Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 2:14 PM
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle (9 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,071 Year: 5,108/19,786 Month: 1,230/873 Week: 126/460 Day: 68/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   christian nationalism
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 76 of 110 (315708)
05-28-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
there are other threads for you to spew your mindless intolerance on. keep gay marriage and gay adoption off this thread. outside of mere cursory discussion regarding actual potential policy of the restructured government it is OFF TOPIC.

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 77 of 110 (315709)
05-28-2006 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-27-2006 11:39 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
Oh sorry, I completely misconstrued your statement. Perhaps I still don't understand it, as it seems completely unrelated to what I said. However, I suppose you are confusing "having both sexes for parents" with "having both parents always PRESENT." Having both sexes for parents doesn't mean both have to be present. It's a matter of the child's KNOWING he has both sexes for parents, with the ability to identify with his/her own sex, and can grow up understanding and appreciating the difference. This happens even if one parent is unfortunately absent, though the more interaction the better of course.

yeah. it doesn't matter as long as the kid knows someone boned his mom good and proper so she knows her place. take it to the other thread.

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 11:39 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30951
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 78 of 110 (315721)
05-28-2006 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
05-28-2006 12:44 AM


Re: Paranoia & the NPR interview
Well, I remembered thinking the interview was paranoid, I just forgot various things that were said.

I'll take your word for it that that's what she said. I don't have time to listen to it right now.

Next what's needed is to check with the Reconstructionists themselves to be sure that's their position, as I'm not familiar with it otherwise.

I don't see how anyone can think of establishing a theocracy of that sort in today's world, but I guess they do believe that the world is supposed to become Christian eventually. I think it's quite clear that this world is never going to be Christian, and that there's no such idea in the Bible.

In any case they don't represent the majority of Christians.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 05-28-2006 12:44 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by anglagard, posted 05-28-2006 4:29 PM Faith has responded
 Message 87 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 7:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 110 (37095)
04-15-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:34 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
quote:
They are special rights because they aim to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and foist it on the public consciousness Emperor's New Clothes style; they create a pretense of a status gays are not qualified for. And historically no culture has ever countenanced such a crazy idea.

But I suppose our Brave New Society will. We're going to do every crazy thing that no society ever did before and call it a civil right, against all the saner voices trying to bring some reason into the situation.


So, your definition of "special rights" is simply that you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else. This is a similar view, as I and others have mentioned before, to the view from a few hundred years ago when it was considered by the majority "crazy", "unchristian", and "unnatural" for women to have the right to own property, to inherit property, and to vote.

See, to me, to demand a "special right" is to demand a right that nobody else has. Clearly, gays are not demanding a "special" right, because they are only demanding to have the same rights that heteros enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:34 PM Faith has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 110 (315728)
05-28-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:53 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
quote:
Yes, quite crazy. It's already crazy though to send women into combat at all, and in fact to send them anywhere at all when they have children at home. This is due more to feminism than anything else. Just another sign of the increasing irrationality of our culture.

I quite agree.

I propose we go back to the time when fathers were the moral authority in the family and took the responsibility for the instruction and raising of the children.

Things were so much better then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 7:46 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 110 (315729)
05-28-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-27-2006 11:39 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
quote:
It's a matter of the child's KNOWING he has both sexes for parents, with the ability to identify with his/her own sex, and can grow up understanding and appreciating the difference. This happens even if one parent is unfortunately absent, though the more interaction the better of course.

Can you provide some relevant research to show that parental arrangements other than the one mother and one father one you provide are in any way detrimental to children, or that the one mother one father arrangement is shown to be superior?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 11:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 4:38 PM nator has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 82 of 110 (315806)
05-28-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-28-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Paranoia & the NPR interview
Next what's needed is to check with the Reconstructionists themselves to be sure that's their position, as I'm not familiar with it otherwise.

The only website I can dig up that is from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective is The Chalcedon Foundation at http://www.chalcedon.edu/. On the surface, it appears to be mainline fundamentalist with a lot of defensiveness against outsiders who they accuse of maligning them, along with some obvious implications they want to replace civil law with their interpretation of Biblical law.

However, if one takes the time to dig deeply enough, one can find what they support but choose not to trumpet too loudly, such as this:

quote:
"From this discussion we can see that, according to the teaching of the Torah and following the metaphysical, moral and judicial definitions provided by the law of Israel, this sin, this metaphysical disorder, this moral and social disorder which is the nature of homosexuality, merits the death penalty.."

From "The Christian Confronted by Homosexuality" by Jean Marc Berthold dated August 12, 2003. The link http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0308/030812marc.php can be found on the left side of the website under articles.

More research indicates this Biblical law business is largely what the Christian Reconstructionist Movement is about.

For some outside perspectives see the following:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

Apparently Christian Reconstructionism is much worse than I gathered from the interview according to the above, although evidently not all members are completly without redeeming social value as they have not yet reached a consensus on the concept of reimposing human slavery.

