Do you think the young man that picks up a weapon and commits violence he has the fear of God ? Usually the people that commit crime are repeaters , In order to reduce crime they are held detained for longer period prior appearance before the judge . I believe the USA have the largest amount incarcerated people . Is not that true in your state there is a law or rule " Tree strike and you are in." That way you are removing the violent yougt out of circulation and let them go after they are in the 40 years old
I think there's a lot of young men who pick up weapons in the name of God (not so much in the U.S.). I'm not aware of many who pick up weapons due to the absence of God. "Tree strike and you're in"...is that like "Three strikes and you're out"?
Christian Moral Relativism Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regression! Progressive downfall! Grabbing what's there and still wanting it all! On words they fall. Obsession! Religioius belief! Worshipped on Sunday, forgotten all week! One foot in Hell. Taking the truth from "The Book" and then twisting it, feeling they're touched by the Lord. Loving their neighbor, yet tasting the flavor of sin but seeing no wrong. Cramming the wisdom that righteously flows in them, walking the crooked straight line. Closing of minds to these innocent crimes, now they're deaf, dumb, and blind! ―Forbidden↱ Actually, the problem is moral relativism. It turns out all those doomsayers of my youth, decrying secular humanism and moral relativism as the blades that would rend the fabric of American decency. Moral relativism. Who would have guessed they'd be right? There is, however, a catch. Moral relativism in secular humanism is most dangerous in business and the politics thereof. The actual moral relativism that is shredding the fabric of American society is carried by a politically empowered bloc of Christendom. Kind of like they were right about the danger of music lyrics, movies, and books. As long as they were talking about their own, it turns out they were right. And, actually, here's a morbid bit of trivia: The arguments we're hearing today, asserting their religious freedom and decrying violations of their rights, such as Kim Davis' protest, the Indiana RFRA, Bobby Jindal's attempt to pass one by executive order, Pat McCrory's apparent ignorance about HB2―they even went after veterans, for heaven's sake!―and, oh, hey, how about the insistent, disdainful hijinks of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is now suspended from his bench and facing a second expulsion from the state Supreme Court, are actually the very same argument we heard from these Christians for generations while they burned books, threatened to bomb movie theatres, and argued that everybody else's right to free speech ended whenever a Christian was offended by anything they could invent. When a Christian argues that it is immoral to feed the hungry, people notice. When anyone argues that their rights are violated as long as others' are not, people notice. When politicians rush to demonstrate their piety for the sake of being seen by others, and these Christians celebrate that open, petulant defiance of Christ Himself―no, seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people? As near as anyone can tell, it is an impudent, jealous relativism: First they vilify and delegitimize the opposition, and then, instead of turning the other cheek or otherwise transcending what they purport to disdain, the projection ossifies and they claim license to behave according to what their attempt to vilify others says is wrong. This block of American Christendom is a bloodthirsty (death penalty, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-Islam), hatemongering (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-infidel), raping (anti-woman, anti-gay) supremacist (white, male, Christian) cult struggling toward Apocalypse (premillennial dispensationalism, domestic insurrection and dissolution), and near the heart of it all is a relativistic belief that what they perceive as good enough for the Devil is good enough for the Christian. These self-righteous apostates celebrate the joy of their sins. And you'll find them close to the heart of this rising violence in these United States of America. They're the ones calling for the murder of homosexuals, women who use birth control, their political opponents, and even children who read books a Christian might be able to invent a fake reason to complain about. Like I say of the premillennial dispensationalists―and, in truth, it applies to Christians in general―never trust anyone working to bring about the end of the world. Meanwhile, secularism has generally been driving societal progress. It's breaking religious intrusions into scientific education, fending off censorship, and it just broke the Christian line such that America won its Gay Fray. We're reasonably holding the line for our transgender brothers and sisters against rising Christian hatred, and even establishing a basic response to sexual violence in the transgender community, and that violence is the offspring of Christian mores and the human psyche screwing each other for millennia. Oh, right, and the devilish temptation in that lurid affair? Moral relativism.
All the graphs in that article illustrate various aspects of racial or ethnic correlation coefficients, except the one graph that charts age vs incarceration. Those correlations are what the article is about. You cannot conclude anything about trends in overall violence rates from that article, or any of the graphs in it.
