<p>Bush spends way <em>way</em> too much and only 3 tax cuts during his term(s)!? Bush isn't conservative enough for me, quite frankly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the "liberalism" of Jesus, I must say yes and no. Jesus was the Messiah, ushering in the new Jerusalem and totally revolutionizing Judaism, so in that sense He was. But once He established His New Covenant, no. His teaching was cast in stone to be observed and obeyed. Just a little sampling of that teaching: active homosexuals are committing great sin, abortion and euthanasia are acts of murder punishable by the fires of Hell, and divorce does not exist.
[/quote]
Hmm, you should distinguish. Punishable by the fires of Hell does not mean we should throw them in jail and prohibit people from doing so. Otherwise, it will be pure inquisition, something that Jesus probably wouldn't like that much.</p>
<p>'...His teaching was cast in stone to be observed and obeyed. Just a little sampling of that teaching: active homosexuals are committing great sin, abortion and euthanasia are acts of murder punishable by the fires of Hell, and divorce does not exist...'</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Who cast his teaching in stone? Humans decided that the bible is the 'Word of God.' That is fine if you choose to believe that, but it is a matter of faith, not incontrovertible fact.</p></li>
<li><p>Even if you accept that the bible is the 'Word of God' the example you gave are from the old testament, and directly contrary to the words of the great Master Jesus, who preached love and compassion, championed the poor, the downtrodden, and the social outcasts of his day...and he stood up to the hypocritical, judgmental religious leaders of his time. (That's why they killed him.)</p></li>
<li><p>If you think we are supposed to follow the old testament's laws, then do you think we should also follow these?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Consider:</p>
<hr>
<p>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose
and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I
try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone
tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.</p>
<p>I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.</p>
<ol>
<li>Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.</li>
</ol>
<p>A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians.</p>
<p>Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?</p></li>
<li><p>I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev15: 19-24.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The problem is how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.</p>
<ol>
<li>When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.</li>
</ol>
<p>The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to
them.
Should I smite them?</p>
<ol>
<li>I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death.</li>
</ol>
<p>Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to
do it?</p>
<ol>
<li>A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?</li>
</ol>
<p>Are there 'degrees' of abomination?</p>
<ol>
<li>Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.</li>
</ol>
<p>Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die?</p></li>
<li><p>I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?</p></li>
<li><p>My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.</p>
<p>Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16.</p>
<p>Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we
do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)</p>
<p>I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.</p>
<p>There is a difference between morally conservative and fiscally conservative. Pat Buchannan (whom I respect alot even though I don't agree with everything he says) is an example of a true conservative. bush is neither fiscally nor morally conservative. Clinton was more conservative than bush in both respects.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Jesus befriended a prostitute. And, he rebuked those who judged her. He told them 'he who is without sin cast the first stone.'</p>
<p>Are you saying that gays should be judged when Jesus did not even judge prostitutes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It'd be hard for a university to turn down the president's son.
[/quote]
It would be hard for a university to look 25 years in the future when senior became prez..Dumbass.</p>
<p>I think a better way to look at it would be "moderately above-average performing wealthy scion."</p>
<p>That's not too uncommon, either.</p>
<p>btw, I'm actually pro-life. (see the 'anti-abortion...adopt children' thread, to which I contributed on a pro-life stance)</p>
<p>But what I don't understand is that most people who think abortion is wrong also think it's ok to kill other people (war).</p>
<p>And, they usually are in favor of welfare cuts, which have been shown to increase the likelihood of abortion among low-income women.</p>
<p>Why are they so unwilling to help poor women avoid abortion?</p>
<p>Can someone please explain that to me?</p>
<p>"If I remember correctly, Jesus befriended a prostitute. And, he rebuked those who judged her. He told them 'he who is without sin cast the first stone.'"</p>
<p>Jesus hung out with prostitutes and other sinners not because He approved of their lifestyles, but because He didn't. They were simply the ones who needed His saving grace the most. That is, to change their ways. </p>
<p>This is something that today's liberals fail to understand. Jesus did NOT tolerate sin. He hung out with and preached to sinners so that they might find it in their hearts to STOP sinning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is something that today's liberals fail to understand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, you're assuming that the poster didn't already know that. Secondly, I don't think it has anything to do with those dastardly liberevils not understanding...it's more like they don't agree.</p>
<p>"And, they usually are in favor of welfare cuts, which have been shown to increase the likelihood of abortion among low-income women.</p>
<p>Why are they so unwilling to help poor women avoid abortion?</p>
<p>Can someone please explain that to me?"</p>
<p>I believe in charity in the true sense of the word: that it should come from the heart, not forced by the government. When the government takes money out of your pocket, in effect giving citizens no choice in the matter whether they are to give or not, it ceases to be true charity. It's artificial.</p>
<p>In short, conservatives are not heartless; it's just that we disagree ethically with the concept of forced "charity."</p>
<p>I don't know that that's true. Conservative and liberal, being very loaded terms, aren't as concrete as you suggest.</p>
<p>Some of the best arguments for transfer of wealth came from fairly "conservative" (read: libertarian) economists. When you have a country that has the most bowed Lorenz curve in the developed world (OECD, last I heard), then it becomes apparent that you're seeing more problems with the middle-class and poor seeing wealth concentrated in out-of-reach places.</p>
<p>Well, I don't see any libertarian economists in favor of a welfare state.</p>
<p>Transfer of wealth is not necessarily a "welfare state." Read some of the good work by Friedman on the issue.</p>
<p>I'll check it out. I've been meaning to read Friedman.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point is that you can actually engage in transfer of wealth without necessarily resorting to what so many attack as a "welfare state." Taxdollars are constantly moved from place to place. If anyone thinks that subsidies on farming aren't transfer of wealth, they're nuts.</p>
<p>I believe in free market, "Washington Consensus"-style policies, but no market is truly laissez-faire.</p>
<p>'...I believe in charity in the true sense of the word: that it should come from the heart, not forced by the government. When the government takes money out of your pocket, in effect giving citizens no choice in the matter whether they are to give or not, it ceases to be true charity. It's artificial....'</p>
<p>Ah, so it's better to let poor people rot rather than have the government help them? OK, now I get it. Charity is good if it's voluntary, but if we have to pass laws to make sure needy people get help, then making sure the assistance is voluntary is a higher priority than actually helping the needy. And, making sure that it's voluntary is more important than saving the unborn babies being aborted by desperate, poor people. Right. Thanks so much for the explanation.</p>
<p>Isn't anyone going to address my post about Levitical law?</p>
<p>'...punishable by the fires of Hell...'</p>
<p>Wow, your 'god' sure does sound cruel. </p>
<p>Really, think about it. Would YOU sentence an evil person to BURN forEVER?</p>
<p>Or, would you try to rehabilitate him?</p>
<p>I'm just a mere human and I think compassion/rehabilitation is way nicer. I mean, it's already been proven that a high percentage of violent criminals were abused as children. What if....what if there were a God so smart and so powerful that He could figure out a way to HEAL those poor wretched souls?</p>
<p>And not only those who were lucky enough or smart enough to choose the 'right' religion. What if God actually were the Good Shepherd who went after ALL lost sheep? (not just the Christian ones)</p>
<p>Surely God has more love and compassion than I do?</p>
<p>See, I believe in a loving God. The God of the old testament is not loving. Why is it that christians put more faith in a book (written by humans) than they do in the LIVING SPIRIT?</p>
<p>Yeah, I know - you will say that God gave us a way - by believing that Jesus died for us. But that doesn't cut it. Fact remains that many people just don't believe that, or they might be very peaceful and happy Buddhists. Why would God send them to 'hell' forEVER for being Buddhists? or for using their brains and questioning the 'savior' idea?</p>
<p>Not logical.</p>
<p>Not loving.</p>
<p>I do not intend to be disrespectful towards Christians but these are some 'tough' questions that no one seems to answer.</p>
<p>life isn't fair. Some people are unfortunate enough to become violent and some aren't. Of course it's a sad concept but that's how life is.
And, alot of people were abused as kids but didn't become violent when they grew up. Emotional baggage only inhibits people socially and in relationships. it doesn't push them to become violent. They choose that for themselves.</p>
<p>People have to WANT to "heal" themselves. You can't just figure out a way to do, or think that you've figured out a way, it and shove it down their throats. If a person doesn't want to be "healed" then you can't help them.</p>
<p>besides, the whole concept of hell is there to make people fear God and fear punishment. If people don't have anything to be afraid of, then they SHOULD be violent and should do whatever they want and people can't try to "heal" them because they don't think that there is anything to heal becasue there will be no concequences.</p>