Jump to content

U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Eleanor Roosevelt

“To handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart.”


― Eleanor Roosevelt
 
Just loved this jewel of wisdom and wanted to pay it forward.

 

Then, conversely, this jewel, re: Orlando

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there some kind of limit on when an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court? If Barak was top get a nominee through, or if Hillary wins the election in November is the balance on the court going to be against overturning the 9th Circuit's decision for such a long time that there won't be a real opportunity to appeal?

Also I assume the flip side of the decision is that concealed carry is actually constitutional and thus if you can show a good reason for needing it then no state can make a blanket prohibition? Or is that already established by previous decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend who is an LGBT activist post this article to his facebook feed:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/

I didn't realize the Ted Cruz, Lt. Gov. Patrick style of "make Christianity law" had a religious school of thought named after it. As a Christian I believe the followers of this religious philosophy need to be stoped. Forcing people into Christianity is not what Christ taught those of us who identify as Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A friend who is an LGBT activist post this article to his facebook feed:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/

I didn't realize the Ted Cruz, Lt. Gov. Patrick style of "make Christianity law" had a religious school of thought named after it. As a Christian I believe the followers of this religious philosophy need to be stoped. Forcing people into Christianity is not what Christ taught those of us who identify as Christians.

 

Forcible conversion of heathens is a pretty big part of what most people consider Christian sects. I'd even go so far as to say that if you are a Christian and don't believe in it you're probably in something of a small minority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Forcible conversion of heathens is a pretty big part of what most people consider Christian sects. I'd even go so far as to say that if you are a Christian and don't believe in it you're probably in something of a small minority.

Right, but there is nothing that Christ taught us that indicates he wanted forceable conversion.  That others have done so doesn't mean Christ wanted us (by "us" I mean Christians) to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Right, but there is nothing that Christ taught us that indicates he wanted forceable conversion.  That others have done so doesn't mean Christ wanted us (by "us" I mean Christians) to.

If the only thing you're going to rate Christians by is whether or not they only follow Christ's teachings, you're gonna have a bad time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, don't see anything in dominionist teachings that imply 'forceable' there. What contradicts Luke 14:23?

Well, that was a parable Christ used for teaching.  I don't believe he ment for people to literally go out and drag people to him from the "highways and hedges".  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well, that was a parable Christ used for teaching.  I don't believe he ment for people to literally go out and drag people to him from the "highways and hedges".  

 

Yes, Kalbear's interpretation of that is highly inconsistent, for to assume that it means that Christians are supposed to force conversions, you have to accept the symbolic meaning of the banquet as referring to the church, while taking the word "compel" completely literally. That seems to be wanting to have it both ways to me.

I would conservatively estimate that it's been over two centuries since the great majority of Christians believed in "forceable conversion of heathens." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ormond said:

Yes, Kalbear's interpretation of that is highly inconsistent, for to assume that it means that Christians are supposed to force conversions, you have to accept the symbolic meaning of the banquet as referring to the church, while taking the word "compel" completely literally. That seems to be wanting to have it both ways to me.

I would conservatively estimate that it's been over two centuries since the great majority of Christians believed in "forceable conversion of heathens." 

Again, I see nothing in the Dominionist ideals that state that Christians are supposed to force anyone to convert. 

But the idea that Christians aren't wanting people to convert seems very suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I see nothing in the Dominionist ideals that state that Christians are supposed to force anyone to convert. 

But the idea that Christians aren't wanting people to convert seems very suspect.

I was not commenting on whether or not Dominionists (who themselves come in several different varieties) believe in forcing people to convert. i was disputing the idea that only a small minority of Christians in general are against "forced conversion."

But you immediately moved the goalposts there in your second sentence above -- wanting people to convert is a far cry from forcing them to convert. There's all sorts of things I want people to do (quit smoking, do volunteer charity work, get regular dental care, etc.) that I would not force them to do even if I could. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Right, but there is nothing that Christ taught us that indicates he wanted forceable conversion.  That others have done so doesn't mean Christ wanted us (by "us" I mean Christians) to.

Deuteronomy 13, 17, among others strongly disagree. Well, I mean, I suppose if you're killing folk for worshiping other gods, you aren't technically converting them, but the threat certainly would be.

 

edit: if this is going to be one of those arbitrary old v. New Testament rationalizations, I will be dissapointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I was not commenting on whether or not Dominionists (who themselves come in several different varieties) believe in forcing people to convert. i was disputing the idea that only a small minority of Christians in general are against "forced conversion."

But you immediately moved the goalposts there in your second sentence above -- wanting people to convert is a far cry from forcing them to convert. There's all sorts of things I want people to do (quit smoking, do volunteer charity work, get regular dental care, etc.) that I would not force them to do even if I could. 

As far as I know you are not all Christians. Are you? That'd make life a lot easier. I could just ask you what all Christians believe. 

I wasn't saying anything about Christians - just Christian sects. And most have supported, often quite heavily, forced conversion. Whether they do or not right this instant is somewhat immaterial to my point. My suspicion is that if you asked most Christians in the US if they could wave a wand and make everyone Christian they would. At that point, what 'force' is being used really is just haggling. To me, preachers telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't embrace Christ is absolutely an action of force. If you don't consider it that way, so be it - but what 'force' is really varies in the eyes of who is being forced, I think.

And more importantly, I think that people like the Lt. Governor of Texas who thinks that gays should have the death penalty is absolutely using force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As far as I know you are not all Christians. Are you? That'd make life a lot easier. I could just ask you what all Christians believe. 

I wasn't saying anything about Christians - just Christian sects. And most have supported, often quite heavily, forced conversion. Whether they do or not right this instant is somewhat immaterial to my point. My suspicion is that if you asked most Christians in the US if they could wave a wand and make everyone Christian they would. At that point, what 'force' is being used really is just haggling. To me, preachers telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't embrace Christ is absolutely an action of force. If you don't consider it that way, so be it - but what 'force' is really varies in the eyes of who is being forced, I think.

And more importantly, I think that people like the Lt. Governor of Texas who thinks that gays should have the death penalty is absolutely using force. 

I really don't think "if you don't do X, you are going to hell" is "force". I think it's verbal abuse, and I don't think that's the same thing. If someone really has no power to affect my life beyond insults, I think it's hyperbole to say they are "forcing" me to do something. And I don't think that's just "haggling" -- I think the expansion of the meaning of words like "force" beyond their original intent leads to silly stuff like the "trigger warnings" controversies on college campuses. I think if you believe someone telling you that you are going to go to hell is "force", you have as much of a problem as they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...