Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Skylar]

Christianity is a religion with a specific set of beliefs, set in tenets and principles... Theism is the general belief in the existence of a god. That, in general terms, God created the universe and is intelligent, omniscient, omnipresent, Omnipotent.

You almost got it right. First, any religions that believe in at least one god are theism. It could be one god, it could be dozens, it could be millions. It has to be at least one.

Theism doesn't define any particular attributes of that god or gods. So all of your 'intelligent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent' isn't necessarily true. Some of the radish gods of Japanese shinto are pretty inert. And far from omni-potent.

And when did nature say this?

Nature doesn't 'say' anything... it demonstrates it laws.

And where is the 'law' that says anything about killing homosexuals? You're pretty much making this up as you go along, aren't you?

And do all of your arguments eventually degenerate into you pretending to be 'nature'?

Point to the cultures which throughout history have tolerated Sexual Abnormality. When you finally come to recognize that all of such cultures are long dead, I'll be here to accept your concession.

Point to the cultures throughout history that did not tolerated 'sexual abnormality'. All such cultures are long dead. Point to the cultures throughout history that did tolerate 'sexual abnormality'. They're long dead too. Your implied causation...isn't. As virtually all cultures throughout history are long dead.

Try again. This time after factually establishing any relevance between your supposed 'cause' and your supposed 'effect'.

Yeah... People still have plenty of food on the shelves, a decent house, kids are generally healthy and whole.

So it's 'go along to get along' season.

So which Christians are you referring to? Clearly modern Christians aren't calling for homosexuals to be killed for sodomy. Yet the founders did. There was plenty of food in the founder's era. There were decent homes. Kids were generally healthy and whole.

So why did the founders interpret the Bible very differently than modern American Christians? Why did the Founders execute gays for sodomy.....while Modern American Christians don't, or even advocate such positions? Remember, you don't believe religion is effected by history, society, culture or personal context. So what then?

You can't even establish consistency within the same religion, in the same culture, with the same language over time. To say nothing of the wild discrepancies between religions, sects, and cultures. And this you call 'objectivity'.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Sadly, the applications of colossally bad ideas have been stacking up... and there is a tremendous amount of shift stored.

Obviously. As demonstrated by the plenty of food, decent homes, kids who are generally healthy and whole. Nothing says 'bad idea' like a healthy family and plenty of food.

Christians of today clearly don't hold the same beliefs as Christians of the era of the founders. Explain why.

Today's Christians are foolish, living within a reality that came solely as a result of the sound moral foundation that the Founders laid for us.

So the reason that Christians today don't execute gays is because they're foolish? You yourself said that Christianity doesn't require gays to be killed for sodomy, despite the Bible saying 'they must be killed'. That's pretty unambiguous. And the founders clearly disagreed with you.

So why are the founders wrong....and you're right? Especially when you've already denounced those who don't share the Founder's view on the execution of gays as 'foolish'. Which would presumably include yourself.

Good luck with that.

Thank you... I appreciate your prayers for my success and good fortune.

It apparently didn't amount to much. As you still haven't been able to explain why the founders and modern Christians so wildly disagree on something as fundamental as who to execute. Or why 'They must be put to death' doesn't mean 'they must be put to death'.

And of course, you just demonstrated how uselessly subjective religion is. As the Bible is obvious and clear: 'They must be put to death'.You don't like that commandment, so you've made up your own source that trumps the Lord. And ignored what you didn't want to believe. Any theist can do this with any portion of their religious text or beliefs. They can just cherry pick, straight up dismissing a commandment, any commandment....if they don't like it.

Proving in a stroke that religion is hopelessly, inevitably, inescapably subjective. Because any theist can do exactly what you just did. And most do.

 

[Skylar]

So why did the Founders believe differently than you

They didn't.

They interpreted 'They must be put to death' as meaning 'they must be put to death'. And they didn't include any of the caveats and 'but only's that you made up. Every single State in the union during the era of the founders executed gays for sodomy.

Yet you insist that Christianity doesn't require gays to be executed for sodomy. That somehow 'they must be put to death' doesn't mean 'they must be put to death'. Which strains credulity both logically and linguistically.

How do you explain the wild inconsistency between your claims and the founder's actions?

 

[Skylar]

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20 NIV - Punishments for Sin - The LORD said to - Bible Gateway

Yes... Old Testament. Good stuff. The New Testament requires that we forgive those who sin, where they ask for such.

Then why didn't the Founders forgive gays instead of executing them? Clearly they didn't view the New Testament the same way you do. They interpreted 'they must be put to death' as meaning 'they must be put to death.' And they killed gays they caught in acts of sodomy.

Yet you insist 'they must be put to death' doesn't actually mean 'they must be put to death. Because you interpreted around what you didn't like.

And so elegantly demonstrated exactly how uselessly subjective religion is. As the Bible is obvious and clear: 'They must be put to death'.You don't like that commandment, so you've made up your own source that trumps the 'Lord'. And ignored what you didn't want to believe. Any theist can do this with any portion of their religious text or beliefs. They can just cherry pick, straight up dismissing a commandment, any commandment....if they don't like it.

