Video: Forces of tolerance confront Proposition 8 supporter
posted at 6:31 pm on November 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via Ace, bravely blogging through a case of the shivering douchechills. Reminds me of that old Onion piece, except with terrified senior citizens and styrofoam crosses being snatched and broken. Charges will, apparently, be filed.
I don’t know what these dudes are so upset about. Surely they don’t think the California Supreme Court’s going to let the public get away with this, do they? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
Some procure prosthetics for a bit of reverse roleplay.
…at least that what I’ve heard.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Did I hear that anchor right. “There is hate coming from bothsides”. Let me get this straight, an old women holding up a cross is know hate. While a mob closes in on her more less to strongly intimidate her. Real nice. Bunch of cowards the lot of them.
USMCDevilDog on November 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM
That’s not a very good argument. You’ve had much better ones.
By this logic, God also created the desire to murder and rape and thus can’t logically ask anyone to refrain from that behavior.
Most Christians believe that God made us perfect but also gave us the ability to choose to do evil if we wanted. I believe that was the whole point of the tree in the garden. It wasn’t some magical fruit that gave them the knowledge of evil but rather in disobeying God they learned what evil was by participating in it.
As did his father, but according to the Bible kings were actually supposed to have only one wife, lest they be tempted away from God as Solomon was.
They got him drunk and took advantage (guess he was still able to perform somehow). It wasn’t condoned.
They brought their wives with them, but by your second question, I’m guessing you meant Noah’s grandchildren.
First cousins aren’t really addressed in Leviticus, unless I’m mistaken. We consider it incest, but it’s possible they didn’t.
The Bible leaves things out. Cane left his family and brought his wife with him. Eve was still at home with Adam, so obviously there were other women at the time that didn’t get mentioned.
Also, if you notice, God put a mark on Cane’s forehead in order to warn others not to harm him. What others could the Bible possibly have been referring to if the only people in the world were Adam and Eve (Seth was born later)?
Obviously there were enough people around that God was concerned for Cane’s safety, which makes it more than plausible that Cane’s wife was not from his own family.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I ment now hate oops
USMCDevilDog on November 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I know, but I don’t make the rules. Frankly, if people want to live in sin that’s up to them. What I have a problem with is being told that because I believe in the law of God that I’m hateful, wrong, etc. etc. It gets old.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Given all of that, and I’m not making this argument because I have no idea whether it’s nature or nurture, what would your opinion be if science could determine that homosexuality is biological rather than psychological? Rather, would your opinion change if we discovered that it does not consist of choice? Sin requires the free will to commit sin, doesn’t it? Or am I mistaken on that?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Why use the Bible as a basis to prevent gay marriage but allow people to live in sin that condemns them for eternity due to state sanctioned divorce?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM
You name two things that revoke the free will of others. I’m referring to an activity in which all parties are consenting. Surely that makes a difference.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM
This whole thing could be resolved by simply getting government out of the business of pretending to marry people.
In common law as it developed in the middle ages, marriage was a function of the courts of chancery, which were courts presided over by churchmen to deal with religious matters. Later on, chancery lost its character as an ecclesiastical court but continued to exercise jurisdiction over things like marital status and divorce, and the state, being in the business so to speak, began granting civil marriages. Now, courts of law and chancery have nearly everywhere merged into plain ol’ civil courts, and the religious functions of granting divorce, determining legitimacy, etc., are simply retained as a vestige of former practice.
I think it would be better if the state did not purport to administer the sacrament of marriage to anyone; that should be left entirely to ecclesiastics. Anything granted by the state is really nothing more than a civil union, anyway, so why not just call it that no matter who is being united or how they want to do it?
DISCLAIMER Please don’t assume I support gay marriage in any sense. I don’t. But if the state wants to let people enter into civil relationships that are essentially contractual, I say let them have at it. Or not, depending upon the majority will.
Venusian Visitor on November 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Consent NEVER makes wrong right. If so then you may have someone with a death wish who agrees to be murdered by another..still doesnt make it right. A 13yr old may consent to sex with a 30 year old..hmmm..oh yeah, WRONG again. By throwing in the consent argument you’re saying that we know better than God. Big mistake.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM
There is a very clear study of the creation of all things available in Genesis; if you are willing to read it instead to learn what it says instead of to prove a point.
