Posted on 09/01/2020 10:41:58 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Religions go all sorts of ways - some of them have historically practiced a lot of cruelty - persecution of those who don’t believe the same way, really misogynistic crap, terrible practices against homosexualists, etc.
I don’t believe that one necessarily has to be ‘religious’, to be moral and have a conscience - though I realize that in Adams’ time, that was the main conduit through which morality was cultivated.
I do believe that the notion among many atheists that there is nothing but this material life, no Intelligent First Cause or ultimate standard of morality, has caused us a lot of trouble and falling-away from sound and progressive (in the true sense of the word) Ideals.
Churches are made up of sinners. Who knew? And of course
every bad thing done in the name of Christianity, is the
only part of Christianity some folks focus on.
At one time some of our citizens practiced slavery. Are there slave owners today? Do we condemn it and want to
see it destroyed?
Christianity is no different.
If our inalienable rights were not handed down by God, who
did hand them down. If it was a man, the man will come
and go. God will not.
As s Christian I do not approve of homosexuality. That
doesn’t mean that I prescribe a penalty or seek some sort
of punishment. It doesn’t mean I treat them any differently
than others in the work place or socially.
Just like I will, they will have to face God’s judgement.
We as Christians do need to be careful. Some folks we
though would never make it will, and some folks we were
sure would make it, won’t.
The Bible is a cross section of humanity. People will
take from it what they will.
Loving your fellow man is something it teaches. Those
who wish to live a good life will discover that and try
to live by it.
I like that old saying that we’ll all be surprised by whom we find next to us in Heaven - and surprised by those who are NOT.
It’s a good concept to consider isn’t it.
It causes me to soul search myself more.
“and look into removing Sullivan from the bench.”
Someone on here or on the FB page posted a list of things that Sullivan has done in the past that if they had come out during his confirmation he would have never been a judge.
If the judge can act as the prosecutor, then why can’t the defendant act as the judge and “rule” that “the defendant” is innocent?
The DOJ has concluded that Flynn is innocent, so why shouldn’t Flynn just “rule” that the DOJ’s conclusion is a “verdict” and then get on with his life?
This so-called “justice system” has devolved into a “legal system” that is so corrupt that a trial is just a formality not a test of innocence as intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.