How do you view God?

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by 1Way

The following issues presented seem well founded despite the various contentions against them.

1. Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
   (Capitol punishment as described by God’s word, not otherwise.)

1. 
   
   So, not only are do you want to execute homosexuals, but now you want to execute anyone who opposes you from killing homosexuals, or anyone who doesn't oppose homosexuality, whether they are gay or straight?

 

[Duder]

Clete -

We are advocating the exact legal system God put forward in the Bible. Do you think that God advocates mind-police?

There are a couple of factors you have overlooked mentioning. First, if God did reveal a legal system, He took into account the people for whom the laws were intended. And those people were bronze-age folks taking baby steps away from tribalism toward nationalism.

There can be no rational doubt that if God revealed a legal system applicable to post-modern society that its details would be quite different from the system outlined in the Old Testament. I mean, God is a smart guy, better-informed than any human sociologist - and he would know that you don't try to run a modern world as if it were a primative, nascient state.

Of course God does not advocate mind-police. But if you want a state where people get killed for saying the wrong thing, you are going to need a force of mind-police, in contradiction to God's wishes.

This is stupidity beyond all comprehension. And frankly I do not believe that you actually think that this is what we are advocating. You say this simply in an attempt to discredit our position by putting words in our mouths.

I agree that it is stupidity. But the stupidity is in your blindness to what your "ideal society" implies. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING! You have not thought it through. You have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing it clearly.

If you educate people on how to commit murder you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and should be executed.

Incorrect. Some classes I took in criminology could be construed as "teaching people how to commit murder". But teaching how to commit murder is not conspiracy. A discussion in the abstract of how to pull off the perfect murder is protected under the first amendment.

Planning an actual murder is conspiracy. See the difference?

That is why your statement below is nonsense:

But if you are publicly advocating a capital crime then you should be prosecuted as though you yourself had committed the crime.

Let me illustrate this with an example you can relate to. It is currently against the law for teachers to lead their students in prayer in the public schools. Perhaps you disagree with this prohibition. I would not think you are guilty of conspiracy if you publicly state that this law is wrong and that teacher-led prayer in public school would be a good thing. You are simply claiming your right of free thought and free speech - even though you advocate what is illegal.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Clete,

You pointed out Paul saying that those people know that they deserve death according to God's Law (i use my Estonian Bible). It's hard passage, because at first he is speaking about people overally, i.e. even about those who actually might not know Mosaic Law. But let's think his way and say that even those Gentiles know God's Law and according to this law those things what they do are worty of death.

THEN...

It's still not about homos only. There we also find for example disobedient children, who according to law needed to put into death. And we find blasphemers and adulterers (unfaithful), who were worty of death also by Mosaic Law.

But as we move on with Romans, we find in 6:23 Paul saying that the wage of sin is death. He is not talking about homos only there. He is talking about every man who sins. That we deserve the death because of the sin. Every sin leads to death (so i'm not speaking about human criminal justice system what uses death penalty, but God's view on sin what deserves death).

Also we cannot see Paul justifying capital punishment for homos, disobedient kids, adulterers just because he mentions them in Rom 1. We could agree that those people are still worthy of capital punishment if we had ANY saying in NT that would plainly speak that those people need to be executed by criminal system according to Christian understanding. I dont see any verse. And until you cannot give plain and simple reference where in NT Christians are obliged to demand death penalty for homos, i dont see your claim to be valid at all.

But i understand that you are from different country than me. In your States people are still executed for example because of murder. In most countries of Europe there is no capital punisment for any people. I don't say that our system is better than yours (i do support capital punisment for people who are very dangerous and who have openly said that they enjoyed their murders). But even if capital punishment for murder is not valid in many countries in our present world, then i cannot agree with you about killing homos. Unless you find me clear quote from NT what says that Christians must support killing homos, i dont see much point discussing about it.

 

[Duder]

Clete -

Paul could not have been saying that slanderers should be put to death along with homos and murderers.

notice what he says...

"Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Where is the decree that slanderers should be executed? What passage would Paul have been referring to? What statute would these people have been aware of?

There isn't any. God never decreed that slanderers be put to death. Paul is simply observing that these homos where full of all sort of evil, including slander, and malice, both of which sins you two are guilty of committing even now as we speak.

