American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Yep. It seems a big reason for that is lack of leaders and uniters... what's your positon on marching together vs marching in a 100% correct direction?

I will agree with you on the Leadership point, but not on the 'uniters' point. Unity is only of any good in my mind when it's based on the proper philosophy of how things are done. I'm of the 'march in the 100% correct direction' philosophy. I always have been and always will be. Even if it means I have to play every instrument in the band at the same time because I'm the only one marching.

As for black and white... there are many kinds of white and many kinds of black. Saying that there is only black and white does not do that little fact justice... unless you are talking about that as it relates to decisiveness, of course.

So far as I'm concerned there's Black(Right) and White(Wrong). All shades of grey are simply another form of White. That's what I've always believed.

Yeah I think both sexes became weaker on average when it comes to taking responsibility for one's action, working on problems instead of running away from them, etc.

I will agree on that. Unfortunately, More importantly we've moved away from the proper roles and responsiblities/duties for each sex and allowed both to become diluted and vague.

[twa]

OK, I was wrong...they are facists

Baptist Group Fights Texas Coal Plants

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GREEN_BAPTISTS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Added:

No Baptist I ever associated with would tolerate this kind of activism in the churches name.

[chomerics]

I love this false dichotomy that you've created here it truely is priceless, because you paint the South as being church goers and thus equate the church with pro-slavery and then the North you present as being abivilent to church and thus anti-slavery in order to back your conclusion that the church did not stand against slavery. The problem is Chomerics that the percentage of people who went to church in the North and South was extremely high, my guess would be 80-95% regularly attended weekly service and would have considered themselves at least nominally Christian. So basically what you have is the folks in the South using scripture (IMO misusing it) to back slavery and then you have the folks in the North who are obviously heavily exposed to scripture standing against it. So please spare me the image that the church did not heavily influence the people in the North and the South was just a bunch of Bible tottin' Rednecks. Because its just plain false.

First off, I never equated the North as being ambivalent towards the church, I stated that the south was highly religious, and they were also pro slavery. That is fact. This entire tangent stemmed from twa stating religion was the reason for abolition of slavery, which it was not. I may have used a poor choice of words by stating "only", but the entire premise still stands. Religion was not the reason for the removal of slavery. The reason slavery was eliminated was because of the morals of MAN!!!

This is an important distinction people need to understand. For every person that used scriptures to be against slavery, the others used it to justify slavery. It was not the mitigating factor in the ending of slavery, and in fact, it was used as a JUSTIFICATION of slavery many many times.

You honestly don't expect me to understand that my faith has been misused by those who only wanted to serve themselves and oppress others. Come on Chomerics, give me a break and grant me just a little intellegence please.

honestly, I don't expect you to see the evil side of religion, it is hard for a person who is on the good side to see how people can pervert the word of god to gain money and power. Maybe you can, and maybe you have an objective eye towards it. Maybe you can look at a televangelist and think they are the most despicable beings on this earth. The majority or people in religion don't see a problem with the televangelists. There are over 10million people that follow these people, and not many see them as I do. But then again, many do not understand the world the way I do either, so it is expected.

Yeah, Chomerics, Christians like myself want nothing more to restore slavery, eliminate women's sufferage, and kill witches, yep that's what we're all about, you got it. Sorry, but that deserves a big fat WHATEVER!

When people say there is a moral decline in society, they need to understand that society was HORRIBLE in the past. We have done some incredibly bad things as a society, and we have learned from those experiences. We are a more equal society now, still not completely even, but on the way to becoming that way. When people say society is regressing and losing its moral fiber, they are completely ignoring the basis of any society over the years. . .How do you treat your worst members of your society? That is how you can judge the evolution on sociological terms. . .

BTW, what has atheism brought us...hmmm let's see...oh how 'bout Social Darwinism...yeah that's a great advancement for humanity and equal rights.

