The Gay Denomination?

[99percentatheism]

The Gay Denomination.

For those people that desire same gender sexual behavior or thoughts, AND that claim to be a Christian and claim that their beliefs and theology can fit the New Testament witness, instead of waging an endless, fruitless and vicious war on other Christians - that will NEVER accept their gay doctrines and dogmas . . ., - why won't they just declare a new and alternative denomination, just like Watch Tower theological adherants and Mormons?

Why the need to join forces with anti-Christian and secularist movements to attack "Bible believing" Christians?

Afterall, in referencing the New Testament, there is no justifiable comparison of sex acts to being a slave (slavery), or the charge of bigotry and hatefulness in holding that marriage is a man and a woman.

Why not just start an "Out and Proud" Gay Denomination?

[marketandchurch]

...

The reason for the decline in Christianity in Europe is because of an increase in education. The same trend can be seen in the U. S., tho' it is not as dramatic, it has the same cause. Conservative, fundamentalist religion, whether Christian or Islamic, is undermined by education. The same force, education, is the engine that has resulted in a majority of Americans accepting gay marriage. This is a huge shift in American politics and was recently discussed in a TIME cover story.

That is the leftist assumption. This is also why Liberals do not think that we conservatives actually believe in our ideals, since their version of objectivity states that all that has gone wrong throughout history owes its roots to conservatism, & so they couldn't possibly imagine someone taking those "conservative" ideas seriously.

So they categorize us Conservatives into one of several possibilities:

• 1.) He/She doesn't know any better, is mentally inept, stupid.
  2.) He/She could know better, but is misinformed.
  3.) He/She knows better, but has bad motivations.

Conservatives are routinely thrown into the 3rd category. Our variety of folk is to Leftism, what satan worshipers is to Christianity. We know the light, but choose to be on a corporations payroll. We could simply offer up 90% of our income to feed and cloth the have-not's, but our greed has blinded us from love.

It is why we on the Right are Demons, whereas a muslim or Hindu who also opposes Gay Marriage are not necessarily looked down upon. The Left put them in the second category, as being misinformed, and are therefore excused by their "innocence." If they are extremists who go about lynching homosexuals, they may be of the first or second variety, but are still granted innocence if they are non-white, because minorities cannot be corrupt, because they don't have "power." The Left makes excuses for the "powerless," and they think their primitive ways can all be solved by smart, intellectual, evolved, and nuanced Leftist Education.

Education is therefore, there raison d'etat, and the key, in their view, to destroying ignorance, and bringing people over to leftism. Especially the type of "ignorance" that Leftists often cite Fox News as perpetuating, in what it sees as a war to "misinform" the populace, by creating ideological right-wing drones who don't know any better then the ideological drivel they've been brainwashed into regurgitating.

That's why you attach "Smart" to things like growth, and car, and democracy. To denote that you are more morally evolved and intellectually seasoned, then your conservative counterparts, because they have been "educated" in a more enlightening views then their suburban living SUV driving fascist Americans on the Right. Education is overvalued, and utterly worthless in 90% of US colleges. They don't teach you how to think, but what to think about. They are leftists seminary, meant to instruct incoming students, in how to be Leftists.

• It is not a matter of Education, but a matter of Values, that divides the Left and the Right. And that divide is unbridgeable, not because of education, but because these values we hold are antithetical to each other. You worship Diversity(Multiculturalism), and we worship E Pluribus Unum... utter opposites.

Your brush is too broad, and I laugh at you for the part in bold (worthless?).

Care to flesh out your dismissal? Of this being too broad, too sweeping? Dismiss and Describe. That is the Leftist calling card. They cannot compete intellectually in philosophical argumentation, so they don't answer, because they can't. Or maybe they can, but they are just holding out.

[marketandchurch]

Your entire argument is not accurate due to the fact that there are good atheists and followers of other religions on this planet.

I know you don't like it, but you don't have to be a Christian in order to be a good person.

