Belief Systems Left and Right . . .

[Nosmo King]

Why do so many Right Wingers actively seek to conflate faith and politics, two subjects along with money ought to be avoided in polite conversation. Why do Right Wingers want to wrap themselves in the two most potent symbols in our culture; the flag and the Bible?

Surely it makes their political/Ecclesiastal world more comfortable, but not unassailable. Faith is not a matter for compromise. No one of faith would broach compromising their belief in God. Similarly, they feel that their political ideology is inviolate, pure, absolutely correct and anyone opposing it is a heretic.

I am a man of faith. I have been a Christian all 61 years of my life. When I became politically aware back in the late 1960s, I took a Lineral stance and I have not backed away from it. But I do not for one second want my fath to inform my politics. I do not, for one second, think that it is right, appropriate or American to call my politics my faith or my faith politics.

I think the reason so many on my side of the aisle look askance at 'Chritianity' is due to the dogmatic and twisted interpretations so many 'Christians' use when defending indefensible political positions. Creation vs. evolution, marriage equality, racial relations and, the big one, reproductive freedom. These issues, these wedge issues, these cultural issues are, in the absence of a polarizing president, what divide this culture the most.

When a baker discriminates against a customer not because the customer is completing himself in an unseemly manner, but because the baker thinks the customer's lifestyle is icky, 'Christians' twist a beautiful, loving faith based on forgiveness and empathy ito something unrecognizable as Christianity.

When 'Christians' take it upon themselves to harass a frightened young woman who has made the most emotionally excruciating decision of her young life, one must ask what ever happened to the Golden Rule?

So the righteousness of a narrow interpretation of faith collides with the righteousness of those who harbor political paranoia, we get to the point of why and how the Left feels justified in dismissing 'Christianity'. By the way, if you want a paradigm for what happens when faith meets politics, look no further than the Taliban. Fundamentalism attracts strange bedfellows.

I read you as a double line, middle of the road fence walker. Either one stands in solidarity against ideological evil, or one is complicit with said evil, regardless of self-moderation or faith. One cannot claim to have faith and respect for the ancient foundations of moral fact, while still claiming to be possessed of a mind open to and embracing contemporary cultural darkness. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have the best of both worlds. Trust me, that desire is a sinking ship.

What is "ideological evil"? What are the aspects of "contemporary cultural darkness"?

Is it tolerance? Is it equality? Is it reproductive freedom?

You use those hyperbolic terms as a saber to hack at those who hold different opinions than yours. Please specify. Otherwise we cannot truly dialogue.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

This is the logic and rhetoric one uses when attempting to fill the vacuum of a belief system. If it weren't for the invention of superficial little labels, what value do you believe you possess to educate others regarding this topic? Is it simply more attempts to shun/pigeonhole those who may not share your belief system? If so, do you believe this is a valuable use of everyone's time?

 

[night_son]

Why do so many Right Wingers actively seek to conflate faith and politics, two subjects along with money ought to be avoided in polite conversation. Why do Right Wingers want to wrap themselves in the two most potent symbols in our culture; the flag and the Bible?

Surely it makes their political/Ecclesiastal world more comfortable, but not unassailable. Faith is not a matter for compromise. No one of faith would broach compromising their belief in God. Similarly, they feel that their political ideology is inviolate, pure, absolutely correct and anyone opposing it is a heretic.

I am a man of faith. I have been a Christian all 61 years of my life. When I became politically aware back in the late 1960s, I took a Lineral stance and I have not backed away from it. But I do not for one second want my fath to inform my politics. I do not, for one second, think that it is right, appropriate or American to call my politics my faith or my faith politics.

I think the reason so many on my side of the aisle look askance at 'Chritianity' is due to the dogmatic and twisted interpretations so many 'Christians' use when defending indefensible political positions. Creation vs. evolution, marriage equality, racial relations and, the big one, reproductive freedom. These issues, these wedge issues, these cultural issues are, in the absence of a polarizing president, what divide this culture the most.

