The Gay Denomination?

[99percentatheism]

The Gay Denomination.

For those people that desire same gender sexual behavior or thoughts, AND that claim to be a Christian and claim that their beliefs and theology can fit the New Testament witness, instead of waging an endless, fruitless and vicious war on other Christians - that will NEVER accept their gay doctrines and dogmas . . ., - why won't they just declare a new and alternative denomination, just like Watch Tower theological adherants and Mormons?

Why the need to join forces with anti-Christian and secularist movements to attack "Bible believing" Christians?

Afterall, in referencing the New Testament, there is no justifiable comparison of sex acts to being a slave (slavery), or the charge of bigotry and hatefulness in holding that marriage is a man and a woman.

Why not just start an "Out and Proud" Gay Denomination?

[Clownboat]

I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.

Have you ever seperated the wheat from the chaff? Very large amount of chaff and a tiny palmful of wheat. If you look at the history of Christianity, there have been a large amount of people "identifying" as Christian but living like barbarians or pagans.

Now it's just that living like a barbarian/pagan is championed as secularism and civil right and is pop culture. Those large catherdrals crumpling into dust? Is that a representation of The Church, or the deparavity inherent in man just being realized with social media power?

I am not a fundie Christian per se, but the fundmentals of the faith are pointing us in one direction. You can't get to the end of the story without reading all the chapters.

And Job's point of view is: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

Buildings decay, the soul cannot. Like Jesus said.

If the Church was going to die, it would have been dead a long, long, long time ago. With so much accessability to interact with people now, it will be solidified rather than dissolved.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

The great competitor in the early days was first the barbarian invasions of mainland Europe, and then the Muslim invasions. Both threats nearly destroyed the religion, and had suleiman the magnificent not been stifled by both personal issues and rain that ended his attempt to conquer the whole of Europe, Christianity would not be here today.

The threat that the church is now facing, is of an entirely different nature. It comes from both beyond, but more importantly, primarily from within. The church isn't dying due to non-religiosity. Its death comes from losing converts to another religion: Leftism. To which the Church's naive response has been to become more Leftist, to chase down it's former flock, and in doing so, trading in their Christian theology, for Leftist theology. We have changed society from a Christian framework, to a secular leftist framework, and now church participants who have been raised in that Leftist perspective, are trying to change the nature of Christianity entirely, from within. Look at the leadership of the presbyterian, of the anglicans, of the epescopilian, of the methodist, and so on... they are all Leftwing mouthpieces. taking positions on Palestinian Sovereignty, demanding a flexibility on abortion, marrying homosexuals, demanding the Government do more for the poor, and so on.

I do support a new movement within the church, to keep true to its tenants, while reaching out to a more urban crowd, by embracing urbanism, and the urban environment. But this alone won't be enough, if they don't get at the heart of the crux of the matter, which is the current battle to change the orientation, identity, and principles, of traditional Christianity, by so-called Christians of the Left.

I think I now see the problem. I don't believe that you know what a religion really is. I would imagine you are more concerned about trying to level the playing field though, than you are with being accurate.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... s=b&path=/

[Dantalion]

You Americans and your 2party system. It's frankly ridiculous to behold .
It seems any given person is either a Leftist Hedonist or an ignorant conservative hatemonger.

[Clownboat]

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

You're ranting on about a book you admit you haven't read. It probably wouldn't make a difference if you HAD read it, since you apparently can't even accurately comprehend what I wrote. No one claimed an evolutionary or genetic or biologic difference between the brains of people with various party affiliations. To use the computer/blain analogy, you are confusing hardware with software.

You go on to continue your whine about people being afraid of their shadows or new ideas, but you ignore my suggestion that you tell us the new idea you think we are afraid to listen to. All I ask is that you state your new and supposedly 'terrifying' idea clearly and back it up with facts.

I'm not going to bother with fuzzy generalizations lifted from a Glenn Beck like blog with no semblance of factual basis anymore than I am going to bother refuting some young Earther and his paranoid conspiracy theory like rhetoric.

