• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion'

MildSteel said:
I know what I said. I know what I meant. You can keep trying, but the truth is on my side.
Click to expand...

So what did you mean? If you know what you meant then it should be easy for you to restate it.
 
jmotivator said:
So what did you mean? If you know what you meant then it should be easy for you to restate it.
Click to expand...

I have restated it. Violence can be used in the service and glorification of God, IF THE MOTIVATION IS PURE. The example of Jesus taking a whip and ridding the temple of greedy people demonstrates that. People who are bewildered by mundane things cannot imitate Jesus.
 
jmotivator said:
So do you think Jesus taught that marriage should also be between two males? Why did he never mention that?
Click to expand...

He never ever spoke of it as something heinously sinful to be condemned as some of his followers do. They twist and wriggle around in his words to find slivers of possible support for their extreme views.
 
It doesn't matter in any event, the bible hasn't any authority, and fictitious people from long ago don't set US policy.
 
MildSteel said:
And your words are in black in white and they appear to indicate that you cannot read. But I would suggest that you learn how. I have told the truth. I based it on what Jesus did. What Jesus did was glorious. Everything that Jesus did was glorious.
Click to expand...
I'm not a bog riddle guy. Just say what you mean. I'm on a cell phone now so forgive me if I just can't go back and forth trying to guess at what you are saying.

So, lets try this.
1. What violence are you speaking of concerning Jesus.

2. Please name for me the calls Jesus made to bring people to conversion or kill them.

And please be clear, I don't have the patience for 50 posts of back and forth posting and guessing while you insult me.

Thanks
 
j-mac said:
Look it up then before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...
Why would some random person I've never heard of saying something I've never heard embarrass me? Because he or she says something you agree with? Do you have anything of your own to say in this thread, or are you just going to repeat liberal talking points?

I'm not going to look up anything. If you want me to evaluate whether or not random person A is wrong, you need to post what random person A said. So either post what he/she said, or I'll just figure you to know how silly it is for you to even bring him/her up in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Why would some random person I've never heard of saying something I've never heard embarrass me? Because he or she says something you agree with? Do you have anything of your own to say in this thread, or are you just going to repeat liberal talking points?

I'm not going to look up anything. If you want me to evaluate whether or not random person A is wrong, you need to post what random person A said. So either post what he/she said, or I'll just figure you to know how silly it is for you to even bring him/her up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Nah, you can just remain ignorant then...insult and self conceit is all your after anyway.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He never ever spoke of it as something heinously sinful to be condemned as some of his followers do..
Click to expand...

Sure he did.

Matt 15:17-20
17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

If you aren't married and you have sex then you are fornicating. Jesus places that on the same level as many other egregious sins.

We are called not to judge others in their sins, as we all sin, but we are not supposed to celebrate sin either. And Jesus separates "judgment" and "teaching". Saying that homosexuality is a sin is teaching, not casting judgment.

Matt 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

They twist and wriggle around in his words to find slivers of possible support for their extreme views
Click to expand...

Nobody is twisting and wriggling. In comparison to todays debauched society Jesus' views would seem extreme.
 
j-mac said:
Nah, you can just remain ignorant then...insult and self conceit is all your after anyway.
Click to expand...
:lamo

So you know your entire position on this is stupid. Got it. If you weren't so afraid of your own position, you'd post what your liberal friend said. But you didn't. Because you know how stupid the position is.

Thanks for proving what I already figured. Now, how about you refute what my friend John Gipson said about this and you. Is it true?
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
:lamo

So you know your entire position on this is stupid. Got it. If you weren't so afraid of your own position, you'd post what you liberal friend said. But you didn't. Because you know how stupid the position is.

Thanks for proving what I already figured.
Click to expand...
Yep, "I'm stupid"... :roll: And surely you have no idea what I just said to you is confirmed by this post of yours. Could I make my argument better? Possibly. But, ultimately I think not as evidenced by the fact that all you have in retort is insult instead of actual rebuttal.

