(March 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 4:20 am)smax Wrote: 200 years ago, the majority of the world (even the "godly religious" people) felt slavery was acceptable and not morally objectionable. Now, the opposite is true.

Thank you Wilber Wilberforce and Christian abolitionists.

Thanks, Christians, for stopping that horrible biblically-justified Christian practice by replacing some of your Godly morals with secular Enlightenment morals.

John Wesley was against slavery, he wasn't influenced by the enlightenment, he was against it is a Christian. So were many others.

The enlightenment to a great degree was a product of the parent Christian civilization anyways (Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Newton, etc)

(March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: John Wesley was against slavery, he wasn't influenced by the enlightenment, he was against slavery. So were many others.

Yep, unlike the authors of the bible, i.e. god, as you believe.

(March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: The enlightenment to a great degree was a product of the parent Christian civilization anyways (Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Newton, etc)

What do you mean by this? That the enlightenment came from a primrily Christian culture? It certainly wasn't in tune with the values of that culture.
Age of Enlightenment

wikipedia Wrote:The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform the way of thinking using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thoughts, skepticism and intellectual interchange and completely opposed any kind of superstition, intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state.

(March 17, 2013 at 9:52 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 8:11 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I started talking about how liberals fund the arts as if it implies that liberals tend to appreciate culture moreso than an ideology which tends to measure the success of things by how profitable they are.

The rest of it, you made up yourself, and I would kindly ask that you not project your personality defects on me.

I would die before I say I am anti-capitalist and pay $125 dollars to go see an opera or receive $80,000 teaching undergraduates for $30,000k a year to be progressive. I assure you that that is not my personality and that kind of self righteous pride has no part in me.

I will never be like them. Small men with their empty words. They are afraid inside. They wouldn't be tortured for what they believe.

It is all empty words. Liberals are small people. That is a fact. They are small. Their insides are small. They don't have the fire inside of them, they are false, teachers of the law and Pharisees, who loved their money and the best seats at the synagogue.

They aren't true prophets. Anticapitalists at the opera. They are small people, with no courage and no heart. Only a fool will trust them, or a small minded person who lacks courage and heart.

If you wouldn't die for what you believe, shut up. I don't care what you have to say. Take your anticapitalism and your $80,000k teaching job and go pat yourself on the back. You will never win my respect.

They are small men. Open your eyes and see for themselves. They are small. They are hedonists. They don't have any heart. They don't have the fire inside of them. You know what I am saying is true.

I grew up with liberalism, I know it is a lie. The liberal is a small person, he lacks courage and heart. He is a nationalist filled with guilt about nationalism. All his actions continually are for small things. He needs someone to take care of him and pay him or he won't fight hard. He has no heart, just empty state subsidized service.

So, you are saying they are small?

Just below average small or full on midget small?

I think the idea behind being a "liberal" is that we are promiscuous in our thinking. That means our thinking can range far and wide. We lack loyalty to core beliefs. We just get on the track of the truth and follow it like a bloodhound.

It is conservatives who have erected fences around their cherished beliefs who restrain thinking to tried and true pathways on the private property of their core beliefs. So as I have clearly .. ahem .. proven, it is the conservative who is small, small, small.

So it isn't really about the size (unless of course we are talking about that certain part of a man's body) but rather about faithfulness. The faithless liberal follows the truth where it leads him, heedless of past loyalites. Not so the conservative who will remain faithful always to the truth as he would have it no matter the evidence. Liberals are sluts for the truth. We prostitute ourselves for evidence. You on the other hand won't give evidence a second look for fear of antagonizing a jealous god. You tout this as a virtue but to us it just looks like you are god-whipped.

I'm not sure that 'small' is going to be a useful metric in quantifying anything about anybody, liberal or conservative. It's just something we say when we don't have anything substantive to say.

(Women are literally small in relation to men, but it's not our size which is being referenced when we are told not to worry our pretty little heads about it.)

(March 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm)apophenia Wrote:


I'm not sure that 'small' is going to be a useful metric in quantifying anything about anybody, liberal or conservative. It's just something we say when we don't have anything substantive to say.

(Women are literally small in relation to men, but it's not our size which is being referenced when we are told not to worry our pretty little heads about it.)

I think Strudel obsesses about "small" for other reasons that probably are related specifically to size.

(March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: John Wesley was against slavery, he wasn't influenced by the enlightenment, he was against it is a Christian. So were many others.

The enlightenment to a great degree was a product of the parent Christian civilization anyways (Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Newton, etc)

If he was against it as a Christian, all that shows is that he didn't know his religion very well, or that he wished to interpret it contrary to what it actually says because he could find no other way to find a compromise between what was obviously evil and what his god says was totally good and acceptable. The Bible repeatedly affirms the morality of owning human chattel. As self-contradictory as that trash is, this is one issue on which it is totally consistent. A Christian who believes slavery is immoral is a Christian who denies God's righteousness.

(March 19, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Ryantology Wrote: If he was against it as a Christian, all that shows is that he didn't know his religion very well, or that he wished to interpret it contrary to what it actually says because he could find no other way to find a compromise between what was obviously evil and what his god says was totally good and acceptable. The Bible repeatedly affirms the morality of owning human chattel. As self-contradictory as that trash is, this is one issue on which it is totally consistent. A Christian who believes slavery is immoral is a Christian who denies God's righteousness.

Ryan, who the hell do you think you are trying to take away the xtians god-given right to pick and choose what they believe?

Shame on you.