[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:<<< LOL! Reading this made me crack up! What if everyone on this board argued with the same mind set as the self described Christians and pulled quotes from a book and used it as ultimate authority. How fucking hilarious would that be! >>>[/quote]You do… and it is. Only your “book” is autonomous self worshiping sinful human reason.
[/quote]
AND REASON IS THE DEVILS TOOL
[quote]florelius wrote:
How is egalitarianism one aristocrat moving into the office of another?
As far as I know egalitarianism is not a ideology as libertarianism or socialism. Its more of a ideal.[/quote]
Ideology is adherence to ideals.
As it should be, both morality and justice should be equal. I whole heartedly believe that, I, however, can see that what is not equal is political and economical equality, which is as I am sure you know egalitarianism, am I incorrect in that?
Its hard for me to see egalitarian as traditional, naturally countries do not fit to level equality in political and economic power. Egalitarianism calls for that.
Republics and democracies are not the same. I have seen what pseudo-democracy has done to my country, it has turned it almost upside down. The list of consequences is tremendously long, so I’ll give you a few that are dear to my heart. (1) The devaluing of women, (2) the devaluing of life in general, (3) and moral relativity.
[quote]
So you went from libertarianism to conservativism? can I ask why?[/quote]
Because, I stopped looking at the abstracts and started looking at the pragmatic side of things. However, what introduced me (the consequences of leaving tradition were in the back of my head) to conservatism was Catholicism. I decided to read some poets (I was already had been reading C.S. Lewis, G.K Chesterton) for the sake of learning how to write poetry. I started in my own field of knowledge, Catholicism. I picked up T.S Eliot and from him I was introduced to Russell Kirk. I bought some books at a library sale, and right next to one of his books of poetry was a book called the Conservative Mind. I read it, and it made sense. From there I took the individual authors that were referenced in the book. So, far everything has made sense.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:<<< It’s a shame we’re arguing because normally I agree with your posts [/quote]You do? You started the apocalyptic language. I merely stated (in so many words) that THIS country cannot survive as a national whorehouse and won’t. Do you disagree?
How do you regard John Knox (1510-72?) Probably my favorite Skutsmin of all time. A towering colossus of the faith.
[/quote]
I like John Knox and have been to his house/ the church where he preached on choir trips more times than I can count when I was at school. Though I personally believe many of his views were misguided and misogynistic to say the least, at least he had the balls to stand up and voice them. And without him we would have been saddled with Mary Queen of Scots who was a truly awful queen, rather than James VI/I who unified Scotland and England (not officially in an Act of Union before some pedant jumps down my back but in similar terms)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< I remember I once pointed out that the bible is based on nonsense mythology. Tirib posted a wall of text from the bible (I assume), a part of which mentioned a man being pulled up into heaven.
“No, we dont believe in nonsense mythology! Here, read this thing about sky wizard plucking a dude off the earth and bringing him up to heaven, which we now believe is not a physical place at all…!”[/quote]Do you think you could find that because the only man aside from Jesus to be taken bodily into heaven was Enoch and it is not possible to post a wall of text about him. Come on man. I’ve handed you plenty of ammo. No need to make stuff up.
[/quote]
I didn’t say the wall of text was about him, I said it was a wall of text, a part of which mentioned him.
And, yeah, I think it was Enoch. But there you go again saying that a man was physcially lifted off the earth and taken to heaven, which you will also claim is not a physical place at all.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< AND REASON IS THE DEVILS TOOL[/quote]Lord help me LOL! For the one thousandth time. Reason is one of the primary components, hand in hand with moral agency that comprise in man, even fallen sinful man, the image of God. Reason is UNIVERSAL AND NECESSARY, holy, righteous and good when properly used in self conscious submission to the God who is it’s author.
It is sinful, insolent, and the birthplace of all corruption when wrenched from the Father’s hands and turned as a weapon against Him which is the natural state of every child of Adam until born again into new life in the last Adam Jesus Christ. I see this abundantly displayed in all it’s darkened splendor every second I spend in these forums (or anywhere else for that matter, including my own mirror).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Shite thread, Brother Chris![/quote]
Wouldn’t expect anything less.[/quote]
???
You’re making arguments using scriptures from your sci-fi book.[/quote]
Ad hominem. If you don’t see the importance of the Bible in Western culture, I can’t help you. However, I wasn’t the one to bring the Bible into the topic, I only pulled it out when someone asked for proof that Jesus condemned homosexuality. So, go on to the corner and realise that I was speaking on terms of Natural Law, until someone decided to pull out the subject of the Bible. It’s like in court, if the defense attorney pulls out character evidence, the prosecutor gets to bring out character evidence.
A marriage between man and women is relatively recent social institution…interesting. I guess since the beginning of time we have been having butt babies, until recent times.[/quote]
I must have missed your proof that Jesus condemned homosexuality. Having read the bible cover to cover numerous times, I’m quite confident he had nothing to say on the subject. Feel free to provide a specific scriptural reference to the contrary.
Since when does heterosexual intercourse = marriage between one man and one woman? The bible and more reliable historical documents are filled with examples of polygamy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its always the same shit: christians want to dictate who can marry who, christians want to decide on womens reproductive rights, christians want to dictate what can be taught in public schools, christians want to enforce prayer in schools, christians want to ban books…
and then they whine “Waaah, why do you care what we believe? Its not like it affects yooooouu…”[/quote]
Uh, it’s not just Christians. And, America is based on Natural Law, so don’t you find it that we should continue to build on Natural Law?[/quote]
Stop saying this.
Your definition of what is acceptable as Natural Law comes directly from the Catholic Church. So before you start spouting off Thomas Aquinas again, don’t. Your Church propaganda is old and tired. There are many schools of thought in Natural Law, and you ignore anything your secret child molesters club ignores.[/quote]
Thomas Aquinas influenced the West on Natural Law by exploring Aristotle’s Natural Law, get over it.[/quote]
Aristotle is an ancient guy with an ancient mind set. I hope you know that he was ok with slavery and that he was an sexist. So this thus not help your friend aquinas looking good.
ps. You are probably right about he`s influence on europeen civiliation thou.
[/quote]
As one Bishop told me after talking…I have a medieval mindset and myopic piety. Some say I would be sexist, I am definitely a chauvinist in the traditional sense of the word. And, to claim that Aristotle is incorrect because he was sexist and he okay with slavery is ad hominem.
And, that raises the point what is wrong with slavery in general?[/quote]
OMG, I’m this > < close to writing you off as a self-admitted chauvinist, pro-slavery, lemming who dismisses democracy in favor of a government that enforces a pitifully myopic, regressive morality. Seriously dude. You need to wake up, maybe Pat (a fellow Catholic) can talk some sense into you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:<<< LOL! Reading this made me crack up! What if everyone on this board argued with the same mind set as the self described Christians and pulled quotes from a book and used it as ultimate authority. How fucking hilarious would that be! >>>[/quote]You do… and it is. Only your “book” is autonomous self worshiping sinful human reason.
[/quote]
Because the bible has equal demonstrable predictive validity to the scientific research published in, say, Nature.
Oh yeah, it’s not about validity…it’s about faith (which by definition is the absence of validity).
Hilarious.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]
Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.
As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]
slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]
In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.
Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.
I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]
I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< I remember I once pointed out that the bible is based on nonsense mythology. Tirib posted a wall of text from the bible (I assume), a part of which mentioned a man being pulled up into heaven.
“No, we dont believe in nonsense mythology! Here, read this thing about sky wizard plucking a dude off the earth and bringing him up to heaven, which we now believe is not a physical place at all…!”[/quote]Do you think you could find that because the only man aside from Jesus to be taken bodily into heaven was Enoch and it is not possible to post a wall of text about him. Come on man. I’ve handed you plenty of ammo. No need to make stuff up.
[/quote]
I didn’t say the wall of text was about him, I said it was a wall of text, a part of which mentioned him.
And, yeah, I think it was Enoch. But there you go again saying that a man was physcially lifted off the earth and taken to heaven, which you will also claim is not a physical place at all.[/quote]
The bible also has a good story about Elijah being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< I remember I once pointed out that the bible is based on nonsense mythology. Tirib posted a wall of text from the bible (I assume), a part of which mentioned a man being pulled up into heaven.
“No, we dont believe in nonsense mythology! Here, read this thing about sky wizard plucking a dude off the earth and bringing him up to heaven, which we now believe is not a physical place at all…!”[/quote]Do you think you could find that because the only man aside from Jesus to be taken bodily into heaven was Enoch and it is not possible to post a wall of text about him. Come on man. I’ve handed you plenty of ammo. No need to make stuff up.
[/quote]
I didn’t say the wall of text was about him, I said it was a wall of text, a part of which mentioned him.
And, yeah, I think it was Enoch. But there you go again saying that a man was physcially lifted off the earth and taken to heaven, which you will also claim is not a physical place at all.[/quote]
The bible also has a good story about Elijah being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).[/quote]
And people believe this shit.
I don’t get how people can really say “Oh, those ancient stories about Zues and centaurs and all that? Total mythological nonsense. Now Yahweh, and cherubim, and all that – thats totally real!”
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< The bible also has a good story about Elijah being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).[/quote]Excellent!!! You are correct. I should know better by now, but that’s what happens when I rush my posts.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< The bible also has a good story about Elijah being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).[/quote]Excellent!!! You are correct. I should know better by now, but that’s what happens when I rush my posts.
[/quote]
If it was possible for God to literally pull people, bodily, into heaven, why did we not find heaven when we started exploring space?
Didn’t read this thread. Here’s all I have to say about raising children:
With the loads of unworthy straight people producing them (300 unplaced fostercare kids in the area where I used to live and 24 open foster homes), it might be nice to have a few gay couples around wanting to pour their hearts out.
Also, the one child of gay parents that I know personally is one of the most progressive kids I’ve ever met. She’s 9 years old, has 4 moms (her original moms split when she was a little younger so now she travels back and forth), writes, talks, plays piano, and interacts at a much higher age than she is, and DEAR LORD, you have NEVER seen such a confident girl in your life. She will debate degreed adults (her parents both have PhDs as do their circle of friends) and jokes around with quite a bit of wit. She’s self-assured, very learned, in good shape, active, and already concerned about social responsibilities. Also, so far she’s acting very straight.
It’s easy to debate the shoulds, but the truth is that there are too many kids in the world to be concerned about whether or not the people raising them are “ideal” in every way.
First solve the stupid straight people breeding problem, then worry about whether or not a gay couple is better than a straight couple. Because at this point we don’t have the luxury of being picky AT ALL.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< I remember I once pointed out that the bible is based on nonsense mythology. Tirib posted a wall of text from the bible (I assume), a part of which mentioned a man being pulled up into heaven.
“No, we dont believe in nonsense mythology! Here, read this thing about sky wizard plucking a dude off the earth and bringing him up to heaven, which we now believe is not a physical place at all…!”[/quote]Do you think you could find that because the only man aside from Jesus to be taken bodily into heaven was Enoch and it is not possible to post a wall of text about him. Come on man. I’ve handed you plenty of ammo. No need to make stuff up.
[/quote]
I didn’t say the wall of text was about him, I said it was a wall of text, a part of which mentioned him.
And, yeah, I think it was Enoch. But there you go again saying that a man was physcially lifted off the earth and taken to heaven, which you will also claim is not a physical place at all.[/quote]
The bible also has a good story about Elijah being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2).[/quote]
And people believe this shit.
I don’t get how people can really say “Oh, those ancient stories about Zues and centaurs and all that? Total mythological nonsense. Now Yahweh, and cherubim, and all that – thats totally real!”[/quote]
Here’s one of my favorites:
Balaam whipped his stubborn donkey, only to be shocked when the donkey was magically given the gift of speech and complained about animal abuse (Numbers 22):
[quote]26 Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left.
27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff.
28 Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times”?
29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
“No,” he said.[/quote]
I also like the story of God sending 2 bears to devour a group of children that made fun of Elisha’s bald head, Noah putting 2 (or in some cases 7) of every animal on the ark to save them from the global flood, and the servants of Pharaoh turning a staff into a snake, only to have their snake eaten by Moses’ staff which God turned into a bigger snake.
Millions of adults still believe these stories actually happened.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Ideology is adherence to ideals.[/quote]
maybe so, but its not an ideology as socialisme or libertarianism.
[quote]
As it should be, both morality and justice should be equal. I whole heartedly believe that, I, however, can see that what is not equal is political and economical equality, which is as I am sure you know egalitarianism, am I incorrect in that?[/quote]
Yes it is an egalitarian concept that society should be equal in both a economical sense and a political sense, but it is not egalitarians that wants this, its socialists and some leftliberals. You can say that all socialists are political and economical egalitarian, but not every egalitarians are socialists. thous that make sense?