I am dismissed and described. That is fine. I don't mind that, I don't take anything personally here, and it is my uttermost joy to dialogue with those I differ with. I'm just pointing out the lack of self-awareness, that it takes, to dismiss and describe a post that cites a leftist tendency, to dismiss and describe.

• Facts are not the issue here. Leftism is an ideology, that is debated within philosophical argumentation. How do you fact-check the ideological components of Leftism? They are largely value-based judgements, which is why I bring up "values" as opposed to education-vs-ignorance, or the republican-brain-vs-democrat-brain. The Divide is not intelligent vs. non-intelligent, or educated-vs-noneducated. The honest truth is that we have fundamental divisions in our outlook because we value different things. I don't know why that is so hard to comprehend. What I'm stating here is not Republican-Paranoia-Driven-Rhetoric. It is a fundamental fact. You cannot bridge the Left-Right divide with education. You can only unite the two when drops its set of values, and adopts the others values and beliefs. How do you fact-check that? It's either true, based on logic, or it isn't.(Feel free to continue dismissing, and describing, instead of answering the challenge.)
  

I'll get Moony's book for my kindle. I hope you are right and that there is some insights in here that vary from Lakoff and Chomsky, I had a book from David Chalmers I was saving for, who I highly recommend for everyone to read. But my skepticism about moony comes largely from scientific 2.0, and they are not a Glenn-beck like blog, unless anyone you differ with is Glenn-beck-like:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/tru ... _why-88361
http://www.science20.com/science_20/bio ... ives-85904
http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_con ... book-89696

What if a person is not a Republican or a Democrat?

I don't know. What if?

Why not compare brains when their body eats junk food versus broccoli and califlower?

Do you have any studies to look at? Would they be relevant to this debate?

Liberalism is sugery sweet, while conservativism is like healthier choices for the body.

You might as well claim that your religion is the only true one while you are at it.

Sinning feels good. Denial of pleasure is frustrating. Sometimes physically painful even. Ask a drug addict (or any kind of addict denied their goal) or a guy that is sexually frustrated. (If you know what I mean.)

Sin, is your concept. What does this have to do with the debate anyways?

The democrats offer the wide road. (Again, if you know what I mean.)

Those dems! They are right there with the Muslims and homosexuals out to destroy Christianity aren't they.


Why choose to belong to a group of people that makes enemies out of so many of your fellow humans? According to you, we are all god's children right? Your "Us vs Them" mentality that you seem to try so hard to create does not seem healthy, or like something your god would approve of, IMO.

[99percentatheism]

You Americans and your 2party system. It's frankly ridiculous to behold .
It seems any given person is either a Leftist Hedonist or an ignorant conservative hatemonger.

A leftist hedonist is redundant.

An ignorant conservative? Obviously not. It is the conservative suburbs, filled with all of those educated conservative professionals, that the self-examing leftie, once they realize the folly of their ways, moves out of the urban jungle to live with.

Hatemonger? That is just the charicature the leftist hedonist uses to keep their fellow hodonists towing the propaganda line. It's far easier to stack up the sex partners in a close-knit environment.

[99percentatheism]

Clownboat

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

You're ranting on about a book you admit you haven't read. It probably wouldn't make a difference if you HAD read it, since you apparently can't even accurately comprehend what I wrote. No one claimed an evolutionary or genetic or biologic difference between the brains of people with various party affiliations. To use the computer/blain analogy, you are confusing hardware with software.

You go on to continue your whine about people being afraid of their shadows or new ideas, but you ignore my suggestion that you tell us the new idea you think we are afraid to listen to. All I ask is that you state your new and supposedly 'terrifying' idea clearly and back it up with facts.

I'm not going to bother with fuzzy generalizations lifted from a Glenn Beck like blog with no semblance of factual basis anymore than I am going to bother refuting some young Earther and his paranoid conspiracy theory like rhetoric.

