Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

That's not to say you are not articulate and thoughtful about some things, and that you don't make good points. Your views represent a large slice of America today, and it's good to have them represented on this forum. That's why though I disagree with you about almost everything, I would not put you on ignore (as I do JDGlick), even if you put me there. But when your arguments fail to convince, or are disproven, you simply resort to restating your views; eventually you can no longer engage.

This coming from someone who bases his views on astrology.

I can't remember the last time I've had any argument disproven here. I have had Boomers repeatedly post mile-long responses and then declare that they've disproven my argument, when they haven't. At some point, there is no reason to even try to engage them in conversation.

It's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

Originally Posted by Weave

Latest Gallup matchup Romney 50% Obama 46%. This is during the very nasty primary among Republicans. With gas prices shooting up and putting the kabosh on any growth or recovery this could turn into a Reagan 1980 type victory for Romney....


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Ro...ationally.aspx

That is the outlier poll right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from one poll. Obama will win, according to my astrological crystal ball. Remember that in November!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But it's well to remember that, to some extent, we need our enemies. Without them we have no game of life. We don't know who we are, and no challenges are ever taken up.

That is one of the most revealing statements that's been made here in a long time. And it really gets to the heart of Boomers, and the left. Their entire world view is based on having enemies to fight. They don't see others as fellow human beings. They see them as either allies or enemies. Allies are to be supported no matter what they do, enemies are to be treated like vermin and exterminated.

Your crystal ball was wrong in 2010....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

YOu want enough wiggle room to wiggle out of the theory.

You can't just look at Xers. If anything, the previous 4T and 1T were too short for the cycle as a whole. If the saeculum and generation lengths stay the same, then events have adjusted, with the result that the 3T this cycle was longer: 1984-2008. Sometimes events (and the planets btw) shift the timing of turnings a bit, but the overall cycle stays at 80-plus years.

Polls I have seen (including here) say that 2008 seriously affected most people, but 9-11 very few. 9-11 was a spectacular disaster, and some people here are hypnotized by that to think it was the catalyst for a 4T. Other than it being a big event, there is no basis for that idea.

Rallying around a president has nothing to do with a 4T. There was simply no commitment to the wars, by Bush or by the people, and they had nothing to do with a threat to the United States. It was simply business as usual.

Says who? They knocked Boomers constantly, as most people here do.

Internal division is indeed a primary feature of this 4T, but the main focus of that division now is whether the government should deal with social, economic and environmental problems or not. The culture and foreign policy divides are still there too, but they are not the main issue right now. The culture wars dominated the 3T (which was given that title), and the foreign policy divide dominated the 2T. The divide itself must be dealt with later in this 4T, and will be decided somehow in the mid-2020s.

If internal division is a primary feature of the 4T, as you say, then it follows that a foreign policy challenge like 9-11 cannot be the catalyst for it.

No, it just proves Xers are more right-wing. They are the Tea Party crowd that took over in 2010. They may be shoved right back out of office again, and that will happen if the people decide to have any sense at all. Liberal Boomers like Grayson will come right back in. And maybe some liberal Xers too.

In an effort to restore some thread discipline I'm moving to my favorite Book and Theories of History thread. . .

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This coming from someone who bases his views on astrology.

So what?

I don't base all my views on it; just some. I just use it when it is helpful. It is not surprising you don't agree with me on astrology. We don't agree on virtually anything; why should that be any different?

I can't remember the last time I've had any argument disproven here.

But everyone else probably can.

I have had Boomers repeatedly post mile-long responses and then declare that they've disproven my argument, when they haven't. At some point, there is no reason to even try to engage them in conversation.

Because they have, and you don't want to face it.

It's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

touche.
What religion do I believe in?

(don't bother to say the a word)

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm a Christian, and I'm not at all offended by what he's saying. If he's anti-anything, he's anti-misogyny.

You've made it clear in the past that you don't believe, and you have very left wing political views, so you're ok. Clearly, you're permissible.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hardly. Evangelical, fundamental Christianity is deeply embedded in small town and small-city America. People don't shift their beliefs that easily. The dream will persist through this saeculum and beyond; it just won't be realized.

I believe you may be correct. I've experienced many who were at one time starting to see the light pertaining to their hard right religious ideas. Now it appears that they are being *shamed* back into line with some of this hard core fundamentalism. Maybe it will get much worse before it gets better?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But everyone else probably can.

Sure.

Because they have, and you don't want to face it.

