Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

"Own me?" LOL

0 Replies

FrankApisa wrote:

Maybe, Phoenix...if you open her eyes about MA vis-a-vis Yours Truly...she might finally be able to lift the veil from her eyes on the question of her actions with regard to homosexuals.

OK- Well Momma, what do YOU think? Do you believe that you are as even handed with Frank as with those on this forum who are in agreement with your religious views?

I have read in numerous places where you fall all over yourself complimenting members of whom you know nothing but that he/she is a Christian. Is that the "ticket" to get into your favor? What does having a claque of people nodding in agreement with you make you feel? Does it make you feel more secure in your beliefs? Do numbers reinforce your faith?

I will tell you what I think, and I will cut the baloney. I think that you have a belief. I think that you want all people, whether they believe as you do or not, to have to adhere to the rules of your faith, by law.

In other words, I think that your agenda is to turn the United States from a democracy into a theocracy.

(Notice that I did not make broad statements that included anyone but you, but I do believe that you have colleagues!)

So my question to you is:

Would you be happy if the United States laws were legally consonant with Christian beliefs? Are you working towards that end? Just a yes or no will do!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

Amazing....isn't it, Phoenix!

Despite the fact that it is absolutely, patently obvious that MA DOES treat homosexuals differently...and despite the fact that you have demonstrated conclusively that she does....she is determined to maintain that she doesn't.

I have answered this to the best of my ability. I am more than willing to agree to disagree.

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

Well...since you cannot get her to see the (bright) light with regard to her treatment of homosexuals by her conduct to limit their rights...perhaps you can open her eyes by asking if she applies this bit of philosophy to me.

She does not agree with me. Does she treat me differently from the others here?

Quote:

Gosh...it is wonderful to know that MA is such an understanding person...that my conduct in NO WAY changes the way she feels about me.

But wait!!!

Does she treat me the same as all the rest...or does she treat me differently...DESPITE ALL HER PROTESTS TO THE CONTRARY?

I gotta be honest with you, Phoenix...I think MA does treat me differently. I think my conduct has changed the way she feels about me.

In fact, I think (with all the respect and civility possible in such a circumstance) that she is full of baloney!

Maybe, Phoenix...if you open her eyes about MA vis-a-vis Yours Truly...she might finally be able to lift the veil from her eyes on the question of her actions with regard to homosexuals.

Frank, my feelings toward you have not changed. I tried engaging in a civil discussion with you and you refused to accept the fact that I found the manner in which you were treating me to be unacceptable to me.

Just as in any situation, if I am not comfortable or if I am being attacked (whether it be verbally or physically) it is my decision as to whether to stay in that situation or not.

I treat you only differently in the respect that I have not been answering your posts directly because I did not want to add fuel to your fire. If I continually let you treat me as you did, then that is the same thing as condoning the behavior and I do not condone it towards me or anyone else.

I had asked you in many posts to please curb your namecalling and belittlleing of me. You obviously refused to do so, and so I removed myself from the situation, as I would do again with you or anyone else that felt it necessary to treat me in that manner.

0 Replies

NO.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

NO.

evidence is to the contrary.

0 Replies

MommaAngel wrote:

NO.

OK Momma, now I am clear about that. Now if you don't want the laws of the United States consonant with Christian law, why are you advocating in areas that have nothing to do with you as a person?

Oh, just in case you are having a problem explaining, check out MY tag line!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Hi Frank, you still own me dinner next time we are in the city.

You got it, Buddy. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

You asked for a plain yes or no. I had to choose no because there are many, many things to take into consideration.

My motives are not as you say they are. I am not trying to make everyone believe as I believe. I am not trying to make the laws only as I believe they should be.

I believe certain things are right and certain things are wrong. The things that I believe are wrong I state so and if I am availed of a peaceful, lawful way to change them, then yes, I do try to do that. Just as you would or should.

Do I believe that everyone should just practice Christianity? Of course I would like for the world to believe in God as I do because I am happy and feel blessed in that belief and would love for everyone to feel the same. But, I am not stupid. I know this is an impossibility. Everyone has free will, given to them by God, and they exercise that free will as they see fit.

I am sorry you do not understand. I have explained it as best as I can. I have tried repeatedly to explain it. If you don't accept it, then fine, you don't accept it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

NO.

However.....

Momma Angel wrote:

mesquite wrote:
I agree, and that is why I qualified that example as belonging at the far end of the spectrum. I do however hope that you understand that in the places where such actions are condoned, there is no freedom of religion. Government is by theocracy. The second highest crime, second only to murder is apostasy.

