KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

I am not for the criminalization of homosexuality either, but I am for the criminalization of rape. And that is because rape harms another a human being against their will. Homosexuality is consensual act between two people, so I agree that it should not be criminalized. I am opposed to the lengths Democrats have gone to make it culturally acceptable and approved of within society. I think Democrats are morally degrading our society by teaching and promoting a form of sexual nihilism. I think unweaving the moral fabric of our country will prove to be part of our country's destruction.

I don't think you've understood the logical structure of the argument I made. The premise of the argument is that morality exists, we know it, and it is universal. The existence of the God of the Bible is the conclusion of the argument. We arrive at the conclusion of the argument because the premise of the argument compels its conclusion. You are focused on the pragmatic, but I am focused on truth. If we are going to speak and legislate on the pretense that morality is universal, then we need to live in the realm of truth. What the government does needs to be grounded in truth. So, when the government universally criminalizes rape the government is criminalizing rape because rape is universally wrong. When the government is criminalizing murder and theft, they are criminalizing those things because they are universally wrong. When we begin to look at things such as that as simple tribal preferences in a world where there is no universal right and wrong that is a problem.

I do not believe that separation of church and state is incompatible with anything I have said. It worked when the US consisted of Catholics, Quakers, Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Wesleyans, Congregationalists, and Deists. None of those denominations were so closely wed to state power like the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church in parts of Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. But what makes it work is a common belief in a universal morality that is understood between all the people who sit under the same government. To some degree I still believe we have that, but it is far weaker than it used to be. We believe murder (sometimes), theft (sometimes), lying (sometimes), etc are wrong. We believe in religious liberty (sometimes). We believe in free speech (sometimes). That is about it.

The problem with your formulation is when you brush the question of moral truth under the rug and simply move straight towards the question of who should be making governmental decisions, you have no confidence that what comes out of that process is morally good. That would be like hiring a teacher to teach math, when the teacher is majorly wrong and mistaken about what math is. And then it is being happy that decisions were made regardless of the fact that the outcome of such a decision could be an absolute disaster.

What comes out of such a process could be a total moral disaster because the criteria for what moral truth is was not nailed down first before decision making was pragmatically decided upon.

FWIW, if you follow my original argument closely, this fundamental reality that we all know a universal moral law exists points to the existence of a being and a person who is the source of that universal knowledge of morality and ethics. It is not just an argument. We are talking about a being and a person who is of absolute central importance to our existence and our own being that needs to be recognized before we embark on a project such as deciding how to run a government. We need to fundamentally know who we are to know how we are to govern ourselves, and we can't know ourselves if we don't know the Creator who made us.

FWIW, that is not necessarily the same thing as being on the same page about every aspect of religion. There are Catholics, Hindus, and Jews I would vote for in a heartbeat because they at least recognize that some deity has a moral nature where we derive our knowledge of right and wrong from that informs how we should govern society. You don't need a theocracy or a unified religion in society for this to work. You need people to agree upon a fundamental moral law that society is to be governed by. That is what One Nation Under God refers to.

I think we've probably reached a boiling point where the common moral foundation we once shared has been so marred and perverted that the unified morality that was originally assumed under the separation of church and state model in the early foundations of this country is gone. Now a battle of Darwinian supremacy plays out between morality and anti-morality, and we look around and say to ourselves "What is moral truth?" I believe the country is largely unrecoverable from the damage that has been done. Once you destroy a country’s knowledge of its own moral principles that country is done. You can put a fork in it.

The truth is a people who know themselves because they know God know that man loves spiritual darkness more than spiritual light. And they know man's natural tendency is to embrace evil. A people who do not know God, largely due to their own willful ignorance, will always fall head over heels in love with evil. That is playing out right here in this country.

 

It actually is. Here is a documentary proving how real and brutal cancel culture was for the owner of the top restaurant in Chicago:



This is what I am talking about: Morality vs anti-morality. When a society rejects God they are given over to depraved minds to do what ought not to be done. It starts in our own personal lives, and then it spreads like cancer and affects every aspect of life including political preferences and political goals.

Are there instances where cancel culture lacks to the power and means to effectively cancel someone? Absolutely, but there are other instances where it has worked.

 

When was the fabric woven?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

1911, in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

 

That is a great question. I would also add the question WHO is the one ultimately responsible for weaving that fabric together? That is another good question.

I contend that the moral fabric of society is in many ways inseparable from the religion of a society. So, intense times of religious revival and the preaching that powers such revivals are what weave a moral fabric into a society and a country. It was not preaching alone that wove this fabric into our society, but it was the receiving of it by the masses that instills it into the moral fabric of a society.

And then it is the nuclear family unit that preserves this fabric and passes down what is gained in these revivals from one generation to the next.

So, you could argue events like the explosion of Christianity in the first few centuries after Christ’s death, the Reformation, and the Great Awakenings in America are the types of historical events that created new societies with robust convictions to live upright and moral lives. However, in between these periods of spiritual revival the gains that were made were also unraveled over time.

The battle of every culture is to preserve the light in it from being snuffed out by the darkness. And the battle never stops. Evil never rests. It is always lusting after more and more gains within a society trying to quench the light within a society.

