The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Nordengrund]

I've a question that came up I a podcast I was listening to.
What is an Evangelical?
The conclusion on the podcast was that it differed depending on who you ask.
So I thought I'd ask.

An Evangelical is a Christian who believes Jesus is the only way to salvation and emphasizes the importance of sharing the Gospel. That is the most basic definition.

[Czechanada]

Is killing wrong in self defense? War? To directly defend others?
Is worshipping other gods wrong?
Is stealing to feed one's family wrong? Is pirating something wrong if one is denied legitimate access to the content they purchased?
Is lying to protect someone's feeling wrong? Are surprises wrong? Is lying to keep oneself safe wrong?
Is working whenever one feels like wrong?
Is the simply thought of desiring something wrong? Is it really bad to think "My neighbour's car is cool"?
Is it wrong to not to honour one parents if they are unfit or are abusive? Or to honour others who act as parental figures instead?
Is making a work of art based an image of god wrong?

1.) No, the CCC says specifically that if other lives are in danger, you must defend them if you are able. Also, see Augustine's Just War Theory.

2.) If you don't know anything about the Christian Faith, not necessarily. As long as you're searching for God, then you're on the right track. But if you're Catholic and you turn away to Egyptian gods or whatever...you're probably going off the wrong track.

3.) That's not a question with a clear answer. I really couldn't tell you. And define an example for the second part. If you have the money and you can buy it, then there's no reason to pirate. If you have the money, however, and they're not giving it to you, why not just sue?

4.) Lying to protect someone's feelings doesn't always make one a good friend. If someone wants to know if their cooking is good, for a cooking show, and I tell them it is when it's awful, what's going to happen when they get on the show thinking it's good? If you're doing it to defend someone, like you're in Auschwitz and you're protecting a friend from dying, that's heroic. Are surprises wrong?...No, because surprises don't always entail lying. They just entail things you didn't see coming.

5,) No, but you shouldn't work yourself to death. The reason for the 3rd commandment is not just to give a day to God, but also to give oneself a day of rest, to stop working and to rest one's weary bones.

6.) No, desires are not wrong, desires are part of being human! There's a difference between me saying, "Oh, that Volkswagen my friend has is cool!" and "Dang, I want that Volkswagen, if only there was some way I could steal it..." The first is nice. The second is envy. And greed.

7.) You should try to at the very least be thankful they gave you life. I've been in a situation where my parents have been fighting and are separated, and it's often hard, but they do love me. And I love them back. Even if you can't bring yourself to love them, though, you shouldn't wish terrible things on them and stuff. And of course you can honor other people who are your father figures or whatnot. Like, if your father isn't in the home, but your football coach is kinda like a father to you, there's nothing wrong with seeing him as such.

8.) No, otherwise I'd be in trouble, because I have images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints all over my room!

The 2nd commandment warns against worshipping the images themselves, not against making images to give glory to God and to present one's love for their faith.

If you wanna best understand the commandments, pick up a Cathecism, look for any of the commandments, and read what the CCC has to say about them. It probably will explain them better than I will.

The point is, the ten commandments aren't universally applicable in every situation, and thus require clarification. That's not the kind of guidelines that a government should be based on.

[The Alexanderians]

1.) No, the CCC says specifically that if other lives are in danger, you must defend them if you are able. Also, see Augustine's Just War Theory.

2.) If you don't know anything about the Christian Faith, not necessarily. As long as you're searching for God, then you're on the right track. But if you're Catholic and you turn away to Egyptian gods or whatever...you're probably going off the wrong track.

3.) That's not a question with a clear answer. I really couldn't tell you. And define an example for the second part. If you have the money and you can buy it, then there's no reason to pirate. If you have the money, however, and they're not giving it to you, why not just sue?

4.) Lying to protect someone's feelings doesn't always make one a good friend. If someone wants to know if their cooking is good, for a cooking show, and I tell them it is when it's awful, what's going to happen when they get on the show thinking it's good? If you're doing it to defend someone, like you're in Auschwitz and you're protecting a friend from dying, that's heroic. Are surprises wrong?...No, because surprises don't always entail lying. They just entail things you didn't see coming.

5,) No, but you shouldn't work yourself to death. The reason for the 3rd commandment is not just to give a day to God, but also to give oneself a day of rest, to stop working and to rest one's weary bones.