I am dismissed and described. That is fine. I don't mind that, I don't take anything personally here, and it is my uttermost joy to dialogue with those I differ with. I'm just pointing out the lack of self-awareness, that it takes, to dismiss and describe a post that cites a leftist tendency, to dismiss and describe.

• Facts are not the issue here. Leftism is an ideology, that is debated within philosophical argumentation. How do you fact-check the ideological components of Leftism? They are largely value-based judgements, which is why I bring up "values" as opposed to education-vs-ignorance, or the republican-brain-vs-democrat-brain. The Divide is not intelligent vs. non-intelligent, or educated-vs-noneducated. The honest truth is that we have fundamental divisions in our outlook because we value different things. I don't know why that is so hard to comprehend. What I'm stating here is not Republican-Paranoia-Driven-Rhetoric. It is a fundamental fact. You cannot bridge the Left-Right divide with education. You can only unite the two when drops its set of values, and adopts the others values and beliefs. How do you fact-check that? It's either true, based on logic, or it isn't.(Feel free to continue dismissing, and describing, instead of answering the challenge.)
  

I'll get Moony's book for my kindle. I hope you are right and that there is some insights in here that vary from Lakoff and Chomsky, I had a book from David Chalmers I was saving for, who I highly recommend for everyone to read. But my skepticism about moony comes largely from scientific 2.0, and they are not a Glenn-beck like blog, unless anyone you differ with is Glenn-beck-like:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/tru ... _why-88361
http://www.science20.com/science_20/bio ... ives-85904
http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_con ... book-89696

What if a person is not a Republican or a Democrat?

I don't know. What if?

Why not compare brains when their body eats junk food versus broccoli and califlower?

CB: Do you have any studies to look at? Would they be relevant to this debate?

You seriously don't know the difference between twinkies and broccoli?

Liberalism is sugery sweet, while conservativism is like healthier choices for the body.

You might as well claim that your religion is the only true one while you are at it.

I make that point abundantly clear.

Sinning feels good. Denial of pleasure is frustrating. Sometimes physically painful even. Ask a drug addict (or any kind of addict denied their goal) or a guy that is sexually frustrated. (If you know what I mean.)

Sin, is your concept. What does this have to do with the debate anyways?

The democrats offer the wide road. (Again, if you know what I mean.)

Those dems! They are right there with the Muslims and homosexuals out to destroy Christianity aren't they.

I think you know my answer to that. When the sun is out, I know it's daylight.

Why choose to belong to a group of people that makes enemies out of so many of your fellow humans?

It's 2013. Christians are incredibly benevolent, peaceful and beneficial for society.

And we are hated.

As you point out. BUT at the wrong group of people. Look to hate where vice and violence is ever-present.

According to you, we are all god's children right?

Where the heck did you ever get that idea?

Your "Us vs Them" mentality that you seem to try so hard to create does not seem healthy, or like something your God would approve of, IMO.

Your opinion is based from your own perspective. Whatever. My views come from an atheist examining Christian life and then choosing to become a Christian. That is my perspective.

You have no worries AT ALL when I exit my Church on Sunday that I will spread STD's or become a suicide bomber.

[Dantalion]

You Americans and your 2party system. It's frankly ridiculous to behold .
It seems any given person is either a Leftist Hedonist or an ignorant conservative hatemonger.

A leftist hedonist is redundant.

An ignorant conservative? Obviously not. It is the conservative suburbs, filled with all of those educated conservative professionals, that the self-examing leftie, once they realize the folly of their ways, moves out of the urban jungle to live with.

Hatemonger? That is just the charicature the leftist hedonist uses to keep their fellow hodonists towing the propaganda line. It's far easier to stack up the sex partners in a close-knit environment.

Thank you for proving my point 99.
Here I am stating how ridiculous it is for one side to demonize the other so hatefully, and there you go spewing your hateful nonsense.
I hope your God is proud of your divisive and judging bigotry

[otseng]

You Americans and your 2party system. It's frankly ridiculous to behold .
It seems any given person is either a Leftist Hedonist or an ignorant conservative hatemonger.