Uh huh.

touche.
What religion do I believe in?

(don't bother to say the a word)

For people on the left with no religion, political ideology is their religion.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I believe you may be correct. I've experienced many who were at one time starting to see the light pertaining to their hard right religious ideas. Now it appears that they are being *shamed* back into line with some of this hard core fundamentalism. Maybe it will get much worse before it gets better?

This is a serious question. Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you respect the rights of others to believe what they believe, and to freely practice their faith? Because most of what comes from the mouths of the anti-Christian left makes it sound like the answer to those questions is no. It certainly appears that the left considers genuine religious faith to be a disqualifier not only for public office, but for public speech. It seems clear that while the left is vehemently opposed to any hint of religion being imposed on those who don't want it, they have no problem whatsoever imposing no religion on people of faith.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You've made it clear in the past that you don't believe, and you have very left wing political views, so you're ok. Clearly, you're permissible.

I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That makes me a Christian. One can be both Christian and left wing.

And "clearly I'm permissible?" Who died and gave you the authority to make that pronouncement?

Dude, you are projecting your own biases against Boomers to such a high level that you have become your own worst caricature of them.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That makes me a Christian. One can be both Christian and left wing.

And "clearly I'm permissible?" Who died and gave you the authority to make that pronouncement?

Dude, you are projecting your own biases against Boomers to such a high level that you have become your own worst caricature of them.

I'm saying you're permissible to them. Therefore I wouldn't expect you to be offended.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is a serious question. Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you respect the rights of others to believe what they believe, and to freely practice their faith? Because most of what comes from the mouths of the anti-Christian left makes it sound like the answer to those questions is no. It certainly appears that the left considers genuine religious faith to be a disqualifier not only for public office, but for public speech. It seems clear that while the left is vehemently opposed to any hint of religion being imposed on those who don't want it, they have no problem whatsoever imposing no religion on people of faith.

Maybe I need to clarify myself when it comes to freedom of religion. Your correct in the sense that I don't want religion imposed on me. However, I do respect most religion. I really do believe that we need to keep our religious views out of politics and government out of religion. Separation of church as state, so to speak.

My concern with Santorum is that he appears to be more behind a pulpit than at a mic in a political campaign. That concerns me greatly should he even have the slightest chance at being president.

I am a Christian but not in the sense of taking the bible literally or imposing a human made doctrine on anyone else. In fact, I see way too much human interpretation that has led to much violence. Gandhi even indicated that he loves our message of Jesus but most Christians really don't live it.

Here's a video from the show "The West Wing" that may clarify a bit better in what I mean when it comes to interpreting the bible for others.

The West Wing - Bible Lesson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=S1-ip47WYWc

Originally Posted by Deb C

I really do believe that we need to keep our religious views out of politics

What does that mean, in practice? If I believe murder should be illegal because of the Bible, does that mean my view is invalid? Does that mean it should be made legal because it can be arrived at through religious faith? How do you plan to read someone's mind and determine whether their point of view is motivated by religion? Are you saying that people holding public office should not have freedom of speech when it comes to the subject of religion? If a politician says something like the things Rick Santorum has said, should he be impeached and removed from office?

and government out of religion.

Then I assume you oppose the Obama Administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, which goes against their beliefs? For the record, I'm not a Catholic and I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception, but I oppose the government's actions, which I believe violate the First Amendment.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What does that mean, in practice? If I believe murder should be illegal because of the Bible, does that mean my view is invalid? Does that mean it should be made legal because it can be arrived at through religious faith?

Capital punishment (the taking of a human life) was certainly sanctioned in Biblical times and justified on religious grounds. I oppose this practice on both spiritual and secular grounds. Spiritual -- in that we debase ourselves by strapping someone down on a gurney and injecting poison into their veins. Secular -- in that capital punishment is not worth the legal costs, nor does it successfully deter crime.

How do you plan to read someone's mind and determine whether their point of view is motivated by religion? Are you saying that people holding public office should not have freedom of speech when it comes to the subject of religion? If a politician says something like the things Rick Santorum has said, should he be impeached and removed from office?

No, he should be countered with other arguments. His misogyny should be confronted for what it is. Santorum's Catholicism is selective. He apparently has no trouble with torture or with pre-emptive war, both which go against Catholic teachings. But notice how the church hierarchy isn't going after him for those positions. Doesn't that tell you how much misogyny is at the core of what's important to them?

