It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on October 21, 2013, 06:25:57 PM
-
It's a mid-length piece; I'd recommend reading the whole thing.
It's nothing we haven't discussed, but it is articulated in a clear, concise way that leaves no misunderstandings. If you're questioning the value of the hatred in your heart for the Leftists, this puts that value into words, in a calm, matter-of-fact fashion. I found it edifying.
Dear Liberal, Here's why I'm so hostile (http://sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/post/26781491317/dear-liberal-heres-why-im-so-hostile)
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to...
-
Yes, yes, this says it in the most basic terms even a liberal/progressive can verstunde err understand
-
Heading off to my Monday night Men's Bible Study (studying 'gods @ War') - haven't read the article - but consider the anger (approaching hatred for the president) to be righteous anger. I'm sure he'd claim righteousness, too...but anyone uttering "God bless Planned Parenthood" is most definitely on the wrong side of God's judgment (never mind pro-homo, infanticide, Black Lib theology)...and his followers are merely drones.
I also identify with what must have been a righteous anger of the colonial army led by General George Washington & why I sarcastically allude to George admonishing his men to lay down their muskets and read scripture to the British army...no it was time to kill in defense of tyranny & religious oppression.
Finally there's this, written by King David
Psalm 109
Psalm 109
New King James Version (NKJV)
Plea for Judgment of False Accusers
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
Do not keep silent,
O God of my praise!
2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful
Have opened against me;
They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,
And fought against me without a cause.
4 In return for my love they are my accusers,
But I give myself to prayer.
5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good,
And hatred for my love.
6 Set a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser[a] stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few,
And let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg;
Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places.
11 Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him,
Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off,
And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be continually before the Lord,
That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;
16 Because he did not remember to show mercy,
But persecuted the poor and needy man,
That he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him;
As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
So let it enter his body like water,
And like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him,
And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.
20 Let this be the Lord’s reward to my accusers,
And to those who speak evil against my person.
21 But You, O GOD the Lord,
Deal with me for Your name’s sake;
Because Your mercy is good, deliver me.
22 For I am poor and needy,
And my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens;
I am shaken off like a locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting,
And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness.
25 I also have become a reproach to them;
When they look at me, they shake their heads.
26 Help me, O Lord my God!
Oh, save me according to Your mercy,
27 That they may know that this is Your hand—
That You, Lord, have done it!
28 Let them curse, but You bless;
When they arise, let them be ashamed,
But let Your servant rejoice.
29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame,
And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle.
30 I will greatly praise the Lord with my mouth;
Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude.
31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor,
To save him from those who condemn him.
If you truly stand with the Lord Jesus Christ (not that He's pro-America or pro-republican) against those who openly mock Him via their legislative agenda & then attempt to claim righteousness as theirs...we can be angry with them. This "Jesus as Socialist", "Jesus as pro-gay", "Jesus as a married man" is all pure bullsh*t.
And the Jesus that returns (yeah the Wool-Haired guy with the split tongue sword)...THAT Jesus will have something to say to them.
-
And, sure as night following day, along comes this guy, totally missing the point ...
Jay Cullen • 2 hours ago
So basically your point is, you have all this stuff and you are not willing to share it. That's an internally consistent belief, but an amoral one.
... because that's all they understand, stuff.
-
Yes, yes, this says it in the most basic terms even a liberal/progressive can verstunde err understand
No, they will NEVER understand. At fundamental level, they do not believe other people have rights. They are sociopaths, who believe everyone else is simply property of the collective, to be used, abused and sacrificed as needed to get what they want.
They talk about Palin not being a "real woman", a Conservative Black as not being "Authentic", a Conservative Gay as being "illegitimate" - because ANYONE who doesn't fall in lockstep with their world view is not an "authentic person" and can be discarded as less than human- beneath contempt, and without rights and undeserving of compassion or empathy. Only a "liberal" is a real person, just as only Nazis were Authentic "Aryians"
They don't see you as a person. You are part of the landscape. Somewhere in between a Tree and rock, and they can not consider you, as a person, at all.
.
-
And, sure as night following day, along comes this guy, totally missing the point ...
Jay Cullen • 2 hours ago
So basically your point is, you have all this stuff and you are not willing to share it. That's an internally consistent belief, but an amoral one.
... because that's all they understand, stuff.
One would have to try real f***in' hard to read that and come away with that as the synopsis.
Leftists cannot deal with the truth in ANY venue. It ALWAYS shines, and forces them to pretend not to see.
-
... because that's all they understand, stuff.
Yes. Not YOUR stuff and MY stuff. Just stuff. And YOU are just "stuff" to them as well.
Me Is Mine, You Is Yours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnBSb4OKeU#)
-
Yes, yes, this says it in the most basic terms even a liberal/progressive can verstunde err understand
No, they will NEVER understand. At fundamental level, they do not believe other people have rights. They are sociopaths, who believe everyone else is simply property of the collective, to be used, abused and sacrificed as needed to get what they want.
They talk about Palin not being a "real woman", a Conservative Black as not being "Authentic", a Conservative Gay as being "illegitimate" - because ANYONE who doesn't fall in lockstep with their world view is not an "authentic person" and can be discarded as less than human- beneath contempt, and without rights and undeserving of compassion or empathy. Only a "liberal" is a real person, just as only Nazis were Authentic "Aryians"
They don't see you as a person. You are part of the landscape. Somewhere in between a Tree and rock, and they can not consider you, as a person, at all.
.
I don't believe that. I believe that they have to ACT as if it is how you describe. But they know you're a person. They know that in order for them to get their way, someone else must have their freedom taken.
The truth forces them to take these ridiculous positions in order to hold their house of cards together. Hence, a Black conservative is not authentically Black, or Sarah Palin is not authentically female. They must twist and turn to hold onto these things. They don't really believe them at the core. They just believe in Leftism more than the value of truth.
-
Yes, yes, this says it in the most basic terms even a liberal/progressive can verstunde err understand
No, they will NEVER understand. At fundamental level, they do not believe other people have rights. They are sociopaths, who believe everyone else is simply property of the collective, to be used, abused and sacrificed as needed to get what they want.
They talk about Palin not being a "real woman", a Conservative Black as not being "Authentic", a Conservative Gay as being "illegitimate" - because ANYONE who doesn't fall in lockstep with their world view is not an "authentic person" and can be discarded as less than human- beneath contempt, and without rights and undeserving of compassion or empathy. Only a "liberal" is a real person, just as only Nazis were Authentic "Aryians"
They don't see you as a person. You are part of the landscape. Somewhere in between a Tree and rock, and they can not consider you, as a person, at all.
.
I think they do understand it's just that they don't care and you've stated that in previous posts regarding progressive trash so it really isn't about understanding where(conservative) you're coming from, it's just about whether or not they can enforce it at the barrel of a gun. If that's the case and we know it to be so, killing them is a moral imperative .