When a baker discriminates against a customer not because the customer is completing himself in an unseemly manner, but because the baker thinks the customer's lifestyle is icky, 'Christians' twist a beautiful, loving faith based on forgiveness and empathy ito something unrecognizable as Christianity.

When 'Christians' take it upon themselves to harass a frightened young woman who has made the most emotionally excruciating decision of her young life, one must ask what ever happened to the Golden Rule?

So the righteousness of a narrow interpretation of faith collides with the righteousness of those who harbor political paranoia, we get to the point of why and how the Left feels justified in dismissing 'Christianity'. By the way, if you want a paradigm for what happens when faith meets politics, look no further than the Taliban. Fundamentalism attracts strange bedfellows.

I read you as a double line, middle of the road fence walker. Either one stands in solidarity against ideological evil, or one is complicit with said evil, regardless of self-moderation or faith. One cannot claim to have faith and respect for the ancient foundations of moral fact, while still claiming to be possessed of a mind open to and embracing contemporary cultural darkness. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have the best of both worlds. Trust me, that desire is a sinking ship.

What is "ideological evil"? What are the aspects of "contemporary cultural darkness"?

Is it tolerance? Is it equality? Is it reproductive freedom?

You use those hyperbolic terms as a saber to hack at those who hold different opinions than yours. Please specify. Otherwise we cannot truly dialogue.

You conflate the fundamental differences between right and wrong as hyperbolic, and fall back to a commonly held position, contemporarily, of moral relativism and an obdurate insistence on recursively debating what is always right, always wrong, which if engaged and practiced as a life philosophy, procrastinates endlessly the moral responsibility of having to make and live by a final distinction between the two.

Tolerance of what? Wrong is always wrong. Belief that a mind open to accepting moral darkness in the forms of debauchery and sadism is somehow evolved or intellectually expanded, confers guilt by the association of acceptance. Imagine you come upon a man who is sexually assaulting a woman. Would your personal moral code of open mindedness allow you to forgive yourself for siding with the rapist after ignoring his crime? What about a young child whose parents decide he should be a she, to the tune of hormone therapy and surgery? Say you are a school guidance counselor or some kind of health professional—perhaps a psychologist—who knows both professionally and in your heart of hearts that in this particular child's case the process could kill him. Would your open mindedness prevent you from interfering with the process before it is carried out on the child, or would you use it as a moral anesthetic—an excuse to do nothing?

Equality with whom? Do you associate equality first with indelible physical traits such as race or skin tone or hair color? Or with personal merit? Do you believe a man or woman who has through military service and higher education and long years of hard work deserve to have more—by the personal merit of hard work—than the fast food worker who works just as hard but without the aforementioned hard earned boons? Or should the government take from the first American worker and give to the second in order to balance things out, economically, for everyone?

Reproductive freedom is a fundamentally amoral myth. It began with ideas in the heads of philosophers who thought that abortion could maybe make a great population control tool. Along the way, some malevolent fellows welded their population control idea to the ideology of radical feminism and antipositivist sociology, et voilà, the crusade for cultural and sexual revolution was born. There's nothing moral about it. But once again, the open minded philosophy you stand upon insists or triggers within you the need stand there and think endlessly about the fundamental right or wrong of abortion, rather than taking a real stance or having to bear the moral burden of facing and living with the decision whether or not it is one or the other.

Fence sitting, or walking down the moral center of the road might seem like a smart way to avoid having to embrace the grinding reality and difference between the moral facts of right and wrong, but it is a trap. No amount of open mindedness can change the eternal definitions and differences between ancient right and wrong, they're the only unchanging constants we human mortals have.

 

[night_son]

No, man did not create God; God created man and accordingly man derived from God's word to complexify endless tomes of rite and ritual.

- complexify endless tomes of rite and ritual.

physiology is a creation made from the elements of the periodic table and is bound by the same metaphysical forces that distinguish each element as an independent unit - the word is not complexity, it is purity and is not found in your 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion. the functionality is the religion of Antiquity that distinguishes the type of purity as was created in the beginning.

Many thanks for telling us how it is. You're a coconut or two short.