Then I assume you oppose the Obama Administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, which goes against their beliefs? For the record, I'm not a Catholic and I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception, but I oppose the government's actions, which I believe violate the First Amendment.

So I assume you opposed what the Bush Administration did to detainees in the Middle East? Those were your tax dollars at work violating not only Catholic teachings in particular but also Christian teaching in general, along with the basic tenets of all major religions.

Originally Posted by Weave

Your crystal ball was wrong in 2010....

I thought I corrected you on that; you missed my post I guess...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That is one of the most revealing statements that's been made here in a long time. And it really gets to the heart of Boomers, and the left. Their entire world view is based on having enemies to fight. They don't see others as fellow human beings. They see them as either allies or enemies. Allies are to be supported no matter what they do, enemies are to be treated like vermin and exterminated.

No, my point was exactly the opposite; you need your enemies, so you can't exterminate them. As Jesus said, love your enemies.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is a serious question. Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you respect the rights of others to believe what they believe, and to freely practice their faith? Because most of what comes from the mouths of the anti-Christian left makes it sound like the answer to those questions is no. It certainly appears that the left considers genuine religious faith to be a disqualifier not only for public office, but for public speech. It seems clear that while the left is vehemently opposed to any hint of religion being imposed on those who don't want it, they have no problem whatsoever imposing no religion on people of faith.

Your response to Child of Socrates proves that if people don't have an evangelical or fundamentalist view of "faith" and "religion" like you do, then they aren't religious. You are projecting your own tendencies onto us.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Then I assume you oppose the Obama Administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, which goes against their beliefs? For the record, I'm not a Catholic and I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception, but I oppose the government's actions, which I believe violate the First Amendment.

So I assume you opposed what the Bush Administration did to detainees in the Middle East? Those were your tax dollars at work violating not only Catholic teachings in particular but also Christian teaching in general, along with the basic tenets of all major religions.

Let's be fair...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade.
...In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

...Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex...

Best...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

That's not to say you are not articulate and thoughtful about some things, and that you don't make good points. You do. Your views represent a large slice of America today, and it's good to have them represented on this forum. That's why though I disagree with you about almost everything, I would not put you on ignore (as I do JDGlick), even if you put me there. But when your arguments fail to convince, or are disproven, you simply resort to restating your views; eventually you can no longer engage.

A New Ager telling a Fundy he is deaf to reason? The Irony!!!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your response to Child of Socrates proves that if people don't have an evangelical or fundamentalist view of "faith" and "religion" like you do, then they aren't religious. You are projecting your own tendencies onto us.

Nope, but I don't want to get into that subject again. It's her business, and we've already discussed what there is to discuss about it in the past.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What does that mean, in practice? If I believe murder should be illegal because of the Bible, does that mean my view is invalid? Does that mean it should be made legal because it can be arrived at through religious faith? How do you plan to read someone's mind and determine whether their point of view is motivated by religion? Are you saying that people holding public office should not have freedom of speech when it comes to the subject of religion? If a politician says something like the things Rick Santorum has said, should he be impeached and removed from office?



Then I assume you oppose the Obama Administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, which goes against their beliefs? For the record, I'm not a Catholic and I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception, but I oppose the government's actions, which I believe violate the First Amendment.

I don't need a religious book to tell me that murder is wrong. If fear of going to Hell is the only thing keeping you from killing, raping, stealing, and defrauding then you have problems and you are NOT a moral person, you are a selfish person afraid of punishment.

Apparently there is a disgusting anti-Girl Scout meme spreading among the Right after a Indiana state legislator called them the "Propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood".

This whole contraception thing has really brought the misogynist ***holes out from under their rocks.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How many anomalous, shortened turnings can a theory sustain? The authors said generations were 20 or 21 years long, and saecula were 80-plus years long. Shortening these things is a new theory.

They also said the saeculum used to be about one hundred years long. Just sayin.

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't need a religious book to tell me that murder is wrong. If fear of going to Hell is the only thing keeping you from killing, raping, stealing, and defrauding then you have problems and you are NOT a moral person, you are a selfish person afraid of punishment.

You have to remember you come from context of a somewhat religious society so some values are instilled in you. Plus you might need a religious book or rule to "know" something is objectively wrong, but someone else might. I would say even the atheist has a god given sense of right and wrong. Some distort is religious and nonreligious alike.

JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong. Whether or not I murder someone because just two possible events that can happen. It is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all no that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.