How Dare Karen Pence Be Christian!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
How utterly brazen. How shameless. How bigoted. How inexcusable and unjustifiable. The wife of the Vice President of the United States is a committed Christian who – perish the thought – teaches at a Christian school. What has become of our nation?
Worse still, this Christian school actually holds to Christian principles.
Is there a more serious crime she could have committed?
Of course the nation is outraged. This is a frontal assault on one of today’s most sacred political cows. Religious faith (specifically, Bible-based, Christian faith) can have no connection with the public square. We must have freedom from religion – that is, from religion that has any real connection to the Bible.
Had Karen Pence been a liberal (or, “progressive”) Christian, there would be no problem.
So-called progressive Christianity has exchanged the values of the world for the values of the Word. That’s why the world – meaning, secular society, worldly society – loves progressive Christianity .
As Jesus said to His disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
But because Mrs. Pence helps out at a school with biblically-Christian standards, there has been a near-hysterical breakdown in the media.
The FRC’s Tony Perkins cited these headlines in a January 17 email:
- "Karen Pence teaching art at school that bans gay students, parents" (CNN)
- "Vice-president's wife, Karen Pence to teach at anti-LGBT school" (BBC News)
- "Karen Pence Is Teaching at Christian School That Bars L.G.B.T. Students and Teachers" (NY Times)
In reality, as Perkins explains, “The truth is that Karen, like other Christians faithful to the Bible, believes sexual conduct outside of the marriage of a man and woman is contrary to God's plan. This attack on Mrs. Pence is more evidence of the growing intolerance, if not outright hostility toward biblical truth and those who live by that truth, especially those who hold positions in the public square. The message being sent is quite clear: (1) Biblical faith and adherence must be checked at the door of public service (which is a reverse religious test), and (2) Those who hold to these ‘antiquated’ views should be relegated to the margins of society.”
He is not exaggerating.
Writing from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew (and with typical sarcasm), Ben Shapiro tweeted , “BREAKING: Pence’s wife is working for a Christian school that requires that Christian students pledge to abide by Christian standards of sin that have not changed in 2,000 years.”
Oh, the horror!
Matt Walsh, the conservative Catholic blogger, said this: “The Left is once again shocked to learn that the Pences are Christian. It seems they learn this fact anew every few months or so and are freshly outraged every time it dawns on them.”
He continues, “Of course, the stated reason for the outrage is not that Karen Pence, a Christian, is working for Immanuel Christian School, a Christian school, but that the school bans openly gay teachers and does not admit openly gay students. It also prohibits all other forms of sexually immoral conduct, including premarital sex. Teachers are required to officially affirm the Biblical position on all of these subjects.”
In other words, in keeping with clear biblical principles, principles which have never been questioned until recently (in the aftermath of the sexual revolution), practicing homosexuals are considered immoral. As such, they are prohibited from teaching at a Christian school or studying at a Christian school. (As Walsh notes, the same holds true for other, willful forms of conduct that violate God’s standards.)
Is this really news? Is it that big of a shock? Just because the world has changed, does that mean God’s Word has changed? Just because many professing “Christians” have decided that they know better than the Scriptures, does that mean that the Lord now follows human opinion? Seriously?
And here’s another shocker. If this was a traditional Muslim school, non-Muslims would be banned. And heterosexual teens who were having sex would be banned.
And if this was a traditional Jewish school, Christian kids would not be permitted to study there, nor would kids who were getting drunk and doing drugs.
Or perhaps that’s not so shocking.
After all, we expect traditional Muslims to be, well, traditional Muslims.
And we expect traditional Jews to be, well, traditional Jews.
And I’m not so sure there would be outrage if the spouse of a Muslim political leader in America taught at a traditional Muslim school. Or the spouse of a Jewish political leader at a traditional Jewish school.
The outrage is over any connection between the historic Christian faith – the dominant, oppressive religion of America! – and the public square. Such a connection must be severed at once.
That’s why the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is furious with incoming governor Bill Lee and the state of Tennessee. He dares to have a Christian worship service on the day of his inauguration!
The FFRF wrote to him, “As a private citizen you may, of course, attend any religious functions you like. But the federal and state constitutions dictate that you as governor may not insert religious rituals into government-sponsored events, including your inauguration.”
So Lee, who defeated his Democrat opponent by a whopping 20 percentage points (59 to 39 percent), and who campaigned openly as a committed Christian, must now keep his faith out of the public square.
Yes, as this foundation so plainly states, the goal is freedom from religion.
Thank God that Karen Pence and Bill Lee didn’t get the memo.
And thank God that our Founders didn’t get it either.
In the famous words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
We do not check that morality and that religion at the door when we are elected to public office, nor do our family members.
Mrs. Pence, we are with you!
Around the Web
Recommended from Townhall
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
“Is this really news? Is it that big of a shock? Just because the world has changed, does that mean God’s Word has changed? Just because many professing “Christians” have decided that they know better than the Scriptures, does that mean that the Lord now follows human opinion? Seriously?
And here’s another shocker. If this was a traditional Muslim school, non-Muslims would be banned. And heterosexual teens who were having sex would be banned.
And if this was a traditional Jewish school, Christian kids would not be permitted to study there, nor would kids who were getting drunk and doing drugs.
Or perhaps that’s not so shocking.
After all, we expect traditional Muslims to be, well, traditional Muslims.
And we expect traditional Jews to be, well, traditional Jews.
And I’m not so sure there would be outrage if the spouse of a Muslim political leader in America taught at a traditional Muslim school. Or the spouse of a Jewish political leader at a traditional Jewish school.
The outrage is over any connection between the historic Christian faith – the dominant, oppressive religion of America! – and the public square. Such a connection must be severed at once.
That’s why the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is furious with incoming governor Bill Lee and the state of Tennessee. He dares to have a Christian worship service on the day of his inauguration!
The FFRF wrote to him, “As a private citizen you may, of course, attend any religious functions you like. But the federal and state constitutions dictate that you as governor may not insert religious rituals into government-sponsored events, including your inauguration.”
So Lee, who defeated his Democrat opponent by a whopping 20 percentage points (59 to 39 percent), and who campaigned openly as a committed Christian, must now keep his faith out of the public square.
Yes, as this foundation so plainly states, the goal is freedom from religion.
Thank God that Karen Pence and Bill Lee didn’t get the memo.
And thank God that our Founders didn’t get it either.
In the famous words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.””
[deleted]
.......To be honest, the left's real problem isn't that Mike Pence's wife is working at an evangelical school – but that evangelical schools exist at all. Since they do, the last thing liberals want is for anyone in public office to be associated with them. And despite what you've heard from the forces of intolerance, Immanuel Christian doesn't “ban” anyone from their school. What they do, Chad Greene, points out , “is require a specific set of behavioral and religious belief standards equally applied to everyone. Many in the Christian world make a distinction regarding LGBT people that the left typically refuses to consider, between a person and his actions.” As Christians, our behavior doesn't define us – we define our behavior.
Immanuel is in the business of teaching Christianity. What would be the point of a religious school if it didn't? This “immediate, visceral reaction” shows just how far the left will go to shame people of faith into silence. Worse, it proves the day they told us was coming is finally here. Back in 2015, during the Obergefell arguments, President Obama's top lawyer, Donald Verrilli pulled back the curtain on the left's real goal in one surprisingly candid moment. When Justice Samuel Alito pressed the solicitor general on whether same-sex marriage would give the government a weapon to threaten Christian schools, Verrilli seemed uncomfortable but admitted, “It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is – it is going to be an issue.”
We haven't seen the left fully implement their plans, because they haven't had the benefit of another radical president in the White House to build on the liberal legacy of Barack Obama. But we don't have to guess what they'll do if they get one. It's all spelled out in the most recent Democratic National Platform . Religious freedom, as Americans have known it for 233 years, will not be safe in the hands of a movement that is surgically targeting people of faith.......
I would actually prefer that the rulers of the free world (with the power to destroy it) not believe in imaginary beings. I'd feel much safer if mythology and superstition had nothing to do with global politics.
I don't care if they believe in a higher power, but when they get elected to higher office, the Constitution comes first....not their religious beliefs
Our mortal opponents in the Cold War all held the viewpoint you describe regarding religion. So does the present Red China regime. That will never happen here.
It’s God and country and in that order. Always has been always will be.
If that were true you wouldn't be getting reminded of broken commandments in your seeds and articles.
For you (and that's fine) but not for everyone.
1) Christ taught inclusion and tolerance.
2) Karen Pence associates herself with an institution which teaches exclusion and intolerance.
3) Karen Pence is not a Christian.
CQFD
1) Christ taught inclusion and tolerance.
2) Many liberals associate themselves with inclusion and tolerance.
3) Many liberals are only inclusive and tolerant when you agree with their viewpoint/opinion
4) Therefore many liberals are not really Christian.
5) Follow a liberal or BOHIC
6) Agree with a liberal or BOHICA
BOHICA
In your considered opinion... Is what you have written here a logical suite?
Its based on empirical evidence Bob, so yes.
Unlike others i try to observe and consider all evidence that presents itself.
Not just evidence that agrees with my politics.
Quite a difficult concept for some to grasp i suppose .....
Now for the usual pithy veiled insult .... have at it ...
I've no Reply for you.
I presented a logical suite, so I thought you might be trying to do the same. Apparently not.
If all you are doing is listing a few random unsupported opinions... go ahead. I don't see why you present your list as a Reply to me, though. I can see no connection.
If a person was throwing a party and invited everyone in town, because they believed in being "inclusive and tolerant", and specified that because there would be people showing up who were highly allergic to peanuts, that no guest could bring peanuts to the party. But one group, the Nut Club, wanted to attend and demanded they be allowed to bring their bowl of peanuts with them. The person throwing the party said "I'm sorry, but you're welcome to come, but you can't bring the peanuts or the other guests who are deathly allergic would not be able to attend." but the Nut Club, in reply, simply demanded their nut rights and proclaimed the party was excluding them because of their beliefs, that the supposedly "inclusive and tolerant" party was anything but.
Now, most reasonable people would see that it wasn't the host being intolerant but the Nut Club who was demanding special status at the party, one where they didn't have to follow the rules and would be allowed, by their presence, to exclude those they had a problem with, those with nut allergies.
Again, the host was wanting to provide a clean environment for all to enjoy, but the Nut Club couldn't allow such a "Nut Free Zone" so continued to protest, thus ruining the party for all.
Liberals and progressives are inclusive of all, no matter what race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. But if your faith demands a special status that rejects the acceptance of everyone and refuses to acknowledge LGTBQ Americans as equals, to see them as no different than themselves and deserving of all the same rights such as buying products public businesses have on offer or getting married, then it's you who has rejected the invitation to the "inclusive and tolerant" party. It's not on the host, it's on you if you're feeling unwelcome.
There is nothing logical in saying Mrs. Pence is not a Christian. Virtually all Churches and their outreaches including medical and educational facilities have expectations that their employees will live by. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that Churches can expect their employees and students to live up to the standards taught and expected by the given Church or denomination be it Catholic, Baptist, Adventist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Methodist among others but those listed are where most church employees living under codes of expected conduct work. Are Catholic schools that have codes for their employees and students to live up to related to their beliefs not Christians?
C4P,
I posted a short, straightforward logical suite:
Could you please give us an equally short, equally straightforward critque of ths logic... or recognize its truth. Thank you.
Except that anyone can attend or work at that school as long as they live by the beliefs of the given denomination. A single homosexual man who is sexually abstinent can work there and so can a single virgin woman right out of college. Either the moment they have sex with another person while not in a one man one woman marriage relationship either one would be in violation of their code of conduct. No Christian school I know of tolerates sexual relationships of any kind between their students. So an abstinent boy or girl who is gay could go there.
Of course. But doing so forfeits the title "Christian".
Once again...
Lol, not as pithy as usual but thanks for not disappointing.
But of course ...... you wouldn't. Nothing surprising there
I agree with your 1 and 2, but I don't support 3. I think well-intentioned Christians can disagree on things. Many who would agree with Pence also say that LGBT supporters are not Christians. I don't think that's helpful. Better to make the argument and let God worry about who is a Christian.
Of course... but some topics are not up for debate. Christ taught love, so preaching hate is antinomic. Christ taught inclusion, so preaching exclusion is antinomic.
Voluntarily associating with an institution that preaches hate and exclusion... choosing to side with hate and exclusion... is choosing to go against Christ's most fundamental messages.
"Against Christ" disqualifies one from claiming to be a Christian.
One can not be Christian while continuing to live in sin, not repenting of it and abstaining from it. It doesn’t matter which sin it is that one refuses to give up. Everyone has some sin in our lives that is a real struggle to cut off from ourselves. Homosexuality is one of many sins that are out there that some have a real struggle to overcome and really can’t on their own. Only God can give the strength we need to resist falling back into a sinful lifestyle. There are gay people who have changed and there are others who have simply become abstinent just like Priests are supposed to be to over come that sin.
WTF? Christ's message is love. Christ's message is inclusion.
Sex? Christ said nothing significant. Nothing at all about homosexuality. Nothing at all about sex outside of marriage. Sex just wasn't the topic.
LOVE
Love is Christ's message.
That reminds me of this:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
That's really funny coming from you.
That's not true a Christian can sin all their life and still be a Christian. It isn't as much about committing the sin as it is about knowing and believing the sin is wrong. A Christian can Sin but if they don't believe the Sin is a Sin and is wrong and against God's law then they are not a Christian. A Christian can't lie and say it's alright to be Homosexual, that doesn't mean they hate Gays it just means they believe Homosexuality is a Sin and against Gods Law.
Lmao I don't much care whether Karen exists or not, much less what she does. Sounds like someone is just being paranoid.
You may not care but enough LGBT secular progressives did to make a big issue out of her teaching there where she taught before and where her daughter graduated from.
Sorry my read of the article and initial couple of posts indicated that the author and seeder thought this was an epidemic of outrage, instead it now just the opinions of a teeny tiny minority of the population. My misunderstanding, apologies (I still think somebody is making a mountain out of a molehill).
Good for them it's their constitutional right.
The wife of the Vice-president is teaching at an institution which teaches hatred and exclusion.
That's not a molehill.
That's fair for you and others who believe as you do. My personal opinion disagrees with the extreme positions of either side.
You have the right to disagree with anyone you wish, including Christ.
OTOH, if you disagree with Christ, you shouldn't call yourself "Christian".
Thank you
Unfortunately people have proven to be very selective in their beliefs and able to rationalize their opinions.
I see a number of people on NT who disagree with Christ but continue to call themselves Christians.
Well of course! Everyone has a right to their opinion...
Christ's ideas on Christianity are no more significant than Joe Sixpack's!
So why even post here at all?
Lol same reason everyone posts, because I wanted to.
As far as I can tell, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, Christians follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Correct?
Then could someone tell me where in the New testament Jesus said anything against homosexuals?
“And despite what you've heard from the forces of intolerance, Immanuel Christian doesn't “ban” anyone from their school. What they do, Chad Greene, points out , “is require a specific set of behavioral and religious belief standards equally applied to everyone. Many in the Christian world make a distinction regarding LGBT people that the left typically refuses to consider, between a person and his actions.” As Christians, our behavior doesn't define us – we define our behavior.
Immanuel is in the business of teaching Christianity. What would be the point of a religious school if it didn't?” The schools rules are Biblical. They are against all sexual relationships outside of a one man one woman marriage.
Must be one of those "antiquated" views I've heard about.
Is this an example of a Christian relationship?
Or this,
or this,
Pretty sure Trump would never be able to pass the entrance interview since he is the worst scumbag ever.
He spoke against adultery even to the point of lingering lust in the heart and the definition of adultery is any sex at all outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship. In the Old Testament He personally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over their wildly sinful existence and homosexuality was a major part of that.
Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so. Where in the Bible, New Testament, is adultery defined as you claim?
Christianity is New Testament, NOT Old Testament. Please don't derail the discussion, we are talking Christianity.
Funny how there's no evidence to support such a claim.
Side note: that's not completely correct.
According to Christ, it's correct. And He should know...
All of the Bible is for Christians. The New Testament and Old Testament compliments each other. While we are not under the ceremonial laws the Israelites were under or any other such as sacrificing etc. that led up to the Cross, the Old Testament leads into the new and Jesus Himself often quoted existing then scripture that is clearly Old Testament now that still applies or led to Him being the fulfilling of them. The 10 commandments are always in effect, always have been and always will be. Jesus Himseld refered to the tablets in two parts. Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Also many of the prophecies of Daniel that extended beyond the coming of the Messiah are repeated in Revelation. As a Christian I reject the notion that the entire Old Testament is to now be discarded.
Do cite your source.
Mine is Matthew 5.
Matthew 22:36-40
And Jack... This is the last time I will respond to this kind of sommation from you. Please use "please" in the future.
So Jesus confirming an Old Testament command is somehow evidence that they no longer apply?? How does that work, exactly?
It's interesting how you only seem to act this way when facts will not support your assertions. In any case, I really have little interest in double standards, and if you've ever said "please" to me I'm having difficulty recalling it.
Thanks Jack. Great post.
The bit I cited is usually called "the greatest commandment".
Jesus had a navigational problem: His task was to establish a new covenant, but He couldn't just say "annul and replace". He couldn't put off the Jewish people like that.
So he didn't "cancel" the OT, he just supplanted it, making "love one another" the highest standard. Thus... any OT commandment that goes in that direction is fine, but any commandment that goes against "love one another" is false.
I'm troubled, talking to you about things like this, Jack. I often feel like you know already, and are just stirring the pot. I don't know why anyone would do that...
So you are claiming that Christians follow all the rules of the Old Testament? Including Leviticus?? That claim is ludicrous in the extreme. If true then everyone is going to Hell.
76 Things Banned in Leviticus
Except where they contradict each other.
62 CONTRADICTION—Old & New Testaments
You do understand that Jesus was Jewish....right????
Again, Jesus was Jewish so the Old Testament was his thing.
How does loving your neighbor work when your neighbor is gay?
Of course you do, you want to pick and chose the passages that you like and only follow them. How does it feel to think you know more than your own God?
Don't like homosexuals? No worries you can pick the bad passages about them from the old testament, but still ignore everything else that is not convenient to you.
Yes. People also like to refer to it as "the Golden Rule". Let's read it carefully.
The greatest commandment is to love God. Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5.
The second greatest commandment...which Jesus wants to make very sure we don't miss....is to love other people. Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18. Then he concludes:
Jesus wraps this lesson up with a clear statement the rest of the OT law is built on these two principles. So when in doubt, we need to make sure we get these two things right.
You are suggesting that Jesus....the Messiah....one third of the Triune God....gave in to political pressure?
Correct.
No....He fulfilled it. His words.
It's certainly important.
That's completely not what He says. That's simply a rationalization that attempts to make God subject to human whim. It's an escape from having to confront the idea that some behaviors are not OK with God.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stirring the pot", but it's fair to point out that you began this interchange by disagreeing with me, and saying "Christ would know". It's also fair to point out that you've referred to me in the past as "an idiot".
The point of places like this is to read the views of others and the reasoning through which they develop those views, and then examine our own views in that context. It's supposed to challenge and stretch us. It should cause us to consider new facts and alternative ideas. It should cause us to see things differently, even if we don't adopt that position permanently.
We disagree sometimes. We agree sometimes, although probably not as often. In this case, your assertions were factually incorrect. As far as you being troubled, the only emotions I have control over are my own.
No. The Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have them do to you". Good idea, but not the same...
I don't remember either case. A page search for "Christ would know" shows that the only usage is yours, here. I didn't say that. I don't remember calling you "an idiot" either, but assuming your memory of this is more accurate than the other, I certainly do apologize.
But the command to love God and to love our neighbor is in fact the 10 commandments, the first four one one tablet with our relationship to God and the last 6 on the other regarding our fellow human beings.
No. Christ said "Love God and one another."
Inventing false Biblical exegesis is "swearing falsely in the name of the Lord". That's a no-no in both Testaments.
At the time - thousands of years ago - there certainly were "other gods". Every tribe had its gods (plural).
This is what made the God of Abraham special. He required that any other gods the Hebrews might worship (?!) be secondary to him. In exchange, He would make the Hebrews prosper.
The God of Abraham made a deal with the Hebrews: "Make me first among your gods, and follow my rules... and I will make you prosper!"
This God voluntarily subordinated His own behavior to the Compact He made with the Hebrews. That was a first in all the world.
Gradually, the deal between the Hebrews and God became more and more formal, with the Ten Commandments and a zillion minor rules.
Then Christ came and compacted it all into The Greatest Commandment: "Love God and your fellows."
And our current president whom you seem to cherish is the epitome of Sodom and Gomorrah morals.
Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils. I don't like her but she would have been much preferable to Donald Trump. She is obviously intelligent and rational ,even if she is too conservative fiscally and a hawk on foreign policy.
Bernie Sanders was and still is my first choice.
And many felt that Trump was the lesser of two evils and many voted for him because he wasn’t her. One fault with Trump is that he isn’t fiscally conservative enough.
Good question! Inquiring minds want to know.
Jesus didn’t need to say anything about homosexuality. No first century Jew questioned whether homosexual sex was morally permissible. That’s because every Old Testament reference, poem, or metaphor that addresses sex and marriage in a positive way presumes heterosexual relations. Furthermore, every reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament is negative. There was no debate as to what the biblical witness was on that behavior. God-fearing Jews already believed homosexual sex was prohibited.
It’s not certain that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. It’s possible He did address it but His statement wasn’t recorded. The Gospel writers didn’t document everything Jesus said and did—only what they thought was important to their audience. Indeed, most of what Jesus said (and did) was never written down. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” It’s possible Jesus did talk about homosexuality but the Gospel writers didn’t feel it was necessary to include it in their accounts.
According to some Christians, the OT only applies to Jews, not to Christians. Therefore, OT admonishments against homosexuality is irrelevant. If Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality, then there's no reason to assume there's anything wrong with it.
That begs the question: what "statements" were recorded which Jesus never actually said?
Well, no room for misinterpretation, bias, or error there then, right? >sarc<
If homosexuality was so bad, one would think Jesus would have mentioned it. Fortunately, some individuals in society have advanced from 2000 years ago.
If homosexuality was always wrong and it was, the coming of Jesus to die on the cross for our sins did not mean that suddenly than abomination before God or any other one was now ok to engage in. Jesus addresses the law where mankind and his people were getting it wrong and He set the record straight. He had no reason to address homosexuality among his people because they already knew it was wrong and were well aware of Abraham and Lot and what happened to Sodom.
Christ commanded us to love one another. He said that is the greatest commandment.
He did not mention homosexuality. Your ascribing anything on the subject to Him is "bearing false witness in the name of the Lord".
So Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, including nothing about it being wrong. Thanks for admitting that. I have to wonder how many cherries you can pick out of a bible?
The same as the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
He said to hate the sin and love the sinner. It is no act of love to pretend to a sinner that the sin that they are living in whatever it may be is not really sin and that Jesus is fine with it. He was forgiving and admonished the forgiven to go and sin no more.
He said all sexual sin was wrong. Even lingering dwelled upon lust in our heart was as if we commit adultery. All sex acts and thoughts/fantasies outside of a committed man and woman marriage is adultery and is sin. Sin can be repented of and forgiven. That doesn’t mean that we can continue to live in any sin including homosexuality and pretend that somehow we are a practicing committed Christian saved by Gods grace. Any sin we cling to and do not rebuke and is thus unforgiven will keep us out of heaven no matter how minor or major we consider the sin to be.
Source, please?
He did not say this.
They couldn't read, for the most part, and the fables about Abraham and Lot and Sodom weren't even written at the time of Jesus' supposed life. And actually, the lesson of Sodom was about hospitality, not homosexuality. I'm really not convinced you've ever bothered to read the bible, to be honest.
The more you pretend to be some kind of prophet who alone can interpret what Jesus thought, the scarier eternity will be for you. But again, you'd have to have read the bible to know that Jesus said nothing about being gay, and really didn't say much about sex at all, but had PLENTY to say about false prophets.
We're not talking Jew (Old Testament), we're talking Christians. Please try to keep up with the conversation.
You do realize Jesus was a Jew, yes?
Correct. However they would have heard the story repeatedly as part of their regular religious activities.
Actually they were. Most scholars believe those writings pre-date Jesus by at least 1000 years, and probably closer to 1500. Authorship/compliation credit is generally attributed to Moses, so they were certainly part of written tradition by the time of Jesus.
I've heard that interpretation. There is actually a whole cocktail of various forms of sin involved in the story. I think that makes the lessons more applicable in more situations.