In answer to your question, in Genesis 1:26-31 we see the creation of man. Whoever these people were placed into the entire world, with no physical borders or boundaries; and with God’s blessing to partake of all things. No limits, and no prohibitions. He made all the other things and then made man and gave it all to man.
Then in Genesis 2 we see that God went somewhat beyond all that took place in the first 6 days. Her created Adam and placed him into a specific place. A place with bounds and limits and duties and responsibilities. This He did not do with the men He made in Genesis 1:26. Adam was placed into the Garden because the Garden needed tilling.
I believe, and I admit that this is not a precise thing that I can prove in any way, that Adam was the first man of what later became known as the Jews. Later Bible stories flow along a genetic line that seems to indicate Adam as having been the first of a race; but clearly not the first man.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I do agree that just because the State marries you it is really the Sacrament before God that is true. However, due to legal issues, if the State santions by law marriage between same sex, those very groups will then demand equality in the Churches with threats of lawsuits due to “discrimination” and threats to have tax-exempt status revoked. They swear they wouldnt force the issue in the Churches but let’s get real…civil union between same sex already exists which gives them the legal foothold for many things they are claiming they want. Also, it’s the Churches and people of Faith who are being viciously attacked by this group.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I guess that’s fun for some, and I make no judgments on your kinkiness. For me though, if my husbands going to suck on something, well… to keep it family friendly, I’m sure you can fill in the rest of that.
Not really. I mean it does in the secular sense, but not in the Christian sense.
Adultery also includes consenting adults, but the Bible clearly speaks out against it as being wrong. Restricting free will isn’t the only reason, according to Christians, that something can be a sin.
The Bible even mentions hating another person as a sin and not treating your body with respect (either by overeating, under eating, drugs, too much drinking, etc., anything that would harm your body). Neither of these involve another person.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Amazing that a small group of people can thwart the will of “WE THE PEOPLE.”
This is not the first time that the will of “WE THE PEOPLE” , has been stepped on.
If I recall correctly, “WE THE PEOPLE” passed prop 187.
(By an overwhelming 59 to 41 percent margin in 1994 California voters backed Proposition 187 to cease providing government services and handouts to illegal aliens)
Then the activists took their loss to court and got a judge to over turned the will of “WE THE PEOPLE”. The AG and Gov GRAY OUT DAVIS said OK and let it ride, didn’t file an appeal. So the will of “WE THE PEOPLE” was ignored.
This is how apathy starts. And just to put a pretty ribbon on this,
“All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
ColdWarrior57 on November 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I know I’m responding to a question not directed at me, but to take it a step further, what is science determined that it was in fact biological, and a simple embryonic procedure could be done to correct it and in doing so could potentially eliminate homosexuality. Would you think that would be a good thing? I do. If science is pointing to it in fact being a genetic predisposition, it seems that there should be a movement to identify the cause and fix it. Why would there be any resistance to such a thing?
As to your point about there needing free will for sin to exist. It seems to not really apply. I understand what you’re getting at, but having a predisposition to an activity still leaves one with the free choice on whether to act on it or not.
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM
If there is a biological predisposition to be homosexual, then it’s a result of the physiological design of god, if he exists. Therefore, tampering with the natural design would be wrong, would it not?
Personally, I’m opposed to all biological engineering ideas. No thanks, leave me as I am, and I’ll deal with it later. That is damned close to the concept of mass sterilization that took place decades ago, and I’m very, very glad I wasn’t alive during a time when such a practice was condoned.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:50 PM
And there is no science to date that clearly defines why a person may or may not be homosexual. Even if there were, science does not trump the Bible. Period.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Then we come into the arguments over euthanasia, which is a whole other ball game, as well as age of consent rules. I might point out that the age of consent varies from country to country, many of whom are predominantly Christian nations. Is 18 less sinful than 16, 15, or 14? That’s mainly rhetorical because I don’t want to start another 2000 comment post in one that’s already close to 1000.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Why are you so hostile to people who ask questions?
I’m pretty sure I already know, but keep talking so I can confirm.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM
So you are saying that even if you had conclusive evidence in front of you that homosexuality was not a choice, but a function of natural design, you would assume that person was designed for sin?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Let me see if I’m getting this straight. You don’t beleive God exists, but if there is anything wrong in the world it has to be His fault?