-
They must twist and turn to hold onto these things. They don't really believe them at the core. They just believe in Leftism more than the value of truth.
Do you have any evidence for supposing that?
Leftism dictates that they ignore the rights of others. Treat them as stuff collectively owned. If you accept leftism, then you accept that as its fundamental premise - Gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz. If they saw us as individuals - with legitimate and authentic ideas in our own right, they would have to respond in some way to accusations that they are steeping on the rights of others, they would have to acknowledge their use of force as at least a potentially immoral act. They never respond. Exhibit A: "Stuff" guy. He will not acknowledge it is YOUR stuff - he completed missed the entire discussion and saw only Stuff that someone was trying ( unfairly!) to keep for himself - such stuff to include his OWN ideas. His own Conscience. His own Pursuit of Happiness. To him, it all belongs to the community. Freedom is what you have left over after the community has made its demands. The Community decides how much STUFF belongs to the community. You have no say because YOU - your body and soul - belong ( in a ownership sense) to the community. YOU are stuff to be distributed or sacrificed. You are part of the herd. You must obey the shepherd. The Shepherd OWNS you. To be fair, it is also how most of them see themselves- as sheep, thankful to do as they are told and to be absolved of the responsibility of thinking for themselves. . The others see themselves as the Shepherds, a type of life orders of magnitude above the herd, anointed to guide them to utopia. And if you have to kill or hobble the wayward sheep, so what? The Sheep is your ward and property, you can do what you want with it, right?
They do not regard you as an equal. They do not recognize your person-hood, for to do so would deny the moral basis of leftism. They do not think the objective truth is useful ( see Howard Zinn) Its all about them and how you serve them. If you do not serve, then you are to be destroyed without consideration.
This is what allowed Mao, Pol-pot, Hilter, and Stalin. They do not see others as people. That is how they manage to shove Jews in to Stock Cars, how they manage to demand a harvest of the people they denied seed to plant, how they empty cities and how they support abortion, euthanasia and eugenics. You are just an egg to be broken to make an omelet.
Make no mistake. They don't see you as human. Your only value is in what they think they can get out of you.
-
They must twist and turn to hold onto these things. They don't really believe them at the core. They just believe in Leftism more than the value of truth.
Do you have any evidence for supposing that?
Yeah, truth. Can it be denied that I am human? Can it be denied that Sarah Palin is a female? Can it be denied that Clarence Thomas is Black?
In all three cases, the answer is, "of course not."
So what are we left with deducing, when Leftists claim the opposite of the obvious truth? All Leftists know that saying Sarah Palin is not a true female is false on its face. Their position forces them to conjure ridiculous justifications for statements that are obviously false.
Now, if you're going to argue that Leftists will treat you as if you are not human, I won't argue against that. They see us as individuals; they're just such believers in their ideology, our individuality does not matter to them.
-
That's fair. They know, they just don't care.
-
Yeah, truth. Can it be denied that I am human? Can it be denied that Sarah Palin is a female? Can it be denied that Clarence Thomas is Black?
Can it be denied? The left does it EVERY. DAY. . Objective truth is impossible, and it weren't its undesirable, so sayeth Howard Zinn. The adherents of Leftism deny there is such a thing as Truth. There is only "political truth" or "practical truth" - which is any statement that allows them to obtain what they want.
Stalin denied you were human. You are an egg to be broken for the glorious Cause.
Sarah Palin isn't a "real woman" - the left thinks it is okay to make rape jokes about her.
Clarence Thomas isn't an "Authentic black" - he is a house slave, an Uncle Tom, a traitor.
The left's entire philosophy is based around seeing those who oppose them as inferior, without merit, and evil. Yes, the truth remains the truth, but like the Dwarfs in the Donkey's Hovel, they WILL NOT, CANNOT SEE.
Lets examine the hypothesis:
They Know you are a human.
They don't Care you are human.
They act in all ways as though you are not human.
What exactly allows them to "know" and not "care"? To "know" in this context is to acknowledge the truth - at least to oneself. Does anyone here really believe they do that? And if they did, would they not be all the more evil and monstrous for it? Very few humans willingly believe and see themselves as evil and don't care. I doubt even Hitler saw himself that way. I'll bet he genuinely believed the world would be a better place without the Jews - and given his particular emotional and mental makeup, it undoubtedly would have been -for him. But I bet you he did it with a Clean conscience. You got to break a few eggs..
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
Do they recognize us as "victims"? Do their consciences nag at them to stop?
Do you really think they Acknowledge to themselves that they advocate, do and are evil to others, but don't care? They are all narcissistic sociopaths- Have you EVER seen a liberal exhibit genuine Shame? Any mortification or embarrassment at having their hypocrisy exposed, their sins outed, their lies publicly disproved? Anthony Wiener ? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? Eric Holder? Obama himself? They are all Nietzsche's Supermen- ABOVE MORALITY. Beyond Good and Evil.
They are not aware of you as an equal. They CAN'T let themselves be, for the second they do, they must acknowledge they are the bullies. The second they do, they would have to let your opinion of them matter.
I can guarantee you that even under torture they will NEVER, EVER acknowledge to you that you are human. They will never admit there is a truth outside of and separate from themselves and what they want. Their world view makes it impossible for them to recognize us as equals, for they believe they have no equals but for those who agree with them.
All of us, for all of our hatred for them - see them as Human, and we would joyfully avoid a conflict if each could go their own way. For them, its an alien way of existing and they will never accept such a compromise. THEY OWN YOU. YOU ARE PROPERTY. They will do with you as they please. They will not NEGOTIATE. There is no reason to deal in good faith with "stuff" .They are BORG. You can only become one with them. It is the only option they will accept. They don't care, because if you aren't Borg, you aren't worthy of caring about.
-
More from Stuff guy, who I have foolishly engaged.
Also, thing to consider: If you force me live and let live, isnt that forcing your agenda on me? If I believe what someone are doing causes immense harm, isn't you preventing me from putting an end to that a way of forcing me to accept your values?
Got that. You are Stuff. Saying you are NOT stuff is imposing your agenda on Him.
-
Disagree.
Stalin denied you were human. You are an egg to be broken for the glorious Cause.
Sarah Palin isn't a "real woman" - the left thinks it is okay to make rape jokes about her.
Clarence Thomas isn't an "Authentic black" - he is a house slave, an Uncle Tom, a traitor.
Stalin declared those "eggs" as useless humans.
Can't rape a non-woman, therefore she's recognized as a woman worth raping.
Thomas is defined as a useless, non-authentic Black, but Black nonetheless.
They know we're human; they've simply decided we're not their kind of humans, therefore we can be discarded at will.
-
They know we're human; they've simply decided we're not their kind of humans, therefore we can be discarded at will.
That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. They twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to justify the evil their ideology demands of them. But they know. Just like they know a fetus is a baby.
