Qatari sociologist blames plastic surgery, blasphemy, homosexuals for Beirut blast in expletive-fill

[Vinayaka]

Well, apparently feminists and pagans are off the hook now.

Always those darn HO MO SEX U ALS! Or maybe the long haired hippies.

 

[eik]

I'm not a Baha'i, I'm a liberal, and nice ad-populum fallacy there.

It may ultimately be a fallacy if pushed to far, and I fully concede that I do not agree with all the tenets of Sharia law in Islam, which I obviously do not agree to be the genuine article. Yet on the other hand, to be so opposed to so much religion suggests that you may be mislabelling your preferences and objections as "right and wrong" where you should really be labelling them in terms of your political preferences.

For if you don't recognize religion, then may be the words "right and wrong" are inapposite, just an attempt to prevail over whatever is deemed of spiritual value by religion.

We should accept evil as defined by moderns who have more accumulated knowledge and reasoning than the primitive ancient men who wrote the Bible and claimed it was infallibly of God had access to.

I reject that assumption. There were many ancients whom thought like you, Ba'al worshippers who had no concept of spirituality. In fact you implicitly engage your own fallacy by pretending that as the moderns occupy the majority of today's governments, then they must be "right."

Thus in ancient times the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, were of the same essential philosophy as the moderns: i.e. that greed and liberty from religion should prevail.

Such peoples were in a sizeable majority, if the archeological evidence is anything to do by, far more numerous that the followers of Lot and Abraham etc, and later on, the Israelites who came out of Egypt. They were however all displaced by force, according to God's eternal purposes, as were many other empires which cumbled into the dust.

The moderns, being of the same heathen disposition as the ancient Canaanites and other empire builders etc, are merely contriving to overthrow the morally enlightened basis on which Christian society was founded some centuries ago.

Doesn't make the moderns right: just political opportunists. I think Christians should resist them far more.

 

[danieldemol]

It may ultimately be a fallacy if pushed to far, and I fully concede that I do not agree with all the tenets of Sharia law in Islam, which I obviously do not agree to be the genuine article. Yet on the other hand, to be so opposed to so much religion suggests that you may be mislabelling your preferences and objections as "right and wrong" where you should really be labelling them in terms of your political preferences.

For if you don't recognize religion, then may be the words "right and wrong" are inapposite, just an attempt to prevail over whatever is deemed of spiritual value by religion.

Religion is just the political preferences of the ancients.

I reject that assumption. There were many ancients whom thought like you, Ba'al worshippers who had no concept of spirituality. In fact you implicitly engage your own fallacy by pretending that as the moderns occupy the majority of today's governments, then they must be "right."

I never said that moderns occupy the majority of today's governments (many of which are right wing conservative), nor did I say they are right on the basis of being in the majority, much as you wish I did Cheesus worshipper.

Thus in ancient times the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, were of the same essential philosophy as the moderns: i.e. that greed and liberty from religion should prevail.

Modern liberals mostly reject greed, unlike certain conservative Christians.

Such peoples were in a sizeable majority, if the archeological evidence is anything to do by, far more numerous that the followers of Lot and Abraham etc, and later on, the Israelites who came out of Egypt. They were however all displaced by force, according to God's eternal purposes, as were many other empires which cumbled into the dust.

God doesn't force people out, its humans that do that to each other. If God wanted to destroy heathens Hindus and Buddhists would have been destroyed ages ago.

 

[eik]

Religion is just the political preferences of the ancients.

Not according to Christ, who refined religion somewhat to being inherently personal. Under Baha'i and Islam, it may well have reverted back to being mainly political.

I never said that moderns occupy the majority of today's governments (many of which are right wing conservative), nor did I say they are right on the basis of being in the majority, much as you wish I did Cheesus worshipper.

It's a fact that they do. The US constitution ensured that you don't have to be any kind of Christian to be a politician. You only have to look at society to realize that atheism is tolerated in all its forms.

Modern liberals mostly reject greed, unlike certain conservative Christians.

Why are the oligarchs, movie stars and large corporate CEOs mainly all liberals (and Democrats)? I think greed and liberalism are bed-fellows.

God doesn't force people out, its humans that do that to each other. If God wanted to destroy heathens Hindus and Buddhists would have been destroyed ages ago.

They have been massacred in their millions, mainly by muslims. Heathens conquering heathens is a familar theme of history. Muslims in turn were nearly annihilated by the mongols in the 13th century.

Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History | SikhNet
Persecution of Buddhists - Wikipedia.

And now, liberals want to subvert the great deist empires of the West, which at least tolerated Christianity, so as to turn them against Christianity.

 

[danieldemol]

Why are the oligarchs, movie stars and large corporate CEOs mainly all liberals (and Democrats)? I think greed and liberalism are bed-fellows.

Do you have any source for your claim that the oligarchs are democrat liberals? As for movie stars and CEOs, they are a minority of people, most liberals are not those, and even if they were being a movie star or a CEO doesn't automatically make one greedy. Personally I applaud those movie stars and CEOs who believe in paying their fair share of taxes to support social services to the needy whom certain greedy conservative Christians have failed to support sufficiently.

 

[eik]

Do you have any source for your claim that the oligarchs are democrat liberals?

No. Actually it works both ways. Each accuses the other of being beholden to oligarchs.

Warren Buffett is definitely a democrat, Bill Gates is anti-Trump, Jack Dorsey is a democrat. etc. Zuckerberg has sharply criticized President Trump's immigration policies.

From Are the wealthiest Americans Republicans, or are they Democrats? - Quora I read:

Interestingly the Democratic party as a whole skews towards the wealthy. The New York Times noted in October 2016 that in a recent poll 45% of households making over $100,000 were voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton opposed to 28% of Republicans voting for Trump. Those earning above $250,000 were even more skewed towards Hillary, with 53% planning to vote for her vs only 25% for Trump.​

As of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups.​

As for movie stars and CEOs, they are a minority of people, most liberals are not those, and even if they were being a movie star or a CEO doesn't automatically make one greedy. Personally I applaud those movie stars and CEOs who believe in paying their fair share of taxes to support social services to the needy whom certain greedy conservative Christians have failed to support sufficiently.

The republicans are certainly not above criticism. But in the main, I was trying to say that the rich and wealthy tend to be "liberal" from both a moral and a political view, and not at all religious.