RE: Traditional Xtianity teaches

From: John Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 12:04:22 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "RE: Traditional Xtianity teaches"

    Don:

    You wrote to Bob (in part):

    "I must point out that this thread and apparent need to involve politics
    into theology was
    started by a liberal."

    Thank you for the label. That means, of course, that what I write must be
    not worth reading.

    " It would seem to me that the entire point of the so called "list" of
    fundamentalists was to make the point that conservatives are less forgiving
    and therefore less Christian."

    If I had made that claim, you would be justified in citing it. I did not.
    Deciding what motives a writer has for any particular post is dangerous
    ground.

    "One's politics and religious beliefs are between God and the individual
    alone."

    Horse hockey. When your political beliefs affect me, or my country, they
    necessarily become between you and me also.

    "If one believes in homosexuality or abortion, that is for them to explain
    to God not I."

    Of course. BTW, "the first is an orientation, not an action. The second is
    an action.

    "If we do things that we know God does not want us to
    do, either individually or as a society, just because we feel that we are
    saved, we will doom ourselves and those we touch."

    Of course. One of the things God wants us to do is use our minds. That's
    what they are there for.

    "Some may think that being homosexual, killing our unborn, not allowing
    prayer in schools, etc may be accepted by God, but then the same people who
    believe this are the ones recently saying that perhaps the Islamic
    terrorists had a reason for 9/11."

    Balderdash. Being homosexual is an orientation that some people have. Maybe
    its a handicap, like weak eyes. Are weak eyes OK with God?

    Killing our unborn is an action I speak against. But there are times when
    killing the unborn is the better of two very poor options. I also speak
    against involving the government in the doctor-patient decisions on this
    issue. Maybe God wants a draconian law on the books for this purpose. So
    far, I think not.

    Not allowing prayer in schools which is government mandated seems like a
    decision which is reasonable and rational. There is no law against private
    prayer, of course.

    The last part of your comment is not worthy of analysis.

    "They hate our government policies. It is our religion and more particularly
    our so called
    religious acceptance (forgive all) that they hate."

    I know, W says this all the time. It is an easy answer. I think it is also
    an incomplete one.

    "Until we understand that our "liberalism" is what is destroying us, we will
    end up just like the
    Greeks and Romans."

    Interesting claim. Can you defend it. The First amendment is an early
    example of liberal thought. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it should be
    repealed?

    "Some may have heard of the recent beauty pageant contestant that was
    rejected because she promoted abstenace instead of "safe sex". She of course
    did not say to have safe sex, but rather that not having in the first place
    is the safest sex."

    I had not heard of that. I would observe that I'd be on her side on that
    one. If the story is true, of course.

    "It amazes me how liberals have no problem with violating the First
    Amendment when it suites them, but them turn around and scream about their
    rights when it comes to having computer generated children in the nude or
    engaged in sexual conduct."

    Most liberals I know are fiercely protective of the first amendment. Maybe
    you can cite where they approve of violating it? As for the obscenity case,
    that is a tough one. The amendment has to protect speech we don't personally
    approve of, and that's how that one seems to be going. Very much like the
    case of the neo-Nazi march in the Jewish town of Skokie.

    I read last year a 903 page tome by Ariens & Destro on the single subject of
    Religion and First Amendment Rights. It was part of the required reading for
    a course on ethics here at Iliff. A much more complex subject than most
    people realize.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
    http://www.hotmail.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 21:14:52 EDT