A leftist hedonist is redundant.

Moderator Comment

OK, let's drop the leftist hedonist and making stereotypes of any group.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[marketandchurch]

marketandchurch

99percentatheism

I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.

Have you ever seperated the wheat from the chaff? Very large amount of chaff and a tiny palmful of wheat. If you look at the history of Christianity, there have been a large amount of people "identifying" as Christian but living like barbarians or pagans.

Now it's just that living like a barbarian/pagan is championed as secularism and civil right and is pop culture. Those large catherdrals crumpling into dust? Is that a representation of The Church, or the deparavity inherent in man just being realized with social media power?

I am not a fundie Christian per se, but the fundmentals of the faith are pointing us in one direction. You can't get to the end of the story without reading all the chapters.

And Job's point of view is: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

Buildings decay, the soul cannot. Like Jesus said.

If the Church was going to die, it would have been dead a long, long, long time ago. With so much accessability to interact with people now, it will be solidified rather than dissolved.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

The great competitor in the early days was first the barbarian invasions of mainland Europe, and then the Muslim invasions. Both threats nearly destroyed the religion, and had suleiman the magnificent not been stifled by both personal issues and rain that ended his attempt to conquer the whole of Europe, Christianity would not be here today.

Are you not forgetting the very Roman's themselves? Christians had to contend with being criminals and worse to even develope in the "Roman Empire." And the harrassment and persecutions were bad, but the licentiousness that Romanism offered was also something that should have made Christian life unappealing.

Although without doubt Islam is the single greatest threat to Christians on earth still and since its inception. But Muslims don't really tolerate any other life and worldview that isn't Muslim either. It's an incredibly pervasive political, social and religious powerhouse. But then again, it really appears that most people want to be controlled and lead. Liberalism actually ends up being that.

The threat that the church is now facing, is of an entirely different nature. It comes from both beyond, but more importantly, primarily from within. The church isn't dying due to non-religiosity. Its death comes from losing converts to another religion: Leftism. To which the Church's naive response has been to become more Leftist, to chase down it's former flock, and in doing so, trading in their Christian theology, for Leftist theology.

But aren't the "Mega-Churches" decidely conservative and orthodox? And many Christians that actually do not lose their religion in those Leftist-Liberal denoms actually "come home" if they don't deconvert.

Aren't you forgetting Satan in all of this? Even Judaism's Job-style Satan seems quite the harrasser of Christians.

We have changed society from a Christian framework, to a secular leftist framework, and now church participants who have been raised in that Leftist perspective, are trying to change the nature of Christianity entirely, from within.

Sellouts will always be the case. Jude writes about this in phenominal accuracy. If the libs were dwelling in the Church at its inception, they will be ever-present don't you think?

Remember, sinning feels good.

Look at the leadership of the presbyterian, of the anglicans, of the epescopilian, of the methodist, and so on... they are all Leftwing mouthpieces. taking positions on Palestinian Sovereignty, demanding a flexibility on abortion, marrying homosexuals, demanding the Government do more for the poor, and so on.

I write about these kinds of people in just about every thread I enter. Without doubt, they are no different than the atheists here and in the real world. If you have studied the history og the Humanist/humanism movement, it was The Church and Christians that was/were their target from the start. Note that they basically just plagarize all the value of a Christian life but deny God.

It ain't working. The western world is a cesspool of immorality and vice. If the French revolution didn't kill off The Church, this current crop of Psychology worshipping godless hordes of academic materialists won't kill it off either. There is a rise of apologists and laity to confront this menace.

I do support a new movement within the church, to keep true to its tenants, while reaching out to a more urban crowd, by embracing urbanism, and the urban environment.

Going BACK to its roots huh? The "Black Church" is quite orthodox in the urban jungle. Of course, there will always be the father Pflegers and reverend Sharpton's to try to fleece the flock too though. But the most dangerous person to the Church might be Welton Gaddy and his universalism movement of connecting all sorts of religions and atheist organizations in to one new order.

But this alone won't be enough, if they don't get at the heart of the crux of the matter, which is the current battle to change the orientation, identity, and principles, of traditional Christianity, by so-called Christians of the Left.

We are actively involved in "Contending for the faith delivered only once to the saints."

I can assure you of that. This thread has gotten the attention of many people not of this website. I met with people from California to the Midwest over the very issues and perspective you highlight.

When I have time.

Your perspective is very refreshing to see.

Judaism does not believe in a mythical figure named Satan. Satan is a literary device within Judaism, that is used to help aid in the telling of a story. Satan means "To Oppose," or in other words, an "opposer." There can be nothing supernatural beyond God, or we run into the possibility of polytheism, so God's "oneness" is crucial to our monotheism. The Story of Job is the oldest book in the bible, and its roots predate the Jewish people by several thousand years. It is an ancient near-eastern tale, that was adopted into the bible, with many heavy revisions to make it both ethical, and, in line with the teaching of the torah. Job never existed, Satan never existed, it is entirely a story to paint the framework that we should view God in. All of our efforts may be in vain, and there may be no afterlife following this one, yet we are still to follow the ways of the Torah, as God has instructed us to, because he knows infinitely more then we ever will.

I see that you establish the beginning of the church with Christ, and that is fair, from a Christian perspective. I personally like to think of it being established, only much later. So that is why I didn't include the Roman massacres. The fall of Christianity, however, is coming entirely from within. Christianity can survive a secular assault from outside. It cannot survive if members of its own congregations are pure leftist secularistic humanists, and either then wish to change the orientation of the church to fit Leftism as in mainstream Protestantism, or, leave religion entirely.

You include megachurches, but they are only a response to the undoing of mainline protestantism, by Leftism. Protestantism was the American religious orientation. The rise of megachurches is simply a transfer of Conservative protestants, over to evangelical non-denominations which leaves mainline Protestantism to be largely a Leftist outpost. Mainline protestantism is a dying breed, as they struggle with not only a much much older demographic, but, to fill the isles with young, and middle-aged families.

This is different. The church is changing its orientation completely, from being bible-based, to being social-justice based. There have always been Liberals in Protestant denominations. But we've never had committed Leftists, who are trying to opt out traditional Christian beliefs, that are based on the Bible, for Leftist agendas, that only use what it wants from the bible, to back it's mission of social justice.

Apologists are useless. They fight on behalf of Christian theology. But they do not understand the nature of Leftism, and are are utterly incapable of being affective against it. They offer up stupid arguments, such as one of them given for traditional marriage: "God created Man and Woman to be a complimentary pair." True. But what use is that to someone who 1.) doesn't believe in God, 2.) Could care less if a God exists, and 3.) Thinks the traditional "heterosexist" framework promoted by Christianity is bigoted, so we must therefore drop every prerequisite to marriage, other then "love," and 4.) Only cares to have Equality lived out. And the worst thing about an apologist is their "Faith." It is utterly damaging because it blinds them from addressing truths that run counter to their literal interpretation, of a bible they are misinterpreting. Divorce is one example, marriage is another.

The church is dying. We have to accept that. Only when we accept that we have real problems, can we, as a collective body, begin to fix things. And I'm speaking as a Jew. It was predicted in Germany by an atheist Jew, in the 1830's, that if the Cross should fail in Europe, even with it's history of antisemitism, the Jews will be wiped out completely. 100 years later, his forecast came true, and now, almost 100 years later, secular Europe is once again one of the most antisemitic places on earth. Our survival as Jews depends on a Strong Christian America. So it is as much of a mission, for Jews, to encourage a powerful Christian identity, as it is for Christians.

[Dantalion]

marketandchurch

99percentatheism

I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.

Have you ever seperated the wheat from the chaff? Very large amount of chaff and a tiny palmful of wheat. If you look at the history of Christianity, there have been a large amount of people "identifying" as Christian but living like barbarians or pagans.

Now it's just that living like a barbarian/pagan is championed as secularism and civil right and is pop culture. Those large catherdrals crumpling into dust? Is that a representation of The Church, or the deparavity inherent in man just being realized with social media power?

I am not a fundie Christian per se, but the fundmentals of the faith are pointing us in one direction. You can't get to the end of the story without reading all the chapters.

And Job's point of view is: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

Buildings decay, the soul cannot. Like Jesus said.

If the Church was going to die, it would have been dead a long, long, long time ago. With so much accessability to interact with people now, it will be solidified rather than dissolved.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

The great competitor in the early days was first the barbarian invasions of mainland Europe, and then the Muslim invasions. Both threats nearly destroyed the religion, and had suleiman the magnificent not been stifled by both personal issues and rain that ended his attempt to conquer the whole of Europe, Christianity would not be here today.

Are you not forgetting the very Roman's themselves? Christians had to contend with being criminals and worse to even develope in the "Roman Empire." And the harrassment and persecutions were bad, but the licentiousness that Romanism offered was also something that should have made Christian life unappealing.

Although without doubt Islam is the single greatest threat to Christians on earth still and since its inception. But Muslims don't really tolerate any other life and worldview that isn't Muslim either. It's an incredibly pervasive political, social and religious powerhouse. But then again, it really appears that most people want to be controlled and lead. Liberalism actually ends up being that.

The threat that the church is now facing, is of an entirely different nature. It comes from both beyond, but more importantly, primarily from within. The church isn't dying due to non-religiosity. Its death comes from losing converts to another religion: Leftism. To which the Church's naive response has been to become more Leftist, to chase down it's former flock, and in doing so, trading in their Christian theology, for Leftist theology.

But aren't the "Mega-Churches" decidely conservative and orthodox? And many Christians that actually do not lose their religion in those Leftist-Liberal denoms actually "come home" if they don't deconvert.

Aren't you forgetting Satan in all of this? Even Judaism's Job-style Satan seems quite the harrasser of Christians.

We have changed society from a Christian framework, to a secular leftist framework, and now church participants who have been raised in that Leftist perspective, are trying to change the nature of Christianity entirely, from within.

Sellouts will always be the case. Jude writes about this in phenominal accuracy. If the libs were dwelling in the Church at its inception, they will be ever-present don't you think?

Remember, sinning feels good.

Look at the leadership of the presbyterian, of the anglicans, of the epescopilian, of the methodist, and so on... they are all Leftwing mouthpieces. taking positions on Palestinian Sovereignty, demanding a flexibility on abortion, marrying homosexuals, demanding the Government do more for the poor, and so on.

I write about these kinds of people in just about every thread I enter. Without doubt, they are no different than the atheists here and in the real world. If you have studied the history og the Humanist/humanism movement, it was The Church and Christians that was/were their target from the start. Note that they basically just plagarize all the value of a Christian life but deny God.

It ain't working. The western world is a cesspool of immorality and vice. If the French revolution didn't kill off The Church, this current crop of Psychology worshipping godless hordes of academic materialists won't kill it off either. There is a rise of apologists and laity to confront this menace.

I do support a new movement within the church, to keep true to its tenants, while reaching out to a more urban crowd, by embracing urbanism, and the urban environment.

Going BACK to its roots huh? The "Black Church" is quite orthodox in the urban jungle. Of course, there will always be the father Pflegers and reverend Sharpton's to try to fleece the flock too though. But the most dangerous person to the Church might be Welton Gaddy and his universalism movement of connecting all sorts of religions and atheist organizations in to one new order.

But this alone won't be enough, if they don't get at the heart of the crux of the matter, which is the current battle to change the orientation, identity, and principles, of traditional Christianity, by so-called Christians of the Left.

We are actively involved in "Contending for the faith delivered only once to the saints."

I can assure you of that. This thread has gotten the attention of many people not of this website. I met with people from California to the Midwest over the very issues and perspective you highlight.