Ummm, no.
Christ was a Christian.
(I'm struggling mightily to not explode with laughter...)
You're just trolling now.
There is no way you don't know he was a Jew.
Seriously, Jack...
How can you see Christ as anything other than Christian?
Sure, He was born and raised a Jew... but the whole purpose of His coming was to create something new.
You do realize that Karen Pence (who this article is about) claims to be a Christian, yes?
No, she is a Christian.
Specify where? Did he define what "sexual sin" is? Sure sounds like fun though.
Except it's not adultery.
Actions are different from thoughts.
Sin is also just a silly religious concept meant to invoke fear or guilt.
So you presume for god in such matters? I thought god was the one who decided who got into heaven or not. Kind of like a cosmic club bouncer.
What are your criteria?
She doesn't follow His teachings.
She says she is. I don't believe that she's the Christian she professes to be. She does some anti-Christ stuff like she doesn't love all of her neighbors or treats them all the same
You have evidence of this, other than her claims? Some of her actions go against Christ's teaching.
The point being that the Old Testament is very much part of Christian scripture, because Jesus was a Jew and taught from Jewish scripture.
Asked....and answered.
Born a Jew. Descendant of the greatest Jewish kings. Foretold in Jewish prophecy. Taught from Jewish scriptures. Taught in Jewish only temples. Was observing the Passover when he was arrested. He. Was. A. Jew.
That doesn't even mention the ethnic side of being a Jew. He could have converted to Hinduism and he still would have been a Jew, just like no matter what religion I practice I'm still an American.
Your evidence of this?
What teachings do you see her violating?
She apparently doesn't like gays
Oh sweetie..... So sad.
As you have quoted me incorrectly, are we to conclude that skill eludes you as well?
"Apparently".
Has she condemned them? Has she committed violence against any of them? Has she sought action against them?
She won't teach in schools that "permit" LGBTQ staff and students. She's segregating herself. Would Jesus do that?
Has she said that? Or does she just happen to be teaching in this particular school with this particular policy?
That's a fair question. It's also fair to ask/consider/debate other ways she might act that still would not compromise her belief that homosexuality is wrong.
But I'm not sure the expectation level is realistic. All Christians do things Jesus wouldn't do. That doesn't make them not Christian. Some of those people went on to be saints.
So... now you're agreeing that Christ was a Christian? That's amazing!!!
I never said he wasn't.
I simply said...and proved....he was a Jew.
You are the one who presumed those to be mutually exclusive.
My sister was a Christian. She converted to Judaism.
Those are two different, mutually exclusive, incompatible religions.
Christianity is not extractable from its Jewish history. One cannot begin to understand Christianity or the teachings of Jesus without the context of the Jewish society, beliefs and communities that produced them.
To maintain that the Old Testament ceases to be valid upon the arrival of Jesus is to argue with Jesus himself...who taught from and quoted those very scriptures.
Things as simple and common as the parables of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan are nearly meaningless without the context of Jewish life in the day, Jewish religious practices, Hebrew scripture....and....most importantly....how Jewish religious practice of the day violated the intent of those Hebrew scriptures.
Hebrew scripture foretells of a Messiah who will come and be "wounded and crushed" for our sins (Isaiah). Christians believe Jesus is that Messiah. That's the defining belief of all Christians. So in order to be a Christian, you are buying into Judaism and claiming their prophecies have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus.
True.
Nevertheless... They're two different religions.
You can't really understand Martin Luther without knowledge of the Hussites, either... but they are not the same thing.
Christ was a Christian.
Duh.
[deleted]
They are now, yeah. They became two different religions the moment the stone was rolled away.
Do you not recognize that as a word most commonly employed by idiotic teenagers who are usually wrong when they use it?
"Duh" expresses exasperation with intentional obtuseness.
The fact that you consider factually supported disagreement to be "intentional obtuseness" says volumes, and none of it good.
The fact that you can't manage to express it in adult fashion does not help.
Fair point.
Some, however, are merely so ingrained in their existing thought processes that the existence of other views astonishes them. They find the ensuing factual support of those views to be highly threatening. Their world is suddenly turned upside down.
Nope.
I consider intentional obtuseness to be intentional obtuseness.
Riiiiight. That must be why you only seem to have this problem when you can't manage to refute actual facts.
Maybe some other time, Jack. We're repeating ourselves.
My problem with her is she is the Second Lady. Granted, that is not an elected office, but she is supposed to be a leader of sorts. Here she is clearly saying to gay people..."you don't matter, you don't exist, I will not treat you the same as everyone else."
Merely my opinion
My dear friend, as someone who has lived the lifestyle and will forever be connected to my LGBTQ 'brethren' let me add my voice to yours. I have a different take on this situation specifically: (Let me be clear I have not heard Mrs. Pence speak on this subject and I am no fan of VP Pence's opinions. Were I do hear her out, it is possible the nuance to her words could sway my opinion in a different direction. But, this is where I am now)
I can see your point of view on balance. And here is something Lady Gaga stated on this matter:
"To Mike Pence, who thinks it's acceptable that his wife work at a school that bans LGBTQ,
you are wrong," Gaga said in the middle of her hit song "Million Reasons."
"I [Lady Gaga] am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice,
and everybody is welcome," she continued. "So you can take all that disgrace,
Mr. Pence, and you can look yourself in the mirror, and you'll find it right there."
Here "Gaga" does address the office-holder directly, though it is possible that Mrs. Pence made her own choice as to where she wished to ply her trade. Moreover, Gaga is right that prejudice is a negative thing and should be looked upon as unfavorable and avoided. Yet, on its face, is this negative prejudice? Or, positive discrimination? That is, Mrs. Pence took the path that would do less harm to her, her faith, and the whole of society.
However, what tilts the field for me in favor of Mrs. Pence is in some small way she appears to have found a niche where she can work and give back in accordance with her conscience. That is a big deal! We all want that for ourselves. If in fact, she has found a "proper" landing for herself where can be content and do no harm per se. All things considered and barring anything to counter it, I see that as a good thing.
I appreciate your comment, Cal.
I see Mrs Pence as afraid to surround herself with others not like herself.
And why is a Second Lady working? Did Dr. Biden continue working when she was Second Lady?
Dr. Biden teaches English full-time at Northern Virginia Community College and says some of her students don’t even know she is the second lady. She asks them to call her “Dr.B.”
In an interview with Capitol File Magazine she said, “When we were elected I said to Joe, ‘You know, I have to continue teaching,’ and he said, ‘Of course.'”
Biden’s an advocate for community colleges and traveled across the country as part of the “Community College to Career” campaign in 2012. She also was involved in the Heads Up movement to make community college free.
“I think she is unique,” Joel Goldstein, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law and an expert on the vice presidency told the L.A. times. Other second ladies wrote or did philanthropic work.
(QUICK) Source: Heavy.com
Good catch, TG!
And yes, it is the definition of discrimination for sure. I just remember that discrimination can take two forms: positive and negative.
I'm slapping myself around over here because I thought Dr Biden was a medical doctor.
Shame, shame, on me for assuming
No Problem! ♪ Because that's what ♫ friends are for! (Smile!)
Fair enough. I can certainly see how you might see it that way. It seems a plausible conclusion and a valid point.
My personal opinion is that on a national level this is way more about Trump than Karen Pence. Trump represents DEFCON 1 (not shouting, all caps is the correct usage) for left leaners in America. They receive any and all news related to him, his administration, or his supporters through an incredibly negative filter. He....and by association they....are the enemy. For many of them, any behavior opposing Trump or his minions is acceptable, and any behavior of theirs is contemptible.
Now to be fair, Trump most certainly brings a lot of this on himself. He relishes being an asshole, and has since the 1970's.
But for objectivity, I usually try to imagine any situation if the tables were turned.
For example....how would America react to "the smirk" if the Indian drummer had been wearing the MAGA hat? Or...for that matter...if the kid had simply been wearing a Cincinnati Reds hat? It changes everything immediately.
So in this case, it's pretty easy. How would people be reacting if Jill Biden had taken a teaching position at a Catholic school...which almost surely would have a prohibition on gay staff... or an Islamic school, which would have the exact prohibitions as the place Mrs. Pence teaches? To be fair, I think Jill would probably have been more sensitive to the exact situation that forms the basis of your view and probably avoided such situations. She would probably see gay people as a marginalized group needing her support.
But I'm not sure Mrs. Pence doesn't have the same view of evangelical Christians. They do tend to consider themselves "under attack". Or it could be that she's just so ingrained in a lifetime of evangelical Christianity that none of that ever even occurred to her. I dunno.
In any case, I think if people were not so emotional about the current president, something like this would ruffle a lot fewer feathers.
To some, maybe. For me, this is about the Pences and their holier-than-thou schtick
For me it's more like DEFCON 2. It's not time to panic.....yet
I think the young people today call that clueless
I get it. I feel that way about a lot of liberals I know (not you). For many that I know personally, that liberal ideology has become their morality, and anybody who doesn't subscribe is a lesser person. That kind of thing doesn't endear people. I don't know if the Pence's are that way personally, but it's certainly rampant in that evangelical club they're in.
Well I'm glad. I know a lot of people think the presidency is a much more powerful office than it actually is, and some of them are in full blown panic mode. Some others are in jubilant celebration mode. Either way, all that is just emotion.
Yeah. Fair enough. She certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that, but clueless is never a good thing.
Interesting points.
A lot of things about evangelical Christians and conservatives surprises some....
Nothing surprises me about far right wing ignorant fascism. Been dealing with it my whole life.
And I think they call it Forcecon now, short for Force Condition. They use Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta. Alpha is the lowest Forceon.
I could be wrong about A, B, C, and D
Well you learn something new every day. I had no idea.
Well then, I know one seeder that has four flat tires and no spare on the highway to heaven.
Yes, she most certainly does follow His teachings.
All who accept His grace by faith and repent of all of their sins, going to sin no more will grow in their relationship with him and their desire to please Him because we love him. We don’t do works to be saved and grace doesn’t allow us to contnue to live in sin once saved. We aren’t perfect and we will stumble and make mistakes due to our present sinful nature. We repent of them and gain victory over them. We don’t continue to wallow in them. That is the definition of who and what we are. Everyone is on their own path by their own choice so let’s not make this personal about other members.
You are both 100% correct and right on.
do not personally attack or question the honesty of other members here on any of my seeds.
[deleted]
Nothing surprises me about ignorant left wing liberal fascism. I’ve been dealing with it all my life.
You haven't been dealing with left-wing fascism all of your lfe because left-wing fascism doesn't exist any more than a vegan steakhouse does. It has been explained to you many times that fasicsm is a far-right authoritarian political policy but still you continue to make this oxymoronic claim about left-wing fascism.
You certainly have amassed the right wing demagoguery stereotypes which makes it possible to join a conversation without actually having anything salient or factual to contribute,
Maybe one time I will post the individual origins of your limited, fact-free, name-calling supplantation of genuine dialogue.
She has every right to work where she wants.
Those who criticize her for her choice have every right to do so.
The real issue seems to be that christians simply don't like being criticized.
Exactly. My personal problem with her oath is that she and Pence support Trump - the hypocrisy is astounding. If she and her baby boy who calls her "mother" (that's really icky) really gave a rat's ass about morals, they would have run from Trump as soon as the pussy grabber video came out (actually they would have known long before that how totally immoral he is). They're happy persecuting people who are having consensual sex with other consenting adults, while supporting a serial adulterer who brags about having committed sexual assault and who pays off porn stars.
They have a plank in their eye - too bad these fundie Christians don't bother reading the bible.
How utterly brazen. How shameless. How bigoted. How inexcusable and unjustifiable.
That a school would ban gays of any sort?
See we agree:)
This 'christian school' teaches 'christian values'. No it doesn't.
A madrassa does not teach 'Islamic values' either.
We do not check that morality and that religion at the door when we are elected to public office, nor do our family members.
I will give you morality as it is not bound to religious confines, but when you are elected to public office (don't care what family members may choose to or not do) you do check your religion at the front door (and save it for your Church or not of choice). Remember that little separation of Church and State thingy?
Some people might be wondering what it is or say something like "it's not in the Constitution." I've actually had Christians tell me that the separation of church and state applies only to other religions, since they think this is a "Christian nation" and/or founded on "Christian values (or the bible)."
I didn't say she did, nor did I say anything about Mrs. Pence.
