Reply With Quote
true of any 'fundamentalist', not a trait exclusive to a religious fundamentalist.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...aseligion.html
An excerpt:...Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas...
true of any 'fundamentalist', not a trait exclusive to a religious fundamentalist.
He sure would! Obama is the real Jesus! Christians were off by a couple thousand years...
Hey.... sounds alot like the atheist 'fundamentalists' in here as well (except for the salvation part)...
It's a two way street...
Or as they like to say, "Pot meet kettle...."
Actually, I would say the only 'fundamentalist' we've seen around here is Angel... I don't think anybody else is preaching to you that you should stop believing in whatever you believe.
Not personally... but you did express a rather cynical view of GOD - one which you are definitely en led to. Wasn't that the reason you were quoted in the first place? Cynicism, is the classic tactic against a genuine disposition to want to learn.
I specifically stated that I believe none of my 'works' will get me into heaven; so why would I do them with that end in sight? I stated that I'm trying to live out a life where I can positively impact those around me; doing those things only serves to suggest that I'm trying to live out what I say... the whole "actions speak louder than words" concept...I've helped out others as well, but without the carrot of Heaven floating over me.
Skirting the question... that's the true cop out. At least people here know where I stand.
Sorry, I don't agree with you. Christians (most) look down on those that don't believe in their God or their Jesus. The difference is, I could care less what Christians believe as long as they stay out of my way. It's their life to waste on petty supers ion, but when it interferes with my life (i.e. influencing law based on their beliefs), it's a problem. Christians need to stay out of government. There are way too many people in this country, with way too many beliefs that don't want to conform to what you believe in. If you don't like it, move. Go start another county with an all Christian government.
If you don't want a Christian in your government, don't vote for one. But they have just as much right to run for office as anyone else.
They sure do. The problem is when they trump the cons ution to run their religious agenda from the government. THAT is illegal, and I definitely have a problem with that.
Do you feel the same is true about a parent who continues to love thier rebelling, runaway child, even while the child continuously and delibrately rejects the parent and the parent's love?
i dont think jesus went by the gregorian calendar
Parents can't 'wipe' any children without consequences. There's no reason why god shouldn't be able to.
And in his teachings Jesus made clear distinctions between church and state. I wish the majority of his so-called followers would do the same.
You didn't answer in regards to what I asked. I quoted you in full context, but please see the underlined.
I am authentically interested to hear what you think.
I did answer in context. If he could just wipe off the 'bad guys', then you would have your ideal world angel. No more people to 'convert', since you all would live not only in a Christian nation, but a Christian world. What's better for you than that?
Now, as far as your example, I think you have everything out there. There ARE parents that in fact do abandon their children. And then there's the ones that do not. The difference is that to me, 'feelings' like love, compassion, feeling good, etc are nothing but electrical impulses/chemical reactions in the brain.
About that...
Many non Christians love citing Matthew 22:21: "Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
What they may not know is that in this verse Jesus is instructing people to obey the law by paying their taxes.
Read the whole story:
Thank you for your answer.
So, god is for taxes and not against taxes? Marxist!
EDIT: this was a joke BTW, with all the Marxist name calling going on in this forum.
Radical Fundamentalist Forum
the Church prevents clergy from running for or being involved in government. it, for the most part, stands firm with Jefferson's wall of seperation
He was addressing the very scenario presented by the nurse. That is afterall the reason why enough momentum was ushered to get the proposed bill on the Illinois Senate floor in the first place. The same nurse who helplessly held the failed abortion survivor.... only to watch the baby die. The same nurse who was later fired for having stirred up the controversy.
As for your articles suggesting that coverage of those meetings doesn't 'exist'... That's news to me. The format is very similar to what we see on the Texas Senate hearings on the Texas news channel. Not a bootleg copy. I just got off the phone with my buddy from Chicago who said that he finds the allegations that the hearings never aired highly disturbing. I told him to mail a copy to those who need to hear. He said he doesn't want to become the next "Joe the Plumber" out of fear that the media will unleash destruction on him too.
Wow... that's really all you heard in that clip? I don't remember seeing them debate over the presence of a second doctor at the abortion procedure itself; rather a doctor who would have to be bothered by tending to both the mother and her unwanted baby, and then having to make a call requesting additional medical support (only after the abortion failed to begin with - otherwise the question doesn't even arise).
I've argued against abortion on the grounds I stated above, on numerous occasions in this forum... You're just relatively new here. That's where I stand.
I don't mind a Christian in government. They usually have good values and morals. But I don't agree with all their beliefs, and if they use their beliefs to base changes, it becomes a problem.
You wouldn't like it if a Muslim got elected president and used their beliefs as a guideline for law would you? The door should swing both ways.
I understand what his point was there. I'm just saying that as far as being a king or ruler or politician or whatever, Jesus wanted no part of it, and encouraged his followers to avoid it the same way he did.
Most??? Nice little generality... I take it broad strokes of the paintbrush are acceptable as long as they suit your argument.
True Christians worry about the "pole in their eye" before worrying about the "speck" in their brother's eye. Their actions should be driven by love for the people they work with.
So vote against their propositions... it's your vote against theirs (fortunately for you... your numbers are growing larger with each passing generation).
Christians are en led to shape and influence the laws that govern their land as much as the next citizen... it is a cons utional right granted to every voting citizen. Oh but you'll say, "that infringes the separation of church and state principle!!"
Not quite... democratic representation of our law making bodies counters such arguments. That infrastructure prevents the will of any one faction to be imposed over everyone else...
I've stated this repeatedly, but maybe you hadn't read it yet. Wishing that someone's rights be denied simply because they don't agree with your worldview is a faschist concept.
Who ever said Christians wanted to implement a theocracy in the US? Do you honestly believe that is our agenda?
Is there a biblical citation for that assertion? Or is that simply your assumption?
Besides I've already explained why he rejected the notion of being crowned King of the Jews... He wasn't there to overthrow the Romans. He came down to defeat sin once and for all, by triumphing over death.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
