MORE HOMOSEXUAL POLITICIANS REVEAL NEW FACE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY

News Release from Campaign for California Families ^ | December 3, 2002 | Campaign for California Families

[BikerNYC]

Unlike all other gods believed in prior to monotheism, the biblical God rules by moral standards.

Oh, that's rich. Tell me, what "moral standards" was God following when he destroyed every living thing on the planent except the life contained on the Ark? What moral standard was he following as the floodwaters rose above the hem of a 2-year old's garment as she held her mother's hand wondering why God would do such a thing to her? What moral standard was he following when he ordered Abraham to murder his child?

The problem with God and moral standards is that moral standards are whatever God says they are, and they can change whenever the mood strikes him. Hardly a basis for ethical conduct.

I read this somewhere:

The protagonist of the Bible, God, is an unimaginably powerful and disturbingly contradictory figure. He is a character who possesses all the depths and ambiguities of Shakespeare's Hamlet. To the devout, God is immutable, changeless throughout eternity. But a sequential reading of the Tanakh reveals a God who changes from book to book--and sometimes within the same book. In Genesis alone, he is by turns a creator and a destroyer; magnanimous and vengeful; a detached being who stands outside of history and a divine matchmaker who helps find a suitable bride for Isaac. In his analysis of subsequent books, God transforms from the liberator of Exodus to the demanding liege of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; from the conqueror of Joshua to the diplomat of Kings; from the father of Samuel to the reproachful wife of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; from the implacable executioner of Isaiah to the consoling counselor of Psalms.

[Darksheare]

Yes. We could.
But it's hard. Especially for me, after having been in the military and seeing a guy get P.O'd because his advances were rebuffed. He actually stated that due to don't ask don't tell he had teh right to do what he wanted.

And, as a soldier, I need to be able to rely 1000% on the guys with me. The guy who was gay? I could not rely on him at all. He was too busy with his own "thing" to do his duty.

So it's kinda an affront to honor for me here.
Now, I have no problem with women in uniform. I've never had to remind one what she was there for and what her duty was. (Serve the country, kill the enemy. Simply, and unPC put.)

[mg39]

That's a load of crap. You probably fought beside a gay man, who may have even saved you, and you didn't even know it. The ignorance on this board could fill the Grand Canyon. Good thing gay rights is rapidly becoming accepted in this country; bigots and know-nothings will always be with us (check your mirror, Darksheare), but as with the old racist rednecks of old, they won't make the decisions.

[Arioch7]

That sucks.

[Darksheare]

No. He didn't.
Ignorance is the crap you pander to. Why don't you save it for OWK?
Gay rights? How many times do you need to be reminded that it isn't about gay rights, it's about gays wanting to be an elevvated protected class with more rights than everyone.

The constitution does not gaurantee you acceptance and agreement. Got it yet? No? Then goodbye, and get lost.

[Darksheare]

Check your mirror, or have OWK check it for you.
The gay guy 'next to me' didn't do his duty. Didn't you read that?
No?
Read it again. You CAN read, can't you?
Then try comprehension. Try hearing it instead.
"I've never had to remind a woman in uniform what her duty was."
Pretty self-explanatory, isn't it. But you missed that somehow.
Why don't you go and finish that up before you come back.
And why don't you try first to address the bigotry and insensitivity of the GAYS before trying to force acceptance onto others. Why don't you get the gays to stop harrassing every man they meat. Why don't you get them to stop recruiting children?
Or do you subscribe to NAMBLA's point of view?

[ItsJeff]

Serve the country, kill the enemy. Simply, and unPC put

That's it in a nutshell. You're right that everything else is secondary. So a hearty thanks from us "mushy middle" guys who have soul-stirring inner debates on gays' place in society - and every other issue - while you guys are out there keeping lazy do-gooders like me fat and happy.

Jeff

[onedoug]

Good input. Thanks.

I believe in God , first because existence organizes. Nothing tends inertially "toward" disorganization. Even chaos at the quantum level must sum to coherent states for anything to exist. Even illusion. As with Einstein's famous dictum: "The incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible."

This organizational tendency of the "known" universe extends to the human mind, which - being in, and as much a part of the universe as anything else - derives "meaning" from "information" that it abstracts from its environment: "Let us make man in our image...." as if Genesis were a pact?

Organization and its antithesis. Good and evil.

That the laws of phyisics are "statistical" in nature.... Number: Invention, or discovery?

And although it appears to be largely politically inspired, as you've made reference to, and cannot necessarily be viewed as entirely historical, I yet believe in The Bible as an ethics platform because it attests to the most effective human endeavor yet to realize God.

Society needs standards which are not relative. The Ten Commandments cohere in this rolewell.

Finally, I believe that Judeo-Christian civilization - particularly as embodied in America - is, despite its human imperfections, yet the greatest force for good on Earth. Hence I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Israel.

[viaveritasvita]

Thanks for the link to Prager's excellent article. BikerNYC has the anger I once had for God, until I actually read the Bible cover-to-cover and realized that what I knew about God and the history recorded in the Bible was woefully inaccurate and incorrect. (I recommend several books: Life Application Study Bible; Chuck Colson's "How Now Shall We Live?"; and Lee Stroebel's "Case for Christ" as a start.) God is sovereign.

[Darksheare]

Well, we need the do gooders to do good to keep the people happy.
Otherwise... all the soldiers in the world can't protect anyone's freedoms.

[DWSUWF]

"...Anyway, who gives a damn if someone is gay or not? This kind of bigotry makes me want to puke..."

I don't care if someone's gay...

Happy people brighten your day!

It's the friggin queers that bake your cookies...

[narses]

Ping.

[BikerNYC]

Thank you for your post. It was illuminating to see what guides your thoughts.

It is the deepest, deepest mystery to me that there is anything here at all. Yes, physicists hypothesize that the universe came from a random quantum fluxuation such that the net energy of the universe is zero, with no violation of conservation laws. But what caused the rules of the universe to exist such that a random quantum fluxuation was even possible?

The notion of a first cause is meaningless to me, because the question of why there was a first cause at all can always be asked, as can the question of why the first cause had such characteristics that it produced this particular universe. In your language, what series of events gave God the power to organize?

I have not turned to God as an answer to this mystery. I don't know why. I guess that solution just does not present itself to me as one that will organize my life any better than it is already organized. It is not useful to me.

As far as society needing standards that are not relative, I cannot even conceive of a "standard" that is not relative to at least one subjectivity. The question then becomes why that subjectivity chose that morality and what is inherent in that morality that it compels agreement by all subjectivities. Is there a rule that transceneds even God that says: "The Rules of God, however they may be at any particular time, are the Rules that ever conscious existent in the Universe is morally compelled to follow?" If the answer to that question is yes, where did that standard come from, since it is independent of God? If the answer is no, then that makes the Rules of God no better or worse than the Rules of any one of us.

I, too, believe that America is a great force of how I see Good in the world, but I am under no illusion that my belief on this matter is divorced from the fact that I grew up in America.

[Maelstrom]

Which of the events that JCG posted do you delude yourself into thinking hasn't happened?

[Maelstrom]

You will care when they come after your wife or husband, your daughters, and your children.

While your family is being molested, you will be chastized for being intolerent.

Yes, many gay men consider little girl toddlers in diapers as little tramps begging for "it". I've seen it up close and personal, and it isn't just a few, it's a significant percentage that cannot be brushed off.

[onedoug]

I think the quantum flux idea derives from what was deduced roughly 15 billion years later (with nuclear decay rates as the clock) as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by which virtual phenomena might emanate from the vacuum.

It’s been hypothesized by some that such events continue to transpire throughout the universe today, giving the total energy a value >0, thus insuring that the expansion will continue toward ultimate entropy, thus resulting in the “heat-death” of the universe as the energy available to increasingly isolated systems finally decays.

If such a "creation event" could be visualized as occurring in a “pre-existence” void however, it would have been quite violent, giving rise to an initial “inflationary” epoch (10¯²³ sec, or so) while symmetry was breaking, and the universe cooled until the current “laws” of physics were established, resulting in everything we now experience.

In the last sentence of physicist PCW Davies’ The Mind Of God, he writes that, “We were meant to be here.” If, as I suspect (believe), that God is good, then He (to personalize, a la Prager [good point]) might hope for goodness from us in assessing free will, and perhaps even need it to reinforce the good in Himself (its expenditure budgeted, and thus accountable by our souls). That’s as deeply as I can ascertain His purpose in creating us in this otherwise seemingly inconsequential corner of the universe, other than to merely amuse Himself, which would seem a pretty petty activity for omnipotence.

The notion of “subjectivity” steering morality might seem an assumption over “objectivity”. A really compelling test of this would present itself if we ever encountered an intelligent extraterrestrial intelligence and could compare notes. I strongly suspect that they’d perceive of a deity in the universe as well, which if the're sophisticated enough to have encountered us, I also strongly suspect would be One.

Existence, after all, consistently suggests its ultimate simplicity, which is beautiful (by independent symmetry). And beauty perceived of itself, can become an object of worship unto itself without holiness. ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") And holiness is of God.

At least I think so.

We actually morally sparred before over the couple who copulated for those DJ bozos in NY's St Pat's. I expect we'll get back into it at one or another time again.

Have a good night.

[FormerLib]

Did you know that there were six "anti-gay" proposals in the U.S. last month...

Yeah, and they were defeated in those parts of the country that went for Gore. Decent Americans want nothing to do with these sexual deviants.

Thank God and the founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment!

[FormerLib]

Yes, many gay men consider little girl toddlers in diapers as little tramps begging for "it". I've seen it up close and personal, and it isn't just a few, it's a significant percentage that cannot be brushed off.

And that's why God gave us high-cap magazines.

[patriot5186]

it's true. Strange how it mimicked the Bush results here.
We need to split from Baghdad-by-the-Bay.

[Clemenza]

Ah, throwing around the "bigotry" canard. Good to see a good Democrat/RINO on board.

No I don't give A DAMN what Butch and Sally or DIck and Bruce do with their lives. However, when you start telling me who I can associate with and who I can hire or fire, than you are trampling on MY rights!