Think very hard indeed before you attempt to tamper with the concept of religious freedom.

You call theocracy a crime. I don't. Freedom of religion means the right to[/i] or not to[/i] practice one's religion. It doesn't just mean that you have the right to not have religious proclamations made or artifacts not placed in buildings. It also means I have the right to make those proclamations or to want to have the artifacts in a building.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank, my feelings toward you have not changed. I tried engaging in a civil discussion with you and you refused to accept the fact that I found the manner in which you were treating me to be unacceptable to me.

Just as in any situation, if I am not comfortable or if I am being attacked (whether it be verbally or physically) it is my decision as to whether to stay in that situation or not.

I treat you only differently in the respect that I have not been answering your posts directly because I did not want to add fuel to your fire. If I continually let you treat me as you did, then that is the same thing as condoning the behavior and I do not condone it towards me or anyone else.

I had asked you in many posts to please curb your namecalling and belittlleing of me. You obviously refused to do so, and so I removed myself from the situation, as I would do again with you or anyone else that felt it necessary to treat me in that manner.

And I fully understand why you are treating me differently, MA...and quite honestly, I am not in substantial disagreement with you on that.

But the point is that because I have been rude and crude...you do treat me differently.

So let us reason together for just a second: If you had to resort to treating me differently because I was rude and crude....why should be think that you would not treat homosexuals differently because their conduct offends your god mightily?

I don't want to push this too far.

I just want to see if you can see that a valid point has been made in this debate. And I think it is worthwhile to address the fact that reasonable, ethical debate requires that when an opponent makes a valid point...it should be acknowledged...and not reargued.

0 Replies

MommaAngel wrote:

I am sorry you do not understand.

I think that the problem is, sadly, that I understand TOO well!

0 Replies

Frank, I am willing to admit that I treated you differently in the way I treated you in the respect that I chose not to answer you directly.

Perhaps that may be because I have been taking the term "differently" to mean in a condeming manner. If I was under the wrong presumption here, then I do apologize. I thought we were meaning "differently" more similarly. Laughing

The fact that someone's conduct offends God mightily is between God and them. I may not like it, but I can and still do care about them and treat them with respect and dignity.

And Frank, please, can we stay on this type of terms? I like conversing with you when you are this way. I understand your points much more easily and would really like this to be the case.

Phoenix,

Agree to disagree then?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank, I am willing to admit that I treated you differently in the way I treated you in the respect that I chose not to answer you directly.

Okay.

Quote:

Perhaps that may be because I have been taking the term "differently" to mean in a condeming manner. If I was under the wrong presumption here, then I do apologize. I thought we were meaning "differently" more similarly.

So far this post is a nominee for the Posters Hall of Fame!

Quote:

The fact that someone's conduct offends God mightily is between God and them. I may not like it, but I can and still do care about them and treat them with respect and dignity.

Okay...I will certainly buy that in preference to "I do not treat them differently." However, I am sure that others have the same apprehensions about this thought as I do...namely, there is a great deal of mischief that can accrue even when theists are "treating others with (what they consider) respect and dignity."

Fact is...lobbying and advocating rules that deprive a class of people certain rights (or substitute any word in place of rights that you choose)...simply on the basis of a so-called "god revealed iniquity"...is a dangerous alley.

There are many of us who consider lobbying or advocating denying homosexuals the right to contract to marry (secular...not religious)...is many things...but not "treating them with respect and dignity."

Some might go so far as to suggest it is more apt to describe it as treating them with disrespect and lack of dignity.!

Quote:

And Frank, please, can we stay on this type of terms? I like conversing with you when you are this way. I understand your points much more easily and would really like this to be the case.

I'll let you decide how things are going.

I doubt I will ever smooth the edges enough for you...and many others...to feel completely comfortable with...and there is a great deal of me that wants not even to try to get you to understand the value of me as a renegade. But I am making a concerted effort to be civil and respectful per your standards for now. Personally, I prefer my standards... Twisted Evil

...but we can discuss that at some future point in another thread.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

So far this post is a nominee for the Posters Hall of Fame!

Agreed! And actually, I am printing it out, framing it and hanging it in my office to help remind me that you and I can find common ground. Laughing

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

Okay...I will certainly buy that in preference to "I do not treat them differently." However, I am sure that others have the same apprehensions about this thought as I do...namely, there is a great deal of mischief that can accrue even when theists are "treating others with (what they consider) respect and dignity."

