Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Al B. Sure!]

To be clear, Ben only made reference to being barred from public schools because he said he was because of his disability. It's his deafness (along with apparently his Catholic faith, judging from this thread) that gives him a trump card over all homosexuals and ethnic minorities with regards to prejudice

[Elok]

Complex? There is nothing complex about "murderers are bad and go to hell".

I don't know what they say in Serbia, but every priest I've ever heard speak on the subject (and I've heard it a lot) stressed that it is wrong for us to say that specific people will be going to heaven or to hell. In essence, that's trying to do God's job for him. Usurping is bad. With that said, I don't imagine Hitler's in for a comfy experience, but it's not for us to judge others.

In my heart of hearts, I still tend to revert to my Orthodox upbringing despite the more agnostic approach I will acknowledge as intellectually valid. So I am able to effectively talk to even the most fundamentalist of religionista and engage in a non-troll discussion because those Christian values are the foundation of my moral framework... if only on an emotional level.

The thing is, we don't value emotions all that much. They can be good, but they bear a discomfiting similarity to the passions and shouldn't be relied upon. Again, maybe the Serbian church emphasizes things differently, I can't say for sure.

But I digress... my point was that there was a general lack of complexity in my original point to BK.

bad people = hell

Gravity=things that go up, fall down. It's a good working definition, but it misses the big picture. Your point was reliant on a number of basic assumptions that I don't think you even noticed yourself making.

And I'm trying to wrap my head around BK's apparent hyper-religiousity and apparent lack of... well... basic morality.

As we all do. My best guess is honestly that there's something odd going on upstairs, but I don't know. In any case, the answer is not to try and argue morals into him. He treats those arguments like every other argument he gets in, with incorrigible dishonesty. You're in effect teaching an animal not to crap on your face by sticking your nose up its butt and shouting "no!"

I mean, when given enough time to think about something, I could get myself to logically justify putting bunnies in a blender. So the same part of my brain that accepts perfectly reasonable and rational methods of data analysis is not necessarily the best tool for making decisions, strategic planning, organization, etc.

But then, going with a purely emotional response you expose yourself to other errors--you would see a Nazi concentration camp guard, shoot him dead with revulsion, and then realize his wife and three kids are likely going to starve. There needs to be some kind of middle ground, surely?

[Elok]

Okay, just saw your response to my second post (ie, post number 725). WRT the four things I mentioned:

1. Deathbed confessions being invalid. I can't go into all the details tonight, since my wife has a migraine (BTW, I'm married now, with a kid on the way in January, 'round about your name day). Look at the one parable with the vinyard--too lazy to look it up, but the one where a man hires out a bunch of laborers at various times of day, some at the first hour, some at the third, and so on up to the eleventh hour. All get paid the same. The lesson? It doesn't matter when you turn to the right side; it only matters that you do what is right. Similarly, look at the Prodigal Son. He wasted all that cash with hookers. Does the father care? No. He's back, that's all that matters. If a man has done horrible things all his life and repents on his deathbed, don't resent him. After all, for the Orthodox sin is not a crime to be punished; it's a disease to be cured. He's free of the evil that was controlling him. It's all good.

2. The death penalty. I actually just listened to a podcast about this from Ancient Faith radio, by a priest who'd looked into the various arguments. It seems that, historically and currently, opinions are divided between "it's unacceptable" and "it should be left to the state to decide." I favor the former position, but I feel I have to acknowledge there's difference of opinion.

3 and 4 you don't seem super-interested in, so we'll just ignore them unless you wish otherwise.

WRT love, the best model to follow is Christ himself: severe when it is necessary, but always motivated by love and a desire to lead to truth. And tempered, in our case, by the knowledge that we aren't IC XC and don't know the truth perfectly ourselves.

[loinburger]

I used to have a problem with deathbed confessions (back when we talked about them in Sunday school) because I assumed they were all motivated by selfishness, i.e. "Oh crap, I'm about to go to hell, I'd better get in good with the boss," but in time I realized that this isn't necessarily the case, that it's possible for even the most hardened douchebag to feel legitimate remorse.

[Kidlicious]

I used to have a problem with deathbed confessions (back when we talked about them in Sunday school) because I assumed they were all motivated by selfishness, i.e. "Oh crap, I'm about to go to hell, I'd better get in good with the boss," but in time I realized that this isn't necessarily the case, that it's possibThele for even the most hardened douchebag to feel legitimate remorse.

It's a little complicated when it comes to the Bible. It's better to not wait until you're about to die before you repent, but anyone who does should believe strongly in God's grace and mercy.

In the case of Jefrey Dalmer, repentance would get him into heaven, just the same as anyone else. The hard part for people is 1) admitting that you aren't good, and 2) that God has mercy on bad people. Two is impossible for man because it isn't human wisdom. Human wisdom say's that bad doesn't get mercy. But God changes people's hearts.

[Felch]

What if your faith is so strong that you spend your entire life sinning with the belief that God will forgive you?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you have no understanding of the American way of thinking.

Really? I speak and spend time with plenty of Americans who think that you are full of crap. Your beliefs are shared by many Americans, but are by no means universal.

You simply don't undestand what it means to be american now and you don't understand what it meant to be an american then either. You are an outsider.

There are probably some things that I will never full *get* or become accustomed to, as a result of having grown up someplace else. You are correct that in some sense I will always be an outsider. What you don't get is that this works both ways. There are things that set me apart from Canadians in general.

I'm always going to be an outsider no matter where I am, for the simple reason that my life is not like most people's and never will. The things that they take for granted just getting up in the morning, the simple things that just happen, are things that are a real struggle for me, that I have to plan ahead.

Seperate issue, On your point about Canada and Great Britain you miss the point that the North had all but abolished slavery and had no need for slaves.

But they did not. That's the point. They always shied away from granting black people the right to vote, and the ability to become full members of American society. Even if they did not rely on them, they were unwilling to cross the Rubicon as the British were and to ban it outright. Not having the moral fortitude to do the right thing, when others were blazing the trail, isn't a virtue of the North.

If the south had been apart of the British Empire it remains to be seen how they would have handed the slavery issue.

Slavery was common in many different parts of the Empire prior to 1818. Look at the sugar islands in the Caribbean. There was a significant slave lobby that depended on the labor. Britain still chose to take the route of banning the trade altogether.

Of course, Americans have taken a long time for equality no argument but under British rule as I have pointed out we don't know that we would be any better or worse. South Africa comes to mind.

South Africa's not the best example, unless you are referring to Cape Colony. South Africa didn't exist back in 1818. Your best example would be Jamaica. If Jamaica could free their slaves, then I see no reason why the South would not.

The question of secession from the union has been answered. You can't get out.

Yes, you can. The North cannot deprive the states of their fundamental rights under the constution of the united states through the use of force. You might as well argue that the entire constitution is meaningless. If the federal government can violate some of these rights, there's no reason they cannot take away things like freedom of speech and religion. Arguing that opposition to the government amounts to treason isn't sufficient justification.

Thinking of leaving is treason.

So is suspending Habeaus Corpus, as Lincoln did.

So if some one pre-civil war thought that secession was possible that was a matter of debate. Now, the question has been answered.

Force cannot be the basis upon which any of our fundamental rights depend. Don't you get this? Yes, the question has been answered, to the affirmative, that the states can choose to leave by a vote by the state legislature.

That's why, Rick Perry is a dick and we'll never be President because he thinks Texas has an option.

So you admit then that other patriotic Americans agree with me? Isn't that what I've been saying all along? I'm glad you're willing to concede that point, because it's an important one.

Had there been no american revolution, these other countries would not have been able to leave the British Empire add to that the French and Brits realized that far flung empires were untenable when all they really wanted was the resources.

Canada was certainly not 'untenable', despite being much further away and much more sparsely populated. There's no real rationale, that should the Loyalists have won out, that independence needed to be achieved through revolution.

Add to that the fact that popular opinion in those countries was going against being in the British Empire and the British had no desire for wars to try to hold these countries after America and there ongoing issues in Ireland.

So you agree with me, that British policy was to encourage self-governance? Thank you.

Buchanan is not a traitor he is like Bush Jr. leaving a mess for someone else to clean up but not a traitor.

You declare anyone who disagrees with you as a traitor, so that word has been stripped of meaning. I should be proud that you would call me a traitor.

You can't invade your own territory.

Popular sovereignty, the same argument that the Americans used in the war of revolution to justify declaring independence, also applies to the South. Yes, they voted, and they voted in favour to leave. That means that their terrority is no longer your territory anymore. That's how popular sovereignty works.

And once again you can't secede from the U.S.

Popular sovereignty which is how the US has always worked, argues just the opposite that if the people vote to leave, then the states can do so. America is a union of sovereign states, not a unitary nation as in France.

Once you start the option of staying in good times and leaving in hard times the whole thing falls apart.

The declaration states that the people have the right to remove governance that is contrary to the well-being of the people. One way to do this is to leave the union. That's what happens. You treat one state like ****, that state has the right to leave. If you want the US to hold together, the best thing to do is to elect wise and competent leaders that are beneficial to the nation as a whole. Arguing that Americans have the duty to suffer through bad leadership is contrary to what the declaration says, that they have the right to remove said leadership. If, for nothing else, than that they have lost the support and the confidence of the people.

