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?
The Gay Denomination?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 3083
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1901
I don't see that you have made any 'point.' You haven't even defined 'leftist' let alone shown I am a 'leftist' as you claim. What facts do you have for your claim that 'the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks....' That sounds like the kind of drivel that comes from a fact denying liar like Rush Limbaugh. In fact that kind of rhetoric, not its meaning, but the broad sweep of its overgeneralizing style, that we used to hear from the Marxist wingnuts from the 60's.marketandchurch wrote:
You prove my point that Leftists dismiss those they disagree with, instead of grappling with the things they put forward: view post here. Are you philosophically inept that you can't address the issues I bring up, head on, without retorting to some dismissal of the Right, or dismissing my personhood in some regard?
- We on the Right are to be Dismissed, and Described. But never Answered.
Rhetoric can only carry you so far. I can lower myself down to the same level and talk about how the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks to keep them dependent on Leftist government officials who have failed them for generations... but I don't. Because I've put forth before you some pretty good ideas, ideas that have substance, that a true intellectual would salivate to deconstruct, and criticize.
I need depth Danmark. I need substance. Some integrity would be nice. And maybe a little intellectual honesty. And don't reframe the light in which we are to see your original comments about my defining Leftism as a religion. It wasn't just a linguistic bastardization on my part that caused your knee-jerk response.
Back then we were saturated with knee jerk 'liberal' responses. Today we have you and your knee jerk 'rightest' platitudes devoid of facts. You say you need depth. I agree. You do need depth, but I can't give it to you. You have to earn it. I suggest reading in depth, both sides of issues you are interested in. Read something besides Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Read things written by scholars. At least give Mooney's The Republican Brain a try.
If you have 'a point' to make, make it and back it up with facts. You have yet to do so.
I'll even give you a pattern to use. On this issue of homosexuality being a choice or a mental defect and sin, I have given facts from the APA and the DSM and cited former 'Pray away the Gay' organizations disbanding with apologies for the damage they have inflicted by failing to understand that homosexuality is not a choice.
- marketandchurch
- Scholar
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
- Location: The People's Republic Of Portland
Post #1902
Okay, you've proved my point enough already. You dismiss my ideas, and then use the things I say as a launchpad to attack the Right. Which is fine, I don't care.Danmark wrote:I don't see that you have made any 'point.' You haven't even defined 'leftist' let alone shown I am a 'leftist' as you claim. What facts do you have for your claim that 'the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks....' That sounds like the kind of drivel that comes from a fact denying liar like Rush Limbaugh. In fact that kind of rhetoric, not its meaning, but the broad sweep of its overgeneralizing style, that we used to hear from the Marxist wingnuts from the 60's.marketandchurch wrote:
You prove my point that Leftists dismiss those they disagree with, instead of grappling with the things they put forward: view post here. Are you philosophically inept that you can't address the issues I bring up, head on, without retorting to some dismissal of the Right, or dismissing my personhood in some regard?
- We on the Right are to be Dismissed, and Described. But never Answered.
Rhetoric can only carry you so far. I can lower myself down to the same level and talk about how the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks to keep them dependent on Leftist government officials who have failed them for generations... but I don't. Because I've put forth before you some pretty good ideas, ideas that have substance, that a true intellectual would salivate to deconstruct, and criticize.
I need depth Danmark. I need substance. Some integrity would be nice. And maybe a little intellectual honesty. And don't reframe the light in which we are to see your original comments about my defining Leftism as a religion. It wasn't just a linguistic bastardization on my part that caused your knee-jerk response.
Back then we were saturated with knee jerk 'liberal' responses. Today we have you and your knee jerk 'rightest' platitudes devoid of facts. You say you need depth. I agree. You do need depth, but I can't give it to you. You have to earn it. I suggest reading in depth, both sides of issues you are interested in. Read something besides Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Read things written by scholars. At least give Mooney's The Republican Brain a try.
If you have 'a point' to make, make it and back it up with facts. You have yet to do so.
I'll even give you a pattern to use. On this issue of homosexuality being a choice or a mental defect and sin, I have given facts from the APA and the DSM and cited former 'Pray away the Gay' organizations disbanding with apologies for the damage they have inflicted by failing to understand that homosexuality is not a choice.
