Battlecry: Christian kids have lost it

[rtwngAvngr]

But when destroy moral systems by destroying religions (I know some religions are more like philosophies, so spare me on that) the elite and powerful see no problem in engaging in programs like artificial selection. In fact, the New Age, morally-neutral program they're devising now is being devised for this very purpose, so people will accept their horrific programs. Say no to new age satanism.

The Death Camps for the Coming Antichrist War Against the Saints

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/camps.html

 

[Nienna]

If you think man is no different than any other animal (a belief which has nothing to do with the origin of species) then none I supose (just don't be surprised if you face some opposition), but this process would have nothing to do with natural selection, infact what you've described is artificial selection.

Breeding animals IS artificial selection, since the gene pool is decided by beings outside the species. However, genocide could be considered natural selection; it is an intraspecies selection of those with superior or more attractive traits whom are then allowed to survive to breed.

 

[liberalogic]

No, Darwin didn't advocate genocide, but it can be considered a natural extension of Darwinism. If man is no different than any other animal, then what's the harm of selectively breeding the populace and culling the inferior, as one would do when attempting to breed champion dogs or horses? It just speeds up the process. Apparantly, all of those people were dragging the rest of the population down, and the proponents of the Holocaust believed it was for the good of the human species as a whole.

There are religions predating Confucionism and Buddhism in China. Before that, it used to be mainly shamanism and ancestor worship, which is still a supernatural moral base.

If man is no better than another animal, then most of the moral code falls to pieces. Just follow your instincts. If you want to do it, it's because eons of natural selection resulted in that instinct. Go ahead and do it. If it's beneficial to you, then you'll pass your genes on. If it kills you, then it's better for the species. You wanna have meaningless sex with a bunch of girls? Go ahead, STDs are just another form of natural selection. A bunch of men? Sure, if it wasn't somehow beneficial, the 'gay gene' would have been culled long ago. Human eugenics, infanticide of children with birth defects, and euthenasia of the handicapped all become morally acceptable once you believe that the human soul is just another outgrowth of natural selection and that man is really isn't any more relevant than a stalk of corn.

First off, it's important to note that Confucianism is not AT ALL a religion, even though people tend to incorrectly claim the contrary. The worship of the time was of a spiritual dimension. The Chinese would perform certain rituals such as sacrificing animals in order to appease heaven so that it would not cause a drought or a natural disaster. Their actions towards themselves and others were irrelevant; ritualistic practices were most important.

Thus the backbone of society, the moral code of conduct was not deduced from religion at all. Christians attribute moral values to God, but Confucius derived his philosophy from reason.

Confucius lived during the Spring and Autumn Period where China was divided into approximately 100 city states with individual rulers (the rule of the Eastern Zhou dynasty has crumbled to the power of individual warlords). This time period produced tremendous violence over imperial demands. By the end of the period, those 100 states were reduced to 40 (eventually to be reduced to 1 during the Warring States Period). Confucius saw this chaos and attempted to reform society-- not because God told him, but because it was the reasonable thing to do. He preached moral equality amongst men, claiming that even though inferiority exists through social inequality, we can all become a "gentleman" if we treat each other with respect and decency. He valued family and its hierarchal structure because it's the first social experience that anyone has. He valued age because older people have more experience. He valued the preservation of history because we can learn from it (which is why he praised the rulers of the early Zhou dynasty and preached repetition of their rule).

All of these values are derived separately from any sort of deity-- they exist for the ultimate preservation of society. In fact, Confucius said, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" 500 years before Jesus Christ. Confucianism serves as an ideal example to show that society is not doomed without religion if it has reason. It also eliminates the myth of judeo-christian values.

 

[Redhots]

Breeding animals IS artificial selection, since the gene pool is decided by beings outside the species. However, genocide could be considered natural selection; it is an intraspecies selection of those with superior or more attractive traits whom are then allowed to survive to breed.

Mmmm, not really.

What you're talking about now is Eugenics.

 

[Nienna]

Mmmm, not really.

What you're talking about now is Eugenics.

why should eugenics not be considered natural selection? Do not animals ostracize undesirables from herds, even attack them? Do not female animals select which traits are desirable for passing on in mating? Isn't this a form of eugenics? It's just that the human species has evolved more sophisticated methods for this.

 

[acludem]

Eugenics is the forced removal of someone's ability to procreate. Animals to not peform castrations and hysterectomies on each other. As for females selecting traits they admire, people do that, too, but it doesn't stop ugly people from having kids.

Natural selection means species that adapt better to their surroundings and are stronger will survive, Eugenics is about forced sterilization. This does not occur naturally, it's a people thing.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Eugenics is the forced removal of someone's ability to procreate. Animals to not peform castrations and hysterectomies on each other. As for females selecting traits they admire, people do that, too, but it doesn't stop ugly people from having kids.

Natural selection means species that adapt better to their surroundings and are stronger will survive, Eugenics is about forced sterilization. This does not occur naturally, it's a people thing.

acludem

The point is without morality, people do awful things.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh and acludem, did you know that when A new male lion takes over a pride, he kills all the newborn cubs that aren't his?

Animals aren't as pure as the lefties like to portray, hence their nature based religions aren't as a moral as they may first seem.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Death Camps for the Coming Antichrist War Against the Saints

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/camps.html

That's a site if I ever saw one. Ft. Lewis as a site for slave labor to be shipped overseas? :rotflmao:

 

[acludem]

I've never believed animals are "pure". I do believe we as humans often forget that we are animals. The reason a lion kills all the male cubs that aren't his is to perserve his own bloodline and to keep challengers to his domination away. Humans have certainly done that, just look at the history of the British Royal family if you don't believe me.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've never believed animals are "pure". I do believe we as humans often forget that we are animals. The reason a lion kills all the male cubs that aren't his is to perserve his own bloodline and to keep challengers to his domination away. Humans have certainly done that, just look at the history of the British Royal family if you don't believe me.

acludem

But YOU were the one saying eugenics and gene control was a "people thing".

I believe most of the people that rule the world are evil through and through.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's a site if I ever saw one. Ft. Lewis as a site for slave labor to be shipped overseas? :rotflmao:

Laughter is not a compelling rebuttal, just so you know.

 

[Redhots]

The point is without morality, people do awful things.

....

People use morality to justify awful things too.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

....

People use morality to justify awful things too.

But the ones who look back at communism and totalitarianism and can't seem to see the horror of it, liberals today for instance, are the same ones who are opposed to biblical morality.

 

[5stringJeff]

Laughter is not a compelling rebuttal, just so you know.

Fine. Since I work on Ft. Lewis, and am pretty well aware of what goes on here, I'll say with 99.999999999999999999999999999% certainty that we are not in the overseas slave labor business.

 

[1549]

But the ones who look back at communism and totalitarianism and can't seem to see the horror of it, liberals today for instance, are the same ones who are opposed to biblical morality.

Where did you pull that out of?

Liberals are not against morality, they are just more practical in dealing with the world's lack of "morality". Liberals want to teach safe sex in school, is this a lack of morality? Absolutely not. It is a common sense reaction to the fact that many teens will have sex regardless of what is taught in school. Why teach abstinence if a majority will not practice it?

Characterizing liberals as immoral is just completely unfounded. Conservative commentators will paint liberals as godless and immoral, but in the end it is just not true. What is more immoral: acknowledging that there is a homosexual population and working to accept them, or dismissing homosexuals as worthless sinners and discriminating against them?

National "family values" do not exist. The term is a conservative scam to appeal to any American that fears the present. There is a crazy notion that the world of "back in the day" was better than the world we live in now...in reality, the not so comfortable facts of the present also existed in the past.

 

[Hobbit]

Where did you pull that out of?

Liberals are not against morality, they are just more practical in dealing with the world's lack of "morality". Liberals want to teach safe sex in school, is this a lack of morality? Absolutely not. It is a common sense reaction to the fact that many teens will have sex regardless of what is taught in school. Why teach abstinence if a majority will not practice it?

Why treat abstinence as some pipe dream that doesn't even have a place in sex ed when it's the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy and STDs? And don't tell me nobody will ever buy that abstinence crap. I've made it to 23, and I'm holding out for my wedding night.

Characterizing liberals as immoral is just completely unfounded. Conservative commentators will paint liberals as godless and immoral, but in the end it is just not true. What is more immoral: acknowledging that there is a homosexual population and working to accept them, or dismissing homosexuals as worthless sinners and discriminating against them?

Oh, it's very founded. Most Christians don't hate gays, as you seem to think. The problem is that liberals don't want to accept gays, they want to push their lifestyle on the public and make sure that the government endorses it. Homosexuals are just being used for their political gain, too. As soon as it loses them too many votes, they'll dump the gays by the wayside and pick up some other minority group. And that's only the beginning. There's also the continuing, untouchable holocaust against the unborn, with all dissenters being labelled as dirty chauvanists who want to oppress women. Their stance is immoral, and their defense of it is childish and unethical.

Then there's the unforgivable way they use the blacks and hispanics. Liberals spend their careers keeping these poor minorities addicted to government programs in order to keep them voting Democrat. If the liberals actually had any set of morals and ethics that meant something to them, they'd be trying to help minorities get out of the ghetto instead of giving them handouts that keep them there. Oh, and if blacks and hispanics ever started voting Republican, they'd dump them by the wayside and resort to racial slurs just like they did with every minority member of the Bush administration. Remeber when they called Condi Rice a 'house ******?' Is this the same kind of liberal morality you're talking about?

National "family values" do not exist. The term is a conservative scam to appeal to any American that fears the present. There is a crazy notion that the world of "back in the day" was better than the world we live in now...in reality, the not so comfortable facts of the present also existed in the past.

No, they didn't. Divorce rates are through the roof. Far more children are born out of wedlock than used to be. Teen pregnancy is on the rise. Liberals really don't care, as this is fine as long as the adults are all consenting, and every liberals knows that a single mom can do just as well as a two-parent family. This also keeps a lot of people addicted to their precious government programs, gives them antagonists to fight (deadbeat dads), and also makes sure that the kids will get more values training from their own government indoctrination centers disguised as schools.

the idea that liberals have no morals is only ridiculous if you have a very loose definition of the word 'morals.'

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where did you pull that out of?

Liberals are not against morality, they are just more practical in dealing with the world's lack of "morality".

more practical = accepting of = immoral

Liberals want to teach safe sex in school, is this a lack of morality? Absolutely not. It is a common sense reaction to the fact that many teens will have sex regardless of what is taught in school. Why teach abstinence if a majority will not practice it?

I'm for teaching birth control too. But a well balanced presentation would also present abstinence as an option. Liberals have a problem with that. Can you tell me why?

Characterizing liberals as immoral is just completely unfounded. Conservative commentators will paint liberals as godless and immoral, but in the end it is just not true. What is more immoral: acknowledging that there is a homosexual population and working to accept them, or dismissing homosexuals as worthless sinners and discriminating against them?

You're misrepresenting the argument. We're not arguing for our rights to discriminate, we just simply don't think schools should be in the business of normalizing gay behavior. Schools have crossed the line of teaching tolerance and are now firmly demanding acceptance. THis is thought control.

National "family values" do not exist. The term is a conservative scam to appeal to any American that fears the present. There is a crazy notion that the world of "back in the day" was better than the world we live in now...in reality, the not so comfortable facts of the present also existed in the past.

Keep saying family values don't exist, you'll keep losing elections. Works for me. Keep up the good work.

 

[acludem]

There are moral and immoral people of both liberal and conservative stripes. Conservatives do not have a corner on the morals market. Making blanket statements like "liberals have no morals" or "liberals oppose morality" makes someone look foolish.

As for the gay rights issue, gay and lesbians folks are here and they've been here since people existed. They aren't looking for "special" rights, they want the same rights and responsibilities that straight people have. Why is this such a threat to conservatives? How does two adult, unrelated men who want to get married and have the same rights and responsibilities and two unrelated adults of the opposite sex who to get married threaten marriage?????

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are moral and immoral people of both liberal and conservative stripes. Conservatives do not have a corner on the morals market. Making blanket statements like "liberals have no morals" or "liberals oppose morality" makes someone look foolish.

And yet liberals seek destroy religion, our source of morals, without offering a replacement source.

As for the gay rights issue, gay and lesbians folks are here and they've been here since people existed. They aren't looking for "special" rights, they want the same rights and responsibilities that straight people have. Why is this such a threat to conservatives? How does two adult, unrelated men who want to get married and have the same rights and responsibilities and two unrelated adults of the opposite sex who to get married threaten marriage?????

acludem

Again you misrepresent the debate here. I'm all for teaching tolerance. The public schools are pushing acceptance, which is different. Values should not be taught by schools.