Their existence is irrelevant if they are not a force for moral good. Goodness without courage is meaningless. Goodness, that you keep to yourself, is also meaningless, for goodness is only of importance, vis-a-vis your behavior towards others.

Come within a stones throw of outdoing Christianity's contributions to the academics, the performing arts, the sciences, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, giving to charity, being charitable, curing the sick, educating the uneducated, and providing others with economic upward mobility, dying on behalf of other fellow Christians, dying on behalf of muslims, dying on behalf of Jews, dying on behalf of atheists, dying on behalf of others in general, and then your institution too can be seen in the same moral light.

Christianity is the only collective force for moral good on planet earth. Atheists dismiss religion under an amateur presumption that the human being is good enough to police itself, and don't have any intention on creating a substitute for religion that can produce the same moral populace. Unless you consider Europeans, who are utterly secular, as moral. Then fine, we have different definition of what a moral people is, and isn't.

I never argued that you have to be a Christian. I am a Reform Jew. My argument is that you have to have the ethics and moral demands that is expressed in the Torah, that we Jews and Christians share. Islam has reinterpreted it into something unrecognizable, so they don't count. There are many great atheists, many great wicans, many great buddhists, many great mormons, many great hindu's, that are equal in the eyes of God, as the most pious Jew, because of their behavior, and the ethics reflected in it, mirror those advocated in the Torah.

[marketandchurch]

The Republican Brain
No because I've read his thoughts before, and I've read the Linguist George Lakoff's perspective on the Republican brain, and Lewis Lapham's opinions on the Republican Brain. If you've read Lakoff's work, and Lapham's work, then you've read it all. It is the same junk science that was used to declare Barry Goldwater as mentally unfit to run for office, and to paint Reagan, Bush, and Romney, as idiots, and they are all done by Leftwing academics. When the same social scientist can draw the same conclusions about Obama, Hillary, Kerry, and Carter, only then will I believe that there's some credibility to Mooney's work.

Are You Afraid of Ideas?

I think you are operating under a misapprehension regarding Mooney's book. Lapham does not even appear in the index of the book. Lakoff is criticized in part. Of more interest is the underlying data in several studies. What the book is NOT about is any assertion that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. What the book is about is a correlation between the way people with different political outlooks process information.

A brief example:

The study, which examined the brain activity of 35 men and 47 women registered as either Democrat or Republican, found no difference in the amount of risk people of each political persuasion were willing to take on during a gambling game. But the way the brain processed risk worked differently between the groups, with Republicans showing more activity in an area linked with reward, fear and risky decisions and Democrats showing more activity in a spot related to processing emotion and internal body cues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 17731.html

This is obviously not pejorative to either group. It simply demonstrates a difference in the way information is processed. And that is the point of the book. There are several studies that show liberals in general are more prone to factual analysis almost to the point of inaction; whereas conservatives are more decisive and quicker to respond. In other words, liberals may be better at getting the facts right and making the better decision eventually, but you might be better off with a conservative in a tight spot that requires a quick decision. Another example is the studies Mooney relied on found that Republicans put a higher value on loyalty than did Democrats. I hate to try and quickly summarize, so suggest you read it yourself. But it is NOT a book designed to trash Republicans.

Again, I'm happy to address some 'new idea' of yours. I simply ask that you state it clearly and give the facts that support it.

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

What this Moony fails to realize is that those brain scans appear differently for various topics, not because of a built-in neurosis, and a physical difference in our psychology, but because both sides have informed and instructed their emotions to feel differently about different topics, based on their values.

Our emotions differ because the values upon which they are based, differ. Moony is utterly unwise and wholly ignorant in this regard, and this use of science to reframe the way we think about the psychology behind the Left Right divide totally distorts the reality of things, in an agenda to discredit those who he differs with.


