Re: My Definition of What a Liberal Christian is !!!

	Duration: 14:41 minutes Upload Time: 07-04-07 21:03:56 User: jezuzfreek777 :::: Favorites
Description: My rebutle. I do nt intend to offend you firefly515. I pray you will take this video with an receptive attitude
Comments
bajovato ::: Favorites I bet you don't even believe in God or go to church, and that your just playing devils (excuse me..."angels")advocate to get some attention on You Tube. 07-08-06 13:52:13 _____________________________________________________
bajovato ::: Favorites Hey "Jeez-u-FREAK" Answer me this why did God create man to begin with. 07-08-06 13:49:49 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites But seriously, avoiding debate is typical of the right. Yes, "liberals," as you call them in the US, tend to be far more educated, products of a robust and healthy university system, who see the world for what it is and not simply through ancient texts. And I am a Christian . . . but I would NEVER allow your dull anecdotes and misanthropic world views to influence me. Call it left or call it right; your trumpeting lines are ancient battle cries from a long and inconsequential time ago. 07-07-12 02:46:47 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites No point arguing? Ha! - That is what the weakened U.S. Christian Right now resorts to during these hard times. Even the Republican Party will re-formulate so as to reconsider the fact that the USA wants nothing to do with the failures of following an imperialist objective or any foreign policy initiative that supposedly has Jesus on the admin's side. 07-07-12 02:43:14 _____________________________________________________
Rawk4Life ::: Favorites Man you are so naive. Actually, it is common sense to not continue a debate here on Youtube if neither side is going to be convinced that the other is right. As far as my Christian beliefs go, Scripture teaches me not to throw my pearls before swine. It's not about being weak, it's about walking away before making a fool of myself. 07-07-12 08:25:10 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites The I think you found your answer. However, technically (ouch, yes!), you made a fool of yourself in the first instance by being an apologist for Bush. That, my friend, is a disengenuous investment of your Christian beliefs. 07-07-12 14:58:30 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Rawk4Life ::: Favorites In that case, I could say you made a fool of yourself if you claim to be a supporter of Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, or any politician that is for abortion and gays in the military. I also don't support anyone who is for tax raises or cheats on their spouse and openly denies it. Not to make any judgments, but the only "fool" from here on out is the one who wants to keep arguing after the other has decided to stop. 07-07-13 01:31:38 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites Did you not just make an "argument" in the first two sentences. I mean, littered throughout were the following topics: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, abortion, gays in the military. Then came taxes and adultry. Wow, and this came with a poltical viewpoint. Hmmm . . . it could have the effect, perhaps, of making one think you have made an argument for or against these things, and certainly a judgment. 07-07-13 15:49:14 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites I'm not a Clintonite ... but let's be serious! --> the damage done by the Lewinsky "scandal" is a blip on the radar compared to the mass social, poltical, and economic grievances as a result of an incompetent response to a global issue, namely the unnecessary erosion of civil rights, the reinforcement of elitist principles (Katrina), the alienation of allies, both foreign and domestic, in favour of unreasonable responses to ill-defined wars, and an economic crippling due to insurmountable debt. 07-07-13 15:58:15 _____________________________________________________
Rawk4Life ::: Favorites I have decided not to argue any futher not because I am backing down, but mainly because I am not highly skilled in politics. If you had a group of people together discussing politics, I would be the hearer and would only speak up if I watched the news on a daily basis in regards to the issues being discussed. 07-07-13 17:32:40 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites I am not in any way attempting to showcase how much I know about politics and nor do I want to simply relay a gargantuan amount of information in the hopes that I'll beat you down with quantity. Or even quality, should I feel that I am more right or something. 07-07-13 21:35:59 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites I just wish to discuss what you have already framed here in this dialogue. At this time my only remaining concern is that I am wondering if you were suggesting that it would be acceptable to legislate against adultry. Would you feel that the state has a right to do this? I know you operate from a Christian premise and that is more than acceptable. 07-07-13 21:36:37 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites My only concern is when some people who are heavy-handed fundamentalists righteously believe that the state would be solely governed by overt Christian values, those which might not be agreeable, and, in the eyes of some, a possible affront to the altruistic governance of human relations by a code that is not textually Judeo-Christian. 07-07-13 21:36:59 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites Listen, the host of this video suggests that the USA has "always legislated morality." Sure, and it is okay to derive from the moral past we have known and come to agree on as a society. But can we take contemporary Christian ethics, evolved or not, and simply apply them in the legislation of, say, making adultry illegal AND punishable? No. We cannot because people are subject to such a plurality of moral pretexts that have evolved, whether we like it or not. 07-07-13 21:39:44 _____________________________________________________
Rawk4Life ::: Favorites Well, a promiscuous man is going to sleep with a married woman, whether he is found out or not. Not every crime done is always exposed to the naked eye and to the general public. Contemporary Christian ethics can be applied in making marriage a legal bond solely between a man and woman since the U.S. Constitution does not promote legal justice for gay couples. 07-07-14 04:31:34 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites And I agree that contemporary Christian ethics are always welcomed on the stage where our legal and judicial codes are crafted, though they should not dominate their direction. There will always be an important place at the table for Christianity and a valuable role played. 07-07-14 14:04:53 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites As for gay couples well your statement is right enough because it is pragmatic. In Canada, of course, such a legal bond is recognized and, believe it or not, three years later the country as a whole doesn't feel as though we've slipped somewhere down the overly clichéd "moral slope." 07-07-14 14:09:28 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites I do not want to see God's rules legislated. I want to see Judeo-Christian examples of justice and moral good order given great standing when we deign our laws. It is one thing to consider Jesus's moral teachings when drafting legislation. But it is quite another to reference those passages in the Old Testament that offer a one-way street to laws will only cripple any country's attempts to deliver a universal sense of justice. 07-07-14 14:14:42 _____________________________________________________
Rabidsenses ::: Favorites Jesus offered a moral compass to God but the citizens of a secular state (any industrialized Western democracy) do not want the same rebukes and punishments that God commanded. This is where a state must pick and choose amongst society's moral compass, as much as a "pure" Christian doesn't agree. Because neither will the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Catholic variety, the Jew, the atheist, the humanist, etc. 07-07-14 14:14:56 _____________________________________________________
Rawk4Life ::: Favorites It all comes down to the majority vote of the Senators and Governor of each state to decide what they want to consider "moral" or "immoral," even if they don't use Biblical standards for their decisions. Unfortunate as it is, I don't believe government relies on the will of the people as often as it used to. 07-07-15 02:26:07 _____________________________________________________