Edited by anglagard, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 2:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 7:29 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30951
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 83 of 110 (315808)
05-28-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
04-15-2003 11:49 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
See, to me, to demand a "special right" is to demand a right that nobody else has.

See, to me, a special right is a right you have no right to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 04-15-2003 11:49 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:22 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30951
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 84 of 110 (315809)
05-28-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nator
05-28-2006 8:03 AM


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

It's common sense that children need a male and female parent, and I'm SO sorry if you lack the common sense to see it but that's the way it is.

And I already said that under some circumstances gays make fine parents, better than some heteros. That is the only consideration, that there be no adequate male-female parenting possibility, and then single parent or gays may be better than the alternatives. But the ideal is a father and a mother.

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

=========================================================
* My usual unfortunate tendency to hyperbole there. Let me clarify. I think most social research is useless. Its value is completely dependent on the ability of the researchers to conceptualize the situation they want to research, and that is a huge area in which I don't trust your average scientist type. Also, research can prove just about anything you want it to if you define your terms carefully enough. And again, this conviction has only deepened since I started hanging out here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : asterisk and footnote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:03 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:34 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30951
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 85 of 110 (315827)
05-28-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by anglagard
05-28-2006 4:29 PM


Re: Paranoia & the NPR interview
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you should do the research, I thought I might eventually get around to it, but thanks for doing it. I'll have to spend some more time on it later.

All I'd say right now is that it makes no sense to think of applying God's Law fully in a pluralistic society. For one thing, ancient Israel was a covenanted society, that is they made a covenant with God to be governed by His Law. Seems to me that ought to be possible now, so that if some group wants to make such a covenant, why not, but without that consent of the governed it's neither a good idea nor possible. Maybe they cover this somewhere in their writings but I haven't read that far yet.

The second thing is, again, that a Christian's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth, and we should expect to be part of all kinds of pagan and nonChristian cultures while here. Certainly most Christians throughout the world live in alien cultures.

In the West it just so developed that Christians had a large part in contributing to government. But even so, that's not the same as being called to found a theocracy -- or theonomy. As they point out, early New England America did base much of their laws on the Old Testament, but then they were more of a cohesive, even covenanted society, founded originally BY Christians. But subsequent generations lost their belief and the laws can no longer be enforced in that case.

Christians ARE called to be "salt" among the nonbelievers, which is usually understood in the sense that salt is used as a preservative against corruption. So the right role for Christians IS to fight against such things as the legalization of abortion and gay marriage, because those things oppose God, and can only bring about the deterioration and ultimate destruction of the society. But the methods that are to be used are the usual political channels of a democracy, and if those fail, well the society WILL ultimately self-destruct but we did our part.

Is there anything in your links you particularly want me to address?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by anglagard, posted 05-28-2006 4:29 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 86 of 110 (315829)
05-28-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
05-28-2006 7:59 AM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
fathers would have to know their childrens names first for that to happen.

*grunt grunt*
zugg zugg earn munny
*grunt*
wo-man make babies leave zugg zugg out of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 7:59 AM nator has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 87 of 110 (315830)
05-28-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-28-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Paranoia & the NPR interview
In any case they don't represent the majority of Christians.

but the majority of christians may be willing to support them politically due to desire for the specified social changes, or pressure from the pulpit. that is the problem, is that many christians issue vote rather than platform vote and will support someone based on issues even if they disagree with his platform.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 2:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 88 of 110 (315833)
05-28-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-28-2006 4:34 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
quote:
See, to me, a special right is a right you have no right to.

That is circular.

"A right you have no right to is a right you have no right to have."

I think that your definition is one that nobody else uses and mine is the generally accepted one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 4:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 9:43 PM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 110 (315836)
05-28-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
05-28-2006 4:38 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
quote:
It's common sense that children need a male and female parent, and I'm SO sorry if you lack the common sense to see it but that's the way it is.

How so?

quote:
And I already said that under some circumstances gays make fine parents, better than some heteros. That is the only consideration, that there be no adequate male-female parenting possibility, and then single parent or gays may be better than the alternatives.

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.

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

quote:
But the ideal is a father and a mother.

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

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

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.

Thank heavens people in the past were not as fearful of questioning "common sense" as you clearly are.

"Common sense" is usually just collected prejudice based upon incomplete knowledge.

quote:
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?

Is that correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 4:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 9:58 PM nator has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30951
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 90 of 110 (315840)
05-28-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by nator
05-28-2006 8:22 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
Another way to put it is that a special right is one you demand although you are not qualified for it. Nothing circular at all. If it's not a right you have a right to, that means it's a right you aren't qualified for. Children and animals and close relations don't qualify for marriage. Neither do homosexuals.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:22 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 05-29-2006 7:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019