Virginia republican politics... "fresh" from 2000 years ago.


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Freehold DM wrote:
David Fryer wrote:

I know it sounds like copout, but I really don't know how we change the status quo. One thing is that we need to change the hearts and minds of the gakeepers, the peple who control the political media. Take an episode of Meet the Press a few weeks ago. On their political roundtable, they had the founder of the Daily Kos, a far left leaning website, the former head of the Democratic National Commitee, a former spokesperson for President Bill Cllinton and a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmand. So before the discussion even begins, thedeck is alreay stacked against the Republicans, who re the traditional home of conservatives in America.

On the other hand, after the President's heath care summit last week, the reports were how reasonable and not crazy the Republicans and their proposals sounded. People got to hear what conservatives have to say from their own mouth, without the filter of a gatekeeper, they seem to be much more open to what conservatives have to say then they do when they are having wat they hear filtered by a third party.

Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job? This is something those clamoring for deadly serious term limits have been talking about for years.

Depending on the state party rules which can be quite arcane and vary quite a bit from state to state, reaching the initial threshold to compete in the caucuses or primaries involves vetting by the party. The GOP is certainly not above ending the political lives of members who don't tow the line. Ironically this seems to occur at the national level for reasons of naked political power more than for ideological reasons. For example the national GOP has tolerated north eastern RINOs for quite some time, but they quietly forced my congressman (Hefly, R 5 CO) into retirement for actively perusing fellow Republicans for ethics violations.

House keeping definitely takes place at the local and national levels in the GOP, but it is much more about political (and frequently religious) doctrine in the local caucus and annual party rules meetings. This is also where many intense ideologues (such as myself) strive to filter out more moderate candidates for many GOP primaries, but it's also part of the early stages of debates about who is better financed and connected.

In my county who ever wins the GOP primary wins the general election with monotonous regularity, so our local version of the process tends to produce some very ideological candidates because of the irrelevancy of the Democrats in the general election. Ironically it was the Democratic state legislature that gerrymandered this district so heavily to make other areas more heavily democratic. It has served the democrats well at the state level, but it pretty much cedes this district to the GOP in perpetuity.

Hope this helps.


David Fryer wrote:
Take the results of the CPAC poll fo example. If you remove Ron Paul who really isn't a conservative because of his positions, Mt Romney was the clear winner of the straw poll for the next Republican candidate. Mitt Romney is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He has a buisness bckground and is not really an ideaologe like some of the other candidates in the poll. For example, while stateing a personal opposition to gay marriage he also issued an executive order that said that any county clerk who refused to issue marriage liscences to gay couples would lose their job as long as gay marriage was the law in Massachussets. This is the type of candidate I would like to see more of in both parties, one who acknowledges his or her own personal position and works to change the law to fit that position, but also pushes for enforcement of the law so long as it is the law.

This is a good example of some of the fundamental debate taking place in the GOP today between neocons paleocons and libertarians.

There is probably no point in you and I rehashing the 2008 Ron Paul debate, but it's worth noting that I campaigned actively for Ron Paul and other libertarian oriented candidates from the precinct level up. I'm a minority in GOP politics, but a growing one.

David, on the other hand, really represents the mainstream GOP very well. Most mainstream Republicans share Davids basically moderate views on defense, the social safety net, and what most would consider a moderate level of involvement in the economy and education. His views on gay marriage may be a hair more libertarian than average in the GOP, but less than you might think.

The idea that the fundamentalist christian right in the GOP have this driving need force their beliefs on everyone else through state power is in truth a tiny minority at least here in Colorado, but tolerant and moderate views don't make for good TV evidently. Another good example of this is the abortion debate. Church and para church organizations quietly paying for pregnant girls medical, prenatal and living expenses seem to be stories of no interest to the media, but the guy who tries unsuccessfully to buy billboard space for a graphic add leads the news cycle.

Either the mainstream media consistently tries to misrepresent conservatives, or they find moderate, tolerant conservatives too boring to air.

