jefferiah

Does a genetic predisposition to alcohol mean that once an alcoholic is aware of his alcoholism and his problem, that he should use it as an excuse to go out and tie one on, or should he seek help. Like I said no one chooses their thorns in life. But we dont ok everything just because we have them.

look all i am saying is, because Jesus forgave paul does it mean he thought his previous executions were "little misdemeanors"?

There is no evidence people are born gay M Dancer. In fact I think most evidence reveals the opposite. There was scientist who thought he may have identified a gay gene, but it was mostly theoretical and this became the big argument for the gay movement. Personally I believe gays are affected by some sexual trauma in early development, and I dont think they really choose to be gay. By the same token many people dont choose to be alcoholics, or addicts. We all have our problems to bear, and our thorns in our sides. Having high blood pressure and a violent past doesnt give you license to commit violent acts more than anyone else. But I can understand where gay people may need more love and mercy than others, because of this situation.

For the record He also forgave Paul (formerly Saul) for persecuting and executing hundreds of Christians, and then charged him with the job of being an Apostle. Does this mean M Dancer that he was condoning mass executions as well? He did not give specific instructions to the woman at the well as what to do about her husband, but I think she understood anyway. Likewise, there is no record of him telling Paul to stop executing people, but I think you can ascertain that he meant Paul had to change his lifestyle.

The woman knew she was an adulterer. He did not tell her to divorce her current husband because she didnt have one. The man she was living with was not married. He told the woman who he saved from being stoned by the religious authorities to sin no more. He did prefer the company of sinners. All people are sinners, but he preferred those who were not too proud to admit it. This is why he forgave those women. The religious leaders were proud and self-righteous and did not adimt they had done wrong, did not seek mercy. They put themselves in a position of God exercising punishment, while they had their own sins no better than her sins. In order to be repentant you must admit you are doing wrong. But to say oh this is ok to do, and to deny that what you are doing is sin is not repentant. It's proud. The religious leaders who condemned the woman may have done worse things that she did. This does not mean he condoned the woman's adultery any more than he condoned their actions, simply that he recognized her shame and repentance. He made it quite clear in the sermon on the mount that to look at another woman with lust is adultery. Have I ever done that? Yes I sure have. That makes me an adulterer, but it does not make it right. We refrain from judgement not because all these things are A-Ok, and God really doesnt care about "sexual misdimeanors", but because we all are sinners, we all do wrong, and it is not our place to exercise punishment. If there is no mercy for homosexuals sinners then there is of course no mercy for me when it comes to my own sins, my own adulteries and lusts. But to say that because God is willing to forgive us gives us a license to do as we please is a whole other story. You have to ask forgiveness to be forgiven, and to do that you admit you have done wrong.

I am not saying homosexuals should be treated worse than anyone else Dancer. I am saying that like all the sins that I have in my life, sin needs to be called sin. Jesus had dinner with drunkards and adulterers and probably he would have with homosexuals and drug addicts too. But he would never say here buddy this needle is on me. Once again you see there is a clear difference between having dinner with someone and condoning what they do.

I agree with you again Dancer. He would have dinner with them. So would I. But he would not condone homosexuality, just as he would not condone adultery. It doesnt mean he would not associate with sinners. We are all sinners. But that doesnt make sin right. Just because he is merciful does not mean adultery and homosexuality are ok. If you whack me with a baseball bat once a day and I forgive you Dancer that is my business, and no one can question it. But it doesnt make what you are doing right. And it doesnt mean you should continue to do so, even though for your sake i would continue to forgive you.

There is a difference between being "merciful and forgiving" and saying that "something is OK, and I condone it". If you caught your son injecting himself with heroin in his room, you would not condone it. But at the same time you would try to get him help. You would be merciful with him, and try to see him get better. You would not take him outside and stone him. So the fact that you forego judgement doesnt mean you condone using heroin. When Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman at the well, he pointed out her sins, not to say that they were ok, and that she could continue sleeping with whoever she wanted. He told her he could give her water that would keep her satisfied, while the "water of sensuality" that she was drinking would always run out and she would need more.

M Dancer, you are right, he was willing to forgive the woman of adultery amd the Samaritan woman of her sins. That is my point exactly. If they were not sins he would not have to forgive them though, would he. He did not condone having many husbands. He said adultery was wrong. That is exactly my point.

So far Stronach has suffered "dog" and news reports that she had an affair with Domi, which no one really cares about anyway, except maybe Domi's wife. I mean I am conservative and the affair with Domi is not what makes me think she is so terrible. I dont think it is a good, but I know lots of men in politics have affairs too. The point is when it was reported about, she called it sexism. The news will report about any sort of affair. Especially when it involves a politician...male or female. Is it our business? I dont know. Maybe not. But they would do the same thing to a political male figure. In Stronach's case though its apparently sexism. Does male chauvinism exist today? You bet it does. I know it. You know it. We all know it. But Belinda Stronach is using it to divert attention away from herself or to gain political ends. I mean really, someone refers to you as a dog to a third party. Oh my goodness, she is in pain now. Thats sexism. My goodness, Belinda, you poor thing. If she cant handle something like that she shouldnt be a public figure. Or actually maybe she could be a very successful one, because there is a form of eliminating all political opposition that is more powerful than the force used by totalitarians like Stalin. All you have to do is continually display yourself as the victim, and then turn your political adversaries into oppressive Nazis. It doesnt matter what the truth is as long as you gain your political ground, right? It works too because people are fooled by it, though I find it hard to believe. Like the female reporter who yelled at Mckay "I am not a dog!". Did anyone hear him call that reported a dog? He called Belinda that. But this reporter obviously bought into the assertion that calling Belinda a dog means he was calling all women dogs. Cmon, really, answer me this, was McKay calling that reporter and all women dogs? Did he ever say anything to the effect that women should not be in politics?