Proving in a stroke that religion is hopelessly, inevitably, inescapably subjective. Because any theist can do exactly what you just did. And most do.

We're a peaceful, loving caring people.

I doubt the gays being executed for sodomy thought so. And they were killed by Christians who had wildly different interpretations of the Bible than you do. You can't explain why their interpretations were different....and have gone so far as to bizarrely insist they weren't. Despite the fact that you explicitly contradict them and virtually no modern day American Christians are calling for what was practiced in EVERY State in the era of the founders;

Executions for sodomy.

For fun would you like me to quote Leon Bazile in his ruling on Mildred and Richard Loving.......and how his ruling that their interracial marriage was criminal was based on 'God'? Most Christians today don't share that view either.

And you can't explain that change without tapping history, culture, society and personal context. Which so obviously effects religion like it does most everything else.

But ... we cannot tolerate that which destroys us. And pretending that that which is abnormal, which rejects fundamental principles... which are intrinsic to humanity, which sustain the viability of the species, is about as destructive as it gets.

And how do gays 'destroy you'? You're going to need clear and immediate danger to justify killing them. Some random mention of a non-existent 'law of nature' that you just made up is neither clear nor immediate. Nor particularly logical or rational.

So what else have you got?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Christianity is a religion with a specific set of beliefs, set in tenets and principles... Theism is the general belief in the existence of a god. That, in general terms, God created the universe and is intelligent, omniscient, omnipresent, Omnipotent.

You almost got it right. First, any religions that believe in at least one god are theism. It could be one god, it could be dozens, it could be millions. It has to be at least one.

Yes... that's why I said 'a god'. It speaks to the belief in a god, without the burden of definition, which would be relevant to their volume, which comes only through religion. But it's understandable that you'd run to claim my position required singularity of the deity, given the nature of your argument. Anyone in your position would... such is the nature of desperation.

 

[Skylar]

Christianity is a religion with a specific set of beliefs, set in tenets and principles... Theism is the general belief in the existence of a god. That, in general terms, God created the universe and is intelligent, omniscient, omnipresent, Omnipotent.

You almost got it right. First, any religions that believe in at least one god are theism. It could be one god, it could be dozens, it could be millions. It has to be at least one.

Yes... that's why I said 'a god'. It speaks to the belief in a god, without the burden of definition, which would be relevant to their volume, which comes only through religion. But it's understandable that you'd run to claim my position required singularity of the deity, given the nature of your argument. Anyone in your position would... such is the nature of desperation.

You don't need a religion to believe in a god. You just need to be a theist and believe that a god (or gods) exist. All religions that include a god are theism but not all theism is religion.

And you need neither to be moral. Its utterly possible to use your own moral reasoning without an appeal to authority of some deity.

 

[francoHFW]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

 

[Skylar]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20 NIV - Punishments for Sin - The LORD said to - Bible Gateway

Yes... Old Testament. Good stuff. The New Testament requires that we forgive those who sin, where they ask for such.

Then why didn't the Founders forgive gays instead of executing them?

I'm sure they did. The Law required they be executed however. And they had violated the law, thus, upon adjudication of guilt, they were sentenced as the law required.

I doubt anyone found joy in the execution of another. Particularly where those laws were enforced by individuals who were known to them, personally. They were their friends, their neighbors and more often than not, from childhood. But they understood that what they had become was lethal to the viability of their community, that where they tolerated such for their friends, they must tolerate such from outsiders and that... was not going to happen on their watch.

They had similar laws for Adultery, Theft, Arson and other crimes which struck at honor. In their world, where a man was not worthy of trust, they were a threat and threats were not tolerable. These were people who's lives hinged upon things that you can't even begin to imagine as being even relevant.

We live a lifestyle which THEY could not imagine.

To try and even compare those people, with us... LOL! is ludicrous. Most of us would not survive a month in their reality. And most of them would likely die of a broken heart, within an hour of getting here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

Your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

I'm sure they did. The Law required they be executed however. And they had violated the law, thus, upon adjudication of guilt, they were sentenced as the law required.

The law was based on their religious convictions. Pennsylvania actually used the same passage of Leviticus that I cited as their law, word for word. Massachusetts had a Christian reverend write up its 'fundamental laws'. You can't claim them as loving, caring people based on their religion....while ignoring the fact that they executed people based on their religion.

Execution a gay person for sodomy isn't a particularly loving and caring act. But an explicit contradiction of your narrative. The founders actions were a contradiction of how you interpret the Bible.

Particularly where those laws were enforced by individuals were known to them, personally. They were their friends, their neighbors and more often than not, from childhood. But they understood that what they had become was lethal to the viability of their community, that where they tolerated such for their friends, they must tolerate such from outsiders and that... was not going to happen on their watch.

There's zero evidence that 1) homosexuality is lethal to the viability of a community 2) That the founders killed gays because they felt homosexuality was lethal to the viability of a community. You made up both the reasoning and the narrative from nothing citing only yourself.

All the evidence points to them killing gays for sodomy because the Bible said they must be put to death. That their religion motivated the executions. A wildly different interpretation than modern American Christians. And you can't offer us any logical or rational explanation why the interpretations changed from 'they must be put to death' to 'that's just old testament stuff'.....without tapping culture, society, history and personal context.

Which all obvious effect religion like they do anything else. Your insistence that religion cannot be effected by culture, society, history or personal context is ludicrously false. It can...and is.

They had similar laws for Adultery, Theft, Arson and other crimes which struck at honor.

Not adultery laws they enforced. The last recorded execution for adultery was 1644 in Massachusetts. No one was executed for adultery in the era of the founders or for a century before them. Folks were executed for sodomy.

In their world, where a man was not worthy of trust, they were a threat and threats were not tolerable. These were people who's lives hinged upon things that you can't even begin to imagine as being even relevant.

Is that your explanation for why their religious interpretations were so radically different from ours today?

 

[Skylar]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

Your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keyes....this is your tell. Whenever you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner, you abandon your argument and then bizarrely begin to declare victory. Its your white flag.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon them.

 

[bripat9643]

That would be inconsistent with how the Constitution itself was passed! The state convenetions had specailly elected representatives to address the constitutional issue itself..in a way bypassing the state legislatures.

Way over the top to see this as some sort of communist subversion.

The state legislatures chose the representatives to the Constitutional convention, so that claim is simply a lie.

 

[Skylar]

I'm still waiting for you to offer any logical or rational reason why religion is required for morality. Or why the abandonment of religion is the abandonment of morality.

There is no reason. Its entirely possible to use one's own moral reasoning to make moral decisions. I simply don't need to believe that a cheeseburger is an abomination in order to recognize that killing is wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Any chance you two could try the OP?

Here: Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

Your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keyes....this is your tell. Whenever you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner, you abandon your argument and then bizarrely begin to declare victory. Its your white flag.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon them.

How many times has Where_Is_My_Danth's_Law posted "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted" by now? I lost count.

 

[Skylar]

Conversations are organic. They range all over the place. If you don't want to discuss this particular tangent, then don't.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

Your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keyes....this is your tell. Whenever you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner, you abandon your argument and then bizarrely begin to declare victory. Its your white flag.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon them.

How many times has Where_Is_My_Danth's_Law posted "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted" by now? I lost count.

Shrugs...its his tell. Whenever his argument fails, his claims are debunked or he can't answer a question.....he abandons his position and uses this 'concession' line in place of a reasoned reply.

Its his white flag.

 

[Pogo]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...has that 'summary declaration of victory' schtick ever worked? If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, just say so. You don't need an elaborate excuse to flee.

Your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keyes....this is your tell. Whenever you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner, you abandon your argument and then bizarrely begin to declare victory. Its your white flag.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon them.

How many times has Where_Is_My_Danth's_Law posted "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted" by now? I lost count.

Shrugs...its his tell. Whenever his argument fails, his claims are debunked or he can't answer a question.....he abandons his position and uses this 'concession' line in place of a reasoned reply.

Its his white flag.

No doubt that's why he's always looking for his keys. To make an exit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm sure they did. The Law required they be executed however. And they had violated the law, thus, upon adjudication of guilt, they were sentenced as the law required.

The law was based on their religious convictions. Pennsylvania actually used the same passage of Leviticus that I cited as their law, word for word. Massachusetts had a Christian reverend write up its 'fundamental laws'. You can't claim them as loving, caring people based on their religion....while ignoring the fact that they executed people based on their religion.

Yeah... well, that's the thing about being free... people will set their own rules. And when they're a hard people, it pays to not cross that line.

But how cool is it, that you, an advocate of sexual abnormality, would be advocating for the law to comport with the needs of the violator, instead of the violator comporting with law?

I mean... I said that sexual abnormality is a function of perverse reasoning... and here YOU are blaming the law for the executions!

How positively COOL is THAT?

Now someone asked not too far back, "how homosexuals were a threat'... and right there, you, a homosexual are blaming the LAW and not the criminal, and those who hold the criminal to account as THE PROBLEM!

Now... I ask the reader, if THAT were to become a majority position. Think about it, if the law became subject to the needs of the criminal... what good would come of that? Is it more likely that the individual would be more secure, or less secure? Would the collective be more secure, or less secure? Would the cost of government go up, or down? And so on... .

From there, you need only determine if such reasoning represents a threat, to you.

We know that if YOU were a person that a homosexual came to for services relevant to their faux-wedding and you refused, that they would have no hesitation to drag you under the full weight of the government bus, drive you out of business... see you sent to jail. And all for the crime of simply refusing to be affiliated with something that you refused to be involved with.

See any threat in THAT?

I leave it to you, the reader to decide.

 

[francoHFW]

Hitler is nothing but a RW (capitalist) fascist totalitarian racist nationalist, no socialist in any sense but his propaganda and full employment in his going broke, and going for broke war economy. In the modern sense (NOT COMMUNIST, cold war dinosaur chumps), socialism is democratic and civilized, just what Hitler hated and demonized.

Golberg and "Liberal Fascism" define the new bs GOP twaddle, for chumps only.