The new and improved progressive 10 Commandments

a reply to: chr0naut

Hitler instituted universal healthcare or as he called it socialized healthcare.

It was Adolf Hitler, who actually imposed socialized healthcare on the entire German population, as a part of nazification of the healthcare industry, and for that reason he should rightly be called the *real* father of universal healthcare. This collective universal healthcare concept was called “racial hygiene.” This is history that people have largely forgotten, because it is inconvenient for many to remember it.

clashdaily.com...



Hitler had a strict gun policy.
When Hitler took power there were already strict gun registration laws.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

www.nationalreview.com...



Hitler's party engaged in sustained violence much like ANTIFA is doing for the progressive left.

Of course the Nazis used propaganda too, but they did so against a background of sustained violence against a fledgling republic in a state of perpetual crisis before they finally seized power at the height of the great depression.

rantingkraut.wordpress.com...



Hitler put down speech that was interpreted as hate speech.

Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.

On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.

(Similar to ANTIFA rioting, destroying property on campus so ideas they view as different from their own will not be heard.
encyclopedia.ushmm.org...
rantingkraut.wordpress.com...



Hitler was pro-abortion.

In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared: “In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

wholeworldinhishands.com...



Hitler WAS a socialist. www.independent.co.uk... (article: Hitler and the Socialist Dream)


I make no judgement on the sexual morality of progressives, you are the one who called them sluts, shame on you. I only implied that progressives allow no one to make any moral judgement on any sexual act by any consenting adult. That is quite different than what you implied I thought.

Jesus was not a progressive, he believed in sexual standards, he believed that people should work to take care of themselves and their family and not demand handouts from others (read the parables), he told his disciples to carry at least one weapon (sword) when going into "dangerous" lands, be believed people should take care of their families, (parents,children) and the poor and those who were unable to work (widows) - not the government, he did not believe in abortion but rather upheld respect for children and life.
(YES their was abortion in that time, a woman could drink a concoction of herbs that would induce abortion)www.babygaga.com... www.ancientegyptianfacts.com...


Of course, you should be polite and nice to everyone. However, progressives add another layer forcing you to take into account skin color first and gender second before interacting with new people. Their language police demand you think deeply about these things before interaction so one doesn't ACCIDENTALLY offend. The PC progressive language is constantly changing. Now demanding one not use gender pronouns, that is difficult when one has done so all your life and accidentally doing it is easy. What is racially offensive has ever changing progressive definitions, what was once acceptable, such as a non-Mexican wearing a mexican dress to a cinco de Mayo celebration, which is now offensive. Or praising a particular food that belongs to another "culture" other than your own to someone from that culture, is now considered racist. Today, with ever changing standards of what is offensive racially and gender wise, it is much to easy to accidentally offend. Causing people to have to hesitate before interacting with a new person who is not in ones racial or cultural group etc.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: The2Billies

Where do you stand on Islam?
Just trying to figure out if your OP is sarcastic, er whut.

That was covered under number 1

a reply to: The2Billies

So it's the same thing after all.

a reply to: The2Billies

You forget on 7. You shall not commit adultery.
Every adult shall be free to gratify themselves sexually at any time with any consenting adult, or children, with no legal repercussions or moral judgement laid upon them.

The Obama administration began "sexualizing children" and that evil plan continues, we even have many in the left defending those in their ranks whom want to make NAMBLA and other similar agendas legal...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: The2Billies

You forget on 7. You shall not commit adultery.
Every adult shall be free to gratify themselves sexually at any time with any consenting adult, or children, with no legal repercussions or moral judgement laid upon them.

The Obama administration began "sexualizing children" and that evil plan continues, we even have many in the left defending those in their ranks whom want to make NAMBLA and other similar agendas legal...

Unfortunately, sadly you may have a point.

