Warmbier deserved his cruel torture because of white privilege
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The sad thing here is that the pair of you are probably being 'serious'...
glorydaz
Well-known member
Then you're just like your little buddy....seeing "gay innuendo" even when there was NONE there.
You see evil where you want, and I'll go about not caring what you might imagine I mean.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh please, there was innuendo there that aCW would probably be envious of. Either way, what exactly am I "enabling"?
glorydaz
Well-known member
The sad thing here is that the pair of you are probably being 'serious'...
Hey, it's a fact of life you want us to deny? More pretending?
As sin increases, it increases in every walk of life. Men begin to be attracted to men, and same with women. It's accepted...it's encouraged by the media....it's a way to push the envelope. Parents kill more of their kids. Evil increases until people are hating each other over who they voted for.
Shame on us for seeing the real world instead the one you libs like to pretend it is.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
In the real world homosexuality has been around for ages. It's not some recent phenomenon that you can pass off, although some of the far right like to pretend that it's 'chosen' or that straight people can somehow be attracted to the same sex. Heck, some wingnuts on here maintain that it's possible to fall in love - or to train oneself to fall in love with inanimate objects and be sexually attracted to doorstops and sponge cakes so hey...
Loony or what?
:dizzy:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Then we can add aCW to you and your buddy. You all see gay innuendos wherever you look.
Then you overlook it when another liberal does the same....even when one of them really meant it. (Anna saying I'm not her type). Who would think of that except someone who has "gay on the brain". Esset, at least, probably meant "kiss and make up" in the normal way....who can say. You're the expert, you tell me what her intent was.
Why in God's name would I dare carry on a conversation with you since 1) You don't like the way I communicate (so unloving), and 2) you will attack me if I even bring up a certain "lifestyle". It's fine to have the "lifestyle" smeared in our faces from every corner, but, God forbid, a conservative should dare even mention it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You don't have to tell me about homosexuals. I've been around longer than you, and, yes, there have always been a few....very few. Now, it's as if they can actually breed and reproduce. Why is that, do you think? It's not because it's easier for people to come out, because God did not create man to have sex with another man. Even in the animal world, you might see a few aberrations. No, it's because it's been elevated to the level of "modern" and "enlightened"....the try it you'll like it mentality of sinful men. The same thing is happening with this transgender nonsense. People are looking for something different...they are unhappy with life and they will try anything.
Loony, yes.....what's happing in this world of sin is making lots of people loony.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ok GD, it was a purely innocent post with no underlying innuendo behind it whatsoever. There was no intention on your part to even remotely insinuate homosexuality of any sort, even feigned.
Happy now?
Now, what exactly am I "enabling" if you can bring yourself to address that?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I don't think you'd listen even if anybody did. You're as bonkers as folk who tell me I could fall in love with a car maintenance manual.
:kookoo:
Your mentality enables others to think being gay is ok
glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't patronize me.
I'm the adult here. You and Clownie are the children....which is why I mentioned your short pants before. Is short pants a gay innuendo, too? Do only gays want to be alone....kick the adults off their playground? If you weren't working to make me give up and leave, then what were you doing? My guess would be that I was making Clownie even more upset than he already was.
And you have yet to say what is "unloving" about my style of posting. :chew:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It just is that way for some people PJ. Unless you're aCW, there's no 'therapy center' that "cures" it. Why the hang ups?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Don't infer it.
Yeah, you're sure sounding like one GD and no mistake. Way to go you?
:thumb:
Now, any chance you can get to what I'm supposedly enabling at some point?
:idunno:
Oh, nothing GD. You do a sterling job.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Nah, I'd say you might be one who could fall in love with a car, though. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, nothing GD. You do a sterling job.
Why thank you, kind sir.:cloud9:
Brain is a good sport, he can handle innuendo
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. Unfortunately, the time I have to spend posting is sporadic. Sometimes decent time in decent blocks, other times a few minutes here and there. This discussion deserves some serious attention but I fear my inability to address it publicly on a consistent basis hurts the discussion. Having said that, I reiterate what was central to my original response - that liberals (more progressives, I think) tend to give their political viewpoints what might be termed religious status whereas conservatives tend to utilize them but fall short of enshrining them. Maybe more accurately, the conservative (and classical liberal) view(s) tend(s) to see the political ideals as means to an end whereas for the radical/progressive contingent, I think the political values ARE the end. That is, freedom to say and do what they want is their end - they don't see the restraints on behavior as serving another end either. Rather they see them either as repressive (i.e. ALL restraints become tools of repression serving some minority - non-Christian or maybe some non-religious minority designation such as a racial group) or in aid of the end of freedom. Self-government means that and that alone - "I" do what I think is right. It's the enshrinement of the oft repeated phrase found in the book of Judges - Every man did what was right in his own eyes.
