1 - 10 Next
Scott: excellent responses, that I'd like to add to. I'd like to add that that tired trope doesn't begin to take into account the relatively brutal culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE) which laws given to ancient Israel were actually strikingly humanizing by comparison with the normal customs of the day. It's easy to hold up an ancient culture that suffers by comparison when you don't realize two things: 1) We've had 2,000 years of, admittedly, Christian influence that has had a direct bearing on modern notions of right and wrong. The more Christians have actually lived out their faith, the better, overall, the world has gotten. 2) There are barbarities that we practice on a daily basis that would probalby make many in the ancient world blush, or at least scratch their heads in confusion. We sacrifice a million unborn children a year in this country on an altar mostly made of our own convenience. Isn't it interesting that you can take a pregnant woman who wants the baby and calls it a "baby" shower, but that same woman who doesn't want it doesn't have a (excuse the language) "fetus" shower? The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling. Before we go judging other times, people, and places mayybe we should realize that we aren't or ever will be, apart from a Savior the epitome of moral virtue ourselves. So, that begs the question- should the God of the Old and New Testaments try to meet people where they're at or expect them to be perfect at the moment of salvation. Look up the topics of salvation and sanctification if you're interested.
Pray in that situation, and probably lawyer up. If they want to play that way, make life difficult for 'em. Also, some media coverage- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Keep squeaking until someone big enough pays attention.
In response to:

Must We Have a Dead White Kid?

p18 Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 1:31 PM
A reply to the probable robo-paster Clifford below... I used to be a Democrat. I am proud that I voted for Bush 43! Our ONLY convicted Illinois governor was Rod Blagojevichl! Uh, I mean George Ryan, uh Dan Walker, oh dang it, forgot about Otto Kerner! (oh, never mind; let's just lock them all up as soon as they swear in; it'll save time and money). Wasn't he white? Our ONLY POTUS, to be impeached was Bill Clinton! Uh, Andrew Johnson! Maybe Barack Obama!! (oh, never mind; let's just lock them all up as soon as they swear in; it'll save time and money). Isn't he white? Didn't he PRETEND to be for law and order? Man, I love cut and paste. (Two can play that game :)
In response to:

Must We Have a Dead White Kid?

p18 Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 1:27 PM
I am an African-American. I used to be a Democrat. I am proud that I voted for Bush 43! Our ONLY convicted Illinois governor was Rod Blagojevichl! Uh, I mean George Ryan, uh Dan Walker, oh dang it, forgot about Otto Kerner! (oh, never mind; let's just lock them all up as soon as they swear in; it'll save time and money). Wasn't he white? Our ONLY POTUS, to be impeached was Bill Clinton! Uh, Andrew Johnson! Maybe Barack Obama!! (oh, never mind; let's just lock them all up as soon as they swear in; it'll save time and money). Isn't he white? Didn't he PRETEND to be for law and order? Man, I love cut and paste. (Two can play that game :)
In response to:

An Open Letter To Moderate Muslims

p18 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 8:12 AM
Check's in the mail, Mike. I know they don't exactly flock to this site but I'm still waiting by the mailbox...
In response to:

An Open Letter To Moderate Muslims

p18 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 8:11 AM
That's the best you've got? Never heard of Rushdooney. By that logic, I suppose a little radical professor at a local community college speaks for all liberaldom, right? Or we can pull out any old teacher or wannabe leader with ideas that may embarrass or discredit liberals and say that speaks for the whole movement, right? Actually, Marx, Stalin and Mao do come to mind... Except for the mass killings, which of their beliefs do you disagree with?
Well, I wonder about that version of history. Source please? Even if it's exactly how you say it is, I wonder if the APA is biased against Christian understandings of morality and human sexuality and has been for decades. Just from a medical and emotional standpoint alone, homosexuality is far different than the Madison Avenue-Hollywood manufactured line that is sold to Americans on a daily basis. Decorum and time prevents me from going into much detail here. Tried to read After the Ball; got through a lot of it but the authors have realized much of their agenda within their lifetime. I know society loves to pay lip service to having open discussions about everything, but the reality that translates to these days is dismantling traditional Christian mores in favor of their new, godless or quasi-Christian counterparts. The desired conclusions are baked into the discussion so much that one side is shouted down and marginalized before the discussion ever begins. In the meantime, those of us in the trenches of the world see the human wreckage left by these new (in reality, ancient) notions of morality.
And when they come over here, ala 9/11? When should we be proactively against evil and when not? If we are proactive, how much? No easy answer, but sticking our heads permanently in the sand invites more evil in the world. Technology has made the world too small to ignore every threat on the horizon. Supposedly, ISIS has about 100 American followers on their side. It only took 19 to bring down the WTC.
Want to re-post this in response to Flattus below, because I've heard the specious arguments in it way to often, to not start pushing back, in my own way. I was a corporal (then lance-coolie) who fought in that war. I always wondered if the updated Vietnam hippie types would openly spit on the troops of today, if given the opportunity. Now, I realize y'all have just gotten smarter, because the troops wouldn't exactly sit back and take it, and neither would the rest of the country. Instead, you undermined the mission at every opportunity. To a troop, that's the ultimate insult- to be given a mission and then have the country, or at least the current political masters blow that mission and make all that sacrifice in vain. SO SPARE ME THE *^%&* SUPPORT, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE MISSION!! We had that country on lock- it was as stable as one could reasonably expect. All the current CNC had to do, the One, the guy with the halo and your Second Coming in '08 was negotiate a simple Status of Forces Agreement. And spare me the nonsense that he just carried out what the Bush admin negotiated before he left office. I question the veracity of that, and even if it were true wouldn't the "smartest man EVAH!!!" have the foresight to see what a precipitous withdrawal would bring? Oh, and the last sentence, 1st paragraph is priceless: "A country that's "stable" because an invading army remains to rule is not "stable". It is "UNstable". By that definition, South Korea, Japan, and Germany are unstable, third world backwaters, right? And our troops are there to "rule" aren't they? Careful, the liberal mask is slipping... Tell us what you really think about the average troop? Do it, c'mon!!!
I was a corporal (then lance-coolie) who fought in that war. I always wondered if the updated Vietnam hippie types would openly spit on the troops of today, if given the opportunity. Now, I realize y'all have just gotten smarter, because the troops wouldn't exactly sit back and take it, and neither would the rest of the country. Instead, you undermined the mission at every opportunity. To a troop, that's the ultimate insult- to be given a mission and then have the country, or at least the current political masters blow that mission and make all that sacrifice in vain. SO SPARE ME THE *^%&* SUPPORT, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE MISSION!! We had that country on lock- it was as stable as one could reasonably expect. All the current CNC had to do, the One, the guy with the halo and your Second Coming in '08 was negotiate a simple Status of Forces Agreement. And spare me the nonsense that he just carried out what the Bush admin negotiated before he left office. I question the veracity of that, and even if it were true wouldn't the "smartest man EVAH!!!" have the foresight to see what a precipitous withdrawal would bring? Oh, and the last sentence, 1st paragraph is priceless: "A country that's "stable" because an invading army remains to rule is not "stable". It is "UNstable". By that definition, South Korea, Japan, and Germany are unstable, third world backwaters, right? And our troops are there to "rule" aren't they? Careful, the liberal mask is slipping... Tell us what you really think about the average troop? Do it, c'mon!!!
1 - 10 Next