I'm Not Anti-Christian - I'm anti-theocracy

[john w]

any society that engages in the mass murder and genocide you fantasize about isn't stable.

Christianity is not outlawed in schools. religious indoctrination however is

Why is being stable" "good?" Who made you the boss, makng that judgment?

 

[TracerBullet]

There was a time when schools taught American History instead of the fiction they are teaching now.

fiction like this? or this? or...?

 

[john w]

I was thinking the same thing about you



again - what a coincidence

The actress punted her own "argument," for all of TOL to observe.


Thanks for checking in. Have a seat.

 

[TracerBullet]

Why is being stable" "good?" Who made you the boss, makng that judgment?

Still trying to push aside Euthyphro's dilemma?

 

[TracerBullet]

The actress punted her own "argument," for all of TOL to observe.


Thanks for checking in. Have a seat.

Perhaps i was being generous about the age of twelve

 

[john w]

Still trying to push aside Euthyphro's dilemma?

No. I dunt know who he is, Jenny.

Slower: All laws reflect a moral viewpoint, despite your denial. The only issue, is whose morals will be legislated, and which viewpoint will be advanced/accepted.

You just don't dig our morality. That is the issue.

Forest John W

 

[TracerBullet]

No. I dunt know who he is Jenny.

I'm not surprised

 

[john w]

Perhaps i was being generous about the age of twelve

Stumped me there. I'm bewildered.

 

[john w]

I'm not surprised

Another stumper/stock cliche.

You talk like Oprah. She talks like you, Jenny.

Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).

I'll await-for an eternity.

 

[Foxfire]

Nope-punt.No, you are to answer mine, as I am the director here, and you are the dancer. Sit, until you do.

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Pathetic narcissism.

You continue to assert that "law" is the imposition of morality.
Yet you refuse to explain the "morality" of religious genocide when mandated by "law" in a "Christian" state.

 

[TracerBullet]

Stumped me there. I'm bewildered.

The i will spell it out for you. 12 year olds are usually more mature than the behavior you are displaying here...and better educated.

 

[john w]

Pathetic narcissism.

You continue to assert that "law" is the imposition of morality.
Yet you refuse to explain the "morality" of religious genocide when mandated by "law" in a "Christian" state.

Nope. Nice emotional blubbering...Slick...real slick...

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.


Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).




I will wait.

 

[john w]

The i will spell it out for you. 12 year olds are usually more mature than the behavior you are displaying here...and better educated.

That's yor best shot, Chip?

You're on he wrong website/outlet.Talk shows are on TV.

 

[john w]

Still trying to push aside Euthyphro's dilemma?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024

 

[Foxfire]

Nope. Nice emotional blubbering...Slick...real slick...

Nope. Nice emotional blubbering...Slick...real slick..

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Redundant, repetitive and evasive.

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.

Evading the question.

Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).

More evasion.

I will wait.

Maybe holding your breath would help? :jolly:

 

[john w]

Nope. Nice emotional blubbering...Slick...real slick..

Redundant, repetitive and evasive.

Evading the question.



More evasion.


Maybe holding your breath would help? :jolly:

More stock cliches, Opah-isms. Weighty.


"Maybe holding your breath would help"-you

It took you 1 hour to "Yahoo/Bing/google" that stumper?


Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).

I'll await-for an eternity.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Gay people should have the right to a speedy fair trial with two or three eye witnesses and a swift public execution, as should any other person that commits such a horrendous violation of the rules needed for a strong society.
You are denying them those rights, just as you are denying the 97% of America that is not "gay" the right to live in a stable society.

That right there is why anyone who values freedom, liberty and human rights wants nothing to do with the nightmarish totalitarian nutball state that you would have us under.

 

[Foxfire]

More stock cliches, Opah-isms. Weighty.


"Maybe holding your breath would help"-you

It took you 1 hour to "Yahoo/Bing/google" that stumper?


Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).

I'll await-for an eternity.

Obviously you have no intelligent support for your premise. Additionally, you seem determined to divert this thread from it's OP query.
To wit,

The problem is that there are too many Christians who even though they deny it, DO want to bring America closer and closer to
a Christian theocracy in which Non-Christians would be second class citizens . They say "America is a "Christian nation ". It is only in the sense that the majority of Americans happen to be Christians .
But don't forget the millions of Americans who foolow Judaism , Islam, Hinduism, Budddhism and just about every other monro religion in existence , not to mention millions of atheists and agnostics . There are now more atheists in America than there were people at the time of our founding .

My example of Theocratic excess in law are historical fact to which you have no response but to be narcissistic,repetitive, ad hominum and irrelevant to the OP.

 

[john w]

Obviously you have no intelligent support for your premise. Additionally, you seem determined to divert this thread from it's OP query.
To wit,

My example of Theocratic excess in law are historical fact to which you have no response but to be narcissistic,repetitive, ad hominum and irrelevant to the OP.

"Obviously you have no intelligent support for your premise.-Frank Burns


Another stock cliche. Don't confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part, to intelligently "support" my premise("supporting walls").

Are you with me, Frank? Good.

"narcissistic,repetitive, ad hominum and irrelevant to the OP"-Frank

Nice Google...Nice...Never heard that one before...No, siree...


I stay on topic, while dismissing your emotionalism. And the topic is:


Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).

I'll await-for an eternity.

Quiet, as a turkey farm, in lateNovember.

 

[TracerBullet]

That's yor best shot, Chip?

You're on he wrong website/outlet.Talk shows are on TV.

Realize that i did dumb it down so you could understand