Today I read an article where a University is teaching that pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation. Progressive liberals morals change once again. Next thing you know they'll be doxing people, and demand people be fired from their jobs for saying adults having sex with children is immoral and wrong.
www1.cbn.com...
spectator.us...
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: The2Billies

You forget on 7. You shall not commit adultery.
Every adult shall be free to gratify themselves sexually at any time with any consenting adult, or children, with no legal repercussions or moral judgement laid upon them.

The Obama administration began "sexualizing children" and that evil plan continues, we even have many in the left defending those in their ranks whom want to make NAMBLA and other similar agendas legal...

Unfortunately, sadly you may have a point.

Today I read an article where a University is teaching that pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation. Progressive liberals morals change once again. Next thing you know they'll be doxing people, and demand people be fired from their jobs for saying adults having sex with children is immoral and wrong.
www1.cbn.com...
spectator.us...
www.nytimes.com...

So apart from the 10 commandments what other laws in the Old Testament do you demand everybody else if they believe in the bible or not
Stone women who have sex before marriage, kill uncontrollable children, not wear blended clothes
Kill animals as a sacrifice, not mix spit and sand on a Sunday, no working on a Sunday, no doctors, police, medics?

Sell me some logic here sweety, common sense

Paedophiles work on Sunday’s but not law enforcement, where is your brain at

What legal grounds have you to demand Judaism on me or others


Give it up, go ask your dad for an answer, please

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: chr0naut

Hitler instituted universal healthcare or as he called it socialized healthcare.

It was Adolf Hitler, who actually imposed socialized healthcare on the entire German population, as a part of nazification of the healthcare industry, and for that reason he should rightly be called the *real* father of universal healthcare. This collective universal healthcare concept was called “racial hygiene.” This is history that people have largely forgotten, because it is inconvenient for many to remember it.

clashdaily.com...

The German Health care system during the Nazi regime was actually implemented by Otto Von Bismark in 1888. It consisted of statutory health insurance (where every worker had to pay two thirds of their total insurance bill and the remaining one third was contributed by the employer, with an unregulated insurance industry). This was well before the rise of Nazism.

The Weimar Republic (that existed immediately prior to Nazism) socialized the the insurance companies by implementing a regulatory board entirely consisting of employee and employer representatives, which regulated the insurance industry.

The Nazi's, when they rose to power, abolished the regulatory board and returned to Bismark's original plan of mandatory employee and employer contributions and an unregulated insurance industry.

The Nazi's reversed the process of the socialization of healthcare implemented by the previous government.

Hitler had a strict gun policy.
When Hitler took power there were already strict gun registration laws.

...

www.nationalreview.com...

The Nazi's inherited a system where gun control already existed. Germany also didn't have a gun problem like the US does. The Nazi's did not explicitly implement tighter gun laws, but they used the existing laws to disarm potential opponents.

Nazi gun control argument From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler's party engaged in sustained violence much like ANTIFA is doing for the progressive left.

Not that I condone civil disobedience and anarchy, but I put the systematic murder of six million people on a racial basis, and the instigation of the Second World War against most of the free world, as immensely worse.

Of course the Nazis used propaganda too, but they did so against a background of sustained violence against a fledgling republic in a state of perpetual crisis before they finally seized power at the height of the great depression.

rantingkraut.wordpress.com...

Hitler put down speech that was interpreted as hate speech.

No, Hitler and the Nazi's put down all opposition to their philosophies.

Religious works, children's fairy tales, ancient histories, science textbooks, the great works of literature, everything went onto the pyres of books burned by the Nazi's.

And Adolf Hitler clearly and publicly spouted anti-Semitic hate speech.

Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.

On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.

(Similar to ANTIFA rioting, destroying property on campus so ideas they view as different from their own will not be heard.
encyclopedia.ushmm.org...
rantingkraut.wordpress.com...

Except for someone buying and burning Trump's books, when have ANTIFA advocated the burning of books?

I mean, shouldn't they be guilty of the crimes before you accuse them?

Hitler was pro-abortion.

In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared: “In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

wholeworldinhishands.com...