I did not initially mention it. I expressed an observation.
Good.
The article said he had a Christian service on the day of his inauguration not that his inauguration was a Christian service or that there was a Christian service at his inauguration. The separation of church and state does not bar an elected official from participating in a religious service on the same calendar day that they engage in any government function or activities. So, if a believer wanted to have a religious service separate from a secular government event they can. In fact there is nothing preventing government persons from having Friday/Saturday/Sunday religious services in DC government buildings. In fact the founders did just that right after writing and passing the constitution and bill of rights.
If the shoe fits.
That's not exactly a positive endorsement, especially if the school includes homophobia and such bigotry as one of its "principles."
Anyone who thinks that really has no idea what freedom from religion actually means.
Sounds like "progressive Christianity" is more in touch with modern society.
What sounds like the standard persecution complex.
Such views sure are antiquated all right. Not to mention illogical.
Such sanctimonious, exclusionary practices is certainly a valid reason for any outrage.
Why should religious nonsense not be questioned? What makes it exempt from question or scrutiny?
People in the 21st century still believe in god/s and adhere to ancient writings of ancient people? Yeah, seriously?
Christianity, as the dominant religion in America, has been the only religion to try an "dominate" America.
The FFRF brings up a good point.
No, he simply cannot inject his faith into public policy or the government/law.
The same guys who established the separation of church and state via a secular Constitution?
Here are more famous words from Mr. Adams [emphasis mine]:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” ~~~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
I can provide more famous words from Mr. Adams, as well as other Founding Father too whom seem to share similar sentiments.
Morality is subjective and if one's so-called morality requires them to be bigoted, then I would question that "morality."
Nah but it does fit many Atheists I've known and interacted with over the years. Fits more like a glove actually.
They were among the most bigoted people i've ever met.
Look no further than NT for proof of that.
Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" retort.
Nah, its the old, "i know you are but i'm not" gambit.
You know .... the truth.
What constitutional rights have we evil atheists ever supported denying to anyone? If we have never supported denying equal rights to others then how are we bigoted, unless you are confusing bigotry with having strong opinions during a discussion?
You evil atheists are guilty of whatever any deist says you are.
You are traitors to our Christian nation - you do not go to church on Sunday! - so you have no rights at all.
Pastafarians meet at alternating restaurants on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday for dinner and drinks. Everyone is invited.
More like the old ad hom attack gambit.
According to whom?
Was that a s/ or straight outta Liberty U?
Oh...
Well...
Free booze?
That changes everything...
After further reflection, atheists must have all the same rights as deists.
Where’s the bar?
Hand on my heart!
Your comment is 100% right on on all points.I have had similar interactions with secular progressives. They talk about tolerance and diversity until I tell them I expect them to exhibit those traits toward me and my beliefs and viewpoints.
Maybe you should answer the very same question that I posed to Sparty'?
I am intolerant of intolerance.
[deleted]
Okay. Well done----
take a look in the mirror then. It is not conservatives who are intolerant of other views and opinions. We aren’t the ones into thought and content control. We are live and let live.
But only as long as you are white, heterosexual male, and conservative Christian.
There is really no point in this debate. You and i have had discussions like this numerous times and you simple can't see the possibility of any other chosen way of life than your own. Folks like you think you have it all figured out and are unwilling to see your actions towards others, who are not of like mind, as anything but correct.
If you can't see how many Atheists are regularly bigoted towards people of faith in this world each day, you never will. And nothing will ever change in this regard for you.
In contrast, as a Christian i do see how some more fundamentalist Christians are regularly bigoted towards Atheists and i don't support that mentality in the least. Never have. Problem is, more Atheists could take that same approach towards Christians but in my experience they don't. Its all or nothing for them. And in this world, that never works.
I treat them the very same way that I would expect them to treat me. If that is a problem then it lies on your shoulders.
We do not have the right not to be criticized for our beliefs, and for her to work at a private school that stigmatizes others, she deserves to be criticized. There is nothing to support the religious belief that LGBT people chose to be LGBT any more than you and I apparently chose to be CIS and heterosexual. Nobody is born either religious or bigoted because those are learned behaviors from our parents and people who we choose to associate with. She can believe as she wishes but there are consequences for willfully treating others as second-class citizens because of her twisted interpretation of the Gospels. Jesus wasn't a homophobic bigot.
Lol yeah, that's about what i expected for an answer.
So, do you like being talked down to for being faithless? The idea of that is hilarious since you are so prone to doing that to others that are not of like mind with you.
Perhaps you are too closed off the recognized it but [Deleted]
How am I talking down to you or her? I said that I would treat them as I want to be treated. Am I talking down to you or her because I criticize her for her LGBT bigotry, or do you believe that it isn't it bigotry if it is based on sincere religious belief?
You think people of faith are stupid do you not?
Don't lie now ..... you haven't been afraid to say so in the past
I think that religious belief is illogical, but I also understand how hard it is to overcome deep-seated programming, especially when religious belief has so many social implications. I often have to fake belief in public because I am treated as an outcast when I do not.
Lol, not even a nice dodge but i understand. [deleted]
I think its very sad for one to have a complete lack of faith in anything greater than ones self and the provable. Atheists as a group tend to be among the most unhappy and angry groups of people around for it. Proven by the very elevated suicide rates among them. Which is really understandable since they are constantly bitching about this or pissed off at that. Rarely happy with anything they simply don't agree with. Unable to live and let live towards anyone or anything that is not of like mind or within the narrative they live their lives by.
So yeah, the condescending, bigoted attitude many atheists have is understandable .... and truly sad!
[deleted]
Why do you need to have faith in something unprovable and supposedly greater than yourself to be happy? I find it sad that some people can't handle reality and need to believe they'll have eternal life while everyone different from them roasts in hell. They need to think they're somehow special instead of being able to accept that we're just animals with a higher cognitive level, and that we need to make the most of our life here because it's all we have. If anything, that makes us value life more. The suicide factor - if I ever get diagnosed with Alzheimers or have a painful terminal illness, I will almost definitely commit suicide (I say "almost" because nobody knows for sure until/unless they face that situation). I love my life, but I'm not afraid of death. Being an Alzheimers victim isn't life, for me - living in constant agony isn't either. And without religion, I don't have that indoctrination telling me it's a sin to take my own life so I don't have to suffer unnecessarily out of some misguided belief that some god wants me to.
The fundies I know tend to be the unhappiest; the other religious people I know seem to be about as happy or sad as atheists. Meaning, unhappy if bad things happen, but otherwise fairly happy. When my mom was a chaplain, she said it was the Southern Baptists who were most afraid of death, because of their church's harping on the fire and brimstone and evil of their god, instead of its love. And it's the religious fanatics who are always bitching about the immorality of everyone else (as if there's anything moral about being unable to behave properly without fear of threats or promises of rewards from a god) and trying to force their crap into our laws and government and schools, rarely happy with anything outside of their narrative. Again, "normal" non-fanatical religious people don't seem to have those issues.
Some feel they need to get on an internet site daily whose only purpose is to condemn, ridicule those who do have religious beliefs.
That alone is telling. What compels someone to do that besides resentment or anger?
Some get on an internet site daily with the admitted purpose of trolling liberals. What compels someone to do that?
It's funny that you think challenging religious beliefs with logic is an attack. Yet all the attacks against atheists are just fine.
Do you think Jesus approves of your snark and meanness?
You think comments like this is logic? And this is mild compared to others.
More misogyny from the left. Tolerance anyone?
[Removed]
[Removed]
... while calling themselves "Christian"...
I disagree but then again so does most Psychiatry newer than 120 year old.
Nah but it is funny that you think challenging "faith" with "logic" is reasonable.
So teaching religion is programming, such as, Obama would have been programmed by Jeremiah Wright or Martin Luther King was programmed.
Haters gotta hate Sunshine, haters gotta hate.
Why should anyone have faith in what does not exist? What would it prove or accomplish to believe in a god that has no objective evidence of ever existing, other than an empty happy emotion? I am part of a much larger society of the Earth and the universe and I have an obligation to work together to help others.
What have atheists ever tried to take from you or or to prevent you from doing? Have us nasty atheists ever violated your freedom of religion rights? From my perspective, the psychological projection of that statement on your part is hilariously ironic. Do you feel threatened by people who do not believe in your god or any other god because we are different?
The link that was removed:
Enjoy!
Thx! Much appreciated.
Yes, it is. Telling a child over and over that god exists and it is watching you and will send you to burn in Hell if you don't worship him is the same as what a cult does it its members.
Why is it only black religious people that are a problem with you?
So true. It isn't about rights with these people.
What should I challenge faith with, if logical thought is not the proper tool? Are religious faith and belief to remain unchallenged?
That would be you...you said they are programmed. I am sure MLK was taught religion as a child and Obama. Where they programmed?
Yep, this went exactly the way it always does with you, just like i predicted. Regarding the concept of faith, we disagree completely and absolutely.
Some simply can't grasp the concept of "faith" and never will. Fair enough but i'm not insane so i'm not going to keep having this discussion with you to the same impasse.
My bad for pursuing it once again with you.
Your answer is in the definition of "faith." You just refuse to accept, the accepted definition of "faith."
Until your name is Merriam or Webster .... you don't get to do that.
Why do you want to? Why do you want to convert people?
Talk about proselytizing. You don't like it when Christians do it...why should you?
I have a strong attraction to logical thought. I was not aware that was offensive to some people.
I'll remember to keep my logic to myself around you and Sparty. I would never want to offend you.
You are trying to equate faith and logic as a way to justify your religious beliefs.
There is nothing even close to faith about logic. They are polar opposites. Faith and belief are to be accepted without question. The core idea of logic is to question everything, until there are answers that can be proven objectively and without either faith or emotion.
If you are not succeeding with your own daily proselytizing, seems illogical for you to continue...
Why did you choose to only use black men as examples of religious programming?
Equal rights for others is not a purely religious idea, and many religious people do not support that idea.
I have not mentioned my beliefs in this discussion, other than basic logical concepts, so it is very difficult for you to claim that I am proselytizing. I will stop replying you to you if logic is a problem for you. Just say that word and I will stop.
Is this an IMPASS statement?
What does it matter? You got something against black people? Would using JFK as an example make you feel better? Does that change the context for you?
I don't have a problem with black people. I voted for Obama twice.
You need to look up the definition of proselytizing.
Do you think he is programmed? or JFK was?
I don't know enough to say. JFK seemed like a social Catholic to me. I was also raised Catholic but I never believed a word of it because I questioned what I was taught. The more ideas that you question the more logical holes that open up and the charade of religious belief quickly falls apart. I went to mass occasionally out of guilt but the priest pedophile scandal was the reason that I formally left the church. I haven't been in church in 30 years, except for weddings and funerals.
Is using logic an example of proselytizing?
How can I be trying to convert you when you came to this thread of your own volition and I have not mentioned by beliefs? I could just as easily claim that you are trying to convert me to your preferred sect of Christianity.
Adults/children can be taught religion and not programmed, you would agree.
Telling people to pray to a god or they will burn in Hell for eternity is programming when there is no proof of God, heaven or hell.
Why should people be taught to believe in god?
I haven't ever mentioned it.....so that is flawed.
Yes it is...
and so is this you said
proselytizing
[ˈpräs(ə)ləˌtīziNG]
NOUN
the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
"no amount of proselytizing was going to change their minds"
... while repeating incessantly that "God is love"...
That's kinda sorta taking the flock for a bunch of fools. And since the flock believes both "Eternal Hell" and "Love"... I guess maybe they really are fools.........
So you are saying that Obama is programmed? Or JFK was? It is a simple question, can you not answer it?
Are you denying that you are a Christian?
Is Atheist a religious belief?
That is prototypical gaslighting. You tell people one thing and do another. Then you blame them when they notice the hypocrisy in your actions.
Are you saying I am? Does it matter...your statement is still flawed.
Did you not read the definition of proselytizing provided to you? Try and read the entire meaning of the word.
JFK died before I was born, so I cannot say.
I don't know what Obama believes because I have never met the man. I can only make inferences from his public statements and actions.
Do you believe in a god? If I am trying to convert you, then what religion am I trying to convert you to? This discussion is quickly bordering on Monty Python's argument clinic.
So you can say in one comment that religion is like a cult that programs people but in another comment your not sure if it applies to them.
You seem very wishy washy on your stance.
Not exactly.
