Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
KF has finally been driven crazy:
| Quote | Inquisitor,
On observing your behaviour above, I find it necessary to point out that you are now proceeding to demonisation and using the notorious agit prop techniques of the cultural marxist nihilists to cruelly mock, personalise and polarise rather than actually address the substantial matters with civlity, on the merits:
I, 103: >>By that logic, the Westborro Babtist church, the KKK, the Salem witch hunters, the conquistadors and KF best understand Christianity. Do you really want to go down that road?>>
You know what you just did, and you know that there was cause to say stop, take a walk-back and on refusal of such, after almost 900 comments in which comparisons to the KKK, accusations of bigotry (thus hate) and the like were routinely made and not corrected, I concluded it is time for a serious time-out.
Here, FTR, is my remark to Aleta when s/he tried to back up your attempt to insinuate that principled objection to homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law is comparable to the backward morality of Meso-America c 500 years ago. As in, an obvious allusion to the Aztecs and their praxis of aggressive war to obtain captives for human sacrifices. (And no, sliding over to conquistadores will not get you off the hook. Indeed, it was the very first man ordained a priest in the New World — and a former conquistadore, De Las Casas, who publicly exposed the conquistadores for their crimes in contradiction to principles of the Christian faith and morality. Yes, he went on to make a suggestion that history shows was then twisted into a trade based on kidnapping and hereditary enslavement under cruel conditions of chattel slavery, something he likely could not have anticipated and on track record would have opposed with vigour. FYI, in foundation documents of the Christian faith you pretend to understand, this is what is written — yes, I now plead, “it stands written . . . ” — about such in 1 Tim 1: “8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers [–> others render, in effect kidnappers into slavery],[b –> “That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery”] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” [ESV] That is a real list of the comparably bad, from a much weightier pen than you will ever wield. I suggest that you ponder this text before ill-advisedly projecting further that I do not understand the core moral teachings of the Christian faith.)
I also observed that Aleta [forgive, I am forced to do this reference because of the context . . . ], a far more genteel commenter, also tried to suggest that objection to the abuse of law and manipulation of the public to impose extreme radical relativist/subjectivist nominalism upon marriage — we determine by might and manipulation under colour of law what we want words like ‘marriage’ and ‘sex,’ ‘gender,’ ‘equality’ and ‘rights’ etc to mean, in short . . . which is nihilism — is so backwards that it is now to be compared to how slavery was allegedly deemed acceptable 100 years ago:
Inquisitor used an unusual comparison [–> to the backward morality manifest in Meso-America 500 years ago] that carries precisely the connotation implied; we all know about Orwellian doublespeak so don’t bother to pretend otherwise.
Further to this, you will see that after nearly 900 comments NONE of those associated with the side that has consistently accused us of bigotry etc has pulled back even after being cautioned.
Also, look at the outrageous comparison you just made — in a context where 100 years past after centuries of struggle once a democracy was possible, slavery had already been abolished — do you not see that it is beyond reasonable thinking and civil conduct to compare principled objection to a questionable and highly controversial move under law with a reformation that was fought for on manifest principles of the very same natural moral law that make what is being done now under colour of law highly questionable?
It seems that the exact dangers pointed out by George in the [video embedded in the] OP are being carried through. In that context, we have to take implications very seriously.
Where on your talking points more than enough has been said on the nihilistic import of playing legalistic and policy power games with what are now abracadabra words controlled by elites driven by inherently self-falsifying and amoral evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. 59, 509 or 5009 years are not going to change the complementarity of the human sexes or the substantial commitment required to sustain sound and stable child nurture and communities that support sound families.
Nor will it ever be the case that one can claim from others the duty to uphold you in wrong — not on pain of jobs, not on pain of robbing us of our children, not on pain of robbing us of a clear conscience. To have a right, you must first be in the right, and to try to manipulate moral government into power and manipulation games is nihilism, pure and simple, as Plato warned against 2350 years ago.
The juggernaut that thinks it can tinker, use power and manipulation to get its way will crash our civilisation, at the price of much blood and tears; but the obvious intent is to push an increasingly bizarre agenda without limit. Until it crashes, hard and ruinously.
In your intemperate rage, you have now gone to a thread that I have not been significantly involved in to make all sorts of outrageous accusations as I just excerpted on having woken up for a moment and deciding to pass back here, having first dealt with local developments. It is fair comment to observe that you have improperly put yourself in the position of definitive judgement on my character, my understanding of the Christian faith, and apparently much more.
Do you not see that this is the worst kind of scapegoating, stereotyping, smearing through guilt by invidious and utterly unwarranted association, denigration and demonising?
For the thought-crime of holding to the same foundational first principles of the natural moral law that instantly show why murder of innocents under any excuse, robbing people of their freedom through a kidnapping based slave trade and imposing on them a racism backed hereditary enslavement is indefensible?
Do you not see that, contrary to what you imagine, such tactics by you and others — sustained for hundreds of comments across several threads, despite many correctives and pleas to be civil and reasonable — are the very strongest proof that the position being supported by smearing those who question it obviously cannot stand on its own merits?
if a position can only thrive by demonising its questioners and challengers, it is patently unprincipled, uncivil and nihilistic.
Further to this, we are considering something that is being imposed under colour of law on a foundational institution of civil society. One that is equally plainly antagonistic to the informed principled, conscience based views of many thoughtful persons. Persons, whose arguments have been insistently dismissed as bigotry empty of evidence, principle and reasoning. Driven by hate in short.
This is utterly improper.
Something has gone wrong here, Inquisitor, and you need to very carefully consider your ways.
For, you have let some very dangerous cats out of the bag.
And it should be evident to the reasonable and responsible mind that the injection of nihilism into law, policy, media and education etc, the warping of foundational stabilising institutions such as marriage and family, and the rolling out of a heedless juggernaut of an agenda that rolls on and on heedless of concerns, are not good signs for our civilisation.
In such a context, it is entirely in order to warn about the need to heed the signs of our times, about the potential of marches of folly, the dynamics of divide, polarise and ruin, and the telling example and a case study on democratic governance manipulated into ruinous march of folly in Ac 27 that has been so consistently responded to with studious silence.
KF |
|
