I know he Bible has a lot of loopholes, I mean "interpetations." As I understand it, he was a religious adviser to the White House.
2006-11-02 18:42:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
yes, but better that he pay for sex with a consenting man rather than adopting the Catholic way of raping an alter boy.
2006-11-02 18:54:22 · answer #1 · answered by Aussieblonde -bundy'd 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES ! Do you really think the White House is clean or free of sin ? I have never seen an honest politician or thought for a moment that they aren't trying to fill their own pockets.
Spending money on prositution was punished by God ( in Numbers and 1 Corinthians). God had Moses cut off the se people's heads and put them on poles, as punishment. God then punished others by creating a plague that killed 24,000 people. These people were also involved in worshipping other Gods, but clearly God was not happy with them.
I disagree, the Bible has NO loopholes, study it and you'll find this out.
Hope that helps.
2006-11-03 02:55:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Womanizing has never been a secular sin, its often openly admired by everyone except the used who matter only as conquests. That a member of the worst administration in recent history twists what was considered admireable into something grotesque comes as a surprise? That it happens on the tail of twisting the obvious truth of war which has always been fought by the less advantaged is proof that liars earn what they sow. That anybody would vote for anybody connected with such panderings out of some disjointed loyalty makes monstrosities out of everything connected with them, including this insane war on terror where every person in the offenders country is a terrorist by birth right. When its said in the Bible that even the faithful will be decieved, its sad that deception is the goal isn't it?
2006-11-03 03:18:09 · answer #3 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't particularly care for the Evangelical movement (or the Bush regime, for that matter) but there is the idea in the U.S. of "innocent until proven guilty." All the stuff I've read about this "scandal" is just one man claiming unproven things.
Wait, that sounds kinda like religion. *Shakes head in utter confusion.*
Anyway, to answer your question--were it proven that such activites did occur, yes it would be unethical. To use money intended for a community purpose on self-serving behavior (particularly behavior not condoned by the community in question) is in my opinion immoral.
2006-11-03 02:48:24 · answer #4 · answered by N 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Immoral and unethical. the money belongs to the church not him.Unless its his salary for his work. But its still Immoral.
2006-11-03 02:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course this is immoral. He will get want he deserves eventually. He can't just merely kneel down and ask God to forgive him and get to Heaven. He has to repent and earn God's trust and live the rest of his life according to the laws of God and apologize to all that he hurt, abused, lied to, misled. And earn their trust back. There's alot to repentence than just saying "please forgive me, Lord, I'm sorry."
2006-11-03 02:50:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he and Bush spoke "weekly" according to CNN.
But it might not be money from the church! He's a moral man! It might be from his kids piggy banks! Think positive
2006-11-03 02:44:35 · answer #7 · answered by Black Parade Billie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bible says adulterers should be stoned to death.
2006-11-03 02:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Buddhist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I should say so. Immoral and embarrassing.
Blessed Be
2006-11-03 02:47:45 · answer #9 · answered by Celestian Vega 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If it's good enough for Jessie Jackson, it's good enough for anybody!
2006-11-03 02:58:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