Ideas
The Moral Equivalent you are using by bringing up the Republican Brain doesn't resolve the leftist impulse to "Dismiss, Describe, and Never Answer" those they differ with. You have spent every post doing just that, and Clownboat in his recent comments, seems to also want to jump on board, and not let you have all the fun, of dismissing, describing, but never answering. What kind of facts do you want? Studies? Are you afraid of your own shadow? I'm just trying to spread a little self-awareness here of you living out my charge, that you won't deal with, of Leftists, like yourself, Dismissing, Describing, and Never Answering those they differ with. I don't mean to belabor the point, but you have never provided a substantive explanation, of why it is you have done just that, in every reply to me.

[marketandchurch]

I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.

Have you ever seperated the wheat from the chaff? Very large amount of chaff and a tiny palmful of wheat. If you look at the history of Christianity, there have been a large amount of people "identifying" as Christian but living like barbarians or pagans.

Now it's just that living like a barbarian/pagan is championed as secularism and civil right and is pop culture. Those large catherdrals crumpling into dust? Is that a representation of The Church, or the deparavity inherent in man just being realized with social media power?

I am not a fundie Christian per se, but the fundmentals of the faith are pointing us in one direction. You can't get to the end of the story without reading all the chapters.

And Job's point of view is: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

Buildings decay, the soul cannot. Like Jesus said.

If the Church was going to die, it would have been dead a long, long, long time ago. With so much accessability to interact with people now, it will be solidified rather than dissolved.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

The great competitor in the early days was first the barbarian invasions of mainland Europe, and then the Muslim invasions. Both threats nearly destroyed the religion, and had suleiman the magnificent not been stifled by both personal issues and rain that ended his attempt to conquer the whole of Europe, Christianity would not be here today.

The threat that the church is now facing, is of an entirely different nature. It comes from both beyond, but more importantly, primarily from within. The church isn't dying due to non-religiosity. Its death comes from losing converts to another religion: Leftism. To which the Church's naive response has been to become more Leftist, to chase down it's former flock, and in doing so, trading in their Christian theology, for Leftist theology. We have changed society from a Christian framework, to a secular leftist framework, and now church participants who have been raised in that Leftist perspective, are trying to change the nature of Christianity entirely, from within. Look at the leadership of the presbyterian, of the anglicans, of the epescopilian, of the methodist, and so on... they are all Leftwing mouthpieces. taking positions on Palestinian Sovereignty, demanding a flexibility on abortion, marrying homosexuals, demanding the Government do more for the poor, and so on.

I do support a new movement within the church, to keep true to its tenants, while reaching out to a more urban crowd, by embracing urbanism, and the urban environment. But this alone won't be enough, if they don't get at the heart of the crux of the matter, which is the current battle to change the orientation, identity, and principles, of traditional Christianity, by so-called Christians of the Left.

[Danmark]

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

You're ranting on about a book you admit you haven't read. It probably wouldn't make a difference if you HAD read it, since you apparently can't even accurately comprehend what I wrote. No one claimed an evolutionary or genetic or biologic difference between the brains of people with various party affiliations. To use the computer/blain analogy, you are confusing hardware with software.

You go on to continue your whine about people being afraid of their shadows or new ideas, but you ignore my suggestion that you tell us the new idea you think we are afraid to listen to. All I ask is that you state your new and supposedly 'terrifying' idea clearly and back it up with facts.

I'm not going to bother with fuzzy generalizations lifted from a Glenn Beck like blog with no semblance of factual basis anymore than I am going to bother refuting some young Earther and his paranoid conspiracy theory like rhetoric.

[marketandchurch]

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

You're ranting on about a book you admit you haven't read. It probably wouldn't make a difference if you HAD read it, since you apparently can't even accurately comprehend what I wrote. No one claimed an evolutionary or genetic or biologic difference between the brains of people with various party affiliations. To use the computer/blain analogy, you are confusing hardware with software.

