|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 4, 2006 16:07:59 GMT -5
here is an article i found on the internet pertaining to this year's 'battlecry.' i am posting this because it is an outsider's view (this is a world-view forum) of what is going on in a fundamentalist rally. also, 'battlecry' is affiliated with a program in east texas that jesse has ties with called 'teen mania.' you all know by now that i am agnostic, but i expect everyone to share their thoughts on this article. christians, non-christians alike...Thousands of young people came to San Francisco on March 24 and 25 for BattleCry, a national campaign to rally right-wing teens to the banner of the culture war -- literally. Under the symbol of a red flag, they gathered at AT&T Park for two days of Christian rock, multimedia sermons and heavy doses of war rhetoric. "Are you ready for a battle? Are you ready to go to battle? The enemy has declared war on you guys!" With those words, pastor Ron Luce kicked off an event that critics charge promotes racism, sexism, homophobia and militant fascism to America's youth. For an organization that rails against violence in movies and video games, BattleCry's own speech and graphics evoke a disturbing image of armed conflict. They talk of war, of revolution, of a generation under attack by sex, drugs and Hollywood, and of building God's army. Fortunately for America, God's army is still in training bras and braces. It's easy to dismiss their warmongering as mere metaphor. The right has been hyping the culture war for decades. However, groups like Theocracy Watch, which monitor the radical religious right, have been watching for warning signs in case the movement ever begins to take its own hype as literally as it does the Bible. Some, like Eric Rudolph, already have. Fortunately, no one was passing out the ammo -- or the Kool-Aid -- at the main event Friday night. The kids seemed like typical teenagers, equally interested in each other as what was happening on stage. Most of them were white, with a fair amount of Asians and Latinos, but very few African Americans. Although many were visibly moved by Luce's preaching, the crowd came to life the most during the musical acts. And I have to admit, the performances didn't completely suck. It's confession time. I'm no longer a teen. In fact, I'm even past the age where I could play one on TV. But if I'm any judge, it seems like the religious right is getting better at marketing to the youth audience by wrapping its message in pop culture. They've figured out how to speak to kids -- in their own language, with podcasts. Goodbye "Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul"; hello www.battlecry.com. BattleCry takes advantage of the fact that war is "cool." This way, when kids are faced with other cool things -- sex, alcohol, drugs, porn, violent video games, etc. -- they can say no without feeling like complete dorks. BattleCry is not providing an alternative to pop culture so much as its own version of it. By choosing war as its brand image, BattleCry simply replaces one group of vices with another. War is a powerful stimulant. It incites our fear and anger. It creates a climate of group-think and an us-vs.-them mentality that is alien to the "love your enemy" philosophy of Christ. Jesus didn't have much to say about sex and drugs, but he had a lot to say about love. For all its talk, BattleCry doesn't seem to be addressing the real violence I remember from my own youth. In school, then as now, most of the beatings were handed out by the jocks. (Could you imagine if BattleCry tried to outlaw football, instead of video games?!) The big guys always pick on the little guys, especially if there's anything different about you -- such as being gay. The handful of video-gamers who have gone postal did so only after finally breaking under the pressure of school bullying. It is a central part of all fundamentalist movements to see themselves as victims, even when they behave like bullies. The more rapidly society changes, the more they feel threatened -- and driven to strike back. The BattleCry Web site says: "Today's teens are being attacked by popular culture like no other generation. . . . In order to defeat our enemy, we must know how it thinks and understand the weapons it uses." To carry out its battle plan, BattleCry has planned rallies for cities all over the country. The goal is to build a cohesive network of fundamentalist church youth groups. What it plans to do with all these kids is unclear, although leadership training and evangelizing seem to be a big part of it. I went to the BattleCry rally feeling concerned, but with an open mind. I left feeling scared. BattleCry has close ties to Promise Keepers and other Christian Reconstructionist groups that openly advocate turning America into a theocracy. This could be their way of mentally grooming teens to accept the idea of war. Or it could all fizzle out in a few months. Judging from the empty seats Friday night, less than half of the estimated 25,000 kids showed up. Whether this is just the Lollapalooza of the religious right or the beginning of a militant fascist youth movement remains a mystery. Paul Mooney lives in San Francisco and is an information architect at PlanetOut, Inc.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 4, 2006 16:17:33 GMT -5
Mt 10:34 - "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 4, 2006 16:29:57 GMT -5
haha. ok. i will play your game. context time. matthew ten v. thirty-four is not speaking of a literal sword, but of division. hence, the following verses, 'for i have come to turn a man against his father...' and so on and so forth. the result of christ's existence is a conflict of light versus darkness, and between christ's children and the devil's children. jesus of nazareth is saying that people will choose to accept or reject him, and sometimes members of the same family will choose different paths. a literal sword is completely unbiblical, because christ did not lead a physical rebellion against rome (or sin). he lived his life, died, and according to the bible his second coming will result in the judgment of a sword. however, the lives of man are not to be soiled with the blood of other men. this war against secularism by christian fundamentalists is contradictory to christ's life, and anyone who imitates it. why? a servant of god is humble, and lets his actions speak louder than words.
now, should you be able to convince me that ron luce's little cult of teenie-boppers is not trying to destroy western civilization, in the literal sense, then i might let up a little and not worry about our impending doom: an apocalypse brought on by christians...how ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 4, 2006 20:55:17 GMT -5
Yes Jesus spoke of a spiritual war against sin and ungodliness not a physical war against flesh and blood. Likewise Ron Luce is promoting a spiritual war against the sins of our society.
If your idea of western civilization is MTV, R rated movies, music about sex-drugs-violence, the slaughter of innocent babies through abortion, homosexual perversion rights, and every other sin of our country, then I pray that it all be destroyed by men and women choosing to forsake all sin to follow the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on May 4, 2006 21:47:40 GMT -5
When the spirit jumps into the heart and spurs hatred, that is truly the work of the devil.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 4, 2006 22:11:59 GMT -5
If you don't know holy hatred then you know nothing of the Holy Spirit.
One cannot love righteousness without hating sin.
One cannot love God without hating the devil.
One cannot love truth without hating lies.
One cannot love purity without hating impurity.
Love and hatred can never be seperate. If you seek to get rid of all hatred you would also have to seek to get rid of all love. The reason I hate sin is because I love righteousness. The foundation for holy hatred is holy love.
Ps 97:10 - Ye that love the LORD, hate evil:
Pr 8:13 - The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Am 5:15 - Hate the evil, and love the good
Heb 1:9 - Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
If you have the love of God in you then you would love holy hatred.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 4, 2006 22:29:29 GMT -5
i hate mtv. anyway... jesse, most people that are pro-choice are not in favor of 'slaughtering' as you see it. people are not responsible for your sins, nor are you responsible for the sins of others. my wife and i are pro-life, because we believe abortion is murder. however, and i want to make this clear to you and others, we are politically pro-choice. we want to protect the freedom of others so that our own rights are preserved. abortion, right or wrong, has its consequences as there is for every action; but it is not our right to determine how others live and which paths those people take.
why would you abuse the religious freedoms this government gave you by restricting the rights of people you don't even know?
i don't care if the action is right or wrong, i just want to know why you have to control the lives of others? this is fundamentalism, this is fascism, and honestly...it makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 4, 2006 22:37:23 GMT -5
You stated abortion is murder.
You stated abortion is a right.
So it is someones right to murder someone else?
What about protecting the God given right to life of the baby?
Unfortinately abortion is a "civil" right though there is nothing civil about it. However it is not a God given right. Abortion is a perfect example of the "is/ought fallacy". Just because something is doesn't mean something ought. What if it suddenly became a civil right for white people to murder black people? Even if you viewed killing black people as wrong, would you say that you do not want to take away someone elses right?
Also, as an agnostic how can you say murder is wrong? Do you say it's universally wrong or simply that you do not like it?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 4, 2006 22:58:42 GMT -5
you would have a good debate if you didn't use IFF arguments. i cannot answer the white/black scenario because it is not realistic--nor is it happening. murder, i can answer, because it is happening. murder is wrong because our society forbids it. society forbids it because our culture was constructed on religious principles. abortion is a civil liberty, as you admitted, and i find it unacceptable because i consider it to be murder. i consider murder to be wrong based on the previous sentence. i made MY own judgment on abortion, although it is legal. i am married, and i have sex with my wife (not to be graphic). we can accidently get pregnant, but we are not. however, if we were, we would not abort the child. however, the married couple down the street have the freedom to abort a fetus should they get pregnant.
so, you're saying that my wife and i should prevent them from getting an abortion because WE think its wrong? this logic is flawed, and i refuse to accept it. you see, there are a lot of flaws in society, and a lot of things you will not like--and there are things i do not like as well. so what?
you can only live YOUR life. live it for god for all i care, but stop trying to make my life miserable by trying to change society for your earthly pleasure. your reward is heaven, right? so why do you care what i do on earth? i need to make my own choices, how can i make my own choices if i live in a theocracy? if christianity is all about free will, i cannot have you make all the decisions for me, right?
there have to be boundaries in society, right or wrong. some of the boundaries are wrong, some of them good. we must decide for OURSELVES, independently and free from others' boundaries.
note: a country founded on religious principles does not validate the religion. this merely means we must abide by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 4, 2006 23:18:55 GMT -5
So then morality is subjected to the society rather then the society being subjected to morality?