It's telling people two contradictory things, and expecting them to accept both. And... they do!
I am not sure if they are religious believers at their core or if it was a public stance that privately they didn't believe. Politicians are well known for their ability to pander and not all people who go to church actually believe. Church for many people is a social group. I never believed and I still went to mass out of a feeling of guilt.
You have never answered my previous question of why people should be taught to believe in god. Why is that?
These are examples of gaslighting that you will quickly see in religious belief.
Where did I say you where trying to convert me to a religion?
Try reading an entire definition instead of the part you prefer.
Yes, now understand what Sparty was referring to.
You said it was programming..but now you are moving your opinion saying that people can decide for themselves.
I could care less if they are or not. You are the person who has a hang up about it. And, talks about your issue with it daily.
You have argued that people should be taught religious belief. That is not something that a non-Christian would do.
Your argument that I proselytizing by citing logical thought in is an admission that religious belief is at odds with logic, therefore religious belief is illogical.
Some people are more susceptible to religious programming. I was also subject to religious programming at home but I saw through it and it didn't take.
I have a very strong affinity for logic. Religious belief is inherently illogical so I have a problem with religion, especially when its adherents try to legislate their beliefs.
Where...what comment is this?
Quite a backflip there. But, you believe what you wish.
Your replies between 10.67 and 10.76 when taken concurrently suggest that you area Christian. What exactly are your religious beliefs, unless you are trolling?
No they don't...that is just your opinion.
Why does it matter? Does one have to be religious to discuss religion? That would exclude you, no?
You seem to be quite defensive when I ask you this question to declare your religious beliefs, but you are offended at me being an atheist.
Please do not twist my words because I never suggested that.
I cannot possibly be proselytizing by arguing in favor of logic unless you admit that your religious beliefs are illogical. You made that claim of proselyting and now I have painted you in a corner that you are desperate to get out of.
Why? I only asked why does it matter?
Where did I say I was offended? I asked why do you prosetylize when you don't approve of others doing it.
Well you kept bringing it up...seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
If you choose not to understand the meaning of the word, I can't help you. You have been given a definition.
Again your entire statement is flawed, based only on your own presumption.
well gosh.. that's misleading at best ... depends on where you live if rates of suicide are higher for religious or non-religious it seems. (among other factors)
and yes, this is newer than 1897 . I haven't found Atheists as a group to be constantly bitching - i have found that to be true with the religious, especially when same sex marriage is concerned ( among other topics they find "immoral" from their religious interpretation ) . I think in general - most people are rarely happy with anything they simply don't agree with - not a specific group .
I have also found with my personal experience, Atheists tend to live and let live more and it's the religious who are constantly trying to recruit ( knocking on doors to recruit into their sect and favorite house of worship - i haven't seen any Atheists trying to recruit anyone, they let the religious still be religious and don't try to "convert" them, although they do question them and some of mock or chide but that's the same as what the religious do, the religious just kick it up a notch by telling you your life is wrong and you are bound to Hell unless you give up your life and convert to theirs ), constantly proclaiming how they are better than non believers and they'll be " rewarded " after their nervous system ceases to operate while non believers will somehow " burn " for eternity... unless of course they just convert ! all they should do is convert ( not live and let live, is it ? ) ! in fact, in the same sex marriage debate - you really didn't see the religious do a " live and let live " thing did you ? they couldn't just let same sex couples get married and " live and let live " - they had mount a resistance and demand everyone be bound by the same rules they lived under instead, didn't they ? ( not really "live and let live" is it when you demand others live by your standards for a secular legal right, huh ? )
How can I possibly be proselytizing if atheism is the rejection of religious belief because of logic? If I am proselytizing then you are likewise admitting that religious belief is illogical because logic and religious belief are at odds. There can be no other way.
The fact that you repeat this claim doesn't mean that it is true.
I hope someday you find your inner peace.
What makes you think that I have not found peace?
Dear Friend Tessylo: Durkheim is a good read.
You may also find on this topic Kurt Lewin's Lewinian Topology of relevance on the topic of theories to understand suicide.
E.
Well said and so right on. Thanks.
I stand by and double down on what I said.
[deleted]
My question was about the logical soundness of religious belief. Is logical thought a threat to your religious belief?
Did you happen to notice that I was replying to Sparty', or is that also part of me being an angry secular progressive?
so what belief or religion or opinion is someone trying to convert you to since you claim it's proselytizing ?
hmmm.. i would daresay from @10.1.60 on down when you claimed proselytizing (isn't religion in the definition ? i thought you told someone to read the entire definition... i think that includes the word "religion" like you posted.. right ?)
i would suggest the same to you and then tell everyone what is the religion or belief or opinion that the poster is trying to convert you or anyone else to.
sorry epistte, it seems if you are a non-believer then it's the instant " us vs them " mentality and if you question anything - it's an " attack " on their religious beliefs and the whining begins ( along with psychological projection, because we all know it's all those "mean angry bitter Atheists" that are the problem and the religious are never mean nor angry nor bitter
).....
My posts seem to be a lightning rod around here lately for religious people. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, but I do enjoy poking holes in their religious arguments. I am not trying to offend them.
Really? I'm a atheist and I've never been attacked. But then again I don't attack just one religion.
Being atheist has nothing to do with it. I think it has more to do with just trying to belittle people for their religion.
Why'll you belittle them for being religious.
[Deleted]
I was not aware that you were an atheist.
Are you suggesting that I give non-Christian theistic religions a pass?
Nope and it was wasn't presented as one.
My comment is pretty clear. Just like my first comment in this string. There's no point to this discussion.
You and i will not find any agreement on this topic. None at all.
that's a surprise.....
Islam is the pet religion of many atheists.....
Wouldn't you agree that religion is a chosen lifestyle?
You mock liberals, another chosen lifestyle. Fair trade
An atheist, by definition, does not believe in any god. A religion is a belief system in a particular god(s). So 1 + 1 = ?
If you're not willing to justify nor explain the rationale for those beliefs, and post them with implications from your inferences, that those who may disagree with you are "committed secularists," you run the risk of being thought of as one who not only posits religious dogma, but, who also seems to denigrate practitioners of all religious and non-religious beliefs but your own.
Very un-Christ-like … as in …
Matthew 22:36-40
An ignorant, un-verifiable and ethnocentric piece of hateful demagoguery; an untenable partisan-inspired pronouncement from one who professes to love Jesus, Jesus, who, among other things declared …
You cannot have it both ways … as an oft-declared Christian, you denigrate yourself and your Savior by waxing in un-Christ-like ways.
"Faith" implies "doubt," in that, taking something on faith is to do so without verification or empirical information to establish its "reasonability". Faith is taken "on faith" itself …
Consequently, challenging the logic of faith … is entirely logical!
No, I think comments like that are probably misguided reactions to those who call Pelosi a skank and a hag just because she's a woman and they hate her.
I doubt it.
Then why call Mrs Pelosi a skank and a hag?
Faith, by definition, is belief in something for which there is no quantifiable proof.
So until one comes up with an accurate methodology to prove a negative, it is not reasonable.
Not really.
I'm quite content with my humanist views. It's the relgious people who try to inject their mythology into my life that cause problems. One of these times I am going to lose control of my sarcasm and let loose with what I am really thinking instead of what I post. I will be sent to Perrie's timeout chair for 30 days and be forced to buy her a new box of purple Sharpies for my behavior.
This is exactly why people should not make decisions based on faith or beliefs that cannot be logically supported.
I have explained the logical burden of proof so many times that I should create a macro so I don't have to type it out every time. Logic states that the person making a positive claim (god exists) had the burden of proof on them to prove that claim to be objectively true. In the absence of your ability to prove that claim to be objectively and empirically true without the use of belief or faith, we revert to the previous stance that your claim isn't true and God does not exist. It is not the job of the atheist to prove that God does not exist. I can't prove that leprechauns, Bigfoot and mermaids don't exist but that doesn't mean that they do.
Bertrand Russell used the celestial teapot analogy to explain this same idea.
Personally I would use the phrasing: "that your claim is unsubstantiated and God might not exist". That way atheists are not making a positive claim of 'God does not exist' because that too is unsubstantiated.
That claim is utter BS because Muslims pray to the very same god of Abraham that Christians do. If I don't believe in your god then I also don't believe in theirs because its the same deity. You hate the idea that people defend their same religious rights to believe and worship that Christians also enjoy. Muslims are limited to the very same constitutional rights that apply to you and every other religion because it would be unconstitutional if any religion enjoyed more rights than the others. The problem is that conservative Christians in the US seek to use the government to legislate their religious beliefs as secular law with ideas such as the right to refuse service in a public business because of their beliefs, banning abortion, LGBT people as second-class citizens, and the idea that public schools and other taxpayer-supported forums can be a place to teach and endorse your religious agenda.
I agree. Your phrasing is more accurate.
congratulations ? the next time i have cookies - i'll be sure to send you one
do you attack all religions ? 
i can definitely agree with that statement as going both ways . I see it quite often with both sides of the fence being belittled for non-belief and for belief ( including on NT )
[ Deleted ]
[ enjoy !!
]
i just think you are catching more lightning than normal because you might be hitting a soft spot with some people
well some of the religious are just looking for something to be offended about - it fits with their chosen warlike "us vs them" attitude they've adopted with their religious beliefs. It gets worse if you poke any holes in their argument - they become very willfully stubborn and even angrier.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
You saw the "immediate" trap! Good!
It is so much better to engage in honest debate rather than resort to petty traps. But I recognize that some will use every trick they can - even presuming a legal level of precision in ordinary language - to push their position.
That is why I try to be very careful and precise in my own use of language and ... in result ... can easily spot places in other's language where someone with less-than-honorable intentions might try to wedge in a dishonest tactic.
Who the, heaven, was speaking about deliberate and dishonest traps? The so-called "trap" was a logic condition in what Epistte wrote, plain and simple.
Epistte: "We revert to the previous stance that your claim isn't true and God does not exist."
I will get to a deception in a bit, nevertheless. As episste tried to emphasize, her "macro" would have needed a repair job right at the outset! Why?
Because an individual can not claim the definition of atheism is "God/gods does not exist" and "a lack of belief in God/gods" simultaneously. That is a contradiction. Or, is it?
The language 'definition of God is "god does not exist"' is awkward but I think you are asking if it is a contradiction to claim both:
The answer is that it is not a contradiction. Indeed, this is the position of the gnostic atheist. The (1) part is gnostic, the (2) part is atheist. The problem with this position is not contradiction but rather an unsupportable claim. One cannot support a positive claim (1) of 'no god exists' because short of being omniscient, there is always the possibility that evidence of a god will appear.
The supportable position (extraordinarily easily supported too) is that of the agnostic atheist: 'not convinced a god exists'.
This is a position of honesty. No claims of extraordinary knowledge (or, worse, omniscience). No declarations of special stories, powers, creatures, extraordinary connections with the supernatural, special experiences, insight, spiritual state, etc. Just an honest personal assessment - 'given the evidence thus far I am not convinced a god exists'. Note that one can take this further and argue 'given the evidence thus far I truly doubt a god exists' and still be an agnostic atheist.
Basically a position of skepticism: 'show me the evidence'.
Is this what I wrote in @10.1.137? Or, do you get to tell me what I wish to state, in order to lecture? Anyway:
I just got my bearing and realize that I am not on "Gods Are Everywhere Because It’s Hard to Bargain With Them" an article seeded by Don Overton. That happens sometimes going back and forth too much/fast. My apologies. I will suspend on going any deeper into this here!
NOTE: I will prepare an article for this. Also, do let the edit timer run down so that any and all edits can 'populate and finalize.' Lately, I have observed that not ever new change "refreshes" immediately.
No, it is what I wrote @10.1.137 to express my understanding of what you wrote
Not telling you what I wish you to state. I was interpreting your awkward language. If I misinterpreted then supply the correction. Given:
Apply the edits to correct my misunderstanding of your question.
In your complaining, you forget to actually state what part you think I got wrong.
Reread it and compare it to @ 10.1.136 please. Try to see the ending where I will not be continuing with this here, too! This is off-topic from a discussion of Karen Pence, in my opinion.
Given you have no interest in my answer there is no point in my comparing your posts and trying to figure out what you want.
Whatever is clever. —End.
TiG suggested a correction that would have made my macro more accurate and given you less of a chance to move the goalposts. I agreed with him.