Yea, that constitution is really a bad piece of paper, we shoudl just rip it up and replace it with the ten commandments :doh:

[twa]

Quote Chom

First off, I never equated the North as being ambivalent towards the church, I stated that the south was highly religious, and they were also pro slavery. That is fact. This entire tangent stemmed from twa stating religion was the reason for abolition of slavery, which it was not. I may have used a poor choice of words by stating "only", but the entire premise still stands. Religion was not the reason for the removal of slavery. The reason slavery was eliminated was because of the morals of MAN!!!

Now you are gonna try to blame me for this slavery tangent :laugh:

Typical liberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by chomerics

Yes, I agree, they believe the only people that should vote are rich land owners, wives should be home makers and subservient to men, and everyone should own a black person. I don't want to go back to those times, but the Christian Right does, thank god they are failing miserably.

You neglect to mention the role religion played in ending slavery,getting suffrage and expanding individual rights....Why am I not surprised?

__________________

.....

[AsburySkinsFan]

Religion was not the reason for the removal of slavery. The reason slavery was eliminated was because of the morals of MAN!!!

Morals of man? Based upon what? You act like morality simply exists within mankind, when the best that an atheist position can do is argue that mankind is not evil or good and that there is no such thing as morality except that which is defined by a particular culture and context, because with humanism all morality is equal.

honestly, I don't expect you to see the evil side of religion, it is hard for a person who is on the good side to see how people can pervert the word of god to gain money and power. Maybe you can, and maybe you have an objective eye towards it. Maybe you can look at a televangelist and think they are the most despicable beings on this earth. The majority or people in religion don't see a problem with the televangelists. There are over 10million people that follow these people, and not many see them as I do. But then again, many do not understand the world the way I do either, so it is expected.

If you don't think that I can see the way that Christianity has been abused and is being abused, then I'm sorry that you think I am so blinded, but the truth is that I see the desperate need for renewal within Christianity and that means a correcting of wrongs; and at last check one cannot correct wrongs if one sees no wrongs to be corrected.

Yea, that constitution is really a bad piece of paper, we shoudl just rip it up and replace it with the ten commandments :doh:

So the Constitution was written from the position of Social Darwinism, and atheism? Interesting, because those same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote another document, that states; "

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." But, go on denying that a larger percentage of the founding fathers of this country were in fact Christian; because the more you keep trying to sell everyone that they were all atheist the sillier this whole thing gets.

As I believe you've stated many times before, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

[PokerPacker]

mankind is not evil or good and that there is no such thing as morality except that which is defined by a particular culture and context.

i think you about covered it :thumbsup:

[AsburySkinsFan]

The majority or people in religion don't see a problem with the televangelists. There are over 10million people that follow these people, and not many see them as I do.

What are you basing your opinion of that the "majority of people in religion don't see a problem with televangelists" on? What data are you using? Because you then go on to cite the number of 10 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

2001 statistics

United States population: 300,000,000

Percentage who consider themselves Christian: 79.8%=239,400,000 people

Now if my math is correct 10 million is actually less than 1/4 of the total number of self described Christians in the United States. So are you saying then that less than 1/4 of the people are supposed to speak for the other 3/4's. I think not. *edit*It's even worse than 1/4 its less than 5 percent.*/edit*

But then again I always remember this little rule of thumb when in debates like this; 95% of statistics in debates are made up on the spot; just like your 10 million.

[AsburySkinsFan]

i think you about covered it :thumbsup:

Right, that is the only consistent atheist position yet, Chomrics is arguing that it was the Morality of man that ended slavery, which for an atheist is an inconsistent argument to make, because in doing so he has to make a judgment of one morality over another or show that there is a standard morality. But, if he argues for a standard morality, then he needs to provide a source for that morality that exists outside of the divine.

[PokerPacker]

Right, that is the only consistent atheist position yet, Chomrics is arguing that it was the Morality of man that ended slavery, which for an atheist is an inconsistent argument to make, because in doing so he has to make a judgment of one morality over another or show that there is a standard morality. But, if he argues for a standard morality, then he needs to provide a source for that morality that exists outside of the divine.

the people up north didn't grow up with slavery so to actually hear about the kind of stuff that went on or to witness it was horrific. because of where/how they grew up, slavery wasn't considered to be acceptable.