-
It comes down to asking what is the great harm that occurs when one side or the other doesn't get its way. For us, not getting our way means that we will be subjected to the whims of the numerically superior, and that can entail whatever they want. i.e., we will actively be taken from, our labor and property (and eventually lives) confiscated.
Them not getting their way means nothing actively happens to them. It simply means they don't get to fleece others. But whatever their own individual endeavors and pursuits are, they can continue unmolested.
This little dichotomy quickly demonstrates the comparative morality of the two positions. If I don't get my way I am upset because it means things are going to be done to me. When they don't get their way they're upset because it means things are not going to be done to me. Nothing gets done to them when I get my way. The same cannot be said when the roles are reversed.
And right on cue Mr. Stuff Guy comes along to prove the point by drawing a false equivalency. Somehow not allowing yourself to be robbed by their hired government henchman is "forcing your agenda on them".
That's a good article, but it doesn't even begin to touch on the hostility I feel. My main concern at this point is hoping I do not wind up with a damaged soul as a result of the inevitable situation they're forcing.
-
It’s nothing personal, necessarily.
Bullshyt. It is personal. These proggies are shills for Big Government. When the Government kills my insurance plan and limits my doctors ('firing' one of my cardios in the process), it is most assuredly personal.
The author is still stuck in the verbal 'nicety' war. That part's over for me. I do not try to convince any liberal moron anything. I just want him dead so I can live my life in the peace and security I have always known. I believe in live and let live, they believe in power and control. It is personal on an existential level.
My reply comment on that thread. We'll see how long they keep it up.
If everyone took part in 'Take Out A Proggie Day', the changes would be vitalizing. And I don't mean take a proggie out on a dinner date.
There are around 310 million people in this Country, more than enough to take out the political Mandarin class, along with the proggies in the Praetorian Guard media and the proggie educrats, as well.
There's no point in trying to persuade proggies of the rightness of your argument and the failure of theirs. Now we move on to the next phase: Targeted assassinations. After all, the Government wants to kill me so why wait for the final 'trains to the camps' denouement (which is always the end game when a government wages war on its own people)? Welcome to my America under the Owebama totalitarian regime. The sides in this war are as old as civilization itself: Government control versus individual liberty. My individual freedom is non-negotiable. Better to die on one's feet than to be a slave of the Government.
Someday Americans will relearn that you can't negotiate with communists, and communists are what progressives are. In typical 'bastardize a word' fashion, they will not admit who they are, just like Owebama will not admit that he is the most far left radical president we've ever had the misfortune to #occupy The White House. He was sold to us by the Praetorian Guard media as a moderate centrist (not that I ever believed that BS). How's that moderation working out for us?
We are in an existential war for the survival of this Country's soul. It is not going to be peaceful nor be resolved in the debauched halls of Congress but rather extremely bloody and played out in the streets across this Land. And all the proggies had to do to prevent the impending bloodshed was to leave people the hell alone. But they couldn't even do that, the gawdamn nosy busybodies. I am already suffering, so I'll make damn sure they suffer, too. Holding their breath forever while we throw dirt on their faces is a damn good start and would make ol' Tom Jefferson proud.
Just remember: 'If you like your doctor, tough shyt, I lied. And you suckers believed me!' Just how do you 'negotiate' with that willing 'sucker' mindset?
(I do believe I responded to the same comment as Weisshaupt, unless the first name isn't Adam and there are a ton of other Weisshaupt's around.)
Also, I agree with Weisshaupt: They will never understand. A sociopath can never comprehend another's person's pain or humanity, and the proggies are all about sociopathy and psychopathy. Hell, those traits are political resume enhancers for that crowd.
-
If everyone took part in 'Take Out A Proggie Day', the changes would be vitalizing. And I don't mean take a proggie out on a dinner date.
There are around 310 million people in this Country, more than enough to take out the political Mandarin class, along with the proggies in the Praetorian Guard media and the proggie educrats, as well.
There's no point in trying to persuade proggies of the rightness of your argument and the failure of theirs. Now we move on to the next phase: Targeted assassinations. After all, the Government wants to kill me so why wait for the final 'trains to the camps' denouement (which is always the end game when a government wages war on its own people)? Welcome to my America under the Owebama totalitarian regime. The sides in this war are as old as civilization itself: Government control versus individual liberty. My individual freedom is non-negotiable. Better to die on one's feet than to be a slave of the Government.
Someday Americans will relearn that you can't negotiate with communists, and communists are what progressives are. In typical 'bastardize a word' fashion, they will not admit who they are, just like Owebama will not admit that he is the most far left radical president we've ever had the misfortune to #occupy The White House. He was sold to us by the Praetorian Guard media as a moderate centrist (not that I ever believed that BS). How's that moderation working out for us?
We are in an existential war for the survival of this Country's soul. It is not going to be peaceful nor be resolved in the debauched halls of Congress but rather extremely bloody and played out in the streets across this Land. And all the proggies had to do to prevent the impending bloodshed was to leave people the hell alone. But they couldn't even do that, the gawdamn nosy busybodies. I am already suffering, so I'll make damn sure they suffer, too. Holding their breath forever while we throw dirt on their faces is a damn good start and would make ol' Tom Jefferson proud.
Just remember: 'If you like your doctor, tough shyt, I lied. And you suckers believed me!' Just how do you 'negotiate' with that willing 'sucker' mindset?
(I do believe I responded to the same comment as Weisshaupt, unless the first name isn't Adam and there are a ton of other Weisshaupt's around.)
Also, I agree with Weisshaupt: They will never understand. A sociopath can never comprehend another's person's pain or humanity, and the proggies are all about sociopathy and psychopathy. Hell, those traits are political resume enhancers for that crowd.
Think globally, shoot locally.
-
I think he's in the final stages of verbal nicety.
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.
-
(I do believe I responded to the same comment as Weisshaupt, unless the first name isn't Adam and there are a ton of other Weisshaupt's around.)
Nope. That one is me.
Did you notice the Lefty actually tried to accuse me of Name calling because I used the word Fascist and Selfish in relationship to him, and explained their applicability. . Never at any point did it ever occur to the lefty that those words might actually describe him. Because the words MEAN NOTHING to them. They experience conversations as nothing but emotion. Being verbally nice to them just confirms their opinion that you are an object - "stuff" to be used. How else can you declare a policy of "live and let live" as an imposition on you, if you don't implicitly see everyone else as tools and objects to be used as you see fit?
Death is too good for them. But you could lock one in a hole. starve them, Torture them daily with electric shocks and they will never, ever understand WHY it is happening. There is no way to ever get them to consider their own actions as the possible cause of our opposition or hatred for them, because we are stuff and shouldn't have feelings either way .
-
I think he's in the final stages of verbal nicety.
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.
Aren't we all?!
“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Get ready for the stomping.
Molôn Labé!
-
Death is too good for them. But you could lock one in a hole. starve them, Torture them daily with electric shocks and they will never, ever understand WHY it is happening.