I know you have the ability for writing long discourses and you are a strong critic , that makes you self righteous. # 1 I believe you are wrong just like many of us by lumping every Christian Jew or muslim into one bucket. # 2 As you mention we have the good book to guide us , yes we fail but we try to rise up from our failure . The secular does not have any original guidance, so you may do things without any restrain. # 3 Your guidance is borrowing moral guidance from believers book and then accuse us as hypocrites when we fail. Can you criticize yourself when you morally fail ? # 4 Science , that is not exclusive domain , there are many of us believers and worker in science, engineering, medical field, and many others. The difference is that Secularism is the leading avenue to discredit a supreme force that we the believers believe in . The day you create a molecule in the lab. from existing elements the you become a god . Otherwise you are just a blabbermouth, and many of you theory are sitting on ice in a warm day. # 5 Since the secularist is an individual of no moral creation of its own . Lets look into what happen in the secular world during Stalin , Mao , Path and others . Talk to me about human right , and the sexual diversion.
Some pick up the weapon and commit violence in the NAME of God. But most people just don't think about it. California does indeed have a "three strikes" law. (It's "three strikes and you are out" in colloquial speech.)
In secularism, you are always accountable for your crimes. In Christianity, you can do the most horrible crime imaginable and then sincerely ask for forgiveness, and it's like it never happened.
Sorry, we live under God's rule and under mans rule . We get punished double, Our conscience punishes us to repent and not repeat . The seculars conscience does not bother them they rationalise their action to himself , and if one see his evil act he feels good. Not in our case, we have to account to God I have yo be careful with you guys , because some will cry to the administration .
I find the opposite is true. Religious extremists, abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers often claim that they did no wrong; they were fighting God's battle. A more sane secular person would likely feel guilt over their crimes; not so when a religious beleiver is executing God's judgment. Case in point: ====================== In his war against abortion, clinic fire bomber has no regrets John Brockhoeft on abortion and 'the Army of God' Kevin Osborne, WCPO 10:05 AM, Jan 22, 2013 CINCINNATI - John Brockhoeft bristles at the use of the word violence to describe the war he has waged against abortion. For Brockhoeft, who went to prison for setting fire to two Cincinnati abortion clinics and for trying to bomb another, such actions are justified. "When you call the destruction of a facility like that, where people are tortured to death, when you call the use of force against that violence, you're using pro-abortion rhetoric," Brockhoeft said in a wide-ranging and exclusive interview last week. "You're pretending not to be able to make the distinction between violence and the use of force." Asked if he regretted his crimes or the years he served in federal prison, Brockhoeft is definitive. "For me, personally, was it worth it? Incredibly so," he said. Brockhoeft launched his crusade against abortion in the 1980s with the Tri-State as his battleground. . . . Brockhoeft stays in contact with his fellow activists in the Army of God, and envisions stopping all abortions by "people taking to the streets and demanding an end to it." "I foresee victory – complete victory – but I don't know how long it will take," he said. "If you had asked me 30 years ago if this slaughter would go on for 40 years, I would've said no. God would bring judgment down before that. But here we are, 40 years later. I am still positive the Lord will give us victory someday. When? I don't know." To turn the tide he thinks it will take grassroots action, not legislation or judicial rulings. "I think it will happen one of two ways: Either God's judgment coming down on our nation, or a great revival and people taking to the streets and demanding an end to it," he said. Now 61, Brockhoeft could be mistaken for anyone's kindly grandfather with his bushy beard and soft-spoken demeanor. Few would guess that he was once labeled a domestic terrorist. ================
But under the Christian scheme, Hitler can repent and still get into heaven all purified of sin, while a saintly Buddhist kid will be tortured for all eternity.
In my view the guy that set the clinic in fire is just a criminal as the Jihadist Hitler, Stalin or others . For me every person is responsible for its action before God ,for doing damage . I don't think God needs our help, , He wants us to be humble and not judge what is wrong . That is my belief , I don't follow any church leader
As to me, let God judge not me.. Yo me is love thy neighbor as yourself. ( Is difficult ) But we try.
