a conservative america in the context of global society and culture

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
MadelynIris said:
I kinda would like to start a theological discussion on the morality of homosexual.

Wanna?

I'm afraid that I'll get banned as a homophobe though, because I don't believe it is a lifestyle that should be celebrated. And apparently anyone that has this belief in FYM is considered a homophobe (not sure why).

A debate about the morality of homosexuality? Sure, why not? And while we're at it, let's debate whether Black people are inferior to white people, whether women should be subservient to men and whether it's okay to persecute Jews for their religion.

:rolleyes:
 
We know that the answers to all those questions can be answered with Phrenology

phrenology.jpg


"You have the brain pan of a stagecoachman"
 
I agree with anitram. I like theological arguments and such, but I don't think there's any room for theological arguments in politics. This makes no sense. While there are plenty of good and decent people in politics, too damn many of them are only into money and power and use morality strictly as a tool to advance their careers, bank accounts and personal vendettas.
 
verte76 said:
I agree with anitram. I like theological arguments and such, but I don't think there's any room for theological arguments in politics. This makes no sense. While there are plenty of good and decent people in politics, too damn many of them are only into money and power and use morality strictly as a tool to advance their careers, bank accounts and personal vendettas.

Unfortunately, :yes:.

My view on gays:

Do i believe homosexuality is wrong? Absolutely not. These people really do love each other, and they have no control over their feelings. I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. If it is, when did you choose? I don't remember choosing to be heterosexual. Therefore gays should not be treated as second class citizens, be cause they have no control over what their hearts are telling them to love. Same with straight people. I can't force myself to fall in love with a person, nor can I force myself not to. So what about the Bible you may ask. I have many problems with the Bible, to me it is very flawed. It was written by men, not God, therefore it is fallable. It was written hundreds of years after events took place, which makes it even more fallable. Many meanings are lost in translation too, another fallacy. Therefore i try my best to stick to the fundamental rules that all humankind seems to follow no matter what religion, the 10 commandments and the golden rule.


There I've spoken my piece. Let the debate take off.
 
I am definitely to the left of most of my compatriots. I'm used to this. I'm used to voting for people who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected because they are too liberal. After all, I live in a bastion of conservativism. While I do frequently find this frustrating in many ways, it doesn't bother me too much. No one is telling me what to think. No one is telling me I have to vote for Candidate X in the next election. I'm not going to get busted for illegal political activities because being to the left of my compatriots is not a crime. Peaceful protesting, such as participating in peaceful, orderly demonstrations and attending meetings of fellow lefties, signing petitions and voting Democratic is not a crime. It's just being a little different. I don't talk about this very much as I am actually not particularly fond of controversy, and I don't think I have to change anyone's mind anyway. Just give me my First Amendment rights and I'm happy. Take away my First Amendment rights and I'm extremely pissed and not amused.:mad: :madspit: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
In Catholic tradition the Bible is only part of what we call "sacred tradition", which is the source of our faith. Part of this is belief in the seven sacraments, which includes marriage. I don't want to change the marriage laws of my church. I do support gay civil unions with the full rights and benefits of married couples. I don't want the church meddling with the government, but I also don't want the government in my church. Throughout the centuries we Catholics have really paid every time the government got into the church! So I guess this sort of puts me on a fence.
 
Last edited:
A debate about the morality of homosexuality? Sure, why not? And while we're at it, let's debate whether Black people are inferior to white people, whether women should be subservient to men and whether it's okay to persecute Jews for their religion

*clearing throat*...

By theological discussion, I meant trying to expose where most evangelicals get their basis for their belief on homosexuality.

It's not about bigotry or homophobia. It's about a belief system based on the Bible (and yes, that makes it a theological discussion).

Mark
 
It was written hundreds of years after events took place, which makes it even more fallable. Many meanings are lost in translation too, another fallacy.

U2Democrat,

Are you sure about this? Really? I've studied the origins of the manuscripts for many years, and never have I run across any of this in biblical archeology.

Your dad believe this too? I'm assuming he's studied some of this stuff too.

Mark
 
PS-there's an interesting book called "the non church goers guide to the bible" by michael gantt. (i think that's his name). it's very interesting, and mentions what i said.
 
I'm shocked, especially with the manuscripts discovered in the last 20 years and how well they match current greek texts.

Amazing you guys can ingore this hard archeological evidence.

;)
 
There is no such thing as God, so the Bible is nothing more than a fictional book.

Same thing with Jesus. Jesus never existed, therefore, the whole story of Jesus is fictional.
 
MadelynIris said:
It's not about bigotry or homophobia. It's about a belief system based on the Bible (and yes, that makes it a theological discussion).
[/B]

Which is fine, but to me, that's got nothing to do with whether or not two gay men or two lesbians should be allowed to marry in a SECULAR state.
 
Which is fine, but to me, that's got nothing to do with whether or not two gay men or two lesbians should be allowed to marry in a SECULAR state.

Agreed. Except when they take it to the polls, then people will vote based on a belief system (not saying you, or all people, but they will).

I was trying to bait U2Dem into a theological discussion, but that deserved another thread anyway. ;)

WMR,
Mark
 
anitram said:


Which is fine, but to me, that's got nothing to do with whether or not two gay men or two lesbians should be allowed to marry in a SECULAR state.

That's the way I feel. We are talking about secular unions, not what goes on in our churches, synagogues or whatever.
 
I mean, do you think he is not to be believed? Do you think his writings are good and true?

Or, na. Not really? I mean he wrote half of the new testament.

Mark
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


So you support appeasing terrorists by trying to prevent them feeling anger towards America due to the 'godless' nature of American society? Does this extend to foreign policy? Perhaps if America were to reconsider some aspects of her foreign policy terrorists would feel less anger towards America too.
There is nothing we can say to terrorists that will make them stop what they're doing. It's like trying to tell your next door neighbor to stop smoking. If there were any other way to send a message to them, let me know. My ears are wide open. But one thought will always remain in my head: Radical Terror from Islamic Extremists enforce a hate system rather than preaching a faith, and respecting those who choose not to accept it.

On September 11, 2001, we all asked why anyone would do such a thing to America. I'd be interested in seeing other perspectives, but my belief is that we should promote a positive society rather than exposing the worst in us. I doubt that the porn industry will go out of business anytime soon, nor will they stop targeting minors. I doubt that TV producers will trade ratings with an uplifting message. Sadly, we anger terrorists, as well as many people in this country, when we overexpose sexuality on TV. Yet when we preach a positive message, we abandon it before long.

So yes, I would want to make an effort to calm the Middle East down altogether. Nobody wants terrorists to have anger toward their country. We need to show them another side of America, and why our freedom is a good thing.
 
Ya, I'm sticking strictly with the NT here, and landing on Paul's writings because, well he wrote half of the NT, and was there and saw Jesus, heard him speak, and saw the whole picture, with verified writings while the other apostles were still alive.

So, when you are saying he was the exception, what do you mean?

The only writings in the new testament from a historical perspective (narrative) were the 4 Gospels, Luke being the one that carries the most historical weight (verified the most with historical links). Most Christians go with the Gospels as being accurate (not a lot of controversy in them).

So where are you at with Paul's writings? Hold true or no.

Oui, Non, eh?

Mark
 
So you support appeasing terrorists by trying to prevent them feeling anger towards America due to the 'godless' nature of American society? Does this extend to foreign policy? Perhaps if America were to reconsider some aspects of her foreign policy terrorists would feel less anger towards America too.

You guys should read "Imperial Hubris" by the guy that just resigned from the CIA. Unbelievable how this guy has studied Bin Laden for 15 years at the CIA, and how true this whole 'godless' thing is in their justification of Fatwah (spelling?).

Bin Laden just got persmission from clerics that he respects to use nukes against america. He had to make sure it was in line with the Koran, based on scripture before he would do it.

The CIA is now tracking Fatwahs, as real declarations of war against the US. What do you think about that?

Scary.

Mark
 
MadelynIris said:
Ya, I'm sticking strictly with the NT here, and landing on Paul's writings because, well he wrote half of the NT, and was there and saw Jesus, heard him speak, and saw the whole picture, with verified writings while the other apostles were still alive.

Really?

I thought it was commonly held that Paul never met Jesus and was in Tarsus at the time of Jesus' presence in the Galilee and then he returned to Jerusalem after the crucifixion?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
My point was that for some reason, terrorists find the USA to be a godless society, and unfortunately, all they see in this country is how we demoralize our women with hip hop culture, flaunt the worst of us on reality TV, and elsewhere. We should make an effort to prevent them from being so angry at us, and I've always found that our culture strikes a chord with them.


A_Wanderer said:
Total foolishness, the United States should stand for individual liberty and freedom; freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression. Firstly using terrorism as an excuse to pursue a social agenda is dodgy, secondly appeasement will not work with these groups, they will see weakness in your actions and if you want to show the world how weak and cowardly America is then there is nothing better than bending over, abandoning your principles and asking the agressor to be gentle.
I do believe in freedom of expression, but in my eyes, we take it too far. I don't have a "social agenda" that exists beyond myself. All I am doing is expressing my views.

Of course we can't be gentle with terrorists. We have the whole world pissed off at us for not being gentle with them. I'm not going to bash the president, or his opposers, and I feel very neutral about the Iraq situation. On one hand, I supported the war because I had faith in our intelligence system. Both republicans and democrats believed that Iraq was focused on building WMD's. Now it's been over a year, and we don't know for sure if they ever had any.

On the other hand, I respect the government because we've caught many involved in terrorist organizations, and have captured and killed them. We've destroyed many terrorist training camps. Whether or not we agree with the war, we haven't done everything wrong. I have a hard time getting over these extreme human rights groups who do IN FACT have an agenda. They're telling us that we can't kill or imprison terrorists. I refuse to believe that most democrats believe it's wrong to bring justice to terrorists, AND I do in fact believe that many of the liberals in my country are patriotic even if they're unhappy with their president.
 
I think that it shows there are questionable factions within the "Religion of Peace". I also think that it demonstrates why this war, in many ways WWIV (The third world war was the Cold War) must be won, Al Qaeda and such groups are in many ways apocalyptic in nature and I do not want to see their armageddon come to pass.
 
Last edited:
sorry - no seeing of Jesus other than on the road - my mistyping.

But he knew the message, as preached by others during Jesus' life.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Gay marriage is asking for another 9/11 because it should never be an issue that represents our country. It's unnatural, God didn't design men for men and vise versa.

Another 9/11????



What??

I am not in favor of marriage, regardless. But you can't deny gay people from enjoying the same things that hetrosexuals enjoy....
That's the fundamental issue.
 
Windmilllane said:


Another 9/11???? What??
I am not in favor of marriage, regardless. But you can't deny gay people from enjoying the same things that hetrosexuals enjoy....
That's the fundamental issue.
I cleared the heat on that post long ago. I stated my case after I got my first reply.
 
Back
Top Bottom