No, Clete - you are reading your own biases into the document. Paul nowhere suggests this is a list of all the faults possessed by homosexuals. This is a list of faults (homosexuality, slander, etc.) to which God gives some over.

If from this list you decide that queers must be killed, then you are going to have to kill the slanderers, too, if you are consistent.

 

[smaller]

When Clete and 1Way play with The Word of God it is like allowing children to play with a SHARPENED SWORD....they cut themselves...

fortunately the weapon was not a loaded gun...

AND

in the cutting process, the wickedness IN THEM has also been revealed clearly to others

amazing SWORD, that WORD eh?

 

[BChristianK]

1 Way, regarding Matthew 9:10ff you say:

It’s what the bible says, I hardly call that an assertion like a claim, I call in an observation or fact.

which implies something. It implies that Christ did not take it upon himself the judge the world but to save it (John 12:47). It is an example of Christ’s testimony in concert with His admonition to us.

Luke 6:36-37 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

If you disagree that it is a godly response to obey what God teaches according to my reference, then please say why instead of just raising attention to some other teaching.

What I disagree on is that it is both godly and obedience to what God teaches according to 1 Corinthians 5:11ff.

My citation is most suitable for was those who self profess to be within the body of Christ yet are grossly immoral.

Right, it is most suitable for those who self-profess to be within the body of gross yet behave with gross immorality. I think that was suitably articulated in my challenge.

Your example is assumed to be among unsaved people. You need to consider the context better, the differences matter.

No Clete’s statement is assumed not to discern any difference.

All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

Again, I don’t strive at pushing down the straw man. If Clete can comment on his own statement and ratify for us that his statement was meant in the context of professing believers, than I will apologize and withdraw my claim.

But it is interesting that you leave your analysis on this passage, in which you readily admit that it is directed at discerning matters within the church and go on, contrary to Paul’s example, to judge matter outside the church.

You say:

(1) No, it’s because of disagreeing with God and or the truth of a matter that I would site causing strife and such. You tried to contradict the excommunication passage by referencing the “Jesus ate with the sinners and tax collectors” passage.

No this isn’t what I attempted to do. Both passages are completely harmonious. I content that it is your fallacious interpretation of 1 Cor 5:11f that creates the tension. I offered the Markan passage to lend credence to that fact. I didn’t pit Mark against Paul contrary to your assertion.

(2) That is just ridiculous. You are dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.

Yes it is ridiculous to assume that because someone disagree’s with you, that they must be sowing discord among the brethren. I don’t disagree with what the passage teaches. I disagree with the mistaken implications you extrapolate from the passage. My point is that you were premature in pulling out a passage to use as a billy-club. You a priori determine that you were entirely correct and then proceeded based on that assumption to use Proverbs 6 as either rebuke or as substantiation for your position. If it is the former, then I would claim the burden is on you to first make sure that the rebuke fits, which if your argument is that I am pitting one scripture against another, it doesn’t. If the intention was the latter then you have employed circular reasoning and your argument fails for lack of logical coherence.

(3) That is an unreasonable assumption. The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof.

To some extent…. Nice

I guess the extent to which either or both of us are adherents thereof is TBD…

I’ll get real specific about what I meant. If you were using Proverbs 6 to accuse me of sowing strife among the brethren, then you need to get off your high horse. Come down here with the rest of us folk, and have a bit of a chat. Then, if after we are through chatting you still think that I am mistaken, you can get right back up on your high horse, and point your finger at me using proverbs 6.
Until then, who are you to judge another Man’s servant?

If that isn’t what you meant, then please consider the previous paragraph as wholly inapplicable, and please explain to me what it is you did mean.

You said:

So I am simply addressing the grossly immoral who include themselves as having a righteous belief in the word of God (believers in God) and needs to be excommunicated because of it.

Great! Me to. But I don’t think this is what Clete meant. He provided no distinction between those rebelliously engaged in homosexual behavior in the church, and those who are outside the church when he says he does his best to shun all all of them.

Clete, care to clarify?

(4) No, I used it as God intended, as one who is offering the truth from God.

Well I understand that you truly believe that you used it as it was intended, but you’ll understand if I require a little bit more substantiation than you just saying so. I had a couple of questions I think were deserving of an answer before you declare victory and commence to point fingers.

As for proof texting, I dispatched your false notion of trying to contradict my reference with another.

That would have been a false notion, were that what I was attempting to do, since it wasn’t, I’ll ignore this..

You have no standing to charge me with proof texting, I accept the entire word of God as being His word and that it does not have problem texts.

1. There was no hidden dig, you provided a verse, used it as proof. If you disliked the term proof text I’ll revise my statement “The text you provided as proof” of your statement. I didn’t consider proof text to mean the same as “prooftext.”
The former being the process of using a verse to prove a point, the latter being the process of grossly misinterpreting a verse out of context to use it contrary to its intended purpose.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t totally agree with the some of the finer points of your interpretation of this verse, but it was hardly prooftexting.


Now you say:

Your misuse of God’s word fairly evident in that tried to void the meaning of the excommunication teaching by the “Jesus ate with sinners” teaching.

Yea, that would be pretty abusive of scripture wouldn’t it. But that isn’t what I attempted to do.

I used the scripture to point out that your interpretation violated another clear teaching of scripture. Jesus, would have been violating your statement. “Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response.”

If shunning the sexually immoral was always the godly response in every circumstance, then Jesus was ungodly in:
1. eating with Tax Collectors and “Sinners.”
2. Getting close enough to Harlots that they could believe him and follow him (Matthew 21:32)


Now I said:

(5) It is quite possible, and likely in my opinion due to verse 7, that what Paul is saying isn’t, don’t “you ever be eatin’ in the same room with no homo’s!” But rather, that the customary meal that followed the gatherings of the saints is in view (verse 7), during which the Lord’s Supper was practices. This supper should not be accompanied by believers who practice homosexual behavior. Which makes sense to me, (6) Paul didn’t want the outside world to be confused on where Christians stand on issues of moral purity. But that is a point of interpretation.

You replied:

(5) I wouldn’t insert homosexuality or any other capitol offense in there.

It doesn’t matter than you woudn’t, Paul did.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person.

Isn't sexual immorality a capital crime in Leviticus?

God is clear to put them to death, so shunning would not apply to the homo.

God is clear to put adulterers to death to, so shunning woudn't apply to the adulterer per your logic, but it did...

It is now incumbent upon you to show me why Paul didn’t instruct the man caught in adultery to be killed by stoning since this is also a capital crime according to Leviticus.

Shunning only applies if you do not have the option of capitol offense.

Verse please?

(6) God, not just Paul, wanted everyone, not just the outside world to not be confused about absolute right and wrong.

Agreed.

Finally you respond to my final comments:

All capitol offenders are to be rejected and excommunicated, they are worse than just being sexually immoral, in fact, they are supposed to be excommunicated from life for good.

So if we are going to obey God you say we must reject and excommunicate all capital offenders no matter what, and if possible we are supposed to kill them, right?


Second, why do consider sexual immorality not a capital crime but you consider homosexuality a capital crime?

How do you substantiate this differentiation?

Secondly, God’s word is teaching through the writings of Paul by drawing a distinction over what issue? It’s over who to accept as being a professing believer, and it is concerning that issue that Paul eliminates the rest of the world from this type of personal judgment because they are not “accountable” to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are,

Exactly. So why are you and Clete attempting to make “the rest of the world” accountable to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are?

the unsaved world is accountable just as everyone ultimately is, to God. But believers have an extra layer of accountability, which is the issue at hand, not otherwise.

No arguments here.

There are many of other teachings that do not impose restrictions upon believers in Christ to righteously judge against the world.

I am assuming you mean, “there are many other teaching that do impose restriction upon believers….

This is the only way that sentence works with the following:

In fact, that is step one for a righteous evangelization of the lost, the message of God’s condemnation against them unless they repent and get saved, and that you as a personal representative of God also judge against them that they should go to hell unless they repent and get saved.

That is a judgement. Correct. Now we need to be extremely careful to be clear by what we mean when we look at the term “Judge.” It can mean making a discerning observation. This is the case in the verse you provide:

1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things..

It also means, to hand over for judicial punishment, which is not our job. I can judge rightly, in the sense that I can make a right discernment, that is not the same thing as pronouncing guilt and punishment on another which is not my prerogative, it is God’s. As you seem to agree.

God is the ultimate judge, yet God thought it wise and good to delegate all judgment unto Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ and the Word of God says that the saints will judge the world and that if you are spiritual, you judge all things.

Right, when will that happen?

You say:

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Again we see in 1Co that God is teaching a teaching for how to judge within the brethren, yet this time, as part of the reasoning for why we should do so within ourselves, God teaches that it is partly because the unbelieving world is so bad off, that they should be disqualified to judge such matters, after all, we will be judging them and the angels, and how much more so Christians should be judging the things in this life. So by taking in a wider context, it is plain that believers are to judge “everything” with righteous judgment, but when it comes to gross immorality, we hold “professing believers” to an unique accountability that the rest of the world does not share between Christians.

Yes, we are to express our opinions about “all things.” See BDAG’s entry on Krino references John 7:24. We are not to hold those opinions due to appearances but in righteousness. And yes when it comes to professing believes we hold them in unique accountability. So let me ask you a question. What makes that accountability “unique” if we attempt to universalize that accountability?

Our accountability to one another is for our mutual edification, and to protect the reputation of Christ’s body. Those outside the church are judged by God. We don’t pronounce sentencing on them in this lifetime. Our Job is to be ministers of reconciliation not spiritual arbiters for non-believers.

Homosexuality should be assumed in the excommunication teaching//it should be assumed as a capitol offense.

Yea, as turbo and I have been discussing, I disagree. I think that the “homo’s commit a capital crime,” crowd are trying to mix covenants. The sentences of capital offenses in the book of Leviticus have been commuted in Christ. To single homosexuality out as an exception to that rule is inconsistent.

You suggested that believers are only supposed to judge against (excommunicate) other believers//but you who are spiritual are to judge all things with righteous judgment, we will judge the unsaved world and the angels, so how much more we should be judging things in this life.

I am called to be discerning about all things, not to execute judicial sentencing on all things, its important we keep the nuanced definitions of the word krinw and anikrinw in mind when we apply these verses.

I agree that not all homo’s should be treated the same. If you are a homo that is a self professing believer in God (site God and His word for righteousness), you should be personally rejected for such wickedness.

I agree, if a person rebelliously practices homosexuality then they should be excluded from the church.

If you are a homo and you commit sodomy or promote that abomination of a lifestyle where two of the same sex should engage in sexual intimacy that is supposed to be between man and woman, then that is a capitol offense according to God, they “should” be put to death.

Where is that found?

What covenant?

Grace and Peace

 

[Clete]

Great! Me to. But I don’t think this is what Clete meant. He provided no distinction between those rebelliously engaged in homosexual behavior in the church, and those who are outside the church when he says he does his best to shun all all of them.

Clete, care to clarify?

Look if you want to understand my position on homos, all you need do is put "murderous child rapist" in place of "homo" and you'll understand.

I shun all capital offenders whether they perfess to be Christian or not until such time as they repent and join (or at least support) me in shunning other capital offenders.

Is that clear enough?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[smaller]

I say we wrap turbans around their heads, and, you know, see what happens.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by adajos

Clete,

Are you saying "godly" and "right-wing" are equivalent?

Basically yes. I understand that there may be some political details that right-wingers might support that are ungodly. In other words, I don't mean to suggest that they are precisely the same thing but only generally.

Both religion and politics are about right and wrong. If you believe in a religion or have a world view that says right and wrong are subjective and relative, then you are a liberal if on the other hand, your religion says that right and wrong are objective and absolute then you will be a conservative. Thus it is religious distinctions that define what is left wing and what is right wing. It is the difference that people have in what they believe is right and what is wrong that cause them support the political ideals that they support.
Therefore my statement that God is right-wing cannot be disputed. God is the very definition of right and wrong and is therefore right-wing because left wingers don't even acknowledge that there is a definition of right and wrong.

Resting in Him,
clete

 

[adajos]

Clete,

1Way,

This might make your head go POP but I believe that those who promote or advocate a capital offense are themselves guilty of a capital offense and should be subject to the same punishment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Very interesting. What constitutes "promoting" or "advocating" these capital offenses and what Biblical support do you draw on for this notion?

 

[1Way]

BB – You said

So, not only are do you want to execute homosexuals, but now you want to execute anyone who opposes you from killing homosexuals, or anyone who doesn't oppose homosexuality, whether they are gay or straight?

Why is it that you hear what I say, and then get it wrong, and I have to comprehensively correct you about every time you respond? And you switch the specifics with generalities and visa versa.

No, not anyone who opposes “me” (again, you are unbelievably insulting and ignorant), those who oppose themselves and each other and ultimately God and His teaching to put to death those who are guilty of a capitol offense.

No, I did not pretend to say to put to death anyone who does not oppose homosexuality, I said to put them to death if they promote it.

And yes, to do so whether or not they are known homo or heterosexual.

Consider

• You have a terrorist who teaches and directs another terrorist to murder who he says to murder. So do you think in your wildest dreams that just because the dictating terrorist in charge did not actually physically murder the people, that he is not just as guilty as the terrorist who actually physically did murder those people? Not a chance. Culpability and guilt transfers through responsibility and authority.
  
  Lets say you accept the death penalty for murder. Imagine a sick hypothetical situation. A father commands his 9 year old boy to shoot and murder someone. So would it be conceivably right to execute the kid, and let the father go on the grounds that he only supported the operation, he did not actually physically “do” the murder.

 

[1Way]

Clete - Great point about guilt by association, I forgot about that issue earlier.

 

[beanieboy]

.

 

[beanieboy]

What does "promote it" mean?

To me, promoting it means taking out commercials, encouraging people to be gay. "Now how much would you pay? But wait! There's more!"

But some say that if you won't say it is bad, you are promoting it.

Is that what you are saying?

And you would kill millions of people?

 

[beanieboy]

What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too?

 

[adajos]

Clete:

Earlier I asked you:

Are you saying "godly" and "right-wing" are equivalent?

To which you responded:

Basically yes. I understand that there may be some political details that right-wingers might support that are ungodly. In other words, I don't mean to suggest that they are precisely the same thing but only generally.

So it's possible to be right-wing yet ungodly, but impossible to be godly if not right-wing?

Let me see if I understand. You are subordinating godliness to politics by making godliness a subset of "right-wingness"? I find this contradictory, because later in your post you claim that God is the definition of right and wrong. If that is so, then why isn't politics subordinated to godliness by having "right-wingness" being a subset of godliness?

I'm imagining it's because if "right-wing" was just a subset of godliness it would allow room for "left-wing" to be godly as well. Your political opinions have been elevated the status of holy righteousness though, so you can't let left-wingers be godly, so you subordinate godliness to politics.

You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.

Both religion and politics are about right and wrong.

Actually politics and government are about keeping order--and to an extent punishing wrong behavior is a part of that. But there's more to it than that. In America it has meant building highways and providing for the common defense--issues which are not moral issues.

Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.

If you believe in a religion or have a world view that says right and wrong are subjective and relative, then you are a liberal if on the other hand, your religion says that right and wrong are objective and absolute then you will be a conservative.

What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?

Thus it is religious distinctions that define what is left wing and what is right wing.

Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.

If you dispute the notion of "right-wing atheist" I can point you to an email address of a friend of mine who is just that.

Therefore my statement that God is right-wing cannot be disputed. God is the very definition of right and wrong and is therefore right-wing because left wingers don't even acknowledge that there is a definition of right and wrong.

Actually, I think I just disputed it. Liberals don't necessarily believe that there is no right and wrong as you like to paint them. And this is coming from me, a conservative.

I think you need to start realizing that everything isn't quite as simple as you'd like to make it. Godliness and conservatism aren't the same thing.

 

[servent101]

beanieboy

What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too?

beanieboy - if you are experiencing a desire for sensual gratification as some people and apparently you yourself have made mention of - it worries me less than your apetite for these absurd debates and discussions.

Generally when we fail at controlling our cravings or wants by the proper use of our intelligence there is a whole gammet of things that we crave that keep us from an unadulterated consciousness - if you find out what it is that is in your psyche that makes you want some things - the outward signs - sexual sense gratification - is only the outward sign - I am more worried about your desire for entertaining the filth on TOL - and if you find the root cause for that - your desire for lust, will probably be more easily understood, and dealt with in an intelligent manner.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by adajos
So it's possible to be right-wing yet ungodly, but impossible to be godly if not right-wing?

To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Let me see if I understand. You are subordinating godliness to politics by making godliness a subset of "right-wingness"? I find this contradictory, because later in your post you claim that God is the definition of right and wrong. If that is so, then why isn't politics subordinated to godliness by having "right-wingness" being a subset of godliness?

I do not subordinate Godliness to politics. As you have pointed out I said just the reverse.
Why do acknowledge what I say then intentionally argue as though I said something else?

I’m imagining it's because if "right-wing" was just a subset of godliness it would allow room for "left-wing" to be godly as well. Your political opinions have been elevated the status of holy righteousness though, so you can't let left-wingers be godly, so you subordinate godliness to politics.

left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.

You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.

Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.
The law defines for a society what they hold to be right and wrong. Laws are defined and codified via the political system and thus beliefs about what is right and what is wrong drive the political machine.

Actually politics and government are about keeping order--and to an extent punishing wrong behavior is a part of that. But there's more to it than that. In America it has meant building highways and providing for the common defense--issues which are not moral issues.

They are moral issues in the context of government. A government that does not provide for the defense and infrastructure of the nation is an evil nation and God will hold the governing officials responsible for the harm they do to their citizens.

Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.

Really? Christianity has primarily to do with having a relationship with God.
1. Does God accept me?
2. On what basis does He do so?

Sounds pretty much like morality to me.

What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?

To what ever extent he was a left-winger, he was ungodly. Do you think that it was a godly thing for him to have voted for Bill Clinton? I certainly don't!

Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.

This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is why I acknowledged that religion and politics are not precisely the same thing because even if an evil person utilizes a godly principle they will benefit from it. So it not that liberals are incapable of doing anything that might be considered right-wing but that they do not do them for the same reasons.

If you dispute the notion of "right-wing atheist" I can point you to an email address of a friend of mine who is just that.

I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality. However, your friend is internally conflicted and inconsistent because he cannot say that the left-wing is wrong for any reason that is consistent with his belief that people have evolved from slime and that there is no absolute moral standard.

Actually, I think I just disputed it. Liberals don't necessarily believe that there is no right and wrong as you like to paint them. And this is coming from me, a conservative.

Quite right. You are pouring more into my words than what I am saying. To whatever extent a liberal believes that there are moral absolutes then to that extent he is conservative or right-wing. There is admittedly a spectrum here, the right side of which is defined by God and the left by Hillary. There is no one to the right of God, period.

I think you need to start realizing that everything isn't quite as simple as you'd like to make it. Godliness and conservatism aren't the same thing.

Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.

Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly
Death penalty for murderers – Godly
Low taxes – Godly
Freedom – Godly
Anti homo – Godly
Anti euthanasia – Godly
Pro Military - Godly

Pro Choice – Ungodly
Voting for Bill Clinton – Ungodly
Voting for George Bush – Ungodly
Pro-abortion – Ungodly
High taxes – Ungodly
Big Government – Ungodly
Welfare – Ungodly

I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern? I don’t think you can. This is why when people list the things they don’t like to talk about, they always say religion AND politics. This is because they are basically the same subject.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1Way]

Servant101 – That is just beautiful. You promote to the pro-homo to focus on his lusts and desire for sexual gratification, while being worried about what you consider to be something absurd as he demonstrates interest in theological debate here at TOL. I think you are making us few conservative Christians at TOL out to be the bad guy, and in comparison making his homosexuality an acceptable thing.

 

[1Way]

BB – You asked about the difference between promoting and not opposing. Sorry, I don’t think I’m qualified to explain such a deep and profoundly complex idea. Good luck. As to

And you would kill millions of people?

By obeying God, millions would avoid death and destruction so millions of lives would be saved. But you got it backwards, again, go figure.

You said

What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too?

You might be smarter and wiser than God, though I have my doubts. Put your exception to the rule to the committee for correcting the bible, and who knows, maybe your ideas will FLY.