Sometimes kids say it best...

---

Quote: We all suffer for one reason or another. ALL of us.Tell me Thor, as a White Straight Christian Male.. how do you suffer?

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfThor, I think you might have missed the point. Regardless what anyone tells you, you will not believe it or listen to it, there for you need to figure it out on your own. Why should we bother anymore trying to explain things to you or try to get you to understand when no matter what we say you won't believe it or even take it into consideration? It becomes moot. What "we've" tried to explain?No matter. What is moot are your pipe-dreams that exist in a non-reality (or as Scotty indicated, in the dark). Continue the path you have chosen and see where it leads...for it will go to nowhere; it is a dead end. I choose to stand in the light.

If you fail to cultivate awareness by your own effort then you don't want to be open to any understanding. Again the journey is yours, remain in the shadows or seek the light.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksYour failure to seek understanding is your ignominy in the face of enlightenment. How can you call it "enlightenment" when it means turning a blind eye as if in the dark?

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: We all suffer for one reason or another. ALL of us.Tell me Thor, as a White Straight Christian Male.. how do you suffer? I am not about to parade all my sufferings before you for your amusement. Perhaps another time...another place. But not here. Not now. Suffice it to say that I have not always been a Christian. But even those that are can still suffer of their own hand.Let me ask you. As a Christian, how does the Bible say we are supposed to deal with suffering?

Creatures who for to long have remained in the dark often become fearful of the light. Security for them is found in the blackness that they have existed in. Anything threatening that is a threat to them. You must not be afraid to empathize and garner understanding even if it's at the cost of your current perceptions.

Originally Posted By: OldFolks

Creatures who for to long have remained in the dark often become fearful of the light. Security for them is found in the blackness that they have existed in. Anything threatening that is a threat to them. You must not be afraid to empathize and garner understanding even if it's at the cost of your current perceptions.

Then there are those who have been fooled by the kind of light that leads them away into darkness...which is untruth. But this is just the same old argument with different words.

Truth is always subjective.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksTruth is always subjective. Only for those who need to be able to shift it around when it disagrees with them...like a shifting sand-dune that's never the same each day. (No wonder you have a hard time defining anything.) For those of us who stand on a firm foundation, the truth is an immovable rock. I know where I stand...you never do because your sand-dunes keeps shifting...and shifting...and shifting...until one day you are totally lost.

The truth...A well meaning proselytizer seeks to convert a heathen, by whatever means necessary, to save his soul.The truth for the proselytizer... he is only acting as commanded and his action will ultimately do good for the heathen.The truth for the heathen... he is being subjugated and having his beliefs destroyed out of an air of superiority. Ohhh come on thor! I've got a whole day to kill here don't be picking now to run off and go get some work done...

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThe truth...A well meaning proselytizer seeks to convert a heathen, by whatever means necessary, to save his soul.The truth for the proselytizer... he is only acting as commanded and his action will ultimately do good for the heathen.The truth for the heathen... he is being subjugated and having his beliefs destroyed out of an air of superiority. To coin a phrase, they can't both be true. Or can they? I note that they are not conflicting ideas. Quote:Ohhh come on thor! I've got a whole day to kill here don't be picking now to run off and go get some work done... OK wise-guy...how did you manage to get the whole day off?

I'm reminded of Plato in the Republic (Book VIII), where he points out the evils of democracy, because it makes people soft and leads to ridiculous, anarchic, liberal utopian pipe-dreams. He gives his most extreme examples:"The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other."These innovations would of course have led to the collapse of Greek society. We have them (more or less); our society is different; but the sky has not fallen. Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) said that one generation's extreme reforms become the next generation's conservatives' standard society.The main characteristic of conservatives is fear of change. While they usually hold to the principle of making things better, their response to any definite proposal is "not in my lifetime". In consequence they (at best) leave things no better than they found them, and consider this an achievement.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleThese innovations would of course have led to the collapse of Greek society. We have them; our society is different; but the sky has not fallen. He (and you) confuse a social foundation with an economic one. And the economy did suffer mightily with the abolition of slavery. Slavery is economic in nature...class status is a result of slavery, not the cause of it. What we're talking about here is different...and the fact that you don't seem to be able to differentiate between the two concepts suggest that you don't understand it. Quote:The main characteristic of conservatives is fear of change. Not quite. When things are good and folks suggest ideas that are unrealistic, there is no valid reason to entertain them. I guess you could call that fear of stupid ideas? Quote:In consequence they leave things no better than they found them, and consider this an achievement. And in the age of a lot of ill-conceived liberal ideas that would destroy the conditions we live in, I'd call it a feather in their cap; especially when one considers things are pretty darn good now as compared with the lives of human beings over the span of history. But, admitedly, that may change...humans just don't seem to be able to leave a good thing alone; and in a social structure that fails to recognize the importance of sacrifice for the good of all, they seek to make it better for themselves at the expense of all. It's the liberal way.

Quote:He (and you) confuse a social foundation with an economic one.I don't agree. Economic structures are social - they are part of how people relate to each other. So all economic issues are social ones (though not vice versa. Quote:class status is a result of slavery, not the cause of it.I don't think this is at all relevant - class status is only one type of social construct (which often derives from money or family or occupation). I was not thinking of class status myself. Quote:When things are good and folks suggest ideas that are unrealisticGood for whom? You would not consider modern society is good for everyone. Or is conservatism (as I often suspect) a mask for an underlying attitude of "I'm all right - I don't care about you"?Unrealistic like the abolition of slavery? Equality of women? Plato thought they were unrealistic. The word 'unrealistic' has been used by conservatives throughout the ages for every idea they are afraid of. Our real life now contains so many 'unrealistic' ideas. Quote:And in the age of a lot of ill-conceived liberal ideas that would destroy the conditions we live inExactly Plato's argument!

