Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666
And I should remember someone who refused to let me in when I forgot the password?
I'm not sure if your problem is reading comprehension or illogic.
If the former: I said that I happen to (often) agree with Dershowitz on one particular issue which I specified, namely his exposure of antisemitic bigots. I also specified that I disagree with Dershowitz on nearly everything else.
If your problem is an inability to reason you'll just have to accept that it is perfectly possible, logically, and often occurs in practice, for person to be wrong, even perniciously wrong, about claims A, B, C, D, E, F..., A1, B1, C1..., etc, yet to be correct with respect to claims X4 and G27.
outages occur.
outages occur... with variable frequency ;)
It depends on the static.
interference, or impedence?
Since we are talking about my poor excuse for a brain. Yes!
So ... every liberal, everywhere, must be wrong every time?
And who do you think is the narrowminded bigot here?
Scientists, obviously. They're the ones who won't allow untestable assertions into science.
Oh no. Not every liberal is wrong all the time. But on key liberal issues, such as man trumping God, communism trumping capitalism, immorality trumping morality,and abortion trumping life liberals are not only wrong, but destructively and I believe, deliberately wrong.
Again, if you want to promote the work of someone who maligns conservatism in a conservative forum than be prepared to be called out on it.
Then buy a clue, dumbass, since none of those issues were raised here.
LOL. Just tweaking Darwin Central. :-)
Really? In what secular text does it say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? In what secular text do the jews say in unison "His blood be upon us, and on our children". What secular text insists that to know of Jesus, but not to accept him as savior (as all orthodox jews do, in obedience to the Shema) is the one sure road away from salvation?, said which doctrine was used to justify making jews legally second class citizens, legally confined to ghettos in virtually every christian nation in Europe.
Also, some clergy in Eurpoe may have done those things. Did they all? Did, in fact, most of them?
Did Hitler personally slaughter 6 million jews? Or did he simply provide the intellectual and legal framework for doing so?--rather like the church did for the work of the inquisition, and the mass murder of witches, anabaptists, albigenians, templers, cathars, moslems...?
Don't you understand that similar patterns of genocide, of peoples that have philosophical disagreements with the church, that persist for 1000 years aren't a set of random events?
You forget. Their were two sides to this.
Well, gosh darn, feel free to justify, say, the mass drowning the anabaptist children.
If a serial killer was a good father, that would be another "side" to the story, whouldn't it?
You also forget, darwinist teachings are what Hitler relied upon to drive home the "superior race" piece.
Do you only write, and never read? This has been refuted already. Maybe pictures would get you to acknowledge some iota of responsibility for the this massive moral ineptitude by way of amnesia you are promoting:
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
Also, your arguement is null for another reason. What one's father did is NOT fair for judgement on the child. I liev in the south. Does that make me responsible for lynch mobs?
Are you responsible for promulgating the gospel whose words were used to justify murdering jews, witches, anabaptists,.........for 1400 years?
I thought you people believed there was a difference from one generation to the next.
I thought "you people" might once in a blue moon take some adult responsibility for the bloody cruel history the gospel you promulgate has produced, in the hope that some effective steps might be taken to see that it won't happen again. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Really? In what secular text does it say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
In what theological text does it say such?
Man trumping God...or the theory that man arose without any intervention from God...is the issue being raised here. The core component of liberalism is that there is no God and everything can be explained through chance. From this springs forth the notion that there is no objective measure of what is right and what is wrong. And that leads to all kinds of evil. By giving a liberal a wide audience and guffawing at his blatant mischaracterization of religious conservatives you are advancing their agenda. You're acting as a water bearer for the left.
And of course I disagree with your characterization of me as a "dumbass".
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires "Man trumping God." To be perfectly fair, many evolutionists are atheists. However, many are not. As I am fond of pointing out, Pope John Paul II said that belief in evolution is not contrary to Catholic theology. (He specifically says that man became man only because of God's intervention, which means that it's okay for Catholics to be in the "Theistic Evolution" camp). I am not asserting the primacy of Catholic theology, but pointing out that one can be deeply religious -- one presumes the Pope is deeply religious -- and still accept the scientific accuracy of the theory of evolution.
The core component of liberalism is that there is no God and everything can be explained through chance.
This is wildly overstated and has nothing to do with whether a scientific theory is accurate anyway.
From this springs forth the notion that there is no objective measure of what is right and what is wrong. And that leads to all kinds of evil.
So can belief in absolute measures of morality and deeply held theological beliefs. (The Osama bunch comes to mind).
By giving a liberal a wide audience and guffawing at his blatant mischaracterization of religious conservatives you are advancing their agenda.
What's wrong with admitting someone has a point, even if you disagree with everything else? A poster named exmarine and I completely and vehemently disagree on evolution. However, I believe he's right when he posts on the founders of the United States. Should I reflexively start attacking him when I think he's right?
You and I disagree, too, on your characterization of the cartoon as "a blatant mischaracterization of religious conservatives." It is an exaggeration, but that's the nature of cartooning. Or do you believe Boss Tweed actually fed women to tigers?
You're acting as a water bearer for the left.
We disagree.
And of course I disagree with your characterization of me as a "dumbass".
No doubt. But that's between you and balrog666.
Only in your own mind.
The core component of liberalism is that there is no God and everything can be explained through chance.
Wrong again. Painting all liberals as atheists, heretics and/or evil-unbelievers may make it easy for you to despise them and dismiss their arguments, but it does not reflect reality. I suggest you seek help, immediately.
From this springs forth the notion that there is no objective measure of what is right and what is wrong.
Actually such an idea needs no theological underpinnings.
And that leads to all kinds of evil.
Wrong again. Are atheists any less moral than Christians? Is any Buddhist country any more "evil" than Western cultures are?
By giving a liberal a wide audience and guffawing at his blatant mischaracterization of religious conservatives you are advancing their agenda.
Mischaracterization? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
I guess you don't read the crevo threads very often. And it's not conservatives being tarred and feathered, but fundamentalist crackpots. And the MSM likes nothing more than people like you equating them as well. You need to think again.
You're acting as a water bearer for the left.
No, I posted an amusing parody that accurately reflects reality as we see it here on this thread.
And I posted it for discussion by us all. But whacko thought police like you seem to be afraid that people might actually think about their beliefs and discuss them with some objectivity. Oh, the horror!
And of course I disagree with your characterization of me as a "dumbass".
I must admit that I thought I was exaggerating. Now I am not so sure.
In what theological text does it say such?
In the Holy Bible--in the same breath in which He delivered the 10 Commandments.
"Did Hitler personally slaughter 6 million jews? "
Lets see, he set up the framework, as you said... then initiated and paid for the programs of death. That would be a "yes"
The win the obtusely coy award.
You're singling out the entire Christian religion,for the practice of a few.
...popes, doctrinal councels, and tribunals. While the rest of the "innocent" stood by, just as they stood by, giving nazi salutes, just as in the pictures I showed you, while their "few" church leaders handed over documents to the SS to help them ferret jews out from the general population. I thought christian priests were supposed to be Jesus's voice on earth--not prudent, politically sensitive guys who shut up and mind their own business while, for example, their pope slaughters Anabaptist children. I don't have trouble finding the slaughter of the Anabaptists in my history book--the horrified, revulsed, biblically inspired uprising of christian priests everywhere because of that event does not seem to have caught the average historian's eye.
I see your head is still in a very dark place.
Not as dark and hysterically unhistoric, I'd suggest, as someone who casually characterizes the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the witchhunting as the work of a few renegade priests. Read the papal encyclical "The Hammer of Witches", and tell me with a straight face that the numerous multi-story houses built throughout Europe for torturing and murdering witches were the work of a couple of renegade priests.
In the meanwhile, not saying a thing about Soviet mass-graves of theologins and other thinking people out there.
Should a judge let a serial killer go free because there are other serial killers still on the loose?
For God's sake, a vastly Protestant Christian Western culture came to their aid!
No, they didn't, the countries you specified were fighting Hitler because of the obvious threat he was to their national sovereignty. Jewish slaughter was not the trigger or the motivation for war in either case, as evidenced by the famous boatload of jewish refugees the US returned to Hitler's bosom, and Roosevelt's and the Pope's reluctance to publicly acknowledge the camps, and call for the interdiction of the tracks or excommunicate the participants, long after the documentation was massively in hand.
USA and UK were in it, and by God, they were filled (and still are, I might add) with Christians.
Including Father Coghlan, and any number of other local radio voices braying out daily anti-semitic diatribes. There is nothing to make me think US and UK churches would not have helped Hitler ferret out jews, just as their counterparts in Europe did, had Hitler won the war.
And quit quoting the ADL on FR, it makes the rest of us look real bad.
I don't know what the ADL is, but I assure you, you don't need my help to make christians promulgators appear utterly irresponsible toward the historical record of the doctrine they spread.
This statement clearly states that belief in religion is more important than faith and truth. And the author continues with this view and reaches the conclusion that someone other than God must be the enforcer of their version of the belief in order to have a functional society.Which would be true.
God (or gods) have a rather poor record of punishing murders, rapists, thieves, and brigands in this temporal world.
A king or prince would've found it convenient to justify their power of punishing criminals by infusing their law with religious connotations. Instead of "Do it because it's my will and I'm more powerful than you.", it becomes " Do it because it's God's will and he's more powerful ...".
Thus came the principle of religio rex -- the subjects must follow the king's religion. Deny the king's religion and you deny the king's authority.
And then there's King James I: "A Deo rex, a rege lex" -- "God [made the] king, [and the] king [makes the] law".
Modern democratic societies have a lesser need to justify this power since the law is based on concurrence of all the members of the community, not just one powerful individual. Good thing, too... Kings by divine right have become passe --1945 Japan not withstanding.
Even though we've dispensed with God-to-ruler-to-law linkage, there's always a group that insists that human can't control themselves and will degenerate into lawlessness and debauchery without religious (and particularly their religious) guidance.
... The very statement that intellectual dishonest in the name of religion is a virtueot only condones lies, it says they are good. This crosses the line and that faith must be apostate.Of the last line in the article:
I read that as sarcasm and critical, not a defense, of creationist's lies.
In other words, "Lying for God is OK, because, like ..., it's for God, y'know?"
"In the Holy Bible--in the same breath in which He delivered the 10 Commandments. "
Oh Puh-leez. Show me where it says that. Did you make up an 11th Commandment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.