Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:


i thought you said the bible didn’t say to kill gay people…?  Now your argument is that they had their justifications for doing so .

However, my issue is not that people killed each other for bad reasons 3000 years ago.  My issue is that people believe this is a divinely inspired book that we should base our morals on today.   A divinely inspired book from an all-loving god who is still teaching us to do good based on the book.  

I trust Biblical morality, which did evolve throughout the Old Testament and New, over your 5 year-old experimental morality.  History is instructive.  We haven’t seen the social impacts yet, for example, of transhumanism.

Sometimes the Bible provides what appear to be mixed messages.  “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t just a suggestion.  Equality under God isn’t just a suggestion.  Nevertheless, not “anything goes.”

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Do you think a homosexual society could reproduce and propagate itself 3000 years ago?  Was Huxley writing about the state using tech to take over reproduction 3000 years ago?  Enlighten me, Socrates.  

There's never really been a "homosexual society", for obvious self-limited reasons.  There certainly were homosexuals out in the open 3000 years ago, and rock/cave art depicting homosexuality from 10,000+ years ago.  Somehow humanity survived.  ?  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I trust Biblical morality, which did evolve throughout the Old Testament and New, over your 5 year-old experimental morality.

I have no idea what 5 year old morality you’re talking about is.   I guess you now acknowledge that the bible does say to kill gay men, but you think it changed in the NT for some reason?
 

In terms of biblical morality, I’m not even sure what that would mean, and most Christians can’t even agree among themselves upon biblical morality.  So, it seems like a pretty lousy guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leviticus does cause some people difficulty simply because they think of the God of the Bible as treating everyone in every age exactly the same way.  In some ways things are the same in all ages.  God looks upon certain sins just as serious as he took them in Old Testament times.  Perhaps the punishment for such sins has changed because there were reasons for the death penalty in the time of Leviticus which are not the same today.  God dealt with Israel in a special way at that time in history.

Dispensational theology teaches that the Bible is divided up into different dispensations.  That means that God dealt with people differently in the different ages.  He dealt with Israel differently at the time of Leviticus than he does with people today because we are in a different dispensation.   The age several thousand years ago was called the Dispensation of the Law;  today we live in the Dispensation of Grace, which began 2,000 years ago. 

 God specifically chose Israel as his special people, something else many people don't understand.  When he chose them as his special people he gave them the laws that Moses received and the special laws in Leviticus which were very strict.  People today often cannot understand that.  Because Israel was specially chosen as his special people, they were not to live in sin and worship false gods as the heathen nations around them did.  So he imposed very serious penalties for disobedience.  One of them was the death penalty.  For example, Leviticus 20:2 KJV says if anyone offered his child to Molech, he shall be put to death.  The heathen nations did offer their children as a sacrifice to the false god Molech.  God was enforcing his law against this with Israel, his chosen people.  God had his reasons for doing this.  The same penalty applied to homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13 KJV

"Moloch, also spelled Molech, a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice. The name derives from combining the consonants of the Hebrew melech (“king”) with the vowels of boshet (“shame”), the latter often being used in the Old Testament as a variant name for the popular god Baal (“Lord”)."

The Canaanites offered their children as a sacrifice in the fire of Molech.

The death penalty seems to me because God chose Israel as his special people and he said in connection with this:

" 3  And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. " Leviticus 20:3 KJV

So God demanded and expected his chosen people not to defile his sanctuary (Israel had a sanctuary or special place where God was present) and to profane his holy name.

 

Baal or Molech.jpg

Baal.jpg

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry, I just don't have time for the full response you deserve.

1. This is the marketplace of ideas thing, I think.  It's fine for people on here to shit on Canada and call themselves patriots but if someone changes a word in the national anthem or wears a white poppy they're some kind of traitor.

The people here who shit on Canada are powerless cranks. Quite a different story from having the CBC do it on a continuing basis. Also different from the united contempt and scorn poured on Canada's values, traditions and heritage by the welfare artistic class paid and supported by tax dollars, or mediocre academics gripped by ideology who are likewise living on the taxpayer's teat. 

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I know lots of immigrants and they come here because they prefer this system.  It stands to reason. Otherwise why would they come? 

To make more money. You know there are tons of people who are living and working in Canada who have no intention whatsoever of staying here, right? They'll make enough to buy a nice house and have a very nice life when they move back to India or the Philipines or Lebanon. Their Canadian citizenship also makes their children more eligible when marriage negotiations are entered into with other children's parents. And it's a good place to have your kids educated at a low cost, and then have them apply to move to the US, which many do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what one person's commentary on the laws in Leviticus says:

"Chapter 20

Chapter twenty, now God begins to get a little heavier. In chapter twenty God goes over some of the things He dealt with in chapter eighteen, only in chapter twenty telling that the violators of these things should be put to death. I know a lot of these sob sisters are crying out against capital punishment. But if we practice capital punishment as the Bible says, we wouldn't have near the crime problem that we have today.

