Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 11)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Any woman that adheres to this part of Christianity in a literal way has serious self-esteem issues, mental issues, or both. It doesn't take a religious scholar or a scholar of any kind to see this.

Any man that manipulates a woman into thinking this tripe is an asshole.


I don't normally speak in absolutes, but in this case this is all pretty obvious stuff. This is completely outdated thinking. It makes me sad to have to consider that humanity is not evolved as it seems, if this thinking is still prevalent.
Or both victims of child abuse through brain washing like most religious people. (I'm so going to get yelled at)
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I really see no need to examine instances in history where people claiming to be Christian have been found to be lacking in actually following what the Bible tells them, and instead they choose a corrupted way.
And a few decades of centuries from now when even the majority of religious folk have given up the sexism and homophobia, they'll no doubt say the same about your "corrupted way" of interpreting the bible. Except instead of 'corrupted', they'll probably say 'misguided' if they are feeling kind and 'backward' if they are feeling less so.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are we also going to use as an example preachers who have been caught using prostitutes?
I think there is a big difference between visiting prostitutes and running them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You'd think there would be fewer women into this sort of crap.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If only these women were as smart as besson right? Maybe they should defer to you or is that not PC enough for 2012?

Answer: There are so many women into this crap because they understand exponentially more about it than you.
Women like this?: This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Live by the standards established by our Founding Fathers. That doesn't require you to be a Christian.
Our founding fathers were anything but Christians ...read a book

Look up enlightenment
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Our founding fathers were anything but Christians ...read a book

Look up enlightenment
I know that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington claimed to be. Just so you know, you can find that information in a book.

I'm sure there were some that weren't, but there were enough that felt an acknowledgment of God was necessary for the people who made up America at the time of it's founding.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
And a few decades of centuries from now when even the majority of religious folk have given up the sexism and homophobia, they'll no doubt say the same about your "corrupted way" of interpreting the bible.
Seeing how my interpretation has been consistently supported by the majority of the leaders of the faiths in question, and the stuff you are talking about never has been, I'm pretty sure you're talking out your butt.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
And a few decades of centuries from now when even the majority of religious folk have given up the sexism and homophobia, they'll no doubt say the same about your "corrupted way" of interpreting the bible. Except instead of 'corrupted', they'll probably say 'misguided' if they are feeling kind and 'backward' if they are feeling less so.
I am more hopeful of its full eradication from society in a few centuries.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It is very interesting to me that there is a type of reverse-psychology-women's-lib tactic here, where anyone who is astounded by this lifestyle is deemed to be oppressive to women, or intending to take away their choice to live this way. It's an interesting tactic, to use your opponents usual weapon (choice) against them.

These women choose this life, and thus choose to give up other choices, by deferring to their husbands. They all seem happy. Sure. I get that.

However, if you raise someone to believe the sky is called Flisbot, they will call the sky Flisbot. They will not believe the sky is blue. (Blasphemy! We must homeschool our children to learn the proper names of things! )

That manifesto for marriage Stu-man linked to, mentions some things I think any good marriage, religious or no, includes: respecting each other, sharing the work, devotion to each other. Masking these with male "leadership" roles, subjection, and deferring, however, cancels them out.

I don't think Christ cares who takes the garbage out.

If the woman doesn't know things any other way because of her upbringing, I guess she should not be berated, but I would bet that the vast majority of woman are aware that there are woman out there that are independent and that do not defer to a male figure for everything. I mean, don't most people know that somebody like Oprah Winfrey exists?

Of the people that knowingly choose to live their life in deference to a male figure, I honestly think that this is not healthy and might be a sign of mental illness or depression.

I'm not suggesting that women should be independent for the sake of it, you can go a little too far with this stuff, but then again there are in my opinion more people that don't go far enough with it. There is no need to default to taking the man's last name on marriage anymore, for instance. There is nothing wrong with taking the man's last name, but the default is completely unnecessary particularly when the woman has a greater professional upside than the man, or the last name has great sentimental meaning or some interesting historical connection, or the man's last name is just boring and pedestrian and/or there is no particular attachment to it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post

What is the connection here?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I know that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington claimed to be. Just so you know, you can find that information in a book.

