• 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!

Do you think a religeous revolution is coming in this country?

Do you think a religeous revolution is coming in this country?


  • Total voters
    62
I predict the coming of the God Emperor of Mankind, to unite Terra in these troubled times, and lead us on our destined path of victory across the Galaxy.
 
Somebody has been reading the good book.

I sure have.

warhammer_40000_4th_edition.jpg
 
I don't think very many people at all use the Bible itself as justification for their opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Sometimes they bring up religion, but never the Bible. In any case, I know non-Christians who oppose both, so the point is moot.
I would say you're dead wrong on this. You really think they don't bring up religion? What about those kids protest Day of Silence with bible quotes on their shirts, or "You shall not kill" abortion protest signs?

Positions on this issue also have nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible.
People never use their religious text to justify their positions on religion in the public square? Really? I call bs.

Jesus never said anything about dealing with poverty; in fact, at one point he even said, "The poor will be with us always", or something to that effect. He was more interested in the virtue of willingly giving what is yours to someone who needs it more, i.e. charity. There is nothing virtuous about giving someone else's money to the poor; that is not the kind of thing Jesus was advocating.

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13

"'Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.' He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." John 12:5

"Cornelius stared at him in fear. What is it, Lord?' he asked. The angel answered, Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.'" Acts 10:4

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18


Would you like to admit you're wrong, dav?
 
Well, Well, Well. Wonder where the idea for this thread started?

Take a look at the time posted. 7:33 PM. You know what was on TV?

The O'Reilly Factor. In fact, right around 7:30, Bill was doing a story about this EXACT topic, featuring none other than Ann Coulter.

Navy, get more original next time.

I'm going to monitor all of your threads and cross-reference them to what's on Fox.

I am sorry that the truth hurts you my left wing friend but tell me what is a lefty like you doing listening to Oreilly?
 
I think you might be making the mistake of giving religion too much fluidity with pro-slavery sentiment in the Americas. The attribution of certain texts, certain ideas, to support the economic system that slavery became has a much more varied past than simply "religion-->pro-slavery". From the reading I have done, religion was used in justification of slavery at different times, as numerous times it simply was not needed. In certain decades, in certain regions it was important for slave owners to Christianize slaves, to educate them so as to be proficient readers of the holy text and then at other times, such information was seen as dangerous, and barred. Remember, under God, all men are equal creations. How does that philosophic and religious sentiment mix with the Chain of Being, with its emphasis on rational hierarchy of all creations in nature? One of many conflicts, indeed!

Reasoning for the justification of slavery varied in time and place. Sometimes, the Enlightenment's emphasis on science, on logic, on order, created the perfect justification for the character of the American slave institution. Other times, the Enlightenment was the source of freedom. Same with religion. It had its liberalizing moments, and its restrictive moments.

On a side note: you could also take aim against your claim that it was merely fashionable to oppose slavery, as prior to that moment it was enforced. Again, it depended upon time, place, and to an extent, person. One could easily make the argument that until the heating moment in American politics, there was a sense amongst the American political establishment that at some point in time, the institution of slavery was going to be meet its expected death, but perhaps also that rapid change to a slave-free nation was a bad idea.
There is substantive truth in just about every point you make in this post. I was being deliberately hyperbolic, basically a parody and reversal of those who blame every "evil" on atheism or irreligion. This can be tempting at times. I also had ample encouragement (pssst... you know who you are! :mrgreen: :naughty).

When getting seriously analytical without succumbing to the temptation to troll probable trolls, I tend to be much more nuanced about religion. Take this post of mine regarding the role of Islam and Christianity in forced child marriage:

Well, when Christianity was as much of a force in those countries as Islam is in "Muslim" countries now, they had rather low ages of consent that would be considered unthinkable today. So whether it's a common trait of authoritarian monotheism or connected to regional and contextual settings detached from explicitly religious ones, Islamic theological doctrine isn't the sole suspect there.

You are on the right track in the sense that very high authoritarianism is the pertinent factor far more than either Islam or Christianity in themselves. However, whether a low (or no) "age of consent" indicates such authoritarianism depends on other variables.

The low (or absent) "ages of consent" of the type you are talking about (e.g., 9 in Yemen) relate to the consummation of marriage, with the marriages tending to be arranged by the family. The daughters of the family are under direct control of the patriarchs, without any pretense otherwise. Thus this type of "AoC" is not really about consent, it is more like a "ready to sell by" date. In these countries, sex outside of marriage (at least without permission of a patriarch) is illegal for girls and women.

However, a low (or lack of a fixed) age of consent for consensual sexual activity in general is very different. In Spain, the age of consent is 13, and most of the support for raising it comes from the right. Support for lowering or eliminating AoCs is a radical plank found on the secular libertarian left, as part of anti-ageist support for youth liberation and overall sexual freedom. An example of a supporter for liberalized AoCs in the US is the very liberal Judith Levine, author of Harmful to Minors.
 
Last edited:
17 to 1. That is an incredible statistic. You cannot get people on this board to agree on anything, except apparently that NP is wrong on this.

