Would religious people like it if we were still in the 19th century?


Do many Christians, particularly on this forum, believe that it’s a sin to live in and embrace the 21st century? I’m particular, no where else have I actually seen such strong anti-homosexual rhetoric. People here still act as if anything of modernity is sin, but they are still asking for freedom from government. People here are hard headed and I’m beginning to resent this.

If one says they support freedom from government intervention, then I logically expect them to not use strong anti-gay, anti-science rhetoric. It’s a disease.

And I can’t even title my threads correctly.


Nonsensical question and definitely trolling


Do many precocious youth grab onto the first trending outlook they come across, thinking it “the truth” because of the acceptance among their peers, never once bothering to learn or aspire to critical thinking?

Do they cloak their words in purple prose, and esteem themselves with the legitimacy to judge others, simply out of desire to be substantive and to prove that they are above those that they’ve deemed “foolish”? At the same time however, are they unwilling to go to the effort that being truly substantive demands? Leaving themselves inherently vulnerable, and incomplete? Leading them to continually verbally assault those they deem foolish, simply to reinforce the image they want of themselves?

Never realizing all the while, that all this amounts to is a shallow grave for their own self worth?


If you think ill of the people on this forum, then you should simply leave the site as opposed to making trollish posts in the religion forum.


It is not a sin to be in the world, no matter the era; the sin is to be of the world.


It may have escaped your notice, but this is an Internet discussion forum, and RO members are using computers and/or smart phones to participate. And since our folks are using electricity, I’ll bet many/most probably have electronic things such as microwaves, cordless phones, and clock radios. For that matter - this is a stretch, I know - I doubt any RO member’s home lacks indoor plumbing.

I’ve a question for you, one that is serious and more to your point. Do you “embrace” millennia-old ideas such as murder, rape, theft, and kidnapping being wrong?

Believing homosexuality is morally wrong and rejecting the idea of same-sex marriage is not hatred for homosexuals (my choice of words) or “anti-homosexual”. My church believes homosexuality is morally wrong and rejects same-sex marriage, yet has gladly participated in a charitable event whose organizers include many homosexuals, the AIDS Walk in San Jose (and not secretly).

Real people are usually vastly more complex than the labels slapped on them. Maybe you should leave off those labels and get to know the real people.

As I pointed out above, that statement is absurd.

Another straw man stereotype. With the exception of one member I haven’t seen post in many months, no one here is anywhere close to an anarchist. The people you thus label actually embrace the US Constitution, and want the US government to return to doing just those functions delineated by the USC.

People disagree with you? Believe their ideas are right? And express their disagreement in strong terms? How (YAWWWWWN) shocking! Now, look in a “mirror” … do you believe your ideas are right? Do you express your ideas strongly? And are fine with that? Apply to others the standard you apply to yourself. If you need an Internet Echo Chamber, I’m sure you could find one if you tried.

“Reasoning” from straw man arguments tends to go awry, and does here. It’s almost as if you started from a conclusion and crafted your straw men to “prove” it.

As I suggested above, in the realm of ideas modernity is not necessarily the same as good. Consider just a few of the ideas that were modern in the 20th Century:

  • Africans and Asiatics are inferior races that Caucasians would supplant;

  • Marxist Socialism would usher in workers’ paradises;

  • Being a human being is defined by the vague and flexible idea of “personhood”, rather than genetics (Are you a “person” rudolph? Can you prove it?).

Only one of those ideas has been entirely rejected, despite the misery and slaughter all three have caused.


When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, “This is a Rudolph thread.” Rudolph, you keep trying to tell us how we should think - and make assumptions about how we do think - and then you are disappointed because 1. You can’t convince us to think like you; 2. Your attempts at “gotchas” fall flat on their faces.


Of course, that “religious people” is a vague term, too; I suspect you mean Christians, but you could mean Muslims, Buddhists, Pantheists, Hindus, etc. ad infinitum.


I grew up in the 20th century and to my knowledge the Bible said the same thing it said back in the 19th century. You either believe it or you don’t. Apparently you don’t.


Rudolph, the phenomenon you observe is all too common, and not just on the right. People advocate freedom to do what they like and to espouse the causes they support, and seek to limit the freedom of those they don’t like and who espouse ideas they oppose. Very few of us, for example, want the government out of both the bedroom and the boardroom. Social conservatives are statists with respect to the former, and liberals are statists with respect to the latter. We’re all - right and left - intolerant hypocrites in our own way, because we’ve all got blinders on when it comes to other perspectives and other lifestyles.

This board does a pretty good job at keeping the conservation flowing among persons of disparate views, but even here it’s far too common to label someone first before dismissing their opinions.


Bologna - Social conservatives don’t care what homosexuals do in their bedroom.


And as far as “would we be happy living in the 19th century?” - if we lived in the 19th century, we’d know nothing of the technology we know today, so we’d never miss it. And, paraphrasing what you said, “Sin is sin, no matter who does it nor why.”

As far as living in the 19th century, although I no doubt had more creature comforts than they did then, I grew up with outdoor “plumbing,” no central heat, no refrigeration, not even an ice box, and I even experienced having to wash clothes by hand. And ironed with a flat iron that had a detachable handle - we had several, and they would be sitting on top of the coal cook stove, and when the one you were using got too cool, you put it back on the stove, and picked up another one with the handle. Our old handle broke, and the new handle was inferior, and a piece broke from the lever that held the handle in place on the iron, so you had to iron holding the lever in place to keep the iron from falling off.


What’s right in 2015 was right in 1815 and will still be right in 2215.


Oh, and back in those “pre-tech” days I mentioned, people had moral values and respected God and Christianity even if they didn’t attend church.


The problem with the homosexuals is that they are taking it out of the bedroom and into the public streets, and demanding that everyone else not only accept it as normal, but celebrate it.


The country was founded on Christian/Judeo values. According to our forefathers, America’s form of government cannot survive without it. The left wants something else to take it’s place.

*“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” * John Adams


Yeah, I have often said that is why we actually need more laws to keep the people in line, because they no longer have a moral compass. I don’t mean all these laws and court actions that are meant to absolutely control people - but they are inevitable in a society where moral values have been tossed away like so much rubbish.

Edit: And whenever I say that, I usually get accused of being a statist.


I understand what your saying, but unfortunately our legal system has been turned on it’s head. The laws that are supposed to protect your rights are often twisted and used against you. I think we need fewer and more exact laws that are enforced in a consistent manner across the board.

I saw this happen in tax law when I worked for a CPA. A client would have a tax situation and all you had to do was go to case law. You would find where in one case the IRS went in favor or the tax payer and in another case, in almost the same exact circumstances, it would go against them.


Bologna. A demand for equal rights/equal protection is a not a demand for “celebration”. But such a charge does provide bigots with an excuse for their un-Christian behavior.


My religion tells me that that homosexuality is wrong. Guess that makes me a bigot. Can’t fix stupid.