I'm sure there were some that weren't, but there were enough that felt an acknowledgment of God was necessary for the people who made up America at the time of it's founding.

I really don't understand your point here.

Are you saying that we should be looking to the founding fathers for answers, as if they were saints, or that we should be trying to preserve Christianity because it is a part of America's history, and this should not change?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Seeing how my interpretation has been consistently supported by the majority of the leaders of the faiths in question, and the stuff you are talking about never has been, I'm pretty sure you're talking out your butt.
It is known that the church ran brothels. It was widespread and it was condoned by senior figures within the church. Since that happened for a period of time, it would imply that there is at least some inconsistency in the support for your version.

You just don't want to hear it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I really don't understand your point here.

Are you saying that we should be looking to the founding fathers for answers, as if they were saints, or that we should be trying to preserve Christianity because it is a part of America's history, and this should not change?
We should be looking to the founders for guidance. They where pretty smart guys who listened to the people who they represented and crafted a nation based on their shared ideals. The put together a plan with the intention that we follow it, unless the people as a majority later decide to change it. Right now, the people as a majority don't want to change the plan as far as i can see.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It is known that the church ran brothels.
"The church?" What church? Who was in charge? Whatever happened to them?

You just don't want to hear it.
Like I said, I'm not really interested in investigating each and every time people who claimed to follow the word of God ended up doing just the opposite of his plan for them. I'm not really sure what exceptions to the rule prove, other than sometimes people screw up.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I know that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington claimed to be. Just so you know, you can find that information in a book.

I'm sure there were some that weren't, but there were enough that felt an acknowledgment of God was necessary for the people who made up America at the time of it's founding.
so you are basing your world view on only 2 of the founding fathers?

washington was a theist and didn't go to church much

and you've heard about the jefferson bible right?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We should be looking to the founders for guidance. They where pretty smart guys who listened to the people who they represented and crafted a nation based on their shared ideals. The put together a plan with the intention that we follow it, unless the people as a majority later decide to change it. Right now, the people as a majority don't want to change the plan as far as i can see.

I'm tired of this half-brained argument.

The founding fathers were far from saints, and little can be learned from them that is actionable that we can agree upon how to make applicable for today's day and age which has changed in considerable ways.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
so you are basing your world view on only 2 of the founding fathers?

washington was a theist and didn't go to church much
Could you quote me where he ever claimed to be a "theist" and not be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ? I understand that other people have given him this label, but normally there is a great deal of bias and likely ulterior motive in doing so. It's clear that he made attempts to keep his religious views as private as possible, but most every other piece of evidence points to him being a follower of Jesus Christ.

It would be odd for a man that DID go often go to church (but would often not), was baptized in a Christian church, was often times seen in morning devotions with a Christian Bible and chose to be buried according to the rites of a Christian church not to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

and you've heard about the jefferson bible right?
Yes. And?

Jefferson claimed to be a Christian.

I'm not basing my "world view" one what these two men believed. I'm basing my view of what the founders intended by looking at their words, actions and clear intent. Again, I'm pretty sure these smart guys didn't just accidentally attribute all of our rights to be coming from God by some miscommunicated accident.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jun 21, 2012 at 11:44 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm tired of this half-brained argument.The founding fathers were far from saints, and little can be learned from them that is actionable that we can agree upon how to make applicable for today's day and age which has changed in considerable ways.
One does not have to be a "saint" to be a believer in the God of Abraham, or a practicing Christian. That's usually one of the biggest myths non-believers forward - expecting those who practice Christianity to be saints and not sinners and to expect them not to not try and promote a moral view based on their religious teachings just because they themselves are flawed. Bigoted non-believers brand this as hypocrisy because they can't wrap their head around sticking to a clear set of "right and wrong" values even if you sometimes fail to live up to those standards yourself. It makes it a whole lot easier to feel good about yourself if you can denigrate those who try but often fail, when you never even aspire to try.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
One does not have to be a "saint" to be a believer in the God of Abraham, or a practicing Christian. That's usually one of the biggest myths non-believers forward - expecting those who practice Christianity to be saints and not sinners and to expect them not to not try and promote a moral view based on their religious teachings just because they themselves are flawed. Bigoted non-believers brand this as hypocrisy because they can't wrap their head around sticking to a clear set of "right and wrong" values even if you sometimes fail to live up to those standards yourself. It makes it a whole lot easier to feel good about yourself if you can denigrate those who try but often fail, when you never even aspire to try.