Where did I mention a lack of belief in god? I have categorically rejected both belief and faith as proof of god. Stop trying to twist my words so you can attempt to move the goalposts as well as to construct another strawman.
You have set records for your intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
There are so many strawmen in this entire seed I hope nobody lights a match
R u implying
non believers have Atheists foot, even while wearing clean sox ??
I won't tell you what I think of your 'twists & turns' in even knowing what an atheist is! I digress. This thread is not about this and I am out. —End. NOTE: I will write an article and you can come there.
As to my intellectual dishonesty all I can say is, "There you go again!"
The only twist and turns that exist are the ones that you have desperately tried to create by trying to redefine what atheism means. My atheist views have been the very same since 2006 or even before. There is no empirical and objective evidence of god that currently exists. I'll consider any evidence that might come forward in the future but I have a 99.999% doubt that it will ever appear because of our current knowledge of physics.
You continue to try to blame others for your attempts to misrepresent, twist and turn their arguments.
That quip deserves to be meme'd.
Secular progressives often freely and deliberately take conservative Christian seeds way off topic. Thanks for pointing that out.
Perhaps it should have stayed on the seeded topic of intolerance toward the second lady for working with children and teaching art to them.
To be fair, it is a lesson (a discipline) I am applying to myself more too!
You're the one that built most of the straw men....and you have the nerve to blast me and others for going off-topic when you were preaching to us....again!
In terms of modern politics, I often disagree with so-called progressives. However, in his time, Jesus was extremely progressive. He walked and preached in a society that was all about following as many rules as they could to make themselves distinctly Jewish.
His whole message was that all that rule-following was missing the point. God wants us to love and accept people without regard as to who or what they are. Rules about what you wear or eat are irrelevant to what's in your heart. That was a radical idea back then and it's still hard for people to come to grips with today.
By the way, I see a lot of disrespect and silly arguments on both sides of this debate. Here is one from the seed:
Yeah, well, the world hates a child molester, too. That doesn't mean molesting kids makes you Christ-like. Being hated by the world is not somehow proof that you're doing the right thing. In many ways, the world has heard Christ's message and the Pharisees among us still have not.
For the second time in two days, we are kindred spirits.
Jusus meant that in the last days people would be hated by the world and the worldly for clinging to pure faith and development of a pure Biblical relationship with Him that grows out of the original faith and our desire to please Him and not conform to the world.
I got here too late for this article. But, I am embarrassed to read comments from members on any side debate the shape and form of a woman's face. I am embarrassed for those members who went there. You're busted. It's ugly. It's bottom 'drawer' - no good.
Now as to the article itself. It makes a lot of sense. Mrs. Pence has the freedom to work anywhere that is legal that will employ her. Does the politics look bad—could be so. But, she is not a politician. No more so than Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' wife is, and she dedicates a strong portion of her life to attending and making public conservative speeches against liberal causes.
The outrage is being registered.That is democracy at work. However, the mockery of her is vulgar.
Again, if freedom is going to count for anything; it is for liberty "to be" approval for what is legal in the United States of America. Everybody does not have to agree and for sure—they won't.
What does that mean ?
Actually, I was editing still. I finished that specific sentence to read: "The outrage is being registered.That is democracy at work. However, the mockery of her is vulgar"!
What I meant is we can complain about her choice, and it may be that she will take our points of view under deep consideration. People of all stripes at various times can be persuaded by good arguments. However, if she does not change her mind. It is okay. We spoke out about it. But for those who wrote about her appearance—bad form! And for those of us who gratuitously 'unloaded' spewing all over her - aim higher next time, please!
Tessylo, I was about to post a more "favorable" picture of Mrs. Pence taken last month, December 2018. Then, I remembered something important: her features and body are not an issue at all.
I respect your feelings toward Mrs. Pence, I have a few back and forth states I wrestle through regarding this. But, as liberals, we lose our messaging when we become "tone-deaf" to others who want to live according to their conscious beliefs when those are overall innocuous. Even as we SAY we want everybody to enjoy a semblance of the best civil rights allowable under law. Well, that last is inclusive of the Pence's point of view too, in our scheme for diversity. Peace.
Can I still call trmp fat and ugly?
no
that is mean
But everybody knows I'm mean
i know what you mean
Of course. Since he constantly insults others' looks, he's fair game. He's fat, orange, soft, and has to photoshop his fingers to make them look longer so people won't realize he has a small penis. Oh and he has raccoon eyes from the spray tan. And let's not even start on his hair plugs.
mean girls
use too
HA!
Well, Trump is a politician who is solely responsible for namecalling a great many people in this country and never apologizing for the activity. In my opinion, let our cartoonish-looking "Fred Flintstone" president have it. (Smile.)
On that, we agree. Calling Karen Pence an ugly bitch is no better than calling Pelosi a skank and a hag. And these types of insults seem almost always to be directed at women ... it's far rarer for someone to do that to a man (although Trump has mastered it, and therefore is reaping what he sowed).
So valuable and "so precious" words for us all. Thank you.
If those who wrote up and organized the Christian religion wanted to ostracize or punish or condemn homosexuality in the teachings of their religion, I think they have that right.
What I don't think they have the right to do is say that this is what Jesus, the model for the religion, wanted. Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality, correct? Therefore Jesus had no position on it. Jesus is the son of God, God made man, correct? If it was so important to the Deity that objection to homosexuality be observed in his creation, wouldn't He have had His Son actually say something about it?
The objection to homosexuality in Christian religion is MAN MADE, not God-made.
Like I said, Christian authorities have the right to condemn homosexuality, but then they must suffer the consequences such as whatever backlash or reaction develops from their own membership and the largher outside world they endeavor to interact with.
Jesus appears to have simply taught a message of love. Huston Smith, the greatest scholar of religion , as a popularizer, in our era, says that the overriding message of Christianity is unconditional love.
The love of Christ is to be given not according to what your neighbor deserves, but based on what he needs.
That presumes God exists. Do you hold that the Christian God exists? If so, I understand your argument. If not, then you hold that the Christian God is also man-made — thus all of it is man made.
My position, for the record, is that the objection to homosexuality in ALL religions is man-made.
This is correct and on the 'right track.' There are ways to process this:
Protestant splits are over the degree of separation from the Church in Rome that since the Roman Empire converted to it has strayed from the original mission. Luther and others took the first steps away and further reforms were shown right up to the near present. Some stayed with the initial break with Rome and others discovered new light that had been repressed and hidden during the dark ages. Now Rome has reformed some and some Protestants are looking at Rome again for better or worse depending on ones view.
If there is "daylight" between what you and I have stated (my #6 @14) let me know. Because I get your point. Unless, there is some other.
From the seeded article …
If this was a traditional Muslim school, non-Muslims would be banned. And heterosexual teens who were having sex would be banned.
Assuming for the moment this were true (and the author cannot possibly verify that this is true without exception), the author of the article essentially argues that "two wrongs make a right."
And if this was a traditional Jewish school, Christian kids would not be permitted to study there, nor would kids who were getting drunk and doing drugs.
The author is absolutely ill-informed, uninformed, or, simply making pronouncements to justify Christian hatred, discrimination and hypocrisy … and not for any "Godly" reason, but instead, with clear right-wing-partisan-ideological intent!
Or perhaps that’s not so shocking.
After all, we expect traditional Muslims to be, well, traditional Muslims.
And we expect traditional Jews to be, well, traditional Jews.
Yeah! Like right-wing Trump voting "Christian" evangelicals are being "traditional Christians" …
I speculate that the seed's author is repulsed by Ivanka Trump's non-traditional departure from Christian holiness because she is married to a Jew!
The author, Dr. Michael Brown, is a known hater …
Due to his stance against homosexuality, he is also considered be a member of a hate group according to legal group Southern Poverty Law Center . [5] In September 2012, the organization named him in their list of "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right." [6] In March 2014, Brown traveled to Peru to promote anti-gay laws. He has also defended Uganda's criminalization of homosexuality. [7] He has said gays should be treated with respect and dignity. [8]
Brown was criticized for citing the white supremacist website Stormfront in an article about converting Jews to Christianity.
Fair point.
Meh. Are we really prepared to say that the exercise of one's religious beliefs is a "wrong"? I'm not sure about that.
I go with "uninformed". Lots of anger, hatred, and other bad behavior starts with "uninformed".
I don't know anything about Michael Brown. He may be as terrible as you say. But the SPLC just isn't very credible anymore. They call anybody who disagrees with them a hate group. I believe them about as far as I could throw Donald Trump....who I also don't believe.
Fair enough! But in the way I included citation, if you can find refutable information, please post it. A partial list of Brown's "work" …
Dr Brown Debates Dr Dale Tuggy: Is the Father Alone the True God?
Is It Too Late for America?
Who Decided What Books Are in the Bible?
Watch the full broadcast here:Is Nationalism Evil?
Is Nationalism Evil?Trump Administration vs Trans Activism
Watch the full broadcast here:You Don't Get the Martyr's Crown for Being Unfriended on Facebook
You Don't Get the Martyr's Crown for Being Unfriended on FacebookDr. Michael Brown: Tongues, Prophecy and Healing
Dr. Brown discusses the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, answering questions and objections.God Abhors False Witnesses
God Abhors False WitnessesIt's About Abortion, Not Kavanaugh
Should Christians Stand Up to Leftist Censorship?
Senator Attacks Religious Freedom
Dr. Brown responds to Sen. Ricardo Lara’s outrageous speech supporting AB 2943.When It's Right for Christians to Break the Law
Is It Possible to Be Gay and Christian?
Dr. Brown reaches out to Vicky Beeching after her appearance on BBC's HARDtalk saying the Church 'slammed the door on me for...Can We See God And Live?
Religious Liberty Under Attack
Dr. Brown discusses the current cultural attitude toward faith in light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions launching the ‘...Is It Right to Identify as a Queer Christian?
Dr. Brown shares his concerns about the recent Revoice Conference devoted to the Bible and LGBT issues.Who Are the Lost Tribes of Israel?
Dr. Brown interviews Rabbi Harry Rozenberg about possible identities on some of the "lost tribes of Israel."YouTube Accused of Homophobia for Advertising My Video
The Supreme Court Pushes Back Against the War on Religion
WATCH: Expect Opposition
Dr. Brown opens up the Scriptures and looks at the pattern of opposition that comes with preaching the Gospel.Warren Marcus on his new book 'The Priestly Prayer of Blessing'
Dr. Brown Brings Clarity to the NAR Controversy
Excerpted from the April 23, 2018 Line of Fire broadcast.Dr. Brown Addresses the Dangers of Destructive Criticism
Excerpted from the April 23, 2018 Line of Fire broadcast.Senator Cory Booker’s Attack on Religious Freedom
Dr. Brown takes issue with Senator Cory Booker using a religious test on Mike Pompeo.The Danger of Dividing the Gospel
Dr. Brown speaks with Dr. Joseph Mattera about his new book The Divided Gospel.Is Facebook Censoring Conservative Speech?
Dr Brown Weighs in on Cruz vs Zuckerberg.Her Daddy’s Secret Almost Destroyed Her Life
Dr. Brown speaks with Denise Shick about her transgender dad.South African Farmers Under Attack!
Dr. Brown speaks with a South African pastor about the recent spike in violent attacks on farmers.What Geraldo Got Wrong About Gaza
Dr. Brown responds to Geraldo Rivera's comments about "the occupation"Why Replacement Theology is Unbiblical
Are People Born Transgender?
Dr. Brown responds to some recent news reports and scientific statements.Are White Evangelicals Giving Trump Another Free Pass?
Dr. Brown shares responses to his recent article on President Trump and Chuck Todd.Hollywood Promotes Sex with a Minor
Dr. Brown responds to Hollywood’s celebration of the latest sexploitation filmRevival Is Dangerous
Dr. Brown explains the difference between godly discernment and destructive criticism.Dr. Brown Responds to Phil Johnson (Part 2)
Dr. Brown continues to interact with Phil Johnson’s Strange Fire message, finding serious problems with his methodologyExperiencing God Debate: Why Pastor MacArthur's View is Unbiblical
Dr. Brown contrasts his understanding of fellowship with God with that of Pastor MacArthur.Dr. Brown Responds to Phil Johnson's Strange Fire Message (Part 1)
At Phil Johnson's request, Dr. Brown is responding to the message, "Is There a Baby in the Charismatic Bathwater."'Dangerous' Dr. Brown Responds to Todd Friel and Phil Johnson
Dr. Brown offers a constructive response to some of his criticsThe Lasting Effects of Abortion
Dr. Brown speaks with Anne Reed about her firsthand testimony of the lasting effects of abortionIt Is the Progressive Churches Which Are Dying
Multitudes of Iranian Muslims are Coming to Faith in Jesus
Dr. Brown Speaks with a Transgender Evangelical
Listen to this important call from a caller who identifies as a conservative, evangelical Christian transgender woman.Is the UN Fulfilling Prophecy?
Dr. Brown addresses the UN's vote on JerusalemIs Jerusalem the Capital of 'Palestine'?
Pragmatic and Moral Reasons to Vote for Roy Moore
If the charges against Judge Moore might be true, how can Christians vote for him?Is Donald Trump Fulfilling Biblical Prophecy About Jerusalem?
250 rabbis claim that President Trump’s recognition is fulfillment of biblical prophecy.Freedom of Conscience Under Attack: The Masterpiece Cake Case
A Feminist Atheist and a Nun Agree on Abortion
Dr. Brown shares striking quotes on abortion from Camille Paglia and Mother Theresa.Donald Trump, Matt Lauer, and Sexual Scandals
Dr. Brown shares his constructive thoughts on the president’s reaction to Matt Lauer’s fall.Nancy Pelosi’s Double Standards
Nancy Pelosi calls for due process for John Conyers yet labels Roy Moore a child molester.Those Evil (White) Males
This is where radical feminism and identity politics have brought us.A Wonderful Call from a Buddhist Seeker
Dr. Brown speaks with Lucas from SeattleCharles Manson: The Making of a Monster
What may have contributed to the evil of Charles Manson?Why Mike Pence’s Sexual Ethics Make Good Christian Sense
Dr. Brown responds to a New York Times op-ed written by an editor of Christianity Today.An 11-Year-Old Caller Wants to Be Sure He Is Saved
Dr. Brown speaks with 11-year-old caller James.Judge Roy Moore 's Vision for America
Dr. Brown comments on Judge Moore's emphasis on God, Religion and the constitutionDr. Brown Sets the Record Straight on Pastor Carl Lentz and Abortion
Did Dr. Brown defend Carl Lentz's statement on abortion on the View?Mainstreaming Gay on Prime Time TV
Is it too late to change the hearts and minds of this generation? Do we need to focus on the next generation?MSNBC: Falwell Connecting the Gospel to White Nationalism
Dr. Brown challenges Bishop William Barber's inflammatory commentsDon Lemon, There’s a Reason We Pray
Dr. Brown responds to Don Lemon’s comments about sending “thoughts and prayers” to the massacre victims in Texas.The Pastor Preached on Heaven One Sunday Before the Massacre
Dr. Brown shares the content of Pastor Frank Pomeroy’s sermon one week before the massacre in his church.A Time to Mourn
Responding to the horrific tragedy in Sutherland Springs, TexasLine of Fire, 11-01-17: An Interview with Eric Metaxas
Dr. Brown speaks with radio host and New York Times bestselling author Eric Metaxas, focusing on his new blockbuster book...Hollywood Horror
Dr. Brown addresses the recent flood of sexual assault scandals in Hollywood and the glaring hypocrisy of the left.Martin Luther and the Jews
Dr. Brown shares some shocking quotes from the writings of Martin LutherWhy Are Young People Leaving Church in America?
Dr. Brown discusses the increasing exodus of American young people from church with Melanie Tomczak.Have Evangelical Leaders Become Disciples of Trump?
Dr. Brown Takes on Trevor Noah
Dr. Brown differs with Trevor Noah’s take on NFL protestDid Stephen Paddock Have White Privilege?
Dr. Brown responds to those who would use the horrific tragedy in Las Vegas to sow division.Reefer Madness: Study Links Pot Smoking with Violent Behavior
Dr. Brown discusses a recent report connecting pot smoking with violent behavior.What God Is Saying to America through the Vegas Massacre
For other relevant articles and commentaries, go to www.askdrbrown.org.What Roy Moore's Victory Means
The political and spiritual significance of Judge Moore's victory over the GOP political establishmentA Black Christian Leader Claims That Racism Doesn't Exist in America
Dr. Brown interviews Rev. Jesse Lee PetersonUC-Berkeley Cancels Free Speech
The message is clear: controversial conservative speakers are not welcome at UC-BerkeleyThe Trump vs NFL Controversy in Black and White
Dr. Brown's perspective on President Trump's comments and the larger issue of athletes protesting during the national...Pushing Back Against Gender Identity Indoctrination in Our Schools
Dr. Brown looks at the latest gender identity madness in our schools and lets you know how you can be better equipped to...President Calls North Korea's Leader 'Rocket Man'
Dr. Brown comments on the president's speech to the UN.Tim Tebow and the 3:16 Miracle
I have no problem believing God does things like this.The Danger of Identity Politics
Let's debate the issues, not put people in categories of color or sex or ethnicity.TV Hosts Blame Christian Parents for Having Sane Values
Dr. Brown weighs in on a crazy situation in England.Together We're Making A Difference!
For more info go to: www.gofundme.com/askdrbrownstudioLIVESTREAM: Dr. Brown Responds to an Orthodox Jewish Critic
Originally streamed on Sept 7, 2017 (the video starts at 2:10)What's Your Moral, Cultural, or Political Beef with Dr. Brown?
Please watch the video before commenting! (Dr. Brown will be responding to comments here until the end of September, 2017...Why Are We Attacking Our Own Family?
Jesus Himself prayed for our unityA Christian Response to Google’s Intolerance
A redemptive look at Google's firing of engineer James Damore for writing a memo criticising the company's diversity policy...Interview with Rebel Media's Ezra Levant
Dr. Brown interviews Rebel Media founder Ezra Levant about the latest in Leftist censorship as well as his working with...Dr. Brown Is Going Incognito
This video contains top secret information.Laura Loomer Confronts the ADL
Dr. Brown interviews conservative Jewish firebrand Laura Loomer of Rebel Media about confronts the Anti-Defamation League...Dr Brown Refutes 'King James Only'
Dr. Brown share some pros and cons about the most influential English translation of the BibleLifestyles of the Rich and Famous
Do riches and fame bring contentment?Who Is the Real Muhammad?
Have you read the earliest biography of Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq?Why Are We So Obsessed with Politics?
Is this a distraction for believers in the USA?If You Silence Others One Day They Will Silence You
Dr. Brown warns those on the radical left who try to silence opposing voices.God’s Solution to the Health Care Crisis
Does the Word of God have something to say about this?How to Recognize Fake News
How to separate fact from fiction in the news.The Safest Video on YouTube
This is the place to go if you're looking for a safe space free of trigger warnings.Ten Commandments Under Attack in America
Could the picture be any clearer? America is at war with its own Judeo-Christian traditions.Banning Jewish Pride Flags at a Gay Pride Event?
Dr. Brown comments on what happened at gay pride events in the USA and Canada.Linda Sarsour Picks a Battle with the Bible
Was Linda Sarsour right to compare Islam, JEdit: Originally posted this before you added the bibliography.
I don't actually care enough about him to look him up. We've already punched holes in his assertions, so who cares if he's a whackjob or not?
I was interested in your thoughts about the whole question of when the exercise of religious belief becomes a "wrong".
There is obviously a point where that could happen. The extreme examples being a human sacrifice or consummating one's arranged marriage to a 7 year old or some other obviously indefensible act. But in a situation like this school, or an Islamic school (which would probably be equally unlikely to allow gay faculty and would condemn gay parents), where do those lines fall? Is it "wrong" for a Hebrew school to refuse to admit gentiles? Or for an Islamic school to be similarly exclusive?
Personally....I dunno. It's an interesting idea.
We've pretty well established that you and I see things from somewhat different perspectives, and I'd be interested in your thoughts if you have the time/willingness.
• When religious belief adversely affects or undermines utilitarian objectives
• When it becomes the lone basis for racial, gender, employment, and/or any other form of discrimination … when it is presented as the "rationale" for the violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution
• When it is the basis of selectively providing goods and services to the public while otherwise doing business in the public space
• When individuals are censured, shamed, coerced, shunned, taunted and/or otherwise discouraged/guilt tripped for becoming part of an intimate/personal relationship, such as expressing sincere love for another human being of a "different" religion
• When denying medical care to a dependent family member
• When inflicting character assassination by attempting to assert cultural superiority over "the others" …
I will likely think of others.
NOTE: "Right" and "Wrong" can be arbitrary and capricious … but truth is just that.
Good debate!
Peace.
One further point with respect to Jack_TX's comment …
I was interested in your thoughts about the whole question of when the exercise of religious belief becomes a "wrong".
• While I understand the human phenomenon of "faith/religious belief/commitment/devotion to a superior "entity" … a Creator … 'God'," because I regard "faith" itself as being taken "on faith alone," with no empirical information or validation a logical possibility, consequently, I deem it "wrong" to base public policy, law, one's vote, or any other "corporeal" aspect of reality, to be predicated entirely or ultimately on religious belief.
Certainly, humanitarian tenets of religion such as charity, fairness, love and kindness, should be strong considerations in the formulation of law and public policy … but not the dogmas.
• I mean no disrespect towards the holders of religious faith … but IMO, that faith must be personal, not coercive, nor the imposition via indoctrination.
I invite serious debate, discussion … agreement on my comments.
Let's start here. Yeah. I think so. Let's keep that up.
Well....arguably that's most of the time, isn't it? I mean, closing the chicken sandwich place on Sundays undermines utilitarian objectives of making money. Closing car dealers (actual Texas law) or liquor stores undermines the utilitarian objective of those businesses making money and providing services to the public. Giving money to religious charities undermines the utilitarian objective of achieving personal financial security.
Or am I totally misunderstanding what you're saying?
Fair enough. Do you think the policies of this Pence school rise to that level?
What if that "service" is a private education? Like the Catholic school who only admits parish members, or the Islamic school near my house that only admits Muslims? Does that still qualify, or are there certain exceptions to that guideline?
I think I'm with you until "guilt tripped". I'm one of those people who believe nobody can make you feel ashamed/guilty/embarrassed/sad/angry/whatever without your permission. Emotions are in the control of the person having them.
Agreed.
That certainly happens in religious circles. But would you include people who derive their morality from their politics?
I think "right" and "wrong" are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Truth tends to be more objective, but in my experience most people don't consider the whole truth. They take the part they want to hear and ignore the part they don't.
I can see that.
So develop that point a little further. I'm not sure I understand how you see those differences.
Let's start here. Yeah. I think so. Let's keep that up.
When religious belief adversely affects or undermines utilitarian objectives
Well....arguably that's most of the time, isn't it? I mean, closing the chicken sandwich place on Sundays undermines utilitarian objectives of making money. Closing car dealers (actual Texas law) or liquor stores undermines the utilitarian objective of those businesses making money and providing services to the public. Giving money to religious charities undermines the utilitarian objective of achieving personal financial security.
Or am I totally misunderstanding what you're saying?
My fault. Here's where I fundamentally disagree, but probably I am disagreeing with my own characterization about "utilitarian" -- I should have instead said … "Utilitarianism" which is an ethical entity that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. And more specifically, holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
While I believe that organized religions considers themselves utilitarian … that is, allegedly proponents for what is "the common good of mankind," in reality, by virtue of the inherently segregative, exclusionary nature of organized religion, it is the opposite. By influencing law makers to "legislate morality," morality, that is, as ethnocentrically/dogmatically/myopically, religiosity-based and defined, religion thus assumes itself literally and figuratively "the force deputized via "The Higher Calling."
Like the football players on opposing teams, both separately pointing to the heavens after touchdown or quarterback sacks … how illogical then is it to presume under any circumstances, that God is a "fan and partisan" of any one team, person, religion, or, what have you?
• When it becomes the lone basis for racial, gender, employment, and/or any other form of discrimination … when it is presented as the "rationale" for the violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution
Fair enough. Do you think the policies of this Pence school rise to that level?
I do, but not for the reason you might think; religious institutions operate with tax exemptions of various kinds … the deficits of which they create within tax bases, are closed by the tax payer! IMO, that's unconstitutional, and, the fact that the "Pence school," be it religious or private (and as indicated, somewhat tax exempt), discriminates on the basis of religion, raises the perennial conflict/dilemma between the First and 14th Amendments.