But I do hope that you have some sense of self-awareness that you first dismissed my post saying that the Left doesn't take our ideas seriously, so they dismiss the ideas and the people who make them, and then retort to attacking the Right. And then preceded in every subsequent post to dismiss me and my ideas, and then attack the conservative right lol.
And just in case you were wondering... I don't agree with Praying away the Gay, and while I've argued against Gay marriage on these forums, I've also defended the dignity of Gays and a right to every benefit in society, other then marriage of course. Your points on the Republican brain does not apply to me, I feel my brain cells die listening to Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage, or Glenn Beck, or Ann coulter. I don't watch TV either. The only media I consume is reading City-Journal, the articles of David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and Walter Russel Mead, the works of Robert Kagan, and one talk-radio show that I pay for, the Dennis Prager show. We can debate the Republican Brain in a new thread if you'd like.
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1903
marketandchurch wrote:Okay, you've proved my point enough already. You dismiss my ideas, and then use the things I say as a launchpad to attack the Right. Which is fine, I don't care.Danmark wrote:I don't see that you have made any 'point.' You haven't even defined 'leftist' let alone shown I am a 'leftist' as you claim. What facts do you have for your claim that 'the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks....' That sounds like the kind of drivel that comes from a fact denying liar like Rush Limbaugh. In fact that kind of rhetoric, not its meaning, but the broad sweep of its overgeneralizing style, that we used to hear from the Marxist wingnuts from the 60's.marketandchurch wrote:
You prove my point that Leftists dismiss those they disagree with, instead of grappling with the things they put forward: view post here. Are you philosophically inept that you can't address the issues I bring up, head on, without retorting to some dismissal of the Right, or dismissing my personhood in some regard?
- We on the Right are to be Dismissed, and Described. But never Answered.
Rhetoric can only carry you so far. I can lower myself down to the same level and talk about how the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks to keep them dependent on Leftist government officials who have failed them for generations... but I don't. Because I've put forth before you some pretty good ideas, ideas that have substance, that a true intellectual would salivate to deconstruct, and criticize.
I need depth Danmark. I need substance. Some integrity would be nice. And maybe a little intellectual honesty. And don't reframe the light in which we are to see your original comments about my defining Leftism as a religion. It wasn't just a linguistic bastardization on my part that caused your knee-jerk response.
Back then we were saturated with knee jerk 'liberal' responses. Today we have you and your knee jerk 'rightest' platitudes devoid of facts. You say you need depth. I agree. You do need depth, but I can't give it to you. You have to earn it. I suggest reading in depth, both sides of issues you are interested in. Read something besides Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Read things written by scholars. At least give Mooney's The Republican Brain a try.
If you have 'a point' to make, make it and back it up with facts. You have yet to do so.
I'll even give you a pattern to use. On this issue of homosexuality being a choice or a mental defect and sin, I have given facts from the APA and the DSM and cited former 'Pray away the Gay' organizations disbanding with apologies for the damage they have inflicted by failing to understand that homosexuality is not a choice.
But I do hope that you have some sense of self-awareness that you first dismissed my post saying that the Left doesn't take our ideas seriously, so they dismiss the ideas and the people who make them, and then retort to attacking the Right. And then preceded in every subsequent post to dismiss me and my ideas, and then attack the conservative right lol.
And just in case you were wondering... I don't agree with Praying away the Gay, and while I've argued against Gay marriage on these forums, I've also defended the dignity of Gays and a right to every benefit in society, other then marriage of course. Your points on the Republican brain does not apply to me, I feel my brain cells die listening to Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage, or Glenn Beck, or Ann coulter. I don't watch TV either. The only media I consume is reading City-Journal, the articles of David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and Walter Russel Mead, the works of Robert Kagan, and one talk-radio show that I pay for, the Dennis Prager show. We can debate the Republican Brain in a new thread if you'd like.
You keep claiming I've proved your point with out demonstrating how this is so. But let's move on. You are dismissing Mooney without reading him. I dismiss astrology and young Earth creationism. What? I'm supposed to investigate this nonsense more thoroughly? We've both seen enough of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Ann coulter to agree that they too can be dismissed without further investigation.
If you have a specific point to make about something and back it up with facts, I'll be happy to engage. But I need something more specific than some generalization that sounds like a tabloid conspiracy theory.
