Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Christian Conservative Politicians
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archaeopteryx" data-source="post: 51741403" data-attributes="member: 194332"><p>You claim (a) that we should execute evil people. You have also in the past claimed (b) that all human beings have a sin nature. From this we can deduce (b - i): that all human beings have a bit of 'evil' in their nature. On the basis of those premises the conclusion that follows is that we must execute ALL human beings. </p><p></p><p>Alternatively, you can claim that you do not possess the omnipotent capacity to know whether a <u>whole person</u> is evil. I do not claim that you cannot morally deduce whether particular courses of action are evil, but merely that you do not possess the propensity to judge the entirety of a person since you cannot examine the contents of their heart. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(a) You have yet to provide in evidence in the support of the pervasive existence of an Atheistic Liberal News Media and Entertainment Industry. Until you do so, we have no reason to accept such a claim.</p><p>(b) If the agenda of this apparent media conglomeration is to promote evolution, then why are Creationists given a platform with which to speak? If its aims are to promote homosexuality, then why (in the past, and even the present) have speakers been allowed to endorse anti-homosexual (sometimes even homophobic) views on national television? If the goal of this media is to endorse homosexuality, then why was Miss California (I think that's who it was) allowed to express her dissent on national television? And why, oh why, did this media even allow advertisements for Republican candidates to be broadcast concurrently with those of their Democratic counter-parts? Sounds more like the agenda of the ALNM is, like the ALNW itself, a myth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unchecked corporatism can lead to a social reality of death and destruction, generating tremendously detrimental externalities along the way. Should we therefore execute unchecked corporatism too?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But what if it becomes necessary throughout the course of a war to abandon God's Law - both the Old and New Testaments - in doing 'whatever it takes'? What if the Law of Purity and the Law of Love must be violated in the process? What if, even further, one is placed in a situation where they must violate their Christianity in doing 'whatever it takes'?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's an interesting theory of law. I prefer to see law as a social contract by which society agrees to govern itself in order to maximize the public good.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Preventative health programs are quite good. They attempt to inform the public and thereby minimize the negative externalities imposed on all society by lifestyle diseases. In turn, if public health outcomes improve, there is less reliance on medical science to cure diseases and less of an economic burden on the healthcare system. (Note, however, I do not endorse the ideas that homosexuality is any way a 'disease').</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archaeopteryx, post: 51741403, member: 194332"] You claim (a) that we should execute evil people. You have also in the past claimed (b) that all human beings have a sin nature. From this we can deduce (b - i): that all human beings have a bit of 'evil' in their nature. On the basis of those premises the conclusion that follows is that we must execute ALL human beings. Alternatively, you can claim that you do not possess the omnipotent capacity to know whether a [U]whole person[/U] is evil. I do not claim that you cannot morally deduce whether particular courses of action are evil, but merely that you do not possess the propensity to judge the entirety of a person since you cannot examine the contents of their heart. (a) You have yet to provide in evidence in the support of the pervasive existence of an Atheistic Liberal News Media and Entertainment Industry. Until you do so, we have no reason to accept such a claim. (b) If the agenda of this apparent media conglomeration is to promote evolution, then why are Creationists given a platform with which to speak? If its aims are to promote homosexuality, then why (in the past, and even the present) have speakers been allowed to endorse anti-homosexual (sometimes even homophobic) views on national television? If the goal of this media is to endorse homosexuality, then why was Miss California (I think that's who it was) allowed to express her dissent on national television? And why, oh why, did this media even allow advertisements for Republican candidates to be broadcast concurrently with those of their Democratic counter-parts? Sounds more like the agenda of the ALNM is, like the ALNW itself, a myth. Unchecked corporatism can lead to a social reality of death and destruction, generating tremendously detrimental externalities along the way. Should we therefore execute unchecked corporatism too? But what if it becomes necessary throughout the course of a war to abandon God's Law - both the Old and New Testaments - in doing 'whatever it takes'? What if the Law of Purity and the Law of Love must be violated in the process? What if, even further, one is placed in a situation where they must violate their Christianity in doing 'whatever it takes'? That's an interesting theory of law. I prefer to see law as a social contract by which society agrees to govern itself in order to maximize the public good. Preventative health programs are quite good. They attempt to inform the public and thereby minimize the negative externalities imposed on all society by lifestyle diseases. In turn, if public health outcomes improve, there is less reliance on medical science to cure diseases and less of an economic burden on the healthcare system. (Note, however, I do not endorse the ideas that homosexuality is any way a 'disease'). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Christian Conservative Politicians
Top
Bottom