ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
... your assertion that the default position of human nature is total lawlessness ...
nope
... your doomsday fetish ...
now what are you raving about? :freak:
... your assertion that the default position of human nature is total lawlessness ...
... your doomsday fetish ...
Sorry, i don’t go to magazines to learn about history ...
... this is a thread debating the possibility of sexual orientation being innate ...
you're kidding me, right?
"...such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high."
"1) [Hitler] had created jobs and 2) he had made Germany strong."
"Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him... "
i do
how about you?
if that was true we wouldn't need locks on our doors or police services
heck, we wouldn't need laws
i didn't say "lawless"
The fact that the vast majority of the population respect the boundaries of basic morality, isn't really debatable is it?
I know it's seems off-putting to suggest-- particularly in this age of Buzzfeed articles and Wikis-- that one ought to rely on substantive scholarly treatises when wanting to learn about complex historical subjects. Magazine's typically ain't that place. Sorry dude.
Having said that... I did finally look at the article in question.
The good news is, it was written by Ian Kershaw who is in fact a preeminent WWII historian and an expert on Nazi Germany. I encourage you to read the entire piece.
It does not support your initial claim by any stretch.
None of this contradicts my initial rebuttal to your absurd and ahistorical assertion that the majority of the German people were willingly compliant with the systematic extermination of the Jews. The facts are far more complicated than disccusion group fodder. Kershaw states in the article:
"Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him... "
No, I don't.
Adultery is indeed immoral and wrong, but not in the same way or in remotely the same degree that rape is.
Pedophilia is a horrible and disordered attraction, but unless acted upon is not remotely equivalent to actual rape. When a pedophile acts upon their urges, they commit rape-- albeit the most extreme and heinous type of rape that exists.
So, to reiterate-- you are grouping together different moral considerations under the specious "all sin is equal/ sin-is-sin" umbrella.
so you are ignorant of Der Spiegel's reputation
it does
my intial claim was that "when the societal boundaries and guidelines told the Volksgemeinschaft that the life of the Jew was without value and must be exterminated, they were happy to be compliant"
NOT "when the societal boundaries and guidelines told the Volksgemeinschaft that the life of the Jew was without value and must be exterminated, they were happy to be EAGER PARTICIPANTS"
didn't mention masturbation, for example, if we're gonna remain in the confines of sexual sin
or theft (less equal) or murder (more equal)
The guy who is proud of his “faux rape” threads ...
now wants to talk about masturbation as one of the default “evils” man is capable of? No thanks.
are you a Christian?
are you aware that this is a Christian board?
I’m a Christian.
But if you find masturbation an urgent moral concern for human beings,
I don’t really have anything productive to add to this discussion.
Nor do I have an interest in farting back and forth with some guy who jokes and brags about his previous faux rape threads.
A better explanation would be sin and repentance. But that's what the thread title was trying to get us to think about.
Are you saying homosexuals don't have to repent as long as non-homosexuals don't? Why not turn that around and say that non-homosexuals don't have to repent until homosexuals repent? If our standard is always "the other guy", we are all doomed.That might wash, if only the homophobes would take notice of about 500 other OT laws.
....which they don't seem to do.
If one is "born gay" how do you explain gays who are "in the closet"?
No I am not saying anything about repentance or doom, Derf, I am simply saying that a considerable % of people find that they fancy and/or fall in love with a person of their own sex. Your ideas of doom are yours, but when you 'in any way' get involved with the decisions of others about their own sexuality or identity then that does need to be stopped by good-reason and true-love. Where I live we lock up people who interfere with others or incite trouble for those with deffering sexual identities.Are you saying homosexuals don't have to repent as long as non-homosexuals don't? Why not turn that around and say that non-homosexuals don't have to repent until homosexuals repent? If our standard is always "the other guy", we are all doomed.
If you want to follow the OT laws as written, then follow them but don't add your own clauses. And the 106 sacrificial/ceremonial laws were removed by Jesus himself (I will have mercy and not sacrifice) and so the 507 others remain, very few of which you seem to bother about.... ?Which laws are you suggesting non-homos need to respect? Building a parapet on a roof? [Deu 22:8 NKJV] "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.
This only applies, obviously, when the roof is designed to have people on it as a matter of course. And we do follow this law anytime we get proper code approval for a house.
It's no good quoting Paul at me...... a man who never married in his lifetime as far as we know and who was clearly a bit thorny about sex, relationships etc.In the same way, there are numerous laws that don't apply, for various reasons, in the old testament. One is the offering of sacrifices for sin. The reason is that those laws had a specific purpose--to point forward to a time when our sin would be wiped clean by the blood of the ultimate sacrifice--Jesus Christ. Once that was done, there's no need to offer the sacrifices over and over again. But there's still a need to repent from sin, as Paul assures us:
[1Co 6:9 NKJV] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
[1Co 6:10 NKJV] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
[1Co 6:18 NKJV] Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
[1Co 6:19 NKJV] Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [who is] in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
[1Co 6:20 NKJV] For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
No you don't have that correct. Good Christians, all Christians (not just your particular Creed or following) can by all means offer help to other people, but when it becomes interfering, oppressive, bigoted, subjective etc it needs to be stopped by the people and the laws of their lands where possible.So I think what you are trying to say is that Christians (sinners saved by grace) have no business helping other sinners enter the kingdom of God by that same grace. Do I have that correct?
... a considerable % of people find that they fancy and/or fall in love with a person of their own sex...
Where I live we lock up people who interfere with others or incite trouble for those with deffering sexual identities.
Are you saying homosexuals don't have to repent as long as non-homosexuals don't? Why not turn that around and say that non-homosexuals don't have to repent until homosexuals repent? If our standard is always "the other guy", we are all doomed.