My nephew and others this weekend have been ranting about the Zimmerman verdict and how Florida law is all screwed up. I ask them how they'd change it and if they have even read the jury instructions in the case and if so, what specific changes they would make. That usually ends the discussion, or should. But even if the rant continues it does so without them quoting or even claiming to have read the actual law they complain about.
- marketandchurch
- Scholar
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
- Location: The People's Republic Of Portland
Post #1904
The Republican BrainDanmark wrote:marketandchurch wrote:Okay, you've proved my point enough already. You dismiss my ideas, and then use the things I say as a launchpad to attack the Right. Which is fine, I don't care.Danmark wrote:I don't see that you have made any 'point.' You haven't even defined 'leftist' let alone shown I am a 'leftist' as you claim. What facts do you have for your claim that 'the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks....' That sounds like the kind of drivel that comes from a fact denying liar like Rush Limbaugh. In fact that kind of rhetoric, not its meaning, but the broad sweep of its overgeneralizing style, that we used to hear from the Marxist wingnuts from the 60's.marketandchurch wrote:
You prove my point that Leftists dismiss those they disagree with, instead of grappling with the things they put forward: view post here. Are you philosophically inept that you can't address the issues I bring up, head on, without retorting to some dismissal of the Right, or dismissing my personhood in some regard?
- We on the Right are to be Dismissed, and Described. But never Answered.
Rhetoric can only carry you so far. I can lower myself down to the same level and talk about how the Left is in charge of every American ghetto, and intentionally fails hispanics and blacks to keep them dependent on Leftist government officials who have failed them for generations... but I don't. Because I've put forth before you some pretty good ideas, ideas that have substance, that a true intellectual would salivate to deconstruct, and criticize.
I need depth Danmark. I need substance. Some integrity would be nice. And maybe a little intellectual honesty. And don't reframe the light in which we are to see your original comments about my defining Leftism as a religion. It wasn't just a linguistic bastardization on my part that caused your knee-jerk response.
Back then we were saturated with knee jerk 'liberal' responses. Today we have you and your knee jerk 'rightest' platitudes devoid of facts. You say you need depth. I agree. You do need depth, but I can't give it to you. You have to earn it. I suggest reading in depth, both sides of issues you are interested in. Read something besides Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Read things written by scholars. At least give Mooney's The Republican Brain a try.
If you have 'a point' to make, make it and back it up with facts. You have yet to do so.
I'll even give you a pattern to use. On this issue of homosexuality being a choice or a mental defect and sin, I have given facts from the APA and the DSM and cited former 'Pray away the Gay' organizations disbanding with apologies for the damage they have inflicted by failing to understand that homosexuality is not a choice.
But I do hope that you have some sense of self-awareness that you first dismissed my post saying that the Left doesn't take our ideas seriously, so they dismiss the ideas and the people who make them, and then retort to attacking the Right. And then preceded in every subsequent post to dismiss me and my ideas, and then attack the conservative right lol.
And just in case you were wondering... I don't agree with Praying away the Gay, and while I've argued against Gay marriage on these forums, I've also defended the dignity of Gays and a right to every benefit in society, other then marriage of course. Your points on the Republican brain does not apply to me, I feel my brain cells die listening to Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage, or Glenn Beck, or Ann coulter. I don't watch TV either. The only media I consume is reading City-Journal, the articles of David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and Walter Russel Mead, the works of Robert Kagan, and one talk-radio show that I pay for, the Dennis Prager show. We can debate the Republican Brain in a new thread if you'd like.
You keep claiming I've proved your point with out demonstrating how this is so. But let's move on. You are dismissing Mooney without reading him. I dismiss astrology and young Earth creationism. What? I'm supposed to investigate this nonsense more thoroughly? We've both seen enough of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Ann coulter to agree that they too can be dismissed without further investigation.
If you have a specific point to make about something and back it up with facts, I'll be happy to engage. But I need something more specific than some generalization that sounds like a tabloid conspiracy theory.
My nephew and others this weekend have been ranting about the Zimmerman verdict and how Florida law is all screwed up. I ask them how they'd change it and if they have even read the jury instructions in the case and if so, what specific changes they would make. That usually ends the discussion, or should. But even if the rant continues it does so without them quoting or even claiming to have read the actual law they complain about.
No because I've read his thoughts before, and I've read the Linguist George Lakoff's perspective on the Republican brain, and Lewis Lapham's opinions on the Republican Brain. If you've read Lakoff's work, and Lapham's work, then you've read it all. It is the same junk science that was used to declare Barry Goldwater as mentally unfit to run for office, and to paint Reagan, Bush, and Romney, as idiots, and they are all done by Leftwing academics. When the same social scientist can draw the same conclusions about Obama, Hillary, Kerry, and Carter, only then will I believe that there's some credibility to Mooney's work.
Are You Afraid of Ideas?
Before you even knew what I listened to or read, you cited some clowns from Fox News who have also said the same things that I have, and then knocked down those self-made strawman you constructed, instead of proving your intellectual strength. Instead of answering my points, you dismiss them on the basis that other people you don't like have also made similar points, and then use it as an excuse to go off on Conservatives. Am I supposed to defend those clowns? I do dismiss 70% of that which those people you cite say. They are high on rhetoric and low on substance.
But just because you cite those people as idiots who aren't worth rebutting doesn't mean that you are excused intellectually from grappling with the issue that Leftists don't debate ideas, they dismiss and attack. Which is fine, if the limits of your intellectual orientation prevent you from entertaining ideas that run counter to your own beliefs. I can't help that. But stop making this about Fox News. This is about your inability to entertain antithetical notions.
Creationism y Astrology
The bible demands that I dismiss young earth creationism as well. So does Aquinas, and Newton, and Galileo. I'm not familiar with astrology, and I don't see how the natural world can predict my future. It would require me to believe that the supernatural permeates nature? Again, this is dismissed by Aquinas, Newton, and Galileo.
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1905
I think you are operating under a misapprehension regarding Mooney's book. Lapham does not even appear in the index of the book. Lakoff is criticized in part. Of more interest is the underlying data in several studies. What the book is NOT about is any assertion that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. What the book is about is a correlation between the way people with different political outlooks process information.marketandchurch wrote:
The Republican Brain
No because I've read his thoughts before, and I've read the Linguist George Lakoff's perspective on the Republican brain, and Lewis Lapham's opinions on the Republican Brain. If you've read Lakoff's work, and Lapham's work, then you've read it all. It is the same junk science that was used to declare Barry Goldwater as mentally unfit to run for office, and to paint Reagan, Bush, and Romney, as idiots, and they are all done by Leftwing academics. When the same social scientist can draw the same conclusions about Obama, Hillary, Kerry, and Carter, only then will I believe that there's some credibility to Mooney's work.
Are You Afraid of Ideas?
A brief example:
The study, which examined the brain activity of 35 men and 47 women registered as either Democrat or Republican, found no difference in the amount of risk people of each political persuasion were willing to take on during a gambling game. But the way the brain processed risk worked differently between the groups, with Republicans showing more activity in an area linked with reward, fear and risky decisions and Democrats showing more activity in a spot related to processing emotion and internal body cues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 17731.html
This is obviously not pejorative to either group. It simply demonstrates a difference in the way information is processed. And that is the point of the book. There are several studies that show liberals in general are more prone to factual analysis almost to the point of inaction; whereas conservatives are more decisive and quicker to respond. In other words, liberals may be better at getting the facts right and making the better decision eventually, but you might be better off with a conservative in a tight spot that requires a quick decision. Another example is the studies Mooney relied on found that Republicans put a higher value on loyalty than did Democrats. I hate to try and quickly summarize, so suggest you read it yourself. But it is NOT a book designed to trash Republicans.
Again, I'm happy to address some 'new idea' of yours. I simply ask that you state it clearly and give the facts that support it.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 3083
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am
Post #1906
I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.marketandchurch wrote:99percentatheism wrote: marketandchurchThe driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery is just as guilty of bank robbing as are the actual robbers IN the bank.Just because someone is Gay, does not mean that they therefore want to destroy Christianity.
Do the demons see their group and behaviors as evil? Did the Vikings see their behaviors and group as evil?But the LGBT community as a political and cultural force, do want to destroy Christianity, because they are on the Left, and the Left has a narrative wherein evil comes from beyond, not from within, and if the human being is basically good, and if evil comes from beyond, then it is institutional, and institutionally perpetuated.
It's fascinating that they are all well defined in the secular world and worldview. Instututionalized liberalism is actually killing massive numbers of people through the permissiveness that is cause and effect of liberalism.They see all of the evil's of history, from slavery, to monarchy, to the subjugation of women, to hanging homosexuals, colonialism, as being institutional.
Through a calculated humanist propaganda. Christianity has been an incredible force of good to the mordernizing western world. The Vikings became Christians and stopped raping and pillaging.And they also view the institution of Christianity, as not only the perpetuator of this tradition of evil historically speaking, but the inheritors and current carriers of that tradition today.
Whatever side of the gay debate you are on, I appreciate your accurate history here.So it is, from the point of view of the Left, an imperative that Christianity be destroyed.
Satan thought the same thing about Job.They think that if they can destroy Christianity, they can destroy conservatism, and to a large degree, they are right.
All they can do to Christians is what they did in the great persecutions. Christianity, as in "The Church," cannot and will not be destroyed by the likes of what "The Left" represents in today's world. It can be seriously affected by it, but only in the picking off of some people to the dark side. The Church is configured as is the Jewish people. Diaspora and a wide array of congregations is a safe place and good strategy to keep from being rounded up like sheep and slaughtered. "The Church " is a product of Torah-Observant "Jews," or rather, the people Isreal. And no power on Earth can wipe that away until Ha Shem is done with Earth.
But let's get back on track to the OP . . .
So a Gay who opposes LGBT efforts to destroy marriage, and subsequently, Christianity, is at fault for the destruction of marriage, and christianity? I don't quite follow that.
On the issue of Evil... no one wakes up asking how they can hurt or destroy something. The Left doesn't think they are destroying Christianity, they think they are saving Christians from themselves, and saving the world from Christianity.
Christianity, as a force for good, has no moral equivalent in history. No other institution has fed more hungry, clothed more naked, healed more sick, housed more homeless, taught more people to read, gave more people employment, and lifted more people out of a life of barbarism, then Christianity. And there is no close second.
The Job example doesn't work, because the point of that story wasn't about Job's resolve, it was about Job's inability to comprehend God. If Christianity fails, that is it, and a world of cruelty, unlike anything we've ever seen, will ensue. It's already happening... look at the pathetic state of the European Union? When has a Frenchman or a Swede ever died liberating the oppressed? If America becomes another Sweden, and the Cross fails here as it had in Europe, then cruelty and suffering will be uncontrollable, only this time, it'll be far far worse then at any point in history, because of the collective amassed powers of the Modern State.
If you are a conservative... then don't make the leftist naive assumption of "We'll be the exception in history." Never say Never. Who thought that Christianity would largely die out on the European continent? Being wiped off the earth is not what I'm talking about. If Europeans were at one point 90% Christian, and are now 25% Christian, it is safe to say that they are not only dying out, but have died out enough to be irrelevant in shaping society, and the world, which is all that really matters in the final analysis.
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.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9467
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1005 times
- Been thanked: 1311 times
Post #1907
Sense you asked. IMO, you are delusional about this topic.99percentatheism wrote:The way Christians are treated here and in real life proves that paranoia is simply a charge to intimidate Christians that won't become like the permissive society that demands anything goes. Oh yeah, "between consenting adults." Is it paranoia to recognize how degenerate our teens (and pre-teens) are becoming by following the adult role models of sexual depravity and promiscuity? Or is it a delusion I'm having that there is now a need for a vaccine that prevents a cancer caused by promiscuity?Clownboat wrote:You seem to understand that there are all kinds of straight people out there, but the gay community all follows some cause that you seem to think is about dismantling your religion.And please, please, don't compare the wrongs commited by straight people to say that LGBT's are no different in their cause.
What seems more likely? The gays are out to get you and your church?
or
Religious paranoia is a condition which has been compared to extremism and intolerance.[1] It has been cited as a possible contributor to political violence.[2][3] It is often related to splitting, psychological projection, a desire to maintain a sense of purity in situations of real or perceived persecution, and rigid and unchallengeable attitudes.
My life experience leads me to believe that the later is more likely.
There is no gay agenda that is attacking your church. This is about equal rights. I would imagine, most gays don't care about your version of Christianity.
There are some homosexual Christians that care though, but I have seen no evidence of some agenda against your specific belief. This "agenda" comes across as paranoia IMO.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9467
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1005 times
- Been thanked: 1311 times
Post #1908
99percentatheism wrote: marketandchurchJust because someone is Gay, does not mean that they therefore want to destroy Christianity.Now you claim that being gay makes you just as guilty of wanting to destroy Christianity as a getaway driver of a bank robbery is guilty for being the driver.99 wrote:The driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery is just as guilty of bank robbing as are the actual robbers IN the bank.