So to your point, I'm trying to thread a needle (at 100 paces, it seems!). "All men are created equal" is probably a good example of the different approaches outlined. The (radical) left takes that as an absolute statement (which is ironic given the tendency to view the Constitution as something of a living and breathing document that tends to prevail on the left) and an end in itself. But it doesn't take much to realize that equality is a legal convenience meant to achieve an end. Equality is true only in the most fundamental of meanings - equality before God. There is no favoritism with God even though everyone has different gifts, talents, opportunities, positions, predicaments, happenstances etc...And all these are things that are out of the individual's control. So for the purposes of human governance, we have to be equal because none is more elevated in terms of standing before God. That is the ultimate position of government/justice/rule and so to assume it requires (in my mind) the reality of a Creator (which the founding documents also recognize). Not trying to justify the evils of slavery (for example), I also don't think the statement was a prescription for egalitarianism. Roles, social status etc... are not governed by that assumption. Otherwise, that's the way to go from the basic assumption of general equality to the radical definition of equality in all senses. And, thus, we have the lunacy of homosexual marriage and gender "choice". The road from one to the other is not direct, but it is the logical outcome when such statements are given the wrong meaning (and mankind is wanting to cast off basic ideas of common sense - calling good evil and evil good). Slavery, then, is an extreme example of the employer/employee relationship. Not allowing women to vote is an extreme example of unequal roles society sees fit to establish to govern its operation. While we might see these as ridiculous (or worse) the framework of the Constitution laid down the possibility of each of these existing and didn't violate the equality clause. At least as I read it. The choice to hold slaves, for example, was a private judgment for every man to make. I can't understand how someone could do this in light of the biblical injunction. God told Israel that they shouldn't have slaves and referred them to their own 420 year experience. But as a legal right, it was naturally a part of the societal experience. And even one like General Lee agreed that it should be done away with but served a purpose in the short term. Society had to work through the ramifications of this liberty before it could stand against slavery. The law would not free men - only the gospel can do that.
So I return (again) to the progressives. Their gospel is "you are equal (without limit or definition) and free (without regard to morality)". It is in direct opposition to the gospel that sets the captives at liberty - if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed. And so I see the progressive position as a religious one - one of secular humanism with an atheistic foundation. Man is his own end. And it's main goal is to unseat God and do away with all those pesky Christians. Either silence them into impotence or literally do away with them. Imprisonment and economic destruction is a current tool but I do believe that the day is coming when (somehow) the moral restraint God now holds on men is totally removed and progressives will have (rather, give themselves) free reign to kill whoever gets in their way. I also think that's why they find such kindred spirits in Islam (but that's another topic altogether).
I think the "one religion" concept is very powerful. That is, order and (some form of) justice can easily be maintained in a homogeneous society. That homogeneity is religious far more than it is anything else (racial etc...though I've sometimes wondered if Acts 17:26 at least supports the idea of national sovereignty being a biblical necessity). Religious belief is a tie that binds very deeply and with great strength. And it is what really, in the end, is (again, my opinion) the primary factor in the formation of what we call culture. I think - in a superficial sense, anyway - that is why the Jews have been so persecuted over the ages. Their idea of culture has remained in tact in spite of great....stress (to put it mildly). They have maintained a culture that has religion at its very core. There are all sorts of different Jews, but their cultural distinctives are religious at the heart of it all. That isn't to say that they are religiously correct, but that their unity and cultural strength is owing largely to their religious foundation. Islam has this to a great degree as well. Christianity - the popular kind - has been so watered down that its cultural impact is all but gone. Again - that only goes to the unity and stress placed on belief - not the rightness or wrongness of core beliefs. I believe that a Christianity tenaciously held is unstoppable and will (has been - see 17th/18th century England/North America and Wesley/Whitefield) revolutionize any people.
In terms of Congress not making any law respecting religion, that's a debate I don't know that I'm fully equipped to even define properly. I've heard it said that it meant that it was understood that Christianity was the accepted religious foundation and that denominations were in view when "religion" was used. But it also could be taken at face value and simply means that a person's private observance of religion is not a matter of concern for the government - so long as it doesn't impede his ability to keep the law of the land (which is based on English Common Law which is based broadly on scripture). Multiculturalism has opened Pandora's Box and there is little chance of closing it again. And so while it may not be popular, there is a sense where we are getting a glimpse of what Ezekiel saw in the temple - all the foreign gods drawing Israel away from the One True God. But again, as I said above, the solution isn't necessarily immigration - it's spiritual.
Well, I think I've rambled on enough. I had wanted to make my initial responses a little more substantive than I actually did - and now with the time to do so, I think I've shown why I was a little hesitant to respond. Too many directions to go - many of which may not be true to the OP enough to be maintained in this thread (and enough to give any reader mental whiplash).
Respond as you will - to one point, some of them, all of them or even none of them. I'm sure the way I have it on digital paper, it isn't nearly as clear as it is in my head....