Government for the people, by the people and of the people, shall not perish. Even Lincoln gets this.

Once again, you are an outsider and don't understand. Let's tie this in with Texas, Americans shed blood on behalf of Texas. Texans chose to join the Union to keep themselves from being reconquered by the Mexicans. Now if things get bad after Americans from Maine to California have shed blood and lost lives to benefit Texas and they try to leave the union. That's not happening.

Texas left because the Mexican constitution changed to enforce a unitary state over the individual rights and constitution of the 1824 Mexican constitution at their independence. The new constitution stripped Texas of many of the rights that she had possessed prior and was suborned. Texas wasn't the only state to rebel, either, but she was the only state to successfully rebel and set up their own independent state.

Thanks to the American volunteers? Partially, but also due to the leadership of Sam Houston and the fact that they defeated the Mexicans and captured Santa Anna. Santa Anna traded his security for the liberty of the state of Texas. Unfortunately the rest of Mexico didn't see eye to eye with Santa Anna.

Yes, America chose to help out Texas, but that does not mean that Texas does not also have the right to leave should they choose to do so. The union is a contract that was entered with the consent of the state of Texas, and the state of Texas can decide to leave. Full stop. Given the current incompetent leadership there are very good reasons for Texas to leave the US, should they decide to go at it on their own.

I have lived in Connecticutt, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Ga, California, Virginia and Texas for long periods of time. The only division as far as North v. South generally experienced was in Texas.

Well, that would be because Texas is different than all the other states.

Some Texans seem to think that they are the real south and also in Southern states that are a number of CSA flag wavers. But the General Pop in all these states are loyal U.S. citizens.

I haven't travelled or been there. But my observations and conversations with Americans who have and do indicate that they believe that they retain the right to leave. So, your argument is with them, not me. I am not advancing this argument because it is my invention, but because I have heard many Americans express the exact same opinion.

No one ever told me that I could not attend public schools. I came to school after the time of seperate but equal. I enjoyed more equality than my parents did.

I did. At the time, they just didn't integrate (where have I heard that word before), deaf kids into the main school system. So yes, I hear what you are saying about prejudice etc. I am saying that rather then arguing that I have zero understanding, I would think I have better understanding than most. I am not saying that I believe that there is no prejudice (far from it), just that we are on the same side of this divide.

Blacks in the U.S. are better off than most blacks that are in former British Empire countries.

At present, yes, but this was not always so. Go back 50 years, the opposite is true.

Even if you don't count the African continent. I would rather be a black in the U.S. than a black in almost any former British Empire country. So even though British freed slaves earlier what has been the experience of Jamaicans and other blacks in the British Empire and Commonwealth.

Hey, I would not have left a Commonwealth country if I did not believe that there were greater opportunities in America. I'm just saying that this is a relatively recent change. Partially due to American footdragging.

[Ben Kenobi]

To be clear, Ben only made reference to being barred from public schools because he said he was because of his disability.

At the time, it was unheard of for people with my disability to be integrated fully into classroom participation. That has since changed, because 2010 is not 1985. 25 years is a long time. I was a test case my whole life in school. I did well, and eventually it was no longer considered to be an issue. But when I came up, it had never been done before and every year they did a review.

I'm not saying that my experience gives me a trump card. Hardly. I am simply saying that I understand what it's like to face discrimination. That's all. I'm on the same side as you on this. That is why I brought it up. I know there are plenty of situations even today where minorities are treated poorly by authority figures, I've seen it.

Anyways, I had one professor even at university who asked me to leave his class. As he put it, "he didn't want me there". After I had met with him and discussed my disability. I used to have an FM system and the professor would put it on so that I could hear him in a class of 400 students. He refused to use it and actually filed a complaint with the university.

I transferred out of his class and got a much better prof.

[Jon Miller]

What if your faith is so strong that you spend your entire life sinning with the belief that God will forgive you?

Read about Rasputin and some other Catholics/Orthodox who thought similarly.

I think they were extremely wrong, and base my arguments on Paul who explicitly says that to do such would be terrible.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't recall reading anything about a "scale" of good versus bad deeds.

I don't recall arguing anything about the bible.

I just read, "don't kill"... etc.

So it's wrong to kill someone in self-defense? No.

Also, saving lives isn't a prerequisite.

Horsecrap. Choosing to do nothing while someone is dying while you can do something is wrong. You must do what you can. George III did do this wrt slave trade, saving the lives of thousands of people.

Even if it was a scale, you would have a whole bunch of bad deeds and nothing to balance it with.

Saving the lives of thousands of those who would have otherwise became slaves is not "nothing".

