The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born

Phantasmal said:
No, not all who were sentenced to death died by cruxifixction. It was reserved for certain criminals, to make a statement, don’t cross Rome.
Click to expand...

it was reserved for the worst......Christ's salvation probably wouldn't have been insured by six weeks of house arrest.......
 
Phantasmal said:
The scammers are a very small minority
Click to expand...

so are Christian churches that do not help the poor......

Lol, yeah, the uppity Christian,
Click to expand...

good lord, what about the uppity atheists who claim they do a better job caring for the poor than the church.......the congregation I'm a member of supports an orphanage in Lesotho........how many orphans do you support?.....
 
Bill said:
:hand: :hand: :hand: See, those good nuns didn't waste their time & energy smacking you a time or two to learn something.:) Well said!!!
Click to expand...
lol.. it's amazing what I remember from Catholic grade school.

I went on a spiritual journey of discovery. Buddhism was the most helpful in terms of overcoming addiction
( 8 Fold Noble Path) - but the personal relationship with a god does not exist, nor is the very small of humans that ever achieve enlightenment very satisfying as I age.

So i'm back to the revealed religions at least for the time being -
the exception is Islam which has no real use except rote recitations.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I see. So you also support separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

Yes, although that is something only the government can violate and not individual actions. For example, some claimed those opposed to abortion or gay marriage were pushing their religion on them. A person can have an opinion on these topics completed unrelated to their religious beliefs and therefore are not pushing their religion on anyone. Neither is Hobby Lobby pushing its religious views on its employees because it is allowed accommodations in providing free birth control to employees consistent with its religious beliefs while employees still get all the benefits available.


ThatOwlWoman said:
If you read Stretch's posts on this thread, you'll see exactly what I mean. When it is pointed out that her failure to speak up against the ill treatment of the illegals being rounded up is contrary to Jesus's teachings, she claims that only SHE knows the REAL word of god and the rest of us are taking everything from the Bible out of context. The take-away is that if the govt. is doing something evil and anti-Scripture, it's okay because Jesus said to ignore that govt. stuff. Those kind of evangelicals would have been quite at home in 1930s Germany, or 1800s America.
Click to expand...

I dislike the tactic of claiming somebody who fails to speak up about the treatment of illegals is not following their religious principles. The person making that claim is really just attacking the person's political views and is also using their own interpretation of the Bible to make that attack. There are too many scriptures that can be interpreted in different ways to translate that into political opinions.

And none of it has anything to do with separation of church and state.
 
It's only conservatives that are the haters [loathers]?

Cypress said:
I know a lot of liberals in real life, and I literally cannot think of one that "loathes Christianity". A lot of liberals I know are believing and practicing xtians

There may be a handful of real christian haters on obscure message boards, and there are defintely people who object to certain evangelicals discriminating against other faith traditions and trying to establish a theocracy through rightwing jihad.
Click to expand...

Thus it can be said

I know a lot of conservatives in real life, and I literally cannot think of one that "loathes Christianity".

A lot of conservatives I know are believing and practicing xtians

There may be a handful of real christian conservatives haters on obscure message boards,

and there are defintely conservatives who object to certain evangelicals discriminating against

other faith traditions and trying to establish a theocracy through rightwing Media?
 
Flash said:
Yes, although that is something only the government can violate and not individual actions.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We give churches tax-exempt status in order to maintain that separation. In return, ministers and churches are supposed to avoid overt political action and speech. Yet this is routinely disregarded when ministers tell parishioners what candidates to support and which way to think on political issues. It is also violated when parishioners work to insert their religious beliefs and practices into public institutions. I.e., prayer in public school, the teaching of creationism, posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, placing nativity scenes at city halls, and so on.

BTW, the Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "free birth control;" you're thinking of Catholic organizations. HL's case involved their refusal to cover a particular form of oral birth control that they had previously allowed, incorrectly claiming that it caused abortions.

I dislike the tactic of claiming somebody who fails to speak up about the treatment of illegals is not following their religious principles. The person making that claim is really just attacking the person's political views and is also using their own interpretation of the Bible to make that attack. There are too many scriptures that can be interpreted in different ways to translate that into political opinions.
Click to expand...

That's good. You should probably avoid doing that, then. IMO it is a valid tactic when dealing with those who claim to be a particular religious flavor, yet consistently violate the very principles of that flavor with their words and (in)actions. They do not get to claim some sort of immunity just because the person pointing out their hypocrisy isn't of the same flavor.

And none of it has anything to do with separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Certainly our words here have nothing to do with it, for sure.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I disagree. We give churches tax-exempt status in order to maintain that separation. In return, ministers and churches are supposed to avoid overt political action and speech. Yet this is routinely disregarded when ministers tell parishioners what candidates to support and which way to think on political issues. It is also violated when parishioners work to insert their religious beliefs and practices into public institutions. I.e., prayer in public school, the teaching of creationism, posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, placing nativity scenes at city halls, and so on.
Click to expand...

It isn't my opinion--it is basic constitutional law. Those rights only restrict what government can do--not individuals or private entities. The establishment clause prohibits government from doing anything to help or harm religion. Individuals are free to try to get schools to offer prayer or teach creationism---it is unconstitutional for schools to actually do it. You have never heard of a case of a person being prohibited from seeking to have those policies implemented.

Ministers are free (under the Constitution) to tell their parishioners how to vote. The tax laws prohibit ministers from engaging in partisan political announcements in church. They can say don't vote for somebody who favors tax cuts but they can't say vote for a Republican. But this law is not enforced and churches cannot get the IRS to take action even when they send videos of ministers violating the law.

ThatOwlWoman said:
BTW, the Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "free birth control;" you're thinking of Catholic organizations. HL's case involved their refusal to cover a particular form of oral birth control that they had previously allowed, incorrectly claiming that it caused abortions.
Click to expand...

It was about both. The ACA provided free birth control with (13?) possible methods. Hobby Lobby opposed (4?) of these methods because it violated their religious beliefs. I don't think they previously approved these methods. They did not have to drop their old policy and adopt the ACA and would not even had to provide the birth control under their previous policy. But they chose to adopt the ACA except they objected to the 4 methods. The court allowed them to follow the same accommodations as religious related organizations and not pay for those 4 methods but the employees would still be eligible to get those 4 methods under government funding. Whether the method actually caused abortion is irrelevant because one's religious beliefs are not required to provide proof.
 
dukkha said:
there is an outright hostility from many on the left to religion - and Xtians in particular.
And I don't mean on obscure messageboards but expressed in lawsuits like the one we just had with that Big Cross.
It was 80 years old an a remembrance - and the leftists still couldn't accept it being there.

There are more examples, but religious intolerance exists -especially from the left on Xtians
Click to expand...
Of course, you'd freak out if it was Islamic imagery on public lands.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Teflon Don said:
You know the left is getting desperate when they start quoting scripture

It is straight out of Alinksy's playbook
Click to expand...
The usual right-wing attempt to divert and deny. It's the right that tries to take refuge behind the Bible by quoting it, usually completely out of context.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top