[AsburySkinsFan]

the people up north didn't grow up with slavery so to actually hear about the kind of stuff that went on or to witness it was horrific. because of where/how they grew up, slavery wasn't considered to be acceptable.

Fine but upon what basis did they not find it acceptable? Hint, it probably started with Genesis and ended with Revelation.

[Mooka]

I won't claim that the system of the past was perfect. I'm against slavery, child labor, and to a limited degree in favor of worker's rights. I've been through that all before, so I won't waste my time going through it again. However, we've replaced those concepts with things like.... Sexual Harassment lawsuits for telling a co-worker she looks nice, a system where nobody has to show any actual loyalty to the country, a Union system that is destroying American businesses, and a society where reasonably spanking your child is in certain places a jailable offense. Is this really any better than the problems you're talking about? We need to find the common sense sides of these issues and put them to bed for good.

That's the poorest argument I've ever read. You're comparing slavery with exagerated miniscule sexual harassment cases, unions and something you just created out of thin air.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

That's the poorest argument I've ever read. You're comparing slavery with exagerated miniscule sexual harassment cases, unions and something you just created out of thin air.

It's not an arguement, Mooka.... it's the reality of the situation. I'm not comparing slavery to sexual harassment; I'm just saying that we moved away from one set of problems and created a whole new set to replace them. A set that I think are at least as awful, because we should have known better.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's not an arguement, Mooka.... it's the reality of the situation. I'm not comparing slavery to sexual harassment; I'm just saying that we moved away from one set of problems and created a whole new set to replace them. A set that I think are at least as awful, because we should have known better.

Hmmmm.................this is funny, because he starts by saying that he's not comparing slavery to sexual harassment, but finishes by saying that we've moved from one set of problems to another, and that the new set of problems are at least as awful...as awful as what? The implication is that our new set of problems are at least as awful as slavery was, but I thought he wasn't comparing slavery to sexual harassment. DOH!! :doh:

[dfitzo53]

Hmmmm.................this is funny, because he starts by saying that he's not comparing slavery to sexual harassment, but finishes by saying that we've moved from one set of problems to another, and that the new set of problems are at least as awful...as awful as what? The implication is that our new set of problems are at least as awful as slavery was, but I thought he wasn't comparing slavery to sexual harassment. DOH!! :doh:

Careful! Make too much sense, and you'll wind up on his ignore list!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Careful! Make too much sense, and you'll wind up on his ignore list!

LOL, I'm already a card carrying member!

[headexplode]

I think you know we're going to disagree on this, Destino. Patriotism is nothing without Nationalism, so far as I'm concerned. I also think we'd disagree on what both of those things mean in reality. Nationalists tend to see the world the way it truly is... Black & White. You are either with us or against us. As for changing the country they love.... how about a more accurate description... "returning the country to what it once was, which is what made the country great in the first place."

Wow! This debate has become very spirited.

There has always been a religious element in any movement for social change and the advancement of justice. This cannot be denied.

There has also been a religious element in any movement against social change and the advancement of justice.

But the mores of a given society never stay the same. They are constantly changing--especially in this country which is made of so many other cultures and belief systems. We must remember that america is a relatively new country, founded because people wanted to leave their old ones. Those who want to go back to the times when america was "the way it should be" will be severely disappointed that such a place never, in fact, existed. This whole thing, all of it, has been one big experiment, an amazingly creative and disturbing one, that didn't just magically appear one day because some rich white guys wrote a declaration. It has been built, slowly, paid for by the suffering, and the humor, and the compassion of its denizens and its friends around the world. It is also made of darker stuff. It has been built by greed, and thievery, and murder and hate.