As Solzhenitsyn documented: Commie apparatchiks were sitting in the Lubyanka cells during the Purges awaiting their fate, all the while bemoaning, "If Comrade Stalin only knew . . . "
We see the same mentality today with the left's 'OMG! Why has my insurance gone up?' hysteria. That they can't figure out that their vote created the very problem that they now experience exemplifies the fault of a non-fact based, union-run education system. With these morons, '1 + 1 = Racism, you Teabaggers' every damn time.
I swear we need a Civics poll test to vote. Of course the SCOTUS will chime in that the test needs to be dumbed down for affirmative action purposes, defeating the purpose of the test. But that's our 'Constitutional scholars' on the Court, for ya, deliberately misconstruing social justice for the real thing.
-
Weisshaupt, in an addendum to our conversation yesterday, I had a clarifying thought.
I think we're basically parsing semantics. But the truth seems clear to me, and I think it's a distinction beyond semantics.
You say the Leftists view us as inhuman, and the other more specific dehumanizations we've discussed. Fair enough, as a rhetorical characterization of what they do. In effect, it is what they do.
I'm saying they know we're human, and choose to treat us as if we're not for the sake of their ideology. I think that my characterization is more indicative of the true evil of Leftism. They are historically willing to throw humans into mass graves, not because they see their victims as non-human, but because they adhere to an evil ideology that allows them to justify the evil of treating people as if they are not human.
All along the road to the end result of the Leftist ideology, Leftists tell themselves and others lies, supported by the groupthink. A fetus isn't a baby; a conservative woman isn't a woman; a conservative Black isn't a real Black; Bush's wars bad/Obama's wars good. The whole ideology is an ideology of lies.
No sane person could look at Sarah Palin and say she's not a true woman. But saying so is the Leftist's tried and true attack for any of their victim constituencies that reject Leftism. So when Sarah Palin comes along, they wail and gnash their teeth, claiming she's not woman, even though it is obvious that she is. They tell the world, "Sarah Palin isn't a true woman", yet there she is, two breasts, a vagina, beautiful, with a husband, children, a grandchild.
That's why they wail and gnash their teeth. They know it's a lie; they know the lie must be spoken; they know they have moved into dehumanization mode, and they don't give a sh*t, because Leftism first.
They'll make the same justifications when troops open fire on a Tea Party rally. Evil can justify anything to the immoral or amoral mind. Even the moral mind must keep evil at bay.
-
I think we're basically parsing semantics. But the truth seems clear to me, and I think it's a distinction beyond semantics.
Yes, I think some term clarification is in order. When I say they view us as inhuman, I am really saying they assign no value to us beyond our use to them at a given moment. They have no respect for our "human" quality. In their world, there are leftists, and then there is everything else. Yes, they are aware we are human, just like they are aware that there of objects called trees, cars and i-phones. But to have intrinsic value, to be seen as something to be respected and dealt with as an equal, you must be part of the herd.
That's why they wail and gnash their teeth. They know it's a lie; they know the lie must be spoken; they know they have moved into dehumanization mode, and they don't give a sh*t, because Leftism first.
I think the correct formation is themselves, their ideas, their wants, their needs, their agenda first justified by leftism... therefore they never get to the point of recognizing you as having human qualities. Say you have rights, and its like you didn't even speak. Like a snake spoke to them and said " "Don't tread on me!" - they don't understand it at all. Snakes don't talk! So I will ignore it. Leftism prevents any cognitive process on the subject from coming into play in the first place.
They justify evil, because they don't (can't won't) recognize the concept as we understand it. To them "evil" is anything that prevents them from obtaining what they desire at he moment. Its evil to lie only if that lie hampers them in getting what they want. There are no immoral acts. Anthony Wiener to this day doesn't think he ever did anything wrong in sending pictures of his pecker out. The internet is evil because it spread the word about his acts. Others judging him are evil because they are so rude as to mention reality to him. His acts themselves? Meaningless. But he- he can't be or do evil, because evil is defined by the leftist to be perpetually OUTSIDE them. It is an external force that prevents them from having what they want. There really isn't any more understanding going on there than that.
I used to wrack my brain trying to figure out how smart people, good friends from childhood, with admittedly good intentions could be so evil - and that is the only way they could be - they simply lack the capacity to recognize evil as we do. They reject any system in which they can be responsible for what they do. Its really the basic purpose of the ideology and what makes it attractive to them. The adopt it because they absolve themselves of individual moral responsibility -its the govt, the democracy, the herd doing this to you, not me. It absolves them of even having to consider the morality of it. All they do is justified by the phrase "Gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz" They don't care because Leftism absolves them of the responsibility of caring. If the herd doesn't see you as having person hood, of needing respect, then they have no responsibility to acknowledge it. They don't know you are human because they accept the judgement of the herd ( and the herd only) If the sheep do not see you as one of the sheep you are not one. There are of course wolves in sheep's clothing, who probably do KNOW- but they are a minority.
-
I know this may depart a bit from the main topic here but this is what I began to think about while reading this thread.
As I was reading all this it hit me as to why the liberals seem so enamored with the Muslims. They basically share the same outlook. This why liberals have such a hard time condemning Muslim behavior. I used to think it was because they are afraid of Muslims but I don’t think that’s really the case. They, consciously or subconsciously, are drawn to their view. I’m thinking of the dems, political or not, that we see in the media NEVER condemning Muslim behavior. (As for those at the lowest rung of the ladder I think the Muslims who allow or “go along” with or even non-Muslims who convert are probably of the same sort of mind set as Americans who are willing to live off the government.)
I believe Islam was created, not as a religion, but as a means of power over others while allowing those in power to continue their behavior as it suit them without restraint or regard for the consequences. While Muslims point to Allah as the reason for their beliefs, liberals point to the environment or racism or whatever as their reason for their belief system. From this source or reason of belief follows the same justifications for their behavior. However, they define the source of their power it is ultimately about controlling the power and telling others how to live.
Muslims believe their “religion” is the “original” religion proceeding from God and that Jews and Christians corrupted what God had given them. The Quran is full of Jewish and Christian references but they are not interpreted the same way. Allah is the source of all power—he wills good and evil. There is no belief that God is a source of Love and that He allows people to freely accept or reject him. In fact, Allah can decide that some people are condemned and it doesn’t matter what they do, they will always be condemned. It strikes me as almost being like the classical Greek Gods that arbitrarily ruled the universe based on their whims and without regard to the humans’ needs. And clever to wrap a political movement in a religion rather than a political philosophy. You can debate a philosophy but you can’t question someone’s religion.
Islam doesn’t have a body of theological thought in the way we think of it for Christians or Jews because Allah is it. There’s no striving to understand a relationship with Allah as we do with God. They live by laws as defined in their hadith. Their laws tell them what to do. They do not view sin as a turning away from Allah as we do with God. Rather sin to them is being ignorant of Allah which I think explains their reliance on a vast number of laws to proscribe behavior. Interestingly though, even that isn’t an absolute because a justification is often made by resorting to Mohammad’s behavior. If he did it, then it’s acceptable even if it seemed to be wrong. (This is how they justify their pedophile behavior—“marrying” 10-year olds for example. Mohammad married a 6-yo and consummated it when she was 9.)
While Muslims to the world present or try to present a consistent code they live by, it breaks down once you begin to question particular aspects of it much like when liberals’ beliefs are analyzed. It may appear that there is one consistent moral code they ascribe to but looking at the Quran and their hadith (Islamic law) it’s obvious that one code exists for a Muslim (which is malleable depending on circumstances) and one for the non-Muslim. Thus while they like to promote the idea they are peace loving, moral ethical people say for example by condemning murder they actually only condemn the murder of other Muslims (and even then there are exceptions). So the killing of non-Muslims isn’t murder. Liberals condemn the inequality of women or their poor treatment by others except when it comes to abortion or if the woman in question is not a liberal. (One set of rules if you’re in the club, different ones if you’re not. And if you’re in the club the rules are bent so you don’t get kicked out.)
Muslims supposedly are pro-family until it suits them to be otherwise. Many Muslims have more than one wife and the men can easily divorce their “wives” (“I divorce you.”). Marriage built on love and respect is a foreign concept to them. It doesn’t exist. They believe in “temporary” marriage in which they marry a “prostitute” or the woman they’re having an affair with long enough to justify their behavior. They were married when it happened so no violation of the law occurred. When they’re done, he divorces the woman. (They justify infidelity as “slaying the infidel within.” There’s no concept of self-control. Islam is full of these self-serving rationalizations.) Liberals deride the concept of marriage also. While Muslims give themselves ways within their belief system to get around marriage and justify their behavior, the liberals seek to impose their views and justify their behavior by imposing it on society as a whole.
The point of these Muslim examples (and there are many, many more) is to show the parallels to liberals’ behavior. We pull our hair out at the inconsistencies of liberal thought and behavior but it’s no different than the Muslims’. The liberal is for the birds and no logging but can live with the slaughter of birds by wind turbines. They want to preserve the Earth’s resources only after they get their eco car.
Muslims don’t seem to be too concerned about people who aren’t Jewish or Christian. They consider Jews and Christians to be people of “the Book” who have corrupted what Allah gave them. They seem to reserve their wrath for these “infidels”. I think it’s because they are the two groups that pose the greatest threat to their continued existence as a political force over others. Likewise, liberals hate traditional Jews and Christians because they pose a threat to their continued existence of doing whatever they what.
Islam is no different that Marxism or any other “ism” that seeks to dominate a group of people while allowing others free reign on their behavior and power. That appeals to liberals and that’s why they can’t condemn Muslims. They recognize kindred spirits.
-
This "inability" (really a refusal) to recognize or label "X" as “evil” amounts to man propping himself up as god & a refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.
• If one posits “evil”, then one must necessarily acknowledge “good” (the opposite of evil)
• If one acknowledges that “good” and “evil” exist, one must ascribe to a mechanism/metric for distinguishing between the two: an objective moral law (objective because otherwise it’s completely subjective* & open to interpretation)
• If one acknowledges an Objective Moral Law, one must acknowledge an objective moral law giver (i.e. God).
…but if they embrace that, then the cognitive dissonance noise levels will be too much to handle. So they subjectively* justify that THEY are the true promulgators of
• freedom (read “a control, moderated existence”),
• justice (read “fairness”) and
• compassion (read: “welfare mentality enablement”)
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Solution: get rid of any notion of God, God’s laws or groups that promote same…
…which leaves me & you as prime targets to be reduced to necessary collateral damage (human, but worthless) in the eternal battle of Worldviews.
-
So we really are in a battle of good vs evil.
I knew it all along!
-
So we really are in a battle of good vs evil.
I knew it all along!
I have always considered liberals/progressives evil.
-
One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.
-
One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.
Yes. There are no consequences to their own actions; someone else is to blame.
-
One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.
Yes. There are no consequences to their own actions; someone else is to blame.
Literally. They decide who to blame and who to reward. Ravi Zacharias, when he's not making radio broadcasts, meets with heads of state in Islamic countries. He met a few years ago with the head of Hamas, who was touting Islam as a religion. Ravi challenged him on the love & forgiveness aspects that religion should embrace (because of the mounting body count & violence).
His answer to Ravi was "Forgiveness? That's only for those who deserve it!" (and, in his world...guess who decides? Hint: it ain't alla)
-
This "inability" (really a refusal) to recognize or label "X" as “evil” amounts to man propping himself up as god & a refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.
• If one posits “evil”, then one must necessarily acknowledge “good” (the opposite of evil)
• If one acknowledges that “good” and “evil” exist, one must ascribe to a mechanism/metric for distinguishing between the two: an objective moral law (objective because otherwise it’s completely subjective* & open to interpretation)
• If one acknowledges an Objective Moral Law, one must acknowledge an objective moral law giver (i.e. God).
…but if they embrace that, then the cognitive dissonance noise levels will be too much to handle. So they subjectively* justify that THEY are the true promulgators of
• freedom (read “a control, moderated existence”),
• justice (read “fairness”) and
• compassion (read: “welfare mentality enablement”)
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Solution: get rid of any notion of God, God’s laws or groups that promote same…
…which leaves me & you as prime targets to be reduced to necessary collateral damage (human, but worthless) in the eternal battle of Worldviews.
That's the foundational premise of secular humanism: "God is Dead". Beyond Good & Evil. The Genealogy of Morality. To them, "God is Dead" merely means that they have presumed to take that role for themselves, like Prometheus stealing fire. They think they're so clever and cutting edge, when all they're doing is some absurd reenactment of Eve eating the Fruit.
-
That's the foundational premise of secular humanism: "God is Dead". Beyond Good & Evil. The Genealogy of Morality. To them, "God is Dead" merely means that they have presumed to take that role for themselves, like Prometheus stealing fire. They think they're so clever and cutting edge, when all they're doing is some absurd reenactment of Eve eating the Fruit.
I sometimes still get that "Man is the measure of all things" line from humanists...
...to which I reply "WHICH man? Hugh Hefner, Mother Theresa, Stalin, Boy George?"
If the starting point was non-moral, non-intelligent, non-rational/reasoning matter (time+slime+chance)...then where oh where did morality come from?
-
The irony of the 'god is dead' crowd is that you have to believe in god in the first place for god to die. Now if you don't believe god exists, that he/she/it is a manifestation of the minds of men trying to explain the mysteries of the natural world, that's another matter. Or maybe they believe that god is really some extraterrestrial with such awesome powers that the populace was amazed/terrorized at their fiery appearance, coming down through our planet's atmosphere. If you were to pluck someone from a technological society like today's US, complete with all their electronic gadgets and other tech marvels and placed them down squarely in ancient Athens' agora they, too, would be viewed as gods. Even a Bic lighter going back in time to the caveman days would be incontrovertible truth of the power of the person with that lighter. Man, when confronted with things he does not understand, has an imaginative mind with the ability to plug such knowledge holes with a soothing and comfortable belief in a god or gods, monotheism being of relatively recent origin.
