The Church And The Origins Of Western Civilization

[Unkotare]

Why are you so afraid of answering simple questions? Oh, I see...

You would like to corner me into some position that shows, irrefutably, that I am immoral or amoral so that you could claim the moral high ground. ...

No one is forcing you to hold any position. That's entirely up to you.

Why don't we harvest the organs from prisoners on death row?

Because it is against the law? Because of a slippery slope fallacy? I don't know, Unkotare, but I can tell you're dying to tell me (no pun intended).

You don't know? Well, do you think it should be against the law?

I don't know. I don't know enough about the subject to have a well-formed opinion.

Wow................

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm totally against women's reproductive choices now. ...

You are? I'm certainly not.

Well, then what position are you arguing for or against?

I'm pointing out the moral and logical inconsistency of your position.

You mean what you perceive to be moral and logical inconsistencies, but then maybe nuance is too subtle for you.

It isn't as simple a subject as you'd like to make it, Unkotare. My position on abortion is complex because there is a lot of moral grey area. A woman should have the right to choose when she becomes a mother, but not in all cases. Each case is different. You can't apply law on a case by case process, therefore the law should have the broadest scope necessary to maintain what's best for society and yet the law should also have applicability to maintain an individual's rights. Abortion law in this country does that, perhaps not as well as everyone should like, but we as a society change over time and laws can also be changed.

Data, information, facts are better for making laws than religious beliefs considering this is a secular nation and all...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You would like to corner me into some position that shows, irrefutably, that I am immoral or amoral so that you could claim the moral high ground. ...

No one is forcing you to hold any position. That's entirely up to you.

Why don't we harvest the organs from prisoners on death row?

Because it is against the law? Because of a slippery slope fallacy? I don't know, Unkotare, but I can tell you're dying to tell me (no pun intended).

You don't know? Well, do you think it should be against the law?

I don't know. I don't know enough about the subject to have a well-formed opinion.

Wow................

Yeah, wow. Someone who admits to ignorance about a subject. Humbling, isn't it?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Western civilization is built upon the foundations of Judeo-Christian religion and secular Greco-Roman culture. I have no desire to live in the church of Constantine or in the era of 325 CE. Change occurs.

Oh, the irony!

Just yesterday on another thread I was obliged to school another misguided soul who expressed a similar delusion. Moving forward several centuries, past the Fourth-Century Church of the Byzantine Empire under Constantine and Theodosius:

For those of you who are wont to prejudiciously conflate the subversive depredations of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church with Judeo-Christianity proper: if you imagine for a moment that the Enlightenment, let alone the democratization of the West, could have occurred in a European continent still in the grips of the primitive, religious traditions of paganism, as opposed to being liberated by the Reformation's second break out of biblical Christianity, you're delusional. In fact, here's a new flash for you: the application of the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought to civil government, which made the worldwide propagation of the Gospel possible after it had been suppressed for centuries via that Medieval pretender, is the zenith of human civilization! From here on out, it's all down hill. Leftists don't know what they're doing. Their stuff is nothing new. Secular Hegelian-Rousseauian progressivism, alternately expressed in recent history as Jacobinism, fascism or Marxism, is the normative relativism of pagan mythology sans its mystical trappings. Indeed, in a very real sense, the political left's claptrap is the pagan-riddled apostasy of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church all over again. —M. D. Rawlings​

 

[Unkotare]

I'm totally against women's reproductive choices now. ...

You are? I'm certainly not.

Well, then what position are you arguing for or against?

I'm pointing out the moral and logical inconsistency of your position.

You mean what you perceive to be moral and logical inconsistencies......

What are obvious moral and logical inconsistencies. Your posts on this thread paint a picture of someone weak in mind and character.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm totally against women's reproductive choices now. ...

You are? I'm certainly not.

Well, then what position are you arguing for or against?

I'm pointing out the moral and logical inconsistency of your position.

You mean what you perceive to be moral and logical inconsistencies......

What are obvious moral and logical inconsistencies. Your posts on this thread paint a picture of someone weak in mind and character.

Ad hom. Thanks. Too bad we couldn't have a more productive conversation...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are? I'm certainly not.

Well, then what position are you arguing for or against?

I'm pointing out the moral and logical inconsistency of your position.

You mean what you perceive to be moral and logical inconsistencies......

What are obvious moral and logical inconsistencies. Your posts on this thread paint a picture of someone weak in mind and character.

Ad hom. Thanks. Too bad we couldn't have a more productive conversation...