You go on to continue your whine about people being afraid of their shadows or new ideas, but you ignore my suggestion that you tell us the new idea you think we are afraid to listen to. All I ask is that you state your new and supposedly 'terrifying' idea clearly and back it up with facts.

I'm not going to bother with fuzzy generalizations lifted from a Glenn Beck like blog with no semblance of factual basis anymore than I am going to bother refuting some young Earther and his paranoid conspiracy theory like rhetoric.

I am dismissed and described. That is fine. I don't mind that, I don't take anything personally here, and it is my uttermost joy to dialogue with those I differ with. I'm just pointing out the lack of self-awareness, that it takes, to dismiss and describe a post that cites a leftist tendency, to dismiss and describe.

• Facts are not the issue here. Leftism is an ideology, that is debated within philosophical argumentation. How do you fact-check the ideological components of Leftism? They are largely value-based judgements, which is why I bring up "values" as opposed to education-vs-ignorance, or the republican-brain-vs-democrat-brain. The Divide is not intelligent vs. non-intelligent, or educated-vs-noneducated. The honest truth is that we have fundamental divisions in our outlook because we value different things. I don't know why that is so hard to comprehend. What I'm stating here is not Republican-Paranoia-Driven-Rhetoric. It is a fundamental fact. You cannot bridge the Left-Right divide with education. You can only unite the two when drops its set of values, and adopts the others values and beliefs. How do you fact-check that? It's either true, based on logic, or it isn't.(Feel free to continue dismissing, and describing, instead of answering the challenge.)
  

I'll get Moony's book for my kindle. I hope you are right and that there is some insights in here that vary from Lakoff and Chomsky, I had a book from David Chalmers I was saving for, who I highly recommend for everyone to read. But my skepticism about moony comes largely from scientific 2.0, and they are not a Glenn-beck like blog, unless anyone you differ with is Glenn-beck-like:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/tru ... _why-88361
http://www.science20.com/science_20/bio ... ives-85904
http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_con ... book-89696

[99percentatheism]

marketandchurch

99percentatheism

I have to hit the road, but I'll be near a computer later on today.

Have you ever seperated the wheat from the chaff? Very large amount of chaff and a tiny palmful of wheat. If you look at the history of Christianity, there have been a large amount of people "identifying" as Christian but living like barbarians or pagans.

Now it's just that living like a barbarian/pagan is championed as secularism and civil right and is pop culture. Those large catherdrals crumpling into dust? Is that a representation of The Church, or the deparavity inherent in man just being realized with social media power?

I am not a fundie Christian per se, but the fundmentals of the faith are pointing us in one direction. You can't get to the end of the story without reading all the chapters.

And Job's point of view is: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

Buildings decay, the soul cannot. Like Jesus said.

If the Church was going to die, it would have been dead a long, long, long time ago. With so much accessability to interact with people now, it will be solidified rather than dissolved.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

The great competitor in the early days was first the barbarian invasions of mainland Europe, and then the Muslim invasions. Both threats nearly destroyed the religion, and had suleiman the magnificent not been stifled by both personal issues and rain that ended his attempt to conquer the whole of Europe, Christianity would not be here today.

Are you not forgetting the very Roman's themselves? Christians had to contend with being criminals and worse to even develope in the "Roman Empire." And the harrassment and persecutions were bad, but the licentiousness that Romanism offered was also something that should have made Christian life unappealing.

Although without doubt Islam is the single greatest threat to Christians on earth still and since its inception. But Muslims don't really tolerate any other life and worldview that isn't Muslim either. It's an incredibly pervasive political, social and religious powerhouse. But then again, it really appears that most people want to be controlled and lead. Liberalism actually ends up being that.

The threat that the church is now facing, is of an entirely different nature. It comes from both beyond, but more importantly, primarily from within. The church isn't dying due to non-religiosity. Its death comes from losing converts to another religion: Leftism. To which the Church's naive response has been to become more Leftist, to chase down it's former flock, and in doing so, trading in their Christian theology, for Leftist theology.

But aren't the "Mega-Churches" decidely conservative and orthodox? And many Christians that actually do not lose their religion in those Leftist-Liberal denoms actually "come home" if they don't deconvert.

Aren't you forgetting Satan in all of this? Even Judaism's Job-style Satan seems quite the harrasser of Christians.

We have changed society from a Christian framework, to a secular leftist framework, and now church participants who have been raised in that Leftist perspective, are trying to change the nature of Christianity entirely, from within.

Sellouts will always be the case. Jude writes about this in phenominal accuracy. If the libs were dwelling in the Church at its inception, they will be ever-present don't you think?

Remember, sinning feels good.

Look at the leadership of the presbyterian, of the anglicans, of the epescopilian, of the methodist, and so on... they are all Leftwing mouthpieces. taking positions on Palestinian Sovereignty, demanding a flexibility on abortion, marrying homosexuals, demanding the Government do more for the poor, and so on.

I write about these kinds of people in just about every thread I enter. Without doubt, they are no different than the atheists here and in the real world. If you have studied the history og the Humanist/humanism movement, it was The Church and Christians that was/were their target from the start. Note that they basically just plagarize all the value of a Christian life but deny God.

It ain't working. The western world is a cesspool of immorality and vice. If the French revolution didn't kill off The Church, this current crop of Psychology worshipping godless hordes of academic materialists won't kill it off either. There is a rise of apologists and laity to confront this menace.

I do support a new movement within the church, to keep true to its tenants, while reaching out to a more urban crowd, by embracing urbanism, and the urban environment.

Going BACK to its roots huh? The "Black Church" is quite orthodox in the urban jungle. Of course, there will always be the father Pflegers and reverend Sharpton's to try to fleece the flock too though. But the most dangerous person to the Church might be Welton Gaddy and his universalism movement of connecting all sorts of religions and atheist organizations in to one new order.

But this alone won't be enough, if they don't get at the heart of the crux of the matter, which is the current battle to change the orientation, identity, and principles, of traditional Christianity, by so-called Christians of the Left.

We are actively involved in "Contending for the faith delivered only once to the saints."

I can assure you of that. This thread has gotten the attention of many people not of this website. I met with people from California to the Midwest over the very issues and perspective you highlight.

When I have time.

Your perspective is very refreshing to see.

[99percentatheism]

Mooney
First of all, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that there are scientific differences between the evolution of the republican brain, from the democrat brain. How can you say that it is not a pejorative when the implications of the book is that Republicans have a biologically impediment that explains their supposed scientific ineptness?

You're ranting on about a book you admit you haven't read. It probably wouldn't make a difference if you HAD read it, since you apparently can't even accurately comprehend what I wrote. No one claimed an evolutionary or genetic or biologic difference between the brains of people with various party affiliations. To use the computer/blain analogy, you are confusing hardware with software.

You go on to continue your whine about people being afraid of their shadows or new ideas, but you ignore my suggestion that you tell us the new idea you think we are afraid to listen to. All I ask is that you state your new and supposedly 'terrifying' idea clearly and back it up with facts.

I'm not going to bother with fuzzy generalizations lifted from a Glenn Beck like blog with no semblance of factual basis anymore than I am going to bother refuting some young Earther and his paranoid conspiracy theory like rhetoric.

I am dismissed and described. That is fine. I don't mind that, I don't take anything personally here, and it is my uttermost joy to dialogue with those I differ with. I'm just pointing out the lack of self-awareness, that it takes, to dismiss and describe a post that cites a leftist tendency, to dismiss and describe.

• Facts are not the issue here. Leftism is an ideology, that is debated within philosophical argumentation. How do you fact-check the ideological components of Leftism? They are largely value-based judgements, which is why I bring up "values" as opposed to education-vs-ignorance, or the republican-brain-vs-democrat-brain. The Divide is not intelligent vs. non-intelligent, or educated-vs-noneducated. The honest truth is that we have fundamental divisions in our outlook because we value different things. I don't know why that is so hard to comprehend. What I'm stating here is not Republican-Paranoia-Driven-Rhetoric. It is a fundamental fact. You cannot bridge the Left-Right divide with education. You can only unite the two when drops its set of values, and adopts the others values and beliefs. How do you fact-check that? It's either true, based on logic, or it isn't.(Feel free to continue dismissing, and describing, instead of answering the challenge.)
  

I'll get Moony's book for my kindle. I hope you are right and that there is some insights in here that vary from Lakoff and Chomsky, I had a book from David Chalmers I was saving for, who I highly recommend for everyone to read. But my skepticism about moony comes largely from scientific 2.0, and they are not a Glenn-beck like blog, unless anyone you differ with is Glenn-beck-like:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/tru ... _why-88361
http://www.science20.com/science_20/bio ... ives-85904
http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_con ... book-89696

What if a person is not a Republican or a Democrat?

Why not compare brains when their body eats junk food versus broccoli and califlower?

Liberalism is sugery sweet, while conservativism is like healthier choices for the body.

Sinning feels good. Denial of pleasure is frustrating. Sometimes physically painful even. Ask a drug addict (or any kind of addict denied their goal) or a guy that is sexually frustrated. (If you know what I mean.)

The democrats offer the wide road. (Again, if you know what I mean.)

[Clownboat]

...

The reason for the decline in Christianity in Europe is because of an increase in education. The same trend can be seen in the U. S., tho' it is not as dramatic, it has the same cause. Conservative, fundamentalist religion, whether Christian or Islamic, is undermined by education. The same force, education, is the engine that has resulted in a majority of Americans accepting gay marriage. This is a huge shift in American politics and was recently discussed in a TIME cover story.

That is the leftist assumption. This is also why Liberals do not think that we conservatives actually believe in our ideals, since their version of objectivity states that all that has gone wrong throughout history owes its roots to conservatism, & so they couldn't possibly imagine someone taking those "conservative" ideas seriously.

So they categorize us Conservatives into one of several possibilities:

• 1.) He/She doesn't know any better, is mentally inept, stupid.
  2.) He/She could know better, but is misinformed.
  3.) He/She knows better, but has bad motivations.

Conservatives are routinely thrown into the 3rd category. Our variety of folk is to Leftism, what satan worshipers is to Christianity. We know the light, but choose to be on a corporations payroll. We could simply offer up 90% of our income to feed and cloth the have-not's, but our greed has blinded us from love.

It is why we on the Right are Demons, whereas a muslim or Hindu who also opposes Gay Marriage are not necessarily looked down upon. The Left put them in the second category, as being misinformed, and are therefore excused by their "innocence." If they are extremists who go about lynching homosexuals, they may be of the first or second variety, but are still granted innocence if they are non-white, because minorities cannot be corrupt, because they don't have "power." The Left makes excuses for the "powerless," and they think their primitive ways can all be solved by smart, intellectual, evolved, and nuanced Leftist Education.

Education is therefore, there raison d'etat, and the key, in their view, to destroying ignorance, and bringing people over to leftism. Especially the type of "ignorance" that Leftists often cite Fox News as perpetuating, in what it sees as a war to "misinform" the populace, by creating ideological right-wing drones who don't know any better then the ideological drivel they've been brainwashed into regurgitating.

That's why you attach "Smart" to things like growth, and car, and democracy. To denote that you are more morally evolved and intellectually seasoned, then your conservative counterparts, because they have been "educated" in a more enlightening views then their suburban living SUV driving fascist Americans on the Right. Education is overvalued, and utterly worthless in 90% of US colleges. They don't teach you how to think, but what to think about. They are leftists seminary, meant to instruct incoming students, in how to be Leftists.