 

[night_son]

When they say Socialism is a religion, they don't mean it's a religion, but that it's similar to. That the traits people follow when being religious are often played out by socialists, communists etc.

They believe, rather than know, they hide the truth to make sure what they believe "becomes true", they attack those that don't think the same as them. Similarities, therefore they can say that it's a religion

If what you say is true, and I do believe it is a dubious claim, then why aren't the religionists cognizant of their own actions?

The religionists are claiming they are no different from communists and socialists.

They're not aware of what they're doing because they choose to ignore.

Imagine you grow up. Your parents tell you there's a God. You teachers tell you there's a God. Your friends believe.

Are you going to turn around and say they're all stupid? No.

And yet, in your seemingly depthless naïveté and thirst for defiance of parental and social and divine authority, your godlessness is not unique. Atheism was put right there into your brain by words derived from another dusty old tome, written by a man whose own desire to brainwash and destroy ancient moral foundation succeeded, on you, quite well.

Wait, what?

You're talking about my "godlessness" as if it's a bad thing, all the while attacking me like... like.... like someone who doesn't have a moral basis.

I'm not an atheist. So, your assumptions are ridiculous.

So what's the point of any of your post? Attack me for being something I'm not? Well done.

Exasperation.

 

[night_son]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

Maybe if you could prove your god, people wouldn't dismiss is outright. Ever thought of that?

If only I had half a cent for each of the product iterations of your same-question mill. Your fallback position question, "But can you prove God exists?" is less a Great Wall of China and more or less a "No True Scotsman" wooden fence around a cow pasture. Sorry.

You're asking why people dismiss your god. I'm just saying that it's because it all sounds made up, and it is, but you still take it seriously and are offended when people just dismiss you and it. You should call for a jihad against blasphemous infidels.

Funny humans.

 

[night_son]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

This is the logic and rhetoric one uses when attempting to fill the vacuum of a belief system. If it weren't for the invention of superficial little labels, what value do you believe you possess to educate others regarding this topic? Is it simply more attempts to shun/pigeonhole those who may not share your belief system? If so, do you believe this is a valuable use of everyone's time?

You are dissembling the truth with deconstructionist critique, and a poorly forged chisel at that. Procrastinate and in kind spin your wheels eternally, and see where it gets you. Belief system this, belief system that. In the space of your denial of moral fact, you force out the air of ancient moral reality, unchanging, until you have nothing left but a void of moral relativism, a sea of moral nihilism the waters of which allow you to adjust fundamental right and wrong to suit and justify any desire or want that arises. In the absence of truth you are left with only a series of events you delay indefinitely, until the end.

 

[night_son]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

Yes, it's very strange.

But then you find so many people who want to believe, they've been trained to believe since they were kids, what with religion being a part of daily life.

Kids should be taught to think, not believe.

Absolutely untrue. Children must first be taught a foundation of personal responsibility. Without that, no amount of ideology can intellectualize away their life problems, or the truths and facts of reality, which cause them.

Well, I'm not sure we're talking about different things here.

Christianity teaches certain things in a certain way.

Do you think there's a reason the top 30 or so countries for murder are Christian countries? And the top 50 cities for murder are all in Christian countries?

Kids are being taught stuff. How about "do what you like during the week, come to us once a week and we'll tell you that everything's okay and you're forgiven for all your bad shit"?

Value in meaning, meaning in value. Run from one scary religion into the arms of another, more easily justifiable to self since the other religion is not labelled religion and yet is more oppressively religious than the ancient beliefs which terrify you most. Because its what all the cool kids are doing, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

When they say Socialism is a religion, they don't mean it's a religion, but that it's similar to. That the traits people follow when being religious are often played out by socialists, communists etc.

They believe, rather than know, they hide the truth to make sure what they believe "becomes true", they attack those that don't think the same as them. Similarities, therefore they can say that it's a religion

If what you say is true, and I do believe it is a dubious claim, then why aren't the religionists cognizant of their own actions?

The religionists are claiming they are no different from communists and socialists.