History and Reality, Distinction and Diversity (Part the First) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to persecute. I believe your assessment is wrong: • The actual moral relativism that is shredding the fabric of American society is carried by a politically empowered bloc of Christendom. • ... are actually the very same argument we heard from these Christians for generations while they burned books, threatened to bomb movie theatres, and argued that everybody else's right to free speech ended whenever a Christian was offended by anything they could invent. • When a Christian argues that it is immoral to feed the hungry, people notice. • When politicians rush to demonstrate their piety for the sake of being seen by others, and these Christians celebrate that open, petulant defiance of Christ Himself―no, seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people? • This block of American Christendom is a bloodthirsty (death penalty, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-Islam), hatemongering (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-infidel), raping (anti-woman, anti-gay) supremacist (white, male, Christian) cult struggling toward Apocalypse (premillennial dispensationalism, domestic insurrection and dissolution), and near the heart of it all is a relativistic belief that what they perceive as good enough for the Devil is good enough for the Christian. • These self-righteous apostates celebrate the joy of their sins. All of those boldfaced statements deliniate and limit the range of Christians under consideration. The only general statement about Christianity has to do with working to bring about the end fo the world, and it's really hard to complain about the generalization unless you are willing to denounce and repudiate not only the Revelations, but also the words of Jesus Christ Himself. Think of it this way: Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has undertaken a new career and pitch, of late. These days, she travels the End Times circuit delivering a striking new gospel: Jesus is coming! Be angry! This is new. It's a lovely innovation, because the Second Coming of Christ is supposed to be cause for rejoice. Which in turn reminds of the counterpoint: Premillennial dispensationalists↱ are, in fact, working to bring about the end of the world, in Jesus' name, amen. Nonetheless, you have charged "lumping every Christian Jew or muslim into one bucket". Please explain the part about Jews and Muslims, else explain your need to bear false witness. This manner of superstitious, self-aggrandizing prejudice is, to the one, a staple of traditionally thoughtless Christian apologism. To the other, it's also true that I've tried engaging my evangelical atheist neighbors on this point, and how to close the gap, but they refuse the discussion outright. Still, though, in practical terms, the moral conundra wracking my society at present do not, and never have originated with atheists. When Christianists argue that America is a "Christian nation", their best case is that Christian mores have traditionally dominated the sociomoral paradigm. That part has been true since before the nation existed. It's been true throughout my lifetime, too. My introduction to Christian politics was not abortion or the Gay Fray; it was censorship. The basic idea was akin to a principle in American jurisprudence: Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose. The Christian argument for censorship, against women, against homosexuals and transgender, and against fundamental equality in society has, throughout my political life, derived from an adaptation: Your right to _____ ends when I disapprove. Thus, our free speech ended when a Christian complained. We fought about this for years, and this assertion of Christian supremacism even had Democrats onboard. It generally doesn't matter if the complaint is true or not, either. Like Bob Larson, the pastor now working the Arizona fringe scene, who advocated against music in the '80s and '90s. For whatever reason, he felt the need to specifically and deliberately bear false witness, rewriting lyrics in order to tell parents the songs are scary and dangerous. Even when the song was clearly explained in the liner notes, well, just like you, Timojin, what the other people say doesn't matter―you have decided, just like Pastor Larson, what other people think. You've decided for them. You know those little black and white stickers? That's what we got. According to this movement within Christianity, which indeed won the day, the day before your eighteenth birthday, you are not smart enough to be allowed to listen to this music; the next day, you arbitrarily become smart enough. That's what we got out of it, so in the end, yes, those Christians are losing their fight, because fewer and fewer people give a damn. But, hey, speaking of making shit up in order to tell Christians what to be afraid of, I personally adore the bit where they get L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time exactly backwards (it's anti-communist, and honors the God in the Bible), and then try to convince us that a Shakespeare joke is really secret code for elder lesbian orgy porn. Wasn't Madeleine L'Engle thinking about a bunch of old women chowing box. Wasn't the kids who read the books. It was, however, on the minds of the Christians who came up with what rose to prominence at the turn of the twenty-first century as the leading objection against one of the ten most contested books in libraries. For your benefit, I will explicitly remind that this isn't all Christians. We'll get to others shortly, but we might note enough adopted the argument to make it influential and consequential. And that's the problem: You might recall hearing occasional denunciations of a false, "liberal" Christianity. What conservative Christians mean when they complain of liberal Christianity is that they find most of their Christian neighbors apostate. Consider that I have been a registered voter for twenty-five years. In that time, technically speaking, the first time I was asked to vote on Christian mores was an anti-abortion bill that mostly would have affected minor survivors of sexual abuse. It was abortion politics at the time; the rise of the "Christian right" is what compels the contemporary consideration of the issue as