toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?

[Skavau]

Obviously a typo (White lie alert! White lie alert!).

Actually, referring to a moral degenerate atheist like you as a "scab" is highly inappropriate. Scabs help the healing process of a wound; atheists (such as you) are the CAUSE of the wound.

I know it is a lie, since you've called me 'Skabau' twice. At any rate, is that really it? Are you that pathetic and immature that you have to deliberately and pointlessly insult someone that simply has a different world view than yourself? And you then attempt to speak as someone with supposed divine moral insight? What kind of cretin do you take me or anyone else for?

Grow up.

(Note also the obvious inconsistency in declaring that a 'scab' heals wounds and then declare that being called it somehow indicates the cause of the wound).

A more appropriate term would be "blood sucking leech". You see SkaVau, atheists are parasites that prey on others that have done all of the work for them.

And who am I praying on, precisely? How would you even know to declare whether or not someone is a 'blook sucking leech' based on what they do not, or could not be led to believe?

In this case, you prey on a Christian founded society that were given "God-given rights" by the Founders, yet you don't want to acknowledge that, you only want to enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor.

What are you blithering about? My nation is England, of Britain. I do not live in the United States, nor am I bothered at all by the allegedly 'Christian' ancestry of the political system of the United States (which is certainly not clear, by any means). I will also not be told and hear any nonsense by some pseudo-theofascist that they endorse and herald the American forefathers as ideological heroes when their ultimate objective is to insert and subjugate the entire global population under said theofascism across the world. The worship of the forefathers is not compatible and consistent with such vitriol.

If you would like to debate what principles our Founders followed when they gave us our Constitutional Republic, how about we start with this one:

"The Ten Commandments in American History" (all 10 are covered; page one only covers the First Commandment).
http://vftonline.org/TenC 4 USA/UShistory/1st.htm

What a bogus and ridiculous link. Just see the First Amendment.

You'd fit quite well into their Godless agenda.

Sure. Doesn't offend or upset me in the slightest.

WHAT A COINCIDENCE! God doesn't care what YOU think. He is STILL the Creator of the Universe and EVERYTHING in it.

I was just expressing the point that it doesn't matter to me how or when you declare God's authority on anything.

 

[Paulos]

Ah yes; a liberal's favorite Bible verse: "Thou shalt not judge (my wicked ways)."

I guess Paul was just joshing when he wrote 1 Cor 5:12 then?

There is a difference between a crime and a sin. Crimes are violations of rights committed against other people, and they can be rightly judged and punished. Sins, however, are private moral issues that cannot be judged by the state.

According to Paul, Christians are to judge righteous judgment among themselves. Those who are disobedient are to be punished by being excommunicated from the church. As for those who are outside of the church, they are to be preached to and, for those who are receptive to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, converted. We are called to save the world, not to condemn it:

Luke 9
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Where in the New Testament are Christians commanded to be busybodies meddling in the affairs of other people's private lives? We as Christians are called to preach the word of God's judgment, and it is up to others to accept it or reject it. Other than that we are to mind our own business (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

HOWEVER Paulos, let it be known, if I EVER get in trouble with the law, I'd want you on my jury.

Why? If you committed the crime, I would vote to convict you.

 

[Newman]

Hello Newman.

As I pointed out in our so-called "debate" that started I believe back on page 11, you are a "Christian libertarian" (at which point you rolled on the floor, throwing a temper tantrum that would make a 3 year old green with envy).

What is a Christian libertarian? You used part of the description in an earlier post (I'll highlight the part that you used in the following description of Christian libertarianism):

"Christian libertarianism is a term used by people to describe the synthesis of their Christian beliefs with their libertarian political philosophy. It is also a political philosophy in itself that has its roots in libertarianism and it is a political ideology to the extent that Christian libertarians promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In general, Christian libertarians believe that Christians should not use government as a tool to control others' moral behavior or to initiate the use of force against others. They further believe these principles are supported by Christ's teaching and by the Bible.

