And it allowed a stupid “Paula” to make a stupid and worthless comment:
“This makes as much sense as anything in the bible.”
What did I say?:
“A silly legend. I’ll stick with my eternal God who made and rules the omniverse and will one day bring salvation to all those who loved truth, justice and mercy, and eternal sorrow and destruction to those who hated or ignored it in their addiction to pleasure, or pride or concern more for their own temporary life than God’s eternal will, which if followed, brings eternal contentment and joy.
@Paula “This makes as much sense as anything in the bible.” said the religious ignoramus who couldn’t figure out what
Don’t make or worship imaginary gods:
Don’t use the name Yahweh in vain
Remember the sabbath, that God made the universe in five days and rested on the sixth,
Don’t bear false testimony,
Don’t commit adultery,
Honor your parents,
Don’t covet what belongs to your neighbor,
The Lord your God is one, love him with all your heart and mind,
Love your neighbor as yourself,
Do to others as you would have them do to you,
Oh, so nonsensical Paula. Truly the nonsensical ones are people like you, who hatefully parrot, who smugly make attacks because it merely feels good. Evil is what you are for denying what is clearly sensible and obviously good.
Now do tell us queen Paula what is your list of good to compare to the one God gave us more than 2000 years ago Miss “I Invented The Real Wheel, Ignore That Thing Over there Which The World Has Been Using and Advancing With for 2000 Years”? You are blinded by Satan and love ignorance.”
Will the liberal, atheist Smithsonian allow my comments? According to smug liberals, they are fair and tolerant of all religions and of all religions too, except to those which say homosexuality is wrong (and why just that, I imagine because it reflects their thought that perversion is a holy and sacred thing, and is one of those things which expresses their deepest hatred of God).
Find out at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Legend-of-Jesus-in-Japan-183833821.html
(Continued from the previous post):
In order of what seemed to be most relevant (in my opinion):
According to “The New Liberalism” “liberalism was strategically misrepresented libertinism” by unnamed persons, so for all anyone knows this is just a delusion or lie by the writer who himself recognizes a real connection.
According to “The New Revolution: Libertine Liberal vs Classic Liberal”:
There is a difference between “liberal” and “libertine”. We have, in the course of many social revolutions, struggled to define that line with varying degrees of success. “Libertine” behavior has and will always be looked upon askance because the connotation of “libertine” means the breakdown of society and the breakdown of society has not always been for the good of society. “Libertine” is to be free, not only in thought and expression, but from morality and societal norms. “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.
Therein lies our problem with modern day definition of the term “liberal”. Somewhere around 1967 the term “liberal” became confused with the “libertine” revolution of the counter culture. While the movement began in the grandest of idealism of freedom and equality for minorities, retaining its “liberal” idealism for a time, it quickly slipped its anchorage and drifted resolutely towards the “libertine”.
My thoughts on “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.” is that it sounds like to me, “Liberalism is libertinism only with the attempt to justify it using morals” which is an obvious contradiction. It seems analogous to me like saying (without the pretentious “idealism” word), “Liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think whatever you feel like without being punished, and studying how to justify this belief using current (Christian?) morals or believing that they are (for what reason?)”. Therefore, liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think (what about “and feel”?) whatever you want to, from abusing and raping, torturing and murdering for fun, to imagine and express with delight abusing kids and the destruction of all moral beings with the justification for doing so with (Christian?) morality. This is obviously a contradictory belief system, just like Hinduism with it’s original practices of widow-burning and ritualistic murder of strangers/travelers yet claiming that it’s about enlightening yourself by avoiding “evil”, and not saying what “evil” is.
Strangely, Wikipedia (which says a libertine is a person without morals) has a hidden key phrase on its libertinism entry: “Classical liberalism”. Being that Wikipedia is controlled by liberals (the head being the liberal and atheist Jimmy/Jimbo Wales (who also apparently has narcissism disorder), it’s obvious to me why they would hide saying that liberalism was based on immorality. Why they would hide the phrase though, is something I don’t understand, though I can imagine a demon was mocking God in a connivingly and malicious way, by possessing someone and getting them to place that hint. I tried to see if the phrase was simply an outdated Google result by looking at Google’s cache, but found nothing. The Classical Liberalism entry also makes no connection. The only page in which the two are mentioned together is the Individualism page (which by the way is worded pretentiously and not something a “lay person” could easily understand).
Side note: To my surprise I found out that John Calvin had interacted with and spoke against “libertines” (1)(2)(3), surprised because that man figures prominently in my life, and just didn’t think it would have anything to do with him.