• It is not a matter of Education, but a matter of Values, that divides the Left and the Right. And that divide is unbridgeable, not because of education, but because these values we hold are antithetical to each other. You worship Diversity(Multiculturalism), and we worship E Pluribus Unum... utter opposites.

Your brush is too broad, and I laugh at you for the part in bold (worthless?).

Care to flesh out your dismissal? Of this being too broad, too sweeping? Dismiss and Describe. That is the Leftist calling card. They cannot compete intellectually in philosophical argumentation, so they don't answer, because they can't. Or maybe they can, but they are just holding out.

Sure!
(For your brush that is too broad)
- That is the leftist assumption.
- This is also why Liberals do not think that we conservatives actually believe in our ideals, since their version of objectivity states that all that has gone wrong throughout history owes its roots to conservatism, & so they couldn't possibly imagine someone taking those "conservative" ideas seriously.
- they categorize us Conservatives into one of several possibilities:
- Our variety of folk is to Leftism, what satan worshipers is to Christianity.
- We know the light, but choose to be on a corporations payroll.
- We could simply offer up 90% of our income to feed and cloth the have-not's, but our greed has blinded us from love.
- It is why we on the Right are Demons
- The Left put them in the second category, as being misinformed, and are therefore excused by their "innocence."
- minorities cannot be corrupt
- The Left makes excuses for the "powerless,"
- they think their primitive ways can all be solved by smart, intellectual, evolved, and nuanced Leftist Education.
*** I'm gonna stop now, I wonder if you can see that so far almost your entire post is included in the "broad brush". ***

For the second, I don't think I need to explain, I'll just post your words again:
Education is overvalued, and utterly worthless in 90% of US colleges.

I don't know, maybe our definition of utterly worthless is different.

[Clownboat]

Your entire argument is not accurate due to the fact that there are good atheists and followers of other religions on this planet.

I know you don't like it, but you don't have to be a Christian in order to be a good person.

Their existence is irrelevant if they are not a force for moral good.

Incorrect, someone that is not a force for moral good could do all sorts of things that would not be irrelevant.

Goodness without courage is meaningless.

Incorrect. I got one of the biggest hugs this morning from one of my daughters. It made me feel good, and it took no courage on her part.

Goodness, that you keep to yourself, is also meaningless, for goodness is only of importance, vis-a-vis your behavior towards others.

Incorrect. Have you never picked up someone else's litter on the ground. It's a good thing to do, even if you don't tell anyone you did it.

Come within a stones throw of outdoing Christianity's contributions to the academics, the performing arts, the sciences, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, giving to charity, being charitable, curing the sick, educating the uneducated, and providing others with economic upward mobility, dying on behalf of other fellow Christians, dying on behalf of muslims, dying on behalf of Jews, dying on behalf of atheists, dying on behalf of others in general, and then your institution too can be seen in the same moral light.

My institution. What are you talking about?

Christianity is the only collective force for moral good on planet earth.

This is your opinion, there are gays, Muslims, atheists etc... that would disagree. Why not just claim your religion is the only true one while you are at it?

Atheists dismiss religion under an amateur presumption that the human being is good enough to police itself, and don't have any intention on creating a substitute for religion that can produce the same moral populace.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of reasons for an atheists to dismiss religion. We have a topic on this going right now.

Unless you consider Europeans, who are utterly secular, as moral.

Should I just consider them god haters out to get Christianity? A little "Us vs Them" will help to keep your fellow believers united. To bad you must make enemies out of your fellow humans in order to achieve the additional unity.

Then fine, we have different definition of what a moral people is, and isn't.

Do you find the Old Testamant moral? You do? Then yes, we have different definitions.

I never argued that you have to be a Christian. I am a Reform Jew. My argument is that you have to have the ethics and moral demands that is expressed in the Torah, that we Jews and Christians share. Islam has reinterpreted it into something unrecognizable, so they don't count.

And I never said you did. What I did say was:
"Your entire argument is not accurate due to the fact that there are good atheists and followers of other religions on this planet".