Have a nice day Sly...

"...Civility a must!"... yeah right! :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
Sure he did.

Matt 15:17-20
17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

If you aren't married and you have sex then you are fornicating. Jesus places that on the same level as many other egregious sins.

We are called not to judge others in their sins, as we all sin, but we are not supposed to celebrate sin either. And Jesus separates "judgment" and "teaching". Saying that homosexuality is a sin is teaching, not casting judgment.

Matt 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



Nobody is twisting and wriggling. In comparison to todays debauched society Jesus' views would seem extreme.
Click to expand...

Not one single outright condemnation of homosexuality.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Not one single outright condemnation of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

So I will ask you again, do you think Jesus supported gay marriage? If so, why did he never talk about it?
 
jmotivator said:
So I will ask you again, do you think Jesus supported gay marriage? If so, why did he never talk about it?
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous question.

Clearly, homosexuality existed back then. The Romans were in power and everyone knows about their toga parties and the "Behind the Green Door" lifestyle many Roman Republicans (wealthy elites) lived back then. It's all documented history. That said, gay marriage wasn't a thing in the days of Christ, but rampant fornication and adultery was.
 
I personally recognise no authority in the bible, but for those who do, they have a leg to stand on.

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes

“ For this reason God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Never the less, this is a church matter, and not something American justices ought to be espousing.
 
Man, this thread has gone way off track. I'd like to try and bring the topic back around to this issue of people/groups/organizations using their religious faith to do evil in the name of God and Christ or whatever religious deity they worship, specifically, the Crusades.

I know the history of this Christian religious saga, but I think some people are either still confused over it or are in denial about what truly happened and how the Crusades came to be.

First, I think people (Americans) really need to read the Federalist Papers, No. 3-5 specifically, to understand why not only it is so dangerous for "individual" rulers (Kings/monarchs) to be allowed to go unchecked, it's also equally dangers for men of such prominent power and influence either individually or collectively to go unchecked. For such men have the ability to sway the judgment of the people to wage unjust wars.

With "justification" for war by a well-intended government defending the nation against aggression both foreign and domestic (w/the consent of a well-informed electorate), we have to truly look at the origins of the Crusades and see this event in history for what it was. To that, I found this video from the History Channel that summarizes what the Crusades were really about, who started them and why.

Moment of truth: I can certainly understand why so many on the Right were upset about this alleged "comparison" to what ISIL is doing. There's certainly a fear that their ideology will spread and that their tyranny will become the norm if allowed to go unchecked. But if you truly understand how the Crusades began, then you understand that what took place then in the name of God and Christ is nearly identical to what ISIL is using as their justification for spreading their radical form of Islam.

I've always taken the position, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood." To that, I think this article from Politicususa.com is very much on point when the author speaks of Christian "truth serum" from the religious Right. With that, I'll let folks read the aforementioned linked articles and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not our nation's leader was right in addressing this issue of atrocities committed in the name of one's religious faith no matter what the religion may be.
 
Objective Voice said:
Man, this thread has gone way off track. I'd like to try and bring the topic back around to this issue of people/groups/organizations using their religious faith to do evil in the name of God and Christ or whatever religious deity they worship, specifically, the Crusades.

I know the history of this Christian religious saga, but I think some people are either still confused over it or are in denial about what truly happened and how the Crusades came to be.

First, I think people (Americans) really need to read the Federalist Papers, No. 3-5 specifically, to understand why not only it is so dangerous for "individual" rulers (Kings/monarchs) to be allowed to go unchecked, it's also equally dangers for men of such prominent power and influence either individually or collectively to go unchecked. For such men have the ability to sway the judgment of the people to wage unjust wars.

With "justification" for war by a well-intended government defending the nation against aggression both foreign and domestic (w/the consent of a well-informed electorate), we have to truly look at the origins of the Crusades and see this event in history for what it was. To that, I found this video from the History Channel that summarizes what the Crusades were really about, who started them and why.

