Why are liberals so protective of Muslims?

gay marriage, gay sex, premarital sex... none of these are adressed in the Ten Commandments. Its true that God does not depict them favorably in His Word, however neither does He look favorably upon drinking alcohol, gambling or telling jokes. There are degrees to which The Bible adresses these various topics from what I would view as an annoyance to God to things He seems to outright hate... but it seems to me the only sins (as in transgressions that warrant eternal damnation sans repentence and acceptance of forgiveness) are the 10 Commandments.

 

Does the above apply to all liberals or just some? If just some then what percent? Source citation?

 

Well the left's conspicuous silence to the poster Le Chef's point is telling.
So I would say a majority of liberals involved in political discourse speak and act like secular humanists.
I think his points are mostly valid.

 

I'm looking for some points you made that I could possibly agree to and I see a bit here and there. Such as, "...there are degrees to which the Bible addresses these various topics" and (paraphrase) "...degrees to which God finds them abominable."

But, homosexuality is surely addressed in both the Old and New testaments. Highly frowned upon. As is adultery and many other capital sins. The degree of culpability to a particular individual or soul, however, is very much indeterminable by us mere mortals --- which is why we are severely warned not to judge the worth of another. That, too, is a very serious sin.

But neither could you begin to suggest to anyone what warrants hell --- even if you relied on your best Bible scholars. That is pure folly and danger. To be sure, sin (and virtue) does cover a multitude of teachings and actions far beyond what one can glean from the Ten Commandments. One's best source is the Catholic Church, not the Bible, for guidance. After all, Jesus gave His Church "the keys of the kingdom" and the power to forgive or not forgive sin, and also the command "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven."

 

Anecdotal.

Source citation needed if the above is argued as fact. Opinions are impressive to some but I am more impressed by fact backed by source citation.

 

Opinions are often formulated based on facts.
I am merely going by a sample size of responses over the years from liberals. Also, how the leftwing media preaches and covers up. Also, how the liberals in congress legislate. Also, what shocking immoral acts or demonstrations they remain silent about, or in some cases endorse. I do recall at the 2012 democrat convention when speaker asked if the word 'God' should be included in some position paper, the general reaction from the thousands in the convention hall was either silence or a very noticeable moan. It did not get included.

So, yes, it is my opinion.

 

As opinion is not synonymous with fact I prefer to argue facts over subjective opinion when examining large groups of people. What I often find are stereotypes which do not impress me as they are rarely if ever based upon an objective assessment and tend to reflect the bias of the individual making the assessment.

As I am in this thread to learn facts, I will move on to debate those who want to argue fact as opposed to subjective opinion.

 

Do as you please. As though opinion is not part of normal discourse in nearly every walk of life or business decision.

But if you choose not to make a move unless the leftist mainstream media reports it to you and it is a fact (allegedly) then I do not see how one will ever grow.

 

i dont see anything wrong with suggesting to someone what The Bible may be teaching. I do see great folly in telling them to interpret this way or that, such as commonly occurs in organized, established 'religion.' The Word of God is meant to be personally interpreted. Each person has their own free will, personal experience and perspective, and each person is ultimately responsible for their own relationship with God and the decisions they make in life based on that relationship. Certainly in Christianity, and I'll venture to say most or all other religions, we are encouraged to worship, study, discuss and even prosylatize (sp?) with or to others so that we may share perspectives and possibly realize where our own may be lacking. But of course, that should come with the strong recomendation: "read and interpret for yourself."
I did not add that part in my previous comments, much thanks for the reminder.

 

Disagree.
If muslims were in America doing what christians in America want to do with our laws and rights, the left would be just as vocal. Well I don't mean the left as you do. You think everyone not like you is left and everyone of them think exactly the same on every issue.
Which is childish.

 

>>i dont see anything wrong with suggesting to someone what The Bible may be teaching.<<
Agreed. But suggesting is not the same as accusing or rendering a judgment.

>> I do see great folly in telling them to interpret this way or that, such as commonly occurs in organized, established 'religion.' The Word of God is meant to be personally interpreted.<<
Well since there are numerous interpretations of certain teachings or even dogma, then you have to be right, i.e. someone is not telling it right.

>> Each person has their own free will, personal experience and perspective, and each person is ultimately responsible for their own relationship with God and the decisions they make in life based on that relationship. Certainly in Christianity, and I'll venture to say most or all other religions, we are encouraged to worship, study, discuss and even prosylatize (sp?) with or to others so that we may share perspectives and possibly realize where our own may be lacking.<<
I agree with this whole paragraph. Suffice it to say --- for my own personal benefit --- the Catholic Church teaches from its councils and in its Catechism that all persons are able to enter the kingdom, irrespective if they have never heard of Jesus or the Bible or even if they are an atheist. The Catholic Church has never said that any one person in particular is in hell. They teach God judges each soul based on many different conditions and that includes genetic inclinations, family and environment, opportunities given or not given, etc. So in your case above, you trying to find the truth on your own and very sincerely trying to discern right from wrong – that is an honorable path and meritorious. As for me, I believe I have been given enough evidence and revelation that the Catholic Church is the truest guide and if I am faithful to their most important teachings I am honoring what God wants of me in particular. And if I go against what I am sure I know, then I am in great disobedience. Me, not you.

>>But of course, that should come with the strong recomendation: "read and interpret for yourself."<<
Yes, I think I addressed that. I wish you well in your journey.

 

I think if your response to that article is to ignore it and just say that you think of Muslims and Christians identically, than my point seems to be proven.

 

Yea, your point was proven.

 

Your article talked about gays.
What difference do the texts of each religion have in regards to gays?

 

These Muslims:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/opinion/a-muslim-police-officer-attacked-in-brooklyn.html

 

Also, you didn't define the left? How many belong to this left?

 

I don't sin, so no eternal damnation for me.

 

Because all libs are nuts..

 

More canned ham..

 

What was the criticism of Tebow exactly. Was he condemned for being a Christian or for exhibitionism during a secular sporting event where excessive religious demonstrations were inappropriate resulting in delay of the game? There are a lot of professional sports athletes that make minor religious demonstrations such as pointing one finger skyward towards heaven and no one is condemning them. I don't recall really seeing Tebow play or read many complaints about him although I've read a few. If I recall correctly it was about his excessive demonstrations and not a condemnation of his beliefs.

There's a huge difference between condemning someone for their religious beliefs and condemning them for inappropriate behavior and, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that Tebow was condemned by some for excessive demonstrations where he was holding up the game by his religious demonstrations. I don't believe I've ever read where his Christian beliefs were being condemned.

Let us remember that Freedom of Religion in the United States is the protections of the personal beliefs the of individual in their god and does not extend to their actions if those actions are inappropriate to civil order. A football game is not a religious event and excessive demonstrations that disrupt the game would be inappropriate to civil order.

One problem that's existed in the United States is that because Christianity. or more specifically Protestantism, has been the religion of the majority that it's been given preferential treatment throughout American history often in violation of the Constitution. In the earliest of American political history only white Protestant men could vote in many states. Clearly a violation of the "religious test" prohibition of the Constitution. Today many Christian organizations are demanding the "right to discriminate" against people by refusing to provide commercial services violating the discriminated person's right to equal protection under the law. The Christian's complaint is that they've been allowed to violate the Constitution in the past so they should be allowed to violate the Constitution in the future.

Let's look at the following headline:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02...stitution-christianity-national-religion.html

I served in the US Army where we swore an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic and 57% of Republican want to dismantle the Constitution and impose a Christian theocracy. Not only do these Republicans need to be condemned for being un-American they need to be identified as the enemies of United States because, by opposing the Constitution that prohibits sectarianism they are enemies of the United States.

Who changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "[One Nation] Under God" in the 1950's? It wasn't the Muslim's, it was the Christians and we're not "One Nation Under God" because we're "One Nation Under the Constitution" and the Christians need to be condemned for their nefarious acts. The national motto since the nation was founded was E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One) which was inclusive because everyone, regardless of any invidious criteria was an American united by our unique American political ideology. Then the Christians changed that to "In God We Trust" that excluded and disparaged all non-religious Americans that don't "trust in god" at all.

The Christian religion is not being condemned. It's the actions of Christians that infringe upon and violate the Rights of Non-Christians that ae condemned and rightfully so.

 

Sigh...the point of the article was that Christian and Muslim government leaders are treated very differently. But don't worry about it. I think you've made my point.

 

It's "people", Chef. As in "Why are liberals so protective of people". As in women, other skin shades, homosexuals, infirms, religious minorities etc. You know, non-winner folk.

They do it, IMO, because they care about people. Many christians think they do it for religious duty, bost most people do it because it makes them feel good inside. Funny thing, huh?

You seem to think that a "liberal" can only be a white, christian guy. If so, you are wrong: there are "liberal" muslims, "liberal" shintoists etc. Being a "liberal", I think (you can never be too sure with that bastardized appellation for progressives, or the left) is a state of mind, not hardcoded into one's genes, or even religion.

 

An apology.
I said earlier in this thread- "all libs are nuts"..
But I'd like to change the word "nuts" to "misguided".
To clarify, libs are mostly godless atheists, so their "religion" is pol-correctness, which means they try to outdo Christianity by being more tolerant, more compassionate, more forgiving, blah blah, and although that sounds good on paper, it fails miserably because it's a blind "religion without a mind", they simply go through the motions without thinking things through and end up making fools of themselves.
The great American people got fed up of them and their babe Hillary, so they voted Don into the White House..

 

I like that. They've got a sort of 'holier-than-thou' complex and are totally unable to predict the unwanted consequences of their flawed rationale.