I suppose me with a radical anti government sign is going to get a lot more coverage than David especially if I put some truther slogan on it or invoke Godwin or some such. Whatever the reason this just seems to be the state of affairs in the mainstream media, and it certainly impacts general perception.

Dark Archive

What Bitter Thorm mentions with gerrymandering is a big issue in many states. The idea is that the party in power at the state level draws district boundry not with populations in mind but with mantaining power. This allows some pretty crazy candidates to win in elections that are not competative, thus increasing the profile of the crazies and preventing more level headed candidates from winning. Therefore you end up with a population that spends no time educating themselves about the issues and ideas of the election and just looking for the D or R behind a candidates name. Add in a lethergy that has more people in a year voting on American Idol then votes in elections and you have the very making of a nation run by political minorities.

Dark Archive

Bitter Thorn wrote:


There is probably no point in you and I rehashing the 2008 Ron Paul debate, but it's worth noting that I campaigned actively for Ron Paul and other libertarian oriented candidates from the precinct level up. I'm a minority in GOP politics, but a growing one.

I agree that rehashing the Ron Paul debate would be fruitless, at least in this thread. I would however like your opinion on the analysis presented by the Las Vegas Sun who said "Rep. Ron Paul occupies the political razor's edge where the far right meets the far left."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job?
The Texas Republican Party is clear on the matter; the 2008 platform, for example, includes the following:

Or to summarize: Yeah, these guys are the face of the American right. It deliberately produces them and eagerly votes them into office again and again. Why would anyone treat them as anything but representative samples of American conservativism?


Samnell wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job?
The Texas Republican Party is clear on the matter; the 2008 platform, for example, includes the following:
Or to summarize: Yeah, these guys are the face of the American right. It deliberately produces them and eagerly votes them into office again and again. Why would anyone treat them as anything but representative samples of American conservativism?

The state platform committees are often heavily influenced by the most ideological elements in both parties. Also in some states and subdivisions platform articles are determined by caucus votes on each article which can result in some very odd combinations.

I haven't participated in a national convention, nor am I sure that I would want to.


Samnell wrote:
Why would anyone treat them as anything but representative samples of American conservativism?

Because they're not "conservative" in any way I would have recognized the term even, say, 20 years ago. Rampant spending and forcing conformity to Biblical standards were not considered "conservative" policy until recently -- and even then they're only called that by fellow Dominionists, not by fiscal conservatives.

Hell, we used to sneer at the "Liberal Democrats" who wanted to spend a lot of money and talk about Jesus instead of eartly matters of national policy. Those Liberal Democrats would make stellar Texas Republicans now -- but that hardly makes them "representative samples of American conservatism" unless real, Connecticut Yankee-style American conservatism is dead and buried.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Rampant spending and forcing conformity to Biblical standards were not considered "conservative" policy until recently -- and even then they're only called that by fellow Dominionists, not by fiscal conservatives.

But you just described the Reagan administration, Kirth. Ronnie Raygun was about as fiscally responsible as Dubya and they both burned money on more or less the same kinds of projects while cutting taxes in similar ways. So far as social conservativism goes, his justice department spent money fretting over pornographers. (And if I recall correctly it tried its hand at prosecuting a few too.) He was pretty up about the purported negative effects of women in the workforce too.

So is Reagan not a conservative now?


David Fryer wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:


There is probably no point in you and I rehashing the 2008 Ron Paul debate, but it's worth noting that I campaigned actively for Ron Paul and other libertarian oriented candidates from the precinct level up. I'm a minority in GOP politics, but a growing one.
I agree that rehashing the Ron Paul debate would be fruitless, at least in this thread. I would however like your opinion on the analysis presented by the Las Vegas Sun who said "Rep. Ron Paul occupies the political razor's edge where the far right meets the far left."

I'm not finding it.

Liberty's Edge

Oh my, an abortion debate. These never go anywhere, everyone rehashing the same opinions. Here's an opinion I can never seem to get out of pro-life people:

If abortion should be criminalized, which is what I assume the pro-life position to be (otherwise you would be pro-choice), what should the legal punishment for abortion be? Many pro-life people argue that abortion is murder. Should a woman who seeks out an abortion and the medical provider both be charged with murder? In many states the pre-meditated murder of a minor will warrant the death penalty. Should women who seek abortions be executed?

Everytime I have asked this question on right-wing boards, I have been banned for it. On non-right wing forums the response is usually crickets. The only responses I've gotten to this question from right wingers was one guy who said it was a hypothetical question and thus impossible to answer (what?), and another guy who insisted it was "a trick."

I refuse to even consider pro-life a serious and viable political position as long as pro-lifers remain silent on the issue. If abortion is to be criminalized, then it must have a criminal punishment. If abortion is murder, then it should have the same punishment as murder (20+ years in prison, possible execution). If you call yourself pro-life but think 20+ years and the possibility of the death penalty is far too extreme a punishment, congratulations. You're sane. But you have to stop saying abortion is murder (if you do), because you clearly don't believe it. If you don't think that abortion should result in any jail time, and the thought of throwing a eighteen year old girl in jail for several years because a baby was going to ruin her life strikes you as absurd and tyrannical...well, I'd like you to consider the pro-choice position.

Pro-choice: We think throwing teenage girls in jail for mistakes is kind of extreme.

Liberty's Edge

Patrick Curtin wrote:
You gotta take the chaff with the wheat. I also believe that 'Birthers' and 'Truthers' have the right to say whatever they want. I also have the right to call them deluded crank cases.

Seconded.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
I've said it before and I will say it again, if people took a second to think and try to gain a little bit of empathy toward who you see as your opposition, just try to see why they believe the way they do then maybe, just maybe we might stop all this infantile fighting you see on the C-span grown adults slinging insults like children on the playground.

I wish that fistfighting was allowed in congress. It would make C-Span a whole lot more interesting, and at the very least would bump the fighting up from the "infantile" category into the "adolescent" category.

Liberty's Edge

Y'know, Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. play golf and hang out.
But not Carter. I wonder if he's mad that he doesn't get invited over to Thanksgiving.
Maybe Obama will hang out with Carter.....IDK, maybe we'll find out in two years.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you call yourself pro-life but think 20+ years and the possibility of the death penalty is far too extreme a punishment, congratulations. You're sane. But you have to stop saying abortion is murder (if you do), because you clearly don't believe it.

I would like to point out that there are more than just the two options you're presenting here. Someone can think abortion is murder and should be punished while also thinking that murderers should not be executed either.

The question of the morality of abortion and the appropriateness of capital punishment are separate issues. A view on one does not invalidate a view on the other.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you call yourself pro-life but think 20+ years and the possibility of the death penalty is far too extreme a punishment, congratulations. You're sane. But you have to stop saying abortion is murder (if you do), because you clearly don't believe it.

I would like to point out that there are more than just the two options you're presenting here. Someone can think abortion is murder and should be punished while also thinking that murderers should not be executed either.

The question of the morality of abortion and the appropriateness of capital punishment are separate issues. A view on one does not invalidate a view on the other.

Didn't a few of us go over this a few pages back, or was that on another thread?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Didn't a few of us go over this a few pages back, or was that on another thread?

I have no idea, probably didn't read it. :)

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Didn't a few of us go over this a few pages back, or was that on another thread?
I have no idea, probably didn't read it. :)

Heh heh...

Just checked: It was this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

This thread is proof that every post is a repost of a repost. Rule #24.

Liberty's Edge

This thread is proof that every post is a repost of a repost. Rule #24.

Wait... didn't someone just post that?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Well played, Anon, well played.

Dark Archive

Gailbraithe wrote:

Oh my, an abortion debate. These never go anywhere, everyone rehashing the same opinions. Here's an opinion I can never seem to get out of pro-life people:

If abortion should be criminalized, which is what I assume the pro-life position to be (otherwise you would be pro-choice), what should the legal punishment for abortion be? Many pro-life people argue that abortion is murder. Should a woman who seeks out an abortion and the medical provider both be charged with murder? In many states the pre-meditated murder of a minor will warrant the death penalty. Should women who seek abortions be executed?

I used to consider myself pro-life, but I have since revised my position. In all truth I never felt that all abortion should be criminalized because there are certain medical and psychological instances where an abortion is needed. Today I describe myself as holding a position that I describes as being "pro-choice, but I hope the choice is life." My biggest concern with the rest of the pro-choice movement is that there seems to be a vocal minority among the movement that gets irrate when any other option then abortion is considered. For instance the groups that tried to get the FCC to label an ad featuring Tim Tebow's mother promoting the idea that pro-choice means more than just abortion as hate speech. My position is that we need to make abortions that are performed as a convienience as rare as possible and ensure that everyone understands all the options before an abortion is performed.


David Fryer wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:

Oh my, an abortion debate. These never go anywhere, everyone rehashing the same opinions. Here's an opinion I can never seem to get out of pro-life people:

If abortion should be criminalized, which is what I assume the pro-life position to be (otherwise you would be pro-choice), what should the legal punishment for abortion be? Many pro-life people argue that abortion is murder. Should a woman who seeks out an abortion and the medical provider both be charged with murder? In many states the pre-meditated murder of a minor will warrant the death penalty. Should women who seek abortions be executed?

I used to consider myself pro-life, but I have since revised my position. In all truth I never felt that all abortion should be criminalized because there are certain medical and psychological instances where an abortion is needed. Today I describe myself as holding a position that I describes as being "pro-choice, but I hope the choice is life." My biggest concern with the rest of the pro-choice movement is that there seems to be a vocal minority among the movement that gets irrate when any other option then abortion is considered. For instance the groups that tried to get the FCC to label an ad featuring Tim Tebow's mother promoting the idea that pro-choice means more than just abortion as hate speech. My position is that we need to make abortions that are performed as a convienience as rare as possible and ensure that everyone understands all the options before an abortion is performed.

I fully agree with David on most points here. Like I mentioned further upthread, I haven't personally met or talked to a pro-choice person who didn't hope that it was the last resort.

I didn't find the Tebow ad to go into hate speech territory, I just found it distasteful, manipulative and untruthful (not to mention CBS's hypocritical stance on running the ad).
An informed choice is always better than a less informed one, so clearly a pregnant woman should have all the options explained to her and that information should be available to all.
Unfortunately, even though other options might exist on paper, they might not always be feasible in real life (because of social or financial limitations etc.).


GentleGiant wrote:


I fully agree with David on most points here. Like I mentioned further upthread, I haven't personally met or talked to a pro-choice person who didn't hope that it was the last resort.

Now you have. Hi! :)

I don't actually care one bit which choice is made, or even why it's made. It's none of my business. I neither hope for abortion nor that the pregnancy is carried to term, unless it's obvious that the pregnancy is going to cause hardship. In that case I prefer and would advise abortion, it obviously being too late for other means of contraception to be employed.

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
I used to consider myself pro-life, but I have since revised my position. In all truth I never felt that all abortion should be criminalized because there are certain medical and psychological instances where an abortion is needed. Today I describe myself as holding a position that I describes as being "pro-choice, but I hope the choice is life."

Which is exactly what pro-choice means for 99.9% of pro-choice people (myself included). You're cool.

David Fryer wrote:
My biggest concern with the rest of the pro-choice movement is that there seems to be a vocal minority among the movement that gets irrate when any other option then abortion is considered. For instance the groups that tried to get the FCC to label an ad featuring Tim Tebow's mother promoting the idea that pro-choice means more than just abortion as hate speech. My position is that we need to make abortions that are performed as a convienience as rare as possible and ensure that everyone understands all the options before an abortion is performed.

Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.

Dark Archive

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.

I wish I had the money for something like that. While I self identify as a Republican, there are lots of things that the Republican Party does at the state and federal level that I have a problem with.


David Fryer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.
I wish I had the money for something like that. While I self identify as a Republican, there are lots of things that the Republican Party does at the state and federal level that I have a problem with.

