>> ^shuac:

JT Eberhard @ 2:13:08 "I've done a lot of debates in my life..."
Not based on what I saw here.

I thought the same. He hasn't even figured out how to dress for a debate. His biggest problem seemed to be that he's a poor speaker, though. The ideas behind his arguments were reasonable but they all seemed to consist of 1/3 "uhh... um".

Lee also performed very poorly once he got past the opening statement. He seemed to forget that he was arguing in the affirmative and that, in order to do so, you need to make arguments, not just rebut.

I remember this in middle school as being a catalyst for one of my first experiences with LSD25-saw it in the 7th grade, tripped in the eighth-Believe it or not, in Dallas Texas 1979, our science teacher conducted a discussion on the film after as she did each time she presented one. I was one of the kids that raised their hands affirmative if they had either known anyone, or had themselves had any experience with hallucinogens.(That, for all you here who think Texas is full of back-woods hicks bereft of any ideas of, or use for, critical thought).

I think you may be missing the point of what the Congressman was getting at, and especially what rights we have under the constitution. Are you aware of what the free exercise clause is about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Every person is guaranteed the right to practice their religion free from government interference. This is a fundamental right for every citizen, and religious liberty is one of the principles this country was founded on, if you know your history.

Here is a basic description:

"The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”227 It bars “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,”228 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs “to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.”229 Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs.230 Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute “conduct” rather than pure “belief.” When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent.231 It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.232 What has changed over the years is the Court’s willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions"

Now, when you say Government should do what's best for "all citizens", what you're really saying is that Government should do what's best for "some citizens", because most citizens of this country are religious. Over 80 percent of us profess to be Christians, and that doesn't include all of the jews, muslims, hindus etc. Clearly, what's best for most citizens is the guarantee of religious liberties, a constitutional principle which, again, is at the heart of why we even have a United States of America.

As far as human sacrifice goes, that is what the Congressman meant when he spoke of the balancing test in regards to constitutional law. The Supreme Court decided for instance, on balance, that the fact of polygamy would harm the interests of the United States more than it would be compromising the the religious liberties of mormons. Allowing people to murder one another for a religious ritual would be in that category. This is not something the Supreme Court does lightly; on the main, they rule in favor of religious liberty.

So, while you may prefer a secular country with secular values, that isn't where you were born. This country was founded on freedom, not secularism. If you want to tamper with that, you are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

As far as contraceptives are concerned, the government is treading on the religious liberties of catholics by forcing them to carry contraceptives in their health plans. Changing the rule so that they are distributed for free changes nothing, because the catholics will have to pay higher premiums, and also because some catholic institutions have their own private carriers, which means they will have to pick up the tab. They shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptive use, and the Supreme Court will agree with that when they hear the case.



>> ^Sepacore:
Gowdy Grills "When a state banned a practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won that?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not sir"
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Gowdy Grills "I think the state has an important interest in having license tags on automobiles so law enforcement can know who they're dealing with. When a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their cars, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Groups given exceptions to compassionate/reasonable behaviors/expectations because they say they're religious.. this type of occurrence is wrong for Governments to allow/support when they are supposed to be doing what's best for all citizens, not letting some groups who have a personal preference get away with things that would put anyone else in jail. When it comes to physical well-being/suffering or reasonable safety/accountability, those who have their personal preferences that oppose such rational positions need to pull their heads in.
I'd like/hate to see what would happen in a supreme court case where a religion stated "it's my religious right to kill that person/human because of my holy doctrine".
Where the same situation occurred but with animals, and the group were authorized to carry out their murders.
More relevant to the HHS mandate, if someone doesn't want to use contraceptive, they don't have to just because it's covered in their universities/schools health plans by government policy. The government is trying to give people the option. Catholics could exercise their abilities to be devout to their subscribed belief system and simply not use the contraceptives.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-What-would-you-say-to-LGBT-affirming-Christians

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

@shinyblurry

I know your response wasn't to me, but I thought I'd give my answers anyway.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?


Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific

Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, and I should have been more clear. Democrats for the most part do not acknowledge that Affirmative Action is not improving racial tensions. I haven't seen any credible reports that demonstrate it is helping. But they generally insist it is.

And it is a fact that the US military capability is significantly reduced when funding is cut by significant amounts. That may be an acceptable outcome for you, and if so, we can agree to disagree about differing opinions. I'm talking about the Democrats who often say to do it, and then pretend it won't have an impact on military capability. Cutting defense funding for example would have very likely precluded the US from taking Bin Laden out because it took a lot of resources that likely wouldn't have been available. Good chance we wouldn't have had the intelligence, the Seals personnel available to pull it off, basing rights necessary, etc. etc. That stuff gets conveniently forgotten. I'm fine with a disagreement about if more of an isolationist policy would be beneficial for the US, that kind of thing. But some liberals pretend they can have it both ways. We can have just as robust and capable military/intelligence unit with significantly less funding if it's cut too much.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But I do agree with you - the definition of a conservative is narrowing to absurd proportions, and they're broadening the definitions of liberal, socialist, and communist. Obamacare isn't socialism, or communism. It's a few ticks to the left of what we currently have.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^heropsycho:
The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.



Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.
This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."
This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."
And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.
My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.
Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"
And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.
A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

>> ^heropsycho:

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.




Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.

This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."

This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."

And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.

My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.

Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"

And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.

A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

I totally agree that Affirmative Action needs to die. The question is, of course, when?

5 years ago, I would have said that Aff. Action needs to die. But after seeing the level of hate and disrespect for Obama? I'm not so sure.

Just because a law says everyone is equal...doesn't make it so. I think we still have a long ways to go. Quite honestly, I don't think things will change until the people still old enough to think it was OK that blacks used separate water fountains shuffle off this mortal coil. There's simply too many people in positions of power who remember when it was totally acceptable to visit violence upon the "colored folk"

I'm totally ok with giving minorities a boost until we fucking grow up enough to see past petty shit like ethnicity. Maybe you do run the risk of someone completely unqualified getting put into a job, but please...as if no white EVER got a job they weren't qualified for. Yep...it was completely unheard of until Aff. Action came into being. /sarcasm

We fucking killed and enslaved these people for centuries. And even when we freed them, we still treated them like shit. I'm totally cool with cutting them some slack for a while. Yeah, someday we're going to have to take away Aff. Action...but that day isn't today.

The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.

I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.

Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.

But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.

Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.

>> ^NetRunner:

At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

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

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.

The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.

Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.

Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.


>> ^messenger:
You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.
Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.
Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:
This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.

Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.

Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

@dag @Fletch @LarsaruS

I think you're all forgetting that Hitler was a master of propaganda, and those statements affirming Christianity were just that. Hitler used a facade of piousness to cement his power with a predominantly Christian populace. Feel free to disagree, but then you have to deal with statements which he made to party loyalists, like these:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

Night of July 11-12th 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

October 10th 1941

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

19th October, 1941, night

Doesn't seem like such a warrior for christ now, does he? The cult of personality that fletch is talking about just makes my point. When man tries to get rid of God, he just replaces God with himself. Human beings have the natural desire to worship, whether it is something like money, or power, or celebrity, or themselves, everyone who doesn't know the true God has at least one idol in their life they pay homage too.

To say there is no connection between atheism and communism is absurd. Atheism was at the roots of it, and that according to the communists themselves:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism"

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism"

Lenin

“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.”

Karl Marx

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”

Karl Marx

So you see there is a connection between atheism and the atheistic regimes that committed uncounted atrocities. Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism, which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary. A famous quote says that "without God everything is permissable". And that is the logical connection, that a man unrestrained by any thought of ultimate accountability can justify any kind of moral action to himself. Consider this quote from Joel Marks, the professor of philosophy at the University of New Haven

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality"

Please note, I am not saying atheists cannot be moral; I am simply saying that an amoral viewpoint can be a causal factor in committing atrocities, just as much as any zealout. Psychopaths suppress what they know is right and wrong, and dictators ordain it.

It goes back to my original point. It is human nature that is the problem, the corruption of which I attribute to sin. A moral person will be moral in every circumstance, whereas an immoral person will be immoral in every circumstance. You cannot chop it up to specific beliefs of methodologies..they only diagnose the symptom and not the cause.