ExactlyWell said - his kind slaughtered over 100 million - just in the 20th century alone - and they hypocritalcay whine about 19 children dead when murdered ove 63 million in the womb - total sociopathy.
ExactlyWell said - his kind slaughtered over 100 million - just in the 20th century alone - and they hypocritalcay whine about 19 children dead when murdered ove 63 million in the womb - total sociopathy.
Prove itHumans are all we've got.
They have as much right as anyone to contribute and to argue that their personal views should be acted on. Claiming to speak for God should not give extra weight to anyone's opinion.Wrong, Some people accpet the evidence as presented. Others do not believe it.
And if his last communication was 2000 years ago, it is sufficent to give us want we need,
And people who believe this way have as much rights as anyone else to make public policy.
DeletedExactly
It should have when hitler was deciding Jews should be incineratedThey have as much right as anyone to contribute and to argue that their personal views should be acted on. Claiming to speak for God should not give extra weight to anyone's opinion.
What is wrong with them is the claim that they originate from God. That implies firstly that they are immutable and comprehensive, and secondly that human beings are incapable of coming up with simple laws.Tell us what's wrong with the 10 commandments as a basis for laws. I would concede people shouldn't be forced to worship God but what's wrong with the rest of them as a moral basis for law.
Umm, are you referring to the fact that Christians in Germany supported Hitler or that the Atheist empire of the Soviet Union fought against him, losing rather more in the process than even the Jews in the concentration camps?It should have when hitler was deciding Jews should be incinerated
Your evidence is?What is wrong with them is the claim that they originate from God. That implies firstly that they are immutable and comprehensive, and secondly that human beings are incapable of coming up with simple laws.
So the only reason you think they are bad is the claim they come from God.What is wrong with them is the claim that they originate from God. That implies firstly that they are immutable and comprehensive, and secondly that human beings are incapable of coming up with simple laws.
No not at all but I don't expect you to actually think objectively as it's not a leftist value.Umm, are you referring to the fact that Christians in Germany supported Hitler or that the Atheist empire of the Soviet Union fought against him, losing rather more in the process than even the Jews in the concentration camps?
You are jumping to conclusions again, not bothering to read what I post and making things up based on your prejudicial stereotypes. I said quite clearly what I thought was wrong.So the only reason you think they are bad is the claim they come from God.
Like atheists support pro-choice abortion.Umm, are you referring to the fact that Christians in Germany supported Hitler or that the Atheist empire of the Soviet Union fought against him, losing rather more in the process than even the Jews in the concentration camps?
How many guns do you own?
How about we stop selling military-styled weapons to civilians.
No bump stocks, large magazines, ghost guns.
Crackdown on straw purchases and gun shops that supply criminals in places like Chicago and NYC.
Make sure all gun-owners register and insure their weapons so that they are fully responsible for crimes committed with them.
Serious and complete background checks for all purchases or transfers.
Red flag laws.
No guns under 18 years old.
limits on the numbers of guns per person and ammo restrictions.
No guns for felons or anyone under a restraining order.
No open or concealed carry.
Gun purchasers should have a reason to own a gun. Like hunting.
Guns in airplane carryon bags confiscated, and owners made to pay a huge fine. Jail on second offense.
Safety requirements so that only the purchaser can fire the gun.
Serious training in advance of purchase, and yearly updated training, all at the gun owner's expense.
Fully fund federal research into the use and abuse of guns.
Satan prefers abortion/eugenics.And do you think the deaths of innocent children is worth making gun ownership legal, just to allow people to pretend to be Rambo, or to feed their irrational fears of marauding home invaders or their treasonous goal of bringing down the federal govt?
Nope. Perhaps you can show me where I said that Hitler's opinion should be given equal weight. You are jumping to conclusions again, skipping what I actually say and inserting made up phrases that fit your prejudicial stereotypes. I am definitely seeing a pattern.No not at all but I don't expect you to actually think objectively as it's not a leftist value.
Let's try a different approach. Hitler was of the opinion that the Jews polluted the gene pool and we're responsible for all manner of evil so needed to be eliminated. Another person might have been of the opinion that Jews were human beings and deserved to live. You're saying Hitler's opinion should be given as much weight as the other persons. Whether or not christians participated has nothing to do with the weight of the opinion unless of course you want to ignore the obvious problem.
That's the main crux of your argument and upon which the rest is based. The fact is the commandments.make a great basis for laws but you haven't got the courage to admit it. I get it, your lib friends won't invite you for tea anymore.You are jumping to conclusions again, not bothering to read what I post and making things up based on your prejudicial stereotypes. I said quite clearly what I thought was wrong.
We'll you prove once again you're a concrete thinker. That may be a result of what's between your ears.Nope. Perhaps you can show me where I said that Hitler's opinion should be given equal weight. You are jumping to conclusions again, skipping what I actually say and inserting made up phrases that fit your prejudicial stereotypes. I am definitely seeing a pattern.
First, I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote above, even though the following text focuses on the disagreement:But that is exactly the point. All rights are subject to being removed. What about the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany? What about the rights of Japanese internees in the US, or Afrikaans women and children in the Boer War? Where was God with his inalienable rights then? You can declare that rights come from anywhere you like, but the reality is that they are granted by those who have power over you, and can be taken away in like manner. All rights are granted, and taken away, by human beings. Claiming they come from God is just a Republican version of the Divine Right of kings.
Not at all. The sentiment behind the bulk of the commandments is fine, because they reflect human values. What is wrong with them is not their provenance, which anyway I dispute as unlikely, but the claim by men, that other men should not bring them up to date because God handed them down, and also that because God handed them down, no other laws are necessary.That's the main crux of your argument and upon which the rest is based. The fact is the commandments.make a great basis for laws but you haven't got the courage to admit it. I get it, your lib friends won't invite you for tea anymore.