Your point is bordering on incoherence to me, with all due respect.

What is it about the founding fathers that makes you feel that we should look to them for answers?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your point is bordering on incoherence to me, with all due respect.
This wouldn't be the first time you've shown a propensity to have problems with simple concepts.

What is it about the founding fathers that makes you feel that we should look to them for answers?
Because they had a specific plan based on a set of shared principles that were agreed upon as the goal for what values and principles would make our country great. One that's been pretty much a success while others that came before and after have failed miserably.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
This wouldn't be the first time you've shown a propensity to have problems with simple concepts.
Pot, kettle.



Because they had a specific plan based on a set of shared principles that were agreed upon as the goal for what values and principles would make our country great. One that's been pretty much a success while others that came before and after have failed miserably.
I hate to break this to you, but the world has changed tremendously in the last several centuries, and the founders' dreams didn't include issues that weren't common back then, that are today. You can't seem to get past the past, which is why this country has many of the problems it does. New issues require new solutions, no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I hate to break this to you, but the world has changed tremendously in the last several centuries, and the founders' dreams didn't include issues that weren't common back then, that are today.
Human nature doesn't change. The plans they put into effect took the nature of how men and woman interact with one another, and what motivates them. Several centuries don't change that. The Declaration and Constitution they created have stood the test of time. It's these documents and the freedoms they outline (which where given to us by God) that makes America what it is and their wisdom in these matters has been proven.

You can't seem to get past the past, which is why this country has many of the problems it does. New issues require new solutions, no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise.
Then we can vote on them. Currently, more Americans have voted not to have "same sex marriage" than those that have and there was never any Constitutional mandate to protect that sort of thing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Human nature doesn't change. The plans they put into effect took the nature of how men and woman interact with one another, and what motivates them. Several centuries don't change that. The Declaration and Constitution they created have stood the test of time. It's these documents and the freedoms they outline (which where given to us by God) that makes America what it is and their wisdom in these matters has been proven.
Wrong, again. Human nature does change, as we learn new things. People do learn that others who are different are not a threat to them (some don't, but they eventually drift to the margins, where they belong). Our freedoms were given to us by our own initiative, not some mythical deity. When people decide they've had enough of tyranny, they set about making change.



Then we can vote on them. Currently, more Americans have voted not to have "same sex marriage" than those that have and there was never any Constitutional mandate to protect that sort of thing.
Americans have voted on a lot of issues that were later overturned by the courts, as this will be also. Most current polls show just over 50% of Americans being okay with same sex marriage, and as the older among us die off, this too will pass into the dustbin of history, and future generations will wonder what the fuss was about. Like I said, quit hanging on to the past - it's gone.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"The church?" What church? Who was in charge? Whatever happened to them?



Like I said, I'm not really interested in investigating each and every time people who claimed to follow the word of God ended up doing just the opposite of his plan for them. I'm not really sure what exceptions to the rule prove, other than sometimes people screw up.
Definitely the Catholic Church, not sure about the protestants, haven't read up that much yet. You might have a point if I was talking about one rogue clergyman running a brothel to fund his church roof replacement but I am talking about more than that. Without looking up all the absolute specifics, it involved multiple bishops, possibly a whole country worth of them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Because they had a specific plan based on a set of shared principles that were agreed upon as the goal for what values and principles would make our country great. One that's been pretty much a success while others that came before and after have failed miserably.