2, Where am I arguing that George III was not a sinner in need of redemption? The standard is Christ himself. Sure, George III falls short, but then so does every other King or ruler. George III is no more a sinner than you are, you and him and I are in need of Christ and his redemption.

I don't see how ending a policy of mass murder

What policy of 'mass murder?' Reference please.

is somehow considered a "good" thing. It's more like a "NO DUH" thing.

I said that he was a good ruler.

I mean, there are things in life where apathy doesn't matter. I can forget to take the garbage out and its not big deal. But forget to end slavery? That's the kind of thing you need to end or you will go to hell. You don't get brownie points for that.

But he did end the slave trade, that's the point.

That's like Jeffrey Dahmer saying, "Well God, I thought about butchering a few dozen other families, but I decided not to. They owe their lives to me because I didn't kill them. I saved their lives from myself. So in the grand scheme of things, I did more good than bad. I'm a good guy and deserve to go to heaven."

Uh, if Jeffrey Dahmer did, in fact, stop himself, turned himself into the police and was arrested, and expressed repentence for his sins, then yes, yes he would be saved. Repentence alone would be sufficient.

Hate the sin. Condemn the sinner. Love them?

Christ says we are to love the sinner.

But the aforementioned individuals are still pieces of garbage.

So are you, for that matter, or myself. We are all worthless pieces of trash.

Being rich is bad enough that Jesus equates it with KILLING PEOPLE.

WTF? No. The rich man in the parable loved his wealth more than he loved Christ. He wasn't willing to give up all he had to follow Him.

If wealth is bad, why did God bless Job?

We've got to get you fixed.

What, so I can preach "kill the rich"? Somehow I think not.

you are not a Christian. And yet, by considering yourself a Christian, you are in fact lying to everyone... bearing false witness. And I implied that only Satan and his followers do that.

So you are saying that I am a follower of Satan for saying that the rich man in the parable turned away from Christ because he loved his money more? Again, Job was blessed by God. God does not hate wealth. He insists that we must love him more. We must be willing to give up our wealth and turn to Him.

So basically, I was calling you a devil worshiper... not necessarily in the candles and pentagram sense... but "King of Lies" sense.

There are serious problems with your theology.

I called Cain and Thomas, Uncle Toms.

Last I checked you were white... Don't see how you can call black people "Uncle Toms".

[Ben Kenobi]

As we all do. My best guess is honestly that there's something odd going on upstairs, but I don't know. In any case, the answer is not to try and argue morals into him. He treats those arguments like every other argument he gets in, with incorrigible dishonesty. You're in effect teaching an animal not to crap on your face by sticking your nose up its butt and shouting "no!"

Wow, look at the paragon of virtue Elok, building up his brothers and sisters. Well done Elok.

[dannubis]

As we all do. My best guess is honestly that there's something odd going on upstairs, but I don't know. In any case, the answer is not to try and argue morals into him. He treats those arguments like every other argument he gets in, with incorrigible dishonesty. You're in effect teaching an animal not to crap on your face by sticking your nose up its butt and shouting "no!"

Word

[Kidlicious]

What if your faith is so strong that you spend your entire life sinning with the belief that God will forgive you?

Do you mean that you aren't sorry for your sins? Then you would absolutely not go to heaven. God won't get caught on a technicality. Anyone who thinks they are going to fool God is wrong.

[Jon Miller]

Wow, look at the paragon of virtue Elok, building up his brothers and sisters. Well done Elok.

Sometimes strong censure is needed.

JM

[Pax]

texas v white. The only way a state is getting out of the union is to fight there way out.
I did not cal Buchanan a traitor. You are a liar.
I do think Rick Perry is a traitor. How can a person loyal to a thing speak of destroying it.
As for being deaf, I'm sure that you were treated differently but some things are a matter of necessity. You had different needs and requiements. The fact is that the government took extra expense to provide for your education. It may have not been a perfect solution but like a lot of things it was probably better than what came before.
A person can come to the U.S. or any country and become a loyal citizen. You Ben, come to the U.S. and run your mouth about a variety of things American but whenever you are pushed into a corner you declare that you are not an american citizen. That's what makes you an outsider, you show no allegiance. I would say that you show no allegiance to Canada as well.
Ben,
I have been to Canada, Scotland, Holland, Mexico and the Caribbean. I really liked most of the places I traveled to. I have considered leaving the U.S. on several occasions but even if I left, I would still be American. I love the U.S. and even though there are many things I don't like about the U.S. I still love the U.S. and I am loyal to my country. I know that there are other great countries out there and I know that there are people on this site that love their home and country. But you, the only thing I can say that you show allegiance to is the Pope and even that seems misguided.