Moment of truth: I can certainly understand why so many on the Right were upset about this alleged "comparison" to what ISIL is doing. There's certainly a fear that their ideology will spread and that their tyranny will become the norm if allowed to go unchecked. But if you truly understand how the Crusades began, then you understand that what took place then in the name of God and Christ is nearly identical to what ISIL is using as their justification for spreading their radical form of Islam.

I've always taken the position, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood." To that, I think this article from Politicususa.com is very much on point when the author speaks of Christian "truth serum" from the religious Right. With that, I'll let folks read the aforementioned linked articles and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not our nation's leader was right in addressing this issue of atrocities committed in the name of one's religious faith no matter what the religion may be.
Click to expand...
So you believe that Obama was correct to make the attacks from ISIS, Boko Horom, and Al Qaeda a religious war?

What about atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and other religions? Are they involved in this as well or is it just between Muslims and Christians?

In any case Obama was able to give the Islamists further justification for more attacks.
 
Grant said:
Then why not try debating the point? The site is Debate Politicas which, I'm assuming, is why you're here.

Why not give it a shot?
Click to expand...

The delightful thing about being me is I don't have to answer to authoritarian fascists.
 
Objective Voice said:
Man, this thread has gone way off track. I'd like to try and bring the topic back around to this issue of people/groups/organizations using their religious faith to do evil in the name of God and Christ or whatever religious deity they worship, specifically, the Crusades.

I know the history of this Christian religious saga, but I think some people are either still confused over it or are in denial about what truly happened and how the Crusades came to be.

First, I think people (Americans) really need to read the Federalist Papers, No. 3-5 specifically, to understand why not only it is so dangerous for "individual" rulers (Kings/monarchs) to be allowed to go unchecked, it's also equally dangers for men of such prominent power and influence either individually or collectively to go unchecked. For such men have the ability to sway the judgment of the people to wage unjust wars.

With "justification" for war by a well-intended government defending the nation against aggression both foreign and domestic (w/the consent of a well-informed electorate), we have to truly look at the origins of the Crusades and see this event in history for what it was. To that, I found this video from the History Channel that summarizes what the Crusades were really about, who started them and why.

Moment of truth: I can certainly understand why so many on the Right were upset about this alleged "comparison" to what ISIL is doing. There's certainly a fear that their ideology will spread and that their tyranny will become the norm if allowed to go unchecked. But if you truly understand how the Crusades began, then you understand that what took place then in the name of God and Christ is nearly identical to what ISIL is using as their justification for spreading their radical form of Islam.

I've always taken the position, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood." To that, I think this article from Politicususa.com is very much on point when the author speaks of Christian "truth serum" from the religious Right. With that, I'll let folks read the aforementioned linked articles and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not our nation's leader was right in addressing this issue of atrocities committed in the name of one's religious faith no matter what the religion may be.
Click to expand...

If you seek to understand, why do you leave out the Muslim invasions of Europe that were going on for 300 years before the first crusade into Asia took place? To harp about one and leave out the other is intellectually dishonest. As long as you make dishonest presentation, you'll never be understood. If you make a presentation that leaves out key facts, it becomes a lie.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Not one single outright condemnation of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Yes, he does...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
What a ridiculous question.

Clearly, homosexuality existed back then. The Romans were in power and everyone knows about their toga parties and the "Behind the Green Door" lifestyle many Roman Republicans (wealthy elites) lived back then. It's all documented history. That said, gay marriage wasn't a thing in the days of Christ, but rampant fornication and adultery was.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really constitute a counter argument. Indeed there was no gay marriage back then, so where does that leave homosexual sex in Jesus' teachings? It was fornication which is a sin.

Jesus had the opportunity to promote homosexual marriage, indeed his whole life was anathema to the culture of his day -- which is why they nailed him to a cross -- so why did he state that marriage was between one man and one woman specifically? He had no trouble clearly stating his other positions that were counter to the prevailing culture of the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom