[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]
Perhaps Elijah was really an ancient alien.
[quote]forlife wrote:
OMG, I’m this > < close[/quote]
Glad I have a big monitor.
Well…I am, but not sure why you would write me off. My chauvinism isn’t that man is better than women (I mean he is in various things), but that women are of higher dignity and should be treated as such.
[quote]
pro-slavery[/quote]
It is not necessarily that I am pro-slavery (I am not), I just am not anti-government. In some places they vary well may have a legit form of slavery…say indentured servants. I am not advocating we go back to kidnapping Africans and selling them for sugar and rum. Forlife, you have known me for a decent time, you know you can’t just give a general sweeping statement about me with out objections.
Lemming? You use the cutest rodent to describe me…I see your true affection. No, I dismiss democracy as implausible that every man has an equal vote. I, however, do dismiss universal suffrage for that of a Republic, which is more to what the United States already is.
Regressive, how do you mean regressive? And, I didn’t know natural law was regressive, can you explain?
I’m not sure what you’re talking back can you explain a little further.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
You’re making arguments using scriptures from your sci-fi book.[/quote]
Mak addressed this point. I see its “importance” as I would any other document written from the time period.
And you are correct, it’s not science fiction, the Bible is moar liek Fairy Talezz!!111!!
You are using Natural Law - the Church version - to make your arguments.
Anytime you bring religion into these debates you automatically Fail.
[quote]
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 know you aren’t retarded. Address the rest of the paragraph that you omitted.
Broski Chris, didn’t you once claim to be a “sponsor” in your church for teh gheys where you would try and rehabilitate them and such?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
In other words, you can’t point to even one scripture where Jesus said anything negative about gays. And you’re wrong about Peter as well. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is the ONLY person in the entire new testament to hate on gays, and this is the same man whom most cherry picking Christians choose to ignore when it comes to his condemnation of women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Why? Because misogyny is no longer socially acceptable. Nor is homophobia, increasingly even in this country.
It doesn’t bother me that you are a fundamentalist, literalist Christian any more than if you were an alcoholic, a glutton, or a sloth. The problem is not the emotional insecurity requiring absolute answers to life’s biggest questions. It is the acting on that insecurity, particularly trying to force others to accept the same emotionally driven answers as facts. I am not anti-Christian; I am talking about all fictional (i.e., faith based) beliefs driven by what people want to be true rather than by what actually is true. I understand that some people hate all Christians, however I am not one of them. That would be the same as shunning an alcoholic. Now, if you’re trying to legislate your fictional beliefs, there is a difference in that. However, just shunning you because of your emotional beliefs is wrong.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
Obama isn’t my master. He doesn’t own me and I am not his slave. Are you?
Oh, you meant to say that some men are meant to lead others, rather than some men are meant to own others. Glad you clarified that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
OMG, I’m this > < close[/quote]
Glad I have a big monitor.
Well…I am, but not sure why you would write me off. My chauvinism isn’t that man is better than women (I mean he is in various things), but that women are of higher dignity and should be treated as such.
I was talking about this recent rash of statements from you. When you shared the observation by a priest that you are medievally myopic in your perspectives, it suddenly all made sense. My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality.
Biblical morality is certainly regressive. The old testament is regressive compared to the new testament. And the writings of Paul are regressive, on issues like slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality, compared to what we’ve learned in the subsequent 2,000 years of social enlightenment.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It doesn’t bother me that you are a fundamentalist, literalist Christian any more than if you were an alcoholic, a glutton, or a sloth. The problem is not the emotional insecurity requiring absolute answers to life’s biggest questions. It is the acting on that insecurity, particularly trying to force others to accept the same emotionally driven answers as facts. I am not anti-Christian; I am talking about all fictional (i.e., faith based) beliefs driven by what people want to be true rather than by what actually is true. I understand that some people hate all Christians, however I am not one of them. That would be the same as shunning an alcoholic. Now, if you’re trying to legislate your fictional beliefs, there is a difference in that. However, just shunning you because of your emotional beliefs is wrong.[/quote]
Sweet jesus, I’d kiss you for this.
Cough um, no homo.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality. >>>[/quote]This doesn’t mean division in Rome does it? I hope you’re listening Pat. Is this really the imprimatur you want on your theology/morality? No jabs or sarcasm this time. I am dead serious here.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Cough um, no homo.[/quote]Why not? What difference would it make if you were?
[quote]Bambi wrote:<<< It’s a shame we’re arguing because normally I agree with your posts >>>[/quote]This has been on my mind since yesterday. I find it hard to believe that you actually agree with me on real substance. I might be wrong. Could I trouble you for a bit of what you agree and disagree with me about. I’m sincerely asking.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality. >>>[/quote]This doesn’t mean division in Rome does it? I hope you’re listening Pat. Is this really the imprimatur you want on your theology/morality? No jabs or sarcasm this time. I am dead serious here.
[/quote]
Like there are no divisions in other Christian sects including, by your own admission, Calvinist traditions.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Cough um, no homo.[/quote]Why not? What difference would it make if you were?
[/quote]
I thought it was pretty funny.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:<<< It’s a shame we’re arguing because normally I agree with your posts >>>[/quote]This has been on my mind since yesterday. I find it hard to believe that you actually agree with me on real substance. I might be wrong. Could I trouble you for a bit of what you agree and disagree with me about. I’m sincerely asking.
[/quote]
I usually find your explanations on faith very firm and reasoned. Though I do not believe in religion as a public entity, I can understand your reasoning behind your thoughts and actions and your posts on religion have always been exemplary. However I find your pessimistic view of youth a tad overblown and it came across as a ‘people these days are not as good as we were’. Perhaps if we create another thread you could explain your reasoning and clarify your thoughts?
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Like there are no divisions in other Christian sects including, by your own admission, Calvinist traditions.[/quote]We don’t claim to be “the one true most holy and apostolic visible church”.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I thought it was pretty funny.[/quote]You really don’t get it. You think I look down my nose at you don’t you (I didn’t ask whether you cared)? The filthy slimy disgusting queer who’s damnation I can’t wait to witness? You are dead wrong pal. I view NOBODY that way. I am not allowed. I know I deserve to be struck dead where I sit and cast into the lake of fire forthwith for crimes I committed against His holy throne with my eyes wide open after I knew better, to say nothing of my BC days.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
OMG, I’m this > < close[/quote]
Glad I have a big monitor.[/quote]
Way to brag, dude.
[quote]Bambi wrote:<<< I usually find your explanations on faith very firm and reasoned. <<<>>> I can understand your reasoning behind your thoughts and actions and your posts on religion have always been exemplary. >>>[/quote]Thanks? =] That’s because you recognize that nothing I say is some kinda weird new kooky dogma, but is simply THE gospel of the reformation. Your homeboy Knox would be enthusiastically nodding up and down at 99% of what I post. He lived at the same time Calvin did and there was mutual respect. I am well aware of his “monstrous regimen of women” treatise which I assume you are referring to as misogynistic.
We can talk about todays young people somewhere else, but there is no doubt that since the 60’s the worldview that this country rode to dominance is now all but gone. It’s primarily my parent’s fault (I’m 47). Not theirs though each bears their own responsibility before God. Read de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” for a view on how society functioned in the 1830’s when our meteoric rise was beginning and compare it to the libertine vision of morality espoused above by this very confused young lady.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Like there are no divisions in other Christian sects including, by your own admission, Calvinist traditions.[/quote]We don’t claim to be “the one true most holy and apostolic visible church”.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I thought it was pretty funny.[/quote]You really don’t get it. You think I look down my nose at you don’t you (I didn’t ask whether you cared)? The filthy slimy disgusting queer who’s damnation I can’t wait to witness? You are dead wrong pal. I view NOBODY that way. I am not allowed. I know I deserve to be struck dead where I sit and cast into the lake of fire forthwith for crimes I committed against His holy throne with my eyes wide open after I knew better, to say nothing of my BC days.
[/quote]
Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever.
I don’t think you elevate yourself over others in the sense that you’re more “deserving”, but only in the sense that you’re more “chosen”.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever. >>>[/quote]Do you believe what I preach and thereby desire to be saved? I will PM you my phone number right now and pray with you if you do.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
You’re making arguments using scriptures from your sci-fi book.[/quote]
Mak addressed this point. I see its “importance” as I would any other document written from the time period.
And you are correct, it’s not science fiction, the Bible is moar liek Fairy Talezz!!111!!
You are using Natural Law - the Church version - to make your arguments.
Anytime you bring religion into these debates you automatically Fail.
[/quote]
Lol…what? I’m using what the United States used to write its constitutions. Natural Law.