That must be very clear to anyone who lives teachings of Jesus.

Especially - 'be still and know ...'

Being still - if we have emotions , we can not be still . We would be restless.

If we are still, we know the impersonal love - the kind of love Jesus showed. Impersonal here means love for everyone (it is more than that , but this would do for now). Love for everyone means happiness and freedom for everyone. When we are free from emotions , we know our true nature - love and intelligence. We know grace. Grace is always present just like sun rays are always present always available. Even though grace is always available , we can experience it only if we remove obstacles - obstacles of emotions. As we purify our heart , we begin to receive more and more of grace. Grace is always there independent of us. All this we can experience in stillness.

We can experience objective moral values. Why not everyone experiences it with same clarity ? That kind of clarity comes from purity of heart - freedom from emotions. More pure the heart , more clarity we gain in this regard.

So second premise is correct.

First premise is wrong.

Just because we experience objective moral values, we can not draw any conclusion about nature of that which created universe - uncaused cause.

First premise is wrong.

At best it could be - if objective moral values exist , then that which created universe and everything that exists in universe including objective moral values exists. Uncaused cause exists.

At worst it would be - uncaused cause created universe and everything that exists in universe including objective moral values and after that it ceased to exist.uncaused cause was needed to cause creation and once universe was created , it was not needed any more , it ceased to exist.

first premise is wrong.

1. If God does not exist then Objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

You took my points out of context on purpose, because you have enmity towards me.

For example, <tga: the Republican Party seems more fascist to me than the Democratic Party> was a reply to <diceman>, but you removed that context.

Why? You've been chasing me around cg.com taking shots at me ever since I made you admit you were wrong in <JFQ>'s forum.

And you apparently are not above twisting my words to do so.

In case you haven't noticed, I will state it plainly: I like to offer specifics to back up my general opinions.

<Diceman> was calling out *only* the Left for fascism. I stated that I felt there was fascism from both the Left and the Right, and more on the Right.

Well, that is just an opinion, and a rather vague generalization at that.

Now we could just shout back and forth at each other <nuh uh, the Left is more fascist. nuh uh, the Right is>, and if that is the case we might as well leave this forum and go back to Rogoff with the <Winston O'Boogies> of the world.

I prefer to expound on what the heck I am talking about. So I cited a specific example, to discuss. I thought any reasonable person would see prima facie that a topic such as which side is more fascist is more suitable to be handled in book format, since it encompasses a vast area of policy and action.

So *I*, <tga>, selfishly proposed the narrow topic on which to make my point.

Not sure if the term "marriage" itself bothers religious people over there>

<Big Pawn> By now surely you've seen my reply to <tpstar> - I don't view *only* the Right as having fascist tendencies.

We can use the word "authoritarian" in place of fascist, if you like, since *fascist* can easily be over-used.

I recall Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail, speaking at Liberty University! Did you see that?

Wow, those students were NOT warm and welcoming. In fact, they were quietly hostile, IMO.

But they let him speak! They didn't disrupt, or riot, or shout him down - they listened.

Now my understanding is that Anne Coulter had to cancel a speaking engagement at a US University, due to threats of violence.

I don't get that. I want to hear opposing views. I want to have my views challenged - it forces me to sharpen my understanding of myself, and also forces me to remember that it is a two way street in politics. One side is not always right.

I will substitute the word "authoritarianism" for "fascism".

You have Republican authoritarianism in a really powerful place - the Electoral College. I will add that it was achieved in accordance with our Constitution, and so this is not a complaint. I accepted the outcome of the election the next day.

The four squirrels of President Obama's legacy are Syria, Obamacare, transgender bathrooms, and the $20 Trillion national debt.>

I want to get into this with you, but realize it is getting late.

I will not dwell this time on the teachings of Jesus but I will give a little hint of how deep the words of Jesus are. Read Mathew chapter 20 about the workers of the 11th hour.

This teaching is just so beyond the normal human mind to understand that only through the Holy Spirit is it possible to completely comprehend what at first reading appears to be simple.

