As author Jeffrey Bell says about Gov. Palin: "The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was - before anything else about her was known - enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left."
Writer Arnold Ahlert says that feminism, "like many movements that begin with good intentions, was hijacked by radicals who whittled it down to one over-arching requirement: either you're in favor of unrestricted abortion-on-demand, or we want nothing to do with you."
"If Palin were pro-choice," Ahlert continues, "is there any doubt whatsoever she'd be lionized by the very same people currently determined to kick the slats out from under her at every opportunity?" After all, she's "a governor, an experienced businesswoman and reformer willing to take on the hacks in her own party, an assertive, self-confident, self-made woman with a demonstrated sense of ease and contentment about who she is."
"20th Century feminism," he says, "has come to resemble the `Picture of Dorian Gray,' a movement that has grown incrementally uglier as time goes by. [Feminists'] unrelenting vitriol towards a woman whose only real `flaw' is a belief in the sanctity of life has revealed 20th Century feminism for the one-trick pony it has become."
Even the pro-abortion über-liberal Camille Paglia, wrote approvingly in Salon.com that Palin's debut on the national stage "represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism"
"But what of Palin's pro-life stand?" Paglia asks. "I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixé of the post-1960's women's movement - leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas...Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women - an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.
"But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand...hence, I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue...I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
"The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin," Paglia adds, "when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences...It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism..."
---www.joanswirsky.com a New York based journalist and author
above are portions of her 9/28/08 article published at LifeNews.com
???!!! any responses
Ah the right wing sure knows how to muddy an issue. Don't think the animousity for Palin has anything to do with abortion. The question inexplicably never came up in the debate. People who abuse Palin hate Bush and she stands for a continuation of his ruinous policies. And because while she might know something about being govenor of Alaska, she does not know much else, which is quite natural for someone from the provinces. Is she qualified for the world stage or not? I think not.
go read or talk to some of the varied ideologists of feminism and see what they have to say.
From where I sit its not a matter of muddying the waters, its a matter of clarity of one of the issues...get more in touch with the pro-life/prochoice issues...read things from both sides and learn for yourself. I think Bush is just an excuse to not appreciate her position...McCain and Palin are going farther a field of Bush than many Republicans like, and the ticket is more attuned to the calls for changing from Bush policies
Where were all your right wing friends warning you of economic global meltdown. They were haranguing about things like abortion, while they stole you blind. Generally called slight of hand or the politics of distraction.
Oh, but don't you know. The economic meltdown is Obama's fault...
Heard he was a terrorist but hadn't heard that one. My god this guy must be superman.
A McCain/Palin administration would be just a continuation of the Bush administration. The world needs a break from that garbage.
I agree with you on that one, Mike.
But, that "editorial," you posted sj -
I don't think it is fair to say that the only reason people are up in arms about her being on the presidential ticket is abortion.
It is her entire value system.
I still don't understand the whole position.
Please explain how you can believe in "the sanctity of life," yet favor a war, the right to carry guns, the death penalty, the development of nuclear weapons, and using up whatever natural resources are available regardless of the environmental costs?
Which is what most so called "pro-lifers" seem to believe. Including Palin.
You seem to hold the same "value system" as she does - perhaps you could explain this apparent dichotomy to me?
Just because Ms. Palin owns ovaries does not make her a feminist. As usual, the right-wing fanatics are bleating about hatred whilst propagating that very trait. Just because she is a woman using the same tactics as all the men in politics, why would she then appeal to the feminists?
If she was in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, she would most likely carry that "value" over into other areas. She would probably value the environment and favor banning state murders and wars for corporate profits. It is not fair, reasonable or even true to pick on this one single issue as the problem, which is what that fascist reporter you have quoted is doing. I bet she is a christian.
No not most pro-lifers believe that. In fact not many agreed with Bush's Iraq war. Simply because of what you said Mark, it is a contradiction.
Well most pro-lifers that I know do not agree with an illegal war. What's the difference between killing the unborn or sending young men and women to an illegal war to kill others or be kill themselves. That's why it's a contradiction to be pro-life and also pro-war. Sarah Palin is a contradiction herself.
Exactly. This is why I do not understand it, and I do not believe it is because they value the "sanctity of life."
How on earth can you be pro-death penalty, yet anti-abortion because life is sacred?
Pro Death Penalty is all about the sanctity of Life. It's not just about the innocent. It's about the value of life in general. Every life, be they Christian or Atheist, has intrinsic value that all must recognize. Otherwise, all actions toward people tend to have the same value, whether you take their life or feed them. There is a difference.
Could you explain that again please Ben?
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
The issue at the heart of "The Death Penalty" and "abortion" is the Sanctity of Life. Every life has enormously high value, period. And no one has the right to illegitmately and indiscriminately take a life. This value is what gives meaning to our actions, good or bad.
