|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 1, 2022 11:22:40 GMT
Awap bapa looma a wap bam boom. Wait a minute, that Tutti Frutti , isn't it? Aw rooty. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 13:01:38 GMT
Awap bapa looma a wap bam boom. Tutti Frutti... |
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jul 1, 2022 19:07:35 GMT
Very simple. Christianity starts with Christ.
But what would cave dwellers like you know.
And no one has said that the majority of "Conservatives" are Biblical Christians except for liars, and hypocrites.
It should. But the loudest among you are the ones who are drowning out that message. That is why Christianity in the US is shedding numbers in droves, and why you need to address your (internal) problems. And that is why Christ said "First there must be a falling away". Sadly more people are flocking to your kind of "morality", or the lack thereof, not the Christian kind. |
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jul 1, 2022 19:10:36 GMT
Wait a minute, that Tutti Frutti , isn't it? Aw rooty. Tutti frutti, oh rootie A wop bop a loo bop a lop bom bom |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 1, 2022 19:15:38 GMT
Or you can do as most do, and start with the New Testament, and Christ.
According to your version the "caveman" had more morals then the Christian which would be a lie.  Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? Your criticism is unfortunately warranted. Christianity is NT-based and informed (although built on the foundations and expectations of the OT, foundations and expectations that are fulfilled or corrected by Jesus). I would argue that we don't need "more NT" and "less OT," but that the only OT that is quoted is quoted as fulfilled by Jesus or to communicate those foundations/expectations that Jesus corrects and fulfills. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 19:25:35 GMT
Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? Your criticism is unfortunately warranted. Christianity is NT-based and informed (although built on the foundations and expectations of the OT, foundations and expectations that are fulfilled or corrected by Jesus). I would argue that we don't need "more NT" and "less OT," but that the only OT that is quoted is quoted as fulfilled by Jesus or to communicate those foundations/expectations that Jesus corrects and fulfills. But isn't the OT just a distortion of the Talmud, which doesn't quite predict the coming of Jesus the way the OT does? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 20:20:15 GMT
It should. But the loudest among you are the ones who are drowning out that message. That is why Christianity in the US is shedding numbers in droves, and why you need to address your (internal) problems. And that is why Christ said "First there must be a falling away". Sadly more people are flocking to your kind of "morality", or the lack thereof, not the Christian kind. My 'kind of morality'? Please explain.  |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 20:24:36 GMT
Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? Your criticism is unfortunately warranted. Christianity is NT-based and informed (although built on the foundations and expectations of the OT, foundations and expectations that are fulfilled or corrected by Jesus). I would argue that we don't need "more NT" and "less OT," but that the only OT that is quoted is quoted as fulfilled by Jesus or to communicate those foundations/expectations that Jesus corrects and fulfills. Given the direction this thread is taking, it might be better to move this to the Religion forum, if you are able to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 21:37:44 GMT
Some say the Christians did a 1984 on the Talmud, rewrote it to make it predict the coming of Jesus, and renamed it the Old Testament... Big Brother would be so proud!
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 1, 2022 22:34:06 GMT
Sorry, I do not see it that way. I am only advocating for compromise, knowing full well that my position, whatever it is, will not be fully realized. Because I believe in coexisting and respecting other's opinions, over any personal need to have things only the way I want. This is the big separation between the far right, and just about every other group. The far right has only one position, and it is extreme, and it is non-negotiable. There really is no other group with that stance. And it is an unwinnable stance, in the long run, with all these battles in-between that just waste time and resources. If there was ANY chance the far right position could become the law of the land, I could see the value in the fight, but the idea that the rest of us are simply going to step aside, and allow one group to dictate law, belief, and the philosophical explanation for when people come into existence is conceited, naive, and unAmerican. There is NO chance of it happening. That's why I'm not the least bit concerned that it will last. I'm not leaving. And neither are the majority of Americans who do NOT want this to happen. So just like with guns, you can either negotiate, and be part of the final law of the land, or you can stay stalwart in your unwinnable position, and we will make policy without you. I really do not see any other possibilities. But please, show me the error of my logic. Freon A few things to note from history: 1. When movements such as these gain control, they inevitably start eating each other. Often, the smaller the differnces in POVs, the more bitter the in-fighting becomes. The Russian Revolution is a great example of this. First, EVERYONE wanted the Romanovs gone - Communists, Socialists, Whites, etc. The Communists won, and the in-fighting between the Lenin-Stalinists and Trotskyites began. 2. When the above happens, it ALWAYS ends badly. No exceptions. I concur with your assessment.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jul 1, 2022 22:57:25 GMT
And that is why Christ said "First there must be a falling away". Sadly more people are flocking to your kind of "morality", or the lack thereof, not the Christian kind. My 'kind of morality'? Please explain. Setting aside your childish meme, there are only two kinds of morality, one set is based on religion, the other on humanism. Guess which one you mock.
And I am not saying all religions are equal. Just that humanism is more likely to be situational rather then a true moral code. Abortion is just one example. Under a religious moral system there would be no abortions save for in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Under humanist philosophy we get Roe v Wade.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jul 1, 2022 23:05:19 GMT
Your criticism is unfortunately warranted. Christianity is NT-based and informed (although built on the foundations and expectations of the OT, foundations and expectations that are fulfilled or corrected by Jesus). I would argue that we don't need "more NT" and "less OT," but that the only OT that is quoted is quoted as fulfilled by Jesus or to communicate those foundations/expectations that Jesus corrects and fulfills. Given the direction this thread is taking, it might be better to move this to the Religion forum, if you are able to. Why when it has such a profound effect on all life? |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Jul 6, 2022 22:15:35 GMT
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated. Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take. Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances. It works like this: French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies. Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases. Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond. Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
Sorry, I do not see it that way. I am only advocating for compromise, knowing full well that my position, whatever it is, will not be fully realized. Because I believe in coexisting and respecting other's opinions, over any personal need to have things only the way I want. This is the big separation between the far right, and just about every other group. The far right has only one position, and it is extreme, and it is non-negotiable. There really is no other group with that stance. And it is an unwinnable stance, in the long run, with all these battles in-between that just waste time and resources. If there was ANY chance the far right position could become the law of the land, I could see the value in the fight, but the idea that the rest of us are simply going to step aside, and allow one group to dictate law, belief, and the philosophical explanation for when people come into existence is conceited, naive, and unAmerican. There is NO chance of it happening. That's why I'm not the least bit concerned that it will last. I'm not leaving. And neither are the majority of Americans who do NOT want this to happen. So just like with guns, you can either negotiate, and be part of the final law of the land, or you can stay stalwart in your unwinnable position, and we will make policy without you. I really do not see any other possibilities. But please, show me the error of my logic. Freon You are still missing the point that there is difference between having a stance or ideal position, and the entirely separate piece of negotiation. You keep assuming that merely taking what you see as an extreme position is ALSO a position opposed to negotiating when necessary and opposed to accepting incremental, favorable moves. But that, again, is an assumption. A poor one at that. And one that, when made, applies your weak attack to literally anyone who holds any position on an issue. As I already pointed out. Whether or not you actually accept it.
When Beto O'Rourke expresses an opinion that AR-15s should be banned, he is taking a position on what arms ought not to be owned by individuals. Applying your assumption and logic, you ought to be attacking him for thinking he alone should decide which arms can and cannot be owned by individuals. But that attack would be stupid. Because A) everyone who holds an opinion holds that opinion precisely because they have decided, for themself, what the proper arms are for individuals to be allowed to own (or what stage of development abortion should be allowed, or whatever stance they take on whatever issue), and B) it is a statement of an starting position, not a statement of refusal to negotiate or accept a resolution somewhere else on the spectrum of stances around private gun ownership. Until this point sinks in, you will simply continue to see the side that most opposes you as somehow "other" and wrong for taking a position on an issue, while giving a pass to anyone else who, similarly, takes a stance on an issue.
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated. Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take. Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances. It works like this: French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies. Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases. Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond. Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
I didn't know a post could read like stale bread. And here you have written one, yourself. Now we know. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2022 22:27:32 GMT
Sorry, I do not see it that way. I am only advocating for compromise, knowing full well that my position, whatever it is, will not be fully realized. Because I believe in coexisting and respecting other's opinions, over any personal need to have things only the way I want. This is the big separation between the far right, and just about every other group. The far right has only one position, and it is extreme, and it is non-negotiable. There really is no other group with that stance. And it is an unwinnable stance, in the long run, with all these battles in-between that just waste time and resources. If there was ANY chance the far right position could become the law of the land, I could see the value in the fight, but the idea that the rest of us are simply going to step aside, and allow one group to dictate law, belief, and the philosophical explanation for when people come into existence is conceited, naive, and unAmerican. There is NO chance of it happening. That's why I'm not the least bit concerned that it will last. I'm not leaving. And neither are the majority of Americans who do NOT want this to happen. So just like with guns, you can either negotiate, and be part of the final law of the land, or you can stay stalwart in your unwinnable position, and we will make policy without you. I really do not see any other possibilities. But please, show me the error of my logic. Freon You are still missing the point that there is difference between having a stance or ideal position, and the entirely separate piece of negotiation. You keep assuming that merely taking what you see as an extreme position is ALSO a position opposed to negotiating when necessary and opposed to accepting incremental, favorable moves. But that, again, is an assumption. A poor one at that. And one that, when made, applies your weak attack to literally anyone who holds any position on an issue. As I already pointed out. Whether or not you actually accept it.
When Beto O'Rourke expresses an opinion that AR-15s should be banned, he is taking a position on what arms ought not to be owned by individuals. Applying your assumption and logic, you ought to be attacking him for thinking he alone should decide which arms can and cannot be owned by individuals. But that attack would be stupid. Because A) everyone who holds an opinion holds that opinion precisely because they have decided, for themself, what the proper arms are for individuals to be allowed to own (or what stage of development abortion should be allowed, or whatever stance they take on whatever issue), and  it is a statement of an starting position, not a statement of refusal to negotiate or accept a resolution somewhere else on the spectrum of stances around private gun ownership. Until this point sinks in, you will simply continue to see the side that most opposes you as somehow "other" and wrong for taking a position on an issue, while giving a pass to anyone else who, similarly, takes a stance on an issue.
I didn't know a post could read like stale bread. And here you have written one, yourself. Now we know. I am equally upset at Dems/Liberals who also take a non-negotiable stance, but the fact is that there are WAY fewer of them. So I focus my attention where the problem is the most extreme, which is on the far right. Even those on the left who advocate for no rifles, are not advocating for a ban of the 2nd amendment. THAT would be an extreme view, as bad as abortion, in terms of negotiation. But it's just not happening at the scale of what we see on the far right. Maybe you don't see it because you are in agreement with the far right's position. Maybe for other reasons. I'm just stating the reality of it, and why the reality causes me to not be unconcerned. Liberalism is going to triumph, because it already has. This is just the after-effects of it, the rumblings of the volcano after it has already erupted. You cannot put the lava back in, and to try, is foolishness itself. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Jul 6, 2022 22:41:58 GMT
You are still missing the point that there is difference between having a stance or ideal position, and the entirely separate piece of negotiation. You keep assuming that merely taking what you see as an extreme position is ALSO a position opposed to negotiating when necessary and opposed to accepting incremental, favorable moves. But that, again, is an assumption. A poor one at that. And one that, when made, applies your weak attack to literally anyone who holds any position on an issue. As I already pointed out. Whether or not you actually accept it.
When Beto O'Rourke expresses an opinion that AR-15s should be banned, he is taking a position on what arms ought not to be owned by individuals. Applying your assumption and logic, you ought to be attacking him for thinking he alone should decide which arms can and cannot be owned by individuals. But that attack would be stupid. Because A) everyone who holds an opinion holds that opinion precisely because they have decided, for themself, what the proper arms are for individuals to be allowed to own (or what stage of development abortion should be allowed, or whatever stance they take on whatever issue), and it is a statement of an starting position, not a statement of refusal to negotiate or accept a resolution somewhere else on the spectrum of stances around private gun ownership. Until this point sinks in, you will simply continue to see the side that most opposes you as somehow "other" and wrong for taking a position on an issue, while giving a pass to anyone else who, similarly, takes a stance on an issue.
And here you have written one, yourself. Now we know. I am equally upset at Dems/Liberals who also take a non-negotiable stance, but the fact is that there are WAY fewer of them. So I focus my attention where the problem is the most extreme, which is on the far right. Even those on the left who advocate for no rifles, are not advocating for a ban of the 2nd amendment. THAT would be an extreme view, as bad as abortion, in terms of negotiation. But it's just not happening at the scale of what we see on the far right. Maybe you don't see it because you are in agreement with the far right's position. Maybe for other reasons. I'm just stating the reality of it, and why the reality causes me to not be unconcerned. Liberalism is going to triumph, because it already has. This is just the after-effects of it, the rumblings of the volcano after it has already erupted. You cannot put the lava back in, and to try, is foolishness itself. Freon
You are still equating having an opinion with lacking an interest in negotiating. This is still an assumption. And one you aren't even showing a willingness to apply evenly.
And you are adding to it an equating of the "extreme-ness" of an opinion with a level of willingness to negotiate. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2022 22:48:36 GMT
I am equally upset at Dems/Liberals who also take a non-negotiable stance, but the fact is that there are WAY fewer of them. So I focus my attention where the problem is the most extreme, which is on the far right. Even those on the left who advocate for no rifles, are not advocating for a ban of the 2nd amendment. THAT would be an extreme view, as bad as abortion, in terms of negotiation. But it's just not happening at the scale of what we see on the far right. Maybe you don't see it because you are in agreement with the far right's position. Maybe for other reasons. I'm just stating the reality of it, and why the reality causes me to not be unconcerned. Liberalism is going to triumph, because it already has. This is just the after-effects of it, the rumblings of the volcano after it has already erupted. You cannot put the lava back in, and to try, is foolishness itself. Freon
You are still equating having an opinion with lacking an interest in negotiating. This is still an assumption. And one you aren't even showing a willingness to apply evenly.
And you are adding to it an equating of the "extreme-ness" of an opinion with a level of willingness to negotiate. I do not agree at all. I've clearly separated the two. I even provided an example of this in the analogy with 2nd amendment positions. So if you still choose to disagree with me, it is not based on my not supporting my position. It is for other reasons. And that is fine. Either I'm right, in which case, I have little to be concerned about, or you are right, and the new law of the land will be the consequences of making abortions illegal. It seems I win either way. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Jul 6, 2022 22:57:56 GMT
You are still equating having an opinion with lacking an interest in negotiating. This is still an assumption. And one you aren't even showing a willingness to apply evenly.
And you are adding to it an equating of the "extreme-ness" of an opinion with a level of willingness to negotiate. I do not agree at all. I've clearly separated the two. I even provided an example of this in the analogy with 2nd amendment positions. So if you still choose to disagree with me, it is not based on my not supporting my position. It is for other reasons. And that is fine. Either I'm right, in which case, I have little to be concerned about, or you are right, and the new law of the land will be the consequences of making abortions illegal. It seems I win either way. Freon
The logic continues to be terrible. Almost non-existent.
Your example on the second amendment merely pointed out that one side is not as extreme as a complete elimination of the 2nd amendment (even though the furthest reaches of that side of the spectrum absolutely are that extreme), and therefore that indicates a willingness to negotiate. But that is trash logic.
Taking a position that is somewhere short of the furthest extreme of one end of the spectrum is not, necessarily, an indication of willingness to negotiate. It is simple a policy position, entirely unconnected to a willingness to negotiate. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2022 23:31:48 GMT
I do not agree at all. I've clearly separated the two. I even provided an example of this in the analogy with 2nd amendment positions. So if you still choose to disagree with me, it is not based on my not supporting my position. It is for other reasons. And that is fine. Either I'm right, in which case, I have little to be concerned about, or you are right, and the new law of the land will be the consequences of making abortions illegal. It seems I win either way. Freon
The logic continues to be terrible. Almost non-existent.
Your example on the second amendment merely pointed out that one side is not as extreme as a complete elimination of the 2nd amendment (even though the furthest reaches of that side of the spectrum absolutely are that extreme), and therefore that indicates a willingness to negotiate. But that is trash logic.
Taking a position that is somewhere short of the furthest extreme of one end of the spectrum is not, necessarily, an indication of willingness to negotiate. It is simple a policy position, entirely unconnected to a willingness to negotiate. Your opinions on this are your own. I do not share them. And no argument you've made is compelling me to see my own position as anything but empirical. The far right is damaging itself far more than any outside influence could ever do, and if you cannot see that, then I hope you understand that I think that is great. Never in my life did I expect to see such unified liberalism and tolerance take hold in this country, and we owe it all to the far right. It's not that I did not see us becoming more liberal, that much was already occurring, starting with the Civil War, but the RATE at which the far right is making it happen, is truly exciting to behold. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Jul 7, 2022 0:07:12 GMT
The logic continues to be terrible. Almost non-existent.
Your example on the second amendment merely pointed out that one side is not as extreme as a complete elimination of the 2nd amendment (even though the furthest reaches of that side of the spectrum absolutely are that extreme), and therefore that indicates a willingness to negotiate. But that is trash logic.
Taking a position that is somewhere short of the furthest extreme of one end of the spectrum is not, necessarily, an indication of willingness to negotiate. It is simple a policy position, entirely unconnected to a willingness to negotiate. Your opinions on this are your own. I do not share them. And no argument you've made is compelling me to see my own position as anything but empirical. The far right is damaging itself far more than any outside influence could ever do, and if you cannot see that, then I hope you understand that I think that is great. Never in my life did I expect to see such unified liberalism and tolerance take hold in this country, and we owe it all to the far right. It's not that I did not see us becoming more liberal, that much was already occurring, starting with the Civil War, but the RATE at which the far right is making it happen, is truly exciting to behold. Freon
The goalposts are no longer in the same county. Let me know if you want to get back to the discussion we were having.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 7, 2022 0:12:23 GMT
Your opinions on this are your own. I do not share them. And no argument you've made is compelling me to see my own position as anything but empirical. The far right is damaging itself far more than any outside influence could ever do, and if you cannot see that, then I hope you understand that I think that is great. Never in my life did I expect to see such unified liberalism and tolerance take hold in this country, and we owe it all to the far right. It's not that I did not see us becoming more liberal, that much was already occurring, starting with the Civil War, but the RATE at which the far right is making it happen, is truly exciting to behold. Freon
The goalposts are no longer in the same county. Let me know if you want to get back to the discussion we were having.
Again, I do not agree with your assessment, but if this is how you wish to end our conversation, I am fine with it. Freon |
|
it is a statement of an starting position, not a statement of refusal to negotiate or accept a resolution somewhere else on the spectrum of stances around private gun ownership.