Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Wizard22]

I had to backtrack to refamiliarize myself with the conversation to see what you're talking about. So Mick is incorrect in his statement that you have admitted to being a Nazi? It is not the case that you have admitted to being a Nazi. Is that correct? I suppose being offended by the accusation is a good sign.

It's a baseless smear.

I may as well call Micky a self-admitted wife beater. And if he denies, then we can assume he simply has not yet admitted to being a wife beater.

Furthermore, he ought to be able to quote me, if I'm "self admitted" anything, but he can't, because he's a little runt, running to the aid of Hairball, who's made a lot of self-demeaning and ignorant remarks, regarding the drag-time story image and "I don't know what it means" referring to the sign. It's obvious what it means. Even grade school boys know what it means. And that's the very problem—all those who desire to sexualize children or insert them into drag shows to 'normalize' their perversions. It's the liberal sleight-of-hand that casually dismisses, to children, how a boy or girl can have "two dads" or "two moms". They can't.

And so their ideologies are based on Lies—also why they need to defend them with Lies/Slander.

[Wizard22]

Liberalism, Leftism, Marxism, cannot protect the Children of Western society from sexual perversion. Just the opposite, it encourages children into it and 'normalizes' it, as-if "two Gay dads" are "completely normal". It's not normal.

Thus the point of the thread...classically, for 2000 years, "Christianity" is the force defending European Civilization (and thus Protestant America) from such smut and societal demoralization.

As Alexis put it...this is the 'Central Issue'.

[Gary Childress]

I had to backtrack to refamiliarize myself with the conversation to see what you're talking about. So Mick is incorrect in his statement that you have admitted to being a Nazi? It is not the case that you have admitted to being a Nazi. Is that correct? I suppose being offended by the accusation is a good sign.

It's a baseless smear.

I may as well call Micky a self-admitted wife beater. And if he denies, then we can assume he simply has not yet admitted to being a wife beater.

Furthermore, he ought to be able to quote me, if I'm "self admitted" anything, but he can't, because he's a little runt, running to the aid of Hairball, who's made a lot of self-demeaning and ignorant remarks, regarding the drag-time story image and "I don't know what it means" referring to the sign. It's obvious what it means. Even grade school boys know what it means. And that's the very problem—all those who desire to sexualize children or insert them into drag shows to 'normalize' their perversions. It's the liberal sleight-of-hand that casually dismisses, to children, how a boy or girl can have "two dads" or "two moms". They can't.

And so their ideologies are based on Lies—also why they need to defend them with Lies/Slander.

Shit happens in life. A child who has "two dads" or whatever, ought to feel accepted or tolerated by society too, don't you think? Put aside the "dads" for a moment. what would be the reason for ostracizing people like that?

[Wizard22]

Shit happens in life. A child who has "two dads" or whatever, ought to feel accepted or tolerated by society too, don't you think? Put aside the "dads" for a moment. what would be the reason for ostracizing people like that?

The first issue is not the gay dads; it's the abandoned child. Why do we live in a society that feels the need to abandon their children? Orphanage should be the responsibility of the local church. But since Westerners (Americans) do not have a strict, Conservative culture, instead Orphanage is usurped by the State (Leftism). This is why Americans feel the need to deliver orphaned children to...homosexuals.

At that point, it's not about the actual care and education of the orphan. It's about making a political point. It's about 'proving' how Moral, Avant Garde, Socially Just it is, for two homosexuals to raise an orphan, compared to evil white christian cis-genders!!! It's entirely a cultural battle. The presumed Holier than thou premise, is presumed by The State and by the Left.

That "two loving parents" are "just as equal" as...normal parents.

So there's a few layers here:
1. Why was the child abandoned in the first place?
2. Why did the orphan not be taken by the Church?
3. Why did the orphan not go to a 'normal' family?
4. Why would people generally presume that homosexuals make "equally" good parents?

Have you heard about the rates of sex abuse, molestation, and pedophilia when it comes to homosexual, transexuals, and all things LGBTQ+???

Iwan likes to rail and rail and rail CATHOLICISM BAD, PEDOPHILE PRIESTS BAD!!! But the numbers don't even compare... it's one-sided.

And not in favor of the Left.


There's a metaphysical difference when it comes to Sin...there are those "tolerate" it, or worse, encourage it (The Left). And there is everybody else who doesn't (The Right).

[Gary Childress]

Shit happens in life. A child who has "two dads" or whatever, ought to feel accepted or tolerated by society too, don't you think? Put aside the "dads" for a moment. what would be the reason for ostracizing people like that?

The first issue is not the gay dads; it's the abandoned child.

If the child has two dads, then s/he is not really "abandoned", is s/he? Should we not see the two dads as noble for pulling together to help the child get through life? There are foster children out there who need parents and not everyone feels qualified to make that commitment, so two dads picking up the slack, or a biological dad (who maybe isn't good companionship for the mother) finding a partner, would probably be a nice thing for them to do. Don't you think?

