1
   

They don't hate us, they love their God

 
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:20 am
Hello Steve!

London - wow! Isn't the internet something? Hard to believe that I am actually communicating in this manner with someone in England.

Well, let's see.... I wish we still had the political power to legislate our morals into law, but I fear that is now only a nostalgic memory of days long gone, Steve. Evangelical christians and their secular conservative allies only comprise, at the very most, perhaps only a third of the US electorate.

A half-century ago, we commanded a huge voting majority and pretty much had things our way over here in the colonies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we had, in practical reality, successfully legislated most of the mosaic law into the civil code on both a national and local level. We prayed in public schools and nearly everything we objected to was illegal (porn, sodomy, abortion, cohabitation and on and on - even doing business on the sabbath, in southern counties, was a punishable offense).

In any case, most (if not all) of these laws were struck-down by the courts over the years and our hold on the reins of power has continued to decline decade by decade. Oh indeed, we fought each battle as though our lives depended on it, to be sure, but we lost them all. Our day had passed, it seemed. Today we live as a minority culture in a fully secularized society. There are a few of my brethren, of course, still trying to turn back the clock to 1960, but most of us have grown weary of the struggle, discouraged by our lack of success, and have turned inward to our own lives and families. Figuratively speaking, we have gathered in the church house and bolted the doors against the secular world outside.

History will sort all this out in time, Steve. Meanwhile, keep a stiff upper lip and try to give us neanderthals a little break now and then if you can find it in your warm, british heart to do so. Laughing

Warmest regards - and thanks again for the response. I'm just an old house painter with too much time on his hands. Don't take what I say too seriously, but I can assure you that evangelical christians no longer represent a political threat to anyone. I just wish they wouldn't keep kicking us when were down! I guess we're like the indians - the only good christian is a dead christian. Laughing

Jack
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:23 am
What ? ! ? ! ?

What's this? Steve is Pom?

I am so disillusioned . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:49 am
eltejano wrote:
. . . The secular liberals ask us to throw-out our existing belief system because it's judgmental and offensive to their values - but they offer us no other system to replace it. You are offering an option and I commend you for that. I think the secular liberals are obligated to do the same.

Jack
rosborne979 wrote:
. . . . Morality and good behavior does not originate from religious thought, it is a purely natural expression of empathy and compassion filtered through societal norms.
This is the inborn trait referred to by Paul in Romans 2: 13-15.

Some people might call it conscience. I would.

Though flawed, it is the very same conscience whose guidance was rejected by Adam and Eve.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:05 am
You just can't leave that Adam and Eve horseshit alone, can you? There is no basis in the text of Genesis for the horseshit you are attempting to peddle, but you trot it out again, and again, and again . . . you've been consistently shot down on it, but you continue to puke it up.

I frankly have grown tired of your bullshit, Neo, so you can console yourself that you won't be hearing from me again.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:21 am
neologist wrote:
Though flawed, it is the very same conscience whose guidance was rejected by Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve is a fable. And who cares what an ancient hillbilly named Paul reportedly said in a 2000 year old badly translated often argued, at least partially fictional document. Why do you continue to filter your answers through these fables?

Hearing you do this makes me feel like someone is quotine Goldilocks and the Three Bears to me in support of their position.

I'm not even trying to be mean about it (if you want to believe this stuff it's fine). I just don't know any other way to describe how ludicrous it sounds to me when people quote the bible to me in any way.
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:53 am
If I recall, Paul was a highly-educate man, a jew with a....my memory fails.. greek? education. In any case, he was no hillbilly.

My goodness, that Setanta has quit a potty mouth, doesn't she?
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:09 am
Neologist:

Good Grief!! This isn't just non-belief or skepticism. I've never seen anything like it - this is anger, big-time hostility! Lord have mercy! All I can figure is that this guy's wife must have run-off with a preacher.

J
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:49 am
eltejano wrote:
Hello Steve!

London - wow! Isn't the internet something? Hard to believe that I am actually communicating in this manner with someone in England.


well its true eltejano...here I am, quill pen in hand, floppy hat, big silver buckles on my shoes...

yes indeed the internet carries us far and wide in time and space.
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 01:57 pm
Neologist - if the cursing and name-calling has subsided, I 'll try to answer your post.

The Scripture you cite does indeed seem to imply that Man has an innate sense of right and wrong. Verses 14 and 15 are pretty complex theologically, but the simplistic layman's interpretation that I have heard is that God goes easier on those who don't know the law - a sort of "ignorance of the law IS an excuse." I do not think Man knows the difference between right and wrong without being taught, but I'm completely open to further explanation because my understanding of those passages is limited at best.

Anthropologists have observed societies where stealing is condoned and killing, rape, torture, and a myriad of other evils, have been considered "moral", even laudable, in primitive and civilized cultures alike. So, I think it's fair to say that Humankind needs some sort of moral guidelines that are at least universally accepted, if not divinely ordained, upon which to base our laws.

The obvious declining influence of traditional judaic/christian moral law does worry me because I simply don't see any alternatives been offered or developing - other than a "reason-based" approach to morality, which seems to be the only alternative offered by modern secular thinkers. At the same time I am seeing a continuing blurring of moral principles - not just carnal sin - but in diverse fields of industry, business and science expediency is replacing principle.

I fear we are on a slippery slope of moral decay that, if not caused by, is certainly correlated with the de-emphasis of Bible-based morality over the last half-century. Many younger people no longer seem to know the difference between right and wrong as it has been traditionally understood in western civilization.

I think it's plausible to advance the hypothesis that there could indeed be a cause/effect component along with the aforementioned correlation. Unfortunately, however, secular social scientists have been unwilling to even explore that possibility because, I would guess, support of that hypothesis would threaten their liberal agenda.

As we saw a few minutes ago right here on this forum, this issue is so emotional that any kind of objectivity remains sadly elusive. I understand that too - the Bible, despite it's repudiation in the halls of govt and academia, still represents a social obstacle to those well-meaning individuals who envision a better, more humane, free and rational society. Sometimes, intellectual people can be blinded by their own idealism, though. It's easy to confuse "what ought to be" with "what really is".

I am reminded of the old cliche, "don't throw-out the baby with the bathwater".

Jack
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 02:42 pm
Quote:
I simply don't see any alternatives been offered or developing - other than a "reason-based" approach to morality, which seems to be the only alternative offered by modern secular thinkers.
you prefer unreasonable morality based on faith. Which you would impose on me, if you could.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
You just can't leave that Adam and Eve horseshit alone, can you? There is no basis in the text of Genesis for the horseshit you are attempting to peddle, but you trot it out again, and again, and again . . . you've been consistently shot down on it, but you continue to puke it up.

I frankly have grown tired of your bullshit, Neo, so you can console yourself that you won't be hearing from me again.
Sorry for not agreeing with you, Set.

Sorry for repeatedly not agreeing with you.

Did you honestly expect me to cave?

I'll be sorry to see you go. But if agreement is the price of our friendship. It's a price I can't pay.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:04 pm
eltejano wrote:
If I recall, Paul was a highly-educate man, a jew with a....my memory fails.. greek? education. In any case, he was no hillbilly.

My goodness, that Setanta has quit a potty mouth, doesn't she?
Don't worry, Tex. Set is actually a pretty good GUY who sometimes gets frustrated when HE can't get me to agree.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:05 pm
Don't flatter yourself, or your idiotic argument. The objection i have is not that you believe silly things, it's that you trot out a silly thing as though it were a self-evident truth upon which reasonable discussion can be based. The objection is to you constantly begging the questions in discussion based upon your personal and idiosyncratic interpretation of a scripture which is of dubious provenance, and patently does not say what you claim it means.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:11 pm
eltejano wrote:
Neologist - if the cursing and name-calling has subsided, I 'll try to answer your post.

The Scripture you cite does indeed seem to imply that Man has an innate sense of right and wrong. Verses 14 and 15 are pretty complex theologically, but the simplistic layman's interpretation that I have heard is that God goes easier on those who don't know the law - a sort of "ignorance of the law IS an excuse." . . .
Jesus refers to a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous in John 5:28,29. This is apparently a time in which those who never knew God will have the opportunity to learn his ways and be judged by their subsequent deeds. I could be wrong, but it makes sense.

In fact, I could be wrong about the whole darned thing. But I take issue with those who, while forswearing belief in the bible, profess certainty as to its message.

That's why I enjoy this board so much.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:17 pm
Y'see tex. I heard from him already. Actually, Set has some of the most valid and well thought out objections, many of which I take into careful consideration before rejecting them. :wink:

Seriously, I would hate to lose him as a touchstone and might even try to be nice to him from time to time.
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:27 pm
Hi again, Steve --

I would couch it different terms, Steve, but...yeah! That's about what it boils down to. Laughing

But I recognize, which I think my post above makes clear, that's not going to happen. We can't turn back the clock. I also understand that the secularists are not going to offer anything else except the reason-based approach - which will work fine for you and me, but we have millions of people in this country who simply don't have the intellectual equipment to live successfully in such a society - this ain't Sweden, Switzerland - or even the UK - in that respect.

So nothing is going to happen. We're doomed! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!! DOOOOMED!!!!

Laughing Jack
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:35 pm
Thanks for the explanation, Neo. I took it very seriously, not knowing it was just a lover's quarrel. Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:53 pm
When it comes to a knowledge of history. Setanta has an encyclopedia full.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 06:15 pm
El tejano wrote:
Quote:
Well, let's see.... I wish we still had the political power to legislate our morals into law, but I fear that is now only a nostalgic memory of days long gone, Steve. Evangelical christians and their secular conservative allies only comprise, at the very most, perhaps only a third of the US electorate.

A half-century ago, we commanded a huge voting majority and pretty much had things our way over here in the colonies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we had, in practical reality, successfully legislated most of the mosaic law into the civil code on both a national and local level. We prayed in public schools and nearly everything we objected to was illegal (porn, sodomy, abortion, cohabitation and on and on - even doing business on the sabbath, in southern counties, was a punishable offense).


Have you any idea how this sounds?
How about this?

Alas, my brothers in the Taliban, alas. Only a few years ago we had the political power to put our morals into law. All men had to wear the beard and the women were sheltered from the prying eyes of all. We had all of our blessed Sharia law installed as the law of the land and we banned all secular music, dancing, kite flying and impure thoughts. No abortion. No, even if the woman was raped and homosexuals were driven from beyond our midsts and only those who had been carefully taught could enter into the sacred and holy rite of marriage. Limit four wives. Thank our holy mullahs for bringing forth the religious police who made sure all businesses conducted themselves properly (even if we had to burn a few of them down when they dared not to close five times a day for prayer.)

Now we are fast approaching the dispicable example of the American Constitution which asserts that the Congress pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Sure, we are not barred from practicing our faith but until we can force our views of morality into law, we shall not rest, my brothers, we shall not rest.

Joe(Starting Monday everyone must tithe to the State Church of Christendom or pay a fine.)Nation
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 06:48 pm
Whadya know, Joe - haven't talked to you in awhile.

However it sounds, it's the gospe..oops.. the absolute truth. That's exactly the way it was - and, Joe, the society that y'all are creating, now that you have a ruling majority, will be just as miserable for us to live in as ours was for you. That's just the way it goes. If you're honest about it, you'll admit that, Joe.

The meaning of separation of church and state all depends on what judge is writing the decision. For 150 years it was narrowly interpreted to mean nothing more than a ban on an official state church. Now it's interpreted to mean we can't even have a prayer before a high school football game - even if nobody objects. The old political adage "to the victor belongs the spoils" still applies, Joe.

I fully expect to see the day when even our right to hold worship services will be challenged - or at least the content of sermons will be regulated as in Canada. There are already movements underway to use the tax code and municipal zoning laws to severly restrict religious activity.

We've had our day and now it's your turn. Personally, unless the trends change, I think it's gonna be one rotten place to live for a christian. But maybe not. Maybe the dream of a secular, yet still decent country, may actually be possible. I truly hope so.

What I'm saying, Joe, is that the secularists will also legislate their personal ideas into law just as we did - and they will do it with total sincerity, as did we. We also believed that our way was best for everyone. I'll never know how it all turns-out, but history will eventually reveal who was right and who was wrong.

Nice to hear from you again.

Jack
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 06:32:50