They're not aware of what they're doing because they choose to ignore.

Imagine you grow up. Your parents tell you there's a God. You teachers tell you there's a God. Your friends believe.

Are you going to turn around and say they're all stupid? No.

And yet, in your seemingly depthless naïveté and thirst for defiance of parental and social and divine authority, your godlessness is not unique. Atheism was put right there into your brain by words derived from another dusty old tome, written by a man whose own desire to brainwash and destroy ancient moral foundation succeeded, on you, quite well.

Wait, what?

You're talking about my "godlessness" as if it's a bad thing, all the while attacking me like... like.... like someone who doesn't have a moral basis.

I'm not an atheist. So, your assumptions are ridiculous.

So what's the point of any of your post? Attack me for being something I'm not? Well done.

Exasperation.

I can imagine trying to force everything to fit your little made up belief system is rather exasperating.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

Yes, it's very strange.

But then you find so many people who want to believe, they've been trained to believe since they were kids, what with religion being a part of daily life.

Kids should be taught to think, not believe.

Absolutely untrue. Children must first be taught a foundation of personal responsibility. Without that, no amount of ideology can intellectualize away their life problems, or the truths and facts of reality, which cause them.

Well, I'm not sure we're talking about different things here.

Christianity teaches certain things in a certain way.

Do you think there's a reason the top 30 or so countries for murder are Christian countries? And the top 50 cities for murder are all in Christian countries?

Kids are being taught stuff. How about "do what you like during the week, come to us once a week and we'll tell you that everything's okay and you're forgiven for all your bad shit"?

Value in meaning, meaning in value. Run from one scary religion into the arms of another, more easily justifiable to self since the other religion is not labelled religion and yet is more oppressively religious than the ancient beliefs which terrify you most. Because its what all the cool kids are doing, right?

I'm sure you have a point to make, but I didn't see it.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

How many of you also are curious as to why the most sanctimonious of American Leftists in particular so intellectually violently reject religion, namely Christianity, while at the same time just as intellectually violently embrace what essentially amounts to a much more dogmatic, oppressive and lethal religion of orthodox postmodernism derived from blends of radical revolutionary Enlightenment Era Atheism, French Revolutionism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Utopianism, Hegelian Dialectic, Deconstructionism, Antipositivism, Transcendentalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Anti-Realism and associated anti-truth, anti-fact materialist thinking?

Many American Leftists instantly attack mere mention of belief in the Logos, dismiss God outright, and then venerate their ideologue Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment orthodox radical Left philosophers as deities who wore flesh and bones. They raise mortal atheist men up as Gods, while refusing God of time immemorial. They dismiss one religion while trading said belief for another religion, a much more baleful one.

Is their hypocritic naiveté in fact simply all about rebellion? Is their hatred of Christianity about the freedom of breaking ancient taboo, and their subscription to radical Leftist philosophy simply made because such philosophies assure them moral facts do not exist and so they can practice whatever depravity they so desire? For them, is it all about unlimited freedom without the self-imposed restraint of moral personal responsibility? Essentially, how blind foolish and anti-truth must one be to worship these godless men who have convinced them no consequence exists for existence without moral restraint?

This is the logic and rhetoric one uses when attempting to fill the vacuum of a belief system. If it weren't for the invention of superficial little labels, what value do you believe you possess to educate others regarding this topic? Is it simply more attempts to shun/pigeonhole those who may not share your belief system? If so, do you believe this is a valuable use of everyone's time?

You are dissembling the truth with deconstructionist critique, and a poorly forged chisel at that. Procrastinate and in kind spin your wheels eternally, and see where it gets you. Belief system this, belief system that. In the space of your denial of moral fact, you force out the air of ancient moral reality, unchanging, until you have nothing left but a void of moral relativism, a sea of moral nihilism the waters of which allow you to adjust fundamental right and wrong to suit and justify any desire or want that arises. In the absence of truth you are left with only a series of events you delay indefinitely, until the end.

