Do gay people have an ax to grind with Christians?

[Mudda]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

 

[ding]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

 

[Mudda]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

Exactly, you're looking for reasons to vilify them. I'm sure you can come up with SOMETHING!

 

[bodecea]

Many heterosexuals are atheists too. That IS allowed, you know.

No..... Just kidding. Yeah, I know. It seems that the more liberal they are the more militant they are.

"It seems"? to whom?

I didn't come up with this on my own. It is nothing new. In fact, it is quite an old observation.

Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Alexander Ivanovitsch Herzen. Stuttgart, 1895.

G. Le Bon. Psychologie du socialisme. (Quotations refer to Russian translation, Psikhologiia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

S. Frank. "Etika nigilizma" ("The Ethics of Nihilism," in Russian). In: Vekhi (Landmarks), Moscow, 1909.

S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

S. Bulgakov. Khristianstvo i sotsializm (Christianity and Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1917

W. Gurian. Der Bolschewismus. Freiburg, 1931 giia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

H. Marcuse. Eros and Civilization. A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, 1955

I. Shafarevich. The Socialist Phenomeon, 1980 by Harper & Row

And...what does THAT prove?

That militant atheism leads to communism.

And what does militant theism lead to?

 

[bodecea]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

 

[Crixus]

I couldn't help but notice that there is quite a bit of animosity directed at Christians and I was wondering if maybe it was because Christians as a whole oppose gay marriage.

So... Do gay people have an ax to grind with Christians?

Yeah,, and its Christians fault largely or "bigly" for the trumpkins.

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

 

[ding]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

Exactly, you're looking for reasons to vilify them. I'm sure you can come up with SOMETHING!

No. I am looking to understand them. The only one who condemns respect for anyone is you.

 

[ding]

I couldn't help but notice that there is quite a bit of animosity directed at Christians and I was wondering if maybe it was because Christians as a whole oppose gay marriage.

So... Do gay people have an ax to grind with Christians?

Yeah,, and its Christians fault largely or "bigly" for the trumpkins.

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

You mean like the one I work with on a day to day to day basis.

Since you know so much more than I do about the Bible, please do tell me what the Bible tells you about this subject or what you believe I should know.

 

[ding]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

 

[ding]

No..... Just kidding. Yeah, I know. It seems that the more liberal they are the more militant they are.

"It seems"? to whom?

I didn't come up with this on my own. It is nothing new. In fact, it is quite an old observation.

Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Alexander Ivanovitsch Herzen. Stuttgart, 1895.

G. Le Bon. Psychologie du socialisme. (Quotations refer to Russian translation, Psikhologiia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

S. Frank. "Etika nigilizma" ("The Ethics of Nihilism," in Russian). In: Vekhi (Landmarks), Moscow, 1909.

S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

S. Bulgakov. Khristianstvo i sotsializm (Christianity and Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1917

W. Gurian. Der Bolschewismus. Freiburg, 1931 giia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

H. Marcuse. Eros and Civilization. A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, 1955

I. Shafarevich. The Socialist Phenomeon, 1980 by Harper & Row

And...what does THAT prove?

That militant atheism leads to communism.

And what does militant theism lead to?

Theocracy. Both are equally bad.

 

[bodecea]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

 

[ding]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

No. I know him because he spends most of his time time here chasing me around.

Are you familiar with what he posts here? Trust me... he condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

 

[bodecea]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

No. I know him because he spends most of his time time here chasing me around.

Are you familiar with what he posts here? Trust me... he condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

Has he told you he is a militant atheist?

 

[ding]

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

No. I know him because he spends most of his time time here chasing me around.

Are you familiar with what he posts here? Trust me... he condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

Has he told you he is a militant atheist?

Are you familiar with what he posts here?

 

[Crixus]

I couldn't help but notice that there is quite a bit of animosity directed at Christians and I was wondering if maybe it was because Christians as a whole oppose gay marriage.

So... Do gay people have an ax to grind with Christians?

Yeah,, and its Christians fault largely or "bigly" for the trumpkins.

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

You mean like the one I work with on a day to day to day basis.

Since you know so much more than I do about the Bible, please do tell me what the Bible tells you about this subject or what you believe I should know.

First off, you are way wrong. Even today there are folks who have never gotten the word, yet they know its wrong to murder, to rape to steal. God him self even said so here,

Romans 2:14-16New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:14-16 - New King James Version



So basically, we are all borne knowing better and thats why the second block of screed is utter bull shit. Im pissed i even wasted time on it.

The other drivel is hard to read to. Comes off as pseudointellectual bullshit, but that points to the nature of man and our tendency to be greedy. The verse from Romans pretty much nulls all of what you spent so much time on. Gay folks like any other group be that hookers, drunks, junkies, thieves, convicts have good reason to be annoyed by you Sunday morning God lovers. Hell, yall are worse then the atheist who sues a school because little Tommy made a tooth pic cross. God even hates you guys and it was even addressed by Paul many times in his missives to his new churches. Here is your averge christian described in the bible,


Matthew 15:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

and this,


Isaiah 29:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,


And yall forget this,

James 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.


this one to,


1 John 2:9New King James Version (NKJV)
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.



Titus 1:16New King James Version (NKJV)
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.


And on top of that you dont even justify the drivel with scripture, only your emotions and need to feel smart. So yeah, Gauy do have an act to grind because a good bit of their lives they had no time invested in bringing them in, but plenty of time spent on judging them by people who say gawd, gawd, gawd yet they snort coke, rape kids, steal office supplies, beat their wives, alienate their kids and so on.

 

[Mudda]

dingbat has an axe to grind with gays.

No. I have a problem with militant atheists like yourself. I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation between people like you and homosexuals.

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

No. I know him because he spends most of his time time here chasing me around.

Are you familiar with what he posts here? Trust me... he condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

dingbat is pissed because he fails over and over to prove anything he says.

 

[ding]

I couldn't help but notice that there is quite a bit of animosity directed at Christians and I was wondering if maybe it was because Christians as a whole oppose gay marriage.

So... Do gay people have an ax to grind with Christians?

Yeah,, and its Christians fault largely or "bigly" for the trumpkins.

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

You mean like the one I work with on a day to day to day basis.

Since you know so much more than I do about the Bible, please do tell me what the Bible tells you about this subject or what you believe I should know.

First off, you are way wrong. Even today there are folks who have never gotten the word, yet they know its wrong to murder, to rape to steal. God him self even said so here,

Romans 2:14-16New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:14-16 - New King James Version



So basically, we are all borne knowing better and thats why the second block of screed is utter bull shit. Im pissed i even wasted time on it.

The other drivel is hard to read to. Comes off as pseudointellectual bullshit, but that points to the nature of man and our tendency to be greedy. The verse from Romans pretty much nulls all of what you spent so much time on. Gay folks like any other group be that hookers, drunks, junkies, thieves, convicts have good reason to be annoyed by you Sunday morning God lovers. Hell, yall are worse then the atheist who sues a school because little Tommy made a tooth pic cross. God even hates you guys and it was even addressed by Paul many times in his missives to his new churches. Here is your averge christian described in the bible,


Matthew 15:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

and this,


Isaiah 29:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,


And yall forget this,

James 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.


this one to,


1 John 2:9New King James Version (NKJV)
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.



Titus 1:16New King James Version (NKJV)
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.


And on top of that you dont even justify the drivel with scripture, only your emotions and need to feel smart. So yeah, Gauy do have an act to grind because a good bit of their lives they had no time invested in bringing them in, but plenty of time spent on judging them by people who say gawd, gawd, gawd yet they snort coke, rape kids, steal office supplies, beat their wives, alienate their kids and so on.

Can you show me where and how I have judged them? I really did enjoy your reading your pasted scripture, although I don't see how that was you explaining anything.

 

[Crixus]

Yeah,, and its Christians fault largely or "bigly" for the trumpkins.

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

You mean like the one I work with on a day to day to day basis.

Since you know so much more than I do about the Bible, please do tell me what the Bible tells you about this subject or what you believe I should know.

First off, you are way wrong. Even today there are folks who have never gotten the word, yet they know its wrong to murder, to rape to steal. God him self even said so here,

Romans 2:14-16New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:14-16 - New King James Version



So basically, we are all borne knowing better and thats why the second block of screed is utter bull shit. Im pissed i even wasted time on it.

The other drivel is hard to read to. Comes off as pseudointellectual bullshit, but that points to the nature of man and our tendency to be greedy. The verse from Romans pretty much nulls all of what you spent so much time on. Gay folks like any other group be that hookers, drunks, junkies, thieves, convicts have good reason to be annoyed by you Sunday morning God lovers. Hell, yall are worse then the atheist who sues a school because little Tommy made a tooth pic cross. God even hates you guys and it was even addressed by Paul many times in his missives to his new churches. Here is your averge christian described in the bible,


Matthew 15:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

and this,


Isaiah 29:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,


And yall forget this,

James 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.


this one to,


1 John 2:9New King James Version (NKJV)
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.



Titus 1:16New King James Version (NKJV)
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.


And on top of that you dont even justify the drivel with scripture, only your emotions and need to feel smart. So yeah, Gauy do have an act to grind because a good bit of their lives they had no time invested in bringing them in, but plenty of time spent on judging them by people who say gawd, gawd, gawd yet they snort coke, rape kids, steal office supplies, beat their wives, alienate their kids and so on.

Can you show me where and how I have judged them? I really did enjoy your reading your pasted scripture, although I don't see how that was you explaining anything.

Thats becaue you a typical internet Sunday Christian.

 

[ding]

That is a dumbass thing to say. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Lol, Defiantly not an atheist. But I guarantee I have been through and know more about the bible then you do. That aside, how many gay folks you have over to dinner?

You mean like the one I work with on a day to day to day basis.

Since you know so much more than I do about the Bible, please do tell me what the Bible tells you about this subject or what you believe I should know.

First off, you are way wrong. Even today there are folks who have never gotten the word, yet they know its wrong to murder, to rape to steal. God him self even said so here,

Romans 2:14-16New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:14-16 - New King James Version



So basically, we are all borne knowing better and thats why the second block of screed is utter bull shit. Im pissed i even wasted time on it.

The other drivel is hard to read to. Comes off as pseudointellectual bullshit, but that points to the nature of man and our tendency to be greedy. The verse from Romans pretty much nulls all of what you spent so much time on. Gay folks like any other group be that hookers, drunks, junkies, thieves, convicts have good reason to be annoyed by you Sunday morning God lovers. Hell, yall are worse then the atheist who sues a school because little Tommy made a tooth pic cross. God even hates you guys and it was even addressed by Paul many times in his missives to his new churches. Here is your averge christian described in the bible,


Matthew 15:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

and this,


Isaiah 29:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,


And yall forget this,

James 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.


this one to,


1 John 2:9New King James Version (NKJV)
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.



Titus 1:16New King James Version (NKJV)
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.


And on top of that you dont even justify the drivel with scripture, only your emotions and need to feel smart. So yeah, Gauy do have an act to grind because a good bit of their lives they had no time invested in bringing them in, but plenty of time spent on judging them by people who say gawd, gawd, gawd yet they snort coke, rape kids, steal office supplies, beat their wives, alienate their kids and so on.

Can you show me where and how I have judged them? I really did enjoy your reading your pasted scripture, although I don't see how that was you explaining anything.

Thats becaue you a typical internet Sunday Christian.

I see. Does that mean you can't you show me where and how I have judged them?

 

[bodecea]

I see that you are into labeling. Did the poster Mudda tell you his was a "militant atheist"? Or are you making assumptions?

I know him well. Do you?

You are a friend of Mudda's? In RL?

No. I know him because he spends most of his time time here chasing me around.

Are you familiar with what he posts here? Trust me... he condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

Has he told you he is a militant atheist?

Are you familiar with what he posts here?

No...I don't stalk people....has he told you he is a militant atheist?