Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I'm not saying the bible is "twisted" in the sense that it's screwed up. I'm saying the bible is highly influenced by the ideals of humans. Considering how many versions of the bible there are, it would be ignorant of us to proclaim that what is written in the modern interpretation of the bible is the word of God. I would even question the original text (I'd be silly if I didn't at least question it), but at least it would be more representative of the intent of the author.
I agree with everything else you said though. In terms of imparting wisdom on someone who isn't interested in being corrected, I just don't agree with your version of wisdom. When it comes to the bible, if you are not thinking about what it says critically, then I don't believe you're being particularly wise. Why is it that the most devoutly religious Christians are also the most intolerant people you will ever meet? Loving someone to their face, on the surface, then judging them behind their backs isn't really love at all.
BTW, If you had any idea of what I've gone through in my life, you wouldn't be suggesting I need to be corrected. I've already been corrected, thank you. Frankly, the bigots here can't hate me more than I used to hate myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
So you claim that the early church twisted things around and that the bible has been screwed up. Then you claim that we are missing the message that we're to love one another and not pass judgment on each other. But if the bible has been screwed up by men, then why should we believe that we are supposed to love each other? Maybe that wasn't originally in there, and the church screwed it up. And if the bible is screwed up, we can't believe it when it says we are not to pass judgment on each other. That may be a twisting of the original intent by the early church, not God's intent. If you argue that the bible is fundamentally flawed, then you can't use the argument that there is something valid about it.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Jesus says that we are to take the speck out of others' eyes -- but only after we've removed the planks from our own. It'd be like a dad who's having an affair telling his teenage daughter not to have sex. He can't do that with the plank in his eye -- his own affair. If he's taken the plank out of his eye (stopped the affair), THEN he can tell his daughter not to have sex.
I love what Jesus says right after that part about he plank and the spec, and judging others:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
What he is saying is: don't try to impart wisdom to those who aren't worthy of it, don't try to correct someone who isn't willing to be corrected.
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant. Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
Perhaps it's possible that corporations in the capitalist world (especially the US) have a strong manipulative influence over many other social issues?
i think i read it somewhere a while ago...something about nuclear power, or was it oil, or perhaps healthcare and insurance, maybe drugs and price-fixing, could have been tobacco and alcohol advertising, or dumping of hazardous waste,...
...anyway, i can't recall specifics right now, but it's gotta be better for a company to just want everyone to be able to love eachother, however they wish, and however official they wish to make it...
(P.S. i'm in no way an Apple fanboy...fascinating though, as most of them seem to have turned out to be "i'm a takin' off the apple decals on my truck n' sellin' my stock" far-right bible addicts...). Scary stuff. i wonder if this kind of intolerance represents the general population of the USA?
However, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The union of a man and a woman vis-a-vis the union of a man and a man are not the same thing in essence. There is no problem having 'marriage' for a man and a woman, and 'civil union' for a man and a man. There is no need for them to be equal -- legally or otherwise.
I was replying to bigmc6000 who thinks that there are no legal differences between the two.
So, we agree that certain groups of citizens are considered less legally equal?
I was replying to bigmc6000 who thinks that there are no legal differences between the two.
So, we agree that certain groups of citizens are considered less legally equal?
Is it legal to practice polygamy where you live? If not, aren't you being intolerant, and treating some folks as less than equal? What about bestiality, do you shun those that practice it?
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
Oy Vey!
You said "I'm 100% against how gay marriage WOULD effect the rest of my family living in California."
Mr. H was pointing out to everyone and you in particular that gay marriage IS legal in California already.
What he is trying to say is that you would probably have written "I'm 100% against how gay marriage IS effecting the rest of my family living in California" if you knew what the vote was about. Or maybe "I'm 100% FOR how DISALLOWING gay marriage would be effecting the rest of my family living in California."
You said "I'm 100% against how gay marriage WOULD effect the rest of my family living in California."
Mr. H was pointing out to everyone and you in particular that gay marriage IS legal in California already.
What he is trying to say is that you would probably have written "I'm 100% against how gay marriage IS effecting the rest of my family living in California" if you knew what the vote was about. Or maybe "I'm 100% FOR how DISALLOWING gay marriage would be effecting the rest of my family living in California."
The only reason that gay marriage is legal in California, after the people voted against it, is because activist judges legislated it from the bench, bypassing the will of the people. This current proposition will put things back the way they were before the judges exceeded their positions. Legislating from the bench is the liberal Democrat way of accomplishing that which they cannot pass by law. It's an end run around the constitution. Strict constructionist judges do NOT do that. You must either missed or disregarded bit of info.
Mr H knows absolutely nothing about this from his perch in the UK, beyond his desire to sway the outcome. An outcome that has no effect on him, but certainly does effect those that live here, and that will vote on it. If you guys don't like that, don't come to the US, we won't miss you.
Is it legal to practice polygamy where you live? If not, aren't you being intolerant, and treating some folks as less than equal? What about bestiality, do you shun those that practice it?
You can't have a legal marriage between more than 2 people in the Netherlands.
However, the Dutch government recognizes legal polygamous marriages from other (a least some) countries.
The civil union that we have can be between more than 2 people. Those civil unions are very rare, but this has opened up the discussion to decriminalize it. And it has people scared of the burden on administration, as systems like taxes only know how to deal with 2 people marriages right now.
Bestiality means "sex with animals", so that's not really the same as marrying an animal.
Bestiality is illegal here and legally regarded as a form of wrape, because an animal can not consent (it can not express its consent in a quantifiable way). Human-animal marriage are not recognized (in any modern country) because of the same reason.
We have a discussion to create a 3rd recognized gender, as certain people don't absolutely identify with "male" or "female". Again, this has people worried about how to organize paperwork.
What you consider to be the decline of moral civilization, we consider to be a administrative headache at worst.
You can't have a legal marriage between more than 2 people in the Netherlands.
However, the Dutch government recognizes legal polygamous marriages from other (a least some) countries.
The civil union that we have can be between more than 2 people. Those civil unions are very rare, but this has opened up the discussion to decriminalize it. And it has people scared of the burden on administration, as systems like taxes only know how to deal with 2 people marriages right now.
Bestiality means "sex with animals", so that's not really the same as marrying an animal.
Bestiality is illegal here and legally regarded as a form of wrape, because an animal can not consent (it can not express its consent in a quantifiable way). Human-animal marriage are not recognized (in any modern country) because of the same reason.
We have a discussion to create a 3rd recognized gender, as certain people don't absolutely identify with "male" or "female". Again, this has people worried about how to organize paperwork.
What you consider to be the decline of moral civilization, we consider to be a administrative headache at worst.
What do you think about that?
The trick is to never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. But, you've now shown some of the readers here that once you allow one deviation it opens the floodgates to ever more radical practices. That is one of the things that causes a society to fall.
Yeah, you guys have more than 1 constitution, right? I would like to hear your strict constructionalist view on that
We only have 1 that is the same for every citizen of our country.
I was in California last year. Liked it a lot. Very cheap for us Europeans now to go the US, so expect more of us.
We have one federal Constitution, but each state has it's own constitution. Originally, the federal government was to have little power, ceding power to the individual states over matters that concerned the individual states. Much of that has run amok, but the states still have some say in their own affairs.
A strict constructionist interprets the constitution as written, with original intent, and not as they would personally like it to be. We have lawmakers to create laws, that is not the job of judges. One of our strengths is in the separation of powers. We have the executive branch which enforces the laws (The President), the Legislative branch that makes the laws (the Congress), and the Judicial branch that interprets the laws (The judiciary).
We have one federal Constitution, but each state has it's own constitution. Originally, the federal government was to have little power, ceding power to the individual states over matters that concerned the individual states. Much of that has run amok, but the states still have some say in their own affairs.
A strict constructionist interprets the constitution as written, with original intent, and not as they would personally like it to be. We have lawmakers to create laws, that is not the job of judges. One of our strengths is in the separation of powers. We have the executive branch which enforces the laws (The President), the Legislative branch that makes the laws (the Congress), and the Judicial branch that interprets the laws (The judiciary).
Additionally, each area in our society is allowed to set it's own community standards, as long as they don't conflict with the law. IOW, we do not have to allow behavior that is counter productive to the particular area. There is no federal law defining marriage, thus it falls to the individual states to enact the laws that their citizens want.
The trick is to never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. But, you've now shown some of the readers here that once you allow one deviation it opens the floodgates to ever more radical practices. That is one of the things that causes a society to fall.
Did you even fact-check what I told you before crediting me as a reliable source? I'm flattered though, by your trust in my reliability.
Did you even fact-check what I told you before crediting me as a reliable source? I'm flattered though, by your trust in my reliability.
Since Amsterdam is well known for it's very liberal drug policies, it's a given that liberalism would reign in other areas of your society. And in fact it does, what else do I need to know? Decadence is decadence.
Additionally, each area in our society is allowed to set it's own community standards, as long as they don't conflict with the law. IOW, we do not have to allow behavior that is counter productive to the particular area. There is no federal law defining marriage, thus it falls to the individual states to enact the laws that their citizens want.
Could you tell me a bit more about the proces?
Like, who makes these sub-constitutions?
Are they always determined by voting on propositions like Prop 8, and can anyone make propositions for setting such community standards?
Are they always determined by voting on propositions like Prop 8, and can anyone make propositions for setting such community standards?
All of that is controlled by each individual state, and not all states allow propositions on the ballot. The individual state constitutions were formed as each state became a state. They were written by representatives of the people, and all are subservient to federal law, where federal law exists.
All of that is controlled by each individual state, and not all states allow propositions on the ballot. The individual state constitutions were formed as each state became a state. They were written by representatives of the people, and all are subservient to federal law, where federal law exists.
Since Amsterdam is well known for it's very liberal drug policies, it's a given that liberalism would reign in other areas of your society. And in fact it does, what else do I need to know? Decadence is decadence.
I think we're considered a petri-dish-country by political-scientists. Our decision process is relatively fast, because we are a very small country. It's almost like time goes faster here!
Liberalism doesn't have the same meaning here that you seem to give it. One of our largest political parties runs a similar program as your Republican party, and they call themselves "Liberal" to convey that they support a Liberal (=free) market.
In a European context we are regarded as becoming relatively more conservative towards many issues that we are "infamous" for, like drug policies, social security and immigration.
Partly because we now have to adhere to European laws for some issues, and we have made some compromises there that some consider a step back.
We have been working on a European constitution, and have run into some of the same problems that you have with your States and Country division.
Comments
Realize that God hates sin. He loves sinners and wishes to change them.
Realise that god is a human invention and the bible is a fairy tale.
Realise that god is a human invention and the bible is a fairy tale.
I won't throw you any pearls, then.
I won't throw pearls to pigs.
Let's see if it is true and once and for all you stop telling other people how they have to live their lives.
I agree with everything else you said though. In terms of imparting wisdom on someone who isn't interested in being corrected, I just don't agree with your version of wisdom. When it comes to the bible, if you are not thinking about what it says critically, then I don't believe you're being particularly wise. Why is it that the most devoutly religious Christians are also the most intolerant people you will ever meet? Loving someone to their face, on the surface, then judging them behind their backs isn't really love at all.
BTW, If you had any idea of what I've gone through in my life, you wouldn't be suggesting I need to be corrected. I've already been corrected, thank you. Frankly, the bigots here can't hate me more than I used to hate myself.
So you claim that the early church twisted things around and that the bible has been screwed up. Then you claim that we are missing the message that we're to love one another and not pass judgment on each other. But if the bible has been screwed up by men, then why should we believe that we are supposed to love each other? Maybe that wasn't originally in there, and the church screwed it up. And if the bible is screwed up, we can't believe it when it says we are not to pass judgment on each other. That may be a twisting of the original intent by the early church, not God's intent. If you argue that the bible is fundamentally flawed, then you can't use the argument that there is something valid about it.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Jesus says that we are to take the speck out of others' eyes -- but only after we've removed the planks from our own. It'd be like a dad who's having an affair telling his teenage daughter not to have sex. He can't do that with the plank in his eye -- his own affair. If he's taken the plank out of his eye (stopped the affair), THEN he can tell his daughter not to have sex.
I love what Jesus says right after that part about he plank and the spec, and judging others:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
What he is saying is: don't try to impart wisdom to those who aren't worthy of it, don't try to correct someone who isn't willing to be corrected.
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant. Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
Perhaps it's possible that corporations in the capitalist world (especially the US) have a strong manipulative influence over many other social issues?
i think i read it somewhere a while ago...something about nuclear power, or was it oil, or perhaps healthcare and insurance, maybe drugs and price-fixing, could have been tobacco and alcohol advertising, or dumping of hazardous waste,...
...anyway, i can't recall specifics right now, but it's gotta be better for a company to just want everyone to be able to love eachother, however they wish, and however official they wish to make it...
(P.S. i'm in no way an Apple fanboy...fascinating though, as most of them seem to have turned out to be "i'm a takin' off the apple decals on my truck n' sellin' my stock" far-right bible addicts...). Scary stuff. i wonder if this kind of intolerance represents the general population of the USA?
.
However, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The union of a man and a woman vis-a-vis the union of a man and a man are not the same thing in essence. There is no problem having 'marriage' for a man and a woman, and 'civil union' for a man and a man. There is no need for them to be equal -- legally or otherwise.
I was replying to bigmc6000 who thinks that there are no legal differences between the two.
So, we agree that certain groups of citizens are considered less legally equal?
I was replying to bigmc6000 who thinks that there are no legal differences between the two.
So, we agree that certain groups of citizens are considered less legally equal?
Is it legal to practice polygamy where you live? If not, aren't you being intolerant, and treating some folks as less than equal? What about bestiality, do you shun those that practice it?
If, and/or when, you reply to my posts(s), is of no consequence to me. If you want your own questions answered, then I refer you to the post by Concerned Mom. There's is no need for me to repeat what she said. Now run along.
Oy Vey!
You said "I'm 100% against how gay marriage WOULD effect the rest of my family living in California."
Mr. H was pointing out to everyone and you in particular that gay marriage IS legal in California already.
What he is trying to say is that you would probably have written "I'm 100% against how gay marriage IS effecting the rest of my family living in California" if you knew what the vote was about. Or maybe "I'm 100% FOR how DISALLOWING gay marriage would be effecting the rest of my family living in California."
Oy Vey!
You said "I'm 100% against how gay marriage WOULD effect the rest of my family living in California."
Mr. H was pointing out to everyone and you in particular that gay marriage IS legal in California already.
What he is trying to say is that you would probably have written "I'm 100% against how gay marriage IS effecting the rest of my family living in California" if you knew what the vote was about. Or maybe "I'm 100% FOR how DISALLOWING gay marriage would be effecting the rest of my family living in California."
The only reason that gay marriage is legal in California, after the people voted against it, is because activist judges legislated it from the bench, bypassing the will of the people. This current proposition will put things back the way they were before the judges exceeded their positions. Legislating from the bench is the liberal Democrat way of accomplishing that which they cannot pass by law. It's an end run around the constitution. Strict constructionist judges do NOT do that. You must either missed or disregarded bit of info.
Mr H knows absolutely nothing about this from his perch in the UK, beyond his desire to sway the outcome. An outcome that has no effect on him, but certainly does effect those that live here, and that will vote on it. If you guys don't like that, don't come to the US, we won't miss you.
Is it legal to practice polygamy where you live? If not, aren't you being intolerant, and treating some folks as less than equal? What about bestiality, do you shun those that practice it?
You can't have a legal marriage between more than 2 people in the Netherlands.
However, the Dutch government recognizes legal polygamous marriages from other (a least some) countries.
The civil union that we have can be between more than 2 people. Those civil unions are very rare, but this has opened up the discussion to decriminalize it. And it has people scared of the burden on administration, as systems like taxes only know how to deal with 2 people marriages right now.
Bestiality means "sex with animals", so that's not really the same as marrying an animal.
Bestiality is illegal here and legally regarded as a form of wrape, because an animal can not consent (it can not express its consent in a quantifiable way). Human-animal marriage are not recognized (in any modern country) because of the same reason.
We have a discussion to create a 3rd recognized gender, as certain people don't absolutely identify with "male" or "female". Again, this has people worried about how to organize paperwork.
What you consider to be the decline of moral civilization, we consider to be a administrative headache at worst.
What do you think about that?
You can't have a legal marriage between more than 2 people in the Netherlands.
However, the Dutch government recognizes legal polygamous marriages from other (a least some) countries.
The civil union that we have can be between more than 2 people. Those civil unions are very rare, but this has opened up the discussion to decriminalize it. And it has people scared of the burden on administration, as systems like taxes only know how to deal with 2 people marriages right now.
Bestiality means "sex with animals", so that's not really the same as marrying an animal.
Bestiality is illegal here and legally regarded as a form of wrape, because an animal can not consent (it can not express its consent in a quantifiable way). Human-animal marriage are not recognized (in any modern country) because of the same reason.
We have a discussion to create a 3rd recognized gender, as certain people don't absolutely identify with "male" or "female". Again, this has people worried about how to organize paperwork.
What you consider to be the decline of moral civilization, we consider to be a administrative headache at worst.
What do you think about that?
The trick is to never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. But, you've now shown some of the readers here that once you allow one deviation it opens the floodgates to ever more radical practices. That is one of the things that causes a society to fall.
It's an end run around the constitution. Strict constructionist judges do NOT do that. You must either missed or disregarded bit of info.
Yeah, you guys have more than 1 constitution, right? I would like to hear your strict constructionalist view on that
We only have 1 that is the same for every citizen of our country.
If you guys don't like that, don't come to the US, we won't miss you.
I was in California last year. Liked it a lot. Very cheap for us Europeans now to go the US, so expect more of us.
Yeah, you guys have more than 1 constitution, right? I would like to hear your strict constructionalist view on that
We only have 1 that is the same for every citizen of our country.
I was in California last year. Liked it a lot. Very cheap for us Europeans now to go the US, so expect more of us.
We have one federal Constitution, but each state has it's own constitution. Originally, the federal government was to have little power, ceding power to the individual states over matters that concerned the individual states. Much of that has run amok, but the states still have some say in their own affairs.
A strict constructionist interprets the constitution as written, with original intent, and not as they would personally like it to be. We have lawmakers to create laws, that is not the job of judges. One of our strengths is in the separation of powers. We have the executive branch which enforces the laws (The President), the Legislative branch that makes the laws (the Congress), and the Judicial branch that interprets the laws (The judiciary).
We have one federal Constitution, but each state has it's own constitution. Originally, the federal government was to have little power, ceding power to the individual states over matters that concerned the individual states. Much of that has run amok, but the states still have some say in their own affairs.
A strict constructionist interprets the constitution as written, with original intent, and not as they would personally like it to be. We have lawmakers to create laws, that is not the job of judges. One of our strengths is in the separation of powers. We have the executive branch which enforces the laws (The President), the Legislative branch that makes the laws (the Congress), and the Judicial branch that interprets the laws (The judiciary).
Additionally, each area in our society is allowed to set it's own community standards, as long as they don't conflict with the law. IOW, we do not have to allow behavior that is counter productive to the particular area. There is no federal law defining marriage, thus it falls to the individual states to enact the laws that their citizens want.
The trick is to never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. But, you've now shown some of the readers here that once you allow one deviation it opens the floodgates to ever more radical practices. That is one of the things that causes a society to fall.
Did you even fact-check what I told you before crediting me as a reliable source? I'm flattered though, by your trust in my reliability.
Did you even fact-check what I told you before crediting me as a reliable source? I'm flattered though, by your trust in my reliability.
Since Amsterdam is well known for it's very liberal drug policies, it's a given that liberalism would reign in other areas of your society. And in fact it does, what else do I need to know? Decadence is decadence.
Additionally, each area in our society is allowed to set it's own community standards, as long as they don't conflict with the law. IOW, we do not have to allow behavior that is counter productive to the particular area. There is no federal law defining marriage, thus it falls to the individual states to enact the laws that their citizens want.
Could you tell me a bit more about the proces?
Like, who makes these sub-constitutions?
Are they always determined by voting on propositions like Prop 8, and can anyone make propositions for setting such community standards?
Could you tell me a bit more about the proces?
Like, who makes these sub-constitutions?
Are they always determined by voting on propositions like Prop 8, and can anyone make propositions for setting such community standards?
All of that is controlled by each individual state, and not all states allow propositions on the ballot. The individual state constitutions were formed as each state became a state. They were written by representatives of the people, and all are subservient to federal law, where federal law exists.
All of that is controlled by each individual state, and not all states allow propositions on the ballot. The individual state constitutions were formed as each state became a state. They were written by representatives of the people, and all are subservient to federal law, where federal law exists.
I'll bid you good night.
Since Amsterdam is well known for it's very liberal drug policies, it's a given that liberalism would reign in other areas of your society. And in fact it does, what else do I need to know? Decadence is decadence.
I think we're considered a petri-dish-country by political-scientists. Our decision process is relatively fast, because we are a very small country. It's almost like time goes faster here!
Liberalism doesn't have the same meaning here that you seem to give it. One of our largest political parties runs a similar program as your Republican party, and they call themselves "Liberal" to convey that they support a Liberal (=free) market.
In a European context we are regarded as becoming relatively more conservative towards many issues that we are "infamous" for, like drug policies, social security and immigration.
Partly because we now have to adhere to European laws for some issues, and we have made some compromises there that some consider a step back.
We have been working on a European constitution, and have run into some of the same problems that you have with your States and Country division.