I don't know what's gone wrong with our judicial system, but we are far more interested in protecting the rights of the criminal than we are of the innocent victims. There's something awfully stupid about our whole system that releases the rapists, and the murderers and all back, and the kidnappers, back on the streets to repeat their crimes over and over again. Something stupid when you can't bring up the past patterns of a man's life for a present crime that he's committed. The man is showing himself to be a habitual child molester, or a habitual rapist and all, then he should be dealt with as a habitual child molester.

As far as I'm concerned better to-I'll pull the switch if they need someone. He can ask God to forgive him, and God will forgive him, and he'll go to heaven; he'll be a lot better off. But we'll be a lot better off too, and a lot safer, and our children will be a lot safer walking in the streets. I wouldn't have to worry nearly so much in sending them off to the store. We are living in a crazy, corrupt world that's gone wild. It's because we've forsaken the law of God. We've got a bunch of sob sisters, pantywaists. Romaine could tell you about them better than I could.

If a father sacrificed his child to Molech, he was to be put to death. [Don't mess with him.] If he is worshiping the god Molech and in so doing offers his child as a living sacrifice to Molech, kill him, put him to death. Stone him with stones, for I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among the people. And if you in any wise hide your eyes from him who has sacrificed his children to Molech, and you don't kill him, then God will set his face against you, and against your family, to cut you off, for those that go a-whoring after Molech, from among the people. And if a person seeks after those that have the familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a-whoring after them, I will set my face against them. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep my statutes: I am the Lord which has set you apart. Every one that curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death: [That's heavy.] A man that commits adultery with another man's wife, both of them shall be put to death. A man that lies with his father's wife, those of the incestuous relationships were to be put to death. Homosexuals [verse thirteen] were to be put to death, bestiality a person was to be put to death; both for men and women ( Leviticus 20:2-15 )."

Leviticus 20:13 - Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight.org

It is a fact that the criminal justice system is far more interested in protecting the rights of criminals than protecting the victims.  Twelve people on the Cree nation were stabbed to death in September by a known dangerous offender let out on parole.  A police officer in Ontario was killed by another dangerous offender let out on bail a couple months ago.  These are facts nobody can deny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Dispensational theology teaches that the Bible is divided up into different dispensations.  That means that God dealt with people differently in the different ages.

Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command something because it is moral?  
 

In the quote from @blackbird above, this would fall into the former:  something is moral because God commands it.   It was moral to kill gay men back then,  but apparently, isn’t moral to do so now.  It follows that God could command people to kill gay men again tomorrow, like He did in Leviticus, and it would become a moral action.
 

  @blackbird - is there anything you wouldn’t do that God commands you to do?  If you would be so lucky as to have God command you to kill your own child, like He did for Abraham, would you?   (I predict the answer will be “God would never do that”)

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It was moral to kill gay men back then,  but apparently, isn’t moral to do so now.  It follows that God could command people to kill gay people again tomorrow, like He did in Leviticus, and it would become a moral action

I have already explained some of that.   I doubt that anyone could just go out as a vigilante and kill someone at the time of Leviticus was in force.  It would only be the leaders of Israel who were in charge and would have to likely follow certain principles of justice to find someone guilty.  But the point is which I already explained is that only applied in that period of history because Israel was God's specially chosen people and laid down certain laws for them because they were expected not to be the same as the heathen nations around them (the Canaanites for example).  

There is nothing to indicate things will change from the way it is now in the world.  Leviticus was for the people of Israel who lived 3,500 years ago and that system is not coming back in the present age.  We are not part of Israel.  We are part of the Gentile nations. 

The Bible does prophesy that Christ will return anytime and take the believers out of the world and that will be followed by seven years of tribulation in the world and one world government of the anti-Christ.  That will be followed by Christ returning and establishing a thousand year millennium reign on earth with the believers.  Do you wish to be part of the believers that the Lord will take out of the world any time and live forever with him?  That is the important issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

But the point is which I already explained is that only applied in that period of history because Israel was God's specially chosen people and laid down certain laws for them

There was no explanation.  Only assertions. 
 

You believe God changed the punishment for gay acts, but He didn’t change the fact that the gay acts themselves are a sin?  How did you decide the punishment part of the passage would be tossed out, but you would keep the first part?   

Leviticus 20:13 — King James Version (KJV 1900)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That is nonsensical.  God does not command Christians to do such things.

You’re saying God will never command anything of people again?  He did it once, and that’s it?  How do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I think it’s helpful to know who the racists are, don’t you?