When I have time.

Your perspective is very refreshing to see.

Judaism does not believe in a mythical figure named Satan. Satan is a literary device within Judaism, that is used to help aid in the telling of a story. Satan means "To Oppose," or in other words, an "opposer." There can be nothing supernatural beyond God, or we run into the possibility of polytheism, so God's "oneness" is crucial to our monotheism. The Story of Job is the oldest book in the bible, and its roots predate the Jewish people by several thousand years. It is an ancient near-eastern tale, that was adopted into the bible, with many heavy revisions to make it both ethical, and, in line with the teaching of the torah. Job never existed, Satan never existed, it is entirely a story to paint the framework that we should view God in. All of our efforts may be in vain, and there may be no afterlife following this one, yet we are still to follow the ways of the Torah, as God has instructed us to, because he knows infinitely more then we ever will.

I see that you establish the beginning of the church with Christ, and that is fair, from a Christian perspective. I personally like to think of it being established, only much later. So that is why I didn't include the Roman massacres. The fall of Christianity, however, is coming entirely from within. Christianity can survive a secular assault from outside. It cannot survive if members of its own congregations are pure leftist secularistic humanists, and either then wish to change the orientation of the church to fit Leftism as in mainstream Protestantism, or, leave religion entirely.

You include megachurches, but they are only a response to the undoing of mainline protestantism, by Leftism. Protestantism was the American religious orientation. The rise of megachurches is simply a transfer of Conservative protestants, over to evangelical non-denominations which leaves mainline Protestantism to be largely a Leftist outpost. Mainline protestantism is a dying breed, as they struggle with not only a much much older demographic, but, to fill the isles with young, and middle-aged families.

This is different. The church is changing its orientation completely, from being bible-based, to being social-justice based. There have always been Liberals in Protestant denominations. But we've never had committed Leftists, who are trying to opt out traditional Christian beliefs, that are based on the Bible, for Leftist agendas, that only use what it wants from the bible, to back it's mission of social justice.

Apologists are useless. They fight on behalf of Christian theology. But they do not understand the nature of Leftism, and are are utterly incapable of being affective against it. They offer up stupid arguments, such as one of them given for traditional marriage: "God created Man and Woman to be a complimentary pair." True. But what use is that to someone who 1.) doesn't believe in God, 2.) Could care less if a God exists, and 3.) Thinks the traditional "heterosexist" framework promoted by Christianity is bigoted, so we must therefore drop every prerequisite to marriage, other then "love," and 4.) Only cares to have Equality lived out. And the worst thing about an apologist is their "Faith." It is utterly damaging because it blinds them from addressing truths that run counter to their literal interpretation, of a bible they are misinterpreting. Divorce is one example, marriage is another.

The church is dying. We have to accept that. Only when we accept that we have real problems, can we, as a collective body, begin to fix things. And I'm speaking as a Jew. It was predicted in Germany by an atheist Jew, in the 1830's, that if the Cross should fail in Europe, even with it's history of antisemitism, the Jews will be wiped out completely. 100 years later, his forecast came true, and now, almost 100 years later, secular Europe is once again one of the most antisemitic places on earth. Our survival as Jews depends on a Strong Christian America. So it is as much of a mission, for Jews, to encourage a powerful Christian identity, as it is for Christians.

Persecution complex much ?
Where do you get that Western Europe nowadays is one of the most antisemitic places on earth ? Are you serious ?

[marketandchurch]

...

The reason for the decline in Christianity in Europe is because of an increase in education. The same trend can be seen in the U. S., tho' it is not as dramatic, it has the same cause. Conservative, fundamentalist religion, whether Christian or Islamic, is undermined by education. The same force, education, is the engine that has resulted in a majority of Americans accepting gay marriage. This is a huge shift in American politics and was recently discussed in a TIME cover story.

That is the leftist assumption. This is also why Liberals do not think that we conservatives actually believe in our ideals, since their version of objectivity states that all that has gone wrong throughout history owes its roots to conservatism, & so they couldn't possibly imagine someone taking those "conservative" ideas seriously.

