View Full Version : Army colonel ignites firestorm with article on crushing a 'tea party insurgency'
30 cal slut
08-05-12, 19:37
Title says it all.
Link here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/army-colonel-ignites-firestorm-with-article-on-crushing-a-tea-party-insurgency
VooDoo6Actual
08-05-12, 19:50
Yea,
I read this article on another blog earlier today.
Interesting spin & forget about the Constitution, due process, the Republic, our history etc.
Here's an interesting segway from the OP. The irony & hypocracy is not only astounding but defies logic for me.
"Yet some of President Obama's closet longtime friends have not only been associated with terrorism but actively participated in it, such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who as members of the Weathermen from the 1960s and 70s bombed federal buildings that resulted in the deaths of police officers.
But if one listens to the rhetoric emanating from the White House, DHS, and now the U.S. military, one gets the impression that none of the president's friends ever posed a threat to the country but hundreds of thousands of tea party activists are ticking time bombs lying in wait to unleash a nuke on an American city at the drop of a hat.
The brainwashing against conservatives by this administration has had a definite impact on the military. One analyst who works for retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told this reporter that now over half of Pentagon personnel are solidly in Obama's corner and share his values and world view.
And with the publication of the Benson and Weber article, it is now clear that the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists inspired by Alinsky or Ayers but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it."
Wowsers....scary times ahead indeed....
They will foment that future conflict when they're ready for it, by legislating the stripping most types of guns, ammo, normal capacity mags, and other popular weapons from civilian ownership, because they already know that for the most part it is mostly conservatives and Libertarians who own and operate those, so it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy on their part. And they know most of their constituents will go along with it because their brains don't work properly and they simply believe whatever they're taught to by the media propaganda arm of the government and the public education system, they don't actually think critically for themselves. Plus the more Americans they can get reliant on government for mere existence, the more control they have over them. It's all part of the plan and it seems to be full speed ahead at this point.
Funny thing: This is precisely what the 2nd amendment is there to protect against. That's another reason why this effort will be self-fulfilling. They're going against the very letter of the document.
From the Officer Corps that enabled Ft. Hood, what do you expect?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-05-12, 20:24
Who knows how a civil war would break down 'sides' wise, but if it is on the right/left split, I can understand the military brasses infatuation with unmanned warfighting equipement. Orders are orders, but what is the right/left split in the military? How many guys show up on day 2?
A buddy was saying how it was impossible for civilians to stand up against the miltary after it has fought these last two wars. I turned it around and said there is a whole generation of civilians that used to be in the military that have an intimate knowledge of at the minimum how not to run an insurgency and at best all the tricks to surviving as one.
What is the left/right split in special forces people over the past 20 years?
Hell, the TEA party cleans up after its meetings, it is going to take a pretty big change to switch this into a national threat.
Moose-Knuckle
08-06-12, 03:41
This is precisely what the 2nd amendment is there to protect against. That's another reason why this effort will be self-fulfilling.
This.
Ron Paul had the most military-member donations to his campaign while he was still running. About 2x what Obama was getting. If I had to ball park it, I'd say that about 30% are real patriots, another 20% are Obamas minions, and 50% are apathetic and ignorant about their oath. Although not enemies of the constitution by any measure, they might be willing to carry out a horrific order if it's worded just right. So I'm saying we have 1/3 on our side, maybe 1/2 at best if soldiers are forced to choose.
ETA: just read the article. This retired douche is just regurgitating SPLC horseshit. It's the same guilt by association nonsense. " . . . by groups such as the tea party, militias, kkk, and anti-immigration minutemen ". It's a total psy-op. We are winning this argument gentlemen. Let not your heart be troubled when some moron retired from the military reads some SPLC and spouts off about nothing. Laugh it off. Of course BHOs supporters are going to pull out all the stops. We're ahead
polymorpheous
08-06-12, 04:49
The use of language as a weapon is interesting.
I noticed during OIF heavy emphasis was put on blurring the line between insurgent and terrorist.
Ask the average American what an insurgent is and they will now answer back a terrorist.
Spurholder
08-06-12, 06:10
Link to the Small Wars Journal website and full article:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/full-spectrum-operations-in-the-homeland-a-%E2%80%9Cvision%E2%80%9D-of-the-future
Ron Paul had the most military-member donations to his campaign while he was still running. About 2x what Obama was getting. If I had to ball park it, I'd say that about 30% are real patriots, another 20% are Obamas minions, and 50% are apathetic and ignorant about their oath. Although not enemies of the constitution by any measure, they might be willing to carry out a horrific order if it's worded just right. So I'm saying we have 1/3 on our side, maybe 1/2 at best if soldiers are forced to choose.
ETA: just read the article. This retired douche is just regurgitating SPLC horseshit. It's the same guilt by association nonsense. " . . . by groups such as the tea party, militias, kkk, and anti-immigration minutemen ". It's a total psy-op. We are winning this argument gentlemen. Let not your heart be troubled when some moron retired from the military reads some SPLC and spouts off about nothing. Laugh it off. Of course BHOs supporters are going to pull out all the stops. We're aheadI would say this is accurate.
QuietShootr
08-06-12, 08:37
Who knows how a civil war would break down 'sides' wise, but if it is on the right/left split, I can understand the military brasses infatuation with unmanned warfighting equipement. Orders are orders, but what is the right/left split in the military? How many guys show up on day 2?
A buddy was saying how it was impossible for civilians to stand up against the miltary after it has fought these last two wars. I turned it around and said there is a whole generation of civilians that used to be in the military that have an intimate knowledge of at the minimum how not to run an insurgency and at best all the tricks to surviving as one.
What is the left/right split in special forces people over the past 20 years?
Hell, the TEA party cleans up after its meetings, it is going to take a pretty big change to switch this into a national threat.
Anybody remember The Resister? Fake or no, I have never seen anything like that with a leftist bent.
platoonDaddy
08-06-12, 08:46
This scenario of domestic operations seemingly dovetails with USMC forming three battalions of Military Police?
Reminds me of "Seven Days In May!"
Sucks to say, but perhaps another purpose is coming to light for the push to get rid of DADT and promote open immorality in the armed forces. They know it will discourage more conservatives from joining or reenlisting, and encourage more deviants to join, both of which helps increase their percentage control over the military.
