ATTN: Cal
-
Well, no it doesn't.
Your twisting the context of what I said would, but your "reinterpretation" is not valid.
And, what I have been saying is -trend - liberals TEND to etc.
"all libs" and "all conservatives" is invalid, given that we are all different to some degree.
But, we disagree. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. I just say that I have more reasons
to feel the way I do than you do.
On the abortion issue, you rationalize for the "greater good".
Without any analogies for comparison purposes, let me just say, that the "greater good" can
easily be as much a vice as it can be a virture.
No, let's say a staunch adherence to the Supreme Court decision that we are guaranteed the right to bear arms.
But you can rationalize away that right by stating that if no guns existed, no one would ever get shot.
But then, only criminals, in reality, would have guns, outside of the military and police depts.
But then, unarmed Americans would be easy prey, and that has been proven historically, as crime goes up
when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens.
But, then, some innocent people, like kids, get killed with guns.
but then, some families lives are saved with guns.
on and on and on it goes. That's why I have a dim view of rationalization to support an idealogical stance.
I prefer historical evidence, and legal precedent, both of which fall on the side of the right to bear arms.
I prefer "life" as in, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those three go by the wayside for
unborn and just born children with abortion.
So, it really is complicated, and reaching for humanist rationalization is linear. Despite many factors to be considered,
one or two simplistic humanist rationalizations all too often make a liberals' case.
And that, isn't not "close minded" when a conservative doesn't accept the lib's stance.
rejecting the linear emotionally based rationalization is just more valid to a comprehensive thinker.
-
Without any analogies for comparison purposes, let me just say, that the "greater good" can
easily be as much a vice as it can be a virture.
I'd agree with you. Abortion rights for parents take away something that has the potential to be a human life. But weighing the two options. I always come to the same conclusion.
So, it really is complicated, and reaching for humanist rationalization is linear. Despite many factors to be considered,
one or two simplistic humanist rationalizations all too often make a liberals' case.
And that, isn't not "close minded" when a conservative doesn't accept the lib's stance.
rejecting the linear emotionally based rationalization is just more valid to a comprehensive thinker.
Okay, really, enough with the linear thinking line, already. It's getting old, and there is nothing more comprehensive about your moral tendencies over mine. Nor are mine more comprehensive than yours. We both take all the same traits and issues into account, but weigh them differently.
-
I know, Vapor, "enough with".
Thank you for engaging the point about abortion. You said :
"I'd agree with you. Abortion rights for parents take away something that has the potential to be a human life. But weighing the two options. I always come to the same conclusion."
So, you used societies' self interest as the factor to decide how you think/feel about abortion.
You really think that is a valid factor in important decisions, Vapor?
You see, PRINCIPLE, the PRINCIPLE of the value of human life, rules with conservatives. It never warps, never changes,
never rationalizes. From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to
the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history...
for "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.
You said:
"and there is nothing more comprehensive about your moral tendencies over mine. Nor are mine more comprehensive than yours. We both take all the same traits and issues into account, but weigh them differently."
Look, my moral judgements are based on non changing principles and beliefs written down in the Bible, and our Constitution/Bill of Rights/Federalist Papers, and the rule of law, etc.
Your moral judgements let you simply determine your view of what's best for society, what's more convenient to society,
trumping all principle and concrete values.
That is a very dangerous game. You don't really want to go with that, Vapor. It's a double-edged sword, it can cut both ways,
for the "convenience" of society, as well as for the destruction of a society.
You can't be serious to equate the two decision making viewpoints simply because you feel better.
Society cannot build it's house on the weak and shifting sands of rationalizing self-interest.
"1994" ... by George Orwell........ "Anthem" by Ayn Rand.... etc.
"For the greater good" ? Here's a quote for you; I just made it up, seriously.
It's quite possible it's been said before, but here goes:
"Greed and extreme self-interest are the King and Queen of the rationalizing liberals' kingdom."
conservatives don't go the way of self interest and greed, generally speaking. That isn't close minded - it's
how they see the world.
The factors upon which decisions are finally based, are several for conservatives, and concrete.
The factor(s) used by liberals, tend to be emotional decisions based on what's convenient and good for society at the time...
When conservatives use a map to get somewhere, they follow the MAP.
When liberals use a map to get somewhere, they simply change the map so things fit their emotions.
When the conservative ship comes to shore at night, they follow the stars, and their GPS and the lighthouse light,
etc.
When the liberal ship comes to shore at night, they shine their spotlight on the nearest trees so they can quickly land because their bathroom is out of order, and the ship hits the rocks or sandbar, defeating their purpose.
And, that, in the final analysis on my part, means:
That liberals and society get nowhere they need to go, and individual liberty dies along the way, and they all are
sorry in the end.
Misery may love company, but we conservatives would rather keep the ship in shape.
So, there ya go.
Now my shoulder is aching, and it's all your fault. @@
-
Labeling is bullshit. What is "conservative" about invading a country and what is so "liberal" about keeping them there? It's childish name games.
-
ITT: Cal fails to realize that no one is actually wrong time after time, and that people just hold things in different regard. All the while reinforcing Haidt's theory.
So, you used societies' self interest as the factor to decide how you think/feel about abortion.
You really think that is a valid factor in important decisions, Vapor?
Yes, social justice is a big point for most people with a liberal viewpoint.
ou see, PRINCIPLE, the PRINCIPLE of the value of human life, rules with conservatives. It never warps, never changes,
never rationalizes. From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to
the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history...
But when there's a disagreement on what actually constitutes human life, your principle on abortion is irrelevant to those that don't believe it was a human life. Are you sure you want to compare me to Stalin and Hitler for being pro-Choice? Really? Get a grasp on history, please. Thanks.
or "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
Exactly. That's why everything is relative. Nothing is set in stone.
That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.
You can call it a fool's game if you like, it isn't. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes my point of view different. You think you're absolutely right. You do. This is why you're considered more closed-minded than me.
.... Sorry about your shoulder
But thanks for the reply. -
Despite all the generalities on both sides of the argument, and Vapor I completely disagree with you that there is no wrong answer. There most definitely is (but I believe that to be more of a religious argument).
Basically you guys are arguing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. In a Republic there are set rules that can only be changed by a complex method. A Democracy on the other hand is an ever changing set of rules because it is implicit on majority rule.
-
smalls, name one thing that is absolutely wrong.
-
smalls, name one thing that is absolutely wrong.
smalls, name one thing that truly is absolutely wrong.
Bestiality, Adultery, Pedophilia, there's nothing natural or beneficial to the human race in any of them. I could and am willing to list others but admittedly the line becomes harder to pin point. I will maintain to this day that jealousy and coveting are absolutely wrong; but they are also transient as they are emotive in nature and you can take the wrong (read negative in this instance) and use it for positive motivation. Murder leads to self defense and also revenge principles that I know personally would override my Principle. Example, I walk in immediately after you fatally harm my family and even know you are of no immediate threat to me, I cannot say that my knowing murder is absolutely wrong is going to stop me.
-
Adultery goes to primal instincts. Live to spread your seed. One mate is rarer in nature than multiple mates. What about polygamy? Pedophilia is relative to a point. What would you say about someone having an affair with a 17 year old? 15 is the legal age of consent in Sweden. Are people that go after 15 year olds there wrong? Beastiality is a little harder to argue, but hell, apparently both beings involved want to do it.
These are all societal norms, not absolute norms. The two closest things that I can think of are rape and genocide, but even then, I can think of times when society has deemed them as morally right. Rape is sometimes used as punishment by Islamic extremists. Genocide is advocated and acts of it are portrayed in the Bible. If we want to get really hypothetical, imagine another type of being becomes sentient, and we fight over resources with them. Would it be wrong to kill them all, even if they would do the same to us?
I realize that these are all extreme examples, but I don't think that you can prove any single moral theory is absolute. It's all based on the makeup of the society.
-
Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.
But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.
Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.
Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.
-
But when there's a disagreement on what actually constitutes human life, your principle on abortion is irrelevant to those that don't believe it was a human life. Are you sure you want to compare me to Stalin and Hitler for being pro-Choice? Really? Get a grasp on history, please. Thanks.