6.) No, desires are not wrong, desires are part of being human! There's a difference between me saying, "Oh, that Volkswagen my friend has is cool!" and "Dang, I want that Volkswagen, if only there was some way I could steal it..." The first is nice. The second is envy. And greed.

7.) You should try to at the very least be thankful they gave you life. I've been in a situation where my parents have been fighting and are separated, and it's often hard, but they do love me. And I love them back. Even if you can't bring yourself to love them, though, you shouldn't wish terrible things on them and stuff. And of course you can honor other people who are your father figures or whatnot. Like, if your father isn't in the home, but your football coach is kinda like a father to you, there's nothing wrong with seeing him as such.

8.) No, otherwise I'd be in trouble, because I have images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints all over my room!

The 2nd commandment warns against worshipping the images themselves, not against making images to give glory to God and to present one's love for their faith.

If you wanna best understand the commandments, pick up a Cathecism, look for any of the commandments, and read what the CCC has to say about them. It probably will explain them better than I will.

The point is, the ten commandments aren't universally applicable in every situation, and thus require clarification. That's not the kind of guidelines that a government should be based on.

I think a few people pointed that out in detail. Even a theocracy would have a hard time making the laws based off the Commandments.

[Czechanada]

The point is, the ten commandments aren't universally applicable in every situation, and thus require clarification. That's not the kind of guidelines that a government should be based on.

I think a few people pointed that out in detail.

Yes... but I was the one who originally brought up the point, so it would have been rude for me to not have responded.

[Herskerstad]

I lack the time to deconstruct that in detail, but the Byzantines had a perfectly adequate long-term military response to Islam for ]nearly 400 years between the foundation of the thematic system and the Battle of Manzikert; for over 300 years after the Second Siege of Constantinople, there was even a steady long-term advance of Byzantine control in the east. Even after Manzikert, they managed to restabilise the situation during the Comnenian period; Manzikert significantly weakened the Empire, but didn't destroy it. It was the Fourth Crusade that in the end fatally undermined the Byzantine response to Islam, not 'general court intrigues' or any sense of inevitability caused by inherent weaknesses within the Byzantine system; no doubt the thematic system was mismanaged between the death of Basil II and accession of Romanus IV, but mismanagement by incompetent rulers is not the same as an inherent fatal flaw.

Fair enough, but whereas I am not making the argument that the Byzantines somehow through military incompetence or erroneous investments did not put up a good fight, they did however find themselves in a logistically losing battle by sheer arithmetic. The sack of Constantinople and the patchwork of Byzantine regions switching between independent, Latin or Byzantine loyalties that followed certainly made things easier for the Turkish tribes, but I am not sure I would levy the term adequate to an overall slow death over centuries given that there could be other routes to pursue both in terms of military alliances and stratagems to deal with the migrations. It is not as if the Byzantine world finds itself failing compared to the western counterparts that long since had been over-run and only culturally prevailed, but whereas the barbarians had fairly limited societal designs, the same can not be said about the Ottomans and the caliphates.

As far as the sack of Constantinople goes, I hope it is evident that I am not defending the western catholic powers as being competent or kind in their dealings, but as aforementioned the court politics did play a part given Alexios III's rise to power, and subsequently the consequences of Alexios IV seeking to reimpose himself while promising both a healing to the schism as well as refunding the Venetians for their botched transport enterprise. The Venetians were not going to say no to that, the pope was not about to pass up a chance of healing the schism by subversive means, and the pretenders were not about to renounce their claims. I am not saying the system was inferior to most of the western feudal systems, but some of the more disastrous turns within the history of Eastern Rome's administration cannot exactly be avoided even at a glance. I got no issue saying that it was the Crusade that delivered the de-facto death knell to the empire, but even with re-stabilizations there were several other issues that faced her. Bulgarian independence, that the black sea tribes relied on were increasingly becoming muslim, a bad set of plagues and an economy which gained little respite from war. At the side of the natural enemies being that of the Turkish and Egyptian\Arab the circumstances were for the most part not nearly as bad. Continual migrations largely to their favor, two prosperous if not stable empires. Independent ghazi enterprises not least of them were frequent raids which also the Latin world had no response too, and, it has to be said, a surprisingly effective military cultivation. Had the sack never occurred then it becomes conjecture to say what would have happened, but I do have a hard time seeing a adequate defence in the sense of it doing anything other than postponing the inevitable. If anything, when she hit back and prospered it was largely at the back of historically extraordinary military leaders which is never a guaranteed frequency.