Heron of Alexandria was the first person to make technology available for use by the religious priests of his day. He even invented the coin operated holy water dispenser, it being a mystery to the faithful how a coin inserted into a slot produced a cupful of water, thereby 'proving' the power of the priests. Nothing like selling a little overpriced water to make some scratch, a 'transformation' which could be viewed as real alchemy. Until Copernicus was able to prove the earth revolved around the sun, earth was the center of the universe and heretics were killed who disputed that known 'fact'. As more and more knowledge is revealed through science, some mysteries of the world disappear (lightening, earthquakes, giant fossil bones, planetary orbits, comets, etc.) only to be replaced by other and newer unexplained phenomena (dark matter being just one example).
Religion has always been about power, about control, even about wealth. Religion has helped order man's societies for millenia, and that's not a bad thing. Then along came islam, a religion which is the perfect summation of power, control and wealth, along with a 'scriptural' rejection of science itself.
I'm a firm believer in the 'god is a product of man's imagination in order to explain the natural world' theory. Just because we don't understand things happening in our universe doesn't mean there is a god responsible for them.
-
Man, when confronted with things he does not understand, has an imaginative mind with the ability to plug such knowledge holes with a soothing and comfortable belief in a god or gods, monotheism being of relatively recent origin.
That’s often referred to as the “God of the Gaps” – referencing the Bible, saying you don’t know how “X” happened,, but trusting that God’s Word is truth. There is also an “Atheism of the Gaps”, the most prominent of which is this: why is there something, or how did we get something from…nothing? How did inert, non-thinking, non-rational, non-reasoning, non-moral chemicals transform into intelligent, rational, moral man? ::dueling::
I'm a firm believer in the 'god is a product of man's imagination in order to explain the natural world' theory. Just because we don't understand things happening in our universe doesn't mean there is a god responsible for them.
Atheists & science have no answers either, save this: “We don’t know but we’re, uhm…working on it” which is their “gap” as they’re determined not to allow a divine foot in the door.
Other explanations offered up by normally intelligent men of science:
• Transpermia: Aliens from another planet seeding earth (talk about "faith"!)
• Bacteria from a meteor, smashing into earth & evolving from there
• Lightning strike on a puddle of ooze, igniting the lifecycle/evolutionary process.
• Gravity as the first cause for the universe; that one by the “brilliant” Stephen Hawking (but where did the gravity come from ??)
• An explosion of dense matter into everything we see now..often referred to & categorized as a “Singularity”.
• And, possibly the best: “A replicator arose because a molecule capable of replicating itself arose. Once this happened, replication was an inevitable result of basic chemistry.”
Mmm, hmm…and from whence the, uhm...“replicator”?
More: http://apologeticsworkshop.wordpress.com/going-social/the-nothing/ (http://apologeticsworkshop.wordpress.com/going-social/the-nothing/)
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton
-
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton
That's a darn good quote right there.
-
What you're saying, Pablo, is: Whatever we don't understand about the natural world, god is responsible. That's a cheap copout to me, and supports my argument about natural world mysteries being attributed to a god or gods. Man's innate curiosity needs explanations and religious beliefs have provided many 'answers'. Many wrong, of course, but many answers nonetheless.
-
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton
That's a darn good quote right there.
It is.
And I think I'll have to remember this from Pablo if it ever comes up!
I sometimes still get that "Man is the measure of all things" line from humanists...
...to which I reply "WHICH man? Hugh Hefner, Mother Theresa, Stalin, Boy George?"
::thumbsup::
-
What you're saying, Pablo, is: Whatever we don't understand about the natural world, god is responsible. That's a cheap copout to me, and supports my argument about natural world mysteries being attributed to a god or gods. Man's innate curiosity needs explanations and religious beliefs have provided many 'answers'. Many wrong, of course, but many answers nonetheless.
No Rick. You've misunderstood. I said that doing that is referred to as the "God of the gaps". It IS a cheap cop-out. There are reasons & evidences for the existence of God; logical reasons that work against atheistic answers. Once science starts attempting to explain ANYTHING that is devoid of the scientific process (observable, testable, duplicable) they leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy.
Quick example in logic:
How is this design:
(http://www.flyertalk.com/the-gate/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Mount-Rushmore.jpg)
...and this, not?
(http://afaofpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/baby-in-utero.jpg)
Explain: 200 words or less: _________________________________ :D
-
Once science starts attempting to explain ANYTHING that is devoid of the scientific process (observable, testable, duplicable) they leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy.
And that is exactly what religion is, a philosophy, not provable by any scientific method. Remember, while there's no "I" in team, you can't believe without "lie" being a part of the mix.
ETA: As far as your question, I honestly do not understand the comparison. One picture is of rocks, one isn't. Mt. Rushmore was designed, and that is provable. As for babies, genes make the design. Yeah, yeah, who makes the genes? Why do small human embryos have a tail, which later devolves into nonexistence? Is that not a holdover from our pre-human days? Or something else?
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Pb8w6GtaZw/TuZx1aivFBI/AAAAAAAAAIo/kD6EgBQPkG4/s1600/not_this_sh*t_again3.jpg)
-
What you're saying, Pablo, is: Whatever we don't understand about the natural world, god is responsible. That's a cheap copout to me, and supports my argument about natural world mysteries being attributed to a god or gods. Man's innate curiosity needs explanations and religious beliefs have provided many 'answers'. Many wrong, of course, but many answers nonetheless.
This is a law of very large numbers problem. Coincidence might very well look like Divine intervention and vice versa. The systems around us are so complex it is very hard for me to believe they evolved by chance - but these are very large numbers, and therefore such a chance is possible, no matter how unlikely. Science will never provide an answer because science - as a basic postulate, assumes that there no sentient 3rd party changing the rules as you experiment. Having accepted that postulate on faith.. and faith it is, The Atheist Left take that one step further and then pronounce that God not only does not interfere in their experiments, but propose that he does not interfere because there is no God. This belief is taken upon faith, as part of the dogma of the Religion of Science as the light the truth and the way .
To an believer in Science!TM the religion (as opposed to "science" , the little method we use to investigate the world around us in which NOTHING is ever proven or settled) there is no other explanation than Evolution - that, no matter how unlikely a given evolution or adaptation is, no matter how complex a natural process is discovered to be, that everything came from nothing.
A Believer in God simply chooses to see those complexities and systems as works of an intelligent hand, thinking it too unlikely that such a system could have come into being entirely by chance, and without a guiding hand.
That is is all the quote is saying. Even if the scientists can get evolution to occur in a lab setting and repeat it over and over- it would not disprove that an intelligent hand designed that system and set it in motion. This simply comes down to what you choose to believe. Its a matter of faith and cannot every be proven one way or the other.
