TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

RE: Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization

apple · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
I understand that there is great debate over the "separation of church and State". Surely over the last 200 years your Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state which protects every religion equally.
Is one religion more acceptable to be included in government decisions?

The Supreme Court doesn't "shape" the constitution, at least they are not supposed to.

As as to your last question--yes. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Do you want a system of government that doesn't respect freedom and individual rights?
I enjoy a government that respects everyone's right to practice their own religion yet maintains a system where religious beliefs are not "forced" on anyone.
Is that hateful?
And that is the system we have--why would you want to change that?
Other religions do NOT have the same sort of ideals when it comes to government.

Islam can be openly practiced in nearly all Christian nations. Christianity and other religions cannot be openly practiced in nearly all Muslim nations.
Is it? Do your publicly funded schools pray or study the bible?
No, that's the point. Other religions are not nearly so tolerant when they influence the government.
So Christianity is not practiced in your public schools. Are any other religions practiced in public schools? What do you mean by other religions influence on government?
Other governments. Do you think people have the same freedoms in Saudi Arabia or Iran that they do here? What religion has influenced those governments? What do you think that religion would do here if they had such influence?
I'm just asking because we don't have this sort of battle going on here (Canada) that I am aware of. There are so many religions in America today, I think it is probably best to keep religion and state separate. It seems to work here.
Maybe people should have the right to be free from religion. (not aiming this at any one religion).

Wow. You think your form of government just popped up yesterday????

No. EVERY government in the Western World has been heavily influenced by Christianity. That IS the status quo. Saying that all, or even no, religions should have influence on government means you want to change that form of government.
Has been.WAS the status quo. insofar as Canada.

Times they are a changing. Isn't if fair and equitable to let the people (citizens) speak and have their voices heard? Apparently the VAST majority of Americans identify as Christians, so why are they not being heard in America?

Wow. Such ignorance of history. Your government didn't pop into existence yesterday.

I am talking about now and I am very aware of history. You didn't answer my question. Apparently the VAST majority of Americans identify as Christians, so why are they not being heard in America?

Ohfour · Hooker

What makes you think they aren't?

Cheerios4606 · Guru

They are drowned out by those that want Freedom FROM Religion.

apple · Guru

Shouldn't the majority rule? Is that not the basis of democracy? Oh wait...are you a democracy? There seems to be some debate there as well.

Cheerios4606 · Guru

No. We are not a democracy. There ARE certain inherent rules that have been put into place that insists some decorum of standard regardless of what the popular majority decides. Although that is quickly changing now a days. :\

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Shouldn't the majority rule? Is that not the basis of democracy? Oh wait...are you a democracy? There seems to be some debate there as well.

We are a democratic republic. If we were a pure democracy, the majority vote would rule on everything, with no regard to protected "rights". This would be a whole different country.

huskerbb · Guru

apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
apple wrote:
I understand that there is great debate over the "separation of church and State". Surely over the last 200 years your Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state which protects every religion equally.
Is one religion more acceptable to be included in government decisions?

The Supreme Court doesn't "shape" the constitution, at least they are not supposed to.

As as to your last question--yes. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Do you want a system of government that doesn't respect freedom and individual rights?
I enjoy a government that respects everyone's right to practice their own religion yet maintains a system where religious beliefs are not "forced" on anyone.
Is that hateful?
And that is the system we have--why would you want to change that?
Other religions do NOT have the same sort of ideals when it comes to government.

Islam can be openly practiced in nearly all Christian nations. Christianity and other religions cannot be openly practiced in nearly all Muslim nations.
Is it? Do your publicly funded schools pray or study the bible?
No, that's the point. Other religions are not nearly so tolerant when they influence the government.
So Christianity is not practiced in your public schools. Are any other religions practiced in public schools? What do you mean by other religions influence on government?
Other governments. Do you think people have the same freedoms in Saudi Arabia or Iran that they do here? What religion has influenced those governments? What do you think that religion would do here if they had such influence?
I'm just asking because we don't have this sort of battle going on here (Canada) that I am aware of. There are so many religions in America today, I think it is probably best to keep religion and state separate. It seems to work here.
Maybe people should have the right to be free from religion. (not aiming this at any one religion).