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:He (and you) confuse a social foundation with an economic one.I don't agree. Economic structures are social - they are part of how people relate to each other. So all economic issues are social ones (though not vice versa.Baloney. Economic concerns (greed) drove slavery...not any desire to create a lower social class of people. And, once created, the class of slaves did not effect the basic underlaying foundation of society...otherwise known as the family unit. Once slavery was abolished, the family unit was unaffected...it was the economy that tanked. Gay marriage radically alters the family unit. Huge difference. Quote: Quote:class status is a result of slavery, not the cause of it.I don't think this is at all relevant...See above. Quote: Quote:When things are good and folks suggest ideas that are unrealisticGood for whom? You would not consider modern society is good for everyone.Good for the majority...of course. Or would you prefer the liberal mindset of "good for me...the hell with everyone else"? Quote:Unrealistic like the abolition of slavery? Equality of women? Plato thought they were unrealistic. At the time, they were. And today, we're still dealing, to a certain extent, with the fallout of both. Neither are a done-deal in our society even today. It would appear that changing things is not is not as easy as it seems. Quote: Quote:And in the age of a lot of ill-conceived liberal ideas that would destroy the conditions we live inExactly Plato's argument! Right argument...wrong causal factor.

Quote:BaloneyBaloney to your baloney, with whipped cream on top. Quote:once created, the class of slaves did not effect the basic underlaying foundation of society...otherwise known as the family unitMore baloney. In Greek and Roman societies, slaves performed many of the tasks now considered parental responsibilities, and were effectively part of the family. Furthermore, there, and in the US and the Caribbean, slaves also provided a sexual outlet - adultery with slaves was so common as to be usual, and was not considered a serious failing, or sometimes a failing at all.I'm always amazed how the conservative churches (and others) blather on about the sacredness of the family unit, cornerstone of society, etc, etc. They didn't get that from the Bible! The Bible commands that parents be honoured and respected, but it is quite clear that service to God is above it. It supersedes even the - what seems very basic - obligation to bury one's father or say good-bye to the family (Luke 9:59-62). Jesus does not consider the family sacred; it is indeed a possible stumbling-block - see Luke 14:26. Quote:Good for the majority...of courseSo it is OK if 51% of the people live well, and 49% live wretchedly? Quote:At the time, they wereI'm sure you would have fought tooth-and-nail to prevent such reforms. Quote:It would appear that changing things is not is not as easy as it seems.Who said it was?

Originally Posted By: IneligibleMore baloney. In Greek and Roman societies, slaves performed many of the tasks now considered parental responsibilities, and were effectively part of the family. Furthermore, there, and in the US and the Caribbean, slaves also provided a sexual outlet - adultery with slaves was so common as to be usual, and was not considered a serious failing, or sometimes a failing at all.What does sex with slaves have to do with the family unit (unless adultry is the case)? Fornication is a seperate issue.And as far as Greeks and Romans are concerned, I think you'll find that the vast majority of families did not have any such slaves. You point to the very rich and expect others to believe that they represent society as a whole...when at most times, the very rich are some of the poorest examples of upholding moral and family values. Tiger Woods comes immediately to mind. Do you ever think about what you post before doing so, or is it all off the top of your head?That you keep pointing to Roman and Greek examples is ironic as our current society mirrors that of Rome, to a large extent, during the time that Rome was falling. History repeats itself...and just as liberal, headonistic mindsets largely compassed the downfall of Rome, so it seems to be going with our society today. Quote:I'm always amazed how the conservative churches (and others) blather on about the sacredness of the family unit, cornerstone of society, etc, etc.I'm amazed that you're amazed. I thought you were smarter than that.

Adultery was very much the case.Of course most families didn't have slaves - only the middle and upper classes. But so what? Who said I was representing society as a whole? I didn't - it's completely irrelevant. Your thesis was: "And, once created, the class of slaves did not effect the basic underlaying foundation of society...otherwise known as the family unit", and I rebutted that by showing that slavery very much affected the family unit. That there existed many families that didn't have slaves has no relevance.You could equally say that vast majority of families are not affected by homosexuality. Do you ever think about what you post before doing so, or is it all off the top of your head? Quote:just as liberal, headonistic mindsets largely compassed the downfall of RomeVery Gibbons. But where does the conversion of the Empire to Christianity fit in with that? Quote:I'm amazed that you're amazed. I thought you were smarter than that.Get a brain first, thor. You don't even understand what I am saying. You certainly are unable to address it!

Originally Posted By: IneligibleYou could equally say that vast majority of families are not affected by homosexuality. If gay "marriage" become the norm for the nation, you would be incorrect to say so. There is a difference between something that is kept out of the public eye and something that is flaunted in front of it. One is conceded though not accepted. The other, having been ram-rodded down the public throat, is accepted to the point where it changes the fabric of marriage for ALL people...not just in those families where such "marriages" exist. Quote:Get a brain first, thor. You don't even understand what I am saying. You certainly are unable to address it! You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you. It's called arrogance, and you've got an unhealthy dose of it.

Quote:If gay "marriage" become the norm for the nation, you would be incorrect to say so. There is a difference between something that is kept out of the public eye and something that is flaunted in front of it. One is conceded though not accepted. The other, having been ram-rodded down the public throat, is accepted to the point where it changes the fabric of marriage for ALL people...not just in those families where such "marriages" exist.Why? How? How does my marriage depend on what others do or don't do, and whether they use the word "marriage" or not? What difference does it make whether something is done secretly or openly?What is the significance of what happens in the "nation"? Does a gay marriage law in a particular US state change the fabric of marriage only within that state, or in the United States of America, or the whole world?