[Luminesa]

1.) No, the CCC says specifically that if other lives are in danger, you must defend them if you are able. Also, see Augustine's Just War Theory.

2.) If you don't know anything about the Christian Faith, not necessarily. As long as you're searching for God, then you're on the right track. But if you're Catholic and you turn away to Egyptian gods or whatever...you're probably going off the wrong track.

3.) That's not a question with a clear answer. I really couldn't tell you. And define an example for the second part. If you have the money and you can buy it, then there's no reason to pirate. If you have the money, however, and they're not giving it to you, why not just sue?

4.) Lying to protect someone's feelings doesn't always make one a good friend. If someone wants to know if their cooking is good, for a cooking show, and I tell them it is when it's awful, what's going to happen when they get on the show thinking it's good? If you're doing it to defend someone, like you're in Auschwitz and you're protecting a friend from dying, that's heroic. Are surprises wrong?...No, because surprises don't always entail lying. They just entail things you didn't see coming.

5,) No, but you shouldn't work yourself to death. The reason for the 3rd commandment is not just to give a day to God, but also to give oneself a day of rest, to stop working and to rest one's weary bones.

6.) No, desires are not wrong, desires are part of being human! There's a difference between me saying, "Oh, that Volkswagen my friend has is cool!" and "Dang, I want that Volkswagen, if only there was some way I could steal it..." The first is nice. The second is envy. And greed.

7.) You should try to at the very least be thankful they gave you life. I've been in a situation where my parents have been fighting and are separated, and it's often hard, but they do love me. And I love them back. Even if you can't bring yourself to love them, though, you shouldn't wish terrible things on them and stuff. And of course you can honor other people who are your father figures or whatnot. Like, if your father isn't in the home, but your football coach is kinda like a father to you, there's nothing wrong with seeing him as such.

8.) No, otherwise I'd be in trouble, because I have images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints all over my room!

The 2nd commandment warns against worshipping the images themselves, not against making images to give glory to God and to present one's love for their faith.

If you wanna best understand the commandments, pick up a Cathecism, look for any of the commandments, and read what the CCC has to say about them. It probably will explain them better than I will.

The point is, the ten commandments aren't universally applicable in every situation, and thus require clarification. That's not the kind of guidelines that a government should be based on.

When they were created, they were meant to be the guidelines for the Jewish people to follow, as they rebuilt their cultural and religious identity, after having spent 400 years in Egypt. They still follow today as a good religious and moral guideline, but I do suppose that they would have to be a little more complex to carry the legal system of a country like the United States, which is so complex and has so many duties. Even so, the reason it's been placed outside courthouses and whatnot for so many years is because it's kind of a good basic guideline for any judge to follow and uphold, along with the law of the country. Plus, seeing the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse generally gives one the feeling of, "Here you are, at the courthouse. This is a place where the law is going to (usually) be upheld."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The point is, the ten commandments aren't universally applicable in every situation, and thus require clarification. That's not the kind of guidelines that a government should be based on.

When they were created, they were meant to be the guidelines for the Jewish people to follow, as they rebuilt their cultural and religious identity, after having spent 400 years in Egypt. They still follow today as a good religious and moral guideline, but I do suppose that they would have to be a little more complex to carry the legal system of a country like the United States, which is so complex and has so many duties. Even so, the reason it's been placed outside courthouses and whatnot for so many years is because it's kind of a good basic guideline for any judge to follow and uphold, along with the law of the country. Plus, seeing the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse generally gives one the feeling of, "Here you are, at the courthouse. This is a place where the law is going to (usually) be upheld."

In the United States I don't think a Ten Commandments tablet needs to be in the courthouse.

A more appropriate monument would be lady justice with a bunch of 100 dollar packets in one side of her balance, if we want to send the appropriate message.