Hitler was not so munch pro abortion but more an incompassionate, hate filled, anti-human, racist. He aborted many Slavic people, well after birth.

Hitler WAS a socialist. www.independent.co.uk... (article: Hitler and the Socialist Dream)

There are people who tell us all the Relativity is a lie and that the Earth is flat.

But, Hitler was, without a doubt, a Fascist and a Nazi.

I make no judgement on the sexual morality of progressives, you are the one who called them sluts, shame on you. I only implied that progressives allow no one to make any moral judgement on any sexual act by any consenting adult. That is quite different than what you implied I thought.

Nah, you distill down the meaning of the words and what you suggested was that they sleep around.

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: chr0naut

Response part 2...

Jesus was not a progressive, he believed in sexual standards,

Except for saying that lust is the same as adultery and that divorce and remarriage is also adultery, Jesus said nothing specific about sex.

So, no, I won't accept that. You are just expressing a 'traditionalist' view, not the literal truth.

he believed that people should work to take care of themselves and their family and not demand handouts from others (read the parables)

Jesus' parables are full of the righteous poor beggars and the unrighteous wealthy.

, he told his disciples to carry at least one weapon (sword) when going into "dangerous" lands,

There was no mention of "dangerous lands".

Jesus was suggesting that the Disciples defend themselves against others in society (their countrymen and peers) who would oppose His message with violence.

... and two swords among 12 Disciples is not exactly 'bristling' with armaments.

be believed people should take care of their families, (parents,children)

Many of Jesus words were anti-family and he several times suggested that true followers should leave their families ("let the dead bury their dead. Follow me". "Any man that puts his hand to the plough and turns away is not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven").

and the poor and those who were unable to work (widows) - not the government.

What about the poor beggar Lazarus who longed for the table scraps that the rich man (the wealthy had automatic status including governance authority in 1st Century Judaism) fed to his dogs?

In the parable, Lazarus died and went to heaven and the wealthy leader, to hell.

And, about taxation: "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". Even back then, some taxes went back into the community for defense, policing, legislative governance costs and public works.

he did not believe in abortion but rather upheld respect for children and life.
(YES their was abortion in that time, a woman could drink a concoction of herbs that would induce abortion)www.babygaga.com... www.ancientegyptianfacts.com...

"For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”. - Matthew 26:24.

Clearly, if a man exists as an identity, then he would at some stage have to have been alive. If that living man was not born, then he must have been a fetus that was aborted before coming to term. So what might Jesus have been saying?

The truth is, Jesus and the Old Testament said nothing specific about abortion.

I don't think we should take things like abortion and euthanasia lightly, but as the father of a son who I helplessly watched die slowly of cancer - for years -, and whose growing resistance to pain meds meant increasing uncontrollable and unrelieved pain, I cannot think that an absolute 'yes or no' on the issues is anything other than stubborn, uncompassionate ignorance.

Of course, you should be polite and nice to everyone. However, progressives add another layer forcing you to take into account skin color first and gender second before interacting with new people.

How is that the slightest bit more than being "polite and nice" to everyone.

'Everyone' already includes 'everyone'!

Their language police demand you think deeply about these things before interaction so one doesn't ACCIDENTALLY offend. The PC progressive language is constantly changing. Now demanding one not use gender pronouns, that is difficult when one has done so all your life and accidentally doing it is easy. What is racially offensive has ever changing progressive definitions, what was once acceptable, such as a non-Mexican wearing a mexican dress to a cinco de Mayo celebration, which is now offensive. Or praising a particular food that belongs to another "culture" other than your own to someone from that culture, is now considered racist. Today, with ever changing standards of what is offensive racially and gender wise, it is much to easy to accidentally offend. Causing people to have to hesitate before interacting with a new person who is not in ones racial or cultural group etc.

So, how is taking offence that someone else is taking offence, any different than taking offence in the first place?

Just be forgiving because judgmental legalism is anti-Christian. It sits in the place of Christ, and isn't.

