What the Democratic Party wants for the rest of the nation, too

[End]

I didn't know that you failed to uphold to your Christian morals. And I don't really have a problem for people failing to meet their own standard, unless they're being blatantly hypocritical. I do however have a problem with an ideology that teaches that individuals are inherently flawed and in needing of being saved, and which holds them to an impossible standard and has an unbalanced sense of justice.

What is considered morality should be utterly independent from belief or disbelief about properties of the universe, unless you think that belief or disbelief itself is a virtue.

I doubt that "Jesus" even existed as a historical figure, nevermind the supernatural claims that can never be verified. If you produce Jesus' body, I might be able to believe that is Jesus if you make the argument for it, but I doubt I would believe any supernatural claims. I cannot say or type out that phrase you say and mean it because I simply honestly do not believe it is true. Are you going to damn me for my honest beliefs? Are you trying to force myself to believe it? If I was brainwashed, would I truly believe?

Fun Fact: As we are all sinners, we all fail to uphold the truth/morality at some point. As I've said before, many a saint was once an arch/consummate sinner. Indeed, Even Sartre, commie atheist that he was, agreed with church teachings about "original sin" because it was, in his own words, self-evident. We are inherently flawed and thus in need of salvation. Thankfully, that salvation has already occurred.

I'm going to get a bit theological here. God allows evil so that greater goods may come about because of it. He does not, however, do evil so that good may come of it. The ultimate example of this is, and this might shock you, the crucifixion. God allowed us to kill him. The original "form" of all forms that are good in a platonic sense. Could have easily stopped us, but didn't. Why? Because from that most ultimate of evils, he brought about the ultimate good. The salvation of a fallen mankind.

Plus, Jesus is risen. It is impossible to provide anyone the corpse of a man who yet still lives is it not?

Also, you do realize that you can invalidate a great deal of my own worldview if you could but type the words out yes? I mean, it's a simple line of text and all. You do that and I'll type out my endorsement of a heresy of your choice. You go first and I'll follow suit .

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Fun Fact: As we are all sinners, we all fail to uphold the truth/morality at some point. As I've said before, many a saint was once an arch/consummate sinner. Indeed, Even Sartre, commie atheist that he was, agreed with church teachings about "original sin" because it was, in his own words, self-evident. We are inherently flawed and thus in need of salvation. Thankfully, that salvation has already occurred.

I'm going to get a bit theological here. God allows evil so that greater goods may come about because of it. He does not, however, do evil so that good may come of it. The ultimate example of this is, and this might shock you, the crucifixion. God allowed us to kill him. The original "form" of all forms that are good in a platonic sense. Could have easily stopped us, but didn't. Why? Because from that most ultimate of evils, he brought about the ultimate good. The salvation of a fallen mankind.

Plus, Jesus is risen. It is impossible to provide anyone the corpse of a man who yet still lives is it not?

Also, you do realize that you can invalidate a great deal of my own worldview if you could but type the words out yes? I mean, it's a simple line of text and all. You do that and I'll type out my endorsement of a heresy of your choice. You go first and I'll follow suit .

The bible says we are created in God's image. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", but the biggest killer in the bible is God. That not only makes it a hypocrite, but a great sinner.

Jesus in the New Testament made it clear that "we" did not kill him - he committed suicide: "I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." - John 10:17-18

"Sin" and "Evil" are purely in the eye of the beholder. I do not recognise such concepts in my worldview.

Rather than teaching that we are inherently flawed, we should learn how to make ourselves better and not feel guilty about negative aspects of of ourselves we cannot change.

The death of an innocent man is not good, and certainly not justice. If anything, it would be unjust. I also do not recognise the legality of punishing an innocent individual for the crimes of another. I consider such a practice immoral.

I ask you to produce the body of Jesus, living or dead. Catholics believe that the wine and bread of the Eucharist is turned into the blood and flesh of Jesus, so if you tested that, it would be a step in the right direction. But how would you prove it was Jesus?

Even if you could prove the existence of Jesus Christ, I still would not follow him. I consider myself better than he, based on Christian and Jewish dogma. I don't say that as a mark of vanity - it's very easy to be better than Christ. If he abides by the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I might consider what he has to say.

[End]

The bible says we are created in God's image. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", but the biggest killer in the bible is God. That not only makes it a hypocrite, but a great sinner.

Jesus in the New Testament made it clear that "we" did not kill him - he committed suicide: "I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." - John 10:17-18

"Sin" and "Evil" are purely in the eye of the beholder. I do not recognise such concepts in my worldview.