[Luminesa]

When they were created, they were meant to be the guidelines for the Jewish people to follow, as they rebuilt their cultural and religious identity, after having spent 400 years in Egypt. They still follow today as a good religious and moral guideline, but I do suppose that they would have to be a little more complex to carry the legal system of a country like the United States, which is so complex and has so many duties. Even so, the reason it's been placed outside courthouses and whatnot for so many years is because it's kind of a good basic guideline for any judge to follow and uphold, along with the law of the country. Plus, seeing the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse generally gives one the feeling of, "Here you are, at the courthouse. This is a place where the law is going to (usually) be upheld."

In the United States I don't think a Ten Commandments tablet needs to be in the courthouse.

A more appropriate monument would be lady justice with a bunch of 100 dollar packets in one side of her balance, if we want to send the appropriate message.

...Ohhh, I see what you mean...

...At least the Ten Commandments are a little more honorable of an ideal to work towards...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the United States I don't think a Ten Commandments tablet needs to be in the courthouse.

A more appropriate monument would be lady justice with a bunch of 100 dollar packets in one side of her balance, if we want to send the appropriate message.

...Ohhh, I see what you mean...

...At least the Ten Commandments are a little more honorable of an ideal to work towards...

I agree, but the Ten Commandments as an ideal is not the same as the Ten Commandments in practice.

As ideals they're fine ideals to follow. As practice, nobody can follow them to the extent in which you can say "I have never broken the Ten Commandments".

[Luminesa]

...Ohhh, I see what you mean...

...At least the Ten Commandments are a little more honorable of an ideal to work towards...

I agree, but the Ten Commandments as an ideal is not the same as the Ten Commandments in practice.

As ideals they're fine ideals to follow. As practice, nobody can follow them to the extent in which you can say "I have never broken the Ten Commandments".

I know I've broken 'em before.

[Czechanada]

When they were created, they were meant to be the guidelines for the Jewish people to follow, as they rebuilt their cultural and religious identity, after having spent 400 years in Egypt. They still follow today as a good religious and moral guideline, but I do suppose that they would have to be a little more complex to carry the legal system of a country like the United States, which is so complex and has so many duties. Even so, the reason it's been placed outside courthouses and whatnot for so many years is because it's kind of a good basic guideline for any judge to follow and uphold, along with the law of the country. Plus, seeing the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse generally gives one the feeling of, "Here you are, at the courthouse. This is a place where the law is going to (usually) be upheld."

In the United States I don't think a Ten Commandments tablet needs to be in the courthouse.

A more appropriate monument would be lady justice with a bunch of 100 dollar packets in one side of her balance, if we want to send the appropriate message.

Besides, the Ten Commandments are largely obsolete in this day and age. The morals contained within are already ingrained within Western society, and the majority of them are prohibition of specific contextless actions, which isn't enough as a moral framework.

[Finaglia]

I lack the time to deconstruct that in detail, but the Byzantines had a perfectly adequate long-term military response to Islam for ]nearly 400 years between the foundation of the thematic system and the Battle of Manzikert; for over 300 years after the Second Siege of Constantinople, there was even a steady long-term advance of Byzantine control in the east. Even after Manzikert, they managed to restabilise the situation during the Comnenian period; Manzikert significantly weakened the Empire, but didn't destroy it. It was the Fourth Crusade that in the end fatally undermined the Byzantine response to Islam, not 'general court intrigues' or any sense of inevitability caused by inherent weaknesses within the Byzantine system;

]no doubt the thematic system was mismanaged between the death of Basil II and accession of Romanus IV, but mismanagement by incompetent rulers is not the same as an inherent fatal flaw.

Fair enough, but whereas I am not making the argument that the Byzantines somehow through military incompetence or erroneous investments did not put up a good fight, they did however find themselves in a logistically losing battle by sheer arithmetic. The sack of Constantinople and the patchwork of Byzantine regions switching between independent, Latin or Byzantine loyalties that followed certainly made things easier for the Turkish tribes, but I am not sure I would levy the term adequate to an overall slow death over centuries given that there could be other routes to pursue both in terms of military alliances and stratagems to deal with the migrations. It is not as if the Byzantine world finds itself failing compared to the western counterparts that long since had been over-run and only culturally prevailed, but whereas the barbarians had fairly limited societal designs, the same can not be said about the Ottomans and the caliphates.