According to the Reverend Andrew Sandlin while he was at The Chalcedon Foundation, Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals are permitted maximum freedom under God's law.
http://www.ourholycause.com/2009/05/discussion-so-what-is-christian.html

I've asked many a Christian libertarian the following question, yet NONE have answered it:

"What is "maximum freedom under God's law" mean?

There's something wrong with you.

I don't know who Andrew Sandlin is. I don't know what the Chalcedon Foundation is. Why would I have any idea what he meant by "maximum freedom under God's law"? It could mean that we are free to sin, but will one day be held accountable for it. It could mean that God's law should not be a government's law. He could be referencing 1 Corinthians 10:23. He may not even believe in the consequences of sin and meant that God's law means nothing. I have no idea what this random guy meant in this random statement. I can promise you one thing, it is no foothold for you in this argument. A straw man, if you will.

Yet, I'm confused as to why you think pressuring me to define/explain somebody else's phrase will help your position. You should use what I say, not what other people say, if you are going to try to engage me in debate. That is how these things usually go.

I'd encourage you to think about Jesus' life and ministry. Ask yourself these questions: Did he force people to obey God's law? Did he vie for some political power? When confronting others, did he reference the law of the Romans, or the Scriptures? Did he lock people in jail or kill people for sinning? Did he endorse any government policies (I mean, besides the whole "Give unto Caesar..." thing) of the left, the right, the authoritarian, or even the libertarian?

I'm going to give you one more chance, Scon. If you link one thing, copy and paste a single word from somebody else claiming that they represent my viewpoint, or attack your straw man one more time, I'm blocking you.

I have a feeling you think I'm not a Christian because I have the radical idea that I shouldn't criminally enforce the Bible on the populace. I believe that everyone has sinned and has therefore fallen short of God's expectations. God came to earth in human form as Jesus Christ. He lived and led a ministry on earth without sinning. He was crucified and died for our sake--a perfect sacrifice for us imperfect beings. When the time comes, I will not be able to boast in anything I've done or said. I will not be able to point to my flesh for righteousness. I will only be able to plead the saving blood of Christ to enter the place he is preparing. I can't wait.

Oh, and by the way, I've never thrown a temper tantrum in my life. Ask my parents. I'm a very easy-going guy, unlike the uptight statists around these parts.

 

[Newman]

WHAT A COINCIDENCE! God doesn't care what YOU think. He is STILL the Creator of the Universe and EVERYTHING in it.

Except for the fact that he came and died for the sake of man's sin.

Psalm 8:3-4

 

[aSeattleConserv]

I guess Paul was just joshing when he wrote 1 Cor 5:12 then?

Yet you completely ignored the numerous passages that I posted.

There is a difference between a crime and a sin. Crimes are violations of rights committed against other people, and they can be rightly judged and punished. Sins, however, are private moral issues that cannot be judged by the state.

Oh, you mean "victimless crimes" like prostitution, homosexuality, recreational drug use, alcohol abuse and pornography?

According to Paul, Christians are to judge righteous judgment among themselves. Those who are disobedient are to be punished by being excommunicated from the church.

Define "disobedient". If Joe Bob beats his wife to a bloody pulp while high on drugs because she had the audacity to talk back to him, then no more church services for Joe Bob? Sounds pretty harsh.

As for those who are outside of the church, they are to be preached to and, for those who are receptive to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, converted. We are called to save the world, not to condemn it

Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. I'd love to be the fly on the wall when that sermon went on.

Where in the New Testament are Christians commanded to be busybodies meddling in the affairs of other people's private lives? We as Christians are called to preach the word of God's judgment, and it is up to others to accept it or reject it. Other than that we are to mind our own business (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

Just so that I know what mindset you're coming from, what denomination do you belong to?

Does the civil magistrate have ANY role when it comes to your view on this subject?