Rather than teaching that we are inherently flawed, we should learn how to make ourselves better and not feel guilty about negative aspects of of ourselves we cannot change.

The death of an innocent man is not good, and certainly not justice. If anything, it would be unjust. I also do not recognise the legality of punishing an innocent individual for the crimes of another. I consider such a practice immoral.

I ask you to produce the body of Jesus, living or dead. Catholics believe that the wine and bread of the Eucharist is turned into the blood and flesh of Jesus, so if you tested that, it would be a step in the right direction. But how would you prove it was Jesus?

Even if you could prove the existence of Jesus Christ, I still would not follow him. I consider myself better than he, based on Christian and Jewish dogma. I don't say that as a mark of vanity - it's very easy to be better than Christ. If he abides by the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I might consider what he has to say.

I regret to say that you, like so many others I had higher hopes for, have failed my test. Tests I designed with the intent of proving myself wrong by the way. If you were a being with my own perspective, you'd get how I so dearly wish people would, for once, fail to live down to my most pessimistic of expectations. I am not a certified Theologian but I'd bet you've never confronted a real example of one. Ply your BS with the likes of Cardinal Sarah or the sadly departed Sheen. They converted rabid commies and other ardent Christ-hating heathens to the truth of the Gospel. Could you convert them to your blasphemy if you assumed the spirit of absolute humility and respect for the unbeliever they did? How'd you go about convincing those folks who may have damn good arguments for their beliefs without recourse to "authority" or violence? I do eagerly await an answer that doesn't involve said violence or some form of brainwashing.

As I've said before, I tried in earnest to deny the existence of a divinity. I failed. Thus, I tried to ascertain the nature of this divinity. The only one that stood up to the rigor of a man who sought to deny divinity was the Christian/Catholic conception. Thus, I'm a practicing Catholic. If you can tell me an argument I've failed to hear before that, in your eyes, makes me look like a misguided fool I'll give ya a cookie as I dismantle it .

[nanashi]

I regret to say that you, like so many others I had higher hopes for, have failed my test. Tests I designed with the intent of proving myself wrong by the way. If you were a being with my own perspective, you'd get how I so dearly wish people would, for once, fail to live down to my most pessimistic of expectations.

End, you're coming off as being rude and unkind and a fearmonger rather than as insightful and good-intentioned.

[Daemon40]

End, you're coming off as being rude and unkind and a fearmonger rather than as insightful and good-intentioned.

Why are you concerned with how the message is delivered instead of the content of the message?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I regret to say that you, like so many others I had higher hopes for, have failed my test. Tests I designed with the intent of proving myself wrong by the way. If you were a being with my own perspective, you'd get how I so dearly wish people would, for once, fail to live down to my most pessimistic of expectations. I am not a certified Theologian but I'd bet you've never confronted a real example of one. Ply your BS with the likes of Cardinal Sarah or the sadly departed Sheen. They converted rabid commies and other ardent Christ-hating heathens to the truth of the Gospel. Could you convert them to your blasphemy if you assumed the spirit of absolute humility and respect for the unbeliever they did? How'd you go about convincing those folks who may have damn good arguments for their beliefs without recourse to "authority" or violence? I do eagerly await an answer that doesn't involve said violence or some form of brainwashing.

As I've said before, I tried in earnest to deny the existence of a divinity. I failed. Thus, I tried to ascertain the nature of this divinity. The only one that stood up to the rigor of a man who sought to deny divinity was the Christian/Catholic conception. Thus, I'm a practicing Catholic. If you can tell me an argument I've failed to hear before that, in your eyes, makes me look like a misguided fool I'll give ya a cookie as I dismantle it .

Theologians are experts in Nothing.

Three members of my immediate family did degrees in theology, and two were preachers. However, I learnt nothing from them.

You are accusing me of blasphemy simply for beliefs I honestly hold. If an ideology damns people for thought crimes, then it must be a very sorry ideology indeed. And you don't even say what I said that qualifies as blasphemy.

Does Jesus have a Y chromosome? If yes, what hablogroup is it? This could easily be tested and matched with the flesh and blood of the Eucharist.

If you make a claim, shouldn't you be the one to make an argument for it, rather than me making an argument against it? I don't need to debunk a claim there is no evidence for.

[End]

Theologians are experts in Nothing.

Three members of my immediate family did degrees in theology, and two were preachers. However, I learnt nothing from them.

You are accusing me of blasphemy simply for beliefs I honestly hold. If an ideology damns people for thought crimes, then it must be a very sorry ideology indeed. And you don't even say what I said that qualifies as blasphemy.

Does Jesus have a Y chromosome? If yes, what hablogroup is it? This could easily be tested and matched with the flesh and blood of the Eucharist.

If you make a claim, shouldn't you be the one to make an argument for it, rather than me making an argument against it? I don't need to debunk a claim there is no evidence for.

All human institutions carry the weight of our fall. You say you have three theologians in your family. Any of them Catholic? If they are Catholic, do they categorically endorse Humanae Vitae, pretty much any encyclical like it, and all the other points I can go on about for ages if you were curious as to how to determine if anyone's a serious/true Catholic. I may not like the current Pope and while I suspect him of being a crypto-commie, he's still the pope and I must and do accept that as a Catholic.

If they're not/do not than they're literal heretics and it's no wonder you learned not a single thing from them. Also, while it damns for so called "thought crimes" as you'd apparently define them, it also offers absolution for any and all sins (a thing SJW's don't BTW). We all sin, save for Jesus, Mary, and the all the saints (though with the caveat that they did most egregiously right up until they stopped and sinned no more. My patron Augustine practically wrote the books and even recited a prayer that made that fact patently obvious).

As for the Eucharist, there is a documented miracle where the host was put to scientific scrutiny and it did return the result you're asking for. That is, it registered as human flesh and blood. Francis himself was there to witness it I recall (hence why I find his apparent lack of fervor troubling). Explain that away will you?

Of course, you will find a way no matter how outlandish it will sound to any truly neutral observer. Sad fact is, most people can only really be "converted" once their former faith has been shattered. That's quite hard to do if an aspect of that faith is a foundational part of one's own concept of Identity. I suspect your Atheism is on that level. Thus, I'd have to literally walk on water whilst wearing but a few rags to preserve my decency to get you to even open up to the possibility I'm right.

I'm on the same plane from your perspective. You'd have to do something on that level to get me to consider that maybe there really is no God at all. We are sadly at an impasse. An unstoppable force vs. an immovable object. Words will never suffice to convince us of the other's validity. Only things we experience with own lying senses will serve to open us up to the possibility of being persuaded by the other. Sad, but such is human nature.

This is, sadly, a dynamic I'm seeing replicated on things that are far less important. Politics for instance. At least those who war for their "god" war with the hope/knowledge that they get a happy ending no matter what. Political partisans? Well, if their side loses they're fucked. Better to focus on things more worthy of that level of energy and commitment.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

All human institutions carry the weight of our fall. You say you have three theologians in your family. Any of them Catholic? If they are Catholic, do they categorically endorse Humanae Vitae, pretty much any encyclical like it, and all the other points I can go on about for ages if you were curious as to how to determine if anyone's a serious/true Catholic. I may not like the current Pope and while I suspect him of being a crypto-commie, he's still the pope and I must and do accept that as a Catholic.

They were/are not Catholics.

The papacy is a Catholic invention, I understand that in the New Testament, Jesus said "Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven", and also, he built the church on himself, not on Peter or anybody else.

AIf they're not/do not than they're literal heretics and it's no wonder you learned not a single thing from them. Also, while it damns for so called "thought crimes" as you'd apparently define them, it also offers absolution for any and all sins (a thing SJW's don't BTW). We all sin, save for Jesus, Mary, and the all the saints (though with the caveat that they did most egregiously right up until they stopped and sinned no more. My patron Augustine practically wrote the books and even recited a prayer that made that fact patently obvious).

The New Testament says that no one is perfect, except God alone. Also, it says all those who are "saved" are saints, even those who continue to "sin".

As for the Eucharist, there is a documented miracle where the host was put to scientific scrutiny and it did return the result you're asking for. That is, it registered as human flesh and blood. Francis himself was there to witness it I recall (hence why I find his apparent lack of fervor troubling). Explain that away will you?

Can you give a citation to its printing in a scientific journal? I'd liked to read about it.

Of course, you will find a way no matter how outlandish it will sound to any truly neutral observer. Sad fact is, most people can only really be "converted" once their former faith has been shattered. That's quite hard to do if an aspect of that faith is a foundational part of one's own concept of Identity. I suspect your Atheism is on that level. Thus, I'd have to literally walk on water whilst wearing but a few rags to preserve my decency to get you to even open up to the possibility I'm right.

I'm on the same plane from your perspective. You'd have to do something on that level to get me to consider that maybe there really is no God at all. We are sadly at an impasse. An unstoppable force vs. an immovable object. Words will never suffice to convince us of the other's validity. Only things we experience with own lying senses will serve to open us up to the possibility of being persuaded by the other. Sad, but such is human nature.

This is, sadly, a dynamic I'm seeing replicated on things that are far less important. Politics for instance. At least those who war for their "god" war with the hope/knowledge that they get a happy ending no matter what. Political partisans? Well, if their side loses they're fucked. Better to focus on things more worthy of that level of energy and commitment.

Anyone can walk on water.

[Metamorph]

As I've said before, I tried in earnest to deny the existence of a divinity. I failed. Thus, I tried to ascertain the nature of this divinity. The only one that stood up to the rigor of a man who sought to deny divinity was the Christian/Catholic conception. Thus, I'm a practicing Catholic. If you can tell me an argument I've failed to hear before that, in your eyes, makes me look like a misguided fool I'll give ya a cookie as I dismantle it .

This is a blatant lie. If your top priority were denying the existence of a divinity, you would have done it until the day you died and possibly beyond. What would you say your first priority is? It can't be truth or you wouldn't say "please lie for me" every time someone who's read too many books you don't like creeped you out. My first priority is truth, and although grand metaphysical claims and "the sky is blue" might not be of equal importance, they are equally truths, and all truths will lead to all other truths by logical necessity. To abandon one truth is to abandon all things. The Catholic Church already showed itself to be full of nonsense by putting Galileo under house arrest.

[Daemon40]

Truth is overrated

Truth is overrated, the consequences are not.

[Daemon40]

I regret to say that you, like so many others I had higher hopes for, have failed my test.

Other people dont exist to pass or fail your tests, dont be megalomaniacal. I can understand the profligate behavior of some people having an effect on your environment, but to presume a universal standard is the opposite extreme. If people wish to engage in unhealthy behaviors, let them do so as long as they and they alone suffer the consequences of those behaviors, (Which i agree often doesn't tend to be the case, because they seek to diffuse the consequences among their own societies).

[End]

Truth is overrated, the consequences are not.

I may hate her guts, but damned if she didn't have some good quotes: "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality"-Ayn Rand

One may hold the Truth to be overrated, but the consequences of denying or ignoring said truth are hard to overstate and all of them are bad for said denier/ignorer.

Other people dont exist to pass or fail your tests, dont be megalomaniacal. I can understand the profligate behavior of some people having an effect on your environment, but to presume a universal standard is the opposite extreme. If people wish to engage in unhealthy behaviors, let them do so as long as they and they alone suffer the consequences of those behaviors, (Which i agree often doesn't tend to be the case, because they seek to diffuse the consequences among their own societies).

At least you get that last point. Though I'd argue that "universal standards" amounts to plain and simple morality. "Relative" morality is a sham. If it's OK to, say, rape a child in one circumstance and not in another than you're arguing over BS distinctions with the likely intent of getting the opponent of child rape to change their tune and become an avid advocate of the practice!

Oh yes, we can formulate a rather outlandish instance where it may be true, but that instance is unlikely to ever happen. And even if it somehow did, could we really fault the person for refusing to do that deed on basic principle? I mean "rape this kid, damn yourself to hell, yet save 100 trillion innocent lives" isn't a consideration any serious ethical philosopher thinks about because it's utterly absurd. How the hell could one even construct the occurrence of that circumstance? You'd need a mind more vile and perverse than Marquis de Sade himself to have a chance at successfully doing so!

Point is, there are things that are categorically and objectively right and/or wrong. To deny that denies morality itself. To say "The ends justify the means" is to say that the concept morality itself is bullshit. People need morals, they crave a system of morality. Only sociopaths can operate without one. Even then, they still have one. "Whatever is good for me is moral and whatever is not is immoral" is their system. If that formulation of some people's moral code doesn't scare, horrify, or disgust you in some way well...

[Daemon40]

At least you get that last point. Though I'd argue that "universal standards" amounts to plain and simple morality. "Relative" morality is a sham. If it's OK to, say, rape a child in one circumstance and not in another than you're arguing over BS distinctions with the likely intent of getting the opponent of child rape to change their tune and become an avid advocate of the practice!

Many problems like pedophilic behavior can be sorted out without state intervention, the consequence being the family or community of such a child seeking their own retribution for the action. Having the state handle it can seem like a convenient solution but even solutions have consequences that produce other problems, like the modern culture of deferring to the police to solve all problems instead of growing a spine and standing up for yourself, even if your life is at risk.

Oh yes, we can formulate a rather outlandish instance where it may be true, but that instance is unlikely to ever happen. And even if it somehow did, could we really fault the person for refusing to do that deed on basic principle? I mean "rape this kid, damn yourself to hell, yet save 100 trillion innocent lives" isn't a consideration any serious ethical philosopher thinks about because it's utterly absurd. How the hell could one even construct the occurrence of that circumstance? You'd need a mind more vile and perverse than Marquis de Sade himself to have a chance at successfully doing so!

Id say the death penalty at the hands of family/community is a far better deterrent for pedophilic behavior than imprisonment.

Point is, there are things that are categorically and objectively right and/or wrong. To deny that denies morality itself. To say "The ends justify the means" is to say that the concept morality itself is bullshit. People need morals, they crave a system of morality. Only sociopaths can operate without one. Even then, they still have one. "Whatever is good for me is moral and whatever is not is immoral" is their system. If that formulation of some people's moral code doesn't scare, horrify, or disgust you in some way well...

They are objectively right as far as you are willing to fight and die to enforce them, which is the problem with abstracting responsibilities to police, because eventually you abstract the most petty and absurd rules, rules nobody would be willing to enforce with their lives. You build a "Karen" culture where everyone shouts at eachother while hiding behind policemen and lawyers and nobody actually fights and bleeds for anything meaningful.

[End]

You build a "Karen" culture where everyone shouts at eachother while hiding behind policemen and lawyers and nobody actually fights and bleeds for anything meaningful.

You sound like me in my younger days, a bright eyed and enthusiastic Anarcho-Capitalist. I still see it as the ideal set up for any society, but now with many a caveat. For instance, I now know it assumes a great deal that will likely never be the case in our modern or even historic world. The most fundamental assumption being that everyone within that society agrees upon what is moral vs. immoral. To put it bluntly, they must all worship the same God and, more than likely, be of the same sect (i.e. Even though Catholics and Protestants can earnestly claim to worship the same divinity, those differences in theology are going to rear their ugly head really fast). This is a thing Hans Hermann-Hoppe actually acknowledges and accepts when he laid out his concept of "covenant communities". Either you agree to the covenant and demonstrate that by living by it, or you get physically removed from the premises (posthumously, if you're particularly insistent on not being so). Binary outcome, you don't get to negotiate any "compromise" BS.

I quote your last bit because it is most illustrative as well. A "Karen" culture is a uniquely Western thing. In a multi-ethnic, multi-religious/moral society, there is only one question everyone's asking: "Who's in charge?" If that answer isn't made (or rather, not allowed to be made) painfully obvious by force of arms or strength of conviction it devolves into the SJW BS we're currently dealing with. The other sad factor you're probably missing is that people like me know the instant we try to fight and die for our beliefs we're actually handing the "Karens" their own victory.

Ask yourself, what would happen if someone tried to go full vigilante mode on some gangster rapist? Furthermore, let's assume said vigilante is of a pale extraction and the rapist is of a darker hue if you catch my drift. How do you think the MSM would portray him vs. the target of his righteous fury? Or, to make it even more simple and obvious, say I killed a filthy child/baby killer for, well, killing children/babies? If you're honest with yourself, you know the answer. And that's exactly why it won't ever happen until something major alters the current situation.

You are right insofar that there are frighteningly few who would fight and die for the beliefs. The more frightening thing, I'd say, is that those who would are smart enough to perceive the dystopian situation they're in know that the "losing" move is to fight and die. To fight and die for your beliefs right now, if they do not align with the agenda of the PTB of course, is to further said enemy's ends. Trust me, they wish I'd kill some lefty/commie on basic principle. They want nothing more than for the likes of me to "don the devil horns" in their perverse and farcical "morality" play. I refuse to give them what they want. Thus, the current impasse and, to my unending joy, their eternal frustration.

I know what they want from me, and I refuse to give it to them. This is a mentality I'd recommend to anyone who is suffering from the malaise of others. Why give them, vile evil and horrendous cretins they are, what they want? They want you sad, angry, feeling all manners of negative emotions with their probable hope that you kill yourself. What does a Christian care for the opinions and feelings of a hardcore Satanist? Why should an avowed Capitalist give the slightest of fucks about what a Commie has to say about their plans to help the poor? The former stand upon truth, and the latter upon lies. In regards to the latter examples, fuck em'!

[Daemon40]

Its not completely fruitless xenu, you have a better chance finding a good life partner online in places like these, than you do in most other places today. I used to be of that mindset, went out, got a degree, got a car, became a Military Officer, got a house, and yet with all those things i have only met mostly shitty people in person.