• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Left Needs to Chill Out About Christianity

LowDown said:
Which explains the hysteria over the opening of a Chic-fil-A fast food store in New York City. For Dan Piepenbring at the New Yorker, Chick-fil-A opening a store in New York is just unconscionable, and is an “infiltration” of the worst religious kind. ...the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism,” wrote Piepenbring. “Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.”

Somebody stop the madness! The delicious madness!

Would the New Yorker have published such an editorial about a restaurant run by pious Muslims, characterizing their establishing a store in New York as an "infiltration"?

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A as a brand is enjoying enormous success fueled in part by the notoriety they gained simply by adhering to traditional values. I suspect that New York liberals will find that there are plenty of New Yorkers who appreciate traditional values and a good chicken sandwich.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/04/13/left-needs-chill-christianity/
Click to expand...

The right needs to chill out with making stuff up about liberals and spinning everything to pretend liberals are in hysteria. One magazine writer wrote an article. The nut job right are the only ones in constant hysteria about everything, believing all the nonsense that around every corner is some boogieman that is coming to get them

Chalk this up to yet another example of pathetic christian persecution complex. Quick! Get up on that cross
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
If I understand you correctly then, you distinguish between two kinds of hate, good hate and bad hate, but you don't find the difference between the two in either the self-satisfaction of the hater or the belief of the hater (since both good haters and bad haters are self-satisfied and have beliefs, as you have acknowledged) -- no, you locate the difference between good hate and bad hate in the difference between objects of hate. Bad hate is bad because the object of hate is undeserving of hate, and good hate is good because the object of hate is deserving of hate.

Is this your position? Do I understand and have I fairly represented your view?
Click to expand...

add that bad hate is bad because its directed at people who are not hurting the hater or any one else then yes
 
Logicman said:
Another crock of hooey.

There are no innocent people.

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23
Click to expand...

If there are no innocent people, then you deserve the harsh judgement you have toward others directed 7 times greater toward you.

Your limited understanding of the word innocent is noted. Do you think child abuse is ok because no one is really innocent? Your moral concepts are incoherent.
 
LowDown said:
Which explains the hysteria over the opening of a Chic-fil-A fast food store in New York City. For Dan Piepenbring at the New Yorker, Chick-fil-A opening a store in New York is just unconscionable, and is an “infiltration” of the worst religious kind. ...the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism,” wrote Piepenbring. “Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.”

Somebody stop the madness! The delicious madness!

Would the New Yorker have published such an editorial about a restaurant run by pious Muslims, characterizing their establishing a store in New York as an "infiltration"?

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A as a brand is enjoying enormous success fueled in part by the notoriety they gained simply by adhering to traditional values. I suspect that New York liberals will find that there are plenty of New Yorkers who appreciate traditional values and a good chicken sandwich.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/04/13/left-needs-chill-christianity/
Click to expand...

Millions on the left are Christians so your post and link completely fails and will only be laughed at by honest, educated and objective posters LMAO :shrug:

now if you would like to blast or disagree with "Dan Piepenbring" feel free but he does not represent the left just like any individual doesn't represent the right.

Biased posts like yours and biased links like you posted are part of the problem and never part of the solution
 
devildavid said:
If there are no innocent people, then you deserve the harsh judgement you have toward others directed 7 times greater toward you.
Click to expand...

You would be correct except Jesus is my righteousness and salvation. You don't have that "Get out of Hell Free" card, do you?

devildavid said:
Your limited understanding of the word innocent is noted. Do you think child abuse is ok because no one is really innocent? Your moral concepts are incoherent.
Click to expand...

I've seldom seen such a load of incoherent nonsense as your two statements above.
 
blarg said:
every ones innocent of that if you god is made up your going to have to give good reasons why gay marriage is a crime for any one to be guilty of anything for doing it

hint you need a better reason then god says so
Click to expand...

No, I don't. God saying so is good enough for me. On the other hand, someone like you who doesn't have an objective moral basis for right and wrong, is hardly someone I would take advice from.
 
blarg said:
Angel said:
If I understand you correctly then, you distinguish between two kinds of hate, good hate and bad hate, but you don't find the difference between the two in either the self-satisfaction of the hater or the belief of the hater (since both good haters and bad haters are self-satisfied and have beliefs, as you have acknowledged) -- no, you locate the difference between good hate and bad hate in the difference between objects of hate. Bad hate is bad because the object of hate is undeserving of hate, and good hate is good because the object of hate is deserving of hate.

Is this your position? Do I understand and have I fairly represented your view?
Click to expand...

add that bad hate is bad because its directed at people who are not hurting the hater or any one else then yes
Click to expand...
No need to add what is already covered by "undeserving."

At any rate here's the rub.

Hate, you say, is sometimes justified (good hate) and sometimes unjustified (bad hate), and at least in one case (yours), hate is justified when it is directed at unjustified hate -- i.e., hate is good hate if directed at bad hate, regardless of the beliefs and self-satisfaction of the haters on either side.

But according to this view of the matter, for the good hater to be a good hater, the bad hater must be deserving of hate. If the bad hater were not deserving of hate, then the good hater would also be a bad hater.

So where does the good hater derive the justification for his hate, again if not from belief? Where does the good hater get the warrant for his hate? How is the bad hater deserving of hate? (These are all the same question, the question of justification.) ;)
 
Logicman said:
You would be correct except Jesus is my righteousness and salvation. You don't have that "Get out of Hell Free" card, do you?



I've seldom seen such a load of incoherent nonsense as your two statements above.
Click to expand...

You are awfully cocky about having Jesus on your side. You have no clue if your imaginary Jesus has stamped your ticket to heaven.
 
Angel said:
No need to add what is already covered by "undeserving."

At any rate here's the rub.

Hate, you say, is sometimes justified (good hate) and sometimes unjustified (bad hate), and at least in one case (yours), hate is justified when it is directed at unjustified hate -- i.e., hate is good hate if directed at bad hate, regardless of the beliefs and self-satisfaction of the haters on either side.

But according to this view of the matter, for the good hater to be a good hater, the bad hater must be deserving of hate. If the bad hater were not deserving of hate, then the good hater would also be a bad hater.

So where does the good hater derive the justification for his hate, again if not from belief? Where does the good hater get the warrant for his hate? How is the bad hater deserving of hate? (These are all the same question, the question of justification.) ;)
Click to expand...

The good hater gets good hate from being able to empathize and sympathize. These are two things human beings are physically equipped to do.
 
devildavid said:
The good hater gets good hate from being able to empathize and sympathize. These are two things human beings are physically equipped to do.
Click to expand...
This argument from physical endowment fails to justify the good hater since the same argument from endowment (antipathy) is available to the bad hater as well.
 
Angel said:
This argument from physical endowment fails to justify the good hater since the same argument from endowment (antipathy) is available to the bad hater as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they choose to exercise it. I only explained where it comes from. I didn't claim it was justified. Not all hate is the same. It depends on what you do with it. Values are based on our society and culture. There may also be values based upon common humanity combined with the natural capacity for empathy and sympathy. We all intuitively understand what it is to be human and what it is to be harmed or helped. It doesn't take belief to prefer a helping hand over a slap in the face.
 
Can’t say I’ve ever met a Christian, but I’ve met plenty of people who use religion as a smokescreen for prejudice based on their interpretation of the scratchings of a Bronze Age boob.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, if they choose to exercise it. I only explained where it comes from. I didn't claim it was justified. Not all hate is the same. It depends on what you do with it. Values are based on our society and culture. There may also be values based upon common humanity combined with the natural capacity for empathy and sympathy. We all intuitively understand what it is to be human and what it is to be harmed or helped. It doesn't take belief to prefer a helping hand over a slap in the face.
Click to expand...
Well, blarg and I are talking at this point in our conversation about justification. So, if you're not, then I'm not sure where in the earlier conversation you're entering, nor are you, I dare say.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
The right needs to chill out with making stuff up about liberals and spinning everything to pretend liberals are in hysteria. One magazine writer wrote an article. The nut job right are the only ones in constant hysteria about everything, believing all the nonsense that around every corner is some boogieman that is coming to get them

Chalk this up to yet another example of pathetic christian persecution complex. Quick! Get up on that cross
Click to expand...

Which comedian mentioned this?
 
Angel said:
Well, blarg and I are talking at this point in our conversation about justification. So, if you're not, then I'm not sure where in the earlier conversation you're entering, nor are you, I dare say.
Click to expand...

We had two exchanges before this. Stop pretending.
 
devildavid said:
You are awfully cocky about having Jesus on your side. You have no clue if your imaginary Jesus has stamped your ticket to heaven.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a one of you Christ-deniers ever submit any credible evidence that Christ is imaginary. You just shovel that nonsense into a post and think you've said something wise, but you haven't.
 
Logicman said:
I've never seen a one of you Christ-deniers ever submit any credible evidence that Christ is imaginary. You just shovel that nonsense into a post and think you've said something wise, but you haven't.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct.