To those who don't highly value life, actions tend to become rather benign. They are neither good or bad. They just are. So taking a person's life is no different than feeding that person. And no one has the authority to tell another that their actions are either good or bad because value has been eliminated.
So giving birth has no greater value than aborting. The baby has no value. Neither does the mother.
And putting someone to death because they have taken a life becomes hypocrisy. If life has no value, who is someone in government to make a value judgment regarding that life? It doesn't really matter whether they put the person to death or just feed them in prison for the remainder of their life.
Any police officer or government officer can take the life of anyone they choose to, for whatever reason, because it doesn't really matter. And so can anyone on the street, because life has no value, which means our actions toward a life have no value. So taking another life, for whatever reason, is a meaningless endeavor. Why should anyone care when there's no meaning and value to anything?
That is what I am saying. How can one value the "sanctity of life," and be anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty? And pro-war? It makes no sense to me. Therefore I look to the "genuine" motivations - and it is not sanctity of life.
I don't trust the government to spend my taxes wisely or tell me the truth - ever. Why would I trust them to decide who lives or dies?
Who do you trust:.........to spend your taxes wisely?.............to tell you the truth?...........to decide who lives or dies??????
And what standard do you use to determine whether taxes have been spent wisely??.............to determine if someone has told you the truth?........................to decide whether someone lives or dies???????
The fact is that they are in the position to do all these things you don't like or agree with, but you are powerless to do anything about it. Personal murmuring and clamoring notwithstanding, who's to say your motivations would be any different in their position? Are you more highly evolved than the average person? Has nature selected you to assume this office of diagnosing right and wrong?...of passing laws and dealing with lawbreakers?...... Or maybe you're just the next transitional form on the upward heirarchal ladder of atheistic morality and justice? And maybe the Genuine Christian God is powerless to do anything about it???
Or do you also believe, like Darwin, that the human mind is Deity?
So where does that get us? WIll my cousin in the White House listen to Deity in human form? Or will he even acknowledge you, I AM that you are? If not, what then???????? Or does it really matter becasue nothing and no one has any value anyway.
Unfortunately - no one at the moment. And this is not exclusive to the US. I am English, married to an American, living in France. And all three governments are not to be trusted. They exclusively look after the interests of the 2% of the population with all the money France is perhaps slightly closer to my ideal of looking after the people rather than just the wealthy people. But only slightly...
My own standard. When my government spends $200 billion on a new set of Trident nuclear missiles I decide they have not spent my taxes wisely. When my government covers the countryside in CCTV cameras and the crime rate goes up, I decide they have not spent my taxes wisely. When my government bails out a bank that has broken the law by lending more money that they had in deposits and the directors walk away with millions in payoffs, I decide they have not spent my taxes wisely.
Truth. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - it allows you to see where you were lied to. Intentionally. It happens over and over and over.
Living or dying. I trust only myself.
I cannot argue with you there. I have spent too much time banging my head against that wall to think I have any power whatsoever. A story:
I lived in a small town in the UK called Walsall. I was an active member of the community, and the local chamber of commerce. I was unhappy with the recycling facilities available - for paper, plastics, and glass. I spent years trying to get them to put recycling facilities in place - particularly for paper and plastics - I was told it was "uneconomical," and they would not budge. For years I fought this
I left for ten years, and when I moved back briefly, the first letter I received in the house I was living in was a letter from the local council threatening me with a fine of £1,000 if I failed to recycle my paper and plastic waste. Because all the landfills were full.
I am working on having the power to do something about it. Currently I get around 150,000 people a month read what I write. It is not enough yet - but give me a few more years.
I like to think so But you never really know until you are faced with a difficult decision to make. Do you take the $100 million they promise you when you leave office and sign the declaration of war, or do you risk assassination?
Who knows? But - it is not one person, that needs to assume office, it is a change in our value system, particularly our economic model that we need. This current mess is a step in that direction. And look how hard the powers-that-be are trying to prop it up and make sure it continues.
If the laws were well written in the first place very few would break them.
Well, he has had all eternity to do something about it, but has apparently declined to do so.
That is as good a way to phrase it as I could do, yes.
The only thing your cousin listens to is his money men.
We are but grains of sand on the beach of life. I do not fool myself that I am any more valuable than that. That doesn't mean I don't try.......
Bush is a money man Himself. He comes from a banking family. He's operating on a higher plain of evolutionary deification.
Upon what basis do you make this statement? If everyone is their own God and subject to themselves only, what makes you think that another person's truth will agree with yours to the point that they will submit to "your law" or the "law of your group"? Why should they if they are their own standard? Are you somehow "more" of a God than they are? On what basis should anyone subject themself to your authority if its origin is your mind. What about the authority that originates within the mind of another? Is it more or less authoritative? Why? Simply because you say so? Or the group says so?
And how do you bring this subjection to reality? A convincing argument? An Appeal to Deity? Are you trying to tell me that you will convince the other gods' that your deification should be dominant over theirs? And if they don't agree? If they don't agree with the consensus?
If that's the case, It sounds like the use of force is your only alternative. But, then, you have just become everything you've railed against. I would suppose that the use of force would not be an option. So what is a god to do when his subjects rebel against his authority? Or worse, they don't even recognize the god's existence!
Welcome to the world of Deity!
Well, common sense. Here are a couple of examples. One "secular," and one "divine."
Growing and smoking marijuana is illegal. Why? Because it is not easily taxable compared to alcohol and tobacco, but easily grow-able for personal consumption.
Lots of people break this law. Why? because the law is not written for their good, but for the good of the tobacco and alcohol industries and the taxman. Badly written law. Lots of people break it.
The bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Or something like that But this is an unenforceable law, because the penalty comes after you die, and no one really believes they will be punished for their crimes. If they did, no one who calls themselves a christian would break this law. Badly written law. lots of people break it.
That is not what I meant when I agreed that the mind is deity. At least not in the way you see god. All-powerful, omni-present, etc. The combined human mind perhaps, but not individually. And I am not sure what God has to do with laws exactly. Men write laws, not god. And of course there would need to be a consensus of some kind, or at least for the laws to make sense to the people being asked to respect them. The more well-written they are, and the more it makes sense to follow them the less they will be broken.
A convincing argument.
Once again, you seem to be saying that god is the only one who can write laws when clearly every law ever written was written by man.
Education is part of the answer also. Just writing laws that make sense would not be enough. Neither would education on its own. A change of our value system is also required. I never said it would be easy
Well you have just opened my eyes Ben. Thanks.
I had know idea that this idea of individual humans becoming their own god came from Darwinism.
I figured that the idea of humans becoming their own god came from the strange lucifarian freemasonic beliefs or the spiritualism that has spread since some freemasons put out the Da Vinci Files.
This is one more of the many many reasons why Darwinism should not be taught to children in schools. The fact that it also brings about anarchy (which we see in these forums) is another main reason why it should not be taught in schools.
After realizing this I did a Google search and found that the idea of evolution was around before Darwin. Darwinism has its foundations in Freemasonry.
http://www.globalfreemasonry.com/global … ry_05.html
Folks wake up. You are not a god. You are not I Am. You will never be a god. You are following a satanic belief if you think you are a god.
There is only one I Am.
Mike, You're right, it does go back farther than Darwin. The idea of evolution has been around for as long as man has recognized God....or not recognized God. It started with Cain's angry rejection of God and his Standard and Cain's slavery empire beginning in the city of Enoch.
As far as schools, Darwinism and modern education are a perfect fit. Schools are there to serve political ends and nothing more. They never have been about Truth. They have been about the manipulation of public property. Children are a human resource of the State to mold into its image for the purpose of the State.
Ben - Darwin postulated a scientific theory that explained the way we came to be. Nothing else. The only people I see pushing "Social Darwinism" are you guys.
Sorry, it is scientific proof that man was not created as it states in the bible. From dirt
And I am not sure which is worse, the state or the church controlling people. From the very beginning of the church, it's one and only job has been to keep the people in line.
Mike - once again, you are getting the wrong end of the stick. If that suits your purpose, then go right ahead. I am sure it helps you to believe the stuff you believe. Justifies it even
Check out this thread that explains Darwin's scientific theories:
Ignorance is not an excuse
And you will see that your fears are completely unwarranted. All this scientific theory does is prove your religion is lies and garbage. Nothing else.
I understand it is in your church's interest to keep this information from people and persuade them it is a lie. Tick tock - you cannot keep people ignorant for ever. Or perhaps you would like to see the flat earth theory back in schools? That should set us back a few centuries. Back to the Inquisition perhaps? You would like that huh? Burning heretics at the steak?
Applebee's special witch burning platter?
I think you are out of your mind Ben. Your cousin in the white house is the friggin anitchrist.
You don't worship God, you worship money. God did not put them in the position to destroy the world with their careless and unfruitful meandoring and carefully manipulating the stytem to suit whatever he feels is best for himself.
Thier in that possition because Satan rules the system and anyone in that position follows the system of Satan. I think you got all your wires crossed.
- if Mark were running for President I would vote for him because he puts more value in humanity than most, not to say that his sarcasim doens't push the borders a little at time. (even if they are funny).
Mark is more a genuine chrisian than those who call themselves Christain. He's got a good heart and a sound mind.
I am going to rebel againts paying any taxes. How they gonna get my money if I don't have a job? can the government tax my income when paid in cash? Or is the next step going to be them coming into my house to make sure I don't have any cash in hand?
I think I am going to stop paying everything all together. So that my tax money or money in genral is not going to the governments unfruitful and God awful uses of paying for war, bailing out criminals...
they can go F themselves. I hope that everyone takes not and does the same friggin thing because every dollar ya'll put into it, is the more they have to support these things that are bad and I know there bad.
God said though shall not kill! There is no clause. there are no exceptions.
Take it easy!
