No, I agree with what you are saying…they don't want someone to tell they must make moral sacrifices. They do however, want a "ruler" who will enforce their own brand of morals (driving a hybrid, paying the eco-tax, recycling, not smoking, and more importantly, preaching to others about not doing these things). I think they are willing to sacrifice a great deal though (ex. wealthy people voting for higher taxes on themselves) in order to find favor with some leader who will actively oppose/opress their enemies. (Capitalists/business people, conservatives, Christians, etc.)

Of course, it is dillusional…just like the Cuban musician said in the video. Cubans had to hide their Santana albums in covers of government-authroized bands. Yet there is Santana himself paying homage to the man who would have sooner put him to death than to allow him on public television to play his music.

Originally Posted By CheesestickOne thing I have always thought about Christians… they desperately want a big boyfriend, brother or some kind of daddy figure to govern them.

Fixed.

Reply – Quote

jemm | Dec 12, 2008 | Reply

Yes Jemm, His name is Jesus. Christians do in fact make the claim that there is a Creator to whom we owe our life to, whose plan we must follow & be obedient to. It's liberals who claim to be different. If you had read the very next sentence after the one you so helpfully corrected, you would see I made this distinction:

they claim to be the ones who appreciate liberty & believe no one should be able to tell anyone else what to do…no one should be subservient to a higher power or belief system;

"They claim" as opposed to Christians claim…because Christians don't claim to be able to govern themselves sans any doctrine or authority.

So, my point was, we really are more a like in that way, its just that liberals are not aware that this is what they demonstrate when they pick people like Che & Mao as their fantasy savior.

I'm inclined to disagree only because having someone provide for you also necessarily includes their governing you in some way. There's plenty of wiggle room there, though.

I'm inclined to slightly disagree with Cheesestick…I think libs want someone to _provide_ for them, but not _govern_ them. It seems to me that libs want to make the rules for everybody, and that the primary requirement for those rules is that they should make everybody feel good about themselves. Anything that makes people _not_ feel good about themselves should be forbidden. Therefore, nothing should be forbidden except things that make you feel bad…you know…like failing. Bad grades. Losing a ball game. Stuff like that.

My aren't you clever with that hoary stereotype.

Originally Posted By CheesestickOne thing I have always thought about Christians… they desperately want a big boyfriend, brother or some kind of daddy figure to govern them.

Fixed.

I do not, for the life of me, understand why otherwise intelligent and decent human beings hold Che Guevara in such high esteem.

Well, for the ones who at least know what he's about, I would not suggest they are decent human beings. I think the ones who don't, perhaps they are decent but not intelligent. So they are either one or the other, but not both at the same time…LOL

I said here on a previous thread…it is becoming obvious that there is a large segment of our society that would like to see Christians crushed; and conservatives crushed. I don't think they are innocently inviting in this repression. I think they know full well what communists are capable of, they just don't think they are the ones that will get steamrolled….or gassed.