Background radiation is the same intensity no matter where we look in the sky. If the Big Bag occurred, one portion of the universe should still be providing more intense emissions. Hawking postulated an entirely new 4th dimension to explain it, because the simplest explanation is Earth is very near to the location of the Big Bang, and that just smacks of creationism doesn't it? He could not accept the chances of Earth having formed near the actual center of the Universe, so he makes up a whole new dimension of time and space to explain it away- because Science!TM
This was an interesting read for me (http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/B00ERJ49UM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1382535566&sr=8-4&keywords=starlight+and+time) and really opened by eyes to the blind spots I had being raised a Scientist!TM - I don't accept it as gospel or anything, it just merely points out scientific ways ( and bolsteres it with Bible verse) that the Bible could be literally true and the Earth be only 6000 years old in a universe Billions of years old.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Pb8w6GtaZw/TuZx1aivFBI/AAAAAAAAAIo/kD6EgBQPkG4/s1600/not_this_sh*t_again3.jpg)
excellent
need to keep this in reserve for the next time ::whatgives:: ::bashing::
(...and this WILL be a next time...there always is ::whatgives::)
I don't see faith as something you can argue someone into or out of. You can only answers questions based on what you believe. Whatever your thoughts on faith happen to be they are still based on beliefs no matter how strong you perceive your arguments to be. Science may bolster your argument as you perceive it but it doesn't definitely prove it one way or the other.
-
I like true science. Demonstrable. Repeatable. Provable. But, the denial of God is not provable. The creation is not repeatable. It is not demonstrable. No "scientist," fake or otherwise, has ever demonstrated the creation of matter from the nothingness. No scientist has demonstrated the creation of life from non-life. It does come down to faith. I am willing to admit my faith. The secular humanists are not. But, their faith is Demonstrable, Provable, and Repeatable. Denial of the facts accomplishes nothing. It merely is what it is.
-
The creation is not repeatable.
That. And if I may wade into it... I don't take Genesis literally. There wasn't even a word for billion, in 1500BC, when some nobody sat down in a desert and wrote a simplified version of...
The Big Bang. Moses nailed it. Who am I to say what a day is to God? Moses stated the universe came out of nothing. Scientists finally agreed only a few decades ago. That's pretty close to actual observation, to me.
People try dating the earth from the bible. There is no such date stated. Some trace genealogy, fine. All you're doing is tracing back to a time when something happened to humanity. Whether the bible or archeology, something happened to humanity, moving from animal to civilized being. Someone in that part of the world was "touched" to the point of putting some clothes on and setting up the beginnings of civilization. Whether their names were Adam and Eve or not, Moses did come rather close writing about the beginnings of civilized time. Again, quite the accomplishment for some nobody sitting in a desert, circa 1500 BC.
::grouphug::
-
That. And if I may wade into it... I don't take Genesis literally. There wasn't even a word for billion, in 1500BC, when some nobody sat down in a desert and wrote a simplified version of...
Read that Starlight and Time book I suggested. Its actually not that far-fetched and just as plausible as wrapping the entire universe around the surface of a 4th dimensional hyper sphere to explain why radiation is the same in all directions ( and maybe they proved this 4th dimension exists, but if so, I am not aware of it.)
-
The creation is not repeatable.
That. And if I may wade into it... I don't take Genesis literally. There wasn't even a word for billion, in 1500BC, when some nobody sat down in a desert and wrote a simplified version of...
The Big Bang. Moses nailed it. Who am I to say what a day is to God? Moses stated the universe came out of nothing. Scientists finally agreed only a few decades ago. That's pretty close to actual observation, to me.
People try dating the earth from the bible. There is no such date stated. Some trace genealogy, fine. All you're doing is tracing back to a time when something happened to humanity. Whether the bible or archeology, something happened to humanity, moving from animal to civilized being. Someone in that part of the world was "touched" to the point of putting some clothes on and setting up the beginnings of civilization. Whether their names were Adam and Eve or not, Moses did come rather close writing about the beginnings of civilized time. Again, quite the accomplishment for some nobody sitting in a desert, circa 1500 BC.
::grouphug::
My thoughts almost exactly, with one caveat. The more recent the Old Testament book, the more literally I take it. I believe that the historical aspects of the Old Testament "evolve" (there's that word) from myth, to myth with history mixed in, to a mix of myth and history, to history with myth mixed in, to history.
Some Christians would consider that blasphemy. I don't really give a sh*t what they think. I believe the bible is divinely inspired, and that it gives us the knowledge we need about the nature of God and His relationship with humankind. I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ never demands that I believe in Adam and Eve as literal people who lived 6000 years ago.
-
I wouldn't argue with that (I'd be largely unarmed anyway), and nice close IDP! ::thumbsup::
-
I believe the bible is divinely inspired]I believe the bible is divinely inspired
I read a sci-fi story, years ago. I don't remember who, I don't remember a title, but it was about an extremely higher intelligence trying to explain something to a species of extreme lesser intelligence. Something in the story kind of gave a nod nod wink wink to make the reader think of God and Moses. Not that the little brat who asked his Sunday School teacher who Cain and Able married ::angel:: already didn't think along those lines, but that story solidified how I thought of Genesis. If you God, how would you explain the beginning of the universe to Moses, a simple person of a simple time. Genesis is how.
-
...If you [were] God, how would you explain the beginning of the universe to Moses, a simple person of a simple time. Genesis is how.
My thought crystallized.
-
These things, I view them as being in such completely different realms that it's generally a mistake to even try to interpret one through the lens of the other. I am not troubled in my belief in God by anything discovered or explained by science, mainly because I have never asserted to myself or others that my belief derives from anything testable by science. That's why they call it faith.
Science is a mechanistic system of inquiry. It can potentially explain everything about the material universe, but I believe the material universe is only a part rather than the whole. I spent a long time as basically an agnostic trending atheist trending deist depending on my mood. I have since come to accept the divinity of Christ. I look back now at some of the "gotchas" I used to espouse and see them as hubris, presuming to understand God as being bound by the same rules as myself.
I don't wade into these sorts of arguments because having lived as an unbeliever before I understand that you can't make someone believe, other than to say if you have a yearning God will answer you. Some people do not have a yearning, as I for some time did not, and to them I would only say to just keep your mind and heart open to the possibility that some day you might.
The important thing for everyone, believer and unbeliever, to remember is that we are all declared an enemy so long as we refuse to worship the State.