Christian politics. But the first time I had to vote on a deliberately Christian initiative was '92. And then we did it again in '94, '95, and '96. I left the state in '96, moving home to Washington, where people so openly repudiated what was going on across the southern border so strongly that the Oregon Citizens Alliance failed to establish itself in the northland. Meanwhile, poor Oregon went through it again and again throughout the rest of the decade. I haven't really had to vote on much of this stuff in recent years because it doesn't often make the ballot in the Evergreen State. That and we spend our time with Republicans trying to drown our state government in the bathtub and the rest of us working to keep it breathing while our coalition argues over whether alive is sufficient or healthy is necessary. It's an astounding clusterdiddle, a danger of moral relativism in politics and business. But across the rest of the country? By elections, we went one for thirty-four, after Lawrence v. Texas, and 0-33 for states over that period until we started winning. And once we started winning, it was pretty much over. The Court put off U.S. v. Windsor until the spring of '13 because of the 2012 election. It was a wise move insofar as that's the year voters redefined the "sense of the nation", a vague notion the Court occasionally relies on to bolster rulings. It contributed to Roper v. Simmons, for instance, when one bloc of the Supreme Court needed to pick up a vote; in addition to the new science, there was also a rising sensibility, "sense of the nation", that Americans felt differently about this than before. It's essentially saying, "Look, you can see the writing on the wall." It also came up in Bowers v. Hardwick; and also Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the Bowers decision. We ran four for four that day; the Court's suspicion was affirmed. And that's the thing about, for instance, "liberal Christianity" in the apostate context profferred by conservative Christians. We know they exist. They stood and fought and voted alongside us in '92, and all the way through until we lost them in '04. Yeah, the marriage phase arriving after Lawrence started with Christians in Oregon; imagine that. Even still, we didn't get what we got after we started losing in '04 without Christians. Many of them voted with us during that long, miserable streak. And we could not have run the table in '12 without them. We know they exist, and they know we know. Many of my queer brothers and sisters attend church right alongside them; our communities overlap. These are who conservative Christians denounce for "liberal Christianity". ―End Part I―
History and Reality, Distinction and Diversity (Part the First) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to quote Ecclesiastes. Do you know why those liberal Christians generally don't call out perceptions of generalization? In all these years of voting, Jews have never asked me to enshrine their Law as ours; nor Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans―every once in a while atheists make a local ballot somewhere, and generally lose, but it doesn't come up in my area. For the last twenty-five years, however, Christian supremacism has been pushing on ballots, legislatures, Congress, the White House, and the courts. Don't get me wrong, they've been doing it the whole time, but in recent years it has become especially blatant and pointed. The formal argument from conservative Christians is that they are not equal unless they are superior. Our Christian friends know. They get it. They've voted with us, commiserated our political losses, mourned our dead, celebrated our victories, and prayed for us the whole time. True, the one thing they can't do is front-line a throwdown with their Christian brethren, but every time they march to the ballot box, they have to reckon with the same question we do: Christianity. I can't imagine it doesn't hurt. But they don't call us out for answering the name that challenges us. We're accustomed to the conservative Christian challenge in general. So are the conservative Christians. There's a reason they complain about the generalization; they're trying to hide behind their liberal Christian neighbors, who in turn are very reluctant to let them do so. The only reason the conservatives hide at all is because the liberal Christians attend their instruction from Christ: This is to be settled between Christians, and out of the public eye. And they know the conservative Christians don't care. Liberal Christians know better than to argue specks and beams with people who just don't care. God has His purpose for these conservative Christians. God works in mysterious ways. The liberal Christian faith will abide until someone in their camp can figure out just what the hell to do. I don't envy them. Look, it's not that anyone will, or properly should follow every last damn post of mine, but some things are writ pretty large. And in this case, some things were writ rather quite particularly. Not only do you struggle to generalize, the effort to inflate is morbid comedy. Perpetually. That you perceive a discrediting of your belief is your own problem. The problem with beliefs is that reality sometimes disagrees. The record of our history brims with such occasions. Well, secular people are human beings, too, just like Christians. So, yeah, let's talk about human rights. And ... what is that? "Sexual diversion"? While I might ask you to be more specific, I think I take your meaning. And it seems to me that between the two of us I just won a Revolution that advanced human rights. Conservative Christians, that morally relativist, politically empowered bloc of Christendom I was discussing before you tried changing the subject, are losing their effort to subjugate and redefine human rights. Talk away. "Stop and take a look at where your words are falling; listen to where your wisdom goes. Oh, you might be disappointed just how much your victim knows." ―Floater, "Persecutor"↱ "Unspoken to those who would listen, taken from those who would give their attention: Yeah, you quoted Ecclesiastes, and you brought all our hope to its knees. Oh, ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Oh, you just keep on hating the whole world if you must. If you think that's just." ―Floater, "Time Marches On"↱ ―Fin―