The truth is, Jesus was a radical and extremely progressive but the traditionalist 'powers that be' have since painted Him as a pacifist conformist.

Remember, Jesus is the guy who disrupted commerce in the temple, smashing their shops, and who whipped the shop owners with ropes. He also was the one who spoke out in public to large crowds, against the ruling authorities, to the point where the authorities conspired to have Him assassinated,

Jesus was no sheep. He was the shepherd.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry you disagree so vehemently, I must have hit a real nerve. Forgive me for that one, I didn't mean to shake your world so badly.

I can see we will never agree and that is ok. I think there is lots of evidence that Hitler was a socialist, including him identifying himself as one. You don't. So that is that.

a reply to: chr0naut


Again I seem to have shaken your world view to the core.

I do not think Jesus was a socialist or progressive, you do. Here are 3 articles on why Jesus was not a socialist.
blog.acton.org...
reknew.org...
therevolutionaryact.com...

But you do think Jesus wanted the government to oversee and take care of everyone's everyday needs controlling their individual lives so that they will be "happier and healthier". But I disagree entirely.

It is ok we disagree.

For right now this is as American as Apple Pie. Disagreement with respect is a fundamental foundation of traditional American values.

That is why the progressive liberal socialists want to stamp it out, they have taken to rioting, property damage, and violence to prevent anyone from disagreeing with them, even in a respectful and academic setting.

I don't think Jesus would have told his disciples to riot and beat up the Pharisees and Sadducee when they spoke where children were educated. (the temples); as today's progressive socialists often do.

I don't think Jesus would have told people, don't wear a certain hat or you will trigger my disciples who won't be able to stop themselves from beating you up; as today's progressive socialists have warned people publicly.

I don't think Jesus would have said, believe in what I say or I'll make sure you are fired or lose your business; which is common behavior for today's progressive socialists.

I don't think Jesus would have said, believe in what I say or I'll have my followers harass you day in and day out; which progressive socialists do (doxing) and demand others do.

I don't think Jesus would have said, harass the children and family of Caesar, Herod, Pilot and other officials because they don't like what I have to say, as today's progressive socialists do to conservative politicians.

But if you think Jesus acted like today's progressive liberal and was a socialist who wanted Caesar, Herod, and Pilot to:

make all the following decisions for the people,

control who could and could not carry a sword, (UK right now has banned people from owing certain chef's knifes if they are not a working chef)

take their crops and redistribute them "fairly" to people who didn't want to work (substitute taxes and money for crops)

control if and when they got medical care (yes all universal healthcare countries today ration and control this),

control who gets an education and who doesn't (in countries with free college, University (our college) is tightly controlled and few get to go - the rest go to colleges we call trade schools, like the College for Custodial Services like they have in Germany),

or going full on socialist as you say Jesus would have wanted: Caesar, Pilot and Herod to have ultimate control over everyone's farms, crops, animals, businesses (like making and dying cloth, making furniture, making tents, etc.) with all profits going to Caesar for him to redistribute as he deemed fair and just,

well more power to you if you think that is what Jesus preached. It is your right to believe that.

We are free (right now) to believe as we wish ideologically and religiously in the USA.
That is until the PC crowd are in in control and socialism dictates what we may and may not say and where we may or may not speak of our religion or wear a symbol of our religion, or carry a book of our religion. (which has happened in some European democratic socialist countries)

Once today's progressive liberal socialists are fully in charge people who disagree with them ideologically will be brutally squelched as they do on today's campuses and with ANTIFA.


Well this is not my Jesus, but he is yours I guess. That's ok, as long as you don't force your version of Jesus on me, I'm ok with it.

But, IF YOU or any progressive liberal democratic socialist regime in the US:

Decide Jesus would approve of beating me up for wearing a hat that looks like a Sadducee hat, and I will resist, resist, resist.

Decide Jesus would approve of, my ideas of how the country should be run, my political ideology is really "hate speech" and can not be uttered, I will resist, resist, resist.

Decide Jesus would approve the idea that, I'm too old to get curative healthcare and will have to put up with pain killers, I will resist, resist, resist.

Decide Jesus would approve you taking take 70% of my pension/social security to fund healthcare/university/living wage for people who refuse to work, and I will mightily resist!

Decide all this and I won't be attending any version of your churches, I'll keep to myself (which I'd be forced to), and worship in secret, my Jesus, and resist, resist, resist!

You believe as you wish, just expect me to resist when you force it on me against my will, which is the socialist way.

a reply to: The2Billies

Wow Billies I seem to have shaken your and your dads Christian views and you are ignoring me
Why?
Can you tell me what Jewish laws I don’t have to keep
What Jewish laws apart from the 10 commandments I do and why

Don’t hide from me please, don’t fight the nazis, they lost, let’s work on your silly opening post
That’s the game

You believe as you wish, just expect me to resist when you force your Judaising on me against my will, which is the fundamentalist way.

Amen.......the lefty liberal dumbocrats are nothing but double standards, do as we say. Not as we do.

Years ago there was a so called art painting of jesus smeared with feces.

The liberal left defended this as art until they were blue in the face.

But one things for sure, you cannot criticize Mohammed or poke any fun at the religion.

It's mostly why they can only refer every enemy as a nazi, its your typical while Male

They hate using words like terrorist or thug because who that relates to.

To liberal even Jews who oppose them are nazis...lol

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry you disagree so vehemently, I must have hit a real nerve. Forgive me for that one, I didn't mean to shake your world so badly.

I can see we will never agree and that is ok. I think there is lots of evidence that Hitler was a socialist, including him identifying himself as one. You don't. So that is that.

Socialists governments are usually ruled by committee or political organization, not by a dictator.

Trump is described gain and again as a strong leader. That description is specifically used for every dictator.. The world doesn't need strong leaders. It need diplomatic wise leaders who will negotiate to achieve the best outcomes. Strong leaders, those who bully and cannot compromise but must instead get their own way, have always been bad for the country. Trump has several times sought to usurp the balance of power among the branches of government. He is the definition of dictatorial and autocratic, i.e: all power invested in a single individual.

The fact that you cannot even think in English because the words have changed in meaning was entirely predicted by George Orwell in his book 1984, where a dictatorial 'Big Brother' government is changing the language to make discussion and thought in political terms impossible. The Orwellian government was also a surveillance society where everyone's thoughts and actions were constantly observed (NSA wiretaps and internet interception? FISA courts?) and where opposition to the government is treated as mental illness (TDS, anyone?).

Your government is Fascist, in the true meaning of the word. It's leadership is autocratic, in the true meaning of the word. Barr, your Attorney General, the one that supports your President, has written suggesting that the Presidency should be given supreme power over government. He wants to turn the Presidency into a dictatorship.

William Barr From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop being naive and believing alt-right propaganda. The alt-right movement are the ideological descendants of the Nazi's.

They are, like ANTIFA, taking to the streets, causing and threatening violence, just like their brown shirt predecessors did to make way for the Nazis. Just take a look at the "Unite The Right" rallies at Charlottesville where violence was instigated by by the right-wingers.

Unite the Right rally From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you really abhor violence and hatefulness, you'd stand against the proponents of right-wing ideology which have left a trail violence and death across history, probably worse than the extremist left has.

I personally don't support the left and I don't support the right wing either. If anything my voting in the past have been center right. But seeing through the increasingly false propaganda coming from them, that situation will not be repeated.

The civilized society of the past were in the middle between left and right until after WW2, but after the anti-Soviet phase (what a nothingburger that turned out to be) American society today has taken a strong turn to the right.

Your opinion piece original posting spoke straight to right-wing ideological propaganda and clearly, from your further responses, a right-wing supportive and apologist stance is exactly what you were attempting to achieve and I called it as such.

a reply to: The2Billies

Some of the “changes” you reference I agree with in terms of negative impact. Some I don’t.

You paint with pretty broad strokes that are hyperbolic from my perspective. The comments also read to me as though that the Christian religion needs to be front and center for people if we want a functioning society. That’s just not true. To post also implies to me that affairs, violence, etc. never existed in the past - which is also false - and in fact many of the things railed against here have been perpetrated by The Church itself.

The point that I take big issue with is a “commandment” that absolves parents of responsibility. I’m a parent. I have parents. Parents matter a great deal and their impact on their children is immense. My wife suffered mightily at the hands of her parents and had to go to years of counseling due to their emotional and physical abuse. Yes - they did that to her. That is their fault and they shaped her psychology and created the issues. The “get over it” and “take responsibility for your self” argument is BS - she was a child. She didn’t have a choice to grow up that way. They did that. If your kids are screwed up, you played a role in that whether you want to admit it or not.

“Respect your elders” is how you give crappy people a free pass because they’ve been on the earth longer. BS. I could give a # about someone’s age. This “commandment” is how people get indoctrinated into a religion they didn’t choose, generational poverty is forwarded, etc.

For me, I’ve largely achieved the success I had by shunning my upbringing, disagreeing with dogma that was useless but fed to me and physically removing myself from my families presence 99% of the time. I also watched my mother “respect her elders” and be treated like S by my grandfather and grandmother - but she was a “good little girl” who grew up in the church.

So, if you’re a respectable person, you get respect. If you’re not, you don’t. Age doesn’t allow you to get away with being a d bag. If a person falls back on the “I’ve been around longer” argument you should run the other way - there’s plenty of people who have done plenty of things for a long time but that doesn’t mean they’re good at it/right/smarter/etc. in the slightest - nor should they automatically garner respect - they have to keep earning it.

When Raggedy's smelling something off with the poster's religious justifications, that's worth taking note of.

I cannot properly critique the OP without knowing exactly where they're coming from religiously, because that's the root of their beliefs -- their belief system. Exactly what sect ARE you, and why haven't you bothered to be up front about it? Got something to hide?

originally posted by: IrateCanadian
I'll start with the first one.

"You shall have no Judeo-Christian God as he is oppressive, sexist and represses LGBT. You shall honor all other Gods as sacred and equal."

First off, all those who have at least half a brain would know from fact that being homosexual is in fact a mental disorder. There is much proof of this from the early 50's-70's when it was being treated as such. Now we see "homosexuality" being removed from the psychiatric practices because "it's progressive" -

"Progressive" is just a fancy word for "we want to do whatever we want, because it's progressive!"

Why should I be tolerant of something that should be treated. After all, the factual statistics pertaining to LGBTQ just makes them look like terrible people to begin with. Because they simply have a problem. I know a few "gay men" in my city and they jump from partner to partner to partner to partner. Know why? Because they don't value a relationship; they have a problem; and that problem is some form of sexual addiction to fill some sort of empty void created by a psychological issue.

Something about this post bugs me. I’m not gay, nor am I actively involved in any church, but this post reads pretty thoughtless to me.

First, the “partner jumping” actually makes sense in the context of the male sex drive. If men and women had truly equivalent sex drives people would be going at it like rabbits all the time and forming long-term bonds would become difficult. So, in the context of the gay community, you have a whole subset of people who have very high sex drives and act on them. To me, that’s more a biological function than a “gay” problem.

Second, how sure can you be about being “gay” being a “new” thing at scale? There was a fair amount of Gay in the Roman Empire. Being on the “down low” has been a thing for years. Many athletes have come out about the homosexual tendencies in many locker rooms and that’s been happening for decades.

Point here is that perhaps we’re just more aware of it now because people can be open about it and the stigma isn’t the same in most places as it once was.

I say this as a person who has no interest in the same sex and frankly the whole idea of gay sex sounds pretty gross to me personally. But, I’m not the arbiter of right and wrong - those who are of the LGBTQ persuasion can do as they see fit and shouldn’t be disrespected in any way on the basis of their orientation.

That said, what does bug me is that orientation has been put so in our faces in what I perceive as an over-the-top way. If you are gay - go do you. But, do you really need to make everything about that or turn it into a protected class? Pound the table for “gay rights” and such?

Just be a human, try not to harm other humans and do your best to take care of yourself so other humans don’t have to. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Man I love threads that wreak of undeserved superiority complexes.

Underserved superiority complexes are pretty ubiquitous in two camps:

1. Christians/devoutly religious people.
2. Academia.

You get both boxes checked by the OP. I don’t like the tone either.

I’m spamming this thread but I find it interesting...

Last thing ill post here for the moment is this...

This whole discussion made me think about the 10 commandments, religion, etc. and when I think about my life being governed by a book that tells me how to live my life, and then other people “preach” the teachings and look down upon those who don’t abide... it makes the notion of organized religion very unappealing.

This has made me consider that religion in general is very much a device of oppression. Oppress your sexual desires. Oppress your feelings of anger. Oppress your desires to think freely. Oppress your urge to question dogma, use scientific methods, seek observable answers, alter your mind with substances. Give us some money when we pass around the coffers, abide and you will be saved.

What a joke.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: The2Billies

Wow Billies I seem to have shaken your and your dads Christian views and you are ignoring me
Why?
Can you tell me what Jewish laws I don’t have to keep
What Jewish laws apart from the 10 commandments I do and why

Don’t hide from me please, don’t fight the nazis, they lost, let’s work on your silly opening post
That’s the game

You believe as you wish, just expect me to resist when you force your Judaising on me against my will, which is the fundamentalist way.

I have ignored you because I thought your insults and challenges disguised as insults were not going to result in an intellectual exchange. Bait through not so subtle insults does not stir me to action. It normally ends up in unproductive circles to which everyone loses and the authors end up looking ridiculous.

Sorry I hurt your feelings by ignoring you. Just know I won't reply to not so veiled personal insult posts now or in the future.

Since I am new to this forum, I just thought you should know. If I don't answer someone it is because I choose not to for some reason and don't feel dialog with that person would be productive or instructive in any way. Nothing personal. Just the way I operate.

So if I "ignore" you in the future, please accept my apologies now for having hurt your feelings and move on knowing I most likely won't reply or answer any statements/questions I interpret as bait intended to start an unproductive argument.

I can refuse to play the game if I wish, as you put it.

originally posted by: Nyiah
When Raggedy's smelling something off with the poster's religious justifications, that's worth taking note of.

I cannot properly critique the OP without knowing exactly where they're coming from religiously, because that's the root of their beliefs -- their belief system. Exactly what sect ARE you, and why haven't you bothered to be up front about it? Got something to hide?

I was born a Methodist.
Then spent the next 20 years as a "general Protestant" mainline type
Then I was Lutheran
Then spent the next 32 years as "general Protestant" mainline type
Now I am a conservative minded Methodist.

The "general Protestant" were the years my family spent in the military, and multi-denominational military chapels define their services as "general Protestant", Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Wiccan.

Why that matters to you, or to anyone, I have no idea.

One other note, I am retired from having taught Psychology classes, including Research Methods, in several major universities, including one that could be considered Ivy league, as I moved around as a military family member. If that helps you decide how to pigeon hole me for whatever reason you seem to need.

I hung out with the "gay" crowd in college, even though I am not gay. I went to gay bars with them and transsexual dance clubs. So I chuckle at those who think the "sex" thing is directed at gays. That must have really hit a nerve. Just watch TV and you'll see irresponsible bed hoping done mainly by heterosexuals with adultry so common as to rate a pfffft on the who cares scale. Just recently liberals have started to redefine pedophilia as an orientation rather than a crime, now we are getting into the truly perverted thinking.

Why would people think you have to be an ignorant holy roller to have written the OP? I guess they can't conceive of a University Professor from mainline denominations actually speaking about conservative points of view, that is entirely foreign and disgusting to many, obviously. That my friend is bigotry.