[quote]
Its hard for me to see egalitarian as traditional, naturally countries do not fit to level equality in political and economic power. Egalitarianism calls for that.[/quote]
Egalitarianism is nothing new. Both Islam and Christendom is egalitarian in that respect that they think that all men are equal in the eye of god. Hinduism for example is not an egalitarian religion because they believe that poor/low cast people are so because they have bad carma from previous life. even the egalitarianism of socialism predates Marx with hundreds of years. There did exist communists movements led by munks in the middleages that fought for a classless and egalitarian society. Your country are founded on egalitarian ideas. just think about this term: " we believe all men are created equal", thats as egalitarian you can get it.
[quote]
Republics and democracies are not the same. I have seen what pseudo-democracy has done to my country, it has turned it almost upside down. The list of consequences is tremendously long, so I’ll give you a few that are dear to my heart. (1) The devaluing of women, (2) the devaluing of life in general, (3) and moral relativity.[/quote]
explain what you mean are the difference between republics and democracies? and when you are at it, could you explain what you mean by psuedo-democracy?
and to your points: how is women and life being dealuing?
Morals are relativ aslong the source of morality is hidden.
[quote]
Because, I stopped looking at the abstracts and started looking at the pragmatic side of things. However, what introduced me (the consequences of leaving tradition were in the back of my head) to conservatism was Catholicism. I decided to read some poets (I was already had been reading C.S. Lewis, G.K Chesterton) for the sake of learning how to write poetry. I started in my own field of knowledge, Catholicism. I picked up T.S Eliot and from him I was introduced to Russell Kirk. I bought some books at a library sale, and right next to one of his books of poetry was a book called the Conservative Mind. I read it, and it made sense. From there I took the individual authors that were referenced in the book. So, far everything has made sense.[/quote]
Good for you that you have been more pragmatic, but your extrem respect for traditions are stopping you from being a true pragmatic. A pragmatic will go good for the things he believes gets the job done regardless if its in line with socialist, libertarian or conservativist dogma. The irish parliamentarian Parnell was an great pragmatic, who allied with whoever made him get closer to irish selfrule.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Didn’t read this thread. Here’s all I have to say about raising children:
With the loads of unworthy straight people producing them (300 unplaced fostercare kids in the area where I used to live and 24 open foster homes), it might be nice to have a few gay couples around wanting to pour their hearts out.
Also, the one child of gay parents that I know personally is one of the most progressive kids I’ve ever met. She’s 9 years old, has 4 moms (her original moms split when she was a little younger so now she travels back and forth), writes, talks, plays piano, and interacts at a much higher age than she is, and DEAR LORD, you have NEVER seen such a confident girl in your life. She will debate degreed adults (her parents both have PhDs as do their circle of friends) and jokes around with quite a bit of wit. She’s self-assured, very learned, in good shape, active, and already concerned about social responsibilities. Also, so far she’s acting very straight.
It’s easy to debate the shoulds, but the truth is that there are too many kids in the world to be concerned about whether or not the people raising them are “ideal” in every way.
First solve the stupid straight people breeding problem, then worry about whether or not a gay couple is better than a straight couple. Because at this point we don’t have the luxury of being picky AT ALL.[/quote]Like I say folks. Nothing save for a transforming move of God can save this once great nation from the future represented above. IT IS OVER for the the red white and blue once this world view is in true ascendancy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I must have missed your proof that Jesus condemned homosexuality. Having read the bible cover to cover numerous times, I’m quite confident he had nothing to say on the subject. Feel free to provide a specific scriptural reference to the contrary.[/quote]
Bible is the written word of G-d, Jesus is THE word of G-d. Jesus told the Apostles that if they do not hear them, they do not here him. St. Paul, St. Peter, &c. condemn acting on homosexuality.
I was referencing the article, that traditionally marriage has been between men and women. Yes, and Jesus himself said, at the beginning it was man and woman.
Either way, forlife remember this, it doesn’t bother me anymore that you are homosexual than if you were an alcoholic, a glutton, or a sloth. The problem is not the orientation, it is the acting on the orientation, just like someone would have a problem with an alcoholic acting on his inclinations to drink. As well, I am not a homophobe, as I pointed out earlier that I am talking about all sexual immorality. I understand that America has a problem with homosexuals (a phobia), however I am not one of them. That would be the same as shunning an alcoholic, now if you’re living in sin, there is a difference in that. However, just shunning you because of your orientation is wrong.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]
Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.
As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]
slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]
In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.
Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.
I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]
I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.[/quote]
Example: Obama.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]
Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.
As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]
slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]
In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.
Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.
I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]
I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.[/quote]
Example: Obama.