Okay, but so what? You said "had", as in past tense.... That was then, this is now.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Wrong, again. Human nature does change, as we learn new things.
Our base natural instincts and motivation for self-survival do not change. Sorry. Neither does man's desire for freedom. These are all things other political philosophies either ignore or don't show a keen understanding of. It's why ideals like socialism and communism NEVER work. They both require human nature to be something it is not for it to be successful.

Americans have voted on a lot of issues that were later overturned by the courts, as this will be also.
I don't know by what grounds. Like I said, trying to argue that the Constitution or any of it's amendments where ever intended to protect something like SSM really makes little sense. If activists really thought that this was a viable option, they would have tried already, unless they are just hoping to wait for a court who'll invent stuff and legislate like the court did in Roe V. Wade, which is hardly an honest leg to stand on.

Most current polls show just over 50% of Americans being okay with same sex marriage..
Are these polls from the same firms who consistently try to overweight political polling with Democrat respondents to get results favorable for the left, and when caught can't really come up with an honest rationale?

WaPo/ABC poll adds seven points to Dem advantage in sample … � Hot Air

The "poll" that matters most is the one that happens at the ballot box, and that poll has generally shown disfavor for SSM. You can have every legislator in California, NY and Mass. support it, and it's not going to help when the masses everywhere else vote no.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Okay, but so what? You said "had", as in past tense.... That was then, this is now.
Their plan wasn't for a temporary solution for a current problem. They spent lots of time planning for the future - our future. Our Constitution was planned out to ensure that it would be viable for future generations. That's why they made clear restrictions against certain government actions (based on an examination of historical flaws in past governments), but did provide for a mechanism if things changed so dramatically, and there was a super majority of agreement , that the plan could be changed.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Definitely the Catholic Church, not sure about the protestants, haven't read up that much yet. You might have a point if I was talking about one rogue clergyman running a brothel to fund his church roof replacement but I am talking about more than that. Without looking up all the absolute specifics, it involved multiple bishops, possibly a whole country worth of them.
Ok. You had a small segment of those who claimed religious faith stray and try to justify acting against God's plan.

Like I said, exceptions.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Their plan wasn't for a temporary solution for a current problem. They spent lots of time planning for the future - our future. Our Constitution was planned out to ensure that it would be viable for future generations. That's why they made clear restrictions against certain government actions (based on an examination of historical flaws in past governments), but did provide for a mechanism if things changed so dramatically, and there was a super majority of agreement , that the plan could be changed.

So the founding fathers were able to see into the future to see the erosion of capitalism, as well as the current problems with our financial markets? They were able to predict embryonic stem cell breakthroughs, and that maybe gays would want to marry (even though they hadn't yet reconciled the whole slave thing)? Nuclear weapons? International terrorism? The internet and our access to information and misinformation? The influence of lobbyists on our politics?

This weird religion of yours is really, truly bizarre. You give so much credit to the founding fathers in such an astoundingly illogical manner. I mean, stuff changes in a couple of centuries.. Duh?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So the founding fathers were able to see into the future to see the erosion of capitalism, as well as the current problems with our financial markets?
Why would they need to?

They were able to predict embryonic stem cell breakthroughs, and that maybe gays would want to marry (even though they hadn't yet reconciled the whole slave thing)? Nuclear weapons? International terrorism? The internet and our access to information and misinformation? The influence of lobbyists on our politics?
\

See above. They gave us the Constitution which speaks to the limits of Government. If a law or regulation does not violate those limits, States have the right to enact legislation and laws which would regulate all those things. Right now, since there is was never intended to be a limit on Governments ability to acknowledge the cultural and society norms in regards to marriage, states who are putting the matter to vote are going out of their way to ensure that marriage isn't changed into something it was never meant to be.

This weird religion of yours is really, truly bizarre. You give so much credit to the founding fathers in such an astoundingly illogical manner. I mean, stuff changes in a couple of centuries.. Duh?
"Stuff changes.." Not the important stuff. I don't really think that based on what I know, God never intended for there to be present day amendments to the Bible either. Your denigration of religion and those who practice it doesn't hurt me or religion itself. It does make you look quite bigoted though.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 04:38 PM
 
You're right, God never intended for us to amend the Bible. Let's throw out the New Testament!