Fact is...lobbying and advocating rules that deprive a class of people certain rights (or substitute any word in place of rights that you choose)...simply on the basis of a so-called "god revealed iniquity"...is a dangerous alley.

There are many of us who consider lobbying or advocating denying homosexuals the right to contract to marry (secular...not religious)...is many things...but not "treating them with respect and dignity."

Some might go so far as to suggest it is more apt to describe it as treating them with disrespect and lack of dignity.!

Now Frank, don't faint! But, "...is a dangerous alley." I agree with you 100%. It is a dangerous alley. And just our posts back and forth have been but a small example. That is why I feel it is so important that maintaining a civil correspondence is essential.

I understand how some may feel that I and others lobbying about the same sex marriage law may appear as we are being disrespectful and lacking in dignity. Again, I can only tell you that in my believing they have the right to lobby for them just as I have the right to lobby against them, is tantamount to both of our rights being accommodated. Again, as long as this is done without the condemnation so many have offered. I in no way ascribe to that whatsoever.

So far? Things seem to be going well. Laughing

Frank, if all of your posts (or even just the majority of them) were written as well and civilly as the past couple have been, I would have no problem.

And I do thank you for making this effort. It is greatly appreciated.

Besides, you ARE afterall, a cat person! Laughing

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Momma Angel- You still haven't explained how you don't treat ,homosexuals any differently than anyone else. yet you would lobby to deprive them of rights that other people have.

MA clearly isn't treating homosexuals any differently to anyone else. I'm sure she would also lobby against heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex...

By the way, loving the new civility. Any chance the original thread question could be addressed in such a tone? I do think it's a fascinating question.

0 Replies

djbt Wrote:

Quote:

MA clearly isn't treating homosexuals any differently to anyone else. I'm sure she would also lobby against heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex...

By the way, loving the new civility. Any chance the original thread question could be addressed in such a tone? I do think it's a fascinating question.

heterosexual: 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex.

djbt, I'm not quite understanding that comment about heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex... Could you enlighten me?

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Momma Angel- You still haven't explained how you don't treat ,homosexuals any differently than anyone else. yet you would lobby to deprive them of rights that other people have.

MA clearly isn't treating homosexuals any differently to anyone else. I'm sure she would also lobby against heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex...

By the way, loving the new civility. Any chance the original thread question could be addressed in such a tone? I do think it's a fascinating question.

I suspect if we did...the answer would be that big fat NO that MA gave to Phoenix's question earlier.

None of us, I am sure, would want to handle a victory the way the god of the Bible directs in the Deuteronomy passage that forms the basis for this thread.

MY GUESSES...(the guesses I consider the best possible guesses I can make considering the evidence available...and the speculation my psyche provides for me):

No GOD ever wrote those words...or asked anyone to write them as a quote.

No GOD would.

They are the words of ancient Hebrews...primative human sentiments put into the mouth of a god they invented...and for good reason. Their enemies had ferocious gods....and they wanted a ferocious god to protect themselves from those gods.

I am willing and anxious to hear from those who think otherwise.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

djbt Wrote:

Quote:
MA clearly isn't treating homosexuals any differently to anyone else. I'm sure she would also lobby against heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex...

By the way, loving the new civility. Any chance the original thread question could be addressed in such a tone? I do think it's a fascinating question.

heterosexual: 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex.

djbt, I'm not quite understanding that comment about heterosexuals marrying people of the same sex... Could you enlighten me?

That was a joke, MA...and a doggone good one at that. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I was joking really, but I guess my point was that treating people differently would be to apply one rule to one group, and a different one to another. You're not doing that, you are saying that the act of homosexual sex is always wrong, for everyone.

So I don't think you are treating people differently, or being hypocritical on this point. I just think your position is immoral.

0 Replies

Well, I kind of thought it was a joke but I have learned to not take anything for granted or to assume in here! Laughing

Now Frank, I think the way you put that post was well, downright nice! I can understand how one even might think that way.

djbt Wrote:

Quote:

I was joking really, but I guess my point was that treating people differently would be to apply one rule to one group, and a different one to another. You're not doing that, you are saying that the act of homosexual sex is always wrong, for everyone.

So I don't think you are treating people differently, or being hypocritical on this point. I just think your position is immoral.

Well, ok. That's your opinion. I don't agree so, let's agree to disagree here.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know