Libs & Xmas
- Started
- Last post
- 157 Responses
- fate0
agreed mbr.
- ********0
anti-fundamentalist liberals aren't anti-christian, they're anti-fundamentalist
- mrdobolina0
don't be a bigot.
- GreedoLives0
i think the big problems liberals have are with religion in government, not religion itself. Christmas, last time i checked, had very little to do with either government or religion.
- discipler0
When Christmas was originally instituted, December 25th was a pagan festival which commemorated the birthday of a false god. While this is a historical fact, what is often overlooked by the church is its intent in choosing December 25th in the first place. The church was not Christianizing a pagan festival, but was establishing the celebration of the birth of Christ as a rival celebration.
Our post-modern culture has turned this into a westernized, commercialized and secular "holiday". I think it comes down to the individual. As a Christian, I use this time of year to focus on and celebrate the advent of Christ and what He would do for the human race in his atoning sacrifice. I also, try to make my focus looking for ways to serve and encourage those in need. Of course, this should be the focus year round.
- gruntt0
me likem' presents.
also, I like what Dr_Jay said. I've always considered Jesus a liberal.
- Luckypp0
This has got to be the worst and least intelligent post on NT I have ever seen.
Being a Liberal does not make one Godless.
Abizzyman, get a clue before asking such blanketly stupid statements.
- vwsung18t0
someone should make a t-shirt that says "Jesus was a liberal"
- gruntt0
vw - i was saying just that before the elections.
=)
- discipler0
No question that Jesus was radical. The legalist religious machine did not care for him too much. And he certainly was liberal in loving others, especially those in need. I don't think I'd make a comparison to today's "liberal" however. After all, Jesus recognized an absolute standard for truth and lived a sinless life.
- unfittoprint0
Jesus was the kind of Liberal that would make Limbaugh have a heart attack.
Wich can only be a good thing.
- gruntt0
i think we're getting off of the subject...
...me likem' presents.
- Blofeldt0
Abizzyman, are you a conservative designer. Do you use comic sans all the time, do never try anything new. If you do try new things and entertain new ideas, you yourself could be considered liberal.
Oh hang on, if you entertain some liberal ideas that makes you Godless. And by the looks of this post, you are one of the homophobic, creationist lunatics who seem to be popping up all over the mainstream media recently spouting cliched simplistic reactionary gobbledegook.
- discipler0
Blofeldt, I think the term "liberal" is elusive at best. The spectrum of definitions is so broad and varied.
As for creationists... you are probably seeing more and more of these popup (and likely will be seeing more and more pop up in the future) because it is a much more scientifically viable reason for origins than macro-evolution is. And frankly, the people who are both smart AND intellectually honest are realizing this.
What does this late 20th century liberal buzz -rhetoric "homophobic" mean?
- GreedoLives0
"As for creationists... you are probably seeing more and more of these popup (and likely will be seeing more and more pop up in the future) because it is a much more scientifically viable reason for origins than macro-evolution is. And frankly, the people who are both smart AND intellectually honest are realizing this."
discipler
(Dec 6 04, 06:50)OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!!!
you're saying it's more 'intellectually honest' to claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and this is based on a text written 2500 years ago; that dinosaur bones and carbon dating are fake evidence planted by god, that the christian creation story is correct over all the other creation myths in the world...and so on.
HAS THE WORLD GONE INSANE?
Since when is religion a basis for science?
- ********0
why does discipler say things like - the term liberal is elusive at best?
- Blofeldt0
I can't believe what i'm reading.
Let me get this straight. You are arguing against scientific process and method as being a reasonable way of discovery, removing the idea of blind faith, BUT your using a computer attatched to the internet. Surely without scientific method, we wouldn't understand electricity let alone all the other discoveries that go into making this coverstaion possible.I think your argument is hypocritical and frankly, scary
- xaoscontrol0
christmas is the one time of year when people are just a little bit nicer to each other.
People who don't normally go out of thier way to help the poor or homeless or the eldery are typically more likely to do so during the holiday season.
Granted, I'm 34, and I recall when I was a kid growing up in wisconson that you didn't worry about someone getting offended by Merry Christmas signs or nativity scenes or minorahs.
Clearly, by the powers that be appeasing some whiney-ass' complaint, it opened the floodgate for other ultra-sensitive people to complain about it too.
None the less...as I said...it's the one time of year when people are just a little bit nicer to each other. I prefer to keep it that way.
- Blofeldt0
The processes that have enabled computers and the internet are the same methods of empirical evidence that go into exploring the natural world. Ergo; if it works for electricity and we believe it, why shouldn’t it work for biology and why don’t you believe that?
- discipler0
Greedo, someone has given you the wrong information.
1. Creationists do not claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. There will always be conjecture about exactly how old the earth is. There is room to disagree here. What they are saying is that it is likely not millions of years old and this is due to archaeological and historical findings.
2. It is not based on a text written "2500 years ago". It's based on science, archaeology and the Biblical account of the creation of the species.
3. Creationism does not teach that Dinosaurs bones were "planted by god". In contrast, it teaches that dinosaurs did exist and that this is perfectly consistent with the creation account. And carbon dating has been proven over and over to be terribly unreliable and inconcistent.
What IS difficult to swallow is the notion that cognizant, feeling, reasoning human life along with the complexity of it's physiology and emotions, just randomly sprang from a cocktail of random chemicals (a mathematical impossibility) and then developed from one species to the next (which there is 0 evidence for - we only have complete forms of species, no transitional forms). ...sorry, I just don't have enough faith to buy into the Naturalist religion.
Anyway, this discussion is far too in-depth for a forum like this.