You MUST know this man!!

Translated here:

https://www.counter-currents.com/20...

quick excerpts:

<"The question the US president was asking – and the one we also asked in 2010 – was this: What goal could patriotic governance have, other than to strengthen our own community, nation and country? In 2010 we Hungarians also decided that we wanted to regain our country, we wanted to regain our self-esteem, and we wanted to regain our future.">

<"If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

[Ladies and Gentlemen,]

This raises questions about the morality of nationalism. When people hear the word nationalism, they reflexively think of the swastika and Nazism. They picture Hitler with his funny little mustache, giving some speech on black-and-white film, screaming and shouting and waving his arms. Then they think of the ovens and the concentration camps.

Not sure if the term "marriage" itself bothers religious people over there, but AFAIK , legally there`s a difference btw Civil Union Status and Marriage, where the latter contemplates way more benefits (eg. Tax, medical, ss in Federal level) and is a status recognized in all states.>

In Australia, civil unions are 'de facto marriages' and have virtually the same rights as traditional marriages.

Nevertheless, advocates of 'same-sex marriage' insist that civil unions do not satisfy their demand for 'marriage equality' but without being able to provide any substantive reasons for this.

Same here on Brazil. In my country the judiciary already equated same rights to civil union for the default type of marriage. Not just for same sex marriages.

De facto marriages (e.g: a man and a woman living years together but not minded to sign the papers) contemplates most of marriage rights. And I think is fair.

<Overall I believe the arguments for amending the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples are extremely spurious if they already have de facto marriage rights.>

I agree. But in US, AFAIK, several marriage rights (especially on Federal matters) are <not> contemplated by the civil Union. Its a State affair. Legally-wise that might be a mess..

<Is this how we should think about nationalism? Is this how the critical thinker considers nationalism?>

I agree. But in US, AFAIK, several marriage rights (especially on Federal matters) are <not> contemplated by the civil Union. Its a State affair. Legally-wise that might be a mess..>

If in the US civil unions or de facto marriages are not accorded the same legal rights as traditional marriage, then that could give impetus to proponents of same-sex marriage.

However, since that is not the case in Australia, it exposes a possible hidden motivation of the radical left which may be focused upon a fundamental cultural shift.

As I said, the judiciary already are equating most of the rights. So it is not much of a political issue. Of course some few politicians are loud about it but they are mostly commies, so they care much more about form of Govern than people. :p

Overall people dont care about them as they are incompetent and corrupt. Just know how to whine (The radical left here are not half as strong as those Dems sectors on US)

The particularities of my country are different from US , were the States power (and legislation), comparing to the Federal Power are very strong and the legislation vary a lot from State to State.

Over here, is the opposite, states are almost a fiction., Independent but the laws are almost the same. The Federal Power and Supreme Court dictates almost everything on all States. Its what I call "Republicanism on Reverse".

Therefore radical sectors usually fail miserable to trow their agendas locally, in opposite of US nowadays, where liberal "communities" (and media) are almost at civil war with the conservatism sectors. And both are strong sides, maybe that where relies the danger . That increased with Trump election course as some can't stand the election results.

As for this "movement" around here, well, the lefties from Labour Party were expelled from the power for corruption. I dont see here much of whining from religious sectors about this marriage issue. After all is not a religious marriage, just a civil one, is about rights per si (testament, taxes and so forth). Fundamentalists around here are more "tolerant" . I mean , I never met an creationist in my life..heh

But the big issue here is more about race than LTGB movement. More and more quotas from all minorities and so forth.

Bear in mind here, the Christians are growing its power (protestants have more than 20% of votes usually) and the conservatism is growing.

You've heard about "institutional" racism? Liberals believe that they can correct social ills like "racism" by amending the institutions. They feel that passing laws eventually changes the way people think, because society will eventually shape the way we see different issues.

In the same way, the left is using the institutions to shape how society sees homosexuality. The reason civil unions were good enough was because it doesn't symbolize true acceptance. Yes, the liberals know that many, say half, do not accept gay marriage, but they feel that if the laws affect the institutions, then they will eventually cause most people to view homosexuality as moral.

If the moral issue of homosexuality were presented in this way, as a moral issue, then it wouldn't make any headway because the entire issue would be framed as a challenge to Christian values, and that would get people's backs up.

But, if we falsely frame it as a civil rights issue, well, then only a BIGOT or a RACIST or a FASCIST would oppose it!

And most people aren't discerning enough to see that it is not a civil rights issue, and that it is only being framed that way to shut down dissenting discussion, and that it's really an attack on Christianity.

When the pillars of Christianity are destroyed, one by one, even if it's over 100 years, then the entire society will be ripe for fundamental transformation.

Usually they dont get values from the families. Zero critical thinking, I said that before.. Learned everything on the internet. They want rights but dont do their own part. They want respect but dont respect anyone..

Political correctness is a worldwide plague, I agree <pawn>.

And plagues around here as well. Do you think me, as white and blue eyes can say something against racial or social or sexual "affirmative" quotes on facebook? People will call me elitist, racist, misogynist, Illuminati, and so forth..So they combate "intolerance" with nasty intolerance.

We are all free agents in our thoughts, and if someone wants to speak their mind they should be able to. Doesn't mean they are necessarily right, but it does mean they are exercising their right to say what they think, and accept the consequences of that - good or bad.

In Western countries we are edging closer and closer to the policing of our thoughts, and we end up stifling debate as a result.

They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.”>

http://www.antinewsnetwork.com/puti...

That's how I view it. If civil unions or de facto marriages involving same-sex couples accord virtually the same status as traditional marriage, then why are LGBTQ supporters continuing to push for an amendment to the Marriage Act unless they have an alternative agenda?

Why is it even a political issue here for example when it's not a political issue in Brazil?

<Big Pawn: The gay marriage agenda has nothing at all to do with rights. It's just framed that way to make it seem unassailable. What it's really about is acceptance.>

Yes, I think you could be correct.

<the left is using the institutions to shape how society sees homosexuality. The reason civil unions were good enough was because it doesn't symbolize true acceptance.>??

Did you mistype that?

Should it read <The reason civil unions were <NOT> good enough was because it doesn't symbolize true acceptance.>?

The radical left demand complete acceptance of homosexuality by demanding nothing less than full statutory marriage which is why civil unions and de facto marriages are rejected as being inadequate, despite the fact that they already afford full legal rights to the parties.

<most people aren't discerning enough to see that it is not a civil rights issue, and that it is only being framed that way to shut down dissenting discussion, and that it's really an attack on Christianity.>

Yes, that's why the Churches are concerned about it and continue to oppose "gay marriage".

<thegoodanarchist: ... the <JFQ> forum debate ...>

What's this infamous <<JFQ> forum debate> between you two about?

I think we are more open minded here..I mean, too much sun and beaches, nice weather.....hehe

Seriously, my only shot on that would be that the radical left (alongside LGBT groups and radical racial orgs) are tiny and dont have the strength and media insertion, comparing to US where those groups are practically mainstream, very strong, huge at big cities like NY, SF and so forth. Also the conservatives here are not usually far radicals or religious fundamentalist.

Btw, over here Christians are mostly Roman Catholics (I was raised on Jesuit school btw) so usually people here dont feel much threaten about those issues as long people dont interfere inside the church and on the dogmas.

We must stamp out “aggressive masculinity” in out lifetime!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/...

Should it read <The reason civil unions were <NOT> good enough was because it doesn't symbolize true acceptance.>?>

Yes, thanks for the correction.

***

I've cleaned up the forum and removed the posts that were mainly focused on personal stuff without substantive content about topical issues.

This way we stay on topic here. I would hope to see each post offer some insight, although I realize that not every post can do that, as sometimes there needs to be a simple response for clarification etc...