-
Science is a mechanistic system of inquiry. It can potentially explain everything about the material universe, but I believe the material universe is only a part rather than the whole
It can, as long as the fundamental premise holds true - that no one is messing with the rules - that the rules are constant and unchanging. If Evolution is indeed done by design- where some external force ( and it could be space aliens , and not God for all I know..) interferes with the genetic code, Science will never figure it out unless they actually catch the designer in the act, and even then it will only show that only the occurrence under observation happened that way. Both random undesigned AND designed mutations could be happening through out history. Simple Darwinian Adaptations being in the former category, and the development of individual species by the latter. Or its all design. Or none of it is and it works through something we don't understand. Science is really a very limited tool. Also, I am pretty sure the Duck Billed Platypus is the work of some genetic engineers in 2614 who got drunk one night and figured it would be hilarious to create that animal and send it back though time to mess with us.
"Dude I am so wasted!"
"Me too. And I am bored. What should we do?"
"I know, lets mess with that new time machine in the physics lab!"
"Okay, sounds fun, but how?"
"How about we bio-engineer a unicorn as send it back to England in the Middle ages?"
"Nah, lets do a Dragon in China!"
"Yeah, they will mess those Cavemen Darwinists up!"
"Oh, man if you want to do that , we should do it right. Create a really messed up Animal. Like a Mammal with a duck bill and webbed feet! "
"Oh, man , thats great. lets have it lay eggs, and instead of teats, it will just secrete milk from its skin.. "
"Hey, lets make it poisonous too. like a Snake!"
"How are we going to get fangs into a duck bill? "
"Oh right. How about we put spurs on its legs!"
"Yeah! that will work. Hey lets make it like a fish too- give it sensitivity to electro-magnetic fields."
"Oh man, I can't wait till those pre-humans find this thing! Okay, it all plugged into the genetic manipulator. Hand me another Beer will ya?"
"uh oh. "
"what?"
"The computer says that the right ovary is going to be a dud. "
"Don't worry about it man, its just a joke. The thing obviously isn't going to survive in the wild for very long.. give it here.. and lets get over to the Physics lab before someone else beats us to it.."
"Oh wait.. I think I saw Jerry was working on something that hopped with a pouch just this afternoon!"
And that, is exactly how the Duck Bill Platypus came to be. Just proof that not all all designs are well done.. And that is not faith, its fact. What other possible conclusion could it be? And if you disagree you are a poopy head.
-
LOL.
-
What truly angers this Canadian is that lib/progs believe themselves to be morally superior and much more intelligent that us redneck conservatives. But when challenged and questioned, you find that they are invariably functional idiots, and have the morals of a cesspool dwelling rat... ::rockets::
-
Five or more decades ago, some one postulated the Big Bang theory and said it all happened 15 billion years ago. Years later they said perhaps it was 20 billion. Years after that they said it was going to continue to expand until everything is dark and cold. Years after that they said the universe would stop expanding and then begin to contract until it winds up in a ball of hyper energy or whatever. Next up, they postulated that there isn't enough matter theoretically to bring it all back together again. A decade ago, someone postulated that something called dark matter could be the balancing factor for the contraction "theory"(Of course nobody has proof it exists but they have FAITH that it does.) Still not done screwing with everyone, the galaxies are running away from each other at great speeds. The aforementioned theory is axed and we're back to ever expanding but why if dark matter exists then why. Not to be out postulated, they now say a new energy, calling it dark energy is pushing everything apart(a racial thing, I'm sure of it). Meanwhile, galaxies are actually clustered together and are likely to collide forming up super galaxies. M-31(Andromeda) and the Milky Way are on a collision course via gravity(I thought dark energy was pushing everything apart, whatever). Don't panic they say, the stars are to far apart so they won't collide as if that statement was gospel. Never mind, that it will take tens of billions of years for that to occur and well, our star will become a red giant star which will spell the end of the Earth. Serious global warming will occur on that day, Al Gore will not respond even if he lived that long.
Even if our species lives a few more billion years(yeah right) can we live beyond our solar system outside of the protection of our star's influential magnetic field? I don't see it folks. The people living on this planet are history's most ignorant. Many can't put down the hand held devices and video game consoles long enough to smell the socialism rammed down their throats.
Half our population looking to to freeze or starve themselves to death because of some outlandish statements made by a few people looking to get wealthy off ignorant bastards not paying attention to what's going on around them.
Theoreticians and their theories are a dime a dozen but none of them will spend enough time engineering something that will benefit man. The origins of the universe? who cares at this point...we have a government looking to enslave us simply becasue they believe they know what's best for me. Nature's God exists for me until someone proves he doesn't. I'm not holding my breath in the mean time.
Bottom line, liberal progs suck and we all can agree on that issue and what we'd like to do to them.
-
I without apology take the account of Genesis literally. But what I do not know is how long a day is to God or was there any creation before what He revels in the Bible. Since God is, was and ever will be I have no idea what He created in eternity past.
I am not science naive either. I graduated with a degree from the University of Mn in Molecular Biology and Generics, with a minor in Biochemistry and graduated summa cum laude and a few years ago I finished and earned my Masters in Physiology and Bio-mechanics..............
I feel what God told Moses to write in Genesis was to show us that God's power is infinite and is beyond anything we can imagine. God stared off His account with Genesis to show He is ruler and the final authority over all. To imagine with a spoken word all creation appeared is beyond comprehension to me. It reveals to me God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So if I can believe God can create all this then I can believe God can intervene in our lives personally as He says thorough the Holy Spirit and help guide and direct us to His will for our lives.
-
I without apology take the account of Genesis literally...
And I absolutely respect that view, even though I differ with it somewhat. I cannot prove whether Adam and Eve are literal or myth, and so it would be foolish of me to stake a claim that they were not real human beings.
I absolutely believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob creating everything. In that, we do not differ. I just see Adam and Eve as some of God's parables - as I said earlier, exactly what he wants us to know about Him, His nature, and our relationship to Him. I may be dead wrong. But that is where my faith leads me at this time.
-
... and how in the HECK did a thread about enumerating all the justifications for increasing conservative hostility towards the Left turn into a thread about Adam and Eve anyway?
::whatgives:: ::thinking::
(That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't, I'm just making note)
-
I without apology take the account of Genesis literally...
And I absolutely respect that view, even though I differ with it somewhat. I cannot prove whether Adam and Eve are literal or myth, and so it would be foolish of me to stake a claim that they were not real human beings.
I absolutely believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob creating everything. In that, we do not differ. I just see Adam and Eve as some of God's parables - as I said earlier, exactly what he wants us to know about Him, His nature, and our relationship to Him. I may be dead wrong. But that is where my faith leads me at this time.
And I too IDP respect your view. I have learned as I have gotten older not to get upset and combative with a fellow believer or believers over non salvation issues. I know you are a Born Again Believer and a fellow Christian Brother and while it maybe helpful to discuss these issues in no way will I ever let it ruin my fellowship with a fellow brother.....................
-
Back to the topic: I hate libs because I honestly believe that they are crazy and mean me harm of one kind or another.
I find them to be immoral and lazy and jealous.
-
Back to the topic: I hate libs because I honestly believe that they are crazy and mean me harm of one kind or another.
I find them to be immoral and lazy and jealous.
In a word (especially if they don't like it!) - evil!