Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Liberal?
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 154 of 302 (225330)
07-21-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
07-21-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
I'd probably be less surprised and upset about it than you would be once you saw what they require of you. I'd at least expect it.
I didn't ask how I would feel, I asked how you would feel.
isten, if this country had always been secular and pagan no Christian would make a fuss. We'd simply expect to be thrown to the lions, which is how the depaganization of the world got started 2000 years ago. I guess we could start all over. Being eaten by a lion is a fine fate for a Christian.
Hmmm... secular and pagan? Who's talking about paganisim?
Secular does not mean anti-christian, secular means NON-RELIGIOUS not ANTI-RELIGIOUS. There is a difference.
But as long as we know that this nation WAS once Christian we do what we can to keep it from falling back into total paganism.
When was it pagan? And when, since th founding, was it christian?
Let's say the founders were the total Enlightenment jerks you all believe they were, a bunch of sneaky anti-Christians who defrauded the citizenry, nevertheless the pre-founding 1-1/2 centuries were Christian to the max.
Yes, and pre-founding we were misserable rural backwater subject to the british empire, your point?
Further, the founders werent anti-christians, they were diests. They promoted SECULAR government (i.e. NON-RELIGIOUS not ANTI-RELIGIOUS).
1)Slavery
Total ignorance. There were no Puritans in the South, and the Puritans did not own slaves.
No they personaly didn't, but their theological descendants saw nothing wrong with it. Remember, protistant preachers advocated slavery from the pulpit!
You're going to have to prove that one. The early Puritans made friends with the Indians, and at least two famous later Christians of basically the same doctrinal vein as the Puritans, lived among them as missionaries, David Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was also President of Princeton briefly before he died, such a moron he was.
Like slavery, manifest destiny was advocated by the relgious conservatives of the time.
They were theocrats, that is true, but that is because when they first arrived in America there was nobody else but themselves to govern, and they all lived personally with God as their governor, so the community itself was under God with human administrators. Quite understandable if you think about it. Not applicable to a pluralistic society of course, but theirs wasn't.
Right, and they had the stocks, hangings, burning at the stake, scarlet letters, etc. etc.
They were a bruttal lot.
One famous witch trial which was apparently based on a hysteria whipped up by teenagers, and it was opposed as well as defended by prominent Puritans. Just because you don't believe in witchcraft doesn't mean it doesn't exist, although in a nontheocracy we don't prosecute witches in any case.
Oh my... are you seriously suggesting that the rash of which burnings promulgated by the puritans not only here, but in Europe as well, were actualy justified? That is, that at least in some cases ACTUAL WITCHES were caught and burned?
I would love proof of this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 07-21-2005 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2005 10:11 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 158 of 302 (225335)
07-21-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by arachnophilia
07-21-2005 10:11 PM


Re: you're not helping
My bad then. Calvanist, lutharin, their all the same to me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2005 10:11 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2005 10:19 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 159 of 302 (225336)
07-21-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Lizard Breath
07-21-2005 9:59 PM


Re: My View on Abortion for the record
Actually, the medical community has said that the brain waves of an infant up to 10 weeks old are no different than the brain waves of the unborn from week 18 on. So, to say that it's a human when there is no differentiating brain activity is incorrect and abortion could be legal up to the 10th week after birth.
Ya, but 10 weeks is just about the first 3 month mark. I would say that anti-abortionists have an arguable case beyond this stage because indeed the brain has begun to function on some level.
Besides, if you havent made up your mind if you want the kid within the first 3 months, something is wrong with you.
Do you have any articles related to this? I would like to know more.
This litmus test might also be applied to the elderly in nursing homes via an excepted stimulus test.
You wouldn't be surprised to know that I am for euthenasia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Lizard Breath, posted 07-21-2005 9:59 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Chiroptera, posted 07-21-2005 10:40 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 174 of 302 (225352)
07-21-2005 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
07-21-2005 10:53 PM


Re: My View on Abortion for the record
Look Faith, At some point the foetus becomes a human right? We can agree to this. 11 Weeks is about 3 months. 3 MONTHS. At this point we can say that the embryo has no higher brain function, no advanced nervus system, etc.
For at least the first month and a half the foetus looks like a wad of chewd gum. It dosn't think, doesn't even look human, dosn't even have a brain. I would say that the first trimester is the line before the embryo starts aproaching humanness.
But if you are honestly saying that a 3 weak old embryo is just as good as a 2 year old, your crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-21-2005 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 5:03 AM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 182 of 302 (225366)
07-21-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by docpotato
07-21-2005 11:48 PM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
So why do you care about abortion?
I have allways been curious about that. I mean, a dead baby goes straight to heaven!
Christians should be killing babys left and right. It seems to me like a very economical, efficient, and quick way to win souls for god. You can skip all that sinful life crap.
Hell, why reproduce at all? I mean seriously, who would wanna risk hell. It seems to me the best thing you could do as a christian is not have chilldren at all lest they be swayed by the eeeevil one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by docpotato, posted 07-21-2005 11:48 PM docpotato has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 07-21-2005 11:56 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2005 12:14 AM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 185 of 302 (225369)
07-22-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
07-21-2005 11:56 PM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
Where do they go?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 07-21-2005 11:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Brian, posted 07-22-2005 4:51 AM Yaro has not replied
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 5:37 AM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 222 of 302 (225439)
07-22-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
07-22-2005 9:37 AM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
respecting the principles of MAJORITY rule and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE
Actually, the constitution and the government created to enforce it, was structured AGAINST majority rule. This is one of the reason this country works so well.
The framers were well aware that a country governed by majority rule would see the minority trampled on. It would also lead to mob mentality. Think if majority rule were implemented in the civil rights days, blacks would still be opressed today.
The reason we have a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is to protect us from majority rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 9:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 10:03 AM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 225 of 302 (225444)
07-22-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
07-22-2005 10:03 AM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
We have both. Majority is always the primary principle. A representative government should reflect the will of the majority if it's truly representative.
It reflects the will of the majority with respect to the minority. The SCOTUS is one body who oversees the descisions made by our elected representatives. As I said, during civil rights, the majority was racist. The SCOTUS protected the minority from the will of the majority.
The framers were smart enugh to engeneer this self-correcting mechanisim into the structure of our govt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 10:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 1:21 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 241 of 302 (225482)
07-22-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-22-2005 12:58 PM