I wanted to make a point in another thread where you and I ran for office for our respective parties, kicked major ass in house and worked together to make some kind of Major-League D&D/SCA organization, one of a handful of times we crossed the aisle. I forget where and when I was going to do that, but it was going to be funny.


It should go without saying in a thread like this, but just in case, the entirety of this post is my personal (and likely somewhat ill-informed) opinion, and should not be construed as actively hostile towards any other posters. That disclaimer out of the way.... :P

As someone who does believe that life begins at conception (as, if denied the intervention of an abortion, the fetus will most likely end up having bad habits, aspirations, opinions on abortion, a deep love of cheese, etc....y'know, all those things we love so much) I'd like to be 100% pro-life. However, I do personally realize that's an unrealistic position, for a couple of reasons:

1) pregnancy isn't always a choice, with rape being the primary culprit here. A woman who's been raped has every right to an abortion - and if a rape results in pregnancy, the penalty on the rapist should be steeper (or just steepen the penalty for rape all around, I'd be cool with that; that'd cover men and boys who've been raped too).

2) people (particularly young people like myself) often have seriously destructive views on sex. The general scorn towards virgins, for instance. People end up pressured into having sex without really thinking about the fact that it feels so good *because nature wants you to have babies*. Hey, surprise! You had a baby. You'd have to change society's perception of sex in general (it's not evil, but it can be dangerous and should be talked about and respected) to fix this problem, which isn't likely to happen in any timely manner.

3) mother nature's a sexist @#$*& who saw fit to burden one sex with pretty much all the responsibility for the next generation (ironic, considering she's usually represented as female). If paternal responsibility could somehow be legally enforced, that'd be awesome, but as it can't (money doesn't count) I suppose this is just an ugly truth.

Until something can be done about these things, I have to reluctantly grant that abortion is necessary in many, possibly even the majority of cases.

off-topic (short rant on the death penalty):
And for the record, I consider myself pro-life because I *do* believe (human) life is sacred, but I'm also for the death penalty. They're not mutually exclusive. The difference between the two situations is that an unborn child is being punished for a mistake made by someone else; a murderer made a choice that he or she is responsible for. I do think throwing an 18-year-old girl in prison for a mistake is a bit extreme, for the reasons outlined above. However, a murderer violated the sanctity of life in general, and therefore forfeited the sanctity of his own. I suppose if abortion *was* made illegal, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to charge a violator with gross negligence or involuntary manslaughter (from my limited understanding of those charges; I don't pretend to be familiar with our legal system, having never had occasion to be involved with it).

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.
I wish I had the money for something like that. While I self identify as a Republican, there are lots of things that the Republican Party does at the state and federal level that I have a problem with.

I tend to file those under "Why I'm A Registered Independent."


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
I tend to file those under "Why I'm A Registered Independent."

Ditto. And I doubt I'll change that status in this lifetime.

Dark Archive

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.
I wish I had the money for something like that. While I self identify as a Republican, there are lots of things that the Republican Party does at the state and federal level that I have a problem with.
I tend to file those under "Why I'm A Registered Independent."

I would too, but in Utah you have to be a party member to vote in the party primaries. and Since the guy with the R behind his name is going to win the general election, I want to have at least a chance of having a representative that actually represents me.

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Whoah, hold on there! Let's not get all sensible about things, here! Seriously, you should run for office.
I wish I had the money for something like that. While I self identify as a Republican, there are lots of things that the Republican Party does at the state and federal level that I have a problem with.
I tend to file those under "Why I'm A Registered Independent."
I would too, but in Utah you have to be a party member to vote in the party primaries. and Since the guy with the R behind his name is going to win the general election, I want to have at least a chance of having a representative that actually represents me.

I believe it's the same in New York. I just know that there's no way in hell that any of the candidates are going to represent me anyway.

Liberty's Edge

"Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God."

"We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God."

Gotta love the hypocracy of these two statements. Human's are created in god's image...but that doesn't leave any room for people who are born gay because god's a manly man and would never engage in gay acts!

BLUF: even if people were to choose to be gay (which is not the case) the fact that humans are supposedly made in god's image means that god could, in fact, choose to be gay as well.

What I want to know is why this benevolent god doesn't come down and put a stop to all of the atrocities carried out in his/her/its' name. The two possibilities, as i seem them, are: there is no god (my personal favorite) or god isn't as benevolent as people think and is nothing more than a twisted sadist.

Dark Archive

You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Gotta love the hypocracy of these two statements. Human's are created in god's image...but that doesn't leave any room for people who are born gay because god's a manly man and would never engage in gay acts!

I just watched Messed Up Bible Stories on Newgrounds. This statement made me die laughing.


David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)

Also, if handicapped children are the punishment for abortions (going back to the original statement by the Virginia fellow), how come there is not mention of it in the deity's holy book? In fact, as is also pointed out by the professor interviewed in my link, the opposite seems to be true with regards to killing one's firstborn.

Liberty's Edge

GentleGiant wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)

Also, if handicapped children are the punishment for abortions (going back to the original statement by the Virginia fellow), how come there is not mention of it in the deity's holy book? In fact, as is also pointed out by the professor interviewed in my link, the opposite seems to be true with regards to killing one's firstborn.

I do believe said "holy" book makes reference to not allowing the handicapped into temples.

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)

Well I can't presume to speak for God, nor would I ever try and do so. All I know is that the scriptures teach that it is given to man to choose for himself what he does in this life. I personally believe that God doesn't interfere with the actions of men for two reasons. We were all granted free will and to interfere, even to protect innocents would take away the freewill that we must all possess in order to learn and grow both as individuals and as a species. The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

You'd think after at least 2000 years of waiting he might start to wonder if he put the brain in or if that was the squidgy thing he had left over.

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.
You'd think after at least 2000 years of waiting he might start to wonder if he put the brain in or if that was the squidgy thing he had left over.

My grandpa used to say, when God said brains the human race thought he said trains and asked for a slow toy one.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David Fryer wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.
You'd think after at least 2000 years of waiting he might start to wonder if he put the brain in or if that was the squidgy thing he had left over.
My grandpa used to say, when God said brains the human race thought he said trains and asked for a slow toy one.

So the ears didn't work right first time either?

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.
You'd think after at least 2000 years of waiting he might start to wonder if he put the brain in or if that was the squidgy thing he had left over.
My grandpa used to say, when God said brains the human race thought he said trains and asked for a slow toy one.
So the ears didn't work right first time either?

Nope.


David Fryer wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)

Well I can't presume to speak for God, nor would I ever try and do so. All I know is that the scriptures teach that it is given to man to choose for himself what he does in this life. I personally believe that God doesn't interfere with the actions of men for two reasons. We were all granted free will and to interfere, even to protect innocents would take away the freewill that we must all possess in order to learn and grow both as individuals and as a species.

Isn't that awfully close to "the great all-time cop-out": God works in mysterious ways? ;-)

To my mind, it's also a way to try and rationalize the lack of evidence of any diety. Furthermore, God apparently had no problem interfering in earlier times, again if the holy book is to be taken for a somewhat accurate account.

David Fryer wrote:
The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.

I don't really see how this requires any kind of diety to be true. I can easily agree with you that the above is true, although I'd probably not say "never" appreciate. But having faced adversity certainly leads to greater appreciation of some things in most people.

Which is also why I think it's hypocritical when Christians (or any other religion) say that they're being persecuted or that someone is "waging a war" against them, while at the same time spending an awful lot of time condemning and attacking others.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
David Fryer wrote:

wrote:

The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.

I don't really see how this requires any kind of diety to be true. I can easily agree with you that the above is true, although I'd probably not say "never" appreciate. But having faced adversity certainly leads to greater appreciation of some things in most people.

Which is also why I think it's hypocritical when Christians (or any other religion) say that they're being persecuted or that someone is "waging a war" against them, while at the same time spending an awful lot of time condemning and attacking others.