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 12:57 PM
You could have parents decide or have the government decide the genetic makeup of children. If the state did so, would a majority vote in each state make sense?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 1:01 PM
“Alot of anger and alot of hate on BOTH sides”
Yeah, both sides my a$$. Nice work Ron Burgandy.
RobCon on November 12, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I’m saying that regardless of what man-made science determines, I personally go by the law of God. If I didn’t then I would be doubting God and basically saying he is wrong.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Most likely yes; however, people are born with genetic disorders, mental and otherwise, so it wouldn’t be conclusive.
It’s far more probable that people who currently believe it’s a sin would take that view and would instead try to use science to fix homosexuals.
The problem is that it is addressed in the Bible. Though Jesus never spoke of it, Paul and others did, and Jesus never corrected them either like he did with Peter on eating “unclean meat” or allowing Gentiles to become Christians.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM
If that’s how you want to put it, yes. Is he omnipotent? Did he create everything? Is every sequence of synapse firings that occurs in our grey matter the result of his specific design of our brains, or isn’t it?
By the way, if you’re just going to respond with yet another combative bit of bile-tinged snark, don’t waste the keystrokes. It’s evident you’re pissed that I’m asking questions, and it still doesn’t matter.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Is man-made science not a product of the tools god has provided for man?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM
No.. I don’t see it that way at all. What you seem to be implying is a bit of a strawman imo. Cutting my toenails or going to a dentist doesn’t really make an argument against God.
I don’t actually believe you’re as much of a medical Luddite as your statement implies. But it avoids the question…if homosexuality could be “cured” by a simple in the womb procedure, would there be anything wrong with that?..After all its not like its a human life while still in the womb anyway. What could the downside be?
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM
God gave us the free-will, man made the product. With free-will God gave us a set of rules to abide to. You can have product results either way. Trying to make that an argument is as weak as saying it’s the gun mfgs who are to blame for the person who uses the gun they mfged to murder another.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I love bacon.
Love it.
The thing I fear, as I mentioned above, is the direction of policy based on these kinds of themes. Decades ago, through eugenics, it was proposed that the state enact laws to force the sterilization of “undesirables”. How much interaction the eugenics movement had with the church, I’ve never been able to ascertain past the endorsement of eugenics by much of the Bible Belt. The concept of government-enforced biological engineering for any reason scares the living daylights out of me. Since this particular defect, if it was proven to be biological, is something that is seen as sinful, I very much fear the idea of that perspective driving policy.
Now, is that to say I fear the religious beliefs of folks driving policy in terms of gay marriage? Not as such. However, advanced society that we are, we have to know when to draw the line. I don’t jump on the “theocracy” bandwagon that such as Hitchens and Dawkins are likely to do, but I see validity in their concerns.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Of course, but that doesn’t always make it right. Man-made science is always correcting itself after all. That doesn’t mean Christians should ignore science just because it’s been flawed in the past. It just means that man-made science isn’t always to be trusted.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Funny that it is so often the same people making both claims.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I share your concerns and feel we use science too much to correct things that don’t need to be corrected. With Botox and plastic surgery, we’ve changed what aging is and not for the best.
However, looking at it from their point of view, homosexuality would be seen as a defect like any other. If we could cure retardation, most people would be on board with that, even those who argue that children with mental handicaps are gifts from God.
Most people would be on board with “curing” anything that makes life more difficult. These are the same people who outlaw dodge ball at school. Those people don’t even remember when they crossed the line.
I get what you’re saying, but I think this mentality is much bigger than religious people.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You don’t really believe the bolded part, so you’re trying a bit of strawman yourself. You’re trying to peg me as holding that idea, and you’re wrong. Please, don’t try these games, especially after you claim I just used the tactic, which I didn’t.
I already stated my opposition to religion-induced biological engineering.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM
A lawyer for a large Canadian gay rights group said you can have freedom of religion or you can have gay rights but you cannot have both
If gays have a belief that requires institutionalization of a sodomistic relationship, they can give it their own name, and bestow upon it the blessings of their faith
The gay movement knows that if they redefine ‘marriage’ in law then schools have to teach such marriages are acceptable, and public business have to use the new definition
For this reason, the Catholic church in Boston lost the license to run an adoption agency, because they refused to adopt children to gay couples
For this reason, Christian foster parents in England lost the rights to current and future children because they refused to agree to teach their charges that homosexual marriage was appropriate, and they did not want to send their charges to training classes promoting homosexual marriage as equal.
The gay movement has become anti-Christian because they know the Bible opposes homosexuality. Christ said “I come not to change the law” meaning mosaic law. Mosaic law had two levels, moral, and obligatory. Sodomy was against Jewish moral code. Obligatory law was applied to Jews only and included diet, purification, and rituals
The Bible defines marriage as a desirable state
A domestic partnership is legal
A marriage is both legal and moral
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil
This inquisition will not stop until Christians bow down and declare sodomy a moral good
entagor on November 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Listen, troll. If you’re going to do nothing but snipe from the cheap seats, have a clue who I am before you make idiotic quips. I’ve been a more fervent gun rights advocate than most on this board.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
You and me both. Especially when crispy but not burnt.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
You’re right, I don’t believe the bolded part. It was just a..a…well, O.K, it was a bit of hopefully thought provoking chum for those who argue the pro abortion line and would most likely also take the position that it would be “wrong” to “cure” homosexuality. Sorry it was bad judgment on my part, and in no way meant to connect it to you.
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Bad comparison. Talking about gun manufacturers and those who use them is discussion humans and humans. What we’re discussing is ethereal deities and humans. The gun manufacturers only make the tools. The deities are supposed to have made both the tools and the man.
And anyone who’s ever talked with me knows that the last think I’d argue in favor of is attacking gun manufacturers. Some combative posters, who get pissy when others ask questions they don’t like, may make the mistake of extrapolating an overall political outlook of a person based on one view, but I can’t be responsible for their ignorant and worthless conclusions. For your record, though, I am as anti-gun regulations as it just about gets.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM
You’ve earned a lot of respect with that line.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Accepted. As it happens, I’m one of those problematic people who is personally against abortion, would like to see RvW overturned, but would prefer states hold votes to keep abortion legal. Some may consider that makes me pro-choice, which would be true, but not pro-abortion. If anything, the result of one state voting abortion down would be less abortions. So, there it is.
I’m not a Luddite in terms of scientific progress. If the parents had the choice to make sure their child wasn’t gay, I would see no problem with that. However, history has shown that groups like to take these advances and make them compulsory, either through government force or other means. That is what frightens me.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Troll? Is that supposed to be a way to get me to shut up and let you have the floor, or what? I’m glad you get it right on gun issues; but that will not buy you a pass on any other issue. Now, please do try to not intimidate everyone you can’t shout down. That is how this whole thread got started.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 1:39 PM
well represented in the side of the gay community. I must say.
dorisd on November 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Nice try, troll. I didn’t tell you to shut up anywhere. I told you to know what you’re talking about before opening your evidently hostile, ignorant big mouth and claiming to know things about others that you don’t. You may imply all you like about me, regardless of whether you know it’s true, but to do so makes you a troll. You’re not trying to pursue any kind of intelligent dialogue here, and you’re trying to sabotage any attempt of mine to pursue it with others.
If you don’t like my questions, too damn bad. Don’t read the discussion if it bothers you so much. If my questions make you deep down doubt your own beliefs, that’s your problem. Don’t take it out on me.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Point taken but it was just an analogy. My point, again, is that God gave us free will (the tool)…what we do with it is the product. My other point is you seem to be implying that God is responsible for the product of the tools He gives to us. If this were so then we would have no free will.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I must have typed the address wrong..I meant to go to Hotair.com.
I must have typed in MadisonConservativeblog for teenyboppers who like to argue, instead.
Oops.
Congratulations Maddy…you’ve really outdone yourself this time.
7 or 800 comments and yours make up about 650 of them..good job.
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM
In my hypothetical world, it would obviously be a decision that would be made by the parents.
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I understand completely. From there on, it seems like philosophy all the way. For example, does god have a plan? If so, how is there free will? Also, are the various genetic disorders, which I’m sure homosexuality might be considered if it came to be found to be biological, products of god as well? As far as we know, there is no man-made component of those.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM
So much for free speech….
BTW
Kimberly Chang the reporter is a babe…..
dec5 on November 12, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Where’ve ya been? We need your news about the FEMA death camps that the gays will be putting us into to round out the discussion. Lay out the “pink helicopter” theory for the new meat.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Feel free to leave. We’ll find a way to console ourselves.
That’s my take as well. If we aren’t allowed to sin, then we have no free will.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Madison…you also brought up eugenics, which is a very interesting subject. My understanding is that the Church was opposed to the methods used in creating what would be considered optimal in humans. There was a lot of wrong done in the name of eugenics that unfortunately continue today in the form of forced sterilizations, genocide, etc. Below is an interesting article on it I found. Also discusses the Churches role.
http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Glad.John.2006.Catholicism%20and%20Eugenics%20in%20the%20Weimar%20Republic%20and%20in%20the%20Third%20Reich.htm
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Those who think the grandma provoked the attack…I guess you also agree that ladies who wear suggestive clothes deserve getting raped?
Where I am from its low class to attack any grandma, no matter how much you disagree with her.
Conservative Voice on November 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Madison..have you ever read CS Lewis? I love love love his books. Talk about breaking down all the philosophical muck we drown ourselves in concerning God. Lewis addressed back in the 30s what we still discuss to this day, and probably will till the end of time.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I think that world will be upon us over the coming decades, where we can screen out sperm cells and eggs to get a combination that reduces genetic illnesses. If homosexuality could be isolated to a few genes and parents wanted to screen out that trait so that they had a straight child with blond hair, blue eyes who was less susceptible to cancer I’d think that OK, and imagine it will happen.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Krydor on November 12, 2008 at 9:29 AM
This statement only speaks further to the idiocy we’ve already seen of people bashing those whose ideological viewpoints don’t agree with their own.
I find it offensive. There was no reason for it.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
That and Christ’s death on the cross annulled the whole blood sacrifice/stoning thing.
Ryan Gandy on November 12, 2008 at 2:03 PM
It is free will because men are free to accept God’s plan and follow it or not.
To that, a have some friends who would argue that it’s actually more the product of a broken world. Disease, sickness and death are all things that didn’t exist initially. Adam and Eve were going to live forever in perfect bodies. It was basically heaven, only they didn’t get a choice in the matter and didn’t know what they were missing.
The problem is that once we were stuck in time, as opposed to eternity, we were also given bodies that would eventually die, as is necessary in a world that is imperfect. Including death changes everything. It means we need warnings when we do something that could bring us death, like pain, scars and bruises. It means our bodies will eventually function improperly or cease to function altogether.
Your argument here is much stronger though.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM
The leadership of the conspiracy to kill the timeless institution of traditional marriage, are capable and more than willing to persist in its strategic assault against the traditions of our American society. Our naion is founded upon the moral and ethics of judeo-christian culture. These political “anti-Prop8″ puppetmasters have but one goal, it is an ongoing longterm manic obsession to subvert the very foundations of our society. Under the guise of tolerance and diversity, these counterculturists maneuver covertly and when necessary, recruit useful idiots by stealth and nuanced emotional appeals to the naive masses, swayed by vague references to rights, equality and other utopian politically correct “hooks.”
Having infiltrated the courts and academic world they have been continually thwarting,the will of “We the people.”
Make no mistake in underestimating these radical zealots. Thet’re out to destroy the foundations of Society, its heritage and institutions. Beyond the narrow timeless definition of marriage; this is an assault on the family.
It is part of a broader effort to diminish our collective Constitutional liberties founded on individualism, the pursuit of liberty, life and happiness…under God.
These radicals have their sights on delegitimizing our past, present and future. We remain a society of peoples diverse in our religiousity. Hopefully, one not easily cajoled and intimidated to accept this implied required admonition of believing in God; moving beyond “such outdated and demeaning ritualism” and awakening to the impending utopia of an atheistic world. This future America is one escaping (and with great hubris, moving beyond)its past and realizing this envisioned liberal fantasyworld. One that will have deconstructed the family,empowered the Government, which can dictate at its whim, who lives, dies (abortion, life saving surgery such as transplants, based on “who needs it, in a rationed goverment run healthcare system,mandating Dr.Kervorkian’s right to assisted suicide, private property rights) and all other material trappings of “this corrupt capitalist” American country.
So beyond the concept and definition of marriage; you damn well better get ready to abdicate not just our traditions of family, but also religious (80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians)freedom, language, borders, individualism, opportunity and personal responsibility as we are being force fed this fascist top-down socialism, the end product of this counterculture insurgency.
RED.inca on November 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Absolutely. :)
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM
My mother forced me into reading the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when I was six. I slogged through it and was underwhelmed. I felt similar malaise about the movie, although in comparison I enjoyed the book more. I started on Prince Caspian and never made it past the second chapter. Just not my cup of tea. However, on your recommendation, maybe I’ll give them a second look for their underlying themes. More of a Tolkien fan, I’m afraid.
As a basic return, if you’ve never read it, pick up Sophie’s World. A fantastic read that melds the philosophy of the ages with a pleasant story. Essentially a textbook in disguise, but a very good one.
Very, very fascinating article, by the way! Thank you! The writing bothers me a bit in that they try to present eugenics as “misunderstood”. I see their point, but in the end, it’s still a worldview that works towards eliminating the birth of what some authority sees as “undesirable”. While the majority of folks could probably come to agreements on the definition of the term, it still strikes me as something ripe for abuse.
I’m not at all surprised to see disagreement within the church over the methods, however. The very nature of the idea not only is at odds with the command of god to be fruitful, but it seeks to claim to know better than the process of conception. Scary stuff, and with the way things are right now, with the rising once again of the Soviet Union and tyrants in places like Iran, I sincerely hope we’re not headed for another decade like the 30s.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I feel the Force, flowing through me.
Uh oh, just gave away my religion.
I counter with this question: Why genetic disorders, then? I understand the need for death in a time-driven existence, but to have the problems posed before the child even exits the womb? What’s the point of that? The question is a bit lofty, so I apologize. I’m more asking for your opinion rather than a theological explanation.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Actually they did have a choice in the matter. God told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but they made the choice to do so and were cast out of Garden of Eden. They then had bodies that were bound to earth and all the dangers and diseases that entailed. Had they known what was to become of them if they disobeyed God then perhaps they wouldn’t have made that choice. But isnt that the whole purpose behind our obedience to God..not to question?
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Although State’s laws prohibiting mixed racial marriages were overturned in the 60’s, NONE were Constitutional Amendments. Constitutional Amendments become part of that Constitution and cannot be overturned EXCEPT by further amendment to that Constitution. According to the whole concept of even having a Constitution, each Article and Amendment is ABOVE the jurisdiction of the courts, not for the courts to decide; in other words, the courts HAVE no jurisdiction to decide if Constitutional Amendments are “Constitutional” or not because the idea is a paradox.
nelsonknows on November 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Those men march like they have something up their backsides.
Black Adam on November 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
That’s the point behind obedience to anyone or anything.
You don’t question. You just do it.
Ryan Gandy on November 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Now there’s a point. How big was this Garden of Eden? Was it like one acre with the Tree of Knowledge in the middle? Or was it vast and infinite? Seriously, if these two chuckleheads had infinity to themselves, and they just couldn’t stay away from one damned tree, then good lord! I really hope I’m not descended from then. Which makes me wonder…is the kite-eating tree from the Charlie Brown comics an allegory for that? He can never stay away from that grinning bastard.
…sorry, been too serious for a while. Needed a break.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Unquestioning obedience led to some of the worst things in the history of mankind, including all of the most mind-bogglingly vast slaughters of the 20th century.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Thanks. I actually agree with what I understand of your position. Basically an advocate of states rights? If so,I agree. The overturning of R/W would not outlaw abortions, like the fear mongers would like you to think, it would just put it back into the hands of the states where it belongs. And then the people could vote on it.
Itchee Dryback on November 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
A federalist position, I think, which many, many moderates could get behind.
Hint hint 2012. Hint hint GOP. Not sure if Steele holds that view, but Fred does.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM
We as children of God today are still paying for the decision by Adam and Eve that removed them from the Garden of Eden. Another example, the war between Christianity and Islam…The split between Christians and Islam starts with Abraham. His wife Sarah was told by an Angel that God would bless her with a child. She doubted this because of her age and instead had her handmaiden, Hagar, act as a surraget..who gave birth to Ishmael, who Arabs consider the start of their ancestry. Sarah did have a son, Isaac, through whom the Jews consider their ancestry. My point, had Sarah not doubted the promise of God she would not have had her handmaiden act as a suragate..there would be no Ishmael and perhaps no Islam. We pay for that doubt to this day. I don’t believe that God puts bad into our lives..our decisions and choices create an opportunity for them to develop.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Unquestioning obedience to man, not God. :)
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Are laws against polygamy Unconstitutional? How about laws concerning age? How about NAMBLA and their stance for men to marry 10 year-old boys? How about laws prohibiting someone from marrying a goat?