There is no Pleasantville--there never was. There never will be. Life is not black and white. It is impossible. Those who believe it is are dangerous, because they will not allow for the possibility of green. Or red. Or any other color. This upsets their worldview. There can only be conservative or liberal. There can only be gay or straight. There can only be man and woman. Even when nature all around us disavows this very notion, shatters the very idea of strict compartmentalization, there are those that cling to it desparately, like a child whose mother is about to take away his ratty, ripped blanket. Because nature is frightening to them, nature is something you try to dominate or tame. (Though I do wonder, Mass, what your feelings on this point are. Specifically as it relates to your paganism.)

I am no friend of religion, but I can't deny that it has contributed great things to this nation, and to the world. It has also contributed its fair share of cruelness and evil. The same can be said for most human beings.

[chomerics]

Morals of man? Based upon what? You act like morality simply exists within mankind, when the best that an atheist position can do is argue that mankind is not evil or good and that there is no such thing as morality except that which is defined by a particular culture and context, because with humanism all morality is equal.

Morality DOES exist in mankind, you do not need a religion to have morals. Maybe you can not understand this point being in a religion, but I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, I have a damn good idea of what right and wrong is without religion.

So the Constitution was written from the position of Social Darwinism, and atheism? Interesting, because those same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote another document, that states; "

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." But, go on denying that a larger percentage of the founding fathers of this country were in fact Christian; because the more you keep trying to sell everyone that they were all atheist the sillier this whole thing gets.

And where is religion in the Constitution? Do you notice the word THEIR??? Where does it say OUR god? Where does it say the one WE believe in? It does not, it says THEIR Creator. You may think that this is introducing religion into the constitution, but it is decidedly not. Instead it states that man can believe what he wants and the government will not interfere. That is pretty strong in and of itself. The document is devoid of religion, and it is a document which removes religion from a governing power. You may not look at the constitution and see this, but I certainly do.

As I believe you've stated many times before, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

Exactly, and you have still failed to show how religion was the reason slavery was eliminated, or even how they played a role in slavery's abolishment. I have already given you links to how religion was used to pervert the word of god, and justify slavery though. . .

[chomerics]

What are you basing your opinion of that the "majority of people in religion don't see a problem with televangelists" on? What data are you using? Because you then go on to cite the number of 10 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

2001 statistics

United States population: 300,000,000

Percentage who consider themselves Christian: 79.8%=239,400,000 people

Now if my math is correct 10 million is actually less than 1/4 of the total number of self described Christians in the United States. So are you saying then that less than 1/4 of the people are supposed to speak for the other 3/4's. I think not. *edit*It's even worse than 1/4 its less than 5 percent.*/edit*

But then again I always remember this little rule of thumb when in debates like this; 95% of statistics in debates are made up on the spot; just like your 10 million.

10million followers does not mean that the entire rest of Christianity views them as despicable now does it? I stated the majority of Christians do not find these people as despicable. Is that wrong? I am basing it on personal experience throughout my life, and most religious people do not have a problem with televangelists.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Morality DOES exist in mankind, you do not need a religion to have morals. Maybe you can not understand this point being in a religion, but I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, I have a damn good idea of what right and wrong is without religion.

Fine, as an atheist you can say that there are certain cultural principals that exist in different societies but to have one cultural context stand in judgment over another, you cannot do; because once you go with atheism then each culture is allowed to develop its own morality and its own sense of right and wrong; thus in order for you to be consistent you have to say that the slave owners were right within their own context. Unless of course you want to claim that a certain standard of morality exists in all humanity, which I will then have to ask where did this come from? Does it exist in the DNA, it would seem that it would have to, and if it does which gene is responsible for morality. The problem is Chomerics, you want to read your own morality into someone else's contextual situation, which is unfair, because once you do that then you allow me to read my morality into your contextual situation; something I'm sure you would throw a hissy fit about.

And where is religion in the Constitution? Do you notice the word THEIR??? Where does it say OUR god? Where does it say the one WE believe in? It does not, it says THEIR Creator. You may think that this is introducing religion into the constitution, but it is decidedly not. Instead it states that man can believe what he wants and the government will not interfere. That is pretty strong in and of itself. The document is devoid of religion, and it is a document which removes religion from a governing power. You may not look at the constitution and see this, but I certainly do.

But, it certainly is not an atheistic document, unless of course "their creator" is just there for show, because you know the founding fathers couldn't REALLY have believed in the Judeo-Christian God. No matter how hard you kick and scream you cannot make the principles that came from predominantly Christian men atheistic in nature; to do so is simply revisionist (read rewriting it for your own purposes).

Exactly, and you have still failed to show how religion was the reason slavery was eliminated, or even how they played a role in slavery's abolishment. I have already given you links to how religion was used to pervert the word of god, and justify slavery though. . .

But, Chomerics, you were the one that said the church played no part in ending slavery, and then you went on a little tirade about how the church was supposedly responsible for slavery, and now that you can't back that up you want try and put the emphasis on me, which is typical deflection of the issue at hand.

[AsburySkinsFan]

10million followers does not mean that the entire rest of Christianity views them as despicable now does it? I stated the majority of Christians do not find these people as despicable. Is that wrong? I am basing it on personal experience throughout my life, and most religious people do not have a problem with televangelists.

Again you started off by making blanket statements about the church as a whole, and when you are called to task on those statements you immediately retreat back to "my experince". same ol' song and dance Chomerics.

[chomerics]

Fine, as an atheist you can say that there are certain cultural principals that exist in different societies but to have one cultural context stand in judgment over another, you cannot do; because once you go with atheism then each culture is allowed to develop its own morality and its own sense of right and wrong; thus in order for you to be consistent you have to say that the slave owners were right within their own context. Unless of course you want to claim that a certain standard of morality exists in all humanity, which I will then have to ask where did this come from? Does it exist in the DNA, it would seem that it would have to, and if it does which gene is responsible for morality. The problem is Chomerics, you want to read your own morality into someone else's contextual situation, which is unfair, because once you do that then you allow me to read my morality into your contextual situation; something I'm sure you would throw a hissy fit about.

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of brain development, there is a right and wrong moral code build into people, it is called your conscience. It is no coincidence that serial killers have differing brains then every day people, and they often lack a developed pre-frontal cortex. There have been countless studies on the brains of murderers, and they have a resounding pattern of frontal lobe abnormalities. So if you REALLY want to get into it, then yes, there IS a moral code built into our DNA. There is a sense of right and wrong, and that part of the brain, which some refer to as our "conscience" is contained in the frontal lobe.

A startling amount of criminals on death row have been clinically diagnosed with brain disorders. A recent study has demonstrated that 20 out of 31 confessed killers are diagnosed as mentally ill. Out of that 20, 64% have frontal lobe abnormalities. (1) A thorough study of the profiles of many serial killers shows that many of them had suffered sever head injuries (to the frontal lobe) when they were children. To discover why damage to the frontal lobe could be a cause of serial killing, one must look at the function of the frontal lobe of the brain.

The frontal lobe is located in the most anterior part of the brain hemispheres. It is considered responsible for much of the behavior that makes possible stable and adequate social relations. Self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse are mediated by the frontal structures of the brain. (3) Antonio and Anna Damasio, two noted Portuguese neurologists and researchers working in the University of Iowa, have been investigating in the last decade the neurological basis of psychopathy. They have shown that individuals who had undergone damage to the ventromedial frontal cortex (and who had normal personalities before the damage) developed abnormal social conduct, leading to negative personal consequences. Among other things, they presented inadequate decision-making and planning abilities, which are known to be processed by the frontal lobe of the brain. (5) For a long time now, neuroscientists have known that lesions to this part of the brain lead to severe deficits in all these behaviors. The inordinate use of prefrontal lobotomy as a therapeutic tool by surgeons for many mental diseases in the 40s and 50s, provided researchers with enough data to implicate the frontal brain in the genesis of dissocial and antisocial personalities. (6) Through this information one can posit that the frontal lobe acts as a conscience.

link

There is no need for religion to tell us what is right and wrong, as a species, we already have a code built into ourselves, and we are beginning to understand how this works. Through evolution, this area of the brain will develop more and it will increase the "conscience" of individuals through our frontal lobe. This is how evolution works, and there is a correlation to sociological advances and evolution. As we garner more knowledge as a species, our society will evolve, and our brains will continue to evolve. This "moral code" is passed down through our genes to our children and is contained in our frontal lobe. You can look at study after study which shows the problems with the frontal lobe in people who lack this code. There is the evidence you were looking for as to how morality is in humans, without religion.

But, it certainly is not an atheistic document, unless of course "their creator" is just there for show, because you know the founding fathers couldn't REALLY have believed in the Judeo-Christian God. No matter how hard you kick and scream you cannot make the principles that came from predominantly Christian men atheistic in nature; to do so is simply revisionist (read rewriting it for your own purposes).

The Constitution is a document which eliminates religion from government. In terms of "atheism" I can argue that it is an atheistic document, in that it tells people to worship who or what they want to worship, and it will have no say over their beliefs. They will not be punished for worshiping, or not worshiping, that is not in the government's hands. That is exactly what I believe, and I could care less who you believe in, or who you don't. It does not matter what the people who wrote the document thought about god, they made SURE to ELIMINATE god from government!!! At a basic and fundamental level, that is an atheistic point of view no matter how you look at it. Removal of worshiping from the government presents an atheistic government, and it allows the people to believe in what they want PERSONALLY!!!

Why can't you understand that distinction? Why is it that you think we want to remove religion? Personally, I have no problem if you believe in god, Muhammad, or the Flying Spaghetti monster. That is YOUR prerogative to believe what you want. Our Constitution grants you the right to believe what you want. It does not favor a single religion over another, and it eliminates any religion from government, that in and of itself is a basis for atheism.

But, Chomerics, you were the one that said the church played no part in ending slavery, and then you went on a little tirade about how the church was supposedly responsible for slavery, and now that you can't back that up you want try and put the emphasis on me, which is typical deflection of the issue at hand.

Chicken and egg. . .they played both sides of the argument. I found out a little bit about the Free Methodists, as well as how the South used religion and scripture to defend slavery, and you did not show how they were the reason it was eliminated. Maybe I chose the wrong words to state they did nothing, as there were groups of people from the North that helped the slaves, but there were also groups from the south that persecuted them under the same book. If religion was the moral compass you say it is, then you never would have people using it to justify slavery in the first place. The word of the lord would have deemed slavery was not acceptable if the morality was in the religion. Because it was not, I can conclude that the morals of life do not come from religion but from man, which was what my argument was in the first place. . .

[Mass_SkinsFan]

There has always been a religious element in any movement for social change and the advancement of justice. This cannot be denied.

There has also been a religious element in any movement against social change and the advancement of justice.

Religion has always been a part of society, both positively and negatively. You are correct on that point.

But the morals of a given society never stay the same. They are constantly changing--especially in this country which is made of so many other cultures and belief systems. We must remember that america is a relatively new country, founded because people wanted to leave their old ones.

Again you're correct. I just see the expansion of moral relativism or revisionism as a major problem in American society. So far as I'm concerned if a person doesn't like the morals that I believe this country was founded on, they should look for another place to call home. Maybe France or the UK would be more to their liking.

Those who want to go back to the times when america was "the way it should be" will be severely disappointed that such a place never, in fact, existed. This whole thing, all of it, has been one big experiment, an amazingly creative and disturbing one, that didn't just magically appear one day because some rich white guys wrote a declaration. It has been built, slowly, paid for by the suffering, and the humor, and the compassion of its denizens and its friends around the world. It is also made of darker stuff. It has been built by greed, and thievery, and murder and hate.

I will seriously disagree that the old America never eixsted. This country has been build on many things, but I would say that morals and values are the cornerstones of this building we call America. It is an experiment. Unfortunately we've thrown away the controls on the experiment that those morals and values allowed.

There is no Pleasantville--there never was. There never will be. Life is not black and white. It is impossible.

I will agree that there is no Pleasantville. However, I will disagree that it never existed. Maybe it wasn't a perfect place, but the morals of the past are much closer to perfection than what we have today so far as I'm concerned.

Those who believe it is are dangerous, because they will not allow for the possibility of green. Or red. Or any other color. This upsets their worldview. There can only be conservative or liberal. There can only be gay or straight. There can only be man and woman. Even when nature all around us disavows this very notion, shatters the very idea of strict compartmentalization, there are those that cling to it desparately, like a child whose mother is about to take away his ratty, ripped blanket. Because nature is frightening to them, nature is something you try to dominate or tame. (Though I do wonder, Mass, what your feelings on this point are. Specifically as it relates to your paganism.)

Then I must be exceptionally dangerous, because I do not see any colors other than Black and White in my philosophical world. Maybe it would help for you to understand that I believe the "grey" most people see is the world are simply shades of White to me. You have "Black" which is RIGHT, and then you have shades of "White", which are all WRONG.

Personally, I don't see nature as a frightening thing. I see it as a complete system with both positives and negatives. The particular form of "paganism" I follow is not really nature based, which I think is part of your question. Maybe if you clarify the question I can give you a better answer.

I am no friend of religion, but I can't deny that it has contributed great things to this nation, and to the world. It has also contributed its fair share of cruelness and evil. The same can be said for most human beings.

Very true.

[chomerics]

Again you started off by making blanket statements about the church as a whole, and when you are called to task on those statements you immediately retreat back to "my experince". same ol' song and dance Chomerics.

And what part of what I stated is not correct? Are you going to tell me the majority of Christians disapprove of the 700 Club??? Are you going to tell me that the majority of Christians despise these people? Sorry, but what I stated was exactly what I think is going on in our country, and you have done absolutely nothing to change my opinion on the topic. All you did was give the demographics of Christianity, which has nothing to do with whether Christians accept the Robertsons of the world or not.

[headexplode]

Then I must be exceptionally dangerous, because I do not see any colors other than Black and White in my philosophical world. Maybe it would help for you to understand that I believe the "grey" most people see is the world are simply shades of White to me. You have "Black" which is RIGHT, and then you have shades of "White", which are all WRONG.

I think seeing only black and white is dangerous, and can severely limit one's perspective on the world. I simply cannot accept this due to the nature of man. Personally, I don't believe that I'm either good or evil, I believe I'm both, and I believe every human being is both. Some may have one more than the other, but both are present in every human being. In life, I try to make choices I feel are "good" based on my upbringing and the sense of "morality" that I've come to accept. But sometimes, I make the "evil" choices and do things to harm people or myself. And sometimes-just sometimes, being evil can feel really good. Mostly, the dangerous comment was just a good-natured (no pun intended) jab at you.

I brought up the nature point because of your paganism, which I always understood to be really connected with the natural world, though I admittedly don't know much about it. Christianity has always asserted dominance over nature (and also fear of it) and so I am curious as to how you view nature and your place within it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And what part of what I stated is not correct? Are you going to tell me the majority of Christians disapprove of the 700 Club??? Are you going to tell me that the majority of Christians despise these people? Sorry, but what I stated was exactly what I think is going on in our country, and you have done absolutely nothing to change my opinion on the topic. All you did was give the demographics of Christianity, which has nothing to do with whether Christians accept the Robertsons of the world or not.

You're funny Chomerics, you made up an arbitrary number of 10 million people and handed off like it was fact, and you made a statement that said that Christians don't disagree with the televangelists (thereby passively agreeing with them), and now you're desperately trying to maintain your position which is groundless to begin with. Oh, but wait, it was based on your personal experience, so tell me did you personally interview the 10 million people? Or are you going to at least admit that you made up the number, and admit that your personal experience may very well not represent the beliefs of the majority of Christians? Because personally, I find it hard to believe that your experience within Christianity is so extensive that you can speak with authority on behalf of Christians as a whole. Also remember, you were the one who made the claim, its your job to back it up, not mine to refute.