AlAyeti wrote:You have Hollywood correct sort of. You know that the industry is dominated by leftists. Sexual licentiousness is part and parcel. Par for the course. You can't possibly disagree with that point.
You were not bothered in High School "as a Liberal Christian," for a reason. You have to be outside of the culture to be different from it. try to persuade one of the ubiquitous tattooed and pierced individualists to live a pure life of Godliness and see how many parties you get invited too.
No, I know that the industry is dominated by one thing, like all other industries. That's money, my friend - the root of all evil.
And as for you choosing to live outside the society, that doesn't sound like ostracism to me. That sounds like
your choice, nothing to do with liberalism. Also, that attitude is entirely a selfish and, IMHO, an un-Christian one.
You choose to live outside the society,
you don't get to complain about it. Actually, I've heard my Dad say some things similar to this to other pacifists - in order to effect real change, you have to participate, not wilfully isolate yourself from the society.
It is the weak faith that must shrink from society and the strong faith that operates within it and cooperates and struggles with it.
AlAyeti wrote:It's not shock tactics to speak the truth. You cannot prove the disgusting nature of deviant sexuality or abortion by letting the Leftist media lie.
Well make up your mind, one way or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is what I think. Truth must be treated with caution where common decency is concerned. I wouldn't want my children to learn the 'facts of life' - so to speak - when they're six years old.
AlAyeti wrote:You just need to call a california school and ask.
And you just need support your claims with real evidence. Be warned - you're going to be reported if I see any more of this flippancy.
AlAyeti wrote:Loose clothing and chains? C'mon. Ignorant or dishonest? This is the "bithches and ho's" art form. And you know it.
Come on. Arrogant or bigoted? This is prejudgment based on the
clothes someone wears - and one step down from shooting someone for the way they look. And you know it.
AlAyeti wrote:I don't see the justification for Christians to own guns to shoot people with, but I do think that morally honest people should not be held to the same standard as bithches and ho's and people that think a lifestyle of violence should be a clothing line or art form.
No - precisely wrong. They should be held to the exact same standard - and if one or the other is weighed, measured and found wanting then so be it. If the morally honest are found to be capable gun owners, then they should be allowed to have guns. But that
doesn't mean that the standards should be relaxed, or that there shouldn't be standards.
AlAyeti wrote:Hear with your eyes, since you cannot see with them. Abortion on demand is murder. Legalized abortion should only be for dire circumstances and be between a doctor and patient. But we both know it is used for birth control by Democrats. And we both know that God's judgment is coming for America.
I'll leave God's judgment to Him. As for abortion, its abuse is wrong (and I've no doubt that many of my fellow Democrats will agree with me on this), but it can't be laid at the feet of a political party that's trying every bit as much as the other to limit that abuse. You know as well as I that here you've only got hold of the shoe and you're trying to ensure the foot be made to fit (even though it doesn't).
AlAyeti wrote:Bogus. Show the truth. That's all you have to do for the majority of these issues to be decided.
I don't know what's more appalling, your naivete or your blindness to that self-same truth. You scare people, it won't make them good; you lead by example, it will make them good. Sound social philosophy from a great social philosopher.
AlAyeti wrote:You just contracdicted yourself within your first 26-words. "Fiscal conservative and higher taxation? Uhh yeah. Higher taxes ushered in our revolutionary war and it will again. And see what happens when all of those migrants find out about Mr. and Mr. Smith being taught to their children in school.
You heard me right. A fiscal conservative is, by definition, a person who looks at the bottom line and wants to see black, not red. One way you get back in the black, as it were, is
increasing your revenue (a fancy way of saying 'raise taxes'), and the other way is to
decrease your expenditures (a fancy way of saying 'lower spending'). I'm being perfectly consistent - you're the one equivocating over the term 'fiscal conservative'.
Bush is not a fiscal conservative. He can't even pretend to be, not when he's running up a $200 billion deficit on a war we never really needed.
And, as I've no doubt mentioned in my other posts, I'm a hardline Tory when it comes to the War of American Independence. Britain was right to increase taxes in the colonies - the colonies were causing the mother country to take a nosedive into red ink thanks to the Seven Years' War, and they should have helped her out of it willingly. Instead, the colonists refused to take responsibility and balance their own books, choosing instead to wrap it in such euphemistic language as 'individual liberty' and 'property rights'. The results of this recalcitrance? The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act. Nothing they couldn't have seen coming.
AlAyeti wrote:Staring at $25.00 an hour maybe. Unless by affordable housing you mean the projects. Sorry man, but I've been around this country.
My dad's a salaried worker and he doesn't make that much. Yet here I am writing this post from a liberal city, from a good neighbourhood, from the second floor of a house that's been here since the 1880's. Come on; do the math.
AlAyeti wrote:That the World Workers Party is involved with most anti-War protests means what to you? To me it means that those dope smoking hippies are still in action, but got even worse morally.
That Halliburton is still taking out works contracts in Iraq means what to you? To me it means that big business interests are still in action there, and that Americans are morally right in opposing it, especially given the fact that they'd been led about by the nose by this administration.
AlAyeti wrote:Sorry that is how I feel.
Feelings, if they can't be backed by logic or evidence, have no place in civil discussion and no place on this board especially when they are expressed in inflammatory ways.
AlAyeti wrote:Why are Unions hip deep involved in anti-war protests.
Good question. Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing an answer?
AlAyeti wrote:There is no greater love than what? Certainly not in cowardly protests while people are being slaughtered while the protesters go home to paint more clever signs. Those peaceful churches you attended sat by and let people die. That's a cold hard fact.
Don't give me this Romanticist horse manure. I already provided evidence of the MCC's involvement and service programmes in dangerous parts of the world, in light of which what you just said was nothing more than cold hard rubbish.
AlAyeti wrote:That is not an accurate statement. Leftist-Liberals (Democrats) excused Muslim terrorists because they are poor and suffering because of big oil interestes in Muslim countries. That is a Leftist mantra and you know it. And it is anti-American at best.
Excuse me? Usama bin Laden, Mr. Saudi Multi-Millionaire, 'poor and suffering'? I almost laughed out loud at that, as would most liberals of my acquaintance. While it is true that most Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries are (in general) impoverished and desperate, al-Qaeda as an organisation most certainly is not. And I know of no liberal currently trying to excuse them.
But wait - wasn't it Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson trying to blame the 9/11 attacks on the ACLU and the United Way? Hmmm... makes you wonder.
AlAyeti wrote:I can't explain why a group of Chrsitians follow the Millerite mistake or anything else they believe in and why. But I am a strong animal rights person and I'm a "fundamentalist Christian."
Okay, so don't go blanketting the wackos of PETA or ALF as being liberal, or as being representative of liberalism. Animal-rights-ism and environmentalism are two separate beasts (no pun intended) - I happen to be the latter.
AlAyeti wrote:That is another statement that is not believable. You know very well what these anti-war apathists think of soldiers.
Yes, I do. Pacifists think of them as being misguided, misled and exploited by the powers that be - not evil. It's not the soldier we object to, but the strategist. Especially the neoconservative Pentagon strategist who advises
going into Iraq without a proper contingency plan.
AlAyeti wrote:In the long run? Socialism breeds sexual slavery of the young. And, hedonistic licentiousness. Not too Christianny, but certainly emprical.
I'm beginning to enjoy the entertainment value of these posts. Niebuhr, a licentious hedonist? Rauschenbusch, an underage sexual slaver? Or Thomas, or Debs? Socialism had a strong following among the Victorian Social Gospellers who were
famous for their anti-hedonism. Your 'empiricism' is lacking in empirical proof once more, I see.
I recommend reading therapeutic doses of Rev. Dorrien's work as soon as possible, in your case.
AlAyeti wrote:According to the homosexual agenda or the garden varioety liberal-relativistic thoughts that have corrupted the Gospels they preach? I'll agree that there are many heretical movements and even some fundamentalists have been wrong, but Liberalism has almost left Biblical-historical Christianity.
Liberals are far and away more political in their use of the pulpit than any conservatives. Homosexuals are validated within the walls of many so-called churches in this country and others, and that alone has caused Chrsitianity to suffer far worse than some fundamentalists kissing snakes.
And what would
you know of historical Christianity? Ever heard of Origen? What about St. Jerome? St. Francis? Menno Simon? John Wesley? George Fox? William Channing? Horace Bushnell? Washington Gladden? Frederick Morris? Hans Kueng? All 'liberal-relativists' of their time (and ours), and all in full keeping with their understanding of the Gospel. All of them were courageous enough and faithful enough to use the pulpit and the pen for what they believed the Gospel represented. And to them that Gospel represented a vision of grace and of an inclusive, all-embracing, sacrificial love.
As a Christian (and an Anglo-Catholic at that), I see homosexuality as an issue so venial it is a heresy even to put it on the map next to the mortal denial of grace - the denial of the Gospel! - that I see coming from the right wing of American Christendom. The New England Episcopalians and Congregationalists may allow homosexuals to receive the Eucharist, but I see this as nothing if they preach
penitance,
forgiveness and the
assurance of an unconditional grace in Christ.
). On the surface of it, if god is interested in human behaviour and morals, then god is interested in our politics. I know that christians are quite divided on this kind of issue. Jehovahs Witnesses and Old Order Mennonite and Amish who refuse to various degrees to be involved in anything political and Catholics and Evangelicals who are quite involved in the political process. So, I think that it would be fair to ask you to provide some evidence that god is opposed to political involvement by christianity.