Sucks to say, but perhaps another purpose is coming to light for the push to get rid of DADT and promote open immorality in the armed forces. They know it will discourage more conservatives from joining or reenlisting, and encourage more deviants to join, both of which helps increase their percentage control over the military.
You realize the final push to get rid of DADT was from a conservative group right?
BrigandTwoFour
08-06-12, 23:36
FWIW, most of the conversations I've had with other officers in the Air Force nuclear community would indicate to me that the vast majority would fall squarely into the category of "Oath Keeper."
Either explicitly stated or not, I could sense the political undercurrents within would lead them that way.
Of course, that community doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Little deployment experience, very little small arms training, not necessarily in charge of large numbers of people. But, very very intelligent decision makers with extremely strong strategic planning knowledge.
Thank you for sharing that. It pleases me beyond words to know that our button pushers are made of good stuff
Just a Jarhead
08-07-12, 03:42
This isn't anything new nor anything we haven't all known for sometime. The question has always been when? And what will the trigger be? Probably as JAY35 above states.."a gun grab" at some point and an effort to go "full tilt Marxist". Could be next year if socialist POTUS pulls it off, could be after I'm dead and gone in 40-50 years. Who knows. Prepare accordingly, whatever that means to you. But with such vastly diverse gulfs between our belief systems in this country, there's bound to be a showdown at some point. We're definitely a divided people's and getting worse by the year. We share very little in common any more.
In a marriage, if both parties are miserable and not getting what they feel they need, after a reasonable amount of time trying to make it work, they should probably split up. It would benefit them both immensely. Why force each other to stay in a contract that has been terrible for a long long time?
Same idea applies to nations. We will either see a resurgence of States power and states rights, creating in essence 50 different countries loosely bound together in a federal union (the original idea), or we will see a Balkanization of North America, with a handful of completely separate and sovereign countries. They could even form an alliance for their mutual defense. Call it NADS. North American Defensive Settlement. If they mess with Texas, they just kicked all of us in the NADS.
BrigandTwoFour
08-07-12, 10:34
As much as I think people like to talk about the separation of states with such vehemently opposed beliefs, it will never happen.
Really, the most ardent opposition to our way of life and thinking comes from the relatively few dense urban centers (LA, San Fran, NY, Chicago, etc). These dense urban areas attract the like minded and they congregate into a big echo chamber- just like we all do here.
These areas have almost no ability to sustain themselves without outside help. They have no agriculture, industry, or anything of value to offer anyone. The the vast majority of people who populate these areas also have very little in the way of productive skill sets. They exist almost entirely as a service economy of ideas. Such a precarious position will ultimately lead to collapse if left on their own- and they know it (even if they won't admit it).
From a military perspective, there is also too much infrastructure spread around these areas (especially California) to be allowed to secede.
You realize the final push to get rid of DADT was from a conservative group right?
Could you please tell which group, I am interested in examining this.
Cincinnatus
08-07-12, 11:33
In a marriage, if both parties are miserable and not getting what they feel they need, after a reasonable amount of time trying to make it work, they should probably split up. It would benefit them both immensely. Why force each other to stay in a contract that has been terrible for a long long time?
Same idea applies to nations. We will either see a resurgence of States power and states rights, creating in essence 50 different countries loosely bound together in a federal union (the original idea), or we will see a Balkanization of North America, with a handful of completely separate and sovereign countries. They could even form an alliance for their mutual defense. Call it NADS. North American Defensive Settlement. If they mess with Texas, they just kicked all of us in the NADS.
Have you read 1984 by Orwell? The central point is that tyranny is not about anything else but power and control; ideology is just a mask for naked power.
The idea that the union could be broken up in a consensual "go our separate ways" manner is not realistic.
This is because the Left is not interested in live and let live or coexistience with those that believe differently than themselves.
They are imperialists in the sense that they want to foist their beliefs on anyone and everyone in this country with or without their consent.
They would never allow any part, even the "Red States" part of the country, to leave their fold because they want to control and conquer them in a political sense, and hold power over us all.
If it were otherwise, they would be content to simply have their leviathan governments in the blue states, and not try to nationalize all their policies at the Federal level, yet where is the push always at? the Federal level--they are not content to have their own Blue-state way at home, but insist on making all Red States Blue as well.
Have you read 1984 by Orwell? The central point is that tyranny is not about anything else but power and control; ideology is just a mask for naked power.
The idea that the union could be broken up in a consensual "go our separate ways" manner is not realistic.
This is because the Left is not interested in live and let live or coexistience with those that believe differently than themselves.
They are imperialists in the sense that they want to foist their beliefs on anyone and everyone in this country with or without their consent.
They would never allow any part, even the "Red States" part of the country, to leave their fold because they want to control and conquer them in a political sense, and hold power over us all.
If it were otherwise, they would be content to simply have their leviathan governments in the blue states, and not try to nationalize all their policies at the Federal level, yet where is the push always at? the Federal level--they are not content to have their own Blue-state way at home, but insist on making all Red States Blue as well.
This is proven every day. Bloomberg and his 16 oz. sodas, people who don't want anyone to eat meat, and such other nonsenses.
On top of it they are very hypocritical, they can be rich yet bitch about the rich.
I applaud you for a very excellent post.
Best post yet!
Have you read 1984 by Orwell? The central point is that tyranny is not about anything else but power and control; ideology is just a mask for naked power.
The idea that the union could be broken up in a consensual "go our separate ways" manner is not realistic.
This is because the Left is not interested in live and let live or coexistience with those that believe differently than themselves.
They are imperialists in the sense that they want to foist their beliefs on anyone and everyone in this country with or without their consent.
They would never allow any part, even the "Red States" part of the country, to leave their fold because they want to control and conquer them in a political sense, and hold power over us all.
If it were otherwise, they would be content to simply have their leviathan governments in the blue states, and not try to nationalize all their policies at the Federal level, yet where is the push always at? the Federal level--they are not content to have their own Blue-state way at home, but insist on making all Red States Blue as well.
Anybody remember The Resister? Fake or no, I have never seen anything like that with a leftist bent.
I do.
And now most folks have a pretty good idea who the publisher was, and he was special forces.
Cincinnatus
08-07-12, 13:03
I do.