Au contraire....it was productive.....it showed you to be wrong on everything you so fervently believe.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, then what position are you arguing for or against?

I'm pointing out the moral and logical inconsistency of your position.

You mean what you perceive to be moral and logical inconsistencies......

What are obvious moral and logical inconsistencies. Your posts on this thread paint a picture of someone weak in mind and character.

Ad hom. Thanks. Too bad we couldn't have a more productive conversation...

Au contraire....it was productive.....it showed you to be wrong on everything you so fervently believe.

Did it?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

That old canard?

From an article I wrote some years ago:

. . . The decline and fall of the western half of the Roman Empire was rooted in the ruinous reigns of those who came after Marcus Aurelius, beginning with that incompetent degenerate Commodus. Diocletian just barely managed to save the Empire from collapsing altogether from the travails of the Imperial Crisis of the Third Century (roughly AD 230-285), the years of chronic economic malaise, successive invasions and civil war, brought on by the deleterious policies of the emperors before and during that period. Diocletian dramatically restructured the government by decentralizing it.

. . . It was under Diocletian that the rule of the western and eastern provinces was divided, new regional administrations were created, and the military and civil services were separated. These reforms proved to be successful. Stability was restored. The economy improved. Constantine the Great solidified these and instituted other administrative, social and monetary reforms. Notwithstanding, the former economic and military glory of the western provinces was lost forever. Hence, for economic reasons, as well as for military deployment and logistical reasons, Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium in AD 324. It was renamed Constantinople in AD 330.

. . . The fact of the matter is that the subordinate rulers of the western provinces and/or their regional governors continued to resist Christianity for years, even after Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan, the decree of tolerance for Christianity, and even after Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. While the post-Theodosiusian, Western Roman Empire collapsed in AD 480, the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire thrived for another 800 years before it began to significantly decline. It was eventually reduced to the city of Constantinople and the surrounding province before it fell to the Ottomans in AD 1453.
____________________________

Edit post #144: By the way, in the above I wrote ". . . the Fourth-Century Church of the Byzantine Empire under Constantine and Theodosius". That should read ". . . the Fourth-Century Church under Constantine and Theodosius". I was thinking Byzantium, the new capital from which they ruled. The era of the Byzantine Empire proper (the surviving Eastern Roman Empire) begins with the fall of the western provinces.​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

This rash of silliness warrants special treatment:

1. The periodization Dark Ages hasn't been understood to denote the entire period of the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance, for decades.

2. Paganism isn't religion?

3. Was it a marauding horde of educated Christians that overthrew a weak Western Roman Empire, as the Christian Eastern Roman Empire endured, or was it a horde of superstitious and technologically benighted pagans from the interior regions of Europe north of the western provinces that overthrew it heralding in the Dark Ages?

4. Given the fact that it was the Christians of the western provinces that preserved the works of the Classical era, not the benighted pagans of the European interior, what book burnings are you talking about?

5. Why did the Islamic world under the Ottoman empire decline in spite of having all that classical learning in mathematics (for example, Euclidean geometry, topology and differential geometry), mechanics (for example, Archimedes' principle of buoyant force) and cosmology from the Classical era, as Christian Western Europe rose again and came to dominate the world? In other words, what natural philosophy and cosmological models had to be thrown off in order to attain the physics and the astronomical achievements of modernity? Were they the biblical notions of Christians or were they the pagan notions of the Classical era? Or are you one of those historically illiterate rubes operating under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church's natural philosophy and astronomy were biblical?

6. What great work of Western civilization caused the Christian Copernicus to doubt the prevailing Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmological models from the Classical era of paganism? Hint: its title begins with a B, and he took his cue from the prophetic works of the same.

7. Why did the Protestant Reformationists repudiate the superimposition of the erroneous metaphysical, cosmological and natural philosophy of Classical paganism on the Bible?

8. Who were these Christians who allegedly rejected science? Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Pascal? You didn't mean those Christians did you? Scientists all, and four of them, including Newton, biblical theologians as well. Oh, wait! You mean the Christians of the clerical establishment and the pre-Copernican theologians of the Roman Catholic Church under the sway of the pagan thought of Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy from the Classical era which you put so much stock in, right?

9. Political development? Who but progressive statists would wish to live under the short-lived, collectivistic mobocracies of the Grecian city states, under the res publica entrusted to the aristocratic oligarchy of the Roman Republic or under the despotism of Roman imperialism, if given the option to live under the limited republican government of inalienable human rights extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought?

10. Where did the notion of a static universe, the cosmological model held to be true all the way up to the Twentieth Century, come from? From the Bible, which describes something that looks an awful lot like the Big Bang, or from the pagan cosmology of the Classical era?

11. Now this last question is really difficult, not just difficult to swallow, as in the above, for those who do slogan history rather than real history: why do the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, and quantum physics scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity?​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

That old canard?

From an article I wrote some years ago:

. . . The decline and fall of the western half of the Roman Empire was rooted in the ruinous reigns of those who came after Marcus Aurelius, beginning with that incompetent degenerate Commodus. Diocletian just barely managed to save the Empire from collapsing altogether from the travails of the Imperial Crisis of the Third Century (roughly AD 230-285), the years of chronic economic malaise, successive invasions and civil war, brought on by the deleterious policies of the emperors before and during that period. Diocletian dramatically restructured the government by decentralizing it.

. . . It was under Diocletian that the rule of the western and eastern provinces was divided, new regional administrations were created, and the military and civil services were separated. These reforms proved to be successful. Stability was restored. The economy improved. Constantine the Great solidified these and instituted other administrative, social and monetary reforms. Notwithstanding, the former economic and military glory of the western provinces was lost forever. Hence, for economic reasons, as well as for military deployment and logistical reasons, Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium in AD 324. It was renamed Constantinople in AD 330.

. . . The fact of the matter is that the subordinate rulers of the western provinces and/or their regional governors continued to resist Christianity for years, even after Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan, the decree of tolerance for Christianity, and even after Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. While the post-Theodosiusian, Western Roman Empire collapsed in AD 480, the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire thrived for another 800 years before it began to significantly decline. It was eventually reduced to the city of Constantinople and the surrounding province before it fell to the Ottomans in AD 1453.
____________________________

Edit post #144: By the way, in the above I wrote ". . . the Fourth-Century Church of the Byzantine Empire under Constantine and Theodosius". That should read ". . . the Fourth-Century Church under Constantine and Theodosius". I was thinking Byzantium, the new capital from which they ruled. The era of the Byzantine Empire proper (the surviving Eastern Roman Empire) begins with the fall of the western provinces.​

Excellent!

You've raised the level of posts on the USMB

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

Oh, look! Hollie, as usual, has nothing of substance to contribute.

 

[turzovka]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

This rash of silliness warrants special treatment:

1. The periodization Dark Ages hasn't been understood to denote the entire period of the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance, for decades.

2. Paganism isn't religion?

3. Was it a marauding horde of educated Christians that overthrew a weak Western Roman Empire, as the Christian Eastern Roman Empire endured, or was it a horde of superstitious and technologically benighted pagans from the interior regions of Europe north of the western provinces that overthrew it heralding in the Dark Ages?

4. Given the fact that it was the Christians of the western provinces that preserved the works of the Classical era, not the benighted pagans of the European interior, what book burnings are you talking about?

5. Why did the Islamic world under the Ottoman empire decline in spite of having all that classical learning in mathematics (for example, Euclidean geometry, topology and differential geometry), mechanics (for example, Archimedes' principle of buoyant force) and cosmology from the Classical era, as Christian Western Europe rose again and came to dominate the world? In other words, what natural philosophy and cosmological models had to be thrown off in order to attain the physics and the astronomical achievements of modernity? Were they the biblical notions of Christians or were they the pagan notions of the Classical era? Or are you one of those historically illiterate rubes operating under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church's natural philosophy and astronomy were biblical?

6. What great work of Western civilization caused the Christian Copernicus to doubt the prevailing Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmological models from the Classical era of paganism? Hint: its title begins with a B, and he took his cue from the prophetic works of the same.

7. Why did the Protestant Reformationists repudiate the superimposition of the erroneous metaphysical, cosmological and natural philosophy of Classical paganism on the Bible?

8. Who were these Christians who allegedly rejected science? Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Pascal? You didn't mean those Christians did you? Scientists all, and four of them, including Newton, biblical theologians as well. Oh, wait! You mean the Christians of the clerical establishment and the pre-Copernican theologians of the Roman Catholic Church under the sway of the pagan thought of Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy from the Classical era which you put so much stock in, right?

9. Political development? Who but progressive statists would wish to live under the short-lived, collectivistic mobocracies of the Grecian city states, under the res publica entrusted to the aristocratic oligarchy of the Roman Republic or under the despotism of Roman imperialism, if given the option to live under the limited republican government of inalienable human rights extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought?

10. Where did the notion of a static universe, the cosmological model held to be true all the way up to the Twentieth Century, come from? From the Bible, which describes something that looks an awful lot like the Big Bang, or from the pagan cosmology of the Classical era?