It does in mine:

1. God the supream Lord, and King of all the World, hath ordained Civil (a) Magistrates to be under him, over the people for his own glory, and the publick good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the Sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.

(a) Rom. 13:1-4

2. It is lawful for Christians to Accept, and Execute the Office of a Magistrate when called thereunto; in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain (b) Justice, and Peace, according to the wholsome Laws of each Kingdome, and Commonwealth: so for that end they may lawfully now under the New Testament (c) wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

(b) 2 Sam. 23:3; Psalm 82:3-4 | (c) Luke 3:14

3. Civil Magistrates being set up by God, for the ends aforesaid; subjection in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yeilded by us, in the Lord; not only for wrath (d) but for Conscience sake; and we ought to make supplications and prayers for Kings, and all that are in Authority, (e) that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.

(d) Rom. 13:5-7; 1 Pet. 2:17 | (e) 1 Tim. 2:1-2

 

[aSeattleConserv]

I don't know who Andrew Sandlin is. I don't know what the Chalcedon Foundation is. Why would I have any idea what he meant by "maximum freedom under God's law"?

Hello Newman.

Ummmm...because you put it in one of your posts?

"Today, 08:57 AM

I win!

Quote:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%

LIBERTARIAN

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters."

Life is tough for Ron Paul libertarians like yourself Newman; trying to hang out with the bad boys in the school restroom smoking cigarettes, all the while trying to be good little Christians at home."

Block away.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Uh, we already have a system in place for dealing with violent crimes ASC. Nobody seems to be objecting to that but rather the idea of meddling in people's private lives where no violation or abuse is occurring. If 'Joe Bob' beats his wife up then he deserves to be prosecuted and locked up regardless of whether he's rebuked by those in the church. Pretty straightforward. Your desire to set up a theo - police state is something else entirely. It's not your place to enforce your own morality on those outside of the church where no crime is taking place.

 

[Paulos]

Yet you completely ignored the numerous passages that I posted.

Yet you completely ignored 1 Cor 5:12.

Oh, you mean "victimless crimes" like prostitution, homosexuality, recreational drug use, alcohol abuse and pornography?

Alcohol abuse is a crime? Since when?

Define "disobedient". If Joe Bob beats his wife to a bloody pulp while high on drugs because she had the audacity to talk back to him, then no more church services for Joe Bob? Sounds pretty harsh.

Beating someone up is a crime. Crimes are punishable by the state. Sins, not so much. For example, fornication is a sin, but it is no crime.

Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. I'd love to be the fly on the wall when that sermon went on.

Sheer idiocy on display.

Just so that I know what mindset you're coming from, what denomination do you belong to?

My religious beliefs are mainstream Evangelical. Which do you belong to?

Does the civil magistrate have ANY role when it comes to your view on this subject?

Ridiculous!

 

[lightbringer]

"Today, 08:57 AM"

Hope your detective work is better while on the job...first post of the day was at 10:24 by LH.....Newman's post was at 10:57.

How long have you been on the force?

trying to hang out with the bad boys in the school restroom smoking cigarettes, all the while trying to be good little Christians at home.

:rotfl:

 

[aSeattleConserv]

My nation is England, ...

Enough said.

This article is for you:

Recently, I watched a news report and read one, which stated that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want the pope arrested for “crimes against humanity” when he arrives in England this September. This stems from the reports that Pope Benedict XVI had covered up a case of sexual abuse of a minor in 1985 while he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger.

I have not paid much attention to the investigation of this incident, so I don’t feel qualified to speak about Benedict’s innocence or guilt. If he’s guilty of covering up pedophilia (as some other Catholic clergy have been), then he should be charged appropriately; although, I’m not sure if “crimes against humanity” is the proper charge and, as far as I know, the alleged crimes did not occur in England.

