hephzibah wrote:If we don't, then why do we?
Because what many people believe is simply silly, and the sillier our beliefs appear, the more adamant we are about finding ways to defend them.
Because people consider our beliefs to be silly, and the more that they cajole us, the more adamant we are in defending our beliefs.
Intrepid wrote:Because people consider our beliefs to be silly, and the more that they cajole us, the more adamant we are in defending our beliefs.
Also a truth.
Which is, in my opinion, a fundamental failing among many of the Christians I know.
I am all for discussions, but I have learned something very important in life. The more that one is secure about his beliefs, be they religious, or anything else, the less that one needs to become defensive about them.
Even on A2K, which is all about debate and discussion, I find that I will reach a point in some discussions where I don't want to waste my time and energy having "pissing contests". Exchange of ideas are fine, but when it becomes too heated, I ask myself why am I getting so involved, and will bow out.
I think that if a person is trying too hard to get a point across, it is important that he look into himself. Is he trying to prove something to others, or to himself?
Momma Angel wrote:Questioner Wrote:
Quote:Also a truth.
Which is, in my opinion, a fundamental failing among many of the Christians I know.
Also, a truth.
Which is, in my opinion, a fundamental failing among probably any who have strong beliefs in anything and are cajoled and teased about them.
I'm just sayin.................
Well, you're only slightly correct. The predicament of Christians is perhaps worse than others with 'strong beliefs' in that in most cases their theologies don't require them to rise above such baiting.
hephzibah wrote:Law # 15
Hmmmm....
I think this crown might be getting a little heavy...
see next thread for the continued conversation with myself...
You really did flip, didn't you? Have a cold one. . . Shower, I mean.
Phoenix32890 wrote:reallife wrote:Really Phoenix the lengths you will go to trying to disenfranchise Christians is just startling.
There are houses of worship other than those of the Christian belief, or hadn't you noticed? I believe that my statement relates to all forms of religious and other groups that enjoy tax exempt benefits, but push political agendas.
No one is disenfranchising Christians. After all, each individual may vote. I am speaking now of organizations that put on political campaigns, using MY tax money!
Last year, I quit a non-religious 501 C3 (tax exempt) organization, because they were using money to hire lobbyists who were pushing political agendas of which I did not approve.
So if they had been 'pushing a political agenda' of which you DID approve...then what?
neologist wrote:hephzibah wrote:Law # 15
Hmmmm....
I think this crown might be getting a little heavy...
see next thread for the continued conversation with myself...
You really did flip, didn't you? Have a cold one. . . Shower, I mean.
Come on neo... I was just playing! If you are following them you will find the very end on... I think it's in the Echo thread where I state my purpose for doing that... Well two reasons actually... One cause I was bored... Two because I wanted to up my numbers of posts so I can actually get to 750 sometime in 2006 and be able to use the PM priviledge... No one was around so I was just having some fun. I hope that didn't discredit me...
Phoenix32890 wrote:real life wrote:So if they had been 'pushing a political agenda' of which you DID approve...then what?
In the case of this organization, I would have probably left no matter what. The largest percentage of the dues was going to the national office, while the state and local chapters received a pittance.
If I wanted to join a political group, I would have. This organization was not supposed to be political in the way that it turned out. I found myself at cross purposes with them.
Just for the record, political parties are tax exempt, right?
Does that mean you think they should refrain from political activity (just to be consistent with your views on churches and their tax exempt status) ?
By definition....anything for which the people must get a license for....is not a right but, a privilege.
There is really no point in talking about what you or I will vote for on this matter.
The people will not be able to directly cast a vote regarding marriage. Too much power back in the hands of the people.
No one in America has the right to marriage, just as no one has the right to drive.
You must first submit to the authority of the state and by that authority be granted the privilege.
Where is the separation of church and state people when you need them.
I guess separation of church and state was only coined (not written law) to protect the state and not to protect the churches/religions.
The truth is anyone can get married to anyone else under the law. They will not throw you in jail or even fine you for getting married.
It's just that the state and therefore the federal government will not give you the married status. No one will get this status without submitting to the state for such a privilege.
A privilege like hunting, fishing, driving,......etc.
I guess that's why my Native American brothers would not submit to the 'powers' that be.
They knew the difference between freedom and the illusion of freedom.
Many keep pointing out how all religion was created as a form of control.
lol.
Who is under the illusion that they are not under some form of control and that control and power grows? lol
In the name of freedom....men are enslaved. You might not be enslaved by religion...but that does not mean you won't be enslaved. Some might say...we already are.
"But Bartikus, I live a 'good' life with many 'good' things and am able to do many things!"
By what or whose authority?
We shall see.
Phoenix32890 wrote:I think that if a person is trying too hard to get a point across, it is important that he look into himself. Is he trying to prove something to others, or to himself?
Valid, and if you can maintain momentum and direction and focus then it can still be OK but without it's a train wreck.
I personally have no problems at all if someone wants to prove something or challenge something (even if rather overt), as long as there are the requites of maintenance of momentum, direction, focus and intelligence etc.
Questioner wrote:hephzibah wrote:If we don't, then why do we?
Because what many people believe is simply silly, and the sillier our beliefs appear, the more adamant we are about finding ways to defend them.
Wow questioner, good point!
Bartikus wrote:No one in America has the right to marriage, just as no one has the right to drive. You must first submit to the authority of the state and by that authority be granted the privilege.
I contest your assertion by posing this question:
In what way would an *eligible* couple not have that right?
Submission to authority is not denial of rights, and the auto analogy beaks upon scrutiny, as one can be denied an auto license for health reasons for example.
Quote:I think that if a person is trying too hard to get a point across, it is important that he look into himself. Is he trying to prove something to others, or to himself?
That's a good question phoenix.