So they categorize us Conservatives into one of several possibilities:

• 1.) He/She doesn't know any better, is mentally inept, stupid.
  2.) He/She could know better, but is misinformed.
  3.) He/She knows better, but has bad motivations.

Conservatives are routinely thrown into the 3rd category. Our variety of folk is to Leftism, what satan worshipers is to Christianity. We know the light, but choose to be on a corporations payroll. We could simply offer up 90% of our income to feed and cloth the have-not's, but our greed has blinded us from love.

It is why we on the Right are Demons, whereas a muslim or Hindu who also opposes Gay Marriage are not necessarily looked down upon. The Left put them in the second category, as being misinformed, and are therefore excused by their "innocence." If they are extremists who go about lynching homosexuals, they may be of the first or second variety, but are still granted innocence if they are non-white, because minorities cannot be corrupt, because they don't have "power." The Left makes excuses for the "powerless," and they think their primitive ways can all be solved by smart, intellectual, evolved, and nuanced Leftist Education.

Education is therefore, there raison d'etat, and the key, in their view, to destroying ignorance, and bringing people over to leftism. Especially the type of "ignorance" that Leftists often cite Fox News as perpetuating, in what it sees as a war to "misinform" the populace, by creating ideological right-wing drones who don't know any better then the ideological drivel they've been brainwashed into regurgitating.

That's why you attach "Smart" to things like growth, and car, and democracy. To denote that you are more morally evolved and intellectually seasoned, then your conservative counterparts, because they have been "educated" in a more enlightening views then their suburban living SUV driving fascist Americans on the Right. Education is overvalued, and utterly worthless in 90% of US colleges. They don't teach you how to think, but what to think about. They are leftists seminary, meant to instruct incoming students, in how to be Leftists.

• It is not a matter of Education, but a matter of Values, that divides the Left and the Right. And that divide is unbridgeable, not because of education, but because these values we hold are antithetical to each other. You worship Diversity(Multiculturalism), and we worship E Pluribus Unum... utter opposites.

Your brush is too broad, and I laugh at you for the part in bold (worthless?).

Care to flesh out your dismissal? Of this being too broad, too sweeping? Dismiss and Describe. That is the Leftist calling card. They cannot compete intellectually in philosophical argumentation, so they don't answer, because they can't. Or maybe they can, but they are just holding out.

Sure!
(For your brush that is too broad)
- That is the leftist assumption.
- This is also why Liberals do not think that we conservatives actually believe in our ideals, since their version of objectivity states that all that has gone wrong throughout history owes its roots to conservatism, & so they couldn't possibly imagine someone taking those "conservative" ideas seriously.
- they categorize us Conservatives into one of several possibilities:
- Our variety of folk is to Leftism, what satan worshipers is to Christianity.
- We know the light, but choose to be on a corporations payroll.
- We could simply offer up 90% of our income to feed and cloth the have-not's, but our greed has blinded us from love.
- It is why we on the Right are Demons
- The Left put them in the second category, as being misinformed, and are therefore excused by their "innocence."
- minorities cannot be corrupt
- The Left makes excuses for the "powerless,"
- they think their primitive ways can all be solved by smart, intellectual, evolved, and nuanced Leftist Education.
*** I'm gonna stop now, I wonder if you can see that so far almost your entire post is included in the "broad brush". ***

For the second, I don't think I need to explain, I'll just post your words again:
Education is overvalued, and utterly worthless in 90% of US colleges.

I don't know, maybe our definition of utterly worthless is different.

No, I meant... can you show how the things that I said is a broad brush generalization of reality. If you are incapable of doing so, that is okay. Either every point listed above is either an accurate reflection of reality, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then please argue why. If it is, then I don't see what the issue is.

And in any event... You didn't answer anything, you just dismissed it as being not answer-worthy. Which is fine. But that is the Leftist tendency, to Dismiss and Describe, but never Answer.