I don't understand the rules with this one.  He got really huffy when Jully Black sang "our home on native land" saying we were being shamed etc.  I don't see it that way, but if we were then why is it ok to make generalizations about other peoples calling them names ?

This, to me, is white snowflake-ism at its worst.  Don't accept any criticism of our own country, especially not by immigrants.  But denigrate Native peoplss, that's ok ?

Trolling.  Just more trolling...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is the marketplace of ideas thing, I think.  It's fine for people on here to shit on Canada and call themselves patriots but if someone changes a word in the national anthem or wears a white poppy they're some kind of traitor.

Its fine to criticize some things our governments do, or even aspects of our society and culture, you can still be a patriot.  I don't think its ok to sh!t on the entire project and want it destroyed and call yourself a patriot, you're a traitor.

Our leftwing governments and other left-leaning folks since the 1960's have done a lot to erode this country as a nation.  In some ways they've helped, like repatriating our constitution.  But these days there's not very much left that unites us as a country.  The national anthem is one of the few things left.  It doesn't belong to any one of us, it belongs to all of us.  The poppy also unites us culturally.

I don't think its up to a singer hired at a sports event to represent Canada and sing our anthem to analyze the lyrics, pick and choose which ones they like and don't like, and change the ones they don't.  That's a personal political act.  If you want to sing it on your own and post it to Youtube with your own lyrics, as an artist I suppose that's your right, sort of like Jimi Hendricks with his own interpretation during a concert.  These types of political acts don't unite us, they divide.

If you want the lyrics changed contact your MP or make the argument on your twitter page and do it democratically, or else refuse to sing it on Canada's behalf at a sporting event.  It should be an honour, not an opportunity to make a progressive political act of defiance.  I wouldn't go so far as to call the singer "a traitor", just lacking in respect.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Its fine to criticize some things our governments do, or even aspects of our society and culture, you can still be a patriot.  I don't think its ok to sh!t on the entire project and want it destroyed and call yourself a patriot, you're a traitor.

Our leftwing governments and other left-leaning folks since the 1960's have done a lot to erode this country as a nation.  In some ways they've helped, like repatriating our constitution.  But these days there's not very much left that unites us as a country.  The national anthem is one of the few things left.  It doesn't belong to any one of us, it belongs to all of us.  The poppy also unites us culturally.

I don't think its up to a singer hired at a sports event to represent Canada and sing our anthem to analyze the lyrics, pick and choose which ones they like and don't like, and change the ones they don't.  That's a personal political act.  If you want to sing it on your own and post it to Youtube with your own lyrics, as an artist I suppose that's your right, sort of like Jimi Hendricks with his own interpretation during a concert.  These types of political acts don't unite us, they divide.

If you want the lyrics changed contact your MP or make the argument on your twitter page and do it democratically, or else refuse to sing it on Canada's behalf at a sporting event.  It should be an honour, not an opportunity to make a progressive political act of defiance.  I wouldn't go so far as to call the singer "a traitor", just lacking in respect.

O Canada was written by Quebeckers for the Quebec nationalist St Jean-Baptiste Day celebration

thus O Canada is an inherently anti-Confederation song

written by the French for the French, excluding the Anglos

furthermore, the lyrics that the French sing are vastly different

O Canada!
Land of our forefathers,
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious
garland of flowers.
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

O Canada was written by Quebeckers for the Quebec nationalist St Jean-Baptiste Day celebration

thus O Canada is an inherently anti-Confederation song, written by the French for the French, excluding the Anglos

A celebration day for St John the Baptist is "Quebec nationalist"? ?

Yeah it really sounds like such an "anti-Confederation" song ?

You're the biggest lying traitor on this website.  You're such a disgrace to this country.  Do people here still believe you were marching in the convoy protests? LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope! We took it and made it ours so now it belongs to us French Biatches!!!! Muhaahahaaha!

 

the French version is awesome

the Americanized Woke Anglo version is a joke

no wonder the Anglos feel the need to change the lyrics every few days

it wasn't the anthem when I was young, O Canada was only adopted officially in 1980

I never made the conversion from the British Empire to the Post National State

thus my Canadian anthem remains The Maple Leaf Forever

Dileas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure the french repeat this in front of the mirror repetitively :)

Canada is a French country founded on 22 June 1603

only taken by the British as a war prize on 10 February 1763

once the Anglos in Canada declared that they were no longer British

Canada has simply reverted to being a French country

with a lost Anglo tribe becoming de facto Americans by default as an attachment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"The Bible is consistent through both Old and New Testaments in confirming that homosexuality is sin.

What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? | GotQuestions.org

The bible isn’t consistent about the punishment though, is it?  You ignore the punishment part of the verse.  How do you decide which parts to ignore?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...