And now most folks have a pretty good idea who the publisher was, and he was special forces.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/4878-the-resister-the-political-warfare-journal-of-the-special-forces-underground.html
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-tripwire-from-the-resister/
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/resister.htm
Hadn't heard of this before now, but here's some excerpts I found.
Army Chief
08-07-12, 14:25
You realize the final push to get rid of DADT was from a conservative group right?
I have an unusually-clear view of the levels at which such decisions are implemented -- if not made -- these days, and am admittedly left to wonder where you're getting your news.
AC
Have you read 1984 by Orwell? The central point is that tyranny is not about anything else but power and control; ideology is just a mask for naked power.
The idea that the union could be broken up in a consensual "go our separate ways" manner is not realistic.
This is because the Left is not interested in live and let live or coexistience with those that believe differently than themselves.
They are imperialists in the sense that they want to foist their beliefs on anyone and everyone in this country with or without their consent.
They would never allow any part, even the "Red States" part of the country, to leave their fold because they want to control and conquer them in a political sense, and hold power over us all.
If it were otherwise, they would be content to simply have their leviathan governments in the blue states, and not try to nationalize all their policies at the Federal level, yet where is the push always at? the Federal level--they are not content to have their own Blue-state way at home, but insist on making all Red States Blue as well.
Perfect assessment. It annoys me to no end when I hear congresscritters railing about some event halfway across the country as a critical need for new laws. How about you STFU and represent the voters who elected you and allow the representatives who were elected in those places do their jobs?
A perfect example is Bloomberg. Who elected him as Emperor of America? If I were POTUS, I'd have the Justice Dept. up his ass with track shoes on a daily basis! :mad:
QuietShootr
08-07-12, 14:46
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/4878-the-resister-the-political-warfare-journal-of-the-special-forces-underground.html
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-tripwire-from-the-resister/
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/resister.htm
Hadn't heard of this before now, but here's some excerpts I found.
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-tripwire-from-the-resister/
Goddamn. Nail, head, all that.
davidjinks
08-07-12, 15:25
Thank you for the links!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/4878-the-resister-the-political-warfare-journal-of-the-special-forces-underground.html
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-tripwire-from-the-resister/
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/resister.htm
Hadn't heard of this before now, but here's some excerpts I found.
VooDoo6Actual
08-07-12, 15:46
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-tripwire-from-the-resister/
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/cmicsfee.gif
Have you read 1984 by Orwell? The central point is that tyranny is not about anything else but power and control; ideology is just a mask for naked power.
The idea that the union could be broken up in a consensual "go our separate ways" manner is not realistic.
This is because the Left is not interested in live and let live or coexistience with those that believe differently than themselves.
They are imperialists in the sense that they want to foist their beliefs on anyone and everyone in this country with or without their consent.
They would never allow any part, even the "Red States" part of the country, to leave their fold because they want to control and conquer them in a political sense, and hold power over us all.
If it were otherwise, they would be content to simply have their leviathan governments in the blue states, and not try to nationalize all their policies at the Federal level, yet where is the push always at? the Federal level--they are not content to have their own Blue-state way at home, but insist on making all Red States Blue as well.
Bingo.
Could you please tell which group, I am interested in examining this.
I have an unusually-clear view of the levels at which such decisions are implemented -- if not made -- these days, and am admittedly left to wonder where you're getting your news.
AC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.6417371/k.C2D6/Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell.htm
A group that I am proud to support along with the NRA and a select few other organizations. I have many good friends who work directly for this group. And while I myself don't share their one differentiating factor I do share their goals.
Of course I am sure some people dont' consider them conservative but I tend to take a wider view of things.
Not exactly on line with the original topic, but easy to see how the original topic ties in with this:
US Government Proposes Law Making It Illegal For Them To Kill You
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-us-government-proposes-law-making-it-illegal-them-kill-you
Push for more 10th Amendment State powers it is. Sounds like Balkanization/ Secesion isn't viable. You're right, distancing oneself from control freaks doesn't address the issue.
Our murderers are better than their murderers, and more numerous.
Moose-Knuckle
08-07-12, 20:56
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/resister.htm
Hadn't heard of this before now, but here's some excerpts I found.
Thomas Jefferson would be proud!
Though I'm sure the arthur is on a PATCON list. :(
Our murderers are better than their murderers, and more numerous.
We do out number our enemies, true. But i don't believe we have murderers. We have peace keepers, defenders, oath keepers and watchmen. We will only kill if backed into a corner, and it's kill or be killed (or kill or be made a slave)
BrigandTwoFour
08-07-12, 22:20
We do out number our enemies, true. But i don't believe we have murderers. We have peace keepers, defenders, oath keepers and watchmen. We will only kill if backed into a corner, and it's kill or be killed (or kill or be made a slave)
To reference T.R.
Their side is noisy and lashing out. Our side speaks softer and has the potential to carry much bigger sticks (in the form of training and know-how)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.6417371/k.C2D6/Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell.htm
A group that I am proud to support along with the NRA and a select few other organizations. I have many good friends who work directly for this group. And while I myself don't share their one differentiating factor I do share their goals.
Of course I am sure some people dont' consider them conservative but I tend to take a wider view of things.
Thanks for the info. I haven't aligned myself with the conservative movement for at least 15 years because of things such as this. I find conservatism every bit as hostile to my world view as liberalism is, just 2 sides to the same humanistic coin.
Littlelebowski
08-08-12, 04:50
Sucks to say, but perhaps another purpose is coming to light for the push to get rid of DADT and promote open immorality in the armed forces. They know it will discourage more conservatives from joining or reenlisting, and encourage more deviants to join, both of which helps increase their percentage control over the military.
They are not deviants, they are human ****ing beings and people like you are ruining the "conservative" cause.
The_War_Wagon
08-08-12, 08:17
How many folks would LIKE to post a thought to this thread, but are afraid it would result in a gummint drone circling their house in perpetuity... :fie:
polymorpheous
08-08-12, 08:25
They are not deviants, they are human ****ing beings and people like you are ruining the "conservative" cause.
The Dude abides.
:thank_you2:
More and more I see people of different views dehumanizing one another.
Simply for having a different view.
Recently in WI we had a political shitstorm with the recall elections.
I saw liberals literally call conservatives sub-human.
Conservative would mostly fire right back.
This is dangerous.
This mindset is how people allow great atrocities to occur.
The Dude abides.
:thank_you2:
More and more I see people of different views dehumanizing one another.
Simply for having a different view.
Recently in WI we had a political shitstorm with the recall elections.
I saw liberals literally call conservatives sub-human.
Conservative would mostly fire right back.
This is dangerous.
This mindset is how people allow great atrocities to occur.
Rings a bell....... Oh yeah Hitler and his fascists thought of Jews as subhuman.
Just a Jarhead
08-08-12, 11:07
They are not deviants, they are human ****ing beings and people like you are ruining the "conservative" cause.
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
It is estimated that there are approx. 4 million Gay and lesbians in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html
There are approx 313 million people in the U.S. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
Therefore ONLY 1.2 % of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian.
Would be hard to argue against that this is a classic definition of deviating from accepted norms. A mere 1.2% of anything is not the norm. More like a "statistical fluke"..."freak of nature", take your pick. JAY35 is clearly correct in his assesment. They are sexual deviants.
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
It is estimated that there are approx. 4 million Gay and lesbians in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html
There are approx 313 million people in the U.S. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
Therefore ONLY 1.2 % of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian.
Would be hard to argue against that this is a classic definition of deviating from accepted norms. A mere 1.2% of anything is not the norm.
Bingo!
C4
...This is dangerous.
This mindset is how people allow great atrocities to occur.
Ain't that the truth.
I can only speak for myself, but I could care less what other people's views are... as long as they don't try to shove them down my throat and make me live according to their views. Therein lies the problem. Too many busybodies on the "left" and "right" want to use government power to force other people to do things their way.
I think this country is every bit as polarized as it was prior to the Civil War. The big difference is that the different factions are not separated geographically, so there is more of a Balkan-like scenario than a North vs South scenario. Pretty scary potential here.
Rings a bell....... Oh yeah Hitler and his fascists thought of Jews as subhuman.
Godwin's Law still going strong. ;)
-Jax
kaiservontexas
08-08-12, 11:29
You know what this article tells me. It tells me that some brass hate legitimate political processes in this nation, and they seek to delegitimization said process by making up fantasy games using them as enemies. And why are they the enemies? Because they disagree with them.
How is that for polarization?
Much more polarizing then sexuality topics.
Rings a bell....... Oh yeah Hitler and his fascists thought of Jews as subhuman.
I think everyone would see the difference between a RACE of people and a Sexual Orientation as two COMPLETELY different things.
I know that many on the left want/try to get homosexuality to be defined as a new "race" and give them "rights", but at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a deviant lifestyle and should be viewed the same way as people that think it is ok to have sex with and marry farm animals.
C4
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
It is estimated that there are approx. 4 million Gay and lesbians in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html
There are approx 313 million people in the U.S. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
Therefore ONLY 1.2 % of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian.
At any given point in the last 10 years, less than 1 percent of the US population has been on Active Duty. Apparently, NOT joining the military is a social norm.
By your definition, they are deviants. But would you guys choose to use that word? Of course not.
Despite your semantic gymnastics, you guys know full well that the use of the word deviant is intended to dehumanize people.
Don't be cowards. Fly under your true colors.
It is nothing more than a deviant lifestyle and should be viewed the same way as people that think it is ok to have sex with and marry farm animals.
C4
In one breath, you imply that you're not dehumanizing gays. And in the next, you compare a consensual relationship between two human beings with bestiality. Surely you've got to see the logical contradiction here. It's a completely false equivocation. You're putting human beings on the same level as farm animals and you know it, despite whatever rationale or excuse you'll surely come up with.
In one breath, you imply that you're not dehumanizing gays. And in the next, you compare a consensual relationship between two human beings with bestiality. Surely you've got to see the logical contradiction here. It's a completely false equivocation. You're putting human beings on the same level as farm animals and you know it, despite whatever rationale or excuse you'll surely come up with.
No, not really. Sin is Sin brother. All the same to GOD. People that don't like to face the fact that what they are doing is wrong (and want to justify it), will use such terms as "dehumanizing" to get people to buy off on their lifestyle.
Please realize that I am not trying to take AWAY any rights to Homosexuals, but am not interested in GIVING them any NEW rights either. I am also not judging them (not my job). I am though stating the fact that what they are doing is wrong. Same as I would a murderer, child molester, thief, etc (all sins by the way).
Getting away from the discussion about homosexuals, let's take another Sin (#7 on the 10 commandments list). It says; You shall not commit adultery.
So this Sin is practiced regularly in our society and is not illegal (by our Govt). Same as homosexuality. So should we give NEW special rights to all the adulterer’s out there? How bout if every time they commit adultery, they get a tax break? Sound good to everyone here??
To save you some angry typing, make sure to realize that MY opinion is not based off the "popular" WORLD view. Mine comes from the Bible. So if you are not a Christian and do not believe what the Bible says is true, then you and I will NEVER share the same opinion on these subjects. With that said, I do still respect you as a person and would welcome the chance to "break bread" with you and thank you for your service to this great country!
C4
I think everyone would see the difference between a RACE of people and a Sexual Orientation as two COMPLETELY different things.
I know that many on the left want/try to get homosexuality to be defined as a new "race" and give them "rights", but at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a deviant lifestyle and should be viewed the same way as people that think it is ok to have sex with and marry farm animals.
C4
Actually I think sexual orientation and skin pigment are both just "things you are born with." I don't think it's any kind of "learned behavior."
That said, people are born with all kinds of abnormalities which make them pedophiles, serial killers and the like. Obviously homosexuality doesn't present the same social threats as those examples, but it is outside the "norm."
But as I subscribe to a humanistic philosophy there is nothing wrong with being outside the norm so long as you aren't harming others.
Actually I think sexual orientation and skin pigment are both just "things you are born with." I don't think it's any kind of "learned behavior."
That said, people are born with all kinds of abnormalities which make them pedophiles, serial killers and the like. Obviously homosexuality doesn't present the same social threats as those examples, but it is outside the "norm."
But as I subscribe to a humanistic philosophy there is nothing wrong with being outside the norm so long as you aren't harming others.
Sorry, I cannot agree. We are all born with the ability to LIE. We have FREE WILL to decide whether or not we tell a Lie.
C4
So are they sinners or subhuman?
Land of the free?
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
So are they sinners or subhuman?
Land of the free?