Wow. You think your form of government just popped up yesterday????

No. EVERY government in the Western World has been heavily influenced by Christianity. That IS the status quo. Saying that all, or even no, religions should have influence on government means you want to change that form of government.
Has been.WAS the status quo. insofar as Canada.

Times they are a changing. Isn't if fair and equitable to let the people (citizens) speak and have their voices heard? Apparently the VAST majority of Americans identify as Christians, so why are they not being heard in America?

Wow. Such ignorance of history. Your government didn't pop into existence yesterday.
I am talking about now and I am very aware of history. You didn't answer my question. Apparently the VAST majority of Americans identify as Christians, so why are they not being heard in America?

Again, your form of government and the rights you enjoy didn't pop into existence "now". You seem to be wholly oblivious of history.

beyond that, Christianity has LONG "been heard". It has long influenced many laws. Obviously, given the success of gay marriage, abortion, etc...--it doesn't have the same influence it used to, but without it, the very core freedoms we cherish would likely not exist.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Geez people. What that means is that the government cannot be involved in religion, not that religion cannot be involved in government. Why it that so hard to understand?
- Ohfour

___________________________________

What it means is that neither can government be involved in religion, nor can religion be involved in government.

"shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" covers the "religion will stay out of government" part and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" covers the "government will stay out of religion" part.

Why is that so hard to understand?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

WYSIWYG wrote:
Geez people. What that means is that the government cannot be involved in religion, not that religion cannot be involved in government. Why it that so hard to understand?
- Ohfour

___________________________________

What it means is that neither can government be involved in religion, nor can religion be involved in government.

"shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" covers the "religion will stay out of government" part and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" covers the "government will stay out of religion" part.

Why is that so hard to understand?

flan

WYSIWYG · Guru

No, they are not. Look at the Muslim tenets of faith regarding Jihad, or honor killings.

Beyond that, it isn't just about murder or robbery. It's about such things as women's rights, or even gay rights. the freedom to complain about the government. The freedom to dress how you want to in most situations.
- huskerbb

____________________________________

I did say "tenets of most faiths". "most" being the operative word. Obviously Islam with it's approval of jihad and raping and enslaving infidels isn't included. Buddhism, Judaism, Wicca, Hinduism, Native American beliefs, et cetera all do fall into what I mentioned though. They and others are the "most" I was referring to.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Christianity is an accepting religion. Most of the others are exclusive.
- Lawyerlady

____________________________

While I do agree with the first sentence, it saddens me that many Christians don't follow the acceptance that Christianity teaches.

weltschmerz · Guru

sBBwjJQvikCNJyg-800x450-noPad.jpg?145598

I agree, WISYWYG.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

What acceptance are you talking about?

burns07 · Guru

don't understand how it " saddens " you--you confuse " acceptance " with " tolerance "--why should anyone ( of any faith ) be compelled by the GOVERNMENT to act against the tenets of their particular religion/faith ? to participate in activities morally abhorrent to them and their beliefs ? why is it you applaud those who seem to stand up for what they believe but your approval doesn't extend to CHRISTIANS standing up for what THEY believe/what THEY hold as values ? --is that being " accepting " in your personal vernacular?--am frankly glad you're " saddened " by Christians who refuse to " accept " immoral/deviant behaviour/laws/lifestyles

thank God for those who do " sadden " you

WYSIWYG · Guru

What acceptance are you talking about?
- lilyofcourse

___________________________

We shouldn't force Christianity upon others. We should let them decide for themselves if they want to be Christian, and bound by our beliefs, or not. We should also accept that others may want to live in ways that we do not approve of, because they believe differently than us.

We should lead by example, not by force. Show who we are, not push who they should be.

WYSIWYG · Guru

don't understand how it " saddens " you--you confuse " acceptance " with " tolerance "--why should anyone ( of any faith ) be compelled by the GOVERNMENT to act against the tenets of their particular religion/faith ? to participate in activities morally abhorrent to them and their beliefs ? why is it you applaud those who seem to stand up for what they believe but your approval doesn't extend to CHRISTIANS standing up for what THEY believe/what THEY hold as values ? --is that being " accepting " in your personal vernacular?--am frankly glad you're " saddened " by Christians who refuse to " accept " immoral/deviant behaviour/laws/lifestyles

thank God for those who do " sadden " you
- burns07

______________________________

It saddens me because it makes Christians look bad.

And I've never suggested that anyone should be forced to act against the tenets of their faith. Not once. If you don't want to bake a cake, no one should force you to open a bakery that serves the public. (I'm assuming that's what you are referring to, the cake issue)

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

WYSIWYG wrote:
What acceptance are you talking about?
- lilyofcourse

___________________________

We shouldn't force Christianity upon others. We should let them decide for themselves if they want to be Christian, and bound by our beliefs, or not. We should also accept that others may want to live in ways that we do not approve of, because they believe differently than us.

We should lead by example, not by force. Show who we are, not push who they should be.

And by this you mean participate in activities even if they go against our Faith?

weltschmerz · Guru

You're baking a cake, not tagging along on the honeymoon.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

weltschmerz wrote:
You're baking a cake, not tagging along on the honeymoon.

But they could never get married without a cake.

evileye

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
You're baking a cake, not tagging along on the honeymoon.
But they could never get married without a cake.
flan

They seem to think that.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
What acceptance are you talking about?
- lilyofcourse

___________________________

We shouldn't force Christianity upon others. We should let them decide for themselves if they want to be Christian, and bound by our beliefs, or not. We should also accept that others may want to live in ways that we do not approve of, because they believe differently than us.

We should lead by example, not by force. Show who we are, not push who they should be.

NO ONE is forcing anyone to be a Christian or any other religion in this country.

WYSIWYG · Guru

And by this you mean participate in activities even if they go against our Faith?
- lilyofcourse

_______________________________

If you believe it's against God's word (many don't believe baking a cake goes against God's word), then don't put yourself in a position where you might need to bake a cake.

If Jesus, a carpenter by trade, were alive today, do you believe that He would refuse to build a home for a gay couple in need of shelter? I don't believe that He would.

I direct you to 1 Corinthians 10:23 to 11:1 --

"
23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before youd without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedomf being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

11 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
"

I, personally, pay close attention to 10:31-33

I believe that we show our love of God and Jesus by showing helpfulness and inclusiveness to others.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan

Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.

weltschmerz · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan
Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.

Jesus also calls on people to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. You doing that?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan
Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.
Jesus also calls on people to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. You doing that?

No he doesn't. He told that only to the Rich young ruler. Duh. Try reading the Bible in context. But, you can't.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan
Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.

Um, yes. He INcluded those that, AT THAT TIME, were pariahs, not for their behavior, but for other reasons.

This is the parable that comes to mind first:

Samaritans and Jews generally despised each other, but the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling the parable in response to the question from a lawyer, "And who is my neighbour?" whom Leviticus 19:18 says should be loved. Jesus answers him his question in who is his neighbour, but also tells him to love his neighbour.^[2] His answer corresponds to his words the Gospel of Matthew 5:43-48, to love his enemy.

Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus's audience.^[3] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted.^[3]

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan
Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.
Um, yes. He INcluded those that, AT THAT TIME, were pariahs, not for their behavior, but for other reasons.
This is the parable that comes to mind first:
Samaritans and Jews generally despised each other, but the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling the parable in response to the question from a lawyer, "And who is my neighbour?" whom Leviticus 19:18 says should be loved. Jesus answers him his question in who is his neighbour, but also tells him to love his neighbour.^[2] His answer corresponds to his words the Gospel of Matthew 5:43-48, to love his enemy.
Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus's audience.^[3] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted.^[3]
flan

IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
For most of his life, Jesus preached about INclusion rather than EXclusion.

flan
Um, no. He calls all to repent and follow him, but the path is narrow.
Jesus also calls on people to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. You doing that?