STATES issue marriage licenses and States have the right NOT to issue a marriage license to anyone they see as unfit to marry, i.e. NO license, NO MARRIAGE, PERIOD.
Then we get into the sticky subject of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article 4, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees that a valid marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. (This also applies to driver’s licenses but strangely does NOT seem to apply to concealed carry licenses).
The U.S. Constitution is the ONLY power that overrules a State’s Constitution and marriage isn’t touched upon in the U.S. Constitution thus the 10th Amendment applies.
The day a court overrules an Article or Amendment to any State’s Constitution that is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, is the day the U.S. Constitution, every law and and whole system of Government ceases to exist.
nelsonknows on November 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
JetBoy,
The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that homosexual practices have always been regarded as “intrinsically evil” (Cardinal Ratzinger). How do you reconcile your Catholic faith with your participation in homosexual acts?
aengus on November 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
No. Research the subject. The original copyright of 1611 Authorized Version does not forbid anyone today from reprinting it. If your KJV has footnotes, or maps, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not. It is Public Domain.
The King James Bible is a literal translation, a “word-for-word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It is faithful to the original text.
That’s not how it works dedalus. If you think all these Bible versions are just updates to the the King James you’re sadly mistaken. The KJV comes from a completely different manuscript than all the other versions do. The King James Version is founded on the Textus Receptus manuscripts, which is in 90-95% agreement with all the archelogical evidence in existance today. But the Catholic Bible and almost all the modern Bible versions are in disagreement with the Textus Receptus just about as much, and is founded upon two of the worst of texts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (Alexandrian text). All of today’s modern versions, including the New International Version (NIV), New American Bible (NAB), New Living Translation (NLT), and the Catholic Bible, etcetera, were copied using a different manuscript than was used to make the King James (KJV) known as the Alexandrian Text (or Egyptian text). These were bad manuscripts, they were corrupt containing errors and alterations. Check it out.
Any time somebody says “Well, the King James translators, it should have translated it this way,” y’know they’ve done no research on the subject, or have 1 year or 2 years of Hebrew in college, and these guys had the total accumulation of probably 200 years of Hebrew… lol … they knew Hebrew extremely well, okay. Uh, but they wanna correct these guys, y’know. It’s just ridiculous.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
My point is that it sets a bad precedent. It provides a template which is dangerous, because people will always, in every age, pledge unquestioning obedience to man. It’s why the phrase “question authority”, while used too often by stupid kids who don’t know jack, is crucially important.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM
My point is that God never said to give obedience to man..he said give obedience to Him. Always question man’s authority, but never question God’s. Man’s authority is flawed because Man is not perfect. There’s a right way to question man’s authority and a wrong way that, you’re right, stupid kids who “don’t know jack” tend to do.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Well, you’re right about one thing. You are playing with the devil. Promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. Now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph. This one seems more likely to get into the hetero community, though, and will then be spread by the rampant promiscuity there. Now, those are deadly facts. Now, a guy like you comes in here chastizing Christians for warning folks that male-male-anal sodomy is a health hazard for our communities, even calling it an asinine suggestion… unbelievable. You’re are playing devil’s advocate yes, cuz you’re not on the same team as Christians.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Ah, fundamentalists. When they’re not trying to kill you or run your life, they’re so much fun to watch.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I was referring to them being in Eden to begin with, not them leaving it.
Anytime. People who can apologize should feel very welcome here. The Internet has far too many jerks who don’t know the meaning of the word.
You don’t need to apologize to me. I’m not a theologian, so anything I say is really just my opinion anyway.
This is an interesting discussion, one that I think is difficult on many levels. Why are some children born with such a disadvantage, and conversely, why are some given such an advantage?
Why are some born so smart or so good looking? Why can’t we all start out with the same advantages and disadvantages?
I honestly have no idea, but my theory is that it’s all connected to the introduction of death. If our bodies are imperfect, then they’ll create imperfect offspring. I think it would be difficult to have one without the other.
God’s specific curse on Eve was pain in childbirth. Going by this, I believe God never intended this had we stayed in the garden but rather that it was considered a natural consequence of living in a world of science rather than heaven.
