What It Means To Be Christian
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No we're not...we are born not knowing. You choose to be an atheist.
Actually, it's genetic and Gay scientists have isolated the Christian gene[^]. :rolleyes: Seriously, though. Suppose you were born on a remote island and nobody ever told you about any of the religions. Would you have chosen to be an atheist? For a real example, take the eskimos -- did they choose to be atheists before missionaries visited them?
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
For a real example, take the eskimos -- did they choose to be atheists before missionaries visited them?
Nope, they definitely didn't choose to be atheists ESKIMO HEAVEN AND HELL by Nalungiaq "There is the Land of the Sky, a good place where there is no sorrow and fear. There have been wise men who went there and came back to tell us about it: They saw people playing ball, happy people who did nothing but laugh and amuse themselves. What we see from down here in the form of stars are the lighted windows of the villages of the dead in the Land of the Sky. "But there is another place, the Land of the Miserable, right under the surface of the earth we walk on. There go all the lazy men who were poor hunters, and all women who refused to be tattooed, not caring to suffer a little to become beautiful. They had no life in them when they lived so now after death they must squat on their haunches with hanging heads, bad-tempered and silent, and live in hunger and idleness because they wasted their lives." Source
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Well, hell why not throw Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon into the mix. Or, for that matter, Abraham Lincoln. The republican party was born at about the same time, and in response to the same basic social forces as Marxism. The republicans are not a conservative party, they are a pro-business and industry party.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The republicans are not a conservative party, they are a pro-business and industry party.
Exactly. They promote socialism when it benefits business or industry. There never was a true conservative party and probably never will be because it is as impractical in real life as is communism. No pure ideology survives the pollution of contact with human implementers of the ideology.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Romans 10:9 says "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved".
Note the part about "believe in thine heart." Since Muslims deem it no sin to lie to non-Muslims, and it's clear that Obama and untruth are not strangers, it requires an act of faith to believe he became a Christian after moving to Chicago and hearing some of Reverend Wright's inspirational sermons. Certainly, it's not impossible, but definitely his conversion was convenient.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
definitely his conversion was convenient
As are many.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The republicans are not a conservative party, they are a pro-business and industry party.
Exactly. They promote socialism when it benefits business or industry. There never was a true conservative party and probably never will be because it is as impractical in real life as is communism. No pure ideology survives the pollution of contact with human implementers of the ideology.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
They promote socialism when it benefits business or industry. There never was a true conservative party and probably never will be because it is as impractical in real life as is communism. No pure ideology survives the pollution of contact with human implementers of the ideology.
Actually, I don't disagree with that. Except, that I would assert that the democrat party has become a fully leftist party. The problem conservatives have is that there are so many different views of what being a conservative means. The libertarians are fighting hard to own the label.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Helpful hint: if you want to link to a post, first click permalink inside that post to get the post's address displayed in the address bar.
John Carson
-
Helpful hint: if you want to link to a post, first click permalink inside that post to get the post's address displayed in the address bar.
John Carson
Thanks.
-
Al Beback wrote:
We're all born atheists.
No we're not...we are born not knowing. You choose to be an atheist.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No we're not...we are born not knowing. You choose to be an atheist.
Atheism means lack of belief in deities. No one is born believing in invisible wizards, just like no one is born believing in Santa Claus.
Sooner or later people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads, you don't have much of a vision for the future. -- John McCain
John McCain has been throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at me... all 7 of them. -- Barrack Obamamodified on Saturday, November 1, 2008 5:40 AM
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
They promote socialism when it benefits business or industry. There never was a true conservative party and probably never will be because it is as impractical in real life as is communism. No pure ideology survives the pollution of contact with human implementers of the ideology.
Actually, I don't disagree with that. Except, that I would assert that the democrat party has become a fully leftist party. The problem conservatives have is that there are so many different views of what being a conservative means. The libertarians are fighting hard to own the label.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
definitely his conversion was convenient
As are many.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
No you don't choose, logic and experience forces you to that conclusion.
Hunger forces me to eat; weariness forces me to sleep. Logic and experience inform my understanding of the world at large. I eat, knowing that i will be hungry again; likewise, i slumber with the knowledge that i will grow weary again. And my understanding of the world around me grows and changes each day. Don't consider a lack of appetite sufficient evidence that you will never eat again.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Nice Explanation. Got my 5.
Sathesh. Blessed is the season which engages the whole world in a conspiracy of love.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
No you don't choose, logic and experience forces you to that conclusion.
Hunger forces me to eat; weariness forces me to sleep. Logic and experience inform my understanding of the world at large. I eat, knowing that i will be hungry again; likewise, i slumber with the knowledge that i will grow weary again. And my understanding of the world around me grows and changes each day. Don't consider a lack of appetite sufficient evidence that you will never eat again.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
I do not choose to be an atheist. I see no evidence for a god in the world around me so I cannot believe in a god. Without evidence that a god exists I can no more choose to believe that one exists than I can choose to believe that testicle-whales* exist on Jupiter. * - see a previous post. Long explanation!
-
I do not choose to be an atheist. I see no evidence for a god in the world around me so I cannot believe in a god. Without evidence that a god exists I can no more choose to believe that one exists than I can choose to believe that testicle-whales* exist on Jupiter. * - see a previous post. Long explanation!
Steve_Harris wrote:
Without evidence that a god exists I can no more choose to believe that one exists
You can choose to believe a god exists, that is the essence of faith.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
For a real example, take the eskimos -- did they choose to be atheists before missionaries visited them?
Nope, they definitely didn't choose to be atheists ESKIMO HEAVEN AND HELL by Nalungiaq "There is the Land of the Sky, a good place where there is no sorrow and fear. There have been wise men who went there and came back to tell us about it: They saw people playing ball, happy people who did nothing but laugh and amuse themselves. What we see from down here in the form of stars are the lighted windows of the villages of the dead in the Land of the Sky. "But there is another place, the Land of the Miserable, right under the surface of the earth we walk on. There go all the lazy men who were poor hunters, and all women who refused to be tattooed, not caring to suffer a little to become beautiful. They had no life in them when they lived so now after death they must squat on their haunches with hanging heads, bad-tempered and silent, and live in hunger and idleness because they wasted their lives." Source
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Brilliant!
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
Without evidence that a god exists I can no more choose to believe that one exists
You can choose to believe a god exists, that is the essence of faith.
I cannot choose to believe that a god for whom there is no evidence exists, that is the essence of me.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Obama is no Marxist
Yes, he is. There is absolutely nothing in his background aside from a few months of campaign rhetoric to suggest otherwise. His entire personnel history is utterly leftist.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Republicans are socialists
No, they aren't. A republican president suddenly finding himself needing to act to save the economy from leftist mismanagement doesn't make the republican party socialist. They may not be conservatives, but they are most certainly not socialist.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
His entire personnel history is utterly leftist.
Being leftist does not equate to being Marxist. All Marxists are leftists but not all leftists are Marxists. Actually, I dislike the terms Left and Right. They're anti-conceptual. I would substitute socialist for leftist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they [Republicans] aren't
I did add a smiley. :) I wouldn't call Republicans socialist. However, both Democrats and Republicans are thoroughly statist. Also, in practice, viewed from Europe, I don't see much difference between the two.
Kevin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
His entire personnel history is utterly leftist.
Being leftist does not equate to being Marxist. All Marxists are leftists but not all leftists are Marxists. Actually, I dislike the terms Left and Right. They're anti-conceptual. I would substitute socialist for leftist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they [Republicans] aren't
I did add a smiley. :) I wouldn't call Republicans socialist. However, both Democrats and Republicans are thoroughly statist. Also, in practice, viewed from Europe, I don't see much difference between the two.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
but not all leftists are Marxists.
Yeah, they are. Whatever differences there may be are entirely for show, or entirely fleeting. There is only one conclusion to the logic of collectivism. It is insidious and inevitable, a little bit justifies a little bit more.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Actually, I dislike the terms Left and Right. They're anti-conceptual. I would substitute socialist for leftist.
I agree. Still trying to break myself of the habit. I prefer 'collectivist', since that more accurately describes the basic political principles. The goal of all flavors of socialism is to create a collective society ruled by and endebted to a centralized political elite.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
but not all leftists are Marxists.
Yeah, they are. Whatever differences there may be are entirely for show, or entirely fleeting. There is only one conclusion to the logic of collectivism. It is insidious and inevitable, a little bit justifies a little bit more.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Actually, I dislike the terms Left and Right. They're anti-conceptual. I would substitute socialist for leftist.
I agree. Still trying to break myself of the habit. I prefer 'collectivist', since that more accurately describes the basic political principles. The goal of all flavors of socialism is to create a collective society ruled by and endebted to a centralized political elite.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, they are. Whatever differences there may be are entirely for show
Marxism is a highly specific version of socialism with all its accompanying theory. It's just intellectually sloppy to lump all socialists as Marxists.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is only one conclusion to the logic of collectivism
Collectivism is a more appropriate label for subsuming the various types of socialism including Nazism and Fascism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I prefer 'collectivist', since that more accurately describes the basic political principles.
I agree.
Kevin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, they are. Whatever differences there may be are entirely for show
Marxism is a highly specific version of socialism with all its accompanying theory. It's just intellectually sloppy to lump all socialists as Marxists.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is only one conclusion to the logic of collectivism
Collectivism is a more appropriate label for subsuming the various types of socialism including Nazism and Fascism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I prefer 'collectivist', since that more accurately describes the basic political principles.
I agree.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Marxism is a highly specific version of socialism with all its accompanying theory.
No, they are all simply various techniques to try getting the original concept to work properly. Marxism is the best term because it personalizes the underlieing principles. It puts a face on it. Otherwise, it is simply allowed to a poorly defined, ambiguous blob which disquise is itself as one thing and then another as needed to obfuscate its true objectives.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Collectivism is a more appropriate label for subsuming the various types of socialism including Nazism and Fascism.
Exactly. And there is no reason not to do that. The association between them should be clearly articulated.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Marxism is a highly specific version of socialism with all its accompanying theory.
No, they are all simply various techniques to try getting the original concept to work properly. Marxism is the best term because it personalizes the underlieing principles. It puts a face on it. Otherwise, it is simply allowed to a poorly defined, ambiguous blob which disquise is itself as one thing and then another as needed to obfuscate its true objectives.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Collectivism is a more appropriate label for subsuming the various types of socialism including Nazism and Fascism.
Exactly. And there is no reason not to do that. The association between them should be clearly articulated.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, they are all simply various techniques to try getting the original concept to work properly. Marxism is the best term because it personalizes the underlieing principles. It puts a face on it. Otherwise, it is simply allowed to a poorly defined, ambiguous blob which disquise is itself as one thing and then another as needed to obfuscate its true objectives.
Oh my GOD you're incredibly boring! :zzz: What you're doing is attempting to discredit Liberalism by associating it with Communism. You're also making an incredibly dubious assumption that there are only two possible political motives in the world, even going so far as accusing an 8th grader in AUSTRALIA of attempting to empower your 'State' against you and the good old United States of America. :doh:
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No we're not...we are born not knowing. You choose to be an atheist.
Atheism means lack of belief in deities. No one is born believing in invisible wizards, just like no one is born believing in Santa Claus.
Sooner or later people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads, you don't have much of a vision for the future. -- John McCain
John McCain has been throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at me... all 7 of them. -- Barrack Obamamodified on Saturday, November 1, 2008 5:40 AM
Al Beback wrote:
No one is born believing in invisible wizards, just like no one is born believing in Santa Claus
You know this, right? Humans are not born with any mind at all? They have not made any attempt to understand or explain their environment at all? All of the research that suggest that a fetus is affected by and interacts with its environment is wrong? You have read, or divined, the truth in this matter and any further research or investigation into what a newborn thinks is a waste of time?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface