Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for taking time to post. You've hit upon many points here that I find interesting. Believe it or not, I'm quite comfortable being with people who disagree with me and I do try to honestly consider and evaluate opposing views. In the final analysis, we may not agree about much but I'm always happy to have the discussion.
Sure, you're welcome. I enjoy a good discussion and debate - and I can be a wee bit fiery at times.
But I do my best to always keep it civil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You've made certain references here to the Bible and Christianity. I would be curious to know how you would assess your present level of knowledge and understanding with respect to these - if it's not too much to ask.
I'm not an expert on the Bible or any religion - but I I'm fairly well versed in what the Bible says. I can't rattle off chapter and verse from memory (most of the time), but I know enough to say, "Hmm, I think the Bible talked about that somewhere" (and then I can look it up).
My primary knowledge concerns how religion influences politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Have you actually read the Bible?
Not cover to cover, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
In your view, what does it mean to be a Christian or to hold to a Christian worldview?
Well, of course this is a rather contentious issue and few people can ever agree on the specifics. But to my mind, at least, a -Christian- is someone who not only believes in the resurrection, that he's the son of God, and that he's the messiah, they also try to follow the teachings of Christ found in the New Testament.
Now, I've underlined that part for emphasis - because that last condition is the singlemost common reason why I personally feel many Americans have disqualified themselves from the right to call themselves a Christian. Far too many simply invoke Jesus's name, but focus more on the Hebrew god found in the Old Testament. There is still a lot of fire and brimstone being propagated in this country, the classic "Angry God Syndrome" whereby God is always mad about something and is a hair's width away from destroying something or killing a lot of people. To my mind, this kind of thinking is as primitive as it gets, a throwback to our hunter-gatherer days even before we had agriculture or civilization. It is a highly superstitious and benighted viewpoint.
But perhaps most of all, -many- people in America are actually Mammon worshipers, for avarice, greed, and the love of money trumps all else.
I have no real quarrel with liberal Christians for they are the ones who wish to help the poor, believe in a more egalitarian society, promote freedom of choice, etc. The fundamentalist conservative "Christians" are about as far afield of my vision of Christianity as we are from the Andromeda galaxy.
So if a Christian legislator were to vote in favor of certain restrictions against abortion on demand based upon their belief in the Biblical prohibition against murder, they WOULD NOT be imposing a "religious" moral view? Am I understanding you rightly?
The question insofar as abortion is concerned is not "murder," but "person." When does a fertilized ovum become a "person" and therefore protected by laws already in place concerning "murder." So far the only arguments affirming first trimester "personhood" are religious.
Sure, you're welcome. I enjoy a good discussion and debate - and I can be a wee bit fiery at times.
But I do my best to always keep it civil.
No worries - I consider myself to be fairly thick skinned.
Fire at will!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I'm not an expert on the Bible or any religion - but I I'm fairly well versed in what the Bible says. I can't rattle off chapter and verse from memory (most of the time), but I know enough to say, "Hmm, I think the Bible talked about that somewhere" (and then I can look it up).
My primary knowledge concerns how religion influences politics.
Not cover to cover, no.
Shirina, I appreciate your candor and honesty.
I'm certainly no "Bible head" or theologian - just one of many amongst the laity. As well, it's not my intention to place you on the defensive or subject you to unwarranted scrutiny. It seems to me that there exists a vast amount of misinformation concerning Christianity - most of it coming from people who themselves either claim to be Christians or claim that they once were.
If we could focus on Christianity i.e., the teachings of Christ - I believe it will prove helpful for both of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Well, of course this is a rather contentious issue and few people can ever agree on the specifics. But to my mind, at least, a -Christian- is someone who not only believes in the resurrection, that he's the son of God, and that he's the messiah, they also try to follow the teachings of Christ found in the New Testament.
For whatever it's worth coming from someone like me, this is actually quite good and very well stated. However, there is one key aspect that you either failed to mention or, perhaps, of which you may be unaware.
I have a series of three or four questions to ask if you're up for it.
Fair warning, they may make you uncomfortable.
First question:
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Now, I've underlined that part for emphasis - because that last condition is the single most common reason why I personally feel many Americans have disqualified themselves from the right to call themselves a Christian. Far too many simply invoke Jesus's name, but focus more on the Hebrew god found in the Old Testament. There is still a lot of fire and brimstone being propagated in this country, the classic "Angry God Syndrome" whereby God is always mad about something and is a hair's width away from destroying something or killing a lot of people. To my mind, this kind of thinking is as primitive as it gets, a throwback to our hunter-gatherer days even before we had agriculture or civilization. It is a highly superstitious and benighted viewpoint.
It seems logical to presume that some things are true in the absolute sense. Would you agree that one cannot deny the existence of absolute truth without affirming it at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
But perhaps most of all, -many- people in America are actually Mammon worshipers, for avarice, greed, and the love of money trumps all else.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I have no real quarrel with liberal Christians for they are the ones who wish to help the poor, believe in a more egalitarian society, promote freedom of choice, etc. The fundamentalist conservative "Christians" are about as far afield of my vision of Christianity as we are from the Andromeda galaxy.
Yes, but which one is closer to traditional orthodox Christianity? Which one is closer Biblical teaching?
The question insofar as abortion is concerned is not "murder," but "person." When does a fertilized ovum become a "person" and therefore protected by laws already in place concerning "murder." So far the only arguments affirming first trimester "personhood" are religious.
It seems to me that our respective views of abortion are insignificant and off topic.
In my illustration the legislator is presented as having a "religious" view. The legislator then votes in accordance with said "religious" view.
Would this equate to the imposition of a "religious" view?
Would you perhaps be willing to honestly consider conceding the point?
It seems to me that our respective views of abortion are insignificant and off topic.
In my illustration the legislator is presented as having a "religious" view. The legislator then votes in accordance with said "religious" view.
Would this equate to the imposition of a "religious" view?
Would you perhaps be willing to honestly consider conceding the point?
No, because, as I noted, the religious view and the secular view on murder itself are the samne, however the views on what constitutes "murder" are different and THAT view is what is cogent to your "point," not the question of "murder" itself. One of the questions that has to be asked in any conflict is what the elements actually ARE. If your "religious person" votes to impose religious standards as to what abortion is in relation to "murder" then yes that constitutes imposing religious views.
Just a side note: are you prepared to follow your perceptions to their logical conclusion and investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter?
No, because, as I noted, the religious view and the secular view on murder itself are the same, however the views on what constitutes "murder" are different and THAT view is what is cogent to your "point," not the question of "murder" itself. One of the questions that has to be asked in any conflict is what the elements actually ARE. If your "religious person" votes to impose religious standards as to what abortion is in relation to "murder" then yes that constitutes imposing religious views.
Just a side note: are you prepared to follow your perceptions to their logical conclusion and investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter?
...but it's perfectly fine for any legislator to impose a "secular" (atheistic) view? I take it then that you favor a state IMPOSED "secular" (God excluding, atheistic) philosophy?
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that political activism is all about the imposition of morality in some form or fashion? Civics 101. I'm actually fine with those who disagree with me trying to force their views of morality on me through the political process. After all, that's the way the system works. However, when these same people, who are trying to force a view of morality on me try to hold me in contempt for forcing my view of morality on them - well, it all strikes me as being just a bit hypocritical.
One of the questions that has to be asked in any conflict is what the elements actually ARE. If your "religious person" votes to impose religious standards as to what abortion is in relation to "murder" then yes that constitutes imposing religious views.
Another question is "Is an elected official supposed to lead or represent his constituency?
Since I cannot recall when it was, who it was or what the issue was, take this for what it's worth.
Some time ago and state representative publically stated that he was voting against the majority wishes of his constituency and voting with his conscience.
...but it's perfectly fine for any legislator to impose a "secular" (atheistic) view? I take it then that you favor a state IMPOSED "secular" (God excluding, atheistic) philosophy?
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that political activism is all about the imposition of morality in some form or fashion? Civics 101. I'm actually fine with those who disagree with me trying to force their views of morality on me through the political process. After all, that's the way the system works. However, when these same people, who are trying to force a view of morality on me try to hold me in contempt for forcing my view of morality on them - well, it all strikes me as being just a bit hypocritical.
That is precisely why we have a system of checks and balances: to prevent a majority steamrollering over the human rights of any minority. Have you ever considered the blessings of living in what is NOT a "pure democracy?"
old_cold, we elect people, not robots and we choose them for their leadership capability as much as for representing what we believe. If such a leader gave good reasons for going against majority wishes, I would vote for him in the next election for sure.
No, because, as I noted, the religious view and the secular view on murder itself are the samne, however the views on what constitutes "murder" are different and THAT view is what is cogent to your "point," not the question of "murder" itself. One of the questions that has to be asked in any conflict is what the elements actually ARE. If your "religious person" votes to impose religious standards as to what abortion is in relation to "murder" then yes that constitutes imposing religious views.
Just a side note: are you prepared to follow your perceptions to their logical conclusion and investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter?
Nobody ever seems to be willing to do that. Can you imagine the trauma a woman (and her man) would go through if every miscarriage were investigated as a possible felony? And yet, it IS a perfectly valid question.
That is precisely why we have a system of checks and balances: to prevent a majority steamrollering over the human rights of any minority. Have you ever considered the blessings of living in what is NOT a "pure democracy?"
Okay. I really don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. Be that as it may, to address your off topic point here, my understanding of the founders intent had to do with the notion of a people who are self governing. In order for this to be possible, there had to be wide spread majority acceptance and adherence to COMMON OBJECTIVE moral standards. Today, we live in a society that has chosen to embrace moral relativity and subjectivity over the traditional objective standards. In essence, the self governing fabric that has held our representative republic together has been eroded and continues to erode.
I would say that your "checks and balances" are nothing more than illusory. What we are seeing in our government (all three branches and both parties) equates to pure unadulterated lawlessness. They are getting away with it because their supporters have chosen party loyalty and an "ends justifies the means" mentality over loyalty to that which is ultimately true, good and right for the country. They have no objection to having a dictator just as long as the dictator dictates in accordance with their wishes and demonstrates loyalty to the "team."
Pure democracy is mob rule. However, given the choice between the two, I would prefer mob rule over fascism any day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
