Previous 11 - 20 Next
How about "Read Romans 10.8-13 and flee the man-man nonsense and fraud of the Protestant upstarts"? You mode of "argument," a mishmash of Scriptural quotes and personal opinions and denunciations of those who understand Scripture otherwise than you do, cannot possibly persuade anyone who expects that someone trying to persuade will take the trouble to make a rational case. It is odd, by the way, that Protestants who insist on "Scripture alone" also insist that they are the ones who, with infallible correctness, should interpret Scripture for the rest of us. It is not true that there is no Pope in Protestantism; rather, every Protestant seems to be his own Pope, quicker than any Catholic Pope in history to scatter anathemas in all directions.
"No contrition, no remorse. Just anger and meanness... I’m more inclined to believe that young Michael will spend a fair amount of time in Purgatory..." In its own way, this is "theologically correct," in the same way that so much trendy, liberal nonsense is "politically correct." While we cannot pretend that we have the right to judge Michael Brown's soul, the anger, meanness, and total absence of contrition attributed to him by the author are a recipe for going to Hell and staying there forever. Once again, I am not saying that Michael Brown went to Hell. I do think, however, that we would do well (for our own sakes and for the benefit of those whom we can hope to influence) to believe, to remember, and to say that Hell exists and that many, many people go there and stay there forever because of the choices that they make.
doc wrote that "Chapman ain't no leftist ... but he is an incredibly foolish libertarian. I find him an embarassment being a libertarian myself." Granting that no one has an enforceable monopoly on the libertarian label, it still seems to me that there is, for many, an easy transition from libertarianism to liberalism and then to outright leftism. If one wants liberty from traditional moral norms, from religiously based disapproval of one's "life style," from the small shreds of social stigma that still follow after some behaviors, then one is both a libertarian (of sorts) AND a leftist. The libertarians who are nineteenth century liberals at heart should try either to call themselves something other than libertarians or else need to some way to defend their trademark.
"She's on the right side of history. It's pretty clear where history's heading on this issue." Black slavery, Naziism, and Communism were once imagined, at least by their proponents, as historically "progressive." All of them, after producing much misfortune and misery (and mass murder, in the case of the socialist ideologies), went to the ash-heap of history. In time, the same destiny probably awaits the supporters and apologists of perversion, though much damage will certainly be done before their mischief runs its course.
The next shoe to drop may be an actual pardon for the illegals, under the cover of the President's pardon power.
If Obama were announcing that he was merely going to tolerate the continued presence of 5 million illegals in the country, one could perhaps argue that this was an exercise of "prosecutorial discretion", though I think it would still be a massive and inadmissible stretch. On the other hand, when green cards and SSN's are issued to people known to be here illegally, and when this is done pursuant to an executive order, that is active aiding and abetting of their crime.
These pastors, it seems to me, are saying that ours is ALREADY a neo-pagan society, that there is no point pretending otherwise, and that there is little or nothing to be accomplished by remaining in the public square for the foreseeable future. They may be right about this or, if they are not correct just yet, may soon be correct.
These pastors, it seems to me, are saying that ours is ALREADY a neo-pagan society, that there is no point pretending otherwise, and that there is little or nothing to be accomplished by remaining in the public square for the foreseeable future. They may be right about this or, if they are not correct just yet, may soon be correct.
In response to:

Beheading the Religion of Pieces

Troglodite Wrote: Nov 18, 2014 8:57 AM
svirk: a Moslem troll?!
In response to:

Beheading the Religion of Pieces

Troglodite Wrote: Nov 18, 2014 8:38 AM
Actually, I believe that much of the Islamic world (part of Burton's so-called Sotadic Zone) has, as a practical matter, been fine with pederasty for a long time. The Turks were notorious for it. Older Afghan men seem to have their catamites. (I suppose that one cannot despise one's women as much as many Moslems do without being attracted to boys.) Then again, saying all this about the Moslem world nowise constitutes an endorsement of our own moral and social problems here--and throughout what once was the "Western world."
In response to:

Beheading the Religion of Pieces

Troglodite Wrote: Nov 18, 2014 8:27 AM
"Imagine, if you will, if certain men walked around in powered wigs...recommending the stocks and the public whipping post for crimes such as heresy, blasphemy, adultery..." Is an allegedly conservative columnist really praising us for the "elasticity" with which we have moved to being blasé and complaisant about public immorality? Can we really find little better reason to compare ourselves favorably to the Islamic world than that we have become fine with adultery and, let us add, homosexuality, fornication, pornography, and grotesque public insults to Christianity?
Previous 11 - 20 Next