Originally posted by guacamole
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Evangelicals are paying high moral price for anti-abortion gains
Collapse
X
-
"Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostBill... I could easily let you taste your own medicine and just claim that what you provide here is just opinion and not facts.
However I would rather see you provide the reasons you may hold to have a certain opinion.
We can all just claim that what we disagree with is propaganda or "bastardizations of Christian concepts". It does not amount to much more than stating "I disagree" or "This is wrong". You are still not dealing with the content and you are still not actually proving anything or supporting your own views.
It is still not much better than the ad hominem you began with. Now instead of attacking the person you attack the text saying "there are no facts", "it is propaganda" and so on without showing why or how. Try again.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View Post1. If you mean that it doesn't tell us what sort of government to have, then yes.
I mean it does not tell a government how to govern. It is silent on how to address illegal immigration as a secular nation, how to address government provided health care, nor what the "common good" entails for a nation.
2. If you mean that, as a consequence to 1, as Christians, we shouldn't oppose the violation of the moral imperatives of scripture by government, then no; otherwise, the pro-life stance itself is simply a statement of preference.
The issue in the op-ed is whether or not we should oppose other moral violations just as vigorously. I disagree with the op-ed to the extent that I think he's simply switching out one set of moral issues for another set of moral issues.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostI mean it does not tell a government how to govern. It is silent on how to address illegal immigration as a secular nation, how to address government provided health care, nor what the "common good" entails for a nation.
In the end, it is from a secular standpoint. Life had no value or meaning outside of preference. But there's a huge difference morally in standing against 1.2 million legalized murders every year and "ignoring" an unfounded claim of abuse against a sitting official of the government.
I personally don't think they are actual moral issues. Immigration policy isn't discussed in scripture. Healthcare isn't discussed in scripture.
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostI suppose that is correct. I would walk that a step further and say that the Bible is silent on instructions to people who are not believers. I think we can extrapolate what to do about good governance based on Biblical ethics, however, whether this is a secular nation or not.
I don't follow what you mean by the second reference here.
I would disagree. I think you can extrapolate a reasonable--though perhaps not waterproof (by that I mean, I'm willing to listen and discuss)--position based on God's instruction about the treatment of foreigners, the treatment of widows and orphans in their distress being true religion, and the making disciples of all nations.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostIs this in respect to reversing a RvW reversal? What would prevent it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostI suppose that is correct. I would walk that a step further and say that the Bible is silent on instructions to people who are not believers. I think we can extrapolate what to do about good governance based on Biblical ethics, however, whether this is a secular nation or not.
Well if we used Exodus as an example, it would mean that God wants the immigrants to invade the USA and kill every man, woman and child. Right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe SCOTUS doesn't just make up what it wants a ruling to be. It judges cases brought before it and decides the outcome based on the laws and the constitution. They would need a constitutional or legal reason to overturn Roe v. Wade and would need a case brought before them to adjudicate.
But then, why would having republican-appointed judges make any difference? The constitution and law haven't become different just because Kavanagh and Gorsuch have been appointed.
Why all the effort by evangelicals to vote in Trump to ensure a conservative supreme court, when the supreme court rulings aren't based on personal preferences?
Unless, of course, it's expected that the new conservative supreme court judges will ignore the law and the constitution and devise rulings based on their personal political and religious leanings instead, and hoped that those personal leanings will be against abortion.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostTrue.
But then, why would having republican-appointed judges make any difference? The constitution and law haven't become different just because Kavanagh and Gorsuch have been appointed.
Why all the effort by evangelicals to vote in Trump to ensure a conservative supreme court, when the supreme court rulings aren't based on personal preferences?
Unless, of course, it's expected that the new conservative supreme court judges will ignore the law and the constitution and devise rulings based on their personal political and religious leanings instead, and hoped that those personal leanings will be against abortion.
Pretty much the same difference between how conservative Christians interpret the bible more literally and liberals don't. Conservatives read that the bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, liberals say well they were talking about temple prostitutes and not about regular gay people, or something of that nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYes, it is in regard to your idea that it is a switch that SCOTUS can just flip off and on at any time depending on who makes up the SCOTUS. Once a decision is made it is very hard to overturn, and once overturned it can't just be turned back again. The SCOTUS doesn't just make up what it wants a ruling to be. It judges cases brought before it and decides the outcome based on the laws and the constitution. They would need a constitutional or legal reason to overturn Roe v. Wade and would need a case brought before them to adjudicate. And once and if they do overturn it on constitutional or legal grounds, that would pretty much finish Roe v Wade. It would not be able to be redone later unless the laws involved were changed or there was a change in the constitution. SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they just rule on their legality.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostWhat specifically would cause the 3rd ruling to be more difficult than the 2nd ruling? A future SCOTUS is going to have different opinions on past rulings than the court that made them, so the change would be in opinion, not in law or Constitution.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostThis discussion is based on SCOTUS overruling RvW in the first place, and nothing you said does not also apply to this initial overruling.
One possible way they could overturn RvW is to decide that a fetus is a person. But they would need a case before them that needs their judicial ruling on that point of fact. And if they did rule that a fetus is a person, that is that. It can't just be decided next year that it is not. Right now that point is up in the air. RvW never says one way or another. After that it would be very difficult to reverse that decision. It would take congress making a law to change it, or a constitutional amendment.
these things are very hard to change for a reason. If the supreme court could just change their mind whenever they wanted to, our justice system would be in shambles and every prior case might be invalidated every time they changed their minds.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostSorry to have to remind you Rogue but the truth is not relative to who is telling it, so even if it was "a dead on target assessment" that would not change the fact that what was provided was an ad hominem.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Yesterday, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
21 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
187 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 02:59 PM
|
Comment