John tells us in the previous chapter that Satan, that old serpent, is the Dragon that he speaks of, but does not give us such a direct explanation of who or what the two beasts are. He does make it clear, however that it's Satan that gives the beasts power to wage war against the human race. So why is he able to attribute visions of the dragon to Satan? It's likely that while staying on the isle of Patmos, John has been contemplating deeply the questions of sinful human nature; lust, evil, greed and the like. Perhaps John immediately understood that his visions of a Dragon was a representation of Satan, and Satan being a representation of our sinful human nature. But, What of the two beasts; The first from the sea, the other from the land? What could they possibly be representations of? Of course they could only be the figments of a wild imagination and it may just be that there is no true meaning behind them. (yes, I heard you Piehole) That's of course the easiest answer. But let's remain open and consider what other things may have been on John's mind, which may have lead him to have visions of the beasts. Besides ole Satan and sin, What or Who else was considered an enemy of God, and the Church? What was considered to be heresy even more so than opposing religious beliefs? What was it that seemed to repeatedly turn the Church on it's head, time and time again; always forcing the Church to re-evaluate its doctrines and yield to its advances? I believe it may have been Scientific Knowledge (that old forbidden fruit) that John had been meditating on the isle of Patmos. Could this be the first Beast from the sea? Scientific knowledge has been referred to as an "sea" of knowledge, Has it not?
Try to see it from a concerned parent's point of view. Of course you don't want your child to go out on the street where someone is able to peddle him a gay nude magazine full of articles sensationalizing the sexual life of powerful gays. But on the other hand, Would you want to be thrown in prison simply because you wanted your son to have some literature that responsibly discusses the issues of homosexuality? Children should be taught what is appropriate sexuality, but also to have compassion for others who may be struggling with their own sexuality. What if you had a difficult time communicating with your child about such a subject, as many parents do with theirs? Wouldn't you want the freedom to be able to hand your son a pamphlet or book, that was responsibly written, explaining some of the reasons in which people may be gay? Can you imagine being gay, and no matter how much you tried to repent; no matter how much therapy you were under going; you still couldn't help but have sexual feelings for others of your sex? Would you not want others to hear and have a chance to understand your side of the story? Let's imagine what happens if children are only taught what you teach; which is that homosexuality is just wrong - end of subject. You show them the page in the bible which says it's wrong, and then you close the book as well as their minds to the matter. It's conceivable that these kids, most of them, will probably grow up quite normally in your eyes, with boys and girls dating one another. But, What happens if a few of those kids just couldn't understand your rules, and decided to follow their homosexual tendencies? What will all of the "normal" kids think of these freaks? How will they deal with them? From Who will they they learn to have any compassion for their gay peers, when all they have learned from you is that being gay is wrong- end of story? Is it inconceivable that some of these "normal" kids may decide to enforce the rules that you have set forth, by punishing these freaks who like to wear lipstick and kiss other boys? If enough violence were to occur to these gay kids, Would this eventually solve your problem of having gays in our society? You've shared your views that you see it as only immoral, and have quoted from your bible as an example of why same sex is wrong. Consider it from the standpoint of an atheist- Imagine Piehole reading passages from the book of Romans which say, "men were having sex with other men". Now imagine that Piehole puts down the bible, and picks up a dime store novel. On one of the pages he reads "Jason and Steven were in the bathroom having sex". From his non-religious point of view, How is one book any different the other, in regards to homosexual content? There are other books which talk about the issues of homosexuality in more depth than the bible. Will these books be considered homosexual materials(gay propaganda)? Where is the line drawn which distinguishes educational guidance from manipulative propaganda and pornography? You have disclosed that you do not know exactly what materials have been banned, or even What the "anti-gay" legislation is. So how is it you can say the Russians are right, and others are wrong? You are forming your views based on nothing other than ignorance, headlines and prejudice. Would it not be prudent to acquire more pertinent information before patting those commies on the back, and frowning upon others for disagreeing with them? Since your bible discusses homosexuality, Do you think the Russians might consider this to be homosexual materials? What if their laws banned sales of the bible to kids under 16 due to the homosexual content within? Would they still your moral champions? The Russians have had a long history of oppression by imposing laws which only serve to keep its people ignorant. But then again, so has America, which is probably why we're having this discussion...
Let's not derail the thread with your fantasies, k Lucy? Besides, I've already claimed ignorance on the matter. I was merely pointing out that Fhool doesn't know what he's talking about either.
I don't recall saying anything like "assault rifle deaths equal all semi auto firearm deaths", so I'm curious as to how you can say I thought it. I'd guess it's more likely that you've misconstrued my words, thereby creating for yourself an illusionary platform upon which you can base your arguments.
This is the old leftist marginalize the opposition before you go in and your favored interest group. This is a very common leftist tactic we have seen in magazines like slate many times. Stay tuned for the second part....
This is a very well written example of how to take a perfectly good rule or law and make it seem unfair. I have seen stuff like this from defense attorneys and leftists for years. Its almost a template. When the law is on your side argue the law, when the facts are on your side argue the facts... when neither is on your side make up a bunch of stuff and pound the table. Here we have someone pounding the table for what is really an absolutely ridiculous argument (which could only be supported by those with a radical agenda). If you think your son is gay and you argue therefore you should have a right to give you son gay porn so as to not restrict your right to give him a booklet... I think we know where the source of that kids problems started. (note, I sure hope a concerned parent would do more than give his kid a booklet. ) By the way the issue that is not discussed is the fact that that this is all cultural choices and when the majority can decide things for the minority. I am sure the same story could be written about supporting the rights of those who disgusted by gay sex or polygamy or pedophiles or future terrorists any other group which is not the majority one at the moment. The majority does not have tolerate porn for kids if it chooses not to. There is no fundamental right to sexualize a kid in our culture... nor should there be.
Your ability to build traps purely for your own entanglement is of the highest skill. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=277777&perpage=6&pagenumber=16