[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues. [/quote]
You are on a role today.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues. [/quote]
You are on a role today.[/quote]
It’s part of my New Covenant with T-Nation: after every hundred posts talking about Biblical genocide, creeping totalitarianism, economic meltdown and global catastrophe, I tell a few jokes.
You know, just to lighten the mood.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues. [/quote]
You are on a role today.[/quote]
Role…as in role-play?
[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues. [/quote]
You are on a role today.[/quote]
Role…as in role-play?[/quote]
You had to go there…
Lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse, I thought it would be appropriate to start a thread discussing the “christian agenda”. Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.
Thoughts?
http://www.politicususa.com/2011/01/03/gay-agenda-try-fundamentalist-christian-agenda.html
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. But, even if that was the case I would fight against making Christianity the state religion. [/quote]
Monarchy?
[/quote]
Yes, like two people who are referred to as King and Queen. Usually married.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. [/quote]
Begs the question, though: would this monarchy be certified by the USDA, or by a smaller independent body like Oregon Tilth? I would guess the latter, to avoid First Amendment issues. [/quote]
lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.[/quote]
Personally, I think people like to convert by the sword regardless of the motivation. Christians just figured out it wouldn’t work politically over 500 yrs. ago. Secularists just keep finding new causes to convert to and new ways to convert people.
How equal do we have to make people before we stop worrying about their inequalities?
A fundamental aspect of science is that truth is unknowable. Moreover, even if there is a/the truth and it is knowable; the vicious, random, and ad hoc nature of evolution kinda precludes the notion that we’ve somehow evolved to know it. And the belief that we evolved to know or somehow find the truth is pretty profoundly religious in and of itself.
In Star Trek, (and virtually every space Sci-fi tangential offshoot) the transporter works, pretty clearly, by the ‘copy and kill’ methodology. Is a fictional atomic copy of myself me? Would I bet my life on it? Why would they use the kill aspect of the technology when it is clearly not needed or even detrimental? If you have the energy and computational power to copy a human being down to the atoms, consciousness and all, whole… why bother carting bodies around at Warp 8?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Liberal Christians were also primarily the ones who politically pushed for what Martin Luther King wanted…[/quote]
This is blatantly false. Liberal Christians were not the primary ones, liberals were the ones going against MLK. They were/are the KKK, they were/are the segregationists, they were the advocates for Jim Crow, they were the defenders of slavery, liberals were the reason it took dozens of attempts by conservative Christians (GOP) to pass a Civil Rights Act.
Liberals are the ones who stood in front of school buildings doors (actually it was the Governor himself) in Arkansas keeping black children from entering after de-segregation and required military action.
Liberals were the ones who always have and still held true blue segregationists, white supremacists, and Klansman in their ranks up until only a few election cycles (actually I have a suspicion there is a local Democrat here in Missouri that is a Klansman (though he obviously is not open as they were 15-20 years ago.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Not all Democrats are Klansman, but all Klansman are Democrats.
Now that I demolished that nonsense.
MLK was a Republican and a “Conservative” Christian.
P.S. I hate that term, Conservative Christian. You can only be Christian, either you’re a heretic or you’re an orthodox Christian. Believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught or you don’t. You don’t get to make up your own morality. But, I don’t believe you’ll find MLK backing you up on gay-rights = black rights.
[/quote]
This is so very true, yet seems destined to be lost to revisionist history…
Makes me very sad.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This etymology seemed especially appropriate for this thread, especially considering the picture I posted, and the tread this was created to counteract.
faggot
late 13c., “bundle of twigs bound up,” from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces).
Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.
The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. [/quote]
What a horrible pun!
Seriously, is there an era in history where Christians aren’t being torn apart by one pride or another?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This etymology seemed especially appropriate for this thread, especially considering the picture I posted, and the tread this was created to counteract.
faggot
late 13c., “bundle of twigs bound up,” from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces).
Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.
The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. [/quote]
What a horrible pun!
Seriously, is there an era in history where Christians aren’t being torn apart by one pride or another?
[/quote]
I think it is a good reason not to mix Politics and Religion
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.[/quote]
Personally, I think people like to convert by the sword regardless of the motivation. Christians just figured out it wouldn’t work politically over 500 yrs. ago. Secularists just keep finding new causes to convert to and new ways to convert people.