The sad thing is is that “libertine” would best have been associated with Christianity, especially Catholics who became true Christians after being freed from Roman Catholicism, but “freethinkers” (many of whom seem to be atheists) messed that up, just like they did with the words “free”, “liberal*”, “science” and “skeptic” (1)(2). They also try to do this with logical fallacies (which has to do with philosophy). The only atheist I can think of who made a decent contribution to any of these fields is Bertrand Russel for philosophy and Tesla for electronics and engineering. Mark Twain contributed to humor.
*The link to the word liberal (above) links to a blog on the ancient meaning of the word liberal and uses a certain word for a certain male private part that some may consider offensive.
Why ‘sophisticated’ cavemen were not so different to us
from the DailyMail.co.uk
Cavemen were far more sophisticated than their dimwitted reputation suggests, a leading archaeologist claims.
Professor John J Shea says evidence of early humans’ weapons, symbols and burials 195,000 years ago shows they had more in common with us than we like to think.
He claims Homo sapiens emerged all at once, ‘not as modern-looking people first and as a modern-behaving people later.’
Professor Shea, of Stony Brook University, New York, started researching ‘behavioral variability’ in 2002 after excavating a 195,000-year-old site in Ethiopia.
‘Nothing about the stone tools … struck me as archaic or primitive,’ he wrote in his article, Refuting a Myth About Human Origins, published by American Scientist magazine.
‘We need to discard an incorrect and outdated idea about human evolution, the belief that prehistoric Homo sapiens can be divided into “archaic” and “modern” humans.’ [NO: YAH THINK?] You’re about 6,500 years late. Anti-Christians sure are stubborn. You tell them 34,000,000 times God made us intelligent from the start, 6,500 years ago, show them the evidence in every direction they look, and after 34,000,000 years of ignoring that they finally evolve to say, “Eureka! We just found out our fathers weren’t as stupid as we thought!” Why not just say, “Nanny nanny boo boo we can’t hear you, oh look what we found, all on our own, but ur still wrong, and we’re still right, we’re the scientists, ur not, hahaha.”? It’s not like your followers would reject that either, being that they deeply hate God and his children (meaning: those he loves). And how interesting: Only 34 people commented on that article and it’s already been a day. Just goes to show how resistant evolutionists are to truth, even when their science leaders give a sliver of it to them. You’re turned people into monsters you Mainstreamers. That includes you news propagandists and hate-profiteers who support them, like Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, National Geographic, Livescience, Sciencedaily, Physorg, Discovery Networks, the BBC, Scientific American, Discover Magazine, Popular Science, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Greenpeace and countless other myth machines.
Liberal ”Science Writer” Alicia Chang and Liberal Sociologist Peggy Giordano Suggests Teen Sex to Reduce Stress
Liberal ”science writer” Alicia Chang and some liberal sociologist named Peggy Giordano suggest “teen sex to reduce stress”, not the eternal peace that God offers or the relief in stress that results in obeying him, in other words, they suggest what God describes as one of the worst kinds of rebellion to relieve stress: fornication:
Teen Sex Not Always Bad For Grades
Committed Relationships Won’t Impact Performance
by Alicia Chang, an “AP science writer”
LOS ANGELES — There’s good news for parents who worry that their teenagers’ sex lives are affecting their school performance: A provocative new study has found that teens in committed relationships do no better or worse in school than those who don’t have sex.
The same isn’t true for teens who “hook up.” Researchers found that those who have casual flings get lower grades and have more school-related problems compared with those who abstain.
The findings, presented Sunday at a meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta, challenge to some extent assumptions that sexually active teens tend to do poorer in school.
It’s not so much whether a teen has sex that determines academic success, the researchers say, but the type of sexual relationship they’re engaged in. Teens in serious relationships may find social and emotional support in their sex partners, reducing their anxiety and stress levels in life and in school.
“This should give some comfort to parents who may be concerned that their teenage son or daughter is dating,” said sociologist Peggy Giordano of Bowling Green State University, who had no role in the research. Teen sex is “not going to derail their educational trajectories,” she said. [More here]
Wow, how stupid: So parents don’t have to worry about grades if their teens have sex, well then teens should have sex! WHICH IS IT MORON: THEY DON’T HAVE TO WORRY IF THEY ARE IN A “SERIOUS” RELATIONSHIP OR IF THEY ARE HAVING SEX? WEASEL? CAN YOU BE CONSISTENT? And besides you talking like God’s word does not matter, which says not to have sex before marriage, not even to act sensual towards ANYONE before marriage, do yah think it might matter if the female gets pregnant? Are you stupid Alicia and to whomever reposted her liberal propaganda rant without speaking out against it? Parents not being worrying or control obsessed while not allowing their kids to do just whatever feels good, and their kids finding a good friend or friends, and a massager can also reduce stress; you don’t need to permit your kid to have sex before they are married for them to relieve stress.