Those 'Christians' prove Ghandi's comments and are a minority. Most Christians are reasonable tolerant people who don't spend much of their time telling us heretics we'll burn in Hell. It's just the ones that do make better television. Extrapolating from the lunatic fringe to the majority is poor sportsmanship.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:


Isn't that awfully close to "the great all-time cop-out": God works in mysterious ways? ;-)
To my mind, it's also a way to try and rationalize the lack of evidence of any diety. Furthermore, God apparently had no problem interfering in earlier times, again if the holy book is to be taken for a somewhat accurate account.

This is why I rather think the holy books were written by man. If God was okay with interfering, he still would be. Hence, he never did. Plopped us down and sat back to watch us. Isn't that what science is all about?


Paul Watson wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
David Fryer wrote:

wrote:

The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.

I don't really see how this requires any kind of diety to be true. I can easily agree with you that the above is true, although I'd probably not say "never" appreciate. But having faced adversity certainly leads to greater appreciation of some things in most people.

Which is also why I think it's hypocritical when Christians (or any other religion) say that they're being persecuted or that someone is "waging a war" against them, while at the same time spending an awful lot of time condemning and attacking others.

Those 'Christians' prove Ghandi's comments and are a minority. Most Christians are reasonable tolerant people who don't spend much of their time telling us heretics we'll burn in Hell. It's just the ones that do make better television. Extrapolating from the lunatic fringe to the majority is poor sportsmanship.

Oh I wasn't making a generalization about all Christians. I know that the majority are decent people (even some of those wacky Mormons, like David ;-) ). Although a very large percentage do still harbour resentments (or worse) against e.g. homosexuals and the act of abortion. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" rings a bit hollow when they then turn around and work against equal rights for everyone or against the choice of a woman to decide what she does with her body.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:


Isn't that awfully close to "the great all-time cop-out": God works in mysterious ways? ;-)
To my mind, it's also a way to try and rationalize the lack of evidence of any diety. Furthermore, God apparently had no problem interfering in earlier times, again if the holy book is to be taken for a somewhat accurate account.
This is why I rather think the holy books were written by man. If God was okay with interfering, he still would be. Hence, he never did. Plopped us down and sat back to watch us. Isn't that what science is all about?

Well I agree with you that the Bible and many other books of scripture were written by men, and are therefore flawed. In fact in the Book of Mormon, since GG already "outed" me as LDS, one of the prophets actually states that if there is any flaw to be found in the scriptures it is because it was written by men who were not able to understand perfectly the will and ways of God.

Look at it this way, just last month we had a promenent "Christian" leader come out and say that the earthquake in Hati was God interfereing in the affairs of men. Now most of us are intelligent enough to understand what causes earthquakes and that they are natural phenomenon. However, in 4000 BCE men were not that educated in the ways of the world. Therefore it was much more belivable to them that an earthquake that dammed up the River Jordan and stopped it's flow for several hours was the work of God. In fact, according to the gospel of David (me) God most likely did not interfere as much as the Bible says that he did, and when he did it was in much more subtle ways.


David Fryer wrote:
In fact, according to the gospel of David (me) God most likely did not interfere as much as the Bible says that he did, and when he did it was in much more subtle ways.

Like raining frogs :P

Dark Archive

Prince That Howls wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
In fact, according to the gospel of David (me) God most likely did not interfere as much as the Bible says that he did, and when he did it was in much more subtle ways.
Like raining frogs :P

Actually that has been scientifically documented as being possible. In June of 2009 it rained frogs in Japan after a waterspout in a local lake picked the frogs up from a pond and then dropped them onto a nearby village.

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
Prince That Howls wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
In fact, according to the gospel of David (me) God most likely did not interfere as much as the Bible says that he did, and when he did it was in much more subtle ways.
Like raining frogs :P
Actually that has been scientifically documented as being possible. In June of 2009 it rained frogs in Japan after a waterspout in a local lake picked the frogs up from a pond and then dropped them onto a nearby village.

Heard about that. Rains of frogs, fish, fish eggs, and the like happen WAY more frequently than you'd think.


Seems like the Virginia Attorney General is jumping on the bandwagon with regards to denying job protection based on sexual orientation too.
Article

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Virginia republican politics... "fresh" from 2000 years ago. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.