Bible Questions

[emilynghiem]

Dear DT: I think you are assessing people with broad generalizations
"based on their response to (1) you" and (2) on this forum which has its own quirks. Those both impose biases on how someone responds. You get what you give, so if you appear a certain way, even if that is not fair or correct to assume this of you and your intention, this biases how someone reacts to you! And when on a public forum, there are all kinds of other factors involved that alter how someone responds or comes across. If someone takes me or the majority of the forum as biased toward "right-wing fundies" or "quacked out" or "liberals so far left I have fallen off the planet" (which I have been accused, either being for big government and/or a total radical anarchist out to abolish government and the federal system, all kinds of things, you name it!) then they tend to react to me or others that way and totally obfuscates what either of us might really believe and are about without the clashing perceptions interfering with the interaction between us.

I've had people misread a msg I posted and interpret it the EXACT OPPOSITE, where it took a good effort to straighten out due to limitations on electronic media and communication.

I know there is more to you, KG QW and everyone on here than what we see or read.

And I know how I come across is going to affect how people react and respond; and it may
take a lot more working together in depth to get past some of these glitches and really focus on what we care about and think, aside from flaws or biases in how we see or say things.

Just because you or I may not understand what KG is saying doesn't mean there is no content. Lots of people have no idea how demonic energies really affect, addict and oppress people's minds, so they would think someone is talking nonsense. But there is a whole field of study into this, and it affects mental and criminal illness and is critical to science, medicine, mental health and criminal justice reform to diagnose, treat and cure demonic conditions whether it manifests as schizophrenia or multiple personalties.

KG may not open up into detail in response to you, but maybe if this topic were explored seriously, we might get into a lot more depth and content with where science is in the
study of these phenomena where people report hearing voices and how to cure them.

So please I encourage you to be more careful not to judge people limited to or out of context
and make some unfair generalization or assumption that does not do justice to that person.

You are nothing but an empty vessel. Have a nice day.

Dear DT: Maybe Koshergirl's spiritual role and gifts are different, would you consider that?

I understand what she is saying trying to warn of demons and negative influences that are muddling what people are trying to say. Even if she does not have gifts for addressing these, maybe her role is to judge and point out some of these negatives from the positives. Sometimes having an empty or more objective less engaged position helps with that process.
Maybe she is here to help in other ways. And we are here to help her in return, since obviously we have different knowledge and perspectives. Can we use this to our advantage?

KG has openly admitted that she is only interested in taunting and mocking. Given the meaningless drivel she posts there is no reason to doubt her intentions. Unlike you and Foxy she has neither the willingness nor the intellect to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. Until there is some sign that she intends to reform her behavior she will be treated accordingly.

If you and QW both partake of judgment and retributive type conditions on people,
I can see how people respond to you that way. I would at least accept half the responsibility for this type of interaction going on, instead of saying it's all because of the other person!

DT you worry about other people being honest.
All I know is the more honest and transparent I am with people, and nonjudgmental of whatever responses come out of their minds and mouths, then they open up and feel safe to be honest when talking with me. it makes a huge difference.

If people fear you are going to judge them and impose conditions, the unconscious pressure this puts on people can invoke the very opposite response of what you would have preferred. Kids go through this all the time, trying to please their parents and the fear makes it backfire. I find adults go through this, too, especially if conditions from their past are repeated and whatever isn't resolved from past interactions with parents or other authority figures patterns or biases their behavior toward others. So it is connected to past patterns, from childhood and/or other relations, where imposing this kind of condition on social expectations and acceptance affects how people respond to each other. It happens.
But it can also change when people are around unconditional acceptance and nonjudgment.
I've had people totally open up and drop their previous patterns of self-censorship and self-judgment after they quit judging themselves or others because I didn't judge them either.

People are more sensitive than you might think. Sometimes the ones who put up the biggest barriers and fronts are the ones most protective of their inner thoughts and space.
You'd be surprised. People usually go a lot deeper than they will let you know in public.

 

[emilynghiem]

Tax dollars are secular.
Religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes.
Both of those facts are indisputable.

When the prior administration attempted to institute "faith based iniatives" funded with tax dollars they failed miserably. The reason for their failure was not because of any protests from Atheists but rather religious organizations refused the funds on the basis that they would not be able to preach their message while using secular tax dollars. From the above you can see that even from a religious perspective the use of government funding has serious implications as far as what is and isn't allowed.

The oath of office for any government position has no religious aspect whatsoever. It is merely an oath to uphold the constitution. This is not "one nation under God" either. For anyone becoming a US citizen there is no religious requirement. The CINS allows new citizens to exclude the the phrase "under God" when they say the pledge of allegiance.

There is no such thing as a "secular prayer".

Prayer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All forms of prayer are religious in nature. For any government official acting in that capacity to lead a prayer is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

These are also indisputable facts.

The only instances where it can be deemed "appropriate" are when there are meetings between government officials and religious leaders for the express purpose of solving common problems. Even then it should not be the government officials who would be leading the prayers.

Hi DT I think you and I agree on private prayer vs public prayer in improper contexts.
where I think you and I disagree is that prayer is not necessarily religious, and some
things that are called secular actually carry a religious bias.

1. Larry Dorsey and other doctors who study prayer in the form of brain activity and waves
have found it is universal; that even atheists go into a form of prayer with their thoughts.

2. As for religious oaths, I find it makes a huge difference if someone takes a vow to uphold constitutional principles similar to religion and takes responsibility personally by conscience,
or is just following the laws by external practice which is secular.

So I believe there is a psychological component that makes things secular or religious,
and this is not based on external appearance of religion or secular practice.

I understand you are focusing on just the secular definition.

So I appreciate your objectivity and focus, but find this purely secularized approach is not
enough to resolve religious and political conflicts which otherwise waste taxpayers
resources as well as public and private resources fighting because these distinctions
are not being made in order to mediate and resolve church-state conflicts effectively.

======================================

So having established that there is clearly a separation of tax dollars and faith your capital punishment question can be addressed. From a moral perspective of right or wrong there are both pro and con arguments to be found in the bible regarding capital punishment. Neither arguments are persuasive enough to be definitive in my opinion.

The death penalty is not a religious matter but one of retribution instead. It has been established that the death penalty is not a deterrent to anyone intending to commit a capital crime. The current legal system is such that the cost of executing someone exceeds the cost of incarcerating them for life. In addition the current legal system is flawed in that innocent people do end up on death row. Once executed there is no remedy for anyone subsequently found to be innocent. From a purely pragmatic standpoint the death penalty is ineffective and cost prohibitive. From a personal perspective it should be reserved for only those whose crimes are so heinous (Bundy, McVeigh, etc.) and whose guilt is established beyond any doubt whatsoever that they no longer deserve to remain alive more than a single day after sentence is passed. The sentence should then be carried out the following day.

The problem of homicidal crime is another matter entirely and belongs in a different forum. Suffice to say that there is a paucity of hard statistical evidence as to the causes. However this link might give you some idea of what might be done about reducing the incidence. If you wish to discuss this topic any further though it is probably wiser to start another thread.

What if people don't believe in state authority to determine death as retribution but some other form of retribution?

What about the issue itself of the secular govt having jurisdiction?

Similar to arguments that if marriage is a spiritual or religious sacrament,
shouldn't it be under the church instead of the state making decisions about it.
Shouldn't the state only be in charge of governing CIVIL unions or contracts
(or marriage if the people of that state agree on a policy, but if they disagree then
maybe it should be kept for the individuals to choose through their own churches)

Even if YOU don't think the dp is religious:
If people in a state DID agree it is a religious issue and were in dispute, where half believed in it as a secular function of govt to decide, and half disagreed and said the people need to agree religiously per case before the state can pursue the dp based on the people's consent,
would you agree it would be wiser to separate funding and jurisdiction so that no one who believes in following one policy is forced to fund a religious view they refuse to fund?

Would that be a fair way to resolve the dispute, rather than impose one policy for all and abridge deny or discriminate against the people petitioning to fund alternatives that don't violate their religious principles?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Too bad you can't do honesty instead.

???

DT, I find it more than clear that QW answered quite honestly!

A person of integrity would have admitted that they were wrong about shepherds being guides when provided with an unimpeachable 3rd party source. DW not only failed to admit that he was wrong (mistaken, ignorant, whatever) and instead attempted to deflect attention with an utterly irrelevant remark about the use of color. That spoke volumes about his lack of honesty and I held him accountable for it.

I always admit I am wrong, eventually. There is one prerequisite for me admitting I am wrong though, I actually have to be wrong. Despite the fact that both of us can find plenty of dictionaries that say that shepherds are supposed to guide, that is not what the Bible instructs them to do.

Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the..." NIV - Online Bible Study

Even stated the reasons interpretations and objections with various responses,
and explained more about having background experience working
with rough types of people, where it is necessary to lay down the law
and not tolerate any sign of disrespect,
even if overdoing it (as I agree is not needed here but detracted from valuable discussion).

I like it better if we can steer away from personal jabs and keep going in this
direction of focusing on the actual points that I find interesting and critical to political reform.

You and QW are the first people I have seen bring up points such
as the prayer at meetings being co-opted abuse of public funds (never heard that
before, only objection to the prayer itself as religious and exclusive of certain groups)
and the point about prayer not being banned but must be kept open to all
denominations in order to be open to any of them (I heard that the laws do not,
ban nativity scenes, for example, but allow equally for ANY religious display; so as long as it is not restricted to just allowing specific religious groups while exluding others, this is not discrimination and not illegal or banned)

But QW is the first person I heard actually state this, in some form, so I thought that was interesting. Most people DO just target the Christians (or the Christians target the Muslims)
and just go after what is convenient for them and fits their particular bias or agenda.

As for govt resources being wasted on religiously biased things,
DT, do you mind if I pick your brain a little? Since you and QW are coming from other
angles I have not seen before, what do you think of THIS argument:

I find people religiously for and against the death penalty.
I find a distinct religious difference between people who believe in, support, or
advocate for retributive justice vs people who favor restorative justice or either
believe in both, or one and not the other, etc.

If you are concerned about not wasting public resources on things that not all people
agree to pay for, but many oppose on religious grounds, are you equally for
"separating church and state" and separating resources/authority/jurisdiction
for people who DO and who DON'T believe in funding capital punishment but
rather prefer to fund and support restitution and rehab programs by restorative justice that
helps both the offenders, victims and survivors to heal spiritually after murder
and other violent or capital crimes, etc.

Are you opposed to states spending billions of dollars on capital punishment,
including added costs in the millions to even the prosecution of the case if the death penalty is pursued, when people disagree religious about this issue of whether the
state has authority to judge and terminate life on the basis