How equal do we have to make people before we stop worrying about their inequalities?
[/quote]
An excellent question. The media so drives the information in our little world, that people believe anything. That they are put upon and maligned, when in fact, in reality they are not. What do the gays want? Well they wanted marriage and all the ‘rights’ that come with it. Okay, so they now have it, for the most part. Many companies already recognized domestic partnerships way before any laws hit the table. And now for the most part, they have the government backing. Okay, well they got what they wanted right? Should be enough, I can’t think of a single thing that a strait person has the ability to do that a gay person does not. Should be over then right? NOPE! So now they go after individuals and organizations who disagree with them. As if now, not only do they want all these privileges, but also want to control information of private organizations and individuals. You are not allowed to even disagree.
Like I said, everybody needs an open mind so that others don’t have to. So bottom line, it won’t stop, it will never be enough.
That’s a kantian idea, not a fundamental aspect of science. If the core principle of science was that truth is unknowable, then they wouldn’t bother trying. Science believes that truths are knowable and empiricism is a method by which knowledge about it can be gained.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on. A little theocracy never hurt anybody. [/quote]
Yeah! Atheist states are far kinder…[/quote]
Where is that, Russia? China? Two societies that definitely forced the religion of Communism down their citizens throats. The very essence of theocracy. [/quote]
Check your facts. Atheism was in fact state policy of the Soviet Union. It saw religion as a threat to the state and was to be eliminated in as much as it could be.
Communism is much less a religion than atheism. It’s simple a failed political philosophy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on. A little theocracy never hurt anybody. [/quote]
I can hear the responses now. “Oh, but ATHEISM is WORSE! MUCH worse!”
LOL…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse.[/quote]
We do not loose any sleep about anything other than our Atheist friends who are not going to heaven. We pray for your souls everyday.[/quote]
And we appreciate your thoughts…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse, I thought it would be appropriate to start a thread discussing the “christian agenda”. Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.
Thoughts?
http://www.politicususa.com/2011/01/03/gay-agenda-try-fundamentalist-christian-agenda.html
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. But, even if that was the case I would fight against making Christianity the state religion. [/quote]
I am totally against theocracies, for the record. Governments should be secular and freedom of religion should be carved in stone.
A forced faith is no faith at all.[/quote]
Well then, on this we will agree.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse, I thought it would be appropriate to start a thread discussing the “christian agenda”. Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.
Thoughts?
http://www.politicususa.com/2011/01/03/gay-agenda-try-fundamentalist-christian-agenda.html
I think this is trumped up bullshit. Sounds like preaching tolerance by being intolerant of dissenting viewpoints. You are free to disagree so long as you do not disagree. Christians need to be tolerant so other don’t have to.
This is total paranoid propaganda. [/quote]
Explain to me how this is “trumped up” as you say.
And why is it that so many christians want to ignore/deny/excuse away their history?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on. A little theocracy never hurt anybody. [/quote]
Yeah! Atheist states are far kinder…[/quote]
Where is that, Russia? China? Two societies that definitely forced the religion of Communism down their citizens throats. The very essence of theocracy. [/quote]
I wish you good luck in your endeavors to explain this to our friend, Pat. He, like so many other christian apologists, NEED to paint these as “atheist” atrocities, and “atheist” states; which is of course, intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse, I thought it would be appropriate to start a thread discussing the “christian agenda”. Personally, I think that there’s a certified shit-ton of christians out there, who would LOVE to see this country declare itself a christian theocracy, and throw off what they see as the chains of secularism.
Thoughts?
http://www.politicususa.com/2011/01/03/gay-agenda-try-fundamentalist-christian-agenda.html
I wouldn’t mind an organic Catholic monarchy in America. But, even if that was the case I would fight against making Christianity the state religion. [/quote]
Monarchy?
[/quote]
Yes, like two people who are referred to as King and Queen. Usually married. [/quote]
Okay, that’s what I wanted to confirm. Not everyday that you hear something that ridiculous; wanted to be sure.
[quote]pat wrote:
So now they go after individuals and organizations who disagree with them. As if now, not only do they want all these privileges, but also want to control information of private organizations and individuals. You are not allowed to even disagree. [/quote]
Examples?