It does not surprise me Redress, as you can see almost every no is a liberal.............Sadly the Conservstives are not responding to the poll........
 
Last edited:
It does not surprise me Redress, as you can seee almost every no is a liberal.............Sadly the Conservstives are not responding to the poll........

That...or they did and you simply labeled them as "liberal" because they voted no.
 
It does not surprise me Redress, as you can seee almost every no is a liberal.............Sadly the Conservstives are not responding to the poll........

LOL....so Jamesrage, BHkad, councilman, caine, silence majority, etc. are all "liberals"?

I guess to you they are.....:doh
 
I only wish religous conservatives focused as much on things Jesus actually cared about, like feeding the poor and helping the needy.

What makes you think we don't? You have no idea how much my church helps the poor and the homeless...........
 
What makes you think we don't? You have no idea how much my church helps the poor and the homeless...........

Your church maybe does....but based on your concerns and the things that you write about on this site, it is apparent what value you put on those types of issues as opposed to the importance you put on gay marriage and other right-wing social causes.
 
Honestly, what leads you to the assertion that a religious revolution is coming? I realize you probably think that this country is currently an immoral cesspool. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a religious revolution is on the horizon.

Good question but I believe in God and I believe he is looking down on all this going on and he can't be happy with what he sees in the moral degration that is taking place.............
 
Good question but I believe in God and I believe he is looking down on all this going on and he can't be happy with what he sees in the moral degration that is taking place.............

Why? He set the conditions to allow it. If he didn't like it, he should have used different initial conditions. His fault.

HAHAHAHAHA
 
That...or they did and you simply labeled them as "liberal" because they voted no.

Being a member of DP for over 4 years I think I know the bleeding heart libs here pretty well my left wing friend............
 
LOL....so Jamesrage, BHkad, councilman, caine, silence majority, etc. are all "liberals"?

I guess to you they are.....:doh

What part of the word Almost do you not understand DD?
 
If anything it will be a going back to people being serious about themselves and always having a real serious eye in Washington. As for the religion part Im not sure, if anything it would have to be a huge event (like assassination of both secular and religious leaders) for religion to be the sole issue to rill everyone up
 
Any revolution that uses that apparatus of the State to advance a dogmatic ideology of any sort is something that a Conservative must oppose as a general principle.
 
Any revolution that uses that apparatus of the State to advance a dogmatic ideology of any sort is something that a Conservative must oppose as a general principle.
Many opponents of atheism, skepticism, etc., who come off like trolls are being completely serious. For example, Richard "atheists cannot be good citizens" Neuhaus of the American Enterprise Institute.

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens? | First Things
 
Being a member of DP for over 4 years I think I know the bleeding heart libs here pretty well my left wing friend............

Having observed your posts for some time, I wouldn't put much stock into what you believe is in your knowledge base. Besides, I'm not left-wing. I happen to disagree with you on many issues, but that's because I'm not into authoritative fascism. But my disagreeing with fascism doesn't make me "left-wing" on the American spectrum.
 
Many opponents of atheism, skepticism, etc., who come off like trolls are being completely serious. For example, Richard "atheists cannot be good citizens" Neuhaus of the American Enterprise Institute.

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens? | First Things

Make no mistake, our country was structured around a particular moral ethic. Those who framed the Constitution advised that if we were to stray away from our common moral order that we would do so at our own peril. The framers also did afford asylum to those of other religions and those with no religion at all. Therefore, it isn't a stretch to think that they would have believed atheists to be citizens - blacks well, that's another story.
 
"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13

"'Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.' He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." John 12:5

"Cornelius stared at him in fear. What is it, Lord?' he asked. The angel answered, Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.'" Acts 10:4

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18


Would you like to admit you're wrong, dav?


Hobo, you misread or mischaracterized Dav's position. He said:

Dav said:
Jesus never said anything about dealing with poverty; in fact, at one point he even said, "The poor will be with us always", or something to that effect. He was more interested in the virtue of willingly giving what is yours to someone who needs it more, i.e. charity. There is nothing virtuous about giving someone else's money to the poor; that is not the kind of thing Jesus was advocating.

Your quotes were about personal charity, not governmental wealth redistribution, which is exactly what Dav was talking about: Jesus promoted personal charity but did not say the government should take from the rich and give to the poor.
 
I am sorry that the truth hurts you my left wing friend but tell me what is a lefty like you doing listening to Oreilly?

What's "the truth"? I don't get it.

Second, you only wish that I was caught up in the left/right debate like so many of you. I'm beyond that. Click on the link in my signature box for more information. God, you are so unoriginal it is pathetic. Anyone who disagrees with you or proves what a douche you are is a "lefty".

Third, I happen to enjoy watching the O'Reilly factor. In fact, I'm watching it right now.

I simply wanted the forum to know that you get your thread topics directly from Fox News commentary programming because you lack the intelligence to come up with topics yourself.

PS: You spelled "religious" wrong. God, you must be an athiest! Devil Worshipper!

It sucks being talked down to, doesn't it?

I will convince the mods to boot you someday because you lend absolutely nothing to any conversation except vitriol and stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom