Comment Re:The issue is less that and more about corruptio (Score 1, Insightful) 102
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
That's all a ruse. Once she's received the nomination, they will all be circling the wagons around her to shield her from any scrutiny.
The other side of the coin is "living document" where we change the meaning of the words to fit the current times.
I am much more in favor of using the tools given to us to change the Constitution vrs changing it's meaning based on current interpretation.
That's exactly the problem. Nobody wants to amend the Constitution, they want to "interpret" it, as if the meaning of it weren't clear enough as is. You mentioned Prohibition, which I think is one of the best examples. Nobody so far has been able to explain to me why we had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but the same thing is not necessary for any other drug. The entire war on drugs is an unconstitutional sham.
The Communists were less Evil...
Tens of millions of Chinese & Russians along with other eastern European & Asian countries might disagree. I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
So I don't understand why this seems to come as a surprise to a lot of people.
It goes against the dumb jock/wimpy nerd stereotypes most people have.
As would the AIDs patients in Africa who were scared away from condom use.
This is a nonsensical argument. If the Catholics had as much sway in this arena as you give them, there wouldn't be an AIDS crisis in Africa. The Catholic position on sex is abstinence outside of marriage. If they didn't listen to the Catholics on abstinence, why would they listen to Catholics if they were pushing condoms? There are plenty of valid criticisms against the Catholic church, this is not one of them.
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
This is actually a pretty common misconception about Islam. You're correct in saying that Christians are hypocrites when they do any of those things, because it runs contrary to the teachings of Christ. You can't say the same about Muslims when they commit acts like this, because they are expressly commanded by Muhammed either in the Quran or the Hadith (honor killings, killing apostates, drawing images of the "prophet", etc.).
I don't understand the "atonement through Christ's death". How does the death of someone, especially if they know they are divine and will rise again, atone for the sins of someone else? Is it like if I pay for someone else's parking ticket?
Kind of, but not really. From Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." So God gave a way for people to atone for their sins through blood sacrifice, otherwise all would perish. However, it's not something he desired; the tribes of Israel were using it as a loophole instead of an actual act of contrition (See Isaiah 1:11-17).
That makes sense in terms of financial punishment, but it doens't make sense for person A to spend time in jail for a murder commited by person B.
Sins are sometimes referred to as debts. For instance, in some Bible translations, you'll see the Lord's Prayer as "forgive us our debts as we forgive others' debts" instead of "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." So when you commit a sin, you essentially have a debt that needs to be paid.
Why would God accept payment for that? Surely God knew that Jesus's death was not permanent?
Yes, of course he knew Jesus would be resurrected. That was always a part of the prophecy regarding the Christ. As to why he selected this method to allow all people to atone for their sin, I'm afraid I can't give a complete answer to that, but I'm not sure anyone can. God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways...". From the best of my ability to understand, it has to do with his desire to show mercy to the world, but still uphold justice.
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
That was a quote from the poster before my poster. I'm disagreeing with his position.
Okay, that makes much more sense. Sorry for the mistake. You know they have quote tags you can use which really helps to clear these things up, especially if the post you are quoting is below a reader's score threshold. It's just <quote>.
God I miss the days of good cellphones. My Nokia N82 was epic in battery life. Back when Nokia made the absolute best cellphones in the solar system.
I highly doubt it. If you were serious, you'd still have one, since there are still *plenty* of old-style phones available. Would you really trade whatever you have now for one of these?
You want to treat people as second class citizens because you disagree with their world view.
I'm not really sure why you see this as a problem. Previously you wrote:
There's no reason to be religious in this modern world. People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional
No. Christians claim that there's a very specific condition. John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There may be some debate around what what it means to believe in Jesus, but if someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe that, they're not really a Christian.
on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.
Again, no. It is not possible for a person to fully love God and follow his laws perfectly, which is what made atonement through Christ's death necessary. Hell is separation from God. As noted above, God gave a very specific way for people to spend eternity with him. If you don't want to believe in Jesus Christ, then you spend eternity separated from him. That seems perfectly logical to me.
What you seem to be espousing is the secular Hollywood/pop-culture view of Christianity, which is almost always an inaccurate portrayal of it.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