Mark and I understand each other. At least, I hope we do.
Have you read your Bible? Romans 13 says that George Bush is God's deacon. Of course, that's not to be confused with a deacon of the political entity known as the Ecclesia. George would be referred to as a demon deacon because of the system he operates within, as you have pointed out.
Sorry, God didn't say not to kill. He said to not murder. Competely different. A person does have the legitmate right to defend himself using whatever level of force is necessary. Of course, there is only one defense to Mark's sarcasm, a sense of humor.
And as Jesus reminded Pilate, government does have legitmate authority from above to exercise.
BTW Please be careful of what you say about Cousin George. After all, he's family. And he's money
Well I don't think you and Mark understand each other, and ok, fine if your Bible says thou shall not murder, then war is also murder, don't do it. Murder in the Bible is defined as "killing with hatred in your heart".
Adultory is defined in the Spirit, ie: having another God besides GOD the Creator, in which case when Jesus says if you love me you will obey the commandments then Jesus is saying, you will not worship him, but you will put your faith in his Father, God. God gave us ten rules, Jesus gave us two. You know what they are and you are ignoring them as you like to say, you are interpreting the Bible wrong.
I don't quite understand your last statement about Cousin George, but I will take it as a threat. It is not like I am unawar that your Cousin had issued a law that denies freedom of speach on the internet, but I will say what I want anyways.
If Mark has a problem with the manner and method of our conversation, I trust that he will inform me. Until that happens, I will not shy away from probing with serious questions. Since both Mark and I are on record regarding our views of Truth, we will challenge one another in our manly pursuit of it.
Adultery was both spiritual and physical. Scripture makes that about as plain as can be.
Jesus didn't give us two rules. He named two which summed up the entire OT law. Of course, Paul summed it up and agreed with Jesus when he said, "love is the fulfilling of the law." Jesus said, "if you love me, keep my commandments."
If I've intertpreted the Bible wrong, then so did Jesus.
As far as Cousin George, it was humor. Yes, we're cousins, but we have never met.
I understand the role of George Bush and government in general. It's right there in the Book. And, if you will listen, George, as well as other officials, will tell you what it's all about. Even Satan knows his role and parameters of action in the realm of the world.
How can the combined human mind be considered an allpowerful deity, yet the individual parts possess no characteristics of deity?
As far as laws, I'm referring to human gods making laws; men. And the point I am making has to do with the means of having everyone recognize the authority of one or a few. You are giving me examples of bad laws. Actually, the laws you cited are not bad laws. The problem lies in the proper execution and enforcement of those laws.
For example, in the US, all marijauna is outlawed, only a certain type or types. Yet all marijuana is thought to be against the law. And all marijuana possession is prosecuted.
Adultery? Good law that can be enforced. In fact, Adultery is still against the law in this country, but once again, it is not enforced. Of course, it you are one who thinks that busting a family up is good for society, then this is a bad law. Or if you think that a person should be able to engage in any acts with anyone at any time, this is bad law.
I'll stipulate that deity doesn't have to be all powerful and omniscient. But deity does have various levels of power and knowledge, does it not?
My whole point lies in the dilemma of consensus. If you create a consensus, using whatever means, what have you done? The very nature of consensus demands change. Just because one group of gods got together and decided a particular course of action, who is to prevent another group of gods coming together and dialoguing a policy that overrides the previous one? What or Who decides which one prevails? Both can claim authority, but who or what decides the claim?
Ultimately, doesn't it come down to pure force? Or at least, intimidation and threats? This doesn't sound like a plausible attribute of deity, does it?
Or is there more to governing on this earth than meets the eye?
Well, lets get one thing straight:
There is no such thing as deity or god, then take it from there. But your god is all about intimidation and threats isn't it. Do as I say or spend eternity burning in hell......
Change is good. I have had my best moments in the midst of change.
What is dangerous is blindly clinging to the status quo. As both your government and church are wont to do.
Comfortable. No rocking the boat.
OK Let's presume for a moment that deity or god doesn't exist. Let's deal, instead with government and church and their status quo of control of the masses.
You still have yet to provide an alternative to force in order to encourage and/or maintain ultimate control of individuals or groups. It's too easy to point a finger at others you don't agree with. It's easy to identify your area of disagreement. But you must provide a viable alternative to maintaining control of rebels without resorting to the same tactics you find so distatesful in Bush and the Church. Otherwise, you are stuck in the status quo of intimidation and threats.
I just read this web page and scanned some of the other pages on the site,
http://www.globalfreemasonry.com/global … ry_05.html
It puts a clear connection between freemasonry, atheism, marxism, humanism, kabbalism, evolution and Darwinism. And that main connection is freemasonry.
So even though some of these people may or may not realize it, we are actually conversing with God's true enemy, satan, through these satanic beliefs.
What do you think of that oh Grand Master 'Selami' Mark 'Huxley' Knowles?
Your objective is now revealed.
Well, that is a new one on me. I had to look that up. Who is that ?
That is you Mark.
Read about yourself and the satanic dogmas you push.
http://www.globalfreemasonry.com/global … ry_05.html
Yeah I have a couple more reasons why Darwinism should not be taught in schools now Mark, added to the many other reasons that I posted on that thread.
Never been a Mason - I don't know all the handshakes.....
Well if you are not a mason then you are pushing their false dogmas out of ignorance.
Do you hate masons because of thier creed or because you can't join? At least thier organization helps those who need it, not themselves.
No because they are satanic. And most masons in the lower degrees do not even realize they are in a satanic organization.
that's funny because I suggested the same thing for the Christian churches.
Mike - I am not pushing anyone's dogma, false or otherwise. I am sure it made you feel better to call me ignorant though I appreciate the fact that you are unable to understand that evolution is a scientific theory. I am sorry you feel that it threatens your religion in some way. I personally do not see that. It is based on measurable, verifiable facts. And I don't mean the sort of facts that are in the bible. These are real facts And once again, the only ones I see pushing "Social Darwinism," are you christians. I am sure it helps to muddy the waters - excellent politics I guess. How very christian of you.
If I am pushing anything, it is the need for people to educate themselves - at least to the point where they are aware of the fact that they are being manipulated. I make no decisions based on the theory of evolution. If you have read it and understood it - it is clear that I cannot possibly have any impact on the way things work out, or came to be. It does not, and cannot influence my decisions. It just is. A fact. And I can draw no social conclusions from it.
All this other rubbish you are accusing me of is just silly. I have enjoyed our conversations in the past, and I would rather not just get to the point where I start ignoring you.
She's a maniac, maniac, on the dance floor!
And she swears she never, ever, danced before!
You are a bit...a far bit off thread topic...take your stuff somewhere else and stop hijacking threads
Actually, we were on topic as exhibited by the following quote from your original piece.
"It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism..."
The idea that the use of intimidation and threats and, ultimately, the force of law to implement your agenda is one that many do not want to consider. The article cited speaks of this very thing as well as Palin being accepted or rejected based on her pro-life stance. This is all about the methodology of governing.
It's not limited to Democrats or Republicans, pro-abortion or pro-life.
What does Palin, as well as her detractors, do in order to implement their beliefs and agendas. Convincing argument? Or, are other measures administered in order to "convince" the "unbelievers" of the rightness and strength of their position?
And, in spite of the assertaion of the above author, feminism has no room for one who is pro-life. Because, yes, it is all about the individual and their right to choose. And no one has the right to stop them from doing as they wish. Rebellion from any and all order except their own, which is in reality, chaos. And the fact is, no society can survive total chaos. Even the society of Palin and her feminist enemies.
Ben - I agree with what you are saying about there being no possibility of being a feminist in favor of banning abortions. We seem to be saying similar things in a lot of ways, but -
There is another alternative to intimidation and threats.
Education. The simple fact is that we need to change our value system. If the population is properly educated, and the laws governing them make sense to this better educated population, there will be less law breaking. And probably less need for laws covering every aspect of our lives.
I am sure there would still need to be the threat of enforced laws with punishments - no matter how perfect the education system, and no matter how well written the laws.
Both the government and the church realize this. And do a pretty good job of keeping the population uneducated and in fear. Just look at the amount of "christians," I argue with who believe evolution is a lie, America should use nukes and it is "god's word," that there be a war in Iraq, so they can fill their gas guzzling cars with fuel. Education.
Galileo ended his life under house arrest by the Roman Catholic church because his scientific theories went against literal scripture. He is now recognized as one of the fathers of modern science and has helped us begin to understand our world.
Intimidation and threats - keeping the status quo. Throw your book away and come join the revolution brother Bush
So, it's really not an alternative. Its an addition since the threat of enforced laws with punishments is retained. So what does Palin or feminism have to offer when it comes to education?
Who's to say that Palin and her feminist counterparts don't do exactly that?
After all, weren't they both educated by the government? Where are the conspiracy theorists when you need them?
Galileo's scientific theories didn't go against literal Scripture. They went against official RCC interpretation of Scripture, which is an entirely different matter.
I also find it interesting that you would use an example of a man who included God in his understanding of the World as a creation of this same God.
I wonder how well Galileo would be welcomed into todays scientific world?
I'll take your invitation as sincere, but I've already joined the ranks of another revolution where threats and intimidation are unnecessary and the education is divine. And since I am an Ambassador for this revolutionary jurisdiction, to join yours would be a massive reduction in rank. Besides, it would be treasonous to the One I serve. I respectfully decline your offer.
Well, that is not really fair. You cropped out the main part of what I said. Of course it is an alternative. There will always be a need for the threat of enforced punishments. Wouldn't a 90% reduction in those needs be a step forward?
Come on - I think we can both agree that no matter the level of education, or the sensibility and fairness of the law, there will always be some who decide it is not for them. I realize you are not a big fan of education, but this is the key to improvements in the future. Sure - You know the TRUTH, and will homeschool your children to make sure they believe the same stuff you believe, but education is about teaching them to learn for themselves. Not teaching them to believe the same stuff you believe
Well, I was educated by the government and the church. Years in boarding school being force fed the christian/British nationalist party line.
But, what they also taught me was - how to learn for myself, from a variety of sources. Why do you think England has more atheists that the US? Education and the ability to question the status quo. I agree there is a conspiracy. The christian church and the government conspire to keep the people ignorant. Docile. Ready to fight a war when needed. Ready to consume on demand. Ready to believe the war is god's war.
I can break free - so can anyone.
Oh, that's right. They got the interpretation wrong. You have it correct. Hmmmm. How many wars have been fought over this?
You would have thought an omnipotent GOD could have made himself a little more clear.
You say that as though he had a choice. He died under house arrest by the most powerful christian authority of the day for daring to suggest that they had it wrong.
I wonder what would have happened to him had he stated he did not believe?
I smell burning wood.......... Or is that pork?
I think he would have sucked up all the education he could get and been gratified at the impact he had made.
Lost me. Which revolution? I was only half joking. Education is the key. And I don't mean the sort of education you get from the bible. You know the one - the one that makes the RCC mis-interpret the words to mean something else and imprison some one for disagreeing, yet you know what they really mean and no scientific proofs will change that......
I would have made you ambassador to somewhere really cool
I've read that one in four people in England are freemasons. That probably has a lot to do with it.
Really? Where did you read that? Same place you get all your other "facts."?
Maybe one in four English policemen are. That is why no one trusts the cops.......
Surely freemasonry is a male only preserve, so that makes 50% of all British males. I've known several freemasons, and have found them to be good, kind and caring people. Surely the Christian message is best defined by the story of the Good Samaratan. Does it matter about the brand of belief so long as the actions speak out?
No, no - If you say "I have accepted jesus christ as my savior," you can behave as you wish. Secure in the knowledge that you are doing god's work and will go to heaven.
I am English myself, and I do not know any freemasons.
Man what a switch that line is for you Mark.
Or are you starting to believe in God now Mark?
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Reverend Rowan Williams has said "Masons have no place in the Church".
http://www.voxfux.com/features/archbish … asons.html
But I think later he had to take back his words under pressure.
Well that is the exact problem Mark.
This die hard stance you guys put out for Darwinism does look exactly like a revolution.
Quote from http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Darwin.htm
How can something that has been proven false threaten any religion? But by teaching this in schools along with the idea that anyone can be their own god is wrong.
http://watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers That's for you, MIke
So, are you telling the founding fathers were "pushing their false dogmas out of ignorance"?
Looks like it if we can believe that web site. But not out of ignorance cause it doesn't look like they were denying it.
That is possibly what I read Mark, 1 in 4 English policeman.
Amanda the web site that Misha posted talks about a female branch of freemasonry called the eastern star or something like that. Not many lower degree masons know what they belong to.
Well, like Mark, I'm also English. I've never knowingly met, nor heard about female masons, but I do know of several male masons. They are a rarity, however, and certainly do not comprise 25% of the UK population. I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that William Blake, the 19thc artist, who wrote the lyrics to Jerusalem, was a mason, and his famous painting of God dividing the heavens is based on Masonic imagery. He was certainly not a Satanist, but then I'm sure most Masons aren't.
That, I can believe. There have been numerous scandals involving the police and freemasonry. The "old boy network."
I don't know if they accept women or not, but I would have thought - not.
Female Masons are called Eastern Stars here. I don't know about there. But I know that the same male Masons from there are the same ones here. I know that because my grandfather was one. He was up high in their ladder of degrees. I have been asked many times to join. But, they aren't supposed to come out and ask. So, when they invite, they do kinda go around the world about doing it. But, if you are ever asked, you know it. And yes, the whole thing about the handshakes is real. I thought it was a joke until I asked my grandfather. Mike, you are correct in that they are certainly not a Christian group. I didn't mean to get invovled in this one, but since I saw you asked if they take women, I thought I'd let know you my experience.
Thanks for your first hand knowledge allshookup.
I should have known. Darn I thought we finally converted you Mark.
Joking aside, you'd be a good Christian with the knowledge you have about Christianity.
Mark, I don't think Mark's interested. I think he has a problem with the many Christians who already have alot of knowldge about Christianity and aren't good Christians. The sad part is that he's right!
But that is still no basis for choosing to not believe in the existence of God. How many things are there that we are unaware of in the realm of knowledge, material and non-material? Does our current lack of evidence for these things relegate them to the realm on non-existence?
God in Scripture says that in the last days knowledge would increase. Yet this knowledge would be about many things that have existed for centuries without our knowldge. The veil is simply being drawn back to reveal the Creator.
Yeah I know Ben. I think Mark is eventually going to see God though.
Mark I apologize. I forgot to put my quote marks before I clicked. I Hop you can make sense of it.
Ben - not a problem, but I will not be able to re-quote it so I will just respond here:. I will even make it a multi-media presentation
The reason I do not believe in god has a little do do with the fact that I do not see "christians" behaving in the way I understand the bible to instruct them to behave. There is no room for "CALLING FOR PRAYER" for a particular war-mongering nationalist political party. This is not god's work
There is no room for saying that nuclear weapons are a realistic response to a perceived (created) threat. etc etc etc.
Nationalism and war has no place in a true cristian's ethos. That is not to say they should not defend themselves if the need arises, but the true christian response should be understanding and love. Hmmmm. Don't see that very often - GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS !!!! is more like it.
Too long has the christian church been wrapped up in money, political power and controlling the population with divine instructions - which is all about rewards in this life - not the next.
So, yes, when I hear a christian that favors war and expresses disdain for some one of another religion - It certainly helps to persuade me that your religion has it wrong. After 2,000 years of shoving the bible down people's throats at the point of a sword/gun/burning stake - still the majority of "christians" I see favor this tough love approach.
But that is not all of it. The bible is just one of many religious books that attempt to explain the universe - and if you are honest with yourself - you must agree that this would have died out long ago were it not for the forced conversion of people.
Sorry, but I do not agree with you. You may believe you are teaching your children to question things, but when their daddy says " I believe in God. The bible is the Truth with a Capital T " - how many kids will question that? There is no room for questions in the bible. That is the entire point. Look at the people who call me a satanist or Mason or Social Darwinist - just because I do not believe. Therefore I am evil.
Scientific facts - there are none in the bible. You might be able to retrospectively "interpret" a few bits to mean something now, but -
The only mathematics I recall from the bible for example is the building of Noah's ark. Now - I am not sure if you are a "literal" christian or not but I will ask you the question I asked one of the literalists not so long ago -
If you are interested, this was the thread - before your time
But it became the longest thread on hubpages and now has its own page rank
There is no logic to the bible. And this is what it looks like if you do not have faith:
I don't know if he had the stomach for being burnt at the stake for saying he did not believe in god. I do not know whether he actually did believe or not. Certainly his scientific theories persuaded the authorities of the day that he was skirting the heretical line. But - you rather missed the point of what I was saying.
Unless he chose to be burnt at the stake and have his family disgraced and possibly killed alongside him, he had no choice but to say he believed.
The system -
I am well aware of how much of a slave to the system I am. It is almost impossible to not be. Just try not being on the grid and see how far you get. But - I do my bit within certain limitations. I am watching the governments bail the system out all over the world at the moment. With money they do not possess. Who will pay the price? We will. And I have no control over that. My own government has just decided to waive the monopoly laws in my country to suit one bank's needs. Democracy? Yeah - right.
Just wait and see how much fun things are when the world's governments own all the banks. Try going off-grid then
Your government will soon have direct access to all your financial information. Without the need for any pesky laws getting in the way.
Your bible is unfortunately so wrapped up in politics and money itself that is is all but worthless. You have had your 2,000 years and look where we are. Square one. Everything Jesus stood against is now being pushed as the christian line.
The scenario you describe contains the answer to your dilemma. What you are viewing and find distasteful is actually described in the Bible very clearly. Things are the way they are simply because people have decided to reject God to one degree or another. And according to the Bible, God will allow this free choice with all its consequences. And there are many. And many reject God and go there own way...........all in the name of..............God or Jesus!!!!!! Imagine that!!!! This is exactly what Jesus told his disciples.
Couple that with what could be genuine Christians who, for whatever reason, find it uncomfortable to actually do what Jesus said in their life. To live according to the words of Jesus requires a price most are not willing to pay. So they abide in their comfort, parroting what their leaders tell them, knowing that it is not the Truth. And believe me, many of these people know these facts. I've spoken to pastors who have told me that they can't preach or teach certain things becasue they would lose their jobs or, more simply, they are doing nothing more than what the people want. Sounds like dedication to God, if I've ever seen it!
A slave to the system?
That's literally how you and everyone else is viewed. It's a legal reality. Yet, you made a statement earlier about "breaking free." You must know that the system doesn't look favorably upon those who do not cooperate fully. And that what's the early " Genuine Christians" faced. And that's why they were eventually martyred. They simply refused to be the slaves of Caesar because they were serving another "Savior" besides Caesar. Sorry, not allowed!!
The Literal Book
Your question about Noah is no problem, since obviously, it's not a one week project, even with modern tools. BTW, how do you know that electricity wasn't invented at the time, or any other type of convenience for more rapid construction?
I prefer to deal with a larger, more complex absurdity. Try the entire earth being surrounded by metal in the atmosphere. Explain that. The bible literally says that. Can you explain it? Scientific impossibility?
I'm not sure of my responses today and the next few days. We are in the midst of moving. I'll catch up when I can.