11. Now this last question is really difficult, not just difficult to swallow, as in the above, for those who do slogan history rather than real history: why do the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, and quantum physics scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity?​

Was that some rendition of Luther’s or Calvin’s version of sharia law? And any variation of your Christianity is viewed as apostasy.

Your informative and educated post is welcome, yet I am not convinced it proves any great truths. It would take me hours to separate the wheat from the chaff (imo) but I surely don’t have the time (or maybe not even the skills). sorry.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

This rash of silliness warrants special treatment:

1. The periodization Dark Ages hasn't been understood to denote the entire period of the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance, for decades.

2. Paganism isn't religion?

3. Was it a marauding horde of educated Christians that overthrew a weak Western Roman Empire, as the Christian Eastern Roman Empire endured, or was it a horde of superstitious and technologically benighted pagans from the interior regions of Europe north of the western provinces that overthrew it heralding in the Dark Ages?

4. Given the fact that it was the Christians of the western provinces that preserved the works of the Classical era, not the benighted pagans of the European interior, what book burnings are you talking about?

5. Why did the Islamic world under the Ottoman empire decline in spite of having all that classical learning in mathematics (for example, Euclidean geometry, topology and differential geometry), mechanics (for example, Archimedes' principle of buoyant force) and cosmology from the Classical era, as Christian Western Europe rose again and came to dominate the world? In other words, what natural philosophy and cosmological models had to be thrown off in order to attain the physics and the astronomical achievements of modernity? Were they the biblical notions of Christians or were they the pagan notions of the Classical era? Or are you one of those historically illiterate rubes operating under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church's natural philosophy and astronomy were biblical?

6. What great work of Western civilization caused the Christian Copernicus to doubt the prevailing Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmological models from the Classical era of paganism? Hint: its title begins with a B, and he took his cue from the prophetic works of the same.

7. Why did the Protestant Reformationists repudiate the superimposition of the erroneous metaphysical, cosmological and natural philosophy of Classical paganism on the Bible?

8. Who were these Christians who allegedly rejected science? Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Pascal? You didn't mean those Christians did you? Scientists all, and four of them, including Newton, biblical theologians as well. Oh, wait! You mean the Christians of the clerical establishment and the pre-Copernican theologians of the Roman Catholic Church under the sway of the pagan thought of Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy from the Classical era which you put so much stock in, right?

9. Political development? Who but progressive statists would wish to live under the short-lived, collectivistic mobocracies of the Grecian city states, under the res publica entrusted to the aristocratic oligarchy of the Roman Republic or under the despotism of Roman imperialism, if given the option to live under the limited republican government of inalienable human rights extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought?

10. Where did the notion of a static universe, the cosmological model held to be true all the way up to the Twentieth Century, come from? From the Bible, which describes something that looks an awful lot like the Big Bang, or from the pagan cosmology of the Classical era?

11. Now this last question is really difficult, not just difficult to swallow, as in the above, for those who do slogan history rather than real history: why do the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, and quantum physics scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity?​

Was that some rendition of Luther’s or Calvin’s version of sharia law? And any variation of your Christianity is viewed as apostasy.

Your informative and educated post is welcome, yet I am not convinced it proves any great truths. It would take me hours to separate the wheat from the chaff (imo) but I surely don’t have the time (or maybe not even the skills). sorry.

"Luther's or Calvin's version of Sharia Law"? That doesn't follow. "[A]ny variation of your Christianity is viewed as apostasy"? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm addressing JoeB's historical and theological ignorance regarding the alleged political and scientific backwardness of Christianity. The issue here is Christianity vs. paganism. There's a reason Christianity won that historical contest. It's superior. There's no need for you to separate the wheat from the chaff. I already did that. Wheat: Christianity. Chaff: paganism. Word.

 

[turzovka]

Ah, another Bizarro Chick thread.

Here's the reality. Western Civilization was doing just fine until Christianity came along. The Roman Empire was actually kind of awesome for its time in terms of technology and political development.

Then Christianity brought the Dark Ages, or as I like to call them, the First Faith Based Initiative. Books were burned, science rejected, and we had really 1000 years of not much scientific progress.

Religion has never done a good thing in the whole of human history, not even by accident.

This rash of silliness warrants special treatment:

1. The periodization Dark Ages hasn't been understood to denote the entire period of the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance, for decades.

