NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
Thats bullshit, in fact it is the point in the debate where you guys just start throwing out crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are just characterizeing what I said in terms of your own preconcieved opinions. I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal. I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business. I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are. Your probelm is that you are so steeped in the dogma of the left that you refuse to accept a deeper truth. The will of the people is ascertained by means of democratic processes. Those processes in a Jeffersonian democracy are supposed to either be worked out at the local level of government or they are suppoesd to be written into the constitution itself in some unequivocal way. The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
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.
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are
Stan Shannon wrote:
I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal.
As a proud homophobe myself who has come out of the closet, I believe I was born that way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business.
a bunch of over paid sex deviants in Washington D.C. I made references which may have led some to believe that I am homophobic. I referred to homosexuality as a sexual perversion. Well, I believe it is a sexual perversion. . . .I would also say that if I publicly proclaim pride in my particular variety of sexual perversion I remain conviced that men become 'gay' for one reason - to have as much sex as they can, without having women there to restrain the natural male inclination to have multiple sexual partners. It is going to take a lot more than the media's unrelenting efforts to make homosexuality more paletable to convince me otherwise.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Jon, I believe that a man and a women having oral or anal sex are sexual perverts. And, yes, I freely admit that I am personally homophobic, and I claim as much right to be homophobic as others do to be homosexual. So, you can post as many of comments as you like. Those arguments are meant to challange the entire notion that one point of view is any more valid than the other. That does not mean that I am opposed to the concept that people should be free to be intimate with other adults in any way they please. What I am opposed to is the notion that homosexuality or any other given form of human sexual perversion should be given any greater inherent degree of legal protection to the traditional views of normal sexual behavior. But even with that, I maintain that such battles should be fought at the local level.
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.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Oakman wrote:
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise ). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is.
That is quite clear. I am reaching the limits of my patience, however. I always forget wrath and lust. My parents didn't believe in indoctrination, so I didn't go to Sunday school. I had to Google 'em.
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism.
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't par
-
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Oakman wrote:
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise ). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is.
That is quite clear. I am reaching the limits of my patience, however. I always forget wrath and lust. My parents didn't believe in indoctrination, so I didn't go to Sunday school. I had to Google 'em.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I always forget wrath and lust
Did you know that Lust is a late-comer to the list? Originally its place in the list was occupied by "Extravagance." I suspect that disappeared about the time Kings and Cardinals began wear ermine-trimmed robes with golden buttons and silk linings. It was easier to hide their mistresses than their clothes.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am reaching the limits of my patience, however
Interesting that I felt that way about a week ago. I realised that there was no conversation going on. Stan sees any interaction here (except, I guess, with Ilion who he rushes to defend) as a storming of his ideological castle to be fought off by any means possible. His response to your post (presently immediately following this one) demonstrates that as well as if it had been a response to a request.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false
History shows a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. If one wants a scientific consensus on the issue, there it is. Religion clearly lends stability to human societies which allows them to become ever larger and more complex.
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.
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
that's laughable is that more than 85% of population of the U.S. buys into it hook, line and sinker.
Wow. What an endorsement of the will of the people. You are actually buttressing Stan's argument here. Clearly by this statistic the US is a Christian Nation. And if truly democratic....
This statement is false
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything.
No, Jon. I am merely presenting a valid world view which you are uncomfortable with. My views are consitent, logical and well grounded in history. Your's are not. Here is a list of my unforgivable sins: 1)Christianity is an important facet of western civilization. 2)Jeffersonian democracy was intentionally designed to be expressed primarily through local political bodies. 3)There is no such thing as a 'right to do what ever you please as long as you are not harming others'. 4)There is no such thing as being endowed by your creator with a right to (a)Use a telephone, (b) have an abortion (c) stick your penis where ever you please. oh, and 5) Defending the legal processes of our federal government, the commander in chiefs role in particular. If anything, I present the widest range of possible points of view of anyone on this forum.
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.
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:49 PM
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism.
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't par
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
You need characterization, don't you? Maybe I'm neither Marxist nor Right. Maybe I'm something else that isn't so easily defined. I have a problem with Christian ideology, because I don't need morals foisted upon me. Particularly a set of morals based on falsehoods. I don't need to be patronized, Stan. I'm quite capable of making my own set of decisions without having to rely on some questionable historical text that's only held in high regard as the result of some kind of misplaced tradition. I'm not who I am because I'm an idiot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
It's neither a social coup nor a revolution. It's a group of people looking for fair and equal treatment.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
that's laughable is that more than 85% of population of the U.S. buys into it hook, line and sinker.
Wow. What an endorsement of the will of the people. You are actually buttressing Stan's argument here. Clearly by this statistic the US is a Christian Nation. And if truly democratic....
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Wow. What an endorsement of the will of the people. You are actually buttressing Stan's argument here. Clearly by this statistic the US is a Christian Nation. And if truly democratic....
I would only be buttressing Stan's argument if he had one. He doesn't because he's not consistent. The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian. That's the irony that also invalidates his argument.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Wow. What an endorsement of the will of the people. You are actually buttressing Stan's argument here. Clearly by this statistic the US is a Christian Nation. And if truly democratic....
I would only be buttressing Stan's argument if he had one. He doesn't because he's not consistent. The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian. That's the irony that also invalidates his argument.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian.
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization.
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art. It also depends on how you define civilization. It also leads to the question of how diverse groups of unassociated people developed similar religious ideologies that were able to bring them together.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian.
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Exactly. But they declare "Christian" anyways.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization.
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art. It also depends on how you define civilization. It also leads to the question of how diverse groups of unassociated people developed similar religious ideologies that were able to bring them together.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art.
Paint a picture of a bison = spear a bison Paint a picture of Betty = **** a Betty. Whether or not it's religion, Betty can show you the way to heaven. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism.
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't par
Stan Shannon wrote:
and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam
And we know so much of your thinking is based on that unforgettable shore leave in San Francisco. :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art.
Paint a picture of a bison = spear a bison Paint a picture of Betty = **** a Betty. Whether or not it's religion, Betty can show you the way to heaven. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:laugh: Yeah, I suppose!
-
Oakman wrote:
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Exactly. But they declare "Christian" anyways.
-
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false