|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 23:18:05 GMT -5
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). "For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). So you basically disagree? Jesus is talking as God-incarnate, an Avatar, not an ego-mind personality, which he was not. Therefore, Buddha and Krisna, who reached consciousness level of an Avatar, are basically the same 'door' to God as Jesus is. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Dec 6, 2008 12:50:31 GMT -5
Naptaq -----------------
Criticizing black communities is deemed racist by some liberals apperently. By which liberals is it deemed racist, exactly? Or are you more just speculating to fuel your desire to criticize liberals?  I've heard some people saying that blacks ought to be more sensitive to other people's desire for civil rights, and I've heard some saying we don't need to get into the race divide because race itself wasn't what influenced the votes, but I have not seen anyone saying it's racist to criticize blacks. Any black person who voted for Proposition 8 is in that generic lump of people-who-are-being-criticized, but no, for the most part no-one is going to single out blacks for their votes. Think about why that is. Red hair is often thought of as being an Irish thing, so for the sake of argument, let's say that most red-haired people are of Irish ancestry. If a red-haired person is probably Irish, and Irish people are usually Roman Catholic, and most Roman Catholics voted for Prop 8 (for the sake of argument). We can extrapolate, then, that most red-haired people voted for the marriage ban. But it doesn't make sense to reference red-headedness as a factor in people's votes; having red hair has nothing to do with it. They simply inherited their red hair from the same people who taught them to be religious. It's the same with the black community. Their blackness doesn't make them vote against gay marriage; their religion does. Slaves in the US used to be black; a high percentage of black slaves became religious Christians; so most American blacks today are religiously Christian. It's not the blackness; it's the religion. So if we criticize religious people who voted for Prop 8, we are criticizing any religious red-headed or black people who voted for the marriage ban. Naptaq --------------
And by the way, the Bible isn't exactly in favor of gay marriage so, I think, it's only natural that most Christians would vote against gay marriage. Good ol' ( some) Christians, never passing up a chance to enforce their theological fantasies on everyone else. But seriously; the homosexuality stuff is mentioned in the Old Testament, isn't it? And most of the time Christians say that the coming of Jesus erased the need for people to follow the obviously loco laws from that part of the Bible--like sacrificing goats to God, taking multiple wives in order for a man to have as many descendants as possible, or eschewing pig meat. And yet when they like some of the old rules, especially the sex ones for some reason, those apply? Makes no sense. And since there's apparently some ambiguity, why should they vote it into law, even if they don't believe in the principles of religious freedom on which the US was founded? |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 6, 2008 13:33:52 GMT -5
They avoid protesting at black churches because, in their minds, it would be 'politically incorrect', as in racist.
My prediction is if the courts don't somehow overturn this vote and unban gay marriage, they're going to vote for it again and again, until it redifines what marriage is, in the Golden State.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 6, 2008 17:26:30 GMT -5
in your unfounded opinion
what the hell are you talking about? who is they? until what redefines what marriage is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 6, 2008 17:39:28 GMT -5
what the hell are you talking about? who is they? until what redefines what marriage is? They are the voters, obviously. And, currently in California, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 6, 2008 17:55:10 GMT -5
you think people will vote for proposition 8 again and again if the courts don't overturn the vote?
that doesn't make sense
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 6, 2008 18:06:05 GMT -5
They'll vote again to redifine marriage, in favor of gay marriage, and therby overturn the previous vote on Nov 4th 2008. Just watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Dec 6, 2008 22:43:27 GMT -5
Naptaq ----------------
They avoid protesting at black churches because, in their minds, it would be 'politically incorrect', as in racist. You have no clue what you're talking about, and you refuse to listen to anything anyone says that doesn't fit what you want to believe. Why bother entering a "debate" thread if you're just going to repeat the same thing over and over again unchanged? You keep talking about how you never listen to liberals, and then you try to talk about how liberals think. Well, I can make up vaguely pertinent criticisms, too. Let me think... Ok, here's one: social conservatives don't like gay marriage because they're afraid if it was legal, they'd be tempted to marry someone of the same sex. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 6, 2008 23:12:39 GMT -5
I have a rational point. And you're entitled to your opinion. I have no beef with you having a different opinion.
If you mean 'listening' to liberals as in 'changing my position to agree with them' then no, I don't "listen" that way. But I obviously listen to you and many others.
It's well known that some, if not all, liberals subscribe to 'indiscriminantness', which is a very politically correct kinda thing - It prevents people from even criticizing a minority without being accused of being a racist or a bigot, when, in fact, the criticism has everything to do with 'content of their character'. Which is what Martin Luther King fought for. We're all equal.
They have not protested at churches which have a predominately black attendence and/or a black pastor. Prove otherwise if you can. If you can't, I have nothing to discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Dec 7, 2008 0:08:52 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------
They have not protested at churches which have a predominately black attendence and/or a black pastor. Prove otherwise if you can.
Everyone who even slightly dislikes gay marriage is secretly a homosexual. Prove otherwise if you can. If you can't, it must be true. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Dec 7, 2008 1:48:20 GMT -5
I have a rational point. And you're entitled to your opinion. I have no beef with you having a different opinion. If you mean 'listening' to liberals as in 'changing my position to agree with them' then no, I don't "listen" that way. But I obviously listen to you and many others. It's well known that some, if not all, liberals subscribe to 'indiscriminantness', which is a very politically correct kinda thing - It prevents people from even criticizing a minority without being accused of being a racist or a bigot, when, in fact, the criticism has everything to do with 'content of their character'. Which is what Martin Luther King fought for. We're all equal. They have not protested at churches which have a predominately black attendence and/or a black pastor. Prove otherwise if you can. If you can't, I have nothing to discuss. what about predominantly asian? or hispanic? or middle eastern? by the way, where are you getting your facts? and why do you care so much? so african american churches aren't getting as much flak as others on the gay marriage ban. so what?  |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 7, 2008 2:49:27 GMT -5
the fact that they had not protested at black churches does not lead to anything else that you said (you still did not clearly state the point you want to make)
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 7, 2008 9:16:02 GMT -5
The point is they don't want to be "politically incorrect", which is the title of this thread. Race baiters would be all over them man. That's why they don't do it.. Too much of a downside.
But it's fine. I was just pointing it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 7, 2008 9:49:19 GMT -5
you are just making an accusation without basis. Its your opinion - ok, anyone can say anything. Its just not a reasonable one though. For example I think the fact that they did not protest near black churches had absolutely nothing to do with being politically incorrect and you are dead wrong. Now prove it ain't so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 7, 2008 10:23:30 GMT -5
I remember Clint Eastwood being race baited by Spike Lee for the fact that in his two war movies, he didn't have a single black person - when Clint was keeping it historically accurate. Now if keeping it accurate can get you raice baited, it's rational to think that a protest on a black church would be a deemed a lot worse. It's not even a contest. |
|
I've heard some people saying that blacks ought to be more sensitive to other people's desire for civil rights, and I've heard some saying we don't need to get into the race divide because race itself wasn't what influenced the votes, but I have not seen anyone saying it's racist to criticize blacks.
