The Gospel of Unbelief

[rtwngAvngr]

I suppose there are a number of rational principles involved--starting with "human beings exist." You'll note, that the assertion stands without being contingent upon "why" human beings exist, just that they do. The rational principles of morality build upon similarly objective self-evident assertions

How do socialist democrats, the enlighetened scientific ones, get to the conclusion then that it's ok to steal from a minority if a majority approves of it?

 

[LOki]

How do socialist democrats, the enlighetened scientific ones, get to the conclusion then that it's ok to steal from a minority if a majority approves of it?

Via the denial of the self evident fact that no group has rights that the individuals in that group don't have. It's not rational, nor is it moral.

I'm a bit taken aback that you might consider the flawed logic of socialists to be "moral."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Via the denial of the self evident fact that no group has rights that the individuals in that group don't have. It's not rational, nor is it moral.

YEs. OR every life is sacred.

But when confronted with this pesky value placed on an individual human life, the left seeks to attack any thought system which holds this individualist value, including any religion which holds this value.

 

[LOki]

YEs. OR every life is sacred.

But when confronted with this pesky value placed on an individual human life, the left seeks to attack any thought system which holds this individualist value, including any religion which holds this value.

That may be true, but I'm certainly not aware that such lack of consideration is confined to leftists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That may be true, but I'm certainly not aware that such lack of consideration is confined to leftists.

My point is: be careful to consider the goal of the movement you've put your considerable intellect behind. Do you want the people zealously tearing down old belief systems to be in charge of making the new one?

 

[LOki]

My point is: be careful to consider the goal of the movement you've put your considerable intellect behind.

What movement might that be, Mr. UnfoundedPresumption?

Do you want the people zealously tearing down old belief systems to be in charge of making the new one?

In the way some folks in the past zealosly tore down the old belief system of "Divine Right of Monarchy" in favor of the new belief system of "Individual Liberty?"

If so, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[dilloduck]

What movement might that be, Mr. UnfoundedPresumption?In the way some folks in the past zealosly tore down the old belief system of "Divine Right of Monarchy" in favor of the new belief system of "Individual Liberty?"

If so, I'll keep that in mind.

So what do the zealots intend to replace our present system with this time?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What movement might that be, Mr. UnfoundedPresumption?In the way some folks in the past zealosly tore down the old belief system of "Divine Right of Monarchy" in favor of the new belief system of "Individual Liberty?"

If so, I'll keep that in mind.

That movement is the anti-religion movement.

I think the church in the past needed reform, it was too into it's role as an earthly power structure, and still is. But now the enemies of religions are trying to eliminate even the very value of human life, so we will accept their dastardly genocides, and totalitarianisms.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So what do the zealots intend to replace our present system with this time?

Totalitarianism. But it will be presented as something good, some New Age socialism, where "everythings's fair".

 

[LOki]

That movement is the anti-religion movement.

You just refuse to understand "unfounded presumption," don't you?

I think the church in the past needed reform, it was too into it's role as an earthly power structure, and still is. But now the enemies of religions are trying to eliminate even the very value of human life, so we will accept their dastardly genocides, and totalitarianisms.

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life? Isn't the point of most religions to die and be "somewhere" else? And just what example of religion married to government that is not totalitarian do you envision?

It occurs to me that every instance of past and present examples were/are poster children for totalitarianism.

 

[dilloduck]

Totalitarianism. But it will be presented as something good, some New Age socialism, where "everythings's fair".

the new Compassionate Totalitarianism ? :teeth:

 

[dilloduck]

You just refuse to understand "unfounded presumption," don't you?

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life? Isn't the point of most religions to die and be "somewhere" else? And just what example of religion married to government that is not totalitarian do you envision?

It occurs to me that every instance of past and present examples were/are poster children for totalitarianism.

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life?

Thou Shalt not kill ----for starters.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You just refuse to understand "unfounded presumption," don't you?

You asked me what movement I was talking about. I was talking about the anti-religion movement.

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life? Isn't the point of most religions to die and be "somewhere" else? And just what example of religion married to government that is not totalitarian do you envision?

We do not have a theocracy here. Nobody wants to MARRY church and state. That's just rhetoric.

You and you're demonic friends aren't trying to separate church and state, you're trying to separate humanity from morality.

It occurs to me that every instance of past and present examples were/are poster children for totalitarianism.

To more and less degrees. The most extreme brutality has occurred under "scientific" systems, like communism.

 

[LOki]

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life?

Thou Shalt not kill ----for starters.

"Thou Shalt not kill"--who? The people of Jericho, Sihon, or Midian? "Thou Shalt not kill" the Edomites? No? How about "Thou Shalt not kill" prophets of Baal. No killing them? Certainly, "Thou Shalt not kill" the king of Ai and his people. Correct?

 

[Hobbit]

You just refuse to understand "unfounded presumption," don't you?

What causes you to assume that religion--any religion--values human life? Isn't the point of most religions to die and be "somewhere" else? And just what example of religion married to government that is not totalitarian do you envision?

It occurs to me that every instance of past and present examples were/are poster children for totalitarianism.

See, this is where you don't get it. Very few people in this country want church and state to be married. That's too much. However, the seperation extremists not only don't want church and state to be married, they have forbidden what they see as their child, state, from ever talking to that no good church. Honestly, chruch just wants to be friends and be allowed to talk to state from time to time, but somehow, so many people think that if church and state ever even talk to each other, it will magically lead to marriage.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Thou Shalt not kill"--who? The people of Jericho, Sihon, or Midian? "Thou Shalt not kill" the Edomites? No? How about "Thou Shalt not kill" prophets of Baal. No killing them? Certainly, "Thou Shalt not kill" the king of Ai and his people. Correct?

Yet still, thou shalt not kill is on of the ten commandments. So if you're asking about religions that value life, judeo chrsitianity is one of them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See, this is where you don't get it. Very few people in this country want church and state to be married. That's too much. However, the seperation extremists not only don't want church and state to be married, they have forbidden what they see as their child, state, from ever talking to that no good church. Honestly, chruch just wants to be friends and be allowed to talk to state from time to time, but somehow, so many people think that if church and state ever even talk to each other, it will magically lead to marriage.

Excellent analogy!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

God loves us.

 

[LOki]

You asked me what movement I was talking about. I was talking about the anti-religion movement.

I asked you what movement you presume without foundation that I am supporting.

You said, "the anti-religion movement."

I'll bet you still don't get "unfounded presumption."

We do not have a theocracy here.

You're right. I'd like it to stay that way.

Very few people in this country want church and state to be married. That's too much. However, the seperation extremists not only don't want church and state to be married, they have forbidden what they see as their child, state, from ever talking to that no good church. Honestly, chruch just wants to be friends and be allowed to talk to state from time to time, but somehow, so many people think that if church and state ever even talk to each other, it will magically lead to marriage.

I appreciate the idealistic sentiment of this--I really do. I just think there's a more accurate way to interpret the metaphor.

Nobody wants to MARRY church and state.

Ok, but the evidence suggests that you don't mind the the church and state dating a little--the church promises to pull out before it comes.

That's just rhetoric.

Maybe.

You and you're demonic friends aren't trying to separate church and state, you're trying to separate humanity from morality.

I hope this just means you understand what "irony" is--you certainly still don't get what "unfounded premise" is.

To more and less degrees. The most extreme brutality has occurred under "scientific" systems, like communism.

Ok. What communist regime was objectively more brutal than the Spanish Inquisition or John Calvin?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I asked you what movement you presume without foundation that I am supporting.

You said, "the anti-religion movement."

I'll bet you still don't get "unfounded presumption."

You're right. I'd like it to stay that way.I appreciate the idealistic sentiment of this--I really do. I just think there's a more accurate way to interpret the metaphor. Ok, but the evidence suggests that you don't mind the the church and state dating a little--the church promises to pull out before it comes. Maybe.I hope this just means you understand what "irony" is--you certainly still don't get what "unfounded premise" is.Ok. What communist regime was objectively more brutal than the Spanish Inquisition or John Calvin?

You're generally anti religion. If you don't want the label, don't spout the propaganda.

So you want to make the argument that christianity values an individual life less than communism does? DO ya, do ya? Huh ? Make my day.