(Present day is relative.)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why would they need to?

\

See above. They gave us the Constitution which speaks to the limits of Government. If a law or regulation does not violate those limits, States have the right to enact legislation and laws which would regulate all those things. Right now, since there is was never intended to be a limit on Governments ability to acknowledge the cultural and society norms in regards to marriage, states who are putting the matter to vote are going out of their way to ensure that marriage isn't changed into something it was never meant to be.



"Stuff changes.." Not the important stuff. I don't really think that based on what I know, God never intended for there to be present day amendments to the Bible either. Your denigration of religion and those who practice it doesn't hurt me or religion itself. It does make you look quite bigoted though.

My interest in continuing this conversation is waning rapidly. I think your viewpoints have gone from borderline incoherence to complete and utter incoherence. What my so-called denigration of religion has to do with the questions I'm asking is beyond me.

As far as the constitution goes, why is it that you acknowledge that times have changed, yet you think that government should resemble what government was centuries ago? Government has changed, everything has changed, and while I'm not suggesting that we should create unconstitutional laws (although we seem to have difficulty agreeing upon what is constitutional), why should we look to the constitution for ideas as to what modern government should look like? The constitution is not the bible.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
You're right, God never intended for us to amend the Bible. Let's throw out the New Testament!
Cute, but... you can't. It's too late.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Or both victims of child abuse through brain washing like most religious people. (I'm so going to get yelled at)
Well, yeah. That's a silly thing to say. There is absolutely no metric you can use to assess the quality of a Christian child vs the qualities of any other and arrive at the conclusion that they are victims of any kind, particularly abuse.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well, yeah. That's a silly thing to say. There is absolutely no metric you can use to assess the quality of a Christian child vs the qualities of any other and arrive at the conclusion that they are victims of any kind, particularly abuse.
Even if all religion is false?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:56 PM
 
I haven't really delved too deep into this thread because the topic has limited interest to me, but I thought I'd make this point ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman
See above. They gave us the Constitution which speaks to the limits of Government. If a law or regulation does not violate those limits, States have the right to enact legislation and laws which would regulate all those things. Right now, since there is was never intended to be a limit on Governments ability to acknowledge the cultural and society norms in regards to marriage, states who are putting the matter to vote are going out of their way to ensure that marriage isn't changed into something it was never meant to be.
Inherent in this statement is something that I find particularly incongruent about the conservative mindset. This visceral notion that there must be strict limits on government at the FEDERAL level ... yet practically none at the STATE level. As if being screwed over by government officials is materially different if it's done by a state legislature as opposed to the US Congress?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 22, 2012 at 07:22 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I haven't really delved too deep into this thread because the topic has limited interest to me, but I thought I'd make this point ....



Inherent in this statement is something that I find particularly incongruent about the conservative mindset. This visceral notion that there must be strict limits on government at the FEDERAL level ... yet practically none at the STATE level. As if being screwed over by government officials is materially different if it's done by a state legislature as opposed to the US Congress?

OAW
I think it's about checks and balances. With so many states, there is a natural limit on any of them taking over unchecked power. The other states and the federal government itself would exert limits on that power. But there is no natural limit on federal power, so we need to be more protective of the only limit we do have, the artificial constitutional limits we put there for precisely that reason.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Ok. You had a small segment of those who claimed religious faith stray and try to justify acting against God's plan.

Like I said, exceptions.
.... there seem to be a lot of these exceptions that you choose to ignore.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well, yeah. That's a silly thing to say. There is absolutely no metric you can use to assess the quality of a Christian child vs the qualities of any other and arrive at the conclusion that they are victims of any kind, particularly abuse.
Quality has nothing to do with it. Eventually parents say the tooth fairy and Santa are make believe. They don't when it comes to religion. Children grow up believing it to be true and fact and that by its very nature is abuse.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Even if all religion is false?
You ask that as if its a question that its false or not....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 10:37 PM
 
Star Witness for Prop. 8 Now Supports Marriage Equality | American Foundation for Equal Rights