Re: Aahh!
Clean Skies Initiative -- More cole and poluttion
No Child Left Behind -- Educational budget slashed
Patriot Act -- Civil liberties curtailed, bigger government
Nah, they don't twist words. And FOX news really IS fair and balanced!
This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-22-2005 01:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 12:58 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kjsimons, posted 07-22-2005 1:06 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 275 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2005 3:27 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 246 of 302 (225489)
07-22-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
07-22-2005 1:21 PM


Re: Liberals/leftists are against freedom
Can you provide me with evidence that the US was founded to impose the will of the MAJORITY on the MINORITY. I can bring you lots of quotes from our founders on the subject where they say otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 07-22-2005 1:32 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 259 of 302 (225514)
07-22-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by arachnophilia
07-22-2005 2:33 PM


Re: you're not helping
Yes, Infact here is a littany of their belifes:
The central tenet of Puritanism was God's supreme authority over human affairs, particularly in the church, and especially as expressed in the Bible. They believed, for example, that the worship of the church ought to be strictly regulated by what is clearly commanded in Scripture. Where their opponents defended many worship practices based on tradition alone, the Puritans considered these practices to be idolatry, regardless of their antiquity or how widespread they were among Christians. Thus, Puritan reforms were typified by a minimum of ritual and decoration, and an unambiguous emphasis on preaching. Besides the worship and government of the church, the Puritans also emphasized that the individual should be reformed by the grace of God. Each person, upon whom God shows mercy, should have a sense of his own unworthiness and a confidence that the forgiveness which is in Christ has been particularly applied to him; so that out of gratitude, a humble and obedient life would arise. Other important beliefs included:
* Bible reading
* Personal morality
* Education and enlightenment for the masses
* Simple clothes for priests
* Simple ceremonies in Church
* Simple decorations (if any) in Churches
* Children being silent during meals
* No regard to women
* No "superstition" (e.g.: rejection of transubstantiation)
* Abolition of Church Hierarchy
* Opposition to the Monarch being head of the Church
Most groups also believed the Divine Right of Kings was heresy; this became more pronounced during the reign of Charles I. Banned in their New England colonies;
* Drama
* Religious music
* Erotic poetry.
Drama and erotic poetry was believed to lead to immorality. Music in worship was not conducive to listening to God. Knowledge of Greek and Latin was important to them. Diversions included Bible discussions and reading the great Greek classics including Cicero, Virgil, and Ovid. They were encouraged to write their own poetry of religious nature. In modern usage, "Puritan" is often used as an informal pejorative term for someone who has strict views on sexual morality, disapproves of recreation, and wishes to impose these beliefs on others. None of these qualities were unique to Puritanism or universally characteristic of Puritans, whose moral views and ascetic tendencies (See Asceticism) were no more extreme than many other Protestant reformers of their time, and who were relatively tolerant of other faithsat least in England; the popular image is slightly more accurate as a description of Puritans in colonial America, whose social experiment took the form of a Calvinist theocracy.
Controversy
from the wiki: Puritans - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2005 2:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2005 3:33 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 267 of 302 (225523)
07-22-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
07-22-2005 5:12 AM


Re: My View on Abortion for the record
Just ask me. I went through one as a young woman and I thought I was very enlightened, *knew* it was just a lump of tissue, *knew* it was the rational thing to do. It was within the first trimester too, all right and proper. Funny how the time factor seems to mean so much to everyone though it's just a smokescreen.
No it's not, it's a fact. You felt guilty about what you had done.
Afterward I had a vivid dream about the child I had been carrying, although I had thought I was convinced it wasn't a child. Even then I didn't "let it bother me," simply denied it as most women do. Took many years before I faced my own subconscious knowledge that I'd killed my own child.
So basicaly your saying abortion should be illegal because of your irrational guilt and your nightmare?
Im not trying to trivialize your pain, but a law cannot be passed based on someones emotions, and as of now the facts point to:
1) The foetus dose not have any significant higher nervous system activity till after the first trimester.
2) The foetus is part of the mothers body and therfore part of her jurisdiction. The government cannot control what you do with your body.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 07-22-2005 5:12 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Rahvin, posted 07-22-2005 3:14 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6525 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 292 of 302 (225569)
07-22-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
07-22-2005 4:17 PM


Michael Moore
I used to like him, but I find his style deceptive. He twists facts and heavely edits his movies to push his point.
It's irritating because HE DOES HAVE A POINT, It's sad that he dosn't use actual facts to support them. Especially concidering that plenty of those facts stand on their own needless of his heavy handed editing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2005 4:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2005 5:09 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 300 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2005 6:40 PM Yaro has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024