Mike - I have just seen your last post. Thank you - I am flattered - I think
Ben - I look forward to your responses, but:
I know all these things without having to look it up in the bible.
Does that make me God?
Mark, I only have a short time, so.......
My point was that the BIble forthrightly identifies the world and its methodology. So why get upset when, by nature, the World acts like the World. Do you expect lawbreakers to act lkike Christians.
Now, Christians acting like the World is a different matter, wouldn't you agree?
If it did, would you believe in yourself?
I am not upset with the world acting like the world. Survival of the fittest. That is the way it works. Evolution in action. The strongest dominate and destroy the weakest.
I think we can do better than that. But we are not doing so.
And most christians claim to be better than that. Sadly......
So - I am God? Because I believe in me.
So the question becomes, "Do I believe in you?"
What evidence of your existence can you provide me? Till now, I have no evidence for your existence.
Not really. I could care less whether you believe in me or not.
And if there was a god, I imagine he would feel the same way. But you are continuing a conversation with me, so I have to assume you at least have faith that I might be there.
That is where a lot of you christians have a problem as far as the rest of us are concerned. Just because you believe something - you seem to think every one else should.
I can definitely agree with that Mark.
But it doesn't have much good to say about evolution or Darwinism though, does it?
Okay I'll say it before you do Mark. Or some Christians either.
For instance, I have been going to a Catholic forum the last couple of days. They had a poll on who members of the forum were voting for. Because most American Catholics think abortion is the major issue of any election 73.9 % said they would vote for McCain and Palin because they "claim" to be pro-life. I couldn't believe this so I posted what I thought were some good reason why not to vote for McCain but I was getting a lot of come backs and even some attacks. It wasn't until I posted McCain's Promise that it just about stopped all comments. Only 2 people commented since, of which I have to reply to the last one that was posted today.
John McCain's Promise - War for 100 Years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5t … re=related
We do. We are all children of God.
I know Im not keeping up with the forum, but all I have to say about her is I can't watch a single one of her debates! It gives me a headache just listening to her.
I hear you thranax. Tina Fey as Sarah Palin is much more entertaining.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ … en/656281/
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ … en/704042/
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ … en/727421/
I am not being disingenuous - I genuinely don't care if you believe in me or not. For my purposes, I am quite satisfied with the interaction we are having, whether you believe in me or not. I cannot imagine why I would want anything more. I supposed if the entire world ignored me I might get a little miffed, but once I had adjusted to not having to pay for anything and doing exactly as I pleased with no consequences, I would probably be OK.
Although, I have to ask this one -
As you appear to think I am not here - why are you responding to me?
You have obviously made a mistake. Or you have possibly misinterpreted whatever information has been provided to you. For someone who is completely unaware of his own non-existence, you surely have a way of belligerently forcing your non-existence on others. Kinda makes me mad!
Add to that the fact that you can't recognize the lack of a response from others, my conclusion would be that your non-existence is a complete waste of nothingness. But what do I know? Well, I do know that I have not responded to you! Because Atheists don't exist! And I don't repond to them. I hope you realize that.
And the great thing is - it doesn't matter and I don't care.
No wonder you buy the whole god thing if this is your reasoning.
Although, to be more realistically aligned with your thought process, I really should get some one else to belligerently force my existence on you and claim that they do not need any proof or evidence. My very being is proof enough - Look! They have a book that says it is so
Nice we can agree on a few things. I have seen that video - he scares me. As does Ms. Palin.
I can't say I am terribly impressed with the other guy, but at least he can string a sentence together
Which is definitely a step in the right direction
Evolution is a natural process which we are and always have been a part of. We are in a position to be "better" than that, for want of a better word . Even your bible says we can be better than that. When your god gave you dominion over the animals, it wasn't so we could squander them and wipe them out as a disposable resource. And when Darwin postulated his theory of how we came to be, it wasn't to suggest that we become fitter and survive better than other tribes.
How you persuade people to be "better" is currently beyond me.......
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Thomas Friedman, "Why I'm Pro Life."" “Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary, no matter how that egg got fertilized,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what circumstances the mother is in. Furthermore, these prolifers are often...
by TruthDebater 11 years ago
How does a government and society expect people to value all life including themselves and each other, while at the same time, the government can influence and enforce the death penalty and abortion? If people see abortion and "DP" as justified when someone is inconvenienced or found...
by Nickny79 12 years ago
Our Founding Fathers codified a profound respect for the common law notion of private property as between the gov't and citizens as well as among citizens themselves.The Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment are two obvious examples of this codification. To...
by Erin Trefz 5 years ago
Can someone agree with abortion and oppose the death penalty?
by H C Palting 5 years ago
What percentage of pro-lifers financially support kids through age 18 who were at risk of abortion?I believe that couples should NOT CREATE A CHILD if either of them is uncertain that they want, can afford or financially support a child. I also believe that people should have the right to choose...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|