2. Paganism isn't religion?

3. Was it a marauding horde of educated Christians that overthrew a weak Western Roman Empire, as the Christian Eastern Roman Empire endured, or was it a horde of superstitious and technologically benighted pagans from the interior regions of Europe north of the western provinces that overthrew it heralding in the Dark Ages?

4. Given the fact that it was the Christians of the western provinces that preserved the works of the Classical era, not the benighted pagans of the European interior, what book burnings are you talking about?

5. Why did the Islamic world under the Ottoman empire decline in spite of having all that classical learning in mathematics (for example, Euclidean geometry, topology and differential geometry), mechanics (for example, Archimedes' principle of buoyant force) and cosmology from the Classical era, as Christian Western Europe rose again and came to dominate the world? In other words, what natural philosophy and cosmological models had to be thrown off in order to attain the physics and the astronomical achievements of modernity? Were they the biblical notions of Christians or were they the pagan notions of the Classical era? Or are you one of those historically illiterate rubes operating under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church's natural philosophy and astronomy were biblical?

6. What great work of Western civilization caused the Christian Copernicus to doubt the prevailing Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmological models from the Classical era of paganism? Hint: its title begins with a B, and he took his cue from the prophetic works of the same.

7. Why did the Protestant Reformationists repudiate the superimposition of the erroneous metaphysical, cosmological and natural philosophy of Classical paganism on the Bible?

8. Who were these Christians who allegedly rejected science? Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Pascal? You didn't mean those Christians did you? Scientists all, and four of them, including Newton, biblical theologians as well. Oh, wait! You mean the Christians of the clerical establishment and the pre-Copernican theologians of the Roman Catholic Church under the sway of the pagan thought of Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy from the Classical era which you put so much stock in, right?

9. Political development? Who but progressive statists would wish to live under the short-lived, collectivistic mobocracies of the Grecian city states, under the res publica entrusted to the aristocratic oligarchy of the Roman Republic or under the despotism of Roman imperialism, if given the option to live under the limited republican government of inalienable human rights extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought?

10. Where did the notion of a static universe, the cosmological model held to be true all the way up to the Twentieth Century, come from? From the Bible, which describes something that looks an awful lot like the Big Bang, or from the pagan cosmology of the Classical era?

11. Now this last question is really difficult, not just difficult to swallow, as in the above, for those who do slogan history rather than real history: why do the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, and quantum physics scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity?​

Was that some rendition of Luther’s or Calvin’s version of sharia law? And any variation of your Christianity is viewed as apostasy.

Your informative and educated post is welcome, yet I am not convinced it proves any great truths. It would take me hours to separate the wheat from the chaff (imo) but I surely don’t have the time (or maybe not even the skills). sorry.

"Luther's or Calvin's version of Sharia Law"? That doesn't follow. "[A]ny variation of your Christianity is viewed as apostasy"? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm addressing JoeB's historical and theological ignorance regarding the alleged political and scientific backwardness of Christianity. The issue here is Christianity vs. paganism. There's a reason Christianity won that historical contest. It's superior. There's no need for you to separate the wheat from the chaff. I already did that. Wheat: Christianity. Chaff: paganism. Word.

Well then I apologize for my mistake through one reading. Somehow I gleaned whatever came out of the Vatican was almost pagan itself? I will try again.

 

[Hollie]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

Oh, look! Hollie, as usual, has nothing of substance to contribute.

Oh my. The angry, self-hater is desperate for attention.

 

[JakeStarkey]

‘Indeed, in a very real sense, the political left's claptrap is the pagan-riddled apostasy of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church all over again.” The fact is that the natural universe theory of modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism, the religious bulwark of cultural McCarthyism, threatens the foundations of The Enlightenment underpinnings of the Constitution and the classical liberalism that produced it. As social, cultural, and religious McCarthyism continues to falter in its final socio-political failures, the right thinkers simply need to keep it contained while it implodes from its internal pathology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

YOU never discuss the material you post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well then I apologize for my mistake through one reading. Somehow I gleaned whatever came out of the Vatican was almost pagan itself? I will try again.

You needn't apologize, turzovka.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

‘Indeed, in a very real sense, the political left's claptrap is the pagan-riddled apostasy of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church all over again.” The fact is that the natural universe theory of modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism, the religious bulwark of cultural McCarthyism, threatens the foundations of The Enlightenment underpinnings of the Constitution and the classical liberalism that produced it. As social, cultural, and religious McCarthyism continues to falter in its final socio-political failures, the right thinkers simply need to keep it contained while it implodes from its internal pathology.

Jake, I see you're hittin' on that implement again. I thought you were on the wagon. Did the wheels come off?