Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Road Walker who wrote (283743)	4/11/2006 5:06:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 1572669

You know, I'm sick of listening to crap. You pick one sentence to argue with, and ignore the rest. I'll reply to that first part of your post, its the only part that is more than near mindless bashing. I'll ignore the rest. I'm not looking for flame wars. I argue about one sentence because that's where I see a clear problem, and it is a rather extreme statement. As for the rest of the post, I don't entirely disagree or agree with it, if I did I would have mentioned that in my reply. I didn't say "the post is a bunch of crap" because of that one sentence. I just replied to the one sentence because I had something to say about that statement. I sort of agree with this part of the article -- But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it. The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion .. Except I would change the part at the end to "it must do so on grounds of justice or practical benefit appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion". I disagree with --- Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain. --- But I think a stronger secular and constitutional argument can be made against such a display, so my lack of agreement with the religious argument that Gary Willis makes isn't all that important.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next