The thing is, I’m not one who believes that everything that happens in the world is God’s doing anyway. I also try not to say that God didn’t have a hand in something, but I believe in general he stays out as much as possible to give us as much leeway and therefore free will as possible.
My personal theology is this: that God created us with the desire for true companionship, something he couldn’t get form angels who don’t quite have the same free will we do, and in order for the companionship to be true, God had to ensure that we could choose to love him of our own, which would also mean that we have the ability to hate him.
Sometimes I believe this means people are tested, not just so that God can know their devotion is true but so they can see that as well. It may seem cruel, but if you’re of the mindset that this world is only temporary as opposed to heaven, I think it’s possible to see it in a different light.
Sometimes I believe people are given these disorders to bring people to God and to strengthen their own faith. Those who have everything they need and want tend to have a hard time believing they need God and can miss out on what life truly has to offer.
And sometimes I believe God doesn’t do anything but rather lets nature take its course as a consequence of living in imperfect bodies.
I think I started to ramble at the end, so sorry if it doesn’t all make sense.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
You don’t no anything about this subject to be making statements like that. There are NO ERRORS in the King James Bible. Check it out. Ninety-five percent of all manuscript evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence. The 1611 King James Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God, and if you don’t have a copy get one now! The problem with you JetBoy is that you lie just like blinking an eye. It’s so simple to you. You also claim that GOD doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin. You can’t be taken seriously. “YE ARE of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father YE WILL DO.” John 8:44
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM
CS Lewis addresses that concept in “The Problem With Pain”..I agree.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
You ignored my earlier question. If you know so much about this subject. Name the original manuscripts all the different Bible versions come from? The main ones. And tell me which Bible versions come from which manuscript? If you can’t do that. You have no business commenting on the subject of which Bible version is correct? Thank you.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM
There you go again, claiming to know more about a people’s faith than they do.
No, it’s really not. It was stylized to be a great book, not to be word-for-word accurate.
There are plenty of better translations out there these days, not just from people who took a year or two of Hebrew but who are fluent.
What a radical states rights idea. Even I could get behind that, and I’m not exactly a moderate.
Women get a lot of blame in the Bible, but technically Abraham was the one who was told that by the angels. Sarah was around the corner laughing about it. Abraham was the one who slept with Hagar, and if he’d just gotten her to quit bragging about getting pregnant, it’s possible we wouldn’t have the problem we have today.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM
That last part’s mostly tongue in cheek just in case it seems like I’m being an @ss.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Don’t worry. Any indication, and we’ll just initiate Operation Tap.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I think he’s referring more to “Mere Christianity” and other books like that. I think you’d enjoy them. They’re very big on philosophy and less on theology.
The Narnia series were more for his nieces and nephews during the war. I loved them when I was a kid, but then again, I hadn’t found Lord of the Rings yet.
Tolkien and Lewis were friends by the way. I took a Tolkien class in college, and it was very enlightening.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Operation Tap? Do tell.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Connect the dots, sugar.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Maybe I have my facts mixed up, but the point is that mistakes made by disobedience to God can have ripple effects for generations to come.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
That’s right.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Just thought you’d enjoy explaining it.
No, you’re mostly right. She pushed Hagar on Abraham. He was mostly indifferent
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
LOL.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM
You’re not gay. You choose who you take your pants down for.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
She :) was referring to his writings on Christianity. He used to be an atheist and eventually found his way back to God. “The Problem with Pain” was great, definitely recommend…reading his 3 book sci-fi series that starts with “The Silent Planet”..all entwined with Christian beliefs. I love Tolkein. And yes, they were dear friends. Lewis found success first and then Tolkein, who he said tended to be a quiet type of man who didn’t think people would like his stories about Hobbits and such…Lewis was a big cheerleader of his.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
How would you know?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
I caught the hint in your name. Esthier probably had one too many White Russians.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Homosexual or heterosexual sin, whether it is adultery, sexual promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, or even lust, is a result of denying and disobeying God.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Sorry. I figured you were a she from your name, but when I responded I forgot to check to see who I was referring to.
It’s been a long, long month.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Gay marriage supporters should all just migrate to MA. This state is heaven to same sexers as the state won’t even allow a proposition to be introduced.
Come to think of it why not make MA the Gay State. All other 49 states won’t have to deal with gay crap.
rmonde on November 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 Next »