********************************
I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.
You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really
on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.
Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.
Admit it, you laughed at my conservative ship vs liberal ship. I mean, come on. Admit it...
***********************************************
or "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
Exactly. That's why everything is relative. Nothing is set in stone.
************************************************
I never spoke of "written in stone". I spoke of linear vs comprehensive analysis of issues, and I spoke of TENDENSIES on both sides,
imho.
Principles do not reverse themselves out of greed, political expediency, or hatred.
Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost
the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and
allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"
yes, you know better.
*************************************************
That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.
You can call it a fool's game if you like, it isn't. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes my point of view different. You think you're absolutely right. You do. This is why you're considered more closed-minded than me.
*************************************************
No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain
how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.
That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.
I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.
*****************
sorry about your shoulder
But thanks for the reply. *****************
THANKS ! My wonderful cute Wifie is having fun doing my therapy on my arm for me. @@
I heal fast, and my friends and brother and sister in law are amazed that the bigger scar on my shoulder (3")
has healed very well. Had surgery on the 16th, and the tape on the incisions was taken off the 29th. Lookin good,
except my powerful @@ left shoulder is wimpy now. "sigh"
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
--------------------
"Humanistic government bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
***FIXED***
*****************
"And the soft tyranny of anti_God humanist statists turns to hard tyranny throughout history" Cal
(I'm currently reading Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" so...)
-
Thanks for joining in, Smalls !
I don't see how slavery can be any kind of moral equivalency question.
but it has been in the past.
"for the greater good" and "moral equivalency" etc...
has lent itself to extreme outrageous persecution of peoples in history.
The nazis extermination of the Jews.... the starving of millions of people in the Ukraine.
Both those hideous events in history were justified for the "greater good".
These examples are just an extension of simplistic humanistic philophies by certain societies.
All I was saying, Vapor, is that human viewpoint run amuck with no basis on no established and
accepted principle has happened in the past, and the inhuman results occured.
Those principles are NOT law, but law is based, often, ON them.
Society has a right to protect itself, but society must also protect the -established- rights of INDIVIDUALS
making up that society. Lacking that, society falls into disarray, and violence, and oppression.
Smalls is right, Vapor, be careful about relying on the "moral relativism" justification for change.
-
Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.
But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.
Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.
Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.
Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.
But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.
Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.
Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.
Well if we assume it's societal law, then that puts a prerequisite on that law; meaning it's not absolute. So I suppose I am arguing under the concept of natural law. But even so, the argument for absolute societal laws is still kind of sketchy, imo.
I disagree with you about adultery. Multiple partners is the norm in many animals, and even in many societies. You didn't answer how you felt about polygamy/bigamy. It happens in Utah. It happens in much of the Islamic world. Hell, each man is promised 40 virgins in Paradise in Islam.
Pedophilia. I don't know. Everything I know about it, I learned from Chris Hansen in To Catch a Predator, lol, that show needs to come back. But they'd pretend to be 14 or 15 year old girls or boys sometimes. Then the people that would come would get labeled as pedophiles. Maybe it's not the most precise definition, but idk.
I don't see how your government-issued wife example works, though. Who decides what is right or wrong. In some cultures of the world (Islamic, Indian), people may believe that it's truly right. Obviously, because of your upbringing in a Western country, you look upon prearranged marriages and Sharia law as barbaric. I'd agree that they are barbaric, but that doesn't make us the paramount authority on morality.
And yes, concerning Hitler, moral relativism puts me on very shaky ground. Was Hitler absolutely evil? I'd still say no. I think he's wrong, but I'd argue that he was strongly misguided. He believed he was doing right. He convinced millions he was doing right. Millions of people believed that exterminating an entire group of people would result in a better world. Though the time and scale that he did it were unprecedented, I'd still argue that what he did was only wrong on a relative moral scale. Genocides have happened thousands of times since the time of written history. Look at the praises the Jews got from Yahweh for committing genocides during their expansion. Look at the expansion of Islam. Looking back now, what they did is barbaric, but at the time, it was necessary to carve out a foothold in the world, and lead to the largest cultural movement (Abrahamic religions) that the world has ever seen. Was establishing this culture wrong? I'd say that if you look back today, the answer is yes. But if you're around then, the answer is no. This dynamic demonstrates that there is no absolute moral law. Are there laws that our society tends to universally gravitate to? Perhaps, but if it takes 4000 years to come to a unanimous agreement (which there still really isn't) then it isn't absolute.