I support charities, especially local ones to help people with medical bills or if some other calamity strikes.

burns07 · Guru

Jesus also calls on people to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. You doing that?
__________________________________________________________________________________

come on--the counterintuitive message in that sentiment was paraphrased by my grandfather decades ago--he told me " jeff, the best way you can be of help to the poor is by not becoming one of them. "--he was absolutely correct--typical of the left, you follow a faulty interpretation with a personal insult

there are many here with considerably more knowledge of the bible than i possess but i do know that when Christ spoke of inclusion he did not mean for us ( christians ) to give-up our convictions and morals for the convenience of the cause du jour

huskerbb · Guru

It's also laughable when people who don't even believe in God or the Bible as Gods word try to use it I their arguments.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

We are to love everyone. Just like God and Jesus.

But He hates the sin.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

People need to learn the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

tol·er·ance

ˈtäl(ə)rəns/

noun

1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"
synonyms: acceptance, toleration; More

ac·cept·ance
əkˈseptəns/
noun
1.
the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.
"charges involving the acceptance of bribes"
synonyms: receipt, receiving, taking, obtaining More

2.
the action or process of being received as adequate or suitable, typically to be admitted into a group.
"you must wait for acceptance into the club"
synonyms: welcome, favorable reception, adoption
"her acceptance into the group"

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
It's also laughable when people who don't even believe in God or the Bible as Gods word try to use it I their arguments.

Always happy to help...

flan

WYSIWYG · Guru

IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And don't help them sin.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Because cake is "sinful."

Let's not forget pie or cupcakes!!!

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

No. Cake is not.

Nor any other pastry or dessert product.

But if I take money by supplying a service or product to help you celebrate your sin, I am helping you sin.

Like giving a criminal money or providing food or shelter or anything to help them continue to be criminal or evade police.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.

Bullsh!t. If you are going to the wedding and setting up the cake and flowers. or taking pictures, you are absolutely condoning and participating.

Treat the sinner with kindness and respect--IF they wish to come to repentance--like the tax collector and the harlot.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.
Bullsh!t. If you are going to the wedding and setting up the cake and flowers. or taking pictures, you are absolutely condoning and participating.
Treat the sinner with kindness and respect--IF they wish to come to repentance--like the tax collector and the harlot.

"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.
Bullsh!t. If you are going to the wedding and setting up the cake and flowers. or taking pictures, you are absolutely condoning and participating.
Treat the sinner with kindness and respect--IF they wish to come to repentance--like the tax collector and the harlot.
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
flan

It absolutely does.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.
Bullsh!t. If you are going to the wedding and setting up the cake and flowers. or taking pictures, you are absolutely condoning and participating.
Treat the sinner with kindness and respect--IF they wish to come to repentance--like the tax collector and the harlot.
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
flan
It absolutely does.

Yes, it most certainly does. How can you think it doesn't (and only think that when convenient)?

Taking part in an activity means you are part of it.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
IF they came to repentance. We are to love our neighbor--butbthat does NOT mean condoning sinful behavior--and certainly not participating in it.
- huskerbb

______________________________

If you are not in the honeymoon bed, a member of the party sinfully homosexually fornicating, then you are not ""participating in it". Nor does it mean you condone it.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. Remember? Treat the sinner with kindness and respect. Take the "I don't agree with your life choices, but it's only up to God to judge you, not me" stance.
Bullsh!t. If you are going to the wedding and setting up the cake and flowers. or taking pictures, you are absolutely condoning and participating.
Treat the sinner with kindness and respect--IF they wish to come to repentance--like the tax collector and the harlot.
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
flan

So, you get to decide someone's religious conscience for them? Good to know!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Participating does not equal condoning.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Participating does not equal condoning.

flan

You can say that all you want. It's not true.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Participating does not equal condoning.

flan

So, then Jehovah's Witness should be forced to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Participating does not equal condoning.

flan

par·tic·i·pate

pärˈtisəˌpāt/

verb

1.
take part.
"thousands participated in a nationwide strike"
synonyms: take part in, engage in, join in, get involved in, share in, play a part/role in, be a participant in, partake in, have a hand in, be associated with; More
2.
archaic
have or possess (a particular quality).
"both members participate of harmony"

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Dictionary. Find the dictionary.

It's in that library somewhere.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

con·done
kənˈdōn/Submit
verb
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
"the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs"
synonyms: disregard, accept, allow, let pass, turn a blind eye to, overlook, forget; More
approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.
"the practice is not officially condoned by any airline"