How is it legally justifiable that one religion can establish and exercise discriminatory practices on the basis of "Our religion is superior to/genuine as compared to all others/the only true religion"?
That's wholly subjective if not psychotic …
• When it is the basis of selectively providing goods and services to the public while otherwise doing business in the public space
What if that "service" is a private education? Like the Catholic school who only admits parish members, or the Islamic school near my house that only admits Muslims? Does that still qualify, or are there certain exceptions to that guideline?
If the assumption is that private/religious education provides the actual service of "educating," and, by that I mean basic, secular education and not the dogmas that have eternally segregated, separated, and, even generated (holy wars), that's truly a "service." But religious indoctrination, as past and recent history reveal, is more of a "dis-service" as it applies to human interaction.
• When individuals are censured, shamed, coerced, shunned, taunted and/or otherwise discouraged/guilt tripped for becoming part of an intimate/personal relationship, such as expressing sincere love for another human being of a "different" religion
I think I'm with you until "guilt tripped". I'm one of those people who believe nobody can make you feel ashamed/guilty/embarrassed/sad/angry/whatever without your permission. Emotions are in the control of the person having them.
Consider that, for example, in Orthodox Judaism, if/when an Jew marries a non-Jew, that individual is considered "dead" and is mourned for. Beyond that, I am wholly confident that millions of families have made family members feel guilt and shame for dating, loving, marrying, etc., outside of the family religion.
Generally, I agree that "shame" is imposed and "guilt" (personal, not the legally-determined form) is self-ascribed, I would split hairs on that.
• When denying medical care to a dependent family member Agreed.
• When inflicting character assassination by attempting to assert cultural superiority over "the others" …
That certainly happens in religious circles. But would you include people who derive their morality from their politics?
That premise seems like an oxymoron! Ultimately, if there is one indisputable contribution to society to be credited to religion, it is to any of its tenets that are essentially versions of "The Golden Rule" … and, IMO, that is it and that is all!
I will likely think of others. NOTE: "Right" and "Wrong" can be arbitrary and capricious … but truth is just that.
I think "right" and "wrong" are definitely in the eye of the beholder. Truth tends to be more objective, but in my experience most people don't consider the whole truth. They take the part they want to hear and ignore the part they don't.
Those who somehow look at "truth" subjectively … metaphorically "cross the line" out of truth and enter into some editorial state of mind. By definition … "truth" is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Reality … according to authors like Alan Watts, "Reality is an insecure place" … IMO, again, hence, the existence of religion as a "more secure place" than is reality.
Again, for the record, while I reject for myself, organized religion, I find miracles of spirituality in Nature and the Cosmos. I like think, "if someone claimed to have 'created a flower from scratch', my first response would be … "where's ya' get the scratch" …
____________________________________________
Thanks for real and thought-provoking, actual "discussion!
How inconsistent, if not cruel and hypocritical, is it for a religion to preach charity, fairness, love and kindness, while otherwise "justifying," "you can't attend my school" based its dogmas?
Dogma being … a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true … without any empirical information to validate its so-called "truth"?
_________________________________________
I hope others will join this conversation at the same level it now exits.
Thanks again.
Done!
My friend Amac, I have been watching this discussion for a while and want to add at this point that the religious players on both sides of the scrimmage line are following a principle in their teaching institution of giving "thanks" to the Lord (God) they honor through service. It s a shared teaching across the spectrum. And yes, it is a deeply held basic activity based on faith and spiritual communion.
To be clear, to some it is a action they 'ape' lacking any spiritual significance. To some others it is enacting their private devotional activity out-loud.
For the sake of argument, before I make a large statement, let me establish that dogma is the foundational substance that institutions "sat" in, before the project can rise upward. At some point in the building project, the cornerstone shall be established as the guiding stone for all that comes after it. Institutions can get turned around somewhat when they charge the cornerstone to conform to dogma and vice-versa. What actually should occur is the two types should become 'reconciled' to one another.
The question then becomes: How can a teaching that homosexuality is a (grievous) sin best be turned into an activity where love and kindness can be engendered and on display? With some maneuvering, as the scripture says, "all things are possible!"
You forgot this one: It like all his articles are right on. Dr. Michael Brown is a great American! 🇺🇸
Scripture also says, among other things …
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matt.22 Verses 34 to 40
And yet, religion when devolving to "religiosity," almost invariably reverts to its dogmatism as alleged "justification" of its particular superiority above other religions.
________________________________
Thank you for adding to this discussion, and doing so at a respectable, and intellectual level at that.
I have not come close to stating nor implying that all religious tenets are wrong; if you go back and see what began this discussion, namely …
And now to dogma and love, we must add a third, freedom.
There must be places in our national culture where people of differing points of view can commingle but separate, so as each can breath and not suffocate. Our constitution realizes just such a "condition" by applying laws which create havens for dogmatics and love to bent and flex together without breaking. Thus, Immanuel Christian School:
While the question of whether federal civil rights law prohibits employment discrimination based
on sexual orientation and gender identity has been making its way through courts across the U.S.,
Virginia has no statewide legislation explicitly prohibiting this type of workplace discrimination by private employers .
Pence has taught for 25 years, including 12 years at Immanuel Christian School while her husband was in Congress.
She stopped when Mike Pence became governor of Indiana in 2013.
Her office announced that she would teach twice a week until May.
Has been home to Mrs. Pence's soul for quite an expansive amount of time. This is evidence of her joy of teaching and her need for freedom of self-expression (a Christian setting where she can "stretch out"). In my opinion, she is doing no harm—and, the constitution has shown her how (and where) to go to find. . . good work and above all contentment.
Also, loving thy neighbor is a two-way street, . . . we must leave a space for Mrs. Pence at the 'table.' It allows us to put our love on display.
My friend,
Tolerance is a two-way street, too. Love for my neighbor means allowing room for another to dwell in a world of their own firmly held beliefs which do not injure .
Apostle Paul cemented this in the new Christian outlook:
Romans 14: 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.
Read more at:
At this distance, looking head-on into Mrs. Pence's circumstances, I am confronted with the notion she is "convinced" she can do more good in a Christian setting of this specific caliber; whether than be a 'poser' for a set of cameras elsewhere.
You make some good points.
So does A'Mac and us all! It's a good discussion.
Agreed; but I would argue that "conditional love" is not love at all, rather, "toleration". It is one thing to be accepting, but, something different from accepting that someone who believes differently has the right to do so, but … who is consequently not welcomed in our house.
Jesus was something of an iconoclast, and yet, still preached "loving thy neighbor" despite that neighbor's reverence for different icons. That is not the protocol of the Mrs. Pences of the world.
Indeed, Jesus was and is an iconoclast. Yet, Jesus imitated a standard: "a higher standard" he called it. So high is the bar Jesus set - it demands mankind ask for inward spiritual assistance to achieve and maintain up to varying measures (some 30x, 60x , 100x —100 being the rarest of achievers) according to individual faith.
It seems Mrs. Pence is not captive only to New Testament liberties, but may draw from the entirety of a unified old and new testaments bible.
The employment application for the Immanuel Christian School asks applicants to initial a passage stating that they will "live a personal life of moral purity," according to HuffPost, which first reported on Pence's return to the school.
“I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman,” the passage states. “Moral misconduct which violates the bona fide occupational qualifications for employees includes, but is not limited to, such behaviors as the following: heterosexual activity outside of marriage (e.g., premarital sex, cohabitation, extramarital sex), homosexual or lesbian sexual activity, polygamy, transgender identity, any other violation of the unique roles of male and female, sexual harassment, use or viewing of pornographic material or websites, and sexual abuse or improprieties toward minors as defined by Scripture and federal or state law."
Conviction matters and we can couple it with quality of life. Being a partially public person allows portions of one's life to be segregated-private- and off the record. Mrs. Pence is re -defining herself as a private teacher following after her Christian persuasion. That she is a "mom's apple pie type' allergic to whole nut products, she demonstrates wisdom to avoid a real-life outbreak of exposure to information and ideas she personally has not equipped herself to deal with.
All of the above is my humble opinion.
I feel that the media goes way out of bounds attacking her and other believers for living what we believe. The Atlantic just did so and I’ve got a critique of that bias going today.
I try to keep one think in the forefront of my mind: Who the public office holder is.
Sure I, we, some of us, would like Karen Pence to live (and love) our political values—we'd love that of everyone! But again, the "abidin" rule is do no harm. Hopefully, she can just teach and not make negative press for herself.
Sorry I'm so late in following up after I asked for your opinion. The thread got locked.
OK...so in the previous post you were talking about "public policy". A Catholic - only private school surely doesn't meet that definition, no?
But with regard to the school in question, these particular Christians see homosexual behavior as a sin. They view it as outside the guidelines of acceptable behavior in the eyes of God. Much like you might view a neo-Nazi. They don't want their children influenced by people who accept that behavior, just like you would not want yours influenced by someone who held Nazi views.
Both of those groups are moral equals to be avoided as unacceptable ideas and behavior in the eyes of God and to keep away from k-8 grade children such as a school like where Karen Pence works.
I'm totally in agreement about legislating morality. It is perfectly acceptable IMO for them to define their own moral standards and adhere to them as carefully as they wish. It is absolutely not acceptable for them to attempt to define my moral standards.
On a separate note, this is one of the major objections I have to current liberalism.
That's frequently not why they do that. These men have special physical gifts. They are different enough from average people to almost qualify as a new species. I played against many.
Many of them realize that a great deal of their success is their own hard work, but they also realize that they were given raw materials that you and I were not. A lot of these guys thank God for not only the raw physical ability they were born with, but His presence during the trials in their lives through which they have persevered.
I agree it's subjective. I won't go as far as psychotic. I'm also not sure it's any different from a tax perspective than other non-profit organizations that limit membership.
OK, but that doesn't address the "providing goods and services in the public space" question.
I simply say that shame is the act of attempting to make someone feel guilty. But it cannot be achieved without the cooperation of the victim.
And yet there are examples everywhere of people doing just that.
Well let me choose one of the tens of thousands of examples we see in modern America.
It is true that the top 1% of wage earners in America earn 21% of all the income in this country. It's also true that the bottom half of workers earn only 11% of income. That's truth.
But.
It is also true that the top 1% of incomes pay 39.4% of all income tax collected. It's also true that the bottom half of workers only pay 2.8% of all income tax collected.
Now...many people will accept the set of statements that reinforces their pre-set beliefs and utterly ignore the others. They convince themselves that they are basing their beliefs on "truth" or "facts". But if one is only using some of the facts, how much truth can they really claim?
Fair enough, but I think you certainly understand that not everyone feels that way.
Oh, he understands it all right...but those of us that think differently than him are all evil and damned to hell
I've not seen him post that. Have I missed it?
He implies it every time he gets up on his Bible soap box
Lol he does more than imply it, he's posted that I'm going to hell at least once (maybe more I don't really pay that much attention to him)
He's told me at least once I was going to hell and that I'm immoral
Wow. Not cool.
It's not up to him.
Lol I thought you were too and proud of it :P
No worries I'm pretty certain the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey and when I die that's the end
You missed it because I have never said that.
Really prove it!
Again put up or shut —. Or prove it that I ever said those words directly to you or any other member here personally.
Which is why I’d never come out and say something like that.
Right. I'm going to go back over 2 years of comments....
I know you said it.
Ditto
I've seen it too. He's even gone so far as to claim born again scum are the legitimate branch of xtianity. the other sects are a convenience when the crowd needs to look larger or to hide among.
Oh yes, I've seen him say that as well. He rather seems to gloat about the idea of us roasting.
He knows he can lie about it with impunity since most of those proselytizing posts were deleted
reading back thru that history of mindless religious babble to find those quotes would be hell
Keep on digging....
Mrs. Pence is re-defining herself as a private teacher following after her Christian persuasion. That she is a "mom's apple pie type' allergic to whole nut products, she demonstrates wisdom to avoid a real-life outbreak of exposure to information and ideas she personally has not equipped herself to deal with.
All of the above is my humble opinion.
But as a Christian, as the wife of a public official sworn to uphold the Constitution, in choosing to bifurcate her life, and, in a sense, her husband's, she places them both in the ironic situation of violating a significant tenet, namely …
Matthew 6:24
Your opinion is well-posited and clearly sincere; although we have philosophical differences, I believe our civil discourse is "favorable in the eyes of God" if-you-will.
Much respect to you.