So, no then?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do so many Right Wingers actively seek to conflate faith and politics, two subjects along with money ought to be avoided in polite conversation. Why do Right Wingers want to wrap themselves in the two most potent symbols in our culture; the flag and the Bible?

Surely it makes their political/Ecclesiastal world more comfortable, but not unassailable. Faith is not a matter for compromise. No one of faith would broach compromising their belief in God. Similarly, they feel that their political ideology is inviolate, pure, absolutely correct and anyone opposing it is a heretic.

I am a man of faith. I have been a Christian all 61 years of my life. When I became politically aware back in the late 1960s, I took a Lineral stance and I have not backed away from it. But I do not for one second want my fath to inform my politics. I do not, for one second, think that it is right, appropriate or American to call my politics my faith or my faith politics.

I think the reason so many on my side of the aisle look askance at 'Chritianity' is due to the dogmatic and twisted interpretations so many 'Christians' use when defending indefensible political positions. Creation vs. evolution, marriage equality, racial relations and, the big one, reproductive freedom. These issues, these wedge issues, these cultural issues are, in the absence of a polarizing president, what divide this culture the most.

When a baker discriminates against a customer not because the customer is completing himself in an unseemly manner, but because the baker thinks the customer's lifestyle is icky, 'Christians' twist a beautiful, loving faith based on forgiveness and empathy ito something unrecognizable as Christianity.

When 'Christians' take it upon themselves to harass a frightened young woman who has made the most emotionally excruciating decision of her young life, one must ask what ever happened to the Golden Rule?

So the righteousness of a narrow interpretation of faith collides with the righteousness of those who harbor political paranoia, we get to the point of why and how the Left feels justified in dismissing 'Christianity'. By the way, if you want a paradigm for what happens when faith meets politics, look no further than the Taliban. Fundamentalism attracts strange bedfellows.

I read you as a double line, middle of the road fence walker. Either one stands in solidarity against ideological evil, or one is complicit with said evil, regardless of self-moderation or faith. One cannot claim to have faith and respect for the ancient foundations of moral fact, while still claiming to be possessed of a mind open to and embracing contemporary cultural darkness. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have the best of both worlds. Trust me, that desire is a sinking ship.

What is "ideological evil"? What are the aspects of "contemporary cultural darkness"?

Is it tolerance? Is it equality? Is it reproductive freedom?

You use those hyperbolic terms as a saber to hack at those who hold different opinions than yours. Please specify. Otherwise we cannot truly dialogue.

You conflate the fundamental differences between right and wrong as hyperbolic, and fall back to a commonly held position, contemporarily, of moral relativism and an obdurate insistence on recursively debating what is always right, always wrong, which if engaged and practiced as a life philosophy, procrastinates endlessly the moral responsibility of having to make and live by a final distinction between the two.

Tolerance of what? Wrong is always wrong. Belief that a mind open to accepting moral darkness in the forms of debauchery and sadism is somehow evolved or intellectually expanded, confers guilt by the association of acceptance. Imagine you come upon a man who is sexually assaulting a woman. Would your personal moral code of open mindedness allow you to forgive yourself for siding with the rapist after ignoring his crime? What about a young child whose parents decide he should be a she, to the tune of hormone therapy and surgery? Say you are a school guidance counselor or some kind of health professional—perhaps a psychologist—who knows both professionally and in your heart of hearts that in this particular child's case the process could kill him. Would your open mindedness prevent you from interfering with the process before it is carried out on the child, or would you use it as a moral anesthetic—an excuse to do nothing?

Equality with whom? Do you associate equality first with indelible physical traits such as race or skin tone or hair color? Or with personal merit? Do you believe a man or woman who has through military service and higher education and long years of hard work deserve to have more—by the personal merit of hard work—than the fast food worker who works just as hard but without the aforementioned hard earned boons? Or should the government take from the first American worker and give to the second in order to balance things out, economically, for everyone?

Reproductive freedom is a fundamentally amoral myth. It began with ideas in the heads of philosophers who thought that abortion could maybe make a great population control tool. Along the way, some malevolent fellows welded their population control idea to the ideology of radical feminism and antipositivist sociology, et voilà, the crusade for cultural and sexual revolution was born. There's nothing moral about it. But once again, the open minded philosophy you stand upon insists or triggers within you the need stand there and think endlessly about the fundamental right or wrong of abortion, rather than taking a real stance or having to bear the moral burden of facing and living with the decision whether or not it is one or the other.

Fence sitting, or walking down the moral center of the road might seem like a smart way to avoid having to embrace the grinding reality and difference between the moral facts of right and wrong, but it is a trap. No amount of open mindedness can change the eternal definitions and differences between ancient right and wrong, they're the only unchanging constants we human mortals have.

Onward, 'Christian' soldier!

Holding one's moral code is admirable. Imposing one's moral code is despicable..

Your moral code seems to hold homosexuality as debauchery. People who are homosexuals are no less depraved than heterosexuals. There are those, both homosexual and heterosexual, who are promiscuous, predatory and dangerous in their sexual behavior. But many more have committed relationships and healthy sex lives within those relationships. Isn't it only fair to regard those with those committed relationships as acceptable and those who are predatory as dangerous? What possible harm has every befallen society by those who are not dangerous predators? What harm does a sane homosexual pose to you personally?

 

[Meriweather]

What possible harm has every befallen society by those who are not dangerous predators? What harm does a sane homosexual pose to you personally?

Questions society should present to young people who want to launch into a heterosexual relationship:

• Are you prepared for a long-term committed relationship?
• Are you prepared for children?

If the two people are not prepared, then society pays the price of divorce, of fatherless children, of single mothers with children struggling in a low-income bracket. Society must step in with welfare and medical care.

Questions society should present to young people who want to launch into a homosexual relationship:

• Are you prepared for physical risk factors, medically speaking?
• Are you prepared for a greater risk of emotional/mental health issues? (These factors are shown to be present even when society approves of homosexuality)

If two people are not prepared than society pays the price of people with physical and mental health issues, possibly to the extent of paying for their welfare and medical care also.

The issue is not whether society pays a greater or lesser price for one or the other. The issue should be why society, through the ages, has supported the monogamous, married relationship between a man and a woman. Because society/people are not perfect, dealing with everything outside of the ideal has always been present. Once we are outside the ideal (and we clearly are) does it really matter who the first and second runners up are?

 

[Nosmo King]

What possible harm has every befallen society by those who are not dangerous predators? What harm does a sane homosexual pose to you personally?

Questions society should present to young people who want to launch into a heterosexual relationship:

• Are you prepared for a long-term committed relationship?
• Are you prepared for children?

If the two people are not prepared, then society pays the price of divorce, of fatherless children, of single mothers with children struggling in a low-income bracket. Society must step in with welfare and medical care.

Questions society should present to young people who want to launch into a homosexual relationship:

• Are you prepared for physical risk factors, medically speaking?
• Are you prepared for a greater risk of emotional/mental health issues? (These factors are shown to be present even when society approves of homosexuality)

If two people are not prepared than society pays the price of people with physical and mental health issues, possibly to the extent of paying for their welfare and medical care also.

The issue is not whether society pays a greater or lesser price for one or the other. The issue should be why society, through the ages, has supported the monogamous, married relationship between a man and a woman. Because society/people are not perfect, dealing with everything outside of the ideal has always been present. Once we are outside the ideal (and we clearly are) does it really matter who the first and second runners up are?

Being either homosexual or heterosexual is not a choice to ponder. It is an immutable aspect of an individual's being. The common thread is the committed relationship. Medical problems are also common.

The problems arise when individuals act in predatory, dangerous ways. And those behaviors are not exclusive to either group. Problems also arise when moral superiorists impose their particular morality. Moral behavior evolves. In the Victorian era, a glimpse of a woman's ankle would cause uproar and controversy. In the early 1960s the birth control pill was introduced. That ignited a backlash against the sexual repression of the day. Holding a steadfast, ridged and repressive moral code over a society in a constant state of flux serves only to harm individuals, oppress the innocent and irritate society.

 

[Meriweather]

In the early 1960s the birth control pill was introduced. That ignited a backlash against the sexual repression of the day. Holding a steadfast, ridged and repressive moral code over a society in a constant state of flux serves only to harm individuals, oppress the innocent and irritate society.

Sexual repression? Or was the respect and dignity given to the power of sex stripped away, in favor of fun and recreation? You make my point. If we are not going to respect sex as a power of creation of new life, but reduce it to just another thing that makes us "feel good" then why not allow everyone to do whatever makes them feel good? I mean, that is the main purpose of sex, correct? To feel good! In other words, when feeling good is the main purpose of sex, that opens the door to everyone (not just heterosexuals) and everything.

I am saying society had a choice: To view sex with respect for its power of creating new life (and new life thrives best with a mother and father in a committed relationship); or, to say, "Sex is best viewed as a free-for-all" and everything from masturbation to bestiality is fair game because it hurts no one. (Let's stipulate that we all still view pedophilia as off limits.) Society chose free for all. And, having chosen, cannot limit it to an "elite" (heterosexual) set of people.

Individually, people can choose how they will view sex.

 

[BreezeWood]

Many thanks for telling us how it is. You're a coconut or two short.

your welcome ... the misunderstanding is your issue not mine.

Belief system this, belief system that. In the space of your denial of moral fact, you force out the air of ancient moral reality, unchanging, until you have nothing left but a void of moral relativism, a sea of moral nihilism the waters of which allow you to adjust fundamental right and wrong to suit and justify any desire or want that arises. In the absence of truth you are left with only a series of events you delay indefinitely, until the end.

- you force out the air of ancient moral reality ...

it is christianity that took an entire 4th century to write its forged bible that: "you force out the air of ancient moral reality" - by substituting a political document claiming to be a religion, a substitution - the air of ancient moral reality - from the True Religion of Antiquity to satisfy your own personal persuasions.

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the Great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

4th century christian bible - the state church of the Roman Empire ...

" In the space of your denial of moral fact, you force out the air of ancient moral reality -"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am saying society had a choice: To view sex with respect for its power of creating new life (and new life thrives best with a mother and father in a committed relationship); or, to say, "Sex is best viewed as a free-for-all" and everything from masturbation to bestiality is fair game because it hurts no one. (Let's stipulate that we all still view pedophilia as off limits.) Society chose free for all. And, having chosen, cannot limit it to an "elite" (heterosexual) set of people.

We're seeing the beginnings of pedophilia being normalized and made socially acceptable. The LGBpbiWTF agenda is already being pushed in public schools, at young children, for no other purpose than to groom them to accept all manner of sexual abuse, exploitation, and perversion. As much as those responsible deny it, I think it is quite obvious that this is being done by, for and on behalf of pedophiles.

 

[Tehon]

We're seeing the beginnings of pedophilia being normalized and made socially acceptable. The LGBpbiWTF agenda is already being pushed in public schools, at young children, for no other purpose than to groom them to accept all manner of sexual abuse, exploitation, and perversion. As much as those responsible deny it, I think it is quite obvious that this is being done by, for and on behalf of pedophiles.

 

[BreezeWood]

We're seeing the beginnings of pedophilia being normalized and made socially acceptable. The LGBpbiWTF agenda is already being pushed in public schools, at young children, for no other purpose than to groom them to accept all manner of sexual abuse, exploitation, and perversion. As much as those responsible deny it, I think it is quite obvious that this is being done by, for and on behalf of pedophiles.

.
nothing new there, they've been persecuting and victimizing the innocent since their 4th century self entitlement was granted to them by their made up political document disguised as a religion, christian bible.

 

[Meriweather]

We're seeing the beginnings of pedophilia being normalized and made socially acceptable. The LGBpbiWTF agenda is already being pushed in public schools, at young children, for no other purpose than to groom them to accept all manner of sexual abuse, exploitation, and perversion. As much as those responsible deny it, I think it is quite obvious that this is being done by, for and on behalf of pedophiles.

Certainly this is the agenda of the MBLA. Society, stand strong against it!