How is it that you are not aware that there are some homosexuals that don't give a rats butt about your religion? It's these kinds of statements that really bring home that this is a paranoia on your part.
This is ridiculous IMO. Thank you.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9467
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1005 times
- Been thanked: 1311 times
Post #1909
Your entire argument is not accurate due to the fact that there are good atheists and followers of other religions on this planet.marketandchurch wrote:99percentatheism wrote: marketandchurchThe driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery is just as guilty of bank robbing as are the actual robbers IN the bank.Just because someone is Gay, does not mean that they therefore want to destroy Christianity.
Do the demons see their group and behaviors as evil? Did the Vikings see their behaviors and group as evil?But the LGBT community as a political and cultural force, do want to destroy Christianity, because they are on the Left, and the Left has a narrative wherein evil comes from beyond, not from within, and if the human being is basically good, and if evil comes from beyond, then it is institutional, and institutionally perpetuated.
It's fascinating that they are all well defined in the secular world and worldview. Instututionalized liberalism is actually killing massive numbers of people through the permissiveness that is cause and effect of liberalism.They see all of the evil's of history, from slavery, to monarchy, to the subjugation of women, to hanging homosexuals, colonialism, as being institutional.
Through a calculated humanist propaganda. Christianity has been an incredible force of good to the mordernizing western world. The Vikings became Christians and stopped raping and pillaging.And they also view the institution of Christianity, as not only the perpetuator of this tradition of evil historically speaking, but the inheritors and current carriers of that tradition today.
Whatever side of the gay debate you are on, I appreciate your accurate history here.So it is, from the point of view of the Left, an imperative that Christianity be destroyed.
Satan thought the same thing about Job.They think that if they can destroy Christianity, they can destroy conservatism, and to a large degree, they are right.
All they can do to Christians is what they did in the great persecutions. Christianity, as in "The Church," cannot and will not be destroyed by the likes of what "The Left" represents in today's world. It can be seriously affected by it, but only in the picking off of some people to the dark side. The Church is configured as is the Jewish people. Diaspora and a wide array of congregations is a safe place and good strategy to keep from being rounded up like sheep and slaughtered. "The Church " is a product of Torah-Observant "Jews," or rather, the people Isreal. And no power on Earth can wipe that away until Ha Shem is done with Earth.
But let's get back on track to the OP . . .
So a Gay who opposes LGBT efforts to destroy marriage, and subsequently, Christianity, is at fault for the destruction of marriage, and christianity? I don't quite follow that.
On the issue of Evil... no one wakes up asking how they can hurt or destroy something. The Left doesn't think they are destroying Christianity, they think they are saving Christians from themselves, and saving the world from Christianity.
Christianity, as a force for good, has no moral equivalent in history. No other institution has fed more hungry, clothed more naked, healed more sick, housed more homeless, taught more people to read, gave more people employment, and lifted more people out of a life of barbarism, then Christianity. And there is no close second.
The Job example doesn't work, because the point of that story wasn't about Job's resolve, it was about Job's inability to comprehend God. If Christianity fails, that is it, and a world of cruelty, unlike anything we've ever seen, will ensue. It's already happening... look at the pathetic state of the European Union? When has a Frenchman or a Swede ever died liberating the oppressed? If America becomes another Sweden, and the Cross fails here as it had in Europe, then cruelty and suffering will be uncontrollable, only this time, it'll be far far worse then at any point in history, because of the collective amassed powers of the Modern State.
If you are a conservative... then don't make the leftist naive assumption of "We'll be the exception in history." Never say Never. Who thought that Christianity would largely die out on the European continent? Being wiped off the earth is not what I'm talking about. If Europeans were at one point 90% Christian, and are now 25% Christian, it is safe to say that they are not only dying out, but have died out enough to be irrelevant in shaping society, and the world, which is all that really matters in the final analysis.
I know you don't like it, but you don't have to be a Christian in order to be a good person.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9467
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1005 times
- Been thanked: 1311 times
Post #1910
Your brush is too broad, and I laugh at you for the part in bold (worthless?).marketandchurch wrote:Danmark wrote:
...
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:
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.
- 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.
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.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb