Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29741 Dec 5, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem Mikey is you are wrong. The collectivist economics that you and the other communist minded people support make this country a communist state. The central planning of freedom hating people is enslaving our families and has to be stopped. Every country from the beginning of recorded history, that has gone this way, has ended in fascism. With people like you voting the Hitler’s and the Stalin’s in to power we are going the same way.
Again, look up the word 'communism'. Yes, we have some socialism, thus some of our system has some things in common with communism, but it ends there. And the socialism in communism is far more broad than what we have here.
Just try to have an honest debate. It might make your concerns look legitimate.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29742 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like the Egypt protests today. Morsi gave himself "power", the people are storming the gates. We will have to wait and see if the same happens here. I watched a Detroit city councilwoman say that Detroit did "our part" in the election, now it's Washington's turn. The city wants a Federal bailout. I thought the auto bailout helped save Detroit.
OK, but that is socialism, not communism. Call it what it is, or all your arguments look suspect.
Actually, bailing out the city government is not even socialism.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29743 Dec 5, 2012
I believe you are right about the fiscal cliff which actually symbolizes the financial predicament in which we are now immersed. The reduction of the situation to a deadly symbology gives each political party an excuse to act in the interests of our country without serious recrimination from voters. If that actually happens , it will certainly be painful to all, rich and poor because the problem just cannot be fixed on the backs of the rich or the poor seperately. But painful is always better than fatal (which would eventually follow inaction).
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
TSF, I have to give it you for keeping us abreast on tax breaks for the rich. I believe the rich aren't going to be the only ones suffering from the tax increases wanting to be imposed. I've heard so much about the fiscal cliff that I'm just about ready to jump off any cliff to end the misery of listening about it. Just joking, don't believe in suicide.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29744 Dec 5, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes TSF needs a bigger welfare check to buy more drugs.
Again, have an honest debate, or all your concerns look suspect. You ignored his point and went for the personal attack. Evidently you have no rebuttal.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29745 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Part of a series on
Christianity
and Gender
Theology
Female disciples of Jesus
Gender roles in Christianity
Jesus' interactions with women
List of women in the Bible
Paul of Tarsus and women
Women as theological figures
Women in the Bible
4 major positions
Christian egalitarianism
Christian feminism
Complementarianism
Biblical patriarchy
Church and society
Christianity and homosexuality
Ordination of women
Women in Church history
Organizations
Christians for Biblical Equality
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus
Theologians and authors
Feminist:
Letha Dawson Scanzoni · Anne Eggebroten · Virginia Ramey Mollenkott
Egalitarian:
William J. Webb · Kenneth E. Hagin · Gordon Fee · Frank Stagg · Paul Jewett · Stanley Grenz · Roger Nicole
Complementarian:
Don Carson · John Frame · Wayne Grudem · Douglas Moo · Paige Patterson · John Piper · Vern Poythress
Patriarchal:
Doug Phillips · R. C. Sproul, Jr.· Douglas Wilson
Some "light reading" for you
When you copy and paste, it is custom to post the link.
Not that I expect you to follow the common courtesy rules of a debate forum.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29746 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, look up the word 'communism'. Yes, we have some socialism, thus some of our system has some things in common with communism, but it ends there. And the socialism in communism is far more broad than what we have here.
Just try to have an honest debate. It might make your concerns look legitimate.
Communism is the all freeing emancipating revolution that will bring and end to exploitation of human beings by others.
Fascism is the anti revolution, a right wing dictatorship usually thrown up against the working class as a last defense of capitalism and characterized by deceitful tactics to win (misguided) working class support
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29747 Dec 5, 2012
Never did drugs,never needed or wanted welfare. The reality is that social programs will have to be reduced AND the pampered rich will have to be taxed just like the rest of us. Villifying the poor or the rich will not change that reality. The problem is so serious that you will notice that neither party is even talking about DEBT reduction, only deficit reduction. That means the debt will contiue to grow because a budget surplus (which could applied to the debt principal) has become virtually impossible.
That is the beauty of the "cliff" analogy. The end result of a fall is the same, regardless of your ideology.
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes TSF needs a bigger welfare check to buy more drugs.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29748 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>OK, but that is socialism, not communism. Call it what it is, or all your arguments look suspect.
Actually, bailing out the city government is not even socialism.
http://www.marxists.org/archiv e/trotsky/…http://answers.yaho o.com/question/index;…

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29749 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>When you copy and paste, it is custom to post the link.
Not that I expect you to follow the common courtesy rules of a debate forum.
Not that anyone expected your rude ass to ask for the link without being a mean prick.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29750 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:28
Sadly, most Christians did not read this scripture or interpret it to mean equality. Evidence is in how Christians churches have suppressed women for its entire history.

We all know people cherry pick what scripture the follow. They interpret it to be in line with their world view. Maybe Jesus could have been more clear. Maybe he could have simply said to treat women as equals, yet he failed to do so. It is as if he had no idea his followers would suppress women.
My point stands, Christianity suppresses women.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29751 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am fully aware of some women being prominent in the bible, so? Does that mean they are treated as equals by Christianity or most religions? Nope. Maybe it is you guys picking and choosing what to follow in the bible, but the facts are clear, women have been suppressed by religion all throughout history.
Putting a reading list in front of me is not convincing me of anything other than you cannot use your own words to make the case for your opinion.
Catholics hold up the virgin Mary in ways that is ironic to the fact they exclude women from the hierarchy. In case you are not aware, religion contradicts itself on a regular basis. So holding up a few women in history of religion is not making your case. A few does not show equality. In fact, it makes the case for inequality.
Sociologists claim there were more women in biblical times than men. They say this is why there was polygamy.
So if this is true, it is clear there is no excuse to have more men in the bible of power than women. It should be the opposite.
Mike, help me understand why you want posts in posters' words. Had Lu thrown all the facts out without using a link, would that have been more convincing? You use a sentence that says "sociologists claim there were more women in Biblical times....." What sociologists, what kind of sociologists? Just because you say you read psychology and sociology magazines doesn't make you anymore of a psychologist or sociologist than if I read Popular Mechanics would make me a mechanic. Has it ever crossed your mind that taking someone else's articles and changing a few words doesn't make it your research? Why not give credit to the person that that penned the article and then give your opinion about why you posted the article? It's not that complicated, if you give an article as a rebuttal or support of the argument then that's all that needs to be said. It's not that people can't articulate in their own words, but you're asking posters to re-invent the wheel by retyping the article when posting a link would be far more simple.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29752 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>When you copy and paste, it is custom to post the link.
Not that I expect you to follow the common courtesy rules of a debate forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W omen_in_Christianity

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29753 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:28
Many interpret this to mean all are welcome to be followers of Jesus and thus can have redemption.
Again, clearly the followers of Jesus kept women as non equals all through its history. What they believe happens in heaven is not what they think should happen on earth.
But clearly Christians accept anyone into the church, well except Mormons for most of its history kept black persons from being accepted. Guess they did not interpret this passage to mean accepting them. Maybe ask Mitt about that one.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29754 Dec 5, 2012
I'm trying to figure out what "most Christians" read or didn't read. I thought you started at page one and went from there. Maybe some people "cherry pick" what they want to read and apply it to a discussion.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29755 Dec 5, 2012
TSF wrote:
Never did drugs,never needed or wanted welfare. The reality is that social programs will have to be reduced AND the pampered rich will have to be taxed just like the rest of us. Villifying the poor or the rich will not change that reality. The problem is so serious that you will notice that neither party is even talking about DEBT reduction, only deficit reduction. That means the debt will contiue to grow because a budget surplus (which could applied to the debt principal) has become virtually impossible.
That is the beauty of the "cliff" analogy. The end result of a fall is the same, regardless of your ideology.
<quoted text>
How do you feel about a "flat tax"?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29756 Dec 5, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, help me understand why you want posts in posters' words. Had Lu thrown all the facts out without using a link, would that have been more convincing? You use a sentence that says "sociologists claim there were more women in Biblical times....." What sociologists, what kind of sociologists? Just because you say you read psychology and sociology magazines doesn't make you anymore of a psychologist or sociologist than if I read Popular Mechanics would make me a mechanic. Has it ever crossed your mind that taking someone else's articles and changing a few words doesn't make it your research? Why not give credit to the person that that penned the article and then give your opinion about why you posted the article? It's not that complicated, if you give an article as a rebuttal or support of the argument then that's all that needs to be said. It's not that people can't articulate in their own words, but you're asking posters to re-invent the wheel by retyping the article when posting a link would be far more simple.
How many times must I explain this? If you give no opinion, the article is pointless. The article is supposed to be a source of evidence for your claims or position.

I explained why I do not post links for each and every claim I make. It would take way to long for one. Second, many do not doubt some of my claims, so why bother posting evidence to the claim?
I have stated several times, if you doubt a claim I make, I will try to provide evidence if you request it.
In the case of this post, I even acknowledged the claim may not be true. The claim was not integral to the major point anyway.

This is an opinion forum, so I expect your opinion. How is that not clear? My mind is boggled that this opinion forum concept is beyond your understanding.

If you post several places for me to read something, if you give no opinion, I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking for in the article. I am not going to waste my time reading it, trying to wonder just what the republican/Christian mind is thinking about it.

So far in this debate about female equality in religion, I have seen your side offering very little opinion or evidence of equality. I am inclined to think you do not really believe that religion is a good promoter of equality.
In fact, the entire idea of religious faith is centered upon the concept of joining the team or being outcasts. There is no equality in that concept.

This typifies all that I have a problem with in religion. It is not the best formula for what is good or moral.
Your team likes to think it is the only way to morality, but I challenge that claim. The example of female equality is great for this debate. Yet I am hearing very little effort from your team to defend equality.

You claim Emlu can articulate her own defense of the issues. How can you know, as she never even tries?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29757 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>How do you feel about a "flat tax"?
So a person who makes ten thousand per year should pay fifteen hundred per year to the government, assuming the rate was 15%? Can you not see how that would unduly burden the poor?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29758 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>How do you feel about a "flat tax"?
How do you feel about the flat tax?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29759 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Many interpret this to mean all are welcome to be followers of Jesus and thus can have redemption.
Again, clearly the followers of Jesus kept women as non equals all through its history. What they believe happens in heaven is not what they think should happen on earth.
But clearly Christians accept anyone into the church, well except Mormons for most of its history kept black persons from being accepted. Guess they did not interpret this passage to mean accepting them. Maybe ask Mitt about that one.
During the early years of the LDS movement, black people were admitted to the church, and there was no record of a racial policy on denying priesthood, since at least two black men became priests, Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.[11] When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, but remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines.[12]

Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands

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

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29760 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what "most Christians" read or didn't read. I thought you started at page one and went from there. Maybe some people "cherry pick" what they want to read and apply it to a discussion.
If you think most Christians ever read the entire bible, you may wish to do some checking on that.
I think most Christians base their beliefs on what the preacher man says, and thus is passed on to the children and so on.
This is why we have so many different sects of Christianity. Over 38,000 different sects.
Ten people can read a scripture, and interpret it ten different ways.
The bible is not always clear. The bible often contradicts itself, thus the person is left to interpret which passage stands over the others. Is it an eye for an eye, or is it turn the other cheek?
Some believe certain passages are metaphoric, and some believe they are literal.

If the bible was more clear, there would likely be no protestants verses Catholics.

For much of Christian history, the average person could not even read, nor had access to a bible. Many churches only allowed the priests to read it to the people. Of course they cherry picked the passages to suit their agenda.
Books were hand written until the thirteenth century. Even then, it took a while to print enough bibles for the common man to read himself, and literacy was not prominent until last century.
Even now that most people can read, very few read the whole of the bible. Even if they do, the major passages are repeated by the preachers to the point of forgetting the less prominent ones. "Prominent" is subjective.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Do you think women with hairy armpits are ok (Jan '09) Fri NemO 545
Help wanted. Sales in Charlotte Fri NemO 2
Location questions. Thu Abc 1
Is it reasonable for a trained officer ........ Wed Nemo 4
Why are Southerners rude in action, but pretend... (Jan '13) Wed Nemo 250
Buh Bye All You IBM Employees (Oct '10) Aug 23 Timmy_ 289
Rioting in Charlotte Aug 23 Bob Marloy 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlotte Mortgages