 |
reply posted on 13-7-2007 @ 05:44 AM by madnessinmysoul
|
 Originally posted by edsinger
"SECULAR MORAL PHILOSOPHY"
How can those first 2 words be used in the same sentence or even together, isnt that a oxymoron?
i don't know, why don't you ask Holyoake, Nietzsche, Kant and Mill?
where in the bible does it tell you to treat women equally? oh, that's a product of feminism, something that came about through the further removal
of religion from the public sphere... secularism. who abolished slavery? abe lincoln, atheist/agnostic (it's subject to debate and he's not alive to
answer as to which one he was) president extraordinaire. rights of workers? secular movement, then the catholic church started riding the coattails.
abolishment of child labor? secular movement.
nowhere in your holy book does it say that women should be treated with respect (actually, it teaches quite the opposite), that slavery is bad, or
that children shouldn't be changing bobbins.
you're just spewing rhetoric. secular institutions or the source of morality IN SPITE OF RELIGION.
–noun, plural -mo·ra /-ˈmɔrə, -ˈmoʊrə/ Rhetoric. a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly
self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
like religious tolerance!
see, the thing is that there is an established tradition of secular moral philosophy stretching back quite a few years.... but religions tend to not
have a good track record with the whole "tolerance" thing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-7-2007 @ 07:45 AM by edsinger
|
Originally posted by BO XIAN
5. Double standards are amongst the least impressive things I observe in life. Actually, I find them a variation of evil from hell.
How true it is
Funny isn't it?
Originally posted by madnessinmysouli don't know, why don't you ask Holyoake, Nietzsche, Kant and Mill?
The names alone answer my question....
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
where in the bible does it tell you to treat women equally? oh, that's a product of feminism,
OK
Ephesians 5
Wives, submit32 to your husbands as to the Lord, 5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he
himself being the savior of the body. 5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 5:25
Husbands, love your33 wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her34 with the washing of the
water by the word, 5:27 so that he35 may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy
and blameless.36 5:28 In the same way37 husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 5:29 For no one
has ever hated his own body38 but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, 5:30 for we are members of his body.39 5:31
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become40 one flesh.41 5:32 This mystery is
great – but I am actually42 speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 5:33 Nevertheless,43 each one of you must also love his own wife as he
loves himself,44 and the wife must45 respect46 her husband.
One of the Most powerful! Husbands are given great responsibility. It is not a master/slave relationship at all.
Matt19
:4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,6 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
1 Corinthians 7
7:3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights,4 and likewise a wife to her husband. 7:4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own
body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except
by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.
Here is one that most miss...its a mutual relationship, not one sided.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
something that came about through the further removal of religion from the public sphere... secularism. who abolished slavery? Abe Lincoln,
atheist/agnostic (it's subject to debate and he's not alive to answer as to which one he was) president extraordinaire. rights of workers? secular
movement, then the catholic church started riding the coattails. abolishment of child labor? secular movement.
As for ol Abe, if you think he was an atheist or agnostic your VERY mistaken. I will leave it at that because until this point I though you were
fairly sharp, but now that is in question. Abe himself said so many times, his "FAITH" in Christ was not in doubt. The only reason you would claim
such is you must have picked up on it somewhere and now I question what you read just as you do me.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nowhere in your holy book does it say that women should be treated with respect (actually, it teaches quite the opposite), that slavery is bad, or
that children shouldn't be changing bobbins.
the heck it doesn't SEE ABOVE. Biblical Marriage is something you have no concept of...
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you're just spewing rhetoric. secular institutions or the source of morality IN SPITE OF RELIGION.
And you are not? Who you trying to kid here? You spew garbage as far as I am concerned, hey its your right to believe what you want, but your thoughts
about Lincoln above say much about your perspective on things.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
like religious tolerance!
see, the thing is that there is an established tradition of secular moral philosophy stretching back quite a few years.... but religions tend to not
have a good track record with the whole "tolerance" thing.
Mankind never had tolerance to speak of until the last 100 years or so, so that doesn't hold up.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-7-2007 @ 03:57 PM by madnessinmysoul
|
oh yes, let's avoid the actual issue and demonize a few people. come on, you just can't get over the fact that almost all of morality comes from
institutions seperate of religion. one thing, which country has a higher crime rate: sweden or (insert any religious country here) ?
hmm... secular country with a majority atheist population is more moral than any religious nation you can offer up.
One of the Most powerful! Husbands are given great responsibility. It is not a master/slave relationship at all.
men are given responsibility... but it doesn't say "your wives are people"
Matt19
:4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,6 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
that's not addressing sexism, that's addressing sexuality.
Here is one that most miss...its a mutual relationship, not one sided.
let's not play the "let's quote scripture" game here... because i could always pop out more scripture that shows the bible is sexist than you can
show that shows the bible isn't... because the book contradicts itself on this (and many other) issues.
As for ol Abe, if you think he was an atheist or agnostic your VERY mistaken. I will leave it at that because until this point I though you were
fairly sharp, but now that is in question. Abe himself said so many times, his "FAITH" in Christ was not in doubt. The only reason you would claim
such is you must have picked up on it somewhere and now I question what you read just as you do me.
then you know lincoln better than one of his closest friends:
Now let it be written in history and on Mr. Lincoln's tombstone: "He died an unbeliever."
William H. Herndon (his law partner)
the heck it doesn't SEE ABOVE. Biblical Marriage is something you have no concept of...
oh, come on. biblical marriage is something that can be either an abusive sex slavery relationship or the ideal that you give me from the book... once
more that's because the book CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
And you are not? Who you trying to kid here? You spew garbage as far as I am concerned,
see, saying you spew rhetoric is different than saying you spew garbage. i'm saying you're using old and tired arguments. you're just demeaning
me.
hey its your right to believe what you want, but your thoughts about Lincoln above say much about your perspective on things.
yes, far be it from me to listen to someone that actually knew lincoln when i form my judgements on whether or not he was religious....
Mankind never had tolerance to speak of until the last 100 years or so, so that doesn't hold up.
tell that to the buddhists and the jains...
yeah, the world DID have tolerance. the buddhists and jains (the only 2 religions i have any real respect for) have been practicing such for hundreds
of years. i'm not quite as well versed on the jains, but i know that the buddhists have been one of the most tolerant religions and they've been far
more so than christianity... and they've been doing it for a good 300 years more. everything good jesus said... buddha most likely said it first
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-7-2007 @ 07:49 PM by edsinger
|
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
men are given responsibility... but it doesn't say "your wives are people"
Matt19
two will become one flesh’?
that's not addressing sexism, that's addressing sexuality.
So you think that is about sex??????
Let me let you in on something, it doesn't mean sex, it means you become ONE, TOGETHER, ONE BODY, PARTNERS.........Hence the concept of Biblical
Marriage.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
then you know lincoln better than one of his closest friends:
Now let it be written in history and on Mr. Lincoln's tombstone: "He died an unbeliever."
William H. Herndon (his law partner)
So you will believe a business partner over the majority of all other evidence? I wonder if the guy had an axe to grind with ol Abe. Abe Lincoln was a
man of deep faith.