-
I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.
You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really
on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.
Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.
Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it?
From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to
the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history... for "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
You cherry-picked the very worst examples of people acting for the "greater good." I don't advocate any kind of extremism, imo, I'm just looking for a happy medium. Working for the greater good, and not abusing it, can lead to good things. Abuse of capitalism really screws people over too, do I even have to mention companies deemed too big to fail? Letting people work as individuals that screw each other over to get to the top, and assuming that they'll help out others is very naive. We're not the white knights of the world; fighting for individual rights (capitalism vs. communism) has resulted in some horrible human rights abuses. The situations that we created when expanding our influence over South America are morally reprehensible. I feel that what Hitler and Stalin did was ethically disgusting. I feel that many of the things the US has done have been ethically disgusting as well. I don't want some socialist utopia, nor do I want fascist nor capitalist utopia. I don't think any can exist, so please, the next time you consider comparing me to Hitler or Stalin, reconsider. Thanks.
No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain
how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.
That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.
I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.
I do understand yours. Your beliefs are based on the Holy Bible. You've said it yourself in other topics. It's the one true word. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. I can understand where you're coming from. Because Jesus/Moses/YHWH/Isaiah/etc said these things, you must uphold them. We both claim to understand where the other is coming from, and we both claim that the other doesn't understand us. This is where we sit. But because you hold the Bible as the true authority on morality, you close your mind to things that would contradict the inspired word of God. I, as far as I can tell, have no such authority. I have nothing to restrict or mold my beliefs except my knowledge of history, and interpretation of the events that unfold around me. If you believe me to be wrong, please provide an example of something that restricts my moral views to the degree the Bible does for you.
Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost
the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and
allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"
yes, you know better.
Read your Bible. There are places where it advocates all sorts of shit we would find appalling. The point is, that genocides were once okay, and they were okay according to your god, YHWH. I think it's in Leviticus, but you can find a verse where it advocates dashing the heads of your enemies' babies against a rock. You want to talk about child abuse? Read up on Lot and his daughters. You can come out and say, oh, well Jesus didn't actually say any of these things, but before that, this WAS the word of God. This was the moral paramount. The amount of moral contradictions in the Bible itself support my claim that morality is not absolute.
/edit
And I may have laughed when I read your boat analogy. But I certainly wasn't laughing with you
I mean, did you really just quote yourself? One of my speakers at my high school graduation did that. Worst speech ever. -
Kinda of quickie here so forgive me. The wife spread eagle argument wasn't necessarily applying to arranged marriages, merely I am saying that if the partner is not willing then it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. The 'it takes two to tango' scenario, if one is not tangoing and is in fact pleading for the band to stop I do not believe the dance to be immoral (admit it that is kind of a funny analogy).
On adultery/polygamy argument I must have missed the boat the first time so let me take another angle that concerns both. In a world of 6 billion people the concerns over this argument are definitely diminished, so image that there are only 428 people left on earth (I pulled that number from a memory of 2012 when they were talking about how much different DNA was needed to repopulate the human race. So we pair off those 428 for the purpose of re-population. Take either scenario, a man wooing/domineering/conning 10 women to become his wives and only have relations with him. Or the man who has his mate, decides it's not enough and finds 9 more willing to have fun on the side. In both cases imagine that all 10 women have his children. In the polygamy situation at least it is known and plans can be changed to accommodate. Now, in the adulteress case, the 9 other children were born without the knowledge of the rest. This could easily result in incest situation where the gene pool is dumbed down possibly ending any chance of re-population. Which by the way, has been a problem in the animal community where a 'stud' has nailed too many partners. I know for a fact the certain breed lineage in dogs has been all but ruined due to inbreeding.