As far as the sack of Constantinople goes, I hope it is evident that I am not defending the western catholic powers as being competent or kind in their dealings, but as aforementioned the court politics did play a part given Alexios III's rise to power, and subsequently the consequences of Alexios IV seeking to reimpose himself while promising both a healing to the schism as well as refunding the Venetians for their botched transport enterprise. The Venetians were not going to say no to that, the pope was not about to pass up a chance of healing the schism by subversive means, and the pretenders were not about to renounce their claims. I am not saying the system was inferior to most of the western feudal systems, but some of the more disastrous turns within the history of Eastern Rome's administration cannot exactly be avoided even at a glance. I got no issue saying that it was the Crusade that delivered the de-facto death knell to the empire, but even with re-stabilizations there were several other issues that faced her. Bulgarian independence, that the black sea tribes relied on were increasingly becoming muslim, a bad set of plagues and an economy which gained little respite from war. At the side of the natural enemies being that of the Turkish and Egyptian\Arab the circumstances were for the most part not nearly as bad. Continual migrations largely to their favor, two prosperous if not stable empires. Independent ghazi enterprises not least of them were frequent raids which also the Latin world had no response too, and, it has to be said, a surprisingly effective military cultivation. Had the sack never occurred then it becomes conjecture to say what would have happened, but I do have a hard time seeing a adequate defence in the sense of it doing anything other than postponing the inevitable.

If anything, when she hit back and prospered it was largely at the back of historically extraordinary military leaders which is never a guaranteed frequency.

One of the things that is usually not taken into account are the waves of pandemics that hit the eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Plague of Justiniun is the best recorded; Some archeologist think that it kept hitting in waves.

[Salus Maior]

One of the things that is usually not taken into account are the waves of pandemics that hit the eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Plague of Justiniun is the best recorded; Some archeologist think that it kept hitting in waves.

He mentioned that.

[Luminesa]

In the United States I don't think a Ten Commandments tablet needs to be in the courthouse.

A more appropriate monument would be lady justice with a bunch of 100 dollar packets in one side of her balance, if we want to send the appropriate message.

Besides, the Ten Commandments are largely obsolete in this day and age. The morals contained within are already ingrained within Western society, and the majority of them are prohibition of specific contextless actions, which isn't enough as a moral framework.

Just because they're already there doesn't mean the Ten Commandments are obsolete. That's like saying, "I already have lots and lots of cells to repair any damage done to my body, thus my stem cells are irrelevant." Or something like that.

[Salus Maior]

Didn't the advent of a great bombard (and by extension gunpowder) contribute to the final downfall of Constantinople? Out of curiosity.

http://i.imgur.com/XvCadeB.jpg

[Quokkastan]

Didn't the advent of a great bombard (and by extension gunpowder) contribute to the final downfall of Constantinople? Out of curiosity.

http://i.imgur.com/XvCadeB.jpg

Wake up White Sheep Turkomans!

[Czechanada]

Besides, the Ten Commandments are largely obsolete in this day and age. The morals contained within are already ingrained within Western society, and the majority of them are prohibition of specific contextless actions, which isn't enough as a moral framework.

Just because they're already there doesn't mean the Ten Commandments are obsolete. That's like saying, "I already have lots and lots of cells to repair any damage done to my body, thus my stem cells are irrelevant." Or something like that.

No, it's like saying: "My body has the cells to deal with the typical damage it gets, but stem cells are needed to fix the problems we can't fix yet."

[Ithqington]

Hello Anyone. So, Donald Trump say something about person having the abortion should be punished, If abortion were illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /82435030/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... punishment

and Somehow. "Donald Trump is now the least popular American politician in three decades" from Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

(Hey, Do you know Los Angeles is Spanish for "The Angels")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

[Luminesa]

Just because they're already there doesn't mean the Ten Commandments are obsolete. That's like saying, "I already have lots and lots of cells to repair any damage done to my body, thus my stem cells are irrelevant." Or something like that.

No, it's like saying: "My body has the cells to deal with the typical damage it gets, but stem cells are needed to fix the problems we can't fix yet."