The primary reason for this debate over whether or not Lincoln was a man of faith can be summed up in two words: William Herndon. Herndon was
Lincoln's young law partner while Lincoln lived in Springfield. He shared a law office with Lincoln for many years. To make a long story short,
Herndon wrote a biography of Lincoln many years after Lincoln was assassinated, and in it he proclaimed Lincoln an "infidel." There is little doubt that Lincoln, as a young man, went through a period of doubt as to the validity of Christianity. But he changed. (Herndon
could never understand this.) There is some debate as to when this change took place, and to what extent it went. His wife said that he "was never a
technical Christian." But what she meant about "technical" Christian is in doubt. In that day, "born again" was not a commonly used, or
understood, phrase. It is likely she found his relationship with God lacking due to his reluctance to join any specific church. Mrs. Lincoln stated that after the demise of their son Willy in early 1862, her husband drew much closer to God. No doubt. Many of Lincoln's
presidential speeches are superb examples of a man seeking God. Below is one of Lincoln's many proclamations, as president, for a national day of
fasting and prayer. Few ministers of the gospel could have done better:
Lincoln stated the following upon receiving a gift of a Bible from a group of African-Americans from Baltimore:
"In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to men. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated
through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found
portrayed in it." [Sept. 9, 1864]
Rarely do our presidents invoke the power of the Holy Spirit in their national proclamations:
"I invite the people of the United states (on Aug 6)... to invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit... to guide the counsels of the government with
wisdom adequate to so great a national emergency, and to visit with tender care and consolation throughout the length and breadth of our land all
those who, through the vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, and sieges have been brought to suffer in mind, body, or estate, and finally to lead
the whole nation through the paths of repentance and submission to the Divine will back to the perfect enjoyment of union and internal peace." [July
15, 1863]
Lincoln's Faith in God
So before you throw something out, especially to the younger folks here, make sure you tell the whole story. I will stand by my statement that Lincoln
was a man of Faith! I will not listen to a man that knew him briefly and profited from his book calling him an unbeliever!
Originally posted by madnessinmysouloh, come on. biblical marriage is something that can be either an abusive sex slavery relationship
or the ideal that you give me from the book... once more that's because the book CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
HorsePuckey - You again show no concept of Marriage in Biblical terms, especially in the New testament, if you can not read it and get it for
yourself, then fine.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoulyes, far be it from me to listen to someone that actually knew lincoln when i form my judgements on
whether or not he was religious....
Yeah he knew him alright, how long?
In 1844, Lincoln entered law practice with William Herndon, a fellow Whig. In
1854
, both men joined the fledgling Republican Party. Following Lincoln's death, Herndon began collecting stories about Lincoln and published them in
Herndon's Lincoln
During this period, Lincoln also began his private study of law, borrowing books from a local attorney, and was licensed to practice in 1836.
Increasingly successful as a circuit rider, he settled in Springfield, the new capital. In 1844, 2 years after his marriage to Mary Todd of Lexington,
Ky., a young woman of aristocratic pretensions, he formed a partnership with William H. Herndon and went on to become one of Illinois ablest
lawyers.
In 1847, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and during his single term became known for both his opposition to the Mexican
War and the institution of slavery.
LINK
Lets see, this Herndon guy knew him in 1844, and yet it says that he was against slavery by 1847. Hmmm
Yeah you better believe that guy, I heard Lincoln's barber once called him gay also so I guess he must have been.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-7-2007 @ 11:58 PM by BO XIAN
|
The article ref'd below bears some interesting data on the question posed by this thread.
I firmly believe that the USA shall have--most likely--7 or so nukes go off in as many major cities. Too many diverse respected prophetic folks have
had too many dreams and visions of such ilk for me to dismiss it out of hand.
In any case, the points raised by the researcher author in the following ref'd article are quite consistent with a host of other data researched by
other searchers.
From the FR posting of the article:
www.freerepublic.com...
NewsMax: Does al-Qaida have nuclear weapons?
Williams: They definitely have nukes. There's no doubt about it. There's positive proof. As I wrote in my book, in the first three months of
Operation Enduring Freedom — the Gulf War — our troops found in a cave outside of Khandahar in Afghanistan a canister filled with Uranium 238 [the
basic ingredient for a nuclear bomb] and in Turnak Farms [where at one time 1,800 members of al-Qaida lived and worked] they found jars and jars and
jars of yellow cake [pure uranium, dried].
Before 9/11 a guy by the name of Sheik Kabbani, the president of the Supreme Islamic Council of North America, appeared before the Senate and the
House and said that over 48 nukes were here. There was also a Waziristan summit meeting in Pakistan in April 2004. Attending it were the leading
planners of the next 9/11. Included was one Sharif al Masry, and Adnan el-Shukrijumah, the next Mohammad Atta, and a terrorist from Brooklyn. . . .
They all confirmed that nuclear weapons had been developed by al-Qaida with the help of scientists and technicians from the A.Q. Khan Research
laboratories. The most chilling thing, they said was that all of the weapons had been forward deployed to Mexico and transported over the border into
the U.S.
This story was reported in a little tiny paragraph in Time magazine. It was buried in there. The fact that nuclear weapons had been developed [by
al-Qaida], and the researchers at the A.Q. Khan facility had confirmed that, and transported to Mexico and then into the United States — you
couldn't get a bigger story than that.
I realize that the above well reseached facts are not likely to be very comfortable for those who see Al Qaeda as a bunch of misunderstood
disadantaged youth in need of more compassion, appeasement and patience on the part of their likely Western victims.
On the other hand, those so chronically eager to see the USA trashed, destroyed and other-wise cut down to size are likely to be all the more on the
edges of their seats eagerly awaiting the lighting off of such nukes .. .. .. and await with baited breath such occasions to cheer and applaud such
handiwork of the Jihadi's against the USA--the great satan--in their eyes and the eyes of Iran's I'mANutJob; the eyes of the traitorous globalists
in the Senate, media & universiities . . . etc. etc. etc.
They may, however, find that the resulting mass deaths and riverlets of blood philosophically on their hands will be very troublesome to wash off in
bathtubs of their dreams.
= = =
Nevertheless, such facts must be faced and dealt with sooner or later . . . in lesser or more traumatic circumstances.
[edit on 15/7/2007 by BO XIAN]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-7-2007 @ 04:46 PM by edsinger
|
And it says nothing on what will happen when Islamic Shira law comes to these folks that hate the US so much.
I too have been following this subject about the nukes and its quite old information that has been set to the back of the line for now, but it is
still scary as hell, of course, if it happened I doubt that Islam would rise in power, hard to do whilst a sheet of glass.
Hatred Of America Is Greater Than Love Of Freedom For Some On The Left
This 'might' and I emphasize 'might' have something to do with why it hasn't happened.
A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities?
Or this,
Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?
But the info in which you speak,
Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets Captured
documents reveal bin Laden's dates & Locations
Another good one to take a look at, relevant to the topic at hand.
Book - Militant Islam Reaches America
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-8-2007 @ 01:12 PM by BO XIAN
|
Originally posted by sb2012
Yes, most people don't realize this hatred is fabricated and fueled by religion and propaganda. I have nothing against some simple men from Arab
nations and i am sure they don't want to kill me either.
[edit on 24-6-2007 by sb2012]
Oh, really?
Hogwash.
Those "simple men from Arab nations" disagree fiercely with you.
I'd wager that if they saw you walking their streets as you are normally dressed unaccompanied by a male they knew to be your brother, uncle or
husband . . .
They'd be more than happy to stone you to death or slit your throat.
This would be more so in countries where the Jihadi's are a larger percentage of the population . . . but there would be some "simple men" in all
Muslim countries who'd feel that way and many who'd risk doing so as their
RELIGIOUS DUTY to the demonic moon god Allah.
I realize that DENYING FACTS is the opposite of DENYING IGNORANCE
but it sure seems to be a popular perspective around here on these issues.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-8-2007 @ 01:53 PM by edsinger
|
Originally posted by BO XIANThey'd be more than happy to stone you to death or slit your throat.
You forgot one, rape with the moon god prophet's blessing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 >>
|
|
Top Topics Right Now:
Active Topics Right Now:
ATS MIX Podcasts:
Newest Topics:
|