What of the cannibalistic societies? Is canabalism right because their socieity permits it?
No no no. You are the one Dusty that believes the individual and the society make up morality, not me. Given your belief, morality is just one opinion verses another opinion and who is to say whos moral opinion is better then the other?
Given your belief that the individual and society make up morality, I can see why you refuse to accept one person telling another person how to run their life.
However you must apply this to other real life situations and follow your principle to it's ultimate outcome and conclusion. You would have to apply your principle to the cannibalistic societies. You must say, "how can our culture tell a cannibalistic culture that they are wrong?" Or "how can our culture tell Nazi Germany that it was wrong?" So you could not condemn anything that a society as a whole embrases, even if the society as a whole embraces slavery or the Crusades.
But you are inconsistent with your own principle. If you are saying "one person cannot tell another person what to do simply because of their own personal opinions or views" isn't that itself your own opinion and view and you are trying to tell me what NOT to do based on your own opinion and view?
However I am not saying someone shouldn't have an abortion because I am against abortion. I do not make morality and neither does the society. Rather God is the only one in the authoratative position to dictate any sort of universal morality, code of conduct, or ethical system. And He says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Neither I nor the society is the basis for morality but God is the basis for morality.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 5, 2006 6:35:40 GMT -5
morality is subjected to the soiety, yes, that is what i am saying. you see, its not that i have the 'freedom' to murder, abort, etc. but that i can follow that path, or make that choice to kill. the formula: i can, but do not is similar to if, then (inverse, i think, although it may be contrapositive).
you said, "Given your belief that the individual and society make up morality, I can see why you refuse to accept one person telling another person how to run their life." This is an excellent debate, and should have been the cornerstone of your post. i can relate to, and understand this logic. however, you did not so now i have the opportunity to manipulate the meaning of what i was trying establish. i only believe that the individual decides which path to follow, and has the 'freedom' or 'choice' to disregard said laws, but like any social construct there are consequences for breaking the law. common sense, right?
here is a more simple, and accurate, statement of what i actually meant: "it is not wrong unless you get caught."
a person has to realize that there is restriction and boundaries, even in freedom, and that he/she has to abide by the culture of natural residence, or certain consequences can be brought against them. culture has implemented christianity as a method of interpreting and establishing laws, and members of our society have the individual choice to abide by the rules, or break them. so, the 'sin' or 'crime' here is NOT the debate. murder, abortion, genocide...none of these are questionable because they are not universals. does this mean they are right? by our culture, no, and i live have made the personal choice, by my freedom, to live by those principles...regardless of where the law orginated: biblical (western) history or eastern thought. people have decided to break the law, jesse, and its their choice. hitler decided to commit genocide, and the consequences were severe (he killed himself, but people who followed/believed in him were punished for his ideas) and led to a world war.
jesse, i believe abortion will have its own traumatic consequences in american culture, but i cannot make this choice for people. we have to let people live as they do, and hope they figure it out for themselves. i believe in protecting people's civil rights, regardless of the 'right/wrong' involved, and should it backfire on me...and someone murder my wife, or me, to leave my wife all alone in this world then we shall bear the consequences and continue forward.
we have no other choice but to continue forward.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2006 13:32:54 GMT -5
Do you understand the implications of that? If that were true and morality were subjected to the society rather then the society being subjected to morality, then you could not say that any society at any time period was ever morally wrong on anything! You would not be able to say that society as a whole was EVER morally wrong. Whatever the society as a whole decides to do is what is morally right, given your principle.
So you would not say that slavery when it was accepted by the majority of the society was morally wrong? You would not say that the crusades when it was accepted by the majority of the society was morally wrong?You would not say that nazism when it was accepted by the majority of Germany was not morally wrong? You would not say that canibalism when it's accepted by the majority of the society is morally wrong?
You may argue that not all these things are beneficial, even that would just be your opinion verses another opinion, but you can't say that society as a whole has ever been morally wrong in anything?
|
|
|
Post by justaman on May 5, 2006 13:49:14 GMT -5
"You cannot say that society as a whole is EVER morally wrong." - Jesse Morrel
"We are losing an entire generation to the devil." -Jesse Morrel
How delightfully contradictive.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2006 14:00:11 GMT -5
justaman,
I said, given the belief of dusty that morality is subjected to the society, HE cannot say that the society has ever been morally wrong as a whole on any issue.
However, given MY belief that the society is subjected to God's revealed morality I am consistent when I say that the society as a whole has been morally wrong lots of times, for example the crusades, slavery, canibalism, nazism, homosexuality, etc.
You are very good at taking things out of context to mean exactly what it wasn't meant to mean. Ever think of getting a job with the Oswegonian?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 14:05:16 GMT -5
"Repent sir... I say this out of my love for you. " - Justaman
"How delightfully contradictive. " - Justaman
You sadly contradict yourself. You say you love him, then enjoy trying to make him look like he contradicts himself.
You are a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 14:12:16 GMT -5
I think it is interesting that by your name it says John 8:43-47.
Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Jhn 8:45 And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
Jhn 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Jhn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
I just showed that you are a liar, so by that verse you are of your father of the devil.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on May 5, 2006 14:33:41 GMT -5
I have proved your group leaders lies, with his own works... and if I can see them so can God... So I will just shrug your persecution, say what you wish, I just hope you realize who you follow some day. So I will just shrug your persecution, say what you wish, I just hope you realize who you follow some day. I will let you read this and let you analyze it. www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=134
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 14:37:31 GMT -5
I have proved your group leaders lies, with his own works... and if I can see them so can God... So I will just shrug your persecution, say what you wish, I just hope you realize who you follow some day. I am assuming you know the meaning of the word persecution. If you don't then you are contradicting yourself again. If so, that is a bad habit you should stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 14:41:00 GMT -5
By the way I do not follow Jesse, although he is my brother in Christ. I follow Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on May 5, 2006 14:51:25 GMT -5
That is truly the right idea, and I will say that yes, I should not have said delightfully, that was crude, however I do admit... I am just a man and I will sometimes give into temptation. However Jessie doesn't want to admit he does too... he loves the camera, so thanks for putting that into place, and I hope you'll forgive me for it.
And I can't work for the Oswegonian, I'm a Compter Science major, but I don't see the world as binary as some do.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2006 15:02:14 GMT -5
When did I lie about anything? I'd like to see this proof? Are you referring to the quote where I said Dusty could not say that any society ever was wrong given his belief?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 15:02:16 GMT -5
Why would you give into temptation? Please don't use the excuse "I am just a man." If you are a christian you do not have to give into temptation. I have seen no friut that would show that you are born again so that may not apply. If you do give into it there is something in your heart that does not need to be there.
Imagine there is a big hole outside of my house right outside of the door. I walk out the door and fall into the hole. I am frustrated about it and go back inside and take a shower. I then walk out the door again and fall right back into the hole. There is a problem. Either I enjoy getting dirty or I am just spiritually ignorant if I keep falling into sin. So which it is sir? Do you just enjoy it?
|
|
|
Post by justaman on May 5, 2006 15:05:53 GMT -5
Ok, sure, I enjoy pointing out flaws in perfectionists, just as you point out flaws in those that claim not to be. Guess noone is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2006 15:09:00 GMT -5
You need to repent and be converted. You are just like your father, the accuser of the brethren.
I am not pointing out "flaws" I am pointing out your sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2006 15:13:50 GMT -5
Before it gets lost, I'd like to re-post my last response to Dusty in our debate.
Do you understand the implications of that? If that were true and morality were subjected to the society rather then the society being subjected to morality, then you could not say that any society at any time period was ever morally wrong on anything! You would not be able to say that society as a whole was EVER morally wrong. Whatever the society as a whole decides to do is what is morally right, given your principle.
So you would not say that slavery when it was accepted by the majority of the society was morally wrong? You would not say that the crusades when it was accepted by the majority of the society was morally wrong?You would not say that nazism when it was accepted by the majority of Germany was not morally wrong? You would not say that canibalism when it's accepted by the majority of the society is morally wrong?
You may argue that not all these things are beneficial, even that would just be your opinion verses another opinion, but you can't say that society as a whole has ever been morally wrong in anything?
|
|
|
Post by Rodgers on May 5, 2006 17:44:42 GMT -5
AMEN Jesse!