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
No idea where you get subhuman from (sorry).
The biblical reference about "throwing stones" is in regards to people that cast out others while implying that they are sinless. Or basically judging them. Since only GOD is sinless, he has does the judging.
What myself and others are simply stating what the Bible says. If you do not like it, don't blame me for I didn't write it (GOD did). For whatever reason, non-Christians THINK we are judging them when in fact we are CALLED UPON to love the person. We are NOT called upon to love their sin though.
C4
Littlelebowski
08-08-12, 13:34
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
It is estimated that there are approx. 4 million Gay and lesbians in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html
There are approx 313 million people in the U.S. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
Therefore ONLY 1.2 % of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian.
Would be hard to argue against that this is a classic definition of deviating from accepted norms. A mere 1.2% of anything is not the norm. More like a "statistical fluke"..."freak of nature", take your pick. JAY35 is clearly correct in his assesment. They are sexual deviants.
I sincerely doubt that is the interpretation of the word that he meant. Whether religiously bigoted folk like it or not, homosexuals have been around since the dawn of humanity. It's not a choice, not a lie, it's how they were born and they are not evil for it unless they harm others.
They are not deviants, they are human ****ing beings and people like you are ruining the "conservative" cause.
You're wasting your time, the schism has become a chasm...
Sorry, I cannot agree. We are all born with the ability to LIE. We have FREE WILL to decide whether or not we tell a Lie.
C4
Correct, but you cannot decide to be tall, asian, have blond hair or many other predispositions. Choice of actions is hardly the same thing as sexual orientation.
Basically that is saying you could learn to fall in love with another mans hair ass and cease to be sexually attracted to women. I sorta doubt that is the case.
I did not have to learn to be attracted to women, soon as I saw my first interesting looking female I knew there was something there and that was long before the plumbing was working.
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
It is estimated that there are approx. 4 million Gay and lesbians in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/gay-population-us-estimate_n_846348.html
There are approx 313 million people in the U.S. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
Therefore ONLY 1.2 % of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian.
Would be hard to argue against that this is a classic definition of deviating from accepted norms. A mere 1.2% of anything is not the norm. More like a "statistical fluke"..."freak of nature", take your pick. JAY35 is clearly correct in his assesment. They are sexual deviants.
True, and it is deplorable that our society has come to be dominated, by those that despise the other 98.8% of us...
montanadave
08-08-12, 14:42
To save you some angry typing, make sure to realize that MY opinion is not based off the "popular" WORLD view. Mine comes from the Bible. So if you are not a Christian and do not believe what the Bible says is true, then you and I will NEVER share the same opinion on these subjects.
C4
That's it in a nutshell and why these discussions are ultimately fruitless.
But while folks are bickering about semantics, how about those who support that particular position refer to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" rather than referring to those individuals as "sexual deviants."
A position I do not support, FWIW.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-12, 14:46
At any given point in the last 10 years, less than 1 percent of the US population has been on Active Duty. Apparently, NOT joining the military is a social norm.
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
― Heraclitus
By the way, your math is wrong. You need to count everyone that has ever served- unless you are saying that gay people only serve four years in the rainbow corp and then get out.....
Doc Safari
08-08-12, 14:51
But while folks are bickering about semantics, how about those who support that particular position refer to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" rather than referring to those individuals as "sexual deviants."
This is the proper attitude. The true "Christian" perspective is to hate the sin, but not the sinner. Homosexuality is a "sin" just like adultery, fornication, stealing, murder, you name it.
I do not believe people are born that way. Life experiences contribute to the person making the choice, albeit sometimes the person thinks they had no choice.
Title says it all.
Link here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/army-colonel-ignites-firestorm-with-article-on-crushing-a-tea-party-insurgency
Anybody, and I mean anybody, who seriously thinks that the military, or LE leadership, will do the right thing, is an idiot! I harbor no doubts as to what these creatures are capable of, and they will do it, your worst nightmares are right at their fingertips...You cannot trust any of them, period!
Just be sure to instruct your sons & daughters, those that are serving in the military, what they are to do to any of these democidal leadership types if given orders to march on lawful American citizens!
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
― Heraclitus
By the way, your math is wrong. You need to count everyone that has ever served- unless you are saying that gay people only serve four years in the rainbow corp and then get out.....
Vague, tangentially related quotes from antiquity may rouse emotions in support of your position, but are pragmatically meaningless in the real world. Just more evidence of the idiotic trend toward blurbs, soundbite politics, and fortune-cookie philosophy.
My "math" comes from the Pew Research Center:
"During the past decade, as the military has been engaged in the longest period of sustained conflict in the nation’s history, just one-half of one percent of American adults has served on active duty at any given time." Deviants, all. :rolleyes:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family-connections/#fn-9923-1
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-12, 14:56
and yet another thread goes down the shitter.
:rolleyes:
Civil War in the US? Heck we have a hard time having a civil arguement here on M4C.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-12, 15:00
Vague, tangentially related quotes from antiquity may rouse emotions in support of your position, but are pragmatically meaningless in the real world. Just more evidence of the idiotic trend toward blurbs, soundbite politics, and fortune-cookie philosophy.
My "math" comes from the Pew Research Center:
"During the past decade, as the military has been engaged in the longest period of sustained conflict in the nation’s history, just one-half of one percent of American adults has served on active duty at any given time." Deviants, all. :rolleyes:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family-connections/#fn-9923-1
Sorry, public school education comes out sometime. Your math is impeccable, it's your analysis that needs help. I'll stick with Heraclitus, you can have the Pew Research Center.
Littlelebowski
08-08-12, 15:02
It's funny how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
Littlelebowski
08-08-12, 15:03
Sorry, public school education comes out sometime. Your math is impeccable, it's your analysis that needs help. I'll stick with Heraclitus, you can have the Pew Research Center.
You do know what a0cake does for a living, right?
It's funny how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
Just be glad they finally got it down to one particular version.
It's funny how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
Christian morality is psychopathic anyway. Hey, if the theocrats on this forum can state their true feelings and demand respect for them, so can I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns
Doc Safari
08-08-12, 15:14
Just be glad they finally got it down to one particular version.
LOL. Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox (IIRC) all have slight differences in which books were included as "canonical".
Nevermind the myriad of translations and "versions" from the King James to the NIV.
I do sympathize with people who get confused.
Cincinnatus
08-08-12, 15:17
Can we please put this thread back on track to original topic? The original topic has nothing to do with homosexuality.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-12, 15:29
You do know what a0cake does for a living, right?
Yes, of course. It doesn't change the fact that for the comparision to be right he either needs to compare the number of gay poeple of military service age or he has to compare the total number of gay people to the total number of people that have served.
Am I wrong?
Yes, of course. It doesn't change the fact that for the comparision to be right he either needs to compare the number of gay poeple of military service age or he has to compare the total number of gay people to the total number of people that have served.
Am I wrong?
I feel like either you've missed or I've failed to make my point.
The only reason I brought up that only around ~1% of adults have served in the military is this:
Somebody justified calling homosexuals "deviants" on the grounds that they constitute only around 1% of the population, and thus defy social-norms. They were saying that the word deviant wasn't being used maliciously, that it was proper use of language given that homosexuals are such a small minority and "deviate" from "normal" behavior.
In a legalistic / literal sense, this is technically true.
But it's also true that only around 1% of US adults have served in the US military. Would they qualify as "deviants," too?
Under that legalistic / literal framework, technically yes - according to the original logic. But I doubt the proponents of this sort of logic would make such a statement.
And that's my point. The word "deviant" is dehumanizing and being used selectively to criticize a behavior / identity that one does not like. It has nothing to do with population statistics, social trends, or anything else.
It's an epithet, plain and simple. The analogy was my way of calling out their BS.
So a thread about the Police State is being discussed and some how now we are on homosexuality and relgion. . :blink:
Text book topic dilution.
One of your fellow conspiracy theorists, Jay35, brought us here with this statement:
"Sucks to say, but perhaps another purpose is coming to light for the push to get rid of DADT and promote open immorality in the armed forces. They know it will discourage more conservatives from joining or reenlisting, and encourage more deviants to join, both of which helps increase their percentage control over the military."
So, is he a double agent? Is he working for THEM?
Ladies, gentlemen, comrades, friends - let this be an example of how the conspiracy theorist's mind works. Irrational correlations and false causations, solipsized into a presupposed premise. Topic dilution? It MUST be THEM. Never mind that the original topic "diluter" was one of the theorists in the first place. Don't be fooled by this simpleminded "thinking."
It's funny how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
The reason for odd interpretations is almost always related to faulty hermeneutics. Don't fear all you humanists, the church in America is in a doctrinal thralldom, becoming more and more pietistic unable to actually influence the larger culture.
Correct, but you cannot decide to be tall, asian, have blond hair or many other predispositions. Choice of actions is hardly the same thing as sexual orientation.
Basically that is saying you could learn to fall in love with another mans hair ass and cease to be sexually attracted to women. I sorta doubt that is the case.
I did not have to learn to be attracted to women, soon as I saw my first interesting looking female I knew there was something there and that was long before the plumbing was working.
Alcoholism. Science is telling us that children that come from alcoholic parents are more likely to become alcoholics (even if that child is raised in a foster home where alcohol is not consumed). So yes, genetics DO play a role in this, but how much so is unknown.
On a personal note, my Father was an Alcoholic and honestly I like alcohol. I have to CHOOSE to not drink to intoxication. I have to CHOOSE to stop from having more than 1-2 drinks a day.
So I do believe that SOME people are more predisposed to liking the same sex than others. At the end of the day though, it is still a choice they make. The reason I know it is a choice is because in Christianity, we see people all the time walk away from a homosexual lifestyle and never go back. Same goes with Child molesters. We have a reformed one at our church that continues to walk down the right path.
C4
That's it in a nutshell and why these discussions are ultimately fruitless.
But while folks are bickering about semantics, how about those who support that particular position refer to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" rather than referring to those individuals as "sexual deviants."
A position I do not support, FWIW.
You said it best "semantics."
C4
montanadave
08-08-12, 15:51
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!" -- Will Rogers
:laugh:
This is the proper attitude. The true "Christian" perspective is to hate the sin, but not the sinner. Homosexuality is a "sin" just like adultery, fornication, stealing, murder, you name it.
I do not believe people are born that way. Life experiences contribute to the person making the choice, albeit sometimes the person thinks they had no choice.
Agree 100% and hopefully people realize that I do not HATE anyone. Just their sin.
C4
Doc Safari
08-08-12, 15:57
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!" -- Will Rogers
:laugh:
I repeat the often-quoted joke that this country has two parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.
I am proudly an independent, and will vote for anyone who shows a loyalty to God, America, and the family.
Back on topic: the bottom line is that one person will villify the Tea Party one day, and someone on the other side will say it's all the Green Party's fault the next.
Get off this party nonsense, Gentlemen!
George Washington is rolling over in his grave!
The reason for odd interpretations is almost always related to faulty hermeneutics.
These two words, arranged in that manner, constitute an oxymoron - a logical contradiction. Even when looking at the original Hebrew, there is NO ONE SINGLE WAY TO READ THE TEXT.
"Don't mind me, I'm just on an errand for god. I alone have a proper understanding of what god is thinking based off of my interpretation of a text, for which there is no evidence of divine origin - and I'll make sure that YOU do what I say because of it."
Such humility.
Moose-Knuckle
08-08-12, 15:59
Classic "divide and conquer" strategy.
That's how "they" get ya every time. :jester:
Sneaky bastards!
No, not "divide and conquer" but to take the thread off topic.
Which it has btw.
I as a Christian to not believe homosexuality is a chosen way of thinking, because I get my anthropology from the Scriptures as opposed to "science". God made the wicked for the day of evil. In the end it's irrevelant anyway. God condemns it, it is now a duty for all to live according to His commandments. Some receive grace, some don't.
I as a Christian to not believe homosexuality is a chosen way of thinking, because I get my anthropology from the Scriptures as opposed to "science". God made the wicked for the day of evil. In the end it's irrevelant anyway. God condemns it, it is now a duty for all to live according to His commandments. Some receive grace, some don't.
I don't know which is worse.
That you believe all homosexuals are wicked and evil or that you believe God made them that way on purpose so the faithful would have somebody to condemn and fear.
That's a really great "loving" God you believe in.
I as a Christian to not believe homosexuality is a chosen way of thinking, because I get my anthropology from the Scriptures as opposed to "science". God made the wicked for the day of evil. In the end it's irrevelant anyway. God condemns it, it is now a duty for all to live according to His commandments. Some receive grace, some don't.
God created certain people with the express intent of torturing them in fire for all of eternity? Even IF that were true, only a coward would worship such a wicked god. This kind of faith is the perfection of narcissism. Totalitarianism - defined.
I repeat the often-quoted joke that this country has two parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.
I am proudly an independent, and will vote for anyone who shows a loyalty to God, America, and the family.
Back on topic: the bottom line is that one person will villify the Tea Party one day, and someone on the other side will say it's all the Green Party's fault the next.
Get off this party nonsense, Gentlemen!
George Washington is rolling over in his grave!
I am glad you brought him up. My Mother has this painting in her living room:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81GUcLZu0EL._SL1500_.jpg
For those that do not know, GW was PRAYING to GOD for help. His prayer was so profound that a Isaac Potts (a Rank Tory) ran home to his wife (after seeing and hearing GW pray) and told her this:
"Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before. I never thought a man could be a soldier and a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. I thought it was the cause of God, and America could prevail."
I often wish that people like GW could come back, view the "new/modern" USA and then give people an ear full about GOD, Christianity and this great Country.
C4
montanadave
08-08-12, 16:07
Some receive grace, some don't.
And it's a total crap shoot.
Almost like quantum religion.
Eureka! Or, perhaps, Halleluja! We've found the nexus between science and religion. Ultimate truth and ultimate justice, randomly dispensed.
And there was peace in the valley.
These two words, arranged in that manner, constitute an oxymoron - a logical contradiction. Even when looking at the original Hebrew, there is NO ONE SINGLE WAY TO READ THE TEXT.
"Don't mind me, I'm just on an errand for god. I alone have a proper understanding of what god is thinking based off of my interpretation of a text, for which there is no evidence of divine origin - and I'll make sure that YOU do what I say because of it."
Such humility.
Actually you haven't shown an oxymoron at all. The proper way to interpret the Scriptures is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. God interprets God. To spurn God's gift of enlightenment would actually be a lack of humility and gratitude. I have looked to the brethen in ages past for help in coming to a sound understanding in regards to the Scriptures, I didn't just pick up a Bible and say I understand all of it instantly.
Gentlemen, get off the homosexual/religion tangent and get back on topic. Start a thread regarding homosexuality and religion and continue this debate there for **** sake. Talk about derailment...
Castigating and blaming the other side of things gets us nowhere, finding common ground accepting responsibilty/accountability and moving FORWARD is the only way.
The second civil war has been brewing for a while, the media and gummint polarizing us citizens incredibly well.
Divide and conquer for sure; just check this thread out...
And it's a total crap shoot.
Almost like quantum religion.
Eureka! Or, perhaps, Halleluja! We've found the nexus between science and religion. Ultimate truth and ultimate justice, randomly dispensed.
And there was peace in the valley.
It's not random, God is sovereign. He knows His own from all eternity.
I don't know which is worse.
That you believe all homosexuals are wicked and evil or that you believe God made them that way on purpose so the faithful would have somebody to condemn and fear.
That's a really great "loving" God you believe in.
Since I don't believe pagan dualism, then God IS the metaphysical cause of everything. Evil serves God's righteous purposes. I don't subscribe to the sub-Christian view that God loves everyone equally in the same sense, the Scriptures teach this explicitly. I'm just really thankful He loves me.
That's a really great "loving" God you believe in.
This is a common misunderstand about GOD. The best illustration of GOD is like your Earthly Father. He loves you unconditionally, but also has rules AND will enforce those rules.
GOD has also given you FREE WILL to choose him or not. A GOD that was not loving would have MADE YOU worship him.
C4
That's a really great "loving" God you believe in.
This is a common misunderstanding about GOD. The best illustration of GOD is like your Earthly Father. He loves you unconditionally, but also has rules AND will enforce those rules.
GOD has also given you FREE WILL to choose him or not. A GOD that was not loving would have MADE YOU worship him.
C4
nevermind
By all means, nevermind.
montanadave
08-08-12, 16:17
Ain't no certainty like tautological certainty. And ain't no arguing with it.
And now back to our previously scheduled conspiratorial ramblings.
Doc Safari
08-08-12, 16:19
To those who judge God's loving ability or not, it is important to remember that even He says that he "blesses who He blesses and curses who He curses."
Some can deal with it and some can't. It's a mistake to judge God's motives by human standards, even when it seems "unfair" not to.
I am glad God "chose" me to be one of his children. I did not deserve it through any act or thought of my own. I accept it.
God could choose to destroy the Devil anytime He wants to, yet all indications are that the Evil One is allowed to continue for a time.
Does that make God evil because he allows an evil being to continue?
Some of you would argue that it does.
God is Sovereign, and who are we to judge?
In my personal opinion, the Devil is used to "test" to see who might willingly serve God and who might rather serve evil. Since God cannot do evil, He uses the Devil to play the Bad Cop.
Like it or not, I do believe that is what we are witnessing.
Since I don't believe pagan dualism, then God IS the metaphysical cause of everything. Evil serves God's righteous purposes. I don't subscribe to the sub-Christian view that God loves everyone equally in the same sense, the Scriptures teach this explicitly. I'm just really thankful He loves me.
Now this is interesting and have not heard this view point before.
I don't know that I agree with it, but would like to discuss further. Please PM me if interested in discussing this comment.
C4
Alcoholism. Science is telling us that children that come from alcoholic parents are more likely to become alcoholics (even if that child is raised in a foster home where alcohol is not consumed). So yes, genetics DO play a role in this, but how much so is unknown.
Even more to that point, people who don't have a cultural tolerance for alcohol (American Indians for example) are even more vulnerable because they don't have thousands of years of adaptation.
On a personal note, my Father was an Alcoholic and honestly I like alcohol. I have to CHOOSE to not drink to intoxication. I have to CHOOSE to stop from having more than 1-2 drinks a day.
And there you have "more choice" than who you find "sexually desirable." But here's the thing, if both parents have blue eyes there is a strong likelihood, but no guarantee that you will have blue eyes. And this is true of all things genetically related including predispositions.
So while you are certainly in a higher risk category, there is no guarantee that you have the same problem with alcohol as your father. Obviously you are showing some wisdom by not fooling around with the odds.
So I do believe that SOME people are more predisposed to liking the same sex than others. At the end of the day though, it is still a choice they make. The reason I know it is a choice is because in Christianity, we see people all the time walk away from a homosexual lifestyle and never go back. Same goes with Child molesters. We have a reformed one at our church that continues to walk down the right path.
C4
So do you honestly believe you could become a homosexual? That you could actually find men sexually desirable and stop viewing women in a sexual way if you chose to?
As for people walking away from homosexuality with the help of Christianity, I honestly believe they are kidding you or kidding themselves. Perhaps they have rejected sexuality completely the way some pedophiles have, but the predisposition is still there. It's no different than a priest who takes a vow of chastity.
It is possible for a man to stop eating and starve himself to death. But that doesn't mean he has no predisposition to eat food. He has simply overridden it.
And if that is what you mean by "choice" then perhaps you are right, it is a choice. I tend to use the word "choice" in a very different way. I suppose a person could "choose" to engage in a homosexual act even if they are not in fact homosexual, this is somewhat common in the porn industry. But I don't think "gay for pay" makes someone truly a homosexual anymore than an atheist who says he believes in God and goes to church is actually a Christian. Do you believe they are truly saved simply because they engage in Christian acts and claim faith?
It's a mistake to judge God's motives by human standards
Yet this is EXACTLY what you do to establish his goodness in the first place. You're bowling with the bumpers up.
Army Chief
08-08-12, 17:13
It's funny how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
I respect the integrity of this statement, LL, and while I don't hold to quite the same view, I can definitely understand where confusion -- and disillusionment -- creep into the picture. For example, this comment appeared in the context of the whole same sex debate, and one of the frequent themes that enters the fray is the notion that Old Testament law is either binding, or it is not. If we toss out homosexuality, then we need to toss out shellfish and pork, clothing made from mixed fibers and, let's face it, just about everything else that makes Leviticus a chore to read, right?
I'm really not looking to debate the finer points, but consider this: whether we are talking about Mosaic Law codified in the Old Testament, or the grace-driven precepts of the New Testament, the Bible is startlingly-consistent on issues of morality. It is entirely true that those parts of the law which were simply a sign of the unique covenant between God and the Israelites were, and still are, distinct from specific moral governance which we still consider valid in the church age. Thus, while few Christians today have any theological difficulties with eating bacon or failing to observe the Hebrew Sabbath, it is hardly inconsistent of them to suggest that shortcomings of a specifically moral nature under Old Testament law remain so today.
That's really the rub. Beastiality did not suddenly become sanctioned with the arrival of the church age, nor did pedaphilia, adultery, fornication (buzz kill, I know) or sex with one's close relatives. God's moral blueprint for humanity did not change, even as the letter of the law gave way to the concept of "grace" that we see in the New Testament. At no point along the way were any of these behaviors given a pass or otherwise deemed to have suddenly found favor with God, and although some would try to suggest otherwise, this isn't just a matter of translation or hermaneutics. The language is strong and clear, and unfortunately for those of us living in the here and now, homosexual relationships are never presented as a form of love that merits any special accomodation from God. So, if the nature of the Christian walk is to love the things that God loves (in this case, the people) and hate the things that He hates (in this case, the sexual sin -- of whatever sort), then it would be a fairly weak or theologically-permissive believer that could search the scriptures and come away from the exercise with any real room to embrace the prevailing amoral view on this issue. The only way to arrive at a more "enlightened" view is to do the very kind of picking and choosing that you rightly deride.
Now, I understand full well that you -- and many, many others in present company -- will not agree with this, and that's ok. I'll still buy you a beer and share my ammo. It isn't my aim to persuade or change anyone's opinion; merely to point out that our views on this, and most everything else, are colored by our larger world-life views. I concede that, if you start with the opening premise that God may not exist or is otherwise irrelevant in the modern world, then the logical end point is to focus upon what makes people happy, rather than what honors God. That may not be a position that I share, but as a cognitive critique, it certainly makes sense to me. The integrity of such a stance is above reproach.
On the other hand, if you start off with the premise that God is relevant and involved in the world, and that He has provided insight into His nature through the pages of the Bible, then it would also be consistent to look at something like homosexuality as "coloring outside of the lines" that He designed for our sexuality. Without any Bible thumping whatsoever, that too ought to be a fairly reasonable position to take, no? That is also why, to my mind, we will never successfully debate this, or any other moral issue on a site like M4C, because we do not enter the room through the same door, and we've very different philosophical foundations for our views. If the two lightning rod topics of humanity are religion and politics, and we more often than not are in accord on much of the latter, I'm pretty comfortable with going 1-for-2, so long as we can do it with some tolerance and mutual respect.
Think I'm way off-base? That's fine; just please don't brand me a homophobe or a hater or someone wishing ill on others simply because of their lifestyle choice or the fact that I would prefer not to encounter the LGBT agenda in every contemporary public discourse -- I'm simply trying to remain consistent in my own walk, and when you get down to the heart of the matter, I should think that you would rightly judge me a hypocrite for trying to do otherwise.
Different starting points = different ending points. It really is just that simple.
Oh, and what any of this -- or the preceding page or two of posts -- has to do with some has-been O-6 and the Tea Party is absolutely beyond me.
Any chance we can get back on topic, gents?
AC
Army Chief
08-09-12, 07:48
POST SCRIPT: I came to realize this morning that I posted my response immediately after the thread had been locked by another staff member. This went unnoticed at the time, as my account authorizations allow me to post on top of thread locks; that said, it was not my purpose to "get the last word," nor to prevent anyone from responding to anything contained in that post. My apologies if anyone was left with a contrary impression.
I do think that the original topic here was fairly played-out by the time things devolved into a sidebar chat on morality; however, we have had several threads follow a similar course lately, so clearly folks have something to say on the issue. Should you find that you wish to discuss some of these religious/moral overtones further, you are welcome to start a separate, dedicated thread. In the interest of remaining an objective moderator -- and with the aforementioned weltenschauung (world-life view) issues in mind -- please understand that I will not routinely join these discussions; that said, I would ask that you go about it with a mind toward giving other's views the same consideration(s) that you would want extended to your own. Agreement is not essential; civility is.
Thanks,
AC
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.