People do change, and the tide is turning, slowly, but it is turning! One can pontificate all they want, and dig up all manner of excuses why it shouldn't change, but it will nonetheless, and eventually the ones who are against gay marriage will be on the sidelines, still wasting their energy on an issue that others realize doesn't affect them.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Quality has nothing to do with it. Eventually parents say the tooth fairy and Santa are make believe. They don't when it comes to religion. Children grow up believing it to be true and fact and that by its very nature is abuse.
Because maybe the parents actually believe in God?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 04:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because maybe the parents actually believe in God?
Yes, the cycle of abuse continues... from generation to generation. Good of you to point that out
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
What about those who grew up in atheist/non religious homes and become believers in the G d of Abraham as adults?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What about those who grew up in atheist/non religious homes and become believers in the G d of Abraham as adults?
It happens, but the numbers are much smaller. Man's inherent nature is to seek out the answers to things he doesn't understand, and he invented gods as a way to help him explain his surroundings. The number of people who are becoming non believers is much higher than the other way around. I predict that number will continue to climb slowly, until the day when man realizes there is no god that is going to save him or answer his prayers.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 02:12 PM
 
The slow progress of enlightenment.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It happens, but the numbers are much smaller. Man's inherent nature is to seek out the answers to things he doesn't understand, and he invented gods as a way to help him explain his surroundings. The number of people who are becoming non believers is much higher than the other way around. I predict that number will continue to climb slowly, until the day when man realizes there is no god that is going to save him or answer his prayers.
As a devotee of empiricism, I must point out that this result (based merely on popularity) could also be explained by a model in which God is real, has been on vacation for the last 1000 years (or has been somewhere else pooping out more planets), and that humankind's innate problem solving drive and impatience (precisely the same factors that may have led to the concept of religion in the first place) could lead us to arrive at an incorrect conclusion today while our conclusions from the bronze age were actually more accurate. Just sayin.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As a devotee of empiricism, I must point out that this result (based merely on popularity) could also be explained by a model in which God is real, has been on vacation for the last 1000 years (or has been somewhere else pooping out more planets)...
I guess that's one way of explaining God's complete lack of interest in our well-being: the great Absentee Landlord (not currently) in the sky.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 06:11 PM
 
The faithful call it "testing", not "ignoring" or "abandoning"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 09:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You ask that as if its a question that its false or not....
I ask it as if I'm interested in a two-way discussion rather than an opportunity to squirt my opinion in someone's face.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 09:30 PM
 
Let's set the record straight on the founding fathers and all of these ideas that the way we did things in the past was superior, and that we should go back to these ways (i.e. what many conservatives in this country seem to feel)...

The way people thought and saw the world back in those days would make them complete morons by today's standards. Enlightenment and upping the norms of our intellect and understanding of the world is a slow process, and often very hard to see at times when it seems like the world is mired in stupidity. Think about it though, there was a time when it was normal for blacks to drink out of different water fountains, when it was normal for women to be subordinate to men, when leaches were used in the medical profession, and when women were considered whores for showing off anything above their ankles. This wasn't just what the bottom feeders of society were into, this was the norm, and many so-called elite minds seemed to go along with this.

The founding fathers, famous inventors, artists, scientists and other elites were probably indeed elite thinkers, but this was all relative and seen through (and restrained by) the prisms of their times. Every other aspect to their humanity was probably shaped by the relative stupidity around them. The idea that their time was somehow better, or that we'll never approach their intellects is an idiotic idea which needs to die. We have all sorts of advantages which goes along with decades of progress, this should not be a surprise.

It's time to stop trying to make things the way they were, and to focus on how to make things better for tomorrow, focusing on changing what can and should be changed.

I can appreciate economic conservatism, but a great deal of social conservatism is just plain old idiotic to me. I guarantee you, in a few decades we'll be looking back at some of these conversations about gays and religion and will be as perplexed as to how anybody could think and feel this way as we are perplexed today how people could go along with making blacks drink out of separate water fountains.

It's time to evolve, stupendousman.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 09:48 PM
 
I've totally lost track of the argument here.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2