Well, the stem cells are there in case one needs to refer back to them to fix something, like if you have a broken neck and you need to go back to the basics to fix it. Hence, the Ten Commandments, like stem cells, are kept as a basic guiding principle, in case one needs to go back to the basics in order to define whether or not something might be a problem. For example, yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is very simple, but it does cover a lot of ground being as simple as it is. Like I said, the CCC does a good job explaining the ins and outs of the commandment, like how it applies to things like war, self-defense, self-harm (cutting and such), abortion, euthanasia, etc.

[Czechanada]

No, it's like saying: "My body has the cells to deal with the typical damage it gets, but stem cells are needed to fix the problems we can't fix yet."

Well, the stem cells are there in case one needs to refer back to them to fix something, like if you have a broken neck and you need to go back to the basics to fix it. Hence, the Ten Commandments, like stem cells, are kept as a basic guiding principle, in case one needs to go back to the basics in order to define whether or not something might be a problem. For example, yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is very simple, but it does cover a lot of ground being as simple as it is. Like I said, the CCC does a good job explaining the ins and outs of the commandment, like how it applies to things like war, self-defense, self-harm (cutting and such), abortion, euthanasia, etc.

But we already have those things down is what I just said.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Hello Anyone. So, Donald Trump say something about person having the abortion should be punished, If abortion were illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /82435030/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... punishment

and Somehow. "Donald Trump is now the least popular American politician in three decades" from Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

(Hey, Do you know Los Angeles is Spanish for "The Angels")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

Well funny thing, there's a legal doctrine called solicitation. It's a crime where one person, pays another person money to commit a crime. It's mostly prosecuted in the form of men offering prostitutes money for sex. Essentially just because you're not actually doing the crime, doesn't absolve you of your involvement in the crime. There's other doctrines that reinforce that such as "accessory to murder" and things like that.

In this case, the woman is an accomplice to the crime, and therefor legally liable. All Trump said was that a person who committed a crime should be punished, but you can't exactly say something like that when politics are concerned.

[Ithqington]

Hello Anyone. So, Donald Trump say something about person having the abortion should be punished, If abortion were illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /82435030/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... punishment

and Somehow. "Donald Trump is now the least popular American politician in three decades" from Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

(Hey, Do you know Los Angeles is Spanish for "The Angels")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

Well funny thing, there's a legal doctrine called solicitation. It's a crime where one person, pays another person money to commit a crime. It's mostly prosecuted in the form of men offering prostitutes money for sex. Essentially just because you're not actually doing the crime, doesn't absolve you of your involvement in the crime. There's other doctrines that reinforce that such as "accessory to murder" and things like that.

In this case, the woman is an accomplice to the crime, and therefor legally liable. All Trump said was that a person who committed a crime should be punished, but you can't exactly say something like that when politics are concerned.

Well, I am always called myself pro-life and I always against abortion but I can allowed abortion for insest, rape and other sexaul abuses, or danger to the mother or child.

What I saying is we need to limited the organization like Planned Parenthood and We need to Ban some type of abortion which it danger to the mother or child like Unsafe abortion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well funny thing, there's a legal doctrine called solicitation. It's a crime where one person, pays another person money to commit a crime. It's mostly prosecuted in the form of men offering prostitutes money for sex. Essentially just because you're not actually doing the crime, doesn't absolve you of your involvement in the crime. There's other doctrines that reinforce that such as "accessory to murder" and things like that.

In this case, the woman is an accomplice to the crime, and therefor legally liable. All Trump said was that a person who committed a crime should be punished, but you can't exactly say something like that when politics are concerned.

Well, I am always called myself pro-life and I always against abortion but I can allowed abortion for insest, rape and other sexaul abuses, or danger to the mother or child.

What I saying is we need to limited the organization like Planned Parenthood and We need to Ban some type of abortion which it danger to the mother or child like Unsafe abortion.

What kind of "unsafe" abortions are you talking about here?

Because "unsafe" as in clandestine is pretty much illegal, I think.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

The bolded actually doesn't even exist outside of supercessionist thinking to be honest.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

The bolded actually doesn't even exist outside of supercessionist thinking to be honest.

Also, I can't help myself and smirk whenever I see the bolded.

What is "Judo-Christianity"? Is there now a denomination which preaches the virtues of Judo in a Christian context? Do they hold Judo matches every weekend? What is Judo-Christianity? The world needs to know!