From Romans 1:
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


And from Proverbs 26:
12Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
 
Logicman said:
No, I don't. God saying so is good enough for me. On the other hand, someone like you who doesn't have an objective moral basis for right and wrong, is hardly someone I would take advice from.
Click to expand...

yes you do right and wrong because some one says so isnt even good and evil any more its 2 arbitrary lists that mean nothing and could be anything

you only worship power you would betray any being you belive was a god for 1 that could do more

you would commit any act you say is wrong now if someone strong enough commands it


that might work for you but its not objective morality
 
Angel said:
No need to add what is already covered by "undeserving."

At any rate here's the rub.

Hate, you say, is sometimes justified (good hate) and sometimes unjustified (bad hate), and at least in one case (yours), hate is justified when it is directed at unjustified hate -- i.e., hate is good hate if directed at bad hate, regardless of the beliefs and self-satisfaction of the haters on either side.

But according to this view of the matter, for the good hater to be a good hater, the bad hater must be deserving of hate. If the bad hater were not deserving of hate, then the good hater would also be a bad hater.

So where does the good hater derive the justification for his hate, again if not from belief? Where does the good hater get the warrant for his hate? How is the bad hater deserving of hate? (These are all the same question, the question of justification.) ;)
Click to expand...

it s mater of values rather then belief in the supernatural

as you can see me and logicman and i have different values it might be good for both of us to hate 1 another i just hope what i want happens more then what he wants and that more peel with more power hate the things he stands for

people who dont like faith based cruelty should be on my side those who think its ok to hurt others in the hopes that it will help themselves will be on his if they believe the same things will help themselves
 
Angel said:
This argument from physical endowment fails to justify the good hater since the same argument from endowment (antipathy) is available to the bad hater as well.
Click to expand...

you have to pick whats good and evil
 
Logicman said:
I've never seen a one of you Christ-deniers ever submit any credible evidence that Christ is imaginary. You just shovel that nonsense into a post and think you've said something wise, but you haven't.
Click to expand...

iv never seen an immortal with magic powers and holes in his hands and sides runing around and have never been given a convincing an explanation for why such a beings desires would be good for every one else that makes sense
 
LowDown said:
Which explains the hysteria over the opening of a Chic-fil-A fast food store in New York City. For Dan Piepenbring at the New Yorker, Chick-fil-A opening a store in New York is just unconscionable, and is an “infiltration” of the worst religious kind. ...the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism,” wrote Piepenbring. “Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.”

Somebody stop the madness! The delicious madness!

Would the New Yorker have published such an editorial about a restaurant run by pious Muslims, characterizing their establishing a store in New York as an "infiltration"?

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A as a brand is enjoying enormous success fueled in part by the notoriety they gained simply by adhering to traditional values. I suspect that New York liberals will find that there are plenty of New Yorkers who appreciate traditional values and a good chicken sandwich.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/04/13/left-needs-chill-christianity/
Click to expand...

You mean the Christians like they have in Kansas who wrote some wonderful letters to a teacher who came out as gay recently? You will burn....yada yada .. Those Christians?

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article209315564.html
 
Why the discernment deficit exhibited by the allegedly blessed? Is this not a demonstrated inability to identify right from wrong?

Evangelical Protestants - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
TrumpEvangelicalsMap.jpg


https://www.prri.org/spotlight/white-evangelical-support-for-donald-trump-at-all-time-high/
White Evangelical Support for Donald Trump at All-Time High
Robert P. Jones, PhD, 04.18.2018
Topics: Politics & Elections Religion & Culture
Tags: Donald Trump white evangelical Protestants

PRRI-Trump-Favorability-and-white-evangelicals-2015-2018-1.png


White evangelical support for Donald Trump has steadily increased over time. Notably, Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals never reached 50 percent during the 2016 primary season. By the early fall of 2016, however, his favorability among white evangelicals had jumped to 61 percent. By the inauguration it increased to 68 percent, and shortly after the inauguration in February 2017 it jumped again to 74 percent. Over the course of 2017, there were minor fluctuations, but Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals never dipped below 65 percent during this time.
Trump’s support among white evangelicals at this stage of his presidency is strikingly solid. While there are modest differences by gender, Trump’s favorability among white evangelical women is still a robust 71 percent, compared to 81 percent among white evangelical men. And Trump’s favorability is still a strong 68 percent among college-educated white evangelicals, compared to 78 percent among those without a college degree.
Click to expand...

Racial and ethnic composition - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
TrumpEvangelicalsRace.jpg
 
post said:
Why the discernment deficit exhibited by the allegedly blessed? Is this not a demonstrated inability to identify right from wrong?
Click to expand...

You mean your sources did all that work and couldn't come up with "why the differences"?

One thing I noted - the Northeast, California, and Wisconsin are all spiritually challenged. Probably the result of left-wing indoctrination of the children in the schools from an early age.

IMO, liberalism is of the devil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom