Below is the subcomittee which has HR-56 which is the FMA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 07/11/2003 2:12:34 PM PDT by apackof2
Selling Homosexuality to America
By Craig von Buseck
CBN.com Producer
In this exclusive interview, Paul Rondeau talks about his in-depth study, Selling Homosexuality to America, which was recently published in the Regent Law Review.
CBN.com – In his recent study, Selling Homosexuality to America, marketing expert Paul Rondeau explains, "Among America's culture wars, one of today's most intense controversies rages around the issue alternatively identified, depending on one's point of view, as "normalizing homosexuality" or "accepting gayness." The debate is truly a social-ethical-moral conceptual war that transcends both the scientific and legal, though science and law most often are the weapons of choice. The ammunition for these weapons, however, is persuasion."
This article and interview explores how gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology, and the media to frame what is discussed in the public arena -- and how it is discussed. "In essence," Rondeau points out, "when it comes to homosexuality, activists want to shape 'what everyone knows' and 'what everyone takes for granted' even if everyone does not really know and even if it should not be taken for granted."
"The first strategy of persuasion," he goes on to say, "is to establish a favorable climate for your message so that the communicator (marketer) can influence the future decision without even appearing to be persuading ... This is at the heart of the homosexual campaign: to get consent via social construct today to determine whose idea of personal freedoms will prevail in our legal codes tomorrow."
Paul Rondeau has been a senior sales and marketing management professional with industry leaders for over 25 years. He holds an M.A. in Management, with a specialty in persuasive communication. Currently, he is a doctoral student in communication studies with a focus in rhetoric and persuasion.
He/she constructed an idol for you?
Astrology is a blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter.
I can't even offer a rebuttal because your argument is flawed.
Please explain yourself
Below is the subcomittee which has HR-56 which is the FMA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can deny my argument all you like, but history and anthropology support my argument. So does categorical logic (Aristotle's logic).
These two philosophers are interesting...
The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination (Phantasien), but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization… (Kierkegaard, p 60-61)Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin, 1989.
- -
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. (Hobbes, p 444)
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
You can deny my argument all you like, but history and anthropology support my argument. So does categorical logic (Aristotle's logic).
These two philosophers are interesting...
The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination (Phantasien), but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization… (Kierkegaard, p 60-61)Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin, 1989.
- -
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. (Hobbes, p 444)
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
I don't know how many different ways I can tell you before you understand this...
I accept and believe EVERYTHING the Bible says about sexual immorality.
This has been my position from the beginning.
If you do...what do you suppose you should be doing about it?
Nothing?
I don't suppose we should be trying to police the bedrooms of consenting adults, arresting and throwing them in jail for things like sodomy or adultery.
That is not something I think we should be doing.
An idol is anything that replaces the Lordship of Jesus in your life
Why would you look to the stars when you can look to the Creator of them?
What should we/you be doing?
You seem to know what you wouldn't do however you don't offer an alternative if you believe that homosexuality is an abomination as the Bible states.
Pehaps someone should have asked this of Jesus when He said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" at the woman caught in adultery.
Like "since you don't believe in people who are sinful themselves stoning adulters to death, Jesus...what exactly then should we do to them?"
????????
Perhaps my understanding is misguided, however. Clearly, I understand the idea that that which is intangible cannot be seen from a sensual (senses) aspect. In other words, the face of God, nor a man's soul cannot be accurately described in physical terms. I also understand, from the first philosophers POV, that feelings and emotions are "fantastic". That is, based in fantasy. In other words, whether derived from experience or environment, our mental reactions, even our personal bias of memory, are dependent solely on the individual and his or her spiritual convictions. i.e. Buddhists think of Karma, Christians think of sin.
But perhaps you could explain why astrology is relevant to this argument?
- Carl Jung
Why would you look to the stars when you can look to the Creator of them?
The men of God in the Bible looked to the stars and the moon and the heavens and praised God for His handiwork.
There is never ever ever ever going to be found a "Sodomite" gene.
It is a learned behavior. This is just a cop out.
Another attempt to rationalize the irrational.
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.