-
Interesting point, but are you suggesting an absolute moral framework based solely on furthering mankind's progress toward... something? An enlightened era perhaps? But what is this end that you're aiming for? When you defined examples for absolute moral wrongs, you said that none of it was natural or beneficial to humankind. What defines something as beneficial to humankind?
-
Indeed I do believe that moral frameworks are essentially designed to maximize human life. Now I cannot pretend to know what the ends are to these means as I am not God/ nor am I enlightened enough to catch anything more than the occasional fleeting glimpse of how this end may look. This is why at the beginning I said that you and I were having more of a religious argument rather than a political one. And don't forget that I am not going on the religious definition/preconception of God. I have explained in detail before that I try to set my prism through the philosophical definition of God.
-
Okay, so let's take it down a level. Here, the term "absolute" no longer means absolute. We're talking absolute in... political terms I guess. Let me try to define what I mean. An absolute wrong, in this sense would be something such as rape. If someone running for office commits rape, it's career suicide. It's something that no one on any point of the political spectrum should be okay with. So maybe, something, that most everyone would agree unanimously on could be considered an absolute moral truth.
Aside from rape, what else is there? Pedophilia, perhaps, but if both parties are willing and the younger person is at least pubescent, I'd argue that some would find it okay. You mentioned sexual acts of perversion that added nothing to the human agenda as being absolute moral wrongs. Well where does the line get drawn at what sex acts are absolutely morally wrong? Paying for sex is one. Adultery would be another (thanks Wild Bill). What about oral sex? Premarital sex? Anal sex? Gay sex?
I think that we'll find, even now, that the term "absolute" is not static. I would bet if some politicians admitted they were gay, they'd lose their positions and support pretty quickly. I bet that will not be true in 20 years. But hey, if Barney Frank is openly gay, and a member of Congress, I guess that eliminates gay sex (that is, putting a penis in another man's ass) from the list of absolute moral wrongs.
-
Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it? Vapor]
****************************************
el wrongo, bongo.
I never said "what WILL happen", I said what CAN happen, and historically HAS happened. It has nothing to do with
saying you would so and so, or comparing you etc.
Like I said, don't play the liberal victim game. It isn't about you personally, Vapor. I'm explaining how I see things, and how you
sometimes, and liberals, a lot of the time, see them.
And, your comment on the Bible? Your example is cherry picked from the OLD TESTAMENT. The NEW TESTAMENT
supercedes the old.
Or, we would still have to do works out the wazoo and be perfect to be saved, and we are unable to do that, since we
are imperfect.
That is the point of Jesus' death on the cross.
The Bible is hardly the end all for my moral values. ie, the Bible, imho, never says anything anywhere about
interracial marriage. But I know that interracial marriage is perfectly fine by me, and i see no reason to think otherwise.
Others, conservatives and libs perhaps, think that the possible social ostricization is a reason for being against that,
but so would be being a Browns fan in Pittsburg be a problem with that. GGG
My life's experiences over eh... some...decades more than you.. ahem.... give me more reason to believe what I believe,
that you, in that dept. Doesn't mean I'm right, just means my life's experiences are many, as a lot of older folks do, not that I'm
that much of an older folk but ... eh
you know what I mean.
There are some libs screaming in the past on this board about the 2nd ammendment does not mean private citizens can bear arms.
blah blah blah.
then the Supreme Court ruled in exactly what we told them. They disappeared.
I understand subjective judgement, and I understand core principles of our freedom's existence.
Those principles are not subjective.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... is that really open to interpretation when you consider the life
of the unborn? Or just born?
We agree to disagree. But doesn't help to say I compared you, said what you will do etc. That is incorrect, for whatever reasons
prompt you to staunchly emphasize what isn't even the legit statements I've made at the time.
But thanks for the words about my shoulder. It'll be about 3-4 months before I can start using my own left arm again.
crap.
-
Then why do you have such a problem with homosexuality? Jesus said NOTHING about queers being wrong. The NT says women should keep quiet and be pregnant. Do you believe that, too? Everyone cherry picks from the Bible. The difference is, you hold its contents to be absolute truths, I don't.
There are many atheists that have lived as long as you or longer and kept their religious convictions.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login