Christianity in its inception took the pagan world by storm. I would argue the Christian revival from about 2,000 years ago is where the moral fabric was woven. And now 2,000 years later we are pining for the pagan world that was jettisoned for Christianity. We are fast approaching a state of society that is much like pre-Christian Rome and dare I say even darker societies that the Israelites were in direct conflict with in the Old Testament.

 

The British historian Tom Holland agrees with you. He argues that most of the values we hold dear here in the west had their roots in the spread of Christianity. Without Christianity, we would’ve inherited the culture of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Those were brutal, unempathetic cultures, indeed.

 

A comment that only makes sense if you have no knowledge of the societies that followed it. The notion that Dark Age Christianity was "moral" (i.e., not brutal or in some way empathetic) in how it treated people is either historically illiterate or outright false.

 

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity. It’s even called the Roman Catholic Church! I would argue the ‘brutality’ just became part of Christianity!

 

Even medieval Christians flawed, burned, and quartered each other. That is one of the reasons for the protestants flocking to the colonies.

 

Yeah, the Christian nationalism recasting of the history of the Middle Ages is always fascinating. Usually, it contains the fallacious claim that Rome fell due to immorality (glossing over the conversion of the empire and the splitting of it that followed). This is then usually followed by some claim of how moral Christian society was back in those days, despite the brutal violence of the time. The problem that they run into is that they want the state to promote Christianity, but, when it did at that time, it didn't make the state more moral, it made Christianity more brutal.

 

It's called the "Roman Catholic Church" bc the Rock upon which Christ built His Church--St. Peter (Peter = derivative of rock (petra/os))--founded his church, in Rome--bc it was already at the time, the heart of the modern world.

Everything wrong with Rome was already wrong and there, long before Contantine.

Y'all's arguments are the same today, as the ones the pagans made back then, and are as effectively torched by the facts stated in St Augustine's City of God.

 

this is not logic. taking the premise as true, god of the bible exists does not follow as the logical result of the (in this case) lone premise. the last sentence is nonsense. a conclusion is not compelled by the premise(s), it is the logical result of the premise(s).


com·pel
/kəmˈpel/
verb

1. force or oblige (someone) to do something.
   "a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions"
2. 
   
   • bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.
     "they may compel a witness's attendance at court by issue of a summons"

For our visual learners.

 

It’s not my idea. It’s the idea of professional historian and best selling author Tom Holland, so your argument is with him. You can check out his book on the subject, Dominion, or one of his many videos.

Your post does not follow logically. What happened centuries later is irrelevant to the establishment of western values with the spread of Christianity.

I never said anything about the morality of the Middle Ages. But the fact that you consider any age immoral shows that Christianity introduced values that didn’t exist before that time. Any bad behaviors during the Middle Ages would have been acceptable to Greek and Roman cultures.

The idea of the Middle Ages being “dark” is fading from modern scholarship. “[T]he Middle Ages were an era of great inventiveness during which art, architecture, literature, international trade and culture flourished.”

The term “Dark Ages” was developed to denigrate earlier eras. During the Renaissance the “idea of a dark and barbaric medieval past fed into humanists’ belief in their own present time as the rebirth of classical culture.”

The not so dark Middle Ages | Europeana

 

The summary of the argument by @Contra left out the initial premise. The moral argument is the following:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic is sound. All you can do is debate the premises.

 

Sorry, but again, EVEN we accept the premises, this does not prove anything about the god OF THE BIBLE which was Contra's claim. Of course, I would argue an infinite # of NON-god creators that are far superior to us, coulda concocted an objective morality for us simple folk. Hell, wouldn't gods also work as a premise? Not sure why it would narrow it to 1. 1 or more would be pretty tidy. Congrats, you've narrowed the search to infinity. Which means the P[x] = 0 for all Xs.

 

A. He is not a historian. At best, he is an author. But he does not have any graduate degrees in history.
B. I am referring to the Early Middle Ages, i.e., the period after the end of Rome/Greece.
C. No, not all behaviors under the tribal kings in the Early Middle Ages would have been acceptable to Greek or Roman cultures. The Greek and Roman cultures had substantial thought around the notions of morality. Some of these thoughts were absorbed into Christianity initially. Others weren't.
D. I utilized "Dark Ages" to refer to the time period. But yes, there were substantial limitations in terms of art, architecture, and literature in Western Europe at the time. In fact, during this period, "Kings" generally weren't even stationary. "Courts" were largely mobile and lacked permanence (holding back art, architecture, and literature). The serfdom system was developed and enforced heavily by "Christian" local lords. The brutality of many of these "Christian" rulers was horrific. And no, they did not feel that brutality was immoral.

 

Christianity became synonymous with state power and all that it entails when the Roman Empire was still a thing and through all its successor states. Even today many Christians long for a Christian state that can enforce its morality !

 

Good Lord...

Again--the Roman Empire already was--that is, it was A @#$%%@n empire--long before it went Christian.

"Empire" = state power.

The only thing in question was who controlled the state--emperor (a cesar) or senate.

You're like the worst student of history ever. You learn nothing from what was, and champion so much bullshit thar never was.

You should focus on today and tomorrow, bc you suck at yesterday.