God

gfm7175 said:
Generally speaking, Christians do not view themselves as better than people who practice homosexuality (or any other sex related sin)
Click to expand...
I will venture to say that this statement contains the entirety of the issue being debated and that anything peripheral is irrelevant.
 
Manfred Mason said:
Chapter and verse where Jesus spoke directly about homosexuality! Not your spin
Click to expand...
Paul explained to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that Jesus stated "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ..."

gfm7175 was correct wrt Jesus being rather comprehensive in condemning a wide gamut of sexual sins.
 
IBDaMann said:
The cowardly North participated in that election as well.


Nope. They fully planned on continuing as States and continue to this day. You didn't learn much history, did you?


They defended themselves quite nobly from the cowardly attacks against them from the North.


Unfortunately for the States, the concept of State sovereignty became a cruel euphemism for tyranny.
Click to expand...

CSA ring a bell?
 
IBDaMann said:
All the patriots were in the South. All the tyrants were fighting for the North. The South was fighting to uphold the Constitution while the North was abandoning their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and were fighting to abolish State sovereignty.

Tyranny won.
Click to expand...

The South was fighting to keep a third of its citizens in slavery
 
IBDaMann said:
Paul explained to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that Jesus stated "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ..."

gfm7175 was correct wrt Jesus being rather comprehensive in condemning a wide gamut of sexual sins.
Click to expand...

Those are Paul's words! Where did Jesus specifically talk about homosexuality!
 
IBDaMann said:
As I suspected, you never learned any history. The South already had slavery. They weren't somehow trying to acquire it.

The Civil War was fought over the issue of State sovereignty. The Federal government was not respecting the sovereignty of the Southern States so they opted to leave.

The Complete Answer is Here
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was fought because states were admitted to the Union without following the the Slave/Free pattern that had been agreed to. There was also the issue of wealthy Southerners not being allowed to vacation in the Hamptons. None of it had anything to do with real right and wrong.
 
The South left the Union for one reason.

The fact that the new states coming into the union were designated free states meaning the southern states would have very little representation in Congress and the free states could literally control them.

The north was industrialized while the south was a farming culture.

We were essentially two different nations at that point

There were many issues beyond slavery going on here.

Lincoln himself said he didn’t care if they kept slavery
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Of course they were because their entire economy was based on agriculture.

Lincoln didn’t care about slavery until it was politically convenient to do so.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the whole "states rights as the predicate for the Civil War" is largely a revision of history to avoid the stain of slavery as being the central concept. Yes the South wanted to ignore those Federal laws they disagreed with but from what I gather most historians feel that slavery was indeed the primary topic. Certainly the desire to allow slavery in the western expansion was critical to the laws the South wanted to ignore.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/.
 
Quincunx said:
As I understand it the whole "states rights as the predicate for the Civil War" is largely a revision of history to avoid the stain of slavery as being the central concept. Yes the South wanted to ignore those Federal laws they disagreed with but from what I gather most historians feel that slavery was indeed the primary topic. Certainly the desire to allow slavery in the western expansion was critical to the laws the South wanted to ignore.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/.
Click to expand...
People who actually study history know the States were fairly autonomous before the Civil War.

People would say “The United States are” before the Civil War. Afterwards they’d say “The United States is”. That was the beginning of the expansion of Federal powers when Lincoln attacked the Southern states.

The good news is that all you Lefties can blame it on the Republicans. :thup:
 
Quincunx said:
As I understand it the whole "states rights as the predicate for the Civil War" is largely a revision of history to avoid the stain of slavery as being the central concept. Yes the South wanted to ignore those Federal laws they disagreed with but from what I gather most historians feel that slavery was indeed the primary topic. Certainly the desire to allow slavery in the western expansion was critical to the laws the South wanted to ignore.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/.
Click to expand...

The main cause of the war was representation in Congress although the reason for that was slavery.

The South didn’t start the war because the North was coming to free the slavers, they weren’t and had on intention of doing that.

Had the South not rebelled then they would have been able to keep slavery for who knows how long.

In fact most foreign nations sided with the South because they wanted the cheap products.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The main cause of the war was representation in Congress although the reason for that was slavery.

The South didn’t start the war because the North was coming to free the slavers, they weren’t and had on intention of doing that.

Had the South not rebelled then they would have been able to keep slavery for who knows how long.

In fact most foreign nations sided with the South because they wanted the cheap products.
Click to expand...

I have little doubt this is true, but the fact remains that slavery was the primary casus belli for the Civil War. The focus on "states rights" is a means of avoiding the fact that the South went to war in order to keep slavery and the North didn't want it expanded out to the new states coming in.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The main cause of the war was representation in Congress although the reason for that was slavery.

The South didn’t start the war because the North was coming to free the slavers, they weren’t and had on intention of doing that.

Had the South not rebelled then they would have been able to keep slavery for who knows how long.

In fact most foreign nations sided with the South because they wanted the cheap products.
Click to expand...

Wow. I doubt I’ve seen a more skewed view of history coming from Democrats. LOL

The first Republican President started the war to force the Union back together, not to free the slaves.

Most stupid and/or ignorant people think the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves throughout both the Union and Confederate states.
Hint: It didn’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top