[Iwannaplato]

…

Your means of description was unclear. The meaning you wished to convey was better expressed in the webpage links.

And none of this seems very relevant. Bickering over these points seems a waste of our time.

It is relevant. It goes back to your saying that any organization will have the kinds of problems I was pointing out. But this is a different kind of organization, making very different kinds of claims about its role, nature and members. Once you have an organizing whose metaphysics includes the presentation of that organization to its members and the rest of the public in that way, this affects potential problems having that organization be central in society. Some this includes that its members will not consider it open to criticism in the same ways other organizations are open to criticism. That such criticism are per se false and worse, potentially evil just for challenging that organizations and those in certain roles in that organization. Should such an organization become central in power, such problems might be extreme as they have been in earlier periods in that organizations history. Given the topic this is all relevant. And even if you disagree, this is how many people will view the idea of the CC becoming central again, which was one of the issues you thought was important. Why would there be/is there resistance.

Any clarification for how you see the CC being central would give better context for me of the thread topic. Are we thinking just that the idea is that the core metaphysical idea that you think is key should be widely adopted, however it comes to people, perhaps through Hinduism or Sufism, perhaps through the CC? Or must it come through the CC? Are we thinking that the CC and thus the Vatican becomes central in Western nations and in what sense? Many people join the church and it becomes the dominant religion? Is it connected to the state?

I realize that you may mostly be looking at what is lacking now and you think we need, and your focus in own your own sense you or we need to reconnect to something as individuals - some of what you wrote in the OP. On the other hand the thread says Christian civilization and the people you tend to quote seem to have a society wide focus and how we can restore society. I'm unclear about what is being proposed/hoped for here.

[Wizard22]

If the child has two dads, then s/he is not really "abandoned", is s/he? Should we not see the two dads as noble for pulling together to help the child get through life? There are foster children out there who need parents and not everyone feels qualified to make that commitment, so two dads picking up the slack, or a biological dad (who maybe isn't good companionship for the mother) finding a partner, would probably be a nice thing for them to do. Don't you think?

Ideally, children should not be abandoned in the first place.
Ideally, orphans should go to normal homes, with husband and wife.
Ideally, orphans should go to single-parents or drug dealers, before homosexuals.

I do not believe in a Church that tolerates Homosexuality/Sin.

You are entitled to your Secular beliefs, that the State and Homosexuals are "equally" valid candidates. I disagree. I believe it does more harm than good. Leaving an orphan on a random person's doorstep might be a better choice.

[Gary Childress]

If the child has two dads, then s/he is not really "abandoned", is s/he? Should we not see the two dads as noble for pulling together to help the child get through life? There are foster children out there who need parents and not everyone feels qualified to make that commitment, so two dads picking up the slack, or a biological dad (who maybe isn't good companionship for the mother) finding a partner, would probably be a nice thing for them to do. Don't you think?

Ideally, children should not be abandoned in the first place.
Ideally, orphans should go to normal homes, with husband and wife.
Ideally, orphans should go to single-parents or drug dealers, before homosexuals.

I do not believe in a Church that tolerates Homosexuality/Sin.

You are entitled to your Secular beliefs, that the State and Homosexuals are "equally" valid candidates. I disagree. I believe it does more harm than good. Leaving an orphan on a random person's doorstep might be a better choice.

It's OK. I'm sure you can be tolerated as well as homosexuals can. What other choice do I have?

[Wizard22]

It's OK. I'm sure you can be tolerated as well as homosexuals can. What other choice do I have?

I don't care about Tolerance. I'm not a Liberal.

I saw your other thread, Gary. Man up. Peace is for women and children. Men should be in a perpetual state of war and chaos. Men *ARE* in such a state. The only peace you should covet in life, is after hard-won battles, when your body and brain can move no further.

[Gary Childress]

It's OK. I'm sure you can be tolerated as well as homosexuals can. What other choice do I have?

I don't care about Tolerance. I'm not a Liberal.

I saw your other thread, Gary. Man up. Peace is for women and children. Men should be in a perpetual state of war and chaos. Men *ARE* in such a state. The only peace you should covet in life, is after hard-won battles, when your body and brain can move no further.

Well, I'll still tolerate you, even though you're a blockhead. After all, blockheads are people too.

[Wizard22]

Well, I'll still tolerate you, even though you're a blockhead. After all, blockheads are people too.

C'mon Gary...you can do better than that.

[Gary Childress]

Well, I'll still tolerate you, even though you're a blockhead. After all, blockheads are people too.

C'mon Gary...you can do better than that.

I don't fight. And there's no reason for you to feel assaulted. As I say, blockheads are people too and therefore, I will accept you just as I accept anyone else who doesn't do real harm.

[Wizard22]

blockheads are people too

[Gary Childress]

blockheads are people too

Well, are you going to sit there and take a hit or are you going to "man-up" and fight back. Whatcha got petunia? I'm waiting.

[Gary Childress]

Crickets?