I agree that Jesus was a pacifist, but I dont think he ever said he was a socialist. I think thats your own formulation. I dont think he was a tory or republican either, but certainly not a socialist. And actually being a pacifist does not mean he thought homosexuality was OK. As I already stated, you can think something is a sin and is wrong, and it does not make you intolerant. When the women who was caught in adultery was brought before him, he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". This meant no one had any right to punish her. Maybe some of those men were involved with her, too, who knows. But it doesnt mean he softened his position on adultery being wrong. He just chose not to judge her harshly or to punish her, but to show mercy. After her persecutors left, Jesus told her to "sin no more". I know many of you people probably dont care what Jesus said or not, and thats none of my business, but I am adsressing anyone who thinks Jesus being pacifist means he thought homosexuality was OK. You can think its wrong to be homosexual without persecuting a homosexual, the same way you can think adultery is wrong and not persecute an adulterer. Christianity makes it a point that everyone is a sinner, so homosexuals are not singled out.

Good example Wilber. And anyways I have been called a lot of worse things than "dog" by many people in life, and I didnt whine and flaunt some sort of minority status, or victim status. Sure she is a victim....of an insult.....specifically aimed at her, not at women in politics, or women in general. I dont think it was very nice of McKay to do so and I think he should admit it and apologize. But to take this whole dog comment and turn it into "this shows what conservatives think of women" is a pretty big leap. The comment shows what McKay thinks of Stronach----end of story.

"She" generally refers to a woman too. Is that sexist?

Oh Cmon now....and this is considering that Mckay used the word bitch which he didnt.

The term bitch usually indicates a female who is naggy, witchy, mean, etc. To call someone a bitch is not sexist. It does not mean you think all women are does it? Think about it. Asshole is exclusively an insult toward males. It doesnt fit with a woman does it? Just doesnt sound right. But just cause its a gender indicative term doesnt make it sexist. If you call Peter McKay an asshole no one is going to call you a female chauvinist,

Hmm...good point dancer. I am quite ignorant of Judaism I guess. However I think it still suffices to make my point. It is ok for a faction to believe something is wrong, it doesnt mean they are intolerant. For instance, I really believed Jews believed Pork eating was wrong, and during the time I believed that I harboured no grudge toward Judaism for what I thought was their condemnation of eating pork. The New Testament does say homosexuality is wrong in the book of Romans. Paul makes a reference to it as one of the ways we all went astray. And actually there is a book of John dating to around 100 AD I believe in museum in England. The point I am trying to make, is that the Christian position, though some Christians do not stick well to it, is that even though we believe homosexuality is wrong we are not to condemn or judge people for it, but be merciful to them and help them should they want to change. This is the method for all sin I think. Tolerance does not mean one has to agree with everything someone else believes in. Tolerance does not mean you have to believe being gay is right. I can be tolerant of homosexuals without condoning it. People can be tolerant of smokers without condoning it.

How is calling Belinda a dog sexist?

We wouldnt be discussing this if Stronach never made such a big deal over an insult and dragged all women into it by saying it was insulting to women. Correction=it was an insult to one woman, Miss Stronach. I dont think it was right of him to say. I think he should apoloigize. But I also think Stronach may have proved herself to be a little canine by turning it into a smear campaign against the Tories and saying that it reflects their view of women. That's preposterous. My assertion....Stronach is not in the least offended, but rather delighted (as are the whole liberal party) with something they can exploit to libel the Tories with.

Its not unlike Oprah banging on the window of a closed store in Paris, and then saying later when they would not allow her in that its because she was black. Cmon. Sure there is racism out there, and sexism. But you won't help the problem by abusing the race or gender card in situations that have nothing to do with it. Women who have experienced real sexism should be more angry at Stronach than any man, for making herself out to be a victim when she is not, and millions of real women are.

When ever there is evidence of an affair bewteen public figures there are going to be news stories dancer, whether they are male or female? I am not saying its right, but Stronach expects special treatment. When it happens to her its because of a sexist double standard? When she is insulted by a male it must be sexist too. Peter McKay calls Belinda Stronach a dog, and Belinda declares herself the figurehead of all womanhood by saying that he has demeaned women altogether. I think she is a bit out there, myself. Who really thinks "Stronach is a dog" equals "I Peter McKay think all women in politics are dogs". Thats ridiculous. C'mon now.

689 results is nothing. how many results would you get for clinton and lewinsky? avril lavigne and that dude she married? any other newsworthy story?

The official Christian Position is not homophobia. I think there is quite a difference. The Christian position is that homosexuality is a sin. And I dont believe it is wrong or discriminating to to say so either. For instance, Jewish people believe pork eating is wrong and therefore they are condeming an act that most of the general population is guilty of. But the Jews are not Porkaphobes are they? Of course not, and do pork eaters feel excluded or discriminated against because of the Judaic position? I think not. Why do Christian Churches refuse to allow gay marriage? Because according to the faith it is a sin. You would not ask a Rabbi to hold a Ham Potluck dinner at a Synagogue would you?

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

Ivan Karamazov doesn't think its possible to have morality without God and eternity. I think Ivan was right.

I am not a big Pope fan or anything, but as far as all this Muslim stuff goes, I really don't think he is crazy at all. I dont think he meant to offend them in the first place, and then there is nothing wrong with him trying to be nice later.