My point here is not to discuss the legal ramifications of what Benedict may or may not have done; it is to point out the utter hypocrisy displayed by Dawkins and Hitchens. Why haven’t they led the charge against organizations like NAMBLA, which seeks to lower the age of consent to 8? NAMBLA seeks to legalize pedophilia; yet, I’ve never heard Dawkins or Hitchens speak against this and seek the arrest of the movement’s leadership. If they have, I’d be happy to apologize and retract this statement.

However, the biggest point of hypocrisy comes from their own belief system. If there is no God, as these leading atheists aggressively proclaim, then there is no absolute standard for morality and it would be foolish to say something is right or wrong. By whose standard do you make this determination? For the atheist, there are really only two options: individuals decide or society decides. If each person gets to decides for himself/herself what is right or wrong, then one can’t say that any of their decisions were wrong. If each society gets to determine this, then no one can say that what the Nazis (who controlled the society of Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s) did was wrong because Hitler’s society determined that it was fine to exterminate the Jews.

There is a bigger problem with an atheist crying out for moral justice (for the record, I’m glad most atheists do hold moral standards). If evolution were true, then there would be no such thing as human will and a person could not help but behave the way he does. Since we would just be cosmic accidents, the result of random chemical reactions, then all of our decisions would be the result of mere chemical reactions in our brains. We could say, “The chemicals made me do it.” Consider the frightening, yet consistent, words of atheist Will Provine:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.1
Dawkins and Hitchens aren’t consistent here. They rail against religious believers, yet, if their atheism were true, their very comments would be unnecessary! Why don’t they complain about the “crimes against humanity” committed by atheists over the past 100 years? What about the tens of millions exterminated by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (see The Results of Evolution)?

Moreover, they don’t rail against their own religious view of atheism, which is a belief system about what we came from (nothing), what our purpose is (nothing), and what happens when we die (nothing). Their true colors are, therefore, on display here. Dawkins and Hitchens are motivated by a hatred of anything that smacks of Christianity. Why are they so offended by the idea of God since they don’t even believe He exists? Why spend your life on a crusade attacking something you think is a fairy tale? Why would Richard Dawkins write several books attacking God and not write anything to refute Tinkerbell, for example?

The fact of the matter is that Dawkins and Hitchens know full well that God exists, but are desperately trying to justify their unbelief. They are fulfilling the words of Romans 1 . They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). They do not like to retain the knowledge of God in their thinking (Romans 1:28). Their foolish hearts have been darkened and their thinking is futile (Romans 1:21). They claim to be wise but have become fools (Romans 1:22). I pray they will seek the truth before it’s too late.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/25/leading-atheists-display-bias

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Uh, we already have a system in place for dealing with violent crimes ASC. Nobody seems to be objecting to that but rather the idea of meddling in people's private lives where no violation or abuse is occurring. If 'Joe Bob' beats his wife up then he deserves to be prosecuted and locked up regardless of whether he's rebuked by those in the church. Pretty straightforward. Your desire to set up a theo - police state is something else entirely. It's not your place to enforce your own morality on those outside of the church where no crime is taking place.

Do tell me about the "victimless crimes" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) that Paulos deliberately ignored: "victimless crimes" like prostitution, homosexuality, recreational drug use, alcohol abuse and pornography.

We've had (or had) laws against those crimes for sometime now. Are you implying because we enforce morality that we are living in a "police state"?

Are you an anarchist Art? Perhaps you're proponet of "anarchist capitalism"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_anarchism

Regarding Paulos questioning me about laws against alcohol abuse:

http://nationalsubstanceabuseindex.org/alcohollaws.htm

Welcome to our godless society. That's what you get when man isn't self restrained by the morals of God: more government laws (control).

 

[Skavau]

Enough said.

Why? What is 'enough' said' about me being from England?

Recently, I watched a news report and read one, which stated that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want the pope arrested for “crimes against humanity” when he arrives in England this September. This stems from the reports that Pope Benedict XVI had covered up a case of sexual abuse of a minor in 1985 while he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger.

Yes, I know about this.

My point here is not to discuss the legal ramifications of what Benedict may or may not have done; it is to point out the utter hypocrisy displayed by Dawkins and Hitchens. Why haven’t they led the charge against organizations like NAMBLA, which seeks to lower the age of consent to 8? NAMBLA seeks to legalize pedophilia; yet, I’ve never heard Dawkins or Hitchens speak against this and seek the arrest of the movement’s leadership. If they have, I’d be happy to apologize and retract this statement.

Christopher Hitchens has spend a great deal of life criticising all sorts of groups and organisations. At any rate, Nambla is an organisation that gets no free realm, nor liberty to pursue its objectives whatsoever. The complaint is simply incomparable.

However, the biggest point of hypocrisy comes from their own belief system. If there is no God, as these leading atheists aggressively proclaim, then there is no absolute standard for morality and it would be foolish to say something is right or wrong.

Not this utter gibberish again. It betrays a complete misunderstanding and total ignorance of human behaviour and our the very nature of our social species. Morality is, as I've explained to you necessarily interested in and based solely on interaction with other people. Whether or not an 'absolute standard' exists is an incoherent claim in and of itself. How can preferred behaviours be in and of themselves 'absolute' or binded to the universe makes no sense.

There is a bigger problem with an atheist crying out for moral justice (for the record, I’m glad most atheists do hold moral standards). If evolution were true, then there would be no such thing as human will and a person could not help but behave the way he does. Since we would just be cosmic accidents, the result of random chemical reactions, then all of our decisions would be the result of mere chemical reactions in our brains. We could say, “The chemicals made me do it.” Consider the frightening, yet consistent, words of atheist Will Provine:

The author of this article has no idea about evolution or what it is. All of this can be outright dismissed with no problem.

Moreover, they don’t rail against their own religious view of atheism, which is a belief system about what we came from (nothing), what our purpose is (nothing), and what happens when we die (nothing). Their true colors are, therefore, on display here. Dawkins and Hitchens are motivated by a hatred of anything that smacks of Christianity. Why are they so offended by the idea of God since they don’t even believe He exists? Why spend your life on a crusade attacking something you think is a fairy tale? Why would Richard Dawkins write several books attacking God and not write anything to refute Tinkerbell, for example?

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism does not say we have no purpose. Atheism does not say we came from nothing. Atheism does not decree no afterlife. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in the existence of God(s). It makes no other truth claims on anything else.

Moreover, the reason 'God' and 'Christianity' are railed against instead of Tinkerbell is because people, claiming to be on behalf of God (such as yourself) support laws that would directly suspend the liberty of others in favour of and because of said beliefs. I and many other secular-minded, humanitarian-leaning and humanist thinking individuals have no interest in being told that we must have our actions and behaviour restricted on the pretext of someone else's beliefs.

This simply does not happen with Tinkerbell.

The fact of the matter is that Dawkins and Hitchens know full well that God exists, but are desperately trying to justify their unbelief. They are fulfilling the words of Romans 1 . They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). They do not like to retain the knowledge of God in their thinking (Romans 1:28). Their foolish hearts have been darkened and their thinking is futile (Romans 1:21). They claim to be wise but have become fools (Romans 1:22). I pray they will seek the truth before it’s too late.

Of course, the author, who doesn't know anything about Dawkins and Hitchens (certainly nothing about how Hitchens comments on many, many things other than Christianity) have no way of knowing this.

They themselves betray their own arrogance and presumptions by outright and in complete totality dismissing the possibility of sincerity on behalf of atheists.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Unclench your jaw Skavau, I can feel the tension clear over here in Seattle.

Good article.

 

[Skavau]

Unclench your jaw Skavau, I can feel the tension clear over here in Seattle.

Good article.

So you have no inclination to defend it then? You have no response other than to assume some hypothetical outrage on my behalf? My response is as everyone can see. The article is full of misinformation, presumptuous guesswork and it is clear the authors know nothing about Christopher Hitchens.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

So you have no inclination to defend it then? You have no response other than to assume some hypothetical outrage on my behalf? My response is as everyone can see. The article is full of misinformation, presumptuous guesswork and it is clear the authors know nothing about Christopher Hitchens.

After spending years and years around moral relative atheists like yourself Skavau, the article was "spot-on"!

The only thing I would have added to the article would be that atheists (foolishly, like the fools that they are) depend on the words "consent" and "societal standards" as justification of their so-called "moral code".

What IS an atheist's (such as yourself) "standard" for morality?

Make it simple Skavau, as you know that us Christians aint two smert when it comes to understanding atheism.

 

[Skavau]

After spending years and years around moral relative atheists like yourself Skavau, the article was "spot-on"!

You can add this to another one of your lies. Given you know nothing about 'atheism' and repeatedly get the definition wrong and endorse other articles that get the definition wrong - I will outright say that you are being deliberately deceitful here.

So I will humbly suggest you back up what you say and refute the points I responded with if you strenously believe that the article is accurate.

The only thing I would have added to the article would be that atheists (foolishly, like the fools that they are) depend on the words "consent" and "societal standards" as justification of their so-called "moral code".

Yes! Do you know nothing about humanity whatsoever? Do you know nothing about liberty and freedom?

What IS an atheist's (such as yourself) "standard" for morality?

The only real 'objective' criteria that there can be is a respect for everyone's own personal liberty. The complete (as much as possible) non-intervention into the personal lives of everyone. Just as you would not condone being told that you cannot be a Christian - homosexuals would not condone being told that they cannot have their liberty. It is this common ground that maximises happiness for everyone.

Make it simple Skavau, as you know that us Christians aint two smert when it comes to understanding atheism.

You're not very smart at understanding anything, full stop.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

The only real 'objective' criteria that there can be is a respect for everyone's own personal liberty. The complete (as much as possible) non-intervention into the personal lives of everyone. Just as you would not condone being told that you cannot be a Christian - homosexuals would not condone being told that they cannot have their liberty. It is this common ground that maximises happiness for everyone.

Now we're getting somewhere! Are you familiar with the words "chaos" and "anarchy"?

Do you not realize that people living their own version of "personal liberty" would lead to both?

 

[Skavau]

Now we're getting somewhere! Are you familiar with the words "chaos" and "anarchy"?

Do you not realize that people living their own version of "personal liberty" would lead to both?

No. How so?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do tell me about the "victimless crimes" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) that Paulos deliberately ignored: "victimless crimes" like prostitution, homosexuality, recreational drug use, alcohol abuse and pornography.

We've had (or had) laws against those crimes for sometime now. Are you implying because we enforce morality that we are living in a "police state"?

Are you an anarchist Art? Perhaps you're proponet of "anarchist capitalism"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_anarchism

Regarding Paulos questioning me about laws against alcohol abuse:

http://nationalsubstanceabuseindex.org/alcohollaws.htm

Welcome to our godless society. That's what you get when man isn't self restrained by the morals of God: more government laws (control).

Well first off, where did I say anything about 'victimless crimes'? :idunno:

Alcohol intoxication isn't a crime. That isn't to say that alcohol abuse can lead to crime but you need to see the difference. Prostitution is already a crime. So is substance use although the way these are handled through current legislation could do with distinct improvement. Pornography has been around for decades so what you gonna do? Homosexuality is an orientation and not a crime so deal with it.

What you're banging on about with 'anarchist capitalist' is neither relevant nor applicable to myself or the argument but have fun with that as you will....

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why? What is 'enough' said' about me being from England?

Well I'm from England as well. ASC obviously doesn't yet know about our 'wicker man' celebrations and tortoise sacrifices as standard national practice so.....(ssshhhhh)