You have to go to great lengths to deny a moral force in every culture since the beginning of time. Morality is not decided by society. Morality is a fixed Law of Love and righteousness. Every situation that ever arises is subject to right and wrong. Every decision that an individual makes is subject to right and wrong.
Side Note: I do not know if you have heard of the gentlemen, but his name is Walter Lippmann. He was a philosopher in the early 1900's. He battle the infamous John Dewey, the communist who ruined our education system. He had some interesting things to say about government and morality. His books are usually short and to the point you may want to look him up on amazon. The book I have read by him is called, "the Public Philosophy" In this book he deals with this idea that the "public opinion" should rule law. Dewey was obviously for it but he was against the idea.
Joe R
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 5, 2006 18:16:47 GMT -5
I just had to post after I checked out the lick justaman left ...
Within the text of Matthew 7:15-23 there is ... "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Them being false prophets. False prophets will have bad fruits so ...
Within Galatians 5:22-24 ... "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
So, If I were to analyze y'alls based on those two verses and your trip to Oz ... you showed no love (you stayed for three days and berated us), no peace (you pursposefully made people angry), meekness? NO, gentleness? again NO.
I smell somethin fishy with y'all and it isn't the haddock wafting up from the dining hall.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 5, 2006 19:17:52 GMT -5
jesse, i understand the implications of what i am saying. i do not say things for the heck of it...
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 5, 2006 19:20:49 GMT -5
i apologize for posting so late. you guys were on early today. i am going out for a cinco de mayo celebration, jesse, so i will respond tomorrow morning. i have no intention of neglecting your debate.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 6, 2006 10:23:35 GMT -5
yes, i understand the imlpications of what i said, and yes i agree that no society was ever morally wrong on anything, because morality is subjected to the society. hah. i am not sure what the problem is here, because its simple logic. christian cultures abide by christian morals. hindu cultures abide by hindu values, muslim by muslim, jewish by jewish, and so on and so on. however, i would like you to reflect that western civilization all abide by similar, if not the same, morals because all three religions: judaism, islam and christianity are closely related. this is why murder is wrong in most regions of the world. this is why thievery is discouraged, and why debauchery is frowned upon. i have no problem with my culture abiding my the morals of any religion, but i will live and die as i choose--and rightfully pay for the consequences of my actions. i accept it. why don't you?
the difference between "my opinion" and "another person's opinion" as you put it is that 'morals' such as the nazi regime is detrimental to the society (i think i used the appropriate term). america, and our allies, decided that the actions of germany and her allies were wrong. however, do you not realize that not all americans agreed with world war i or ii? in fact, nazi sympathizers lived in america, but this does not mean that their opinions were not valued. social morals are a lot like politics. we vote and decide what is to be done. however, simply because a bill is voted on and passed into law does not mean people will abide by it. why? people will choose to do as they wish, and accept the consequences for their actions: IFF they get caught (i purposely used IFF, the mathematical expression, 'if and only if'). so, let us use abortion as an example, but we need to set up the scenario:
who is president? bush, a compassionate conservate, or a fundamentalist christian. who do we have in the supreme court? a majority of right-wing and swing voters. who do we have in congress, senate, and house? a slightly, republican hold, but even for the most part. so, let us pretend that in the upcoming months that abortion is outlawed, and any woman or doctor practicing this procedure can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, umm...let us say a maximum fine of one hundred thousand dollars for a first offense, and prison time for following offenses. ok? this is only a scenario. good. you win! christians have won the abortion debate, and and established a biblical law in the name of god. you have personally made america a better, more moral place to live. yay.
jesse, come on, do you think really that the abortion rate would faulter, even one percent? no, you will see more people imprisoned on ridiculous charges, like the war on drugs. you will see more abortions on the black market, in alley ways, giving young women infectious diseases because of unclean utensils. do you want this? no, and i doubt any sane person does. people will murder, rape, and live the lifestyles they choose, regardless of your principles, religion or your god.
this world is going to hell, anyways, right? according to the bible, you will ascend into heaven, after the dead in christ arise first. why not let us be? why not let us alone? we have heard the word of god, some of us just don't give a damn, to be honest.
people will do what they want to do.
p.s. prove to me that christian laws have dramatically improved culture, and i will give it some consideration. show me, after two thousand years, that anti-secularist laws are making a difference. hell, show me that the percentages of murder through the world has decreased on account of christianity...and i will become a christianity. today. honest.
|
|