Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:12 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,845 Year: 4,882/19,786 Month: 1,004/873 Week: 360/376 Day: 37/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   christian nationalism
Faith
Member
Posts: 30897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 91 of 110 (315841)
05-28-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nator
05-28-2006 8:34 PM


Doesn't this belong on the gay marriage thread?
Then you should be in support of gays adopting and also of them getting married, since married families are more settled and stable for children than those that aren't.

As I said, I'm in favor of gays adopting as last resort, when no Mom and Dad arrangements are possible and the gays are a good bet. Marriage is not permissible no matter what. To my mind a child can be brought up very well by a couple of aunts or a couple of uncles. I think of it that way.

...at least, until there are no children in foster care waiting to be adopted.

That's pretty much what I said.

But the ideal is a father and a mother.

Again, why do you say this? Based upon what knowledge?

My super duper reality detector tells me so.

For most of human history, children have not been raised by one father and one mother.

You threw in the word "one" which seems to imply something that changes the subject, and where are you getting your information anyway? They need both sexes, that's what I've said.

And again, it's common sense. A person with common sense doesn't need research to prove it.

It is common sense that the sun travels around the Earth. It is common sense that the Earth is flat. It is common sense that people with dark skin are inferior in most ways to people with light skin. It is common sense that women are not as smart as men.

I totally disagree. My super duper reality detector tells me you are wrong.

I don't believe in research *, much the less so after hanging around EvC for many months.

So, when social research shows that people who have a strong religious faith tend to recover from surgery faster and better than those who do not, you consider it bogus and highly suspect?

Yes, all research is bogus and suspect -- and meaningless. "Religious faith" is a completely meaningless category in such a context. Its definition by a researcher is very likely to be all wrong. And recovering from surgery fast isn't of any real importance that I can see.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:34 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 05-29-2006 7:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 110 (315882)
05-29-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
05-28-2006 9:43 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
quote:
Children

Because they cannot give legal consent to anything, although for the vast majority of the history of marriage, men marrying very young girls (and often more than one) was quite common, and it even appears in the Bible.

Do you suggest that we follow the Biblical model of marriage in all aspects, including having multiple wives, the stoning of adulterers and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists?

Or, are you simply being selective in that which you adhere to from the Bible?

quote:
and animals

They also cannot consent to a legal contract.

quote:
and close relations

because it results in genetic problems with offspring.

quote:
don't qualify for marriage. Neither do homosexuals.

I cannot see how two consenting adults who's offspring are not likely to have inbred problems should be denied a civil union just because of your personal and religious prejudice.

Can you provide a better reason than "I don't think they should"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 9:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2006 8:16 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 110 (315883)
05-29-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
05-28-2006 9:58 PM


Re: Doesn't this belong on the gay marriage thread?
quote:
But the ideal is a father and a mother.

Again, why do you say this? Based upon what knowledge?

quote:
My super duper reality detector tells me so.

Oh, so you are basing it upon nothing but ignorance and prejudice.

Got it.

quote:
And again, it's common sense. A person with common sense doesn't need research to prove it.

It is common sense that the sun travels around the Earth. It is common sense that the Earth is flat. It is common sense that people with dark skin are inferior in most ways to people with light skin. It is common sense that women are not as smart as men.

quote:
I totally disagree. My super duper reality detector tells me you are wrong.

Common sense never indicated any of these things to anybody. If you hadn't had somebody explain to you at school that the Earth orbits the sun, why would you think that it does?

Do you think that the very primitive tribes deep in the Amazon rainforest think it is "common sense" that the Earth orbits the sun?

No, the reason you believe the above to be false is due to the accumulated knowledge discovered over the centuries by people who questioned so-called "common sense".

It's knowledge, Faith, that informs you regarding those examples I provided, not common sense.

If everybody didn't think they were obvious, why were they held to be obviously true and common sensical for so long?

Like I said, "common sense" is simply accumulated prejudice based upon faulty or incomplete knowledge, and if you, Faith, reject all scientific research, you are doomed to forever form opinions based upon faulty and incomplete knowledge, becoming even more smug and prejudiced in your willful ignorance.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 9:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by tsig, posted 05-29-2006 1:35 PM nator has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 94 of 110 (316013)
05-29-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
05-29-2006 7:25 AM


Re: Doesn't this belong on the gay marriage thread?
Like I said, "common sense" is simply accumulated prejudice based upon faulty or incomplete knowledge, and if you, Faith, reject all scientific research, you are doomed to forever form opinions based upon faulty and incomplete knowledge, becoming even more smug and prejudiced in your willful ignorance.

Really sad isn't it. Faith is intelligent but uses that intelligence to deny reality.

Facts! We don't need no stinkin facts. (Think Western)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 05-29-2006 7:25 AM nator has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 95 of 110 (316036)
05-29-2006 3:23 PM


as much fun as discussing faith's rejection of science is, that (and detailed discussions of gay marriage) are obsessively off-topic here.

can we please move back to a discussion on the history of the american government and the potential presented by the christian reconstructionist movement?


  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 96 of 110 (316744)
05-31-2006 10:09 PM


train up a child in killing the infidels
speaking of dominion.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.

The game, slated for release by October 2006 in advance of the Christmas shopping rush, has been previewed at video game exhibitions, and reviewed by major newspapers and magazines. But until now, no fan or critic has pointed out the controversial game's connection to Mr. Warren or his dominionist agenda.

holy crap. maybe whomever was right about christians shooting up our schools (and maybe even our nation) to "free them from evil".


Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Quetzal, posted 05-31-2006 11:12 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 97 of 110 (316754)
05-31-2006 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by macaroniandcheese
05-31-2006 10:09 PM


Re: train up a child in killing the infidels
Actually, from the article to which you linked, it is very clear to me that Warren is the Antichrist. "A billion foot soldiers for God", and building "God's" kingdom on Earth are all the stuff the Antichrist was supposed to do before the end, IIRC. Scary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 10:09 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 11:27 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 98 of 110 (316757)
05-31-2006 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Quetzal
05-31-2006 11:12 PM


Re: train up a child in killing the infidels
and all these fundies are right behind him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Quetzal, posted 05-31-2006 11:12 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 110 (316790)
06-01-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
05-29-2006 7:16 AM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
I don't understand your response to Faith. Faith is setting out common ideas of what is allowed and not allowed for marriage and your response does not undercut her argument at all...

{regarding children}Because they cannot give legal consent to anything, although for the vast majority of the history of marriage, men marrying very young girls (and often more than one) was quite common, and it even appears in the Bible.

Actually kids can get married, even in the US. It all depends on the state and what you define as a kid. 13 and 14 still count as a kid to me and I suspect it would to you too. The only difference is that they need the consent of parents.

In any case, how is throwing around Biblical concepts of marriage relevant? Clearly Faith is suggesting these things are not right or allowed now. You might show that she has rejected an original Xian concept/practice of marriage for a modern Xian one, but that doesn't change anything with regard to her argument.

Ironically marrying (and having sex with) kids was acceptable way back when long term open homosexuality was an acceptable practice (even though there were no marriages). Both became denounced and eventually banned by Xians, if not earlier then later under Xian Progressive reasoning (which added child relationships/sexuality to the same banned list as homosexuality). Feminist doctrine which has advanced restrictions on child sexuality and marriage into the public arena is based on the Xian Progressiive reasoning regarding sex and relationships.

How do you consistently argue for the continued repression of one practice, and yet the acceptance of another practice when such a position involves rejecting one portion of "modern" belief and not another? Or perhaps more accurately, how can you suggest Faith is wrong for picking and choosing when you are doing the same thing?

{on close relations}because it results in genetic problems with offspring.

Again, you have taken a rather dubious pick and choose position. How does getting married to a close relation result in offspring, much less genetic problems in offspring? The point is they are not allowed to marry at all and not even adopt (like gays).

It doesn't take marriage to result in two closely related people having kids (they can just have sex), and getting married does not mean a couple can or will have kids. Thus the ban on close relations getting married has NOTHING to do with preventing potential for children being born with genetic problems. What it does do is prevent children who might be born to such parents getting legal and social coverage/validation available to other kids (even sickly kids with genetic problems which HAPPENS to nonincestuous couples), as well as couples never intending or capable of having kids getting legal/social credit like other couples.

It is wholly a moral legal proscription based on the same animous proscribing homosexual relationships (indeed such regs came before knowledge of genetics) and your inability to see or admit this is confusing.

This is not to mention your statement is inaccurate. Inbreeding is not necessarily going to result in genetic problems. Recent studies have shown the rates of this are less than people have assumed, and it is known that such breeding can result in some positive benefits in offspring by strengthening positive characteristics. You should know this from horse breeding?

{on animals}They also cannot consent to a legal contract.

Not to try to compare humans with animals but you've used a statement to cover both kids and animals, and it should be noted the same state holds for the mentally handicapped. Is it your position that the mentally impaired should not be allowed to marry because they cannot give direct legal consent?

I cannot see how two consenting adults who's offspring are not likely to have inbred problems should be denied a civil union just because of your personal and religious prejudice.

You are simply picking and choosing based on your own personal beliefs. They can certainly argue that statistically such behaviors are related to greater health and psychological problems and so pose a risk for society and also to any children they might adopt, than is seen in hetero relationships. Thus their concern has a different focus, but could be just as valid.

It is also possible to show that homosexuals have a greater incidence of rape or molestation than heteros, and the damage of such acts having greater impact on children than hetero equivalents, and since most molestations happen with the family it is better to keep kids out of such environments.

All of this is certainly more clear cut than what you have just presented for kids getting married or incestuous couples. It might even be noted that if gay marriage was allowed, gay incestuous couples would be remain blocked (where is the genetic harm in that?).

Can you provide a better reason than "I don't think they should"?

How about you lead by example? One day I'm going to be shocked when someone arguing for gay rights realizes the only logical and evidentiarily consistent position is to fight for all sexual and relational minorities, including ones they might not like based on their own personal feelings.


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 05-29-2006 7:16 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RickJB, posted 06-01-2006 8:47 AM Silent H has responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3095 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 100 of 110 (316795)
06-01-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
06-01-2006 8:16 AM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
holmes writes:

It is also possible to show that homosexuals have a greater incidence of rape or molestation than heteros, and the damage of such acts having greater impact on children than hetero equivalents...

I'm calling you out on this. Link please.

In any case the core issue as far as I'm concerned is the ability for people to create familial legal associations, leaving aside questions of doctrine, morality or tradition.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : Tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2006 8:16 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AdminOmni, posted 06-01-2006 9:48 AM RickJB has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 06-02-2006 7:03 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 110 (316806)
06-01-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RickJB
06-01-2006 8:47 AM


Off Topic--Admin Request
RickJB, Holmes...please continue this discussion in an appropriate thread; start one if necessary. The topic here is Christian nationalism.

Please do not reply here. You know the drill.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    Trust me.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by RickJB, posted 06-01-2006 8:47 AM RickJB has not yet responded

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 3924 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 102 of 110 (316960)
    06-02-2006 7:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by RickJB
    06-01-2006 8:47 AM


    Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
    Apologies... not to annoy or defy omni, but I'm going to give this brief response to wrap up RJB's post in a way that does not require further exchange and so dragging the thread off topic. If I had time I would open a new thread, but my limited time here prevents that and so this may be the best method...

    I'm calling you out on this. Link please

    Unfortunaly I do not have the time to spend here as I used to, particularly to collect evidence (which usually gets ignored anyway). As far as what I said (and you are calling me on) if you have the time you can just search through EvC on past gay rights threads because I was referring to data which has already been presented here on the subject (and schraf should be aware of). Interestingly one of the studies was mistakenly posted by a person trying to argue for gay rights and just didn't understand what the data was actually saying. And of course the person disappeared when this was pointed out.

    I am not sure what the title of that one was. You can also go to my rind study thread within the coffee house (its hard to miss as it has Rind study in the title). I am pretty certain that there are links to data which includes the differential in harm from homosexual v heterosexual encounters in youth sex (the ongoing theory for this is that it leads to gender confusion).

    I apologize for not being able to follow through on this as I have in the past.

    In any case the core issue as far as I'm concerned is the ability for people to create familial legal associations, leaving aside questions of doctrine, morality or tradition.

    I agree, which was the thrust of my entire post. Why were you not calling schraf on her statements instead of me (rhetorical question you don't have to answer)?

    I am sorry if my post seemed to be arguing against gay marriage or unions. In fact I am supportive of them quite completely. The point of my post was to show that criteria schraf had used against other minority positions (which Faith had mentioned) can be used against gay marriage.

    To disallow antigay advocates the use of tools gay advocates use against others is a double standard. I think the tools used by both are bogus.


    holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by RickJB, posted 06-01-2006 8:47 AM RickJB has not yet responded

        
    Mespo
    Member (Idle past 990 days)
    Posts: 158
    From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
    Joined: 09-19-2002


    Message 103 of 110 (317018)
    06-02-2006 12:48 PM


    Christian Nationalism would also mean...
    ...the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches, right?

    Every church would pay their fair share to the state since Church and State would be One?

    Uh, let's see now, in a "Christ-centered" society, taxes collected from synagogues and mosques would go where, exactly?

    (:raig


        
    Shh
    Inactive Member


    Message 104 of 110 (317283)
    06-03-2006 5:24 PM


    Christian Nationalism
    Hi all,
    Christianity means putting Christ first, Nationalism means putting ones nation first, how can one do both?
    Sounds like political (see empty) language to me....
    I mean really if you're a Christian state, can you reject immigrants from other Christian states?
    Can you legislate for murder of Apostates, or other enemies of your religion?
    Can you legislate for anything?
    since Genesis 1:12 says "I have given you all the seedbearing plants..." Can I grow and sell opium? How about Crack?
    Christianity is supposed to be about God, and loyalty to Him.
    Statecraft is about getting a country to run.
    The two are mutually exclusive, and deform each other two the point that anyone advocating either one,is unlikely to be impressed at the results.
    Anyone who claims the two are capable of combining, should have a read of "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It's considered the greatest piece of political writing ever, and should show anyone why the two are incompatible.
    If you're interested there's a free online version at classicauthors.net.
    Religous states destroy the possiblity of getting either one right.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by nwr, posted 06-03-2006 5:44 PM Shh has not yet responded
     Message 108 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 11:01 AM Shh has not yet responded

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5585
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 105 of 110 (317297)
    06-03-2006 5:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 104 by Shh
    06-03-2006 5:24 PM


    Re: Christian Nationalism
    Christianity means putting Christ first, Nationalism means putting ones nation first, how can one do both?

    Your mistake is to assume that language is logical :(

    The important thing here is the belief ("ism") in a Christian nation. The "ism" part really applies to the two words, not just to the word "nation".

    Christianity is supposed to be about God, and loyalty to Him.
    Statecraft is about getting a country to run.
    The two are mutually exclusive, and deform each other two the point that anyone advocating either one,is unlikely to be impressed at the results.

    Sure. But the Christian nationalists don't happen to agree.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 104 by Shh, posted 06-03-2006 5:24 PM Shh has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:28 PM nwr has not yet responded
     Message 107 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:17 PM nwr has not yet responded

      
    Prev123456
    7
    8Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019