of hypocrisy aren't so far off the mark considering Souder promotes "family values"  ---


 


How can  ECs possibly claim their religion holds the monopoly on morality and ethics when this kind of nonsense happens with such frequency?


This thread has been moved from Hot Topics Zone to Discuss Evangelical Christianity


--- agnosticspirit - Bnet community co-host HTZ

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 12:35PM #390
Elizabethmarkley
Posts: 9

May 18, 2010 -- 12:01PM, Do_unto_others wrote:






I am from the area where he was a representative and the only thing about this that bothered me was the fact that despite how horrible and incompetent he was at his job, it took an affair to get him out of office. He never listened to any of us and didn't give a @#$% about our opinions. He is an example that religion should not be a factor in politics, although nowadays it seems to be the only thing that people seem to care about. But I knew him on a more personal level and have met him several times. He's a total dick. His affair had no effect on my opinion of him. I was just glad to see him finally out of office.


 


On another note, I don't think it should matter what religion someone is when it comes to morality. I'm a Pagan and if I had an affair it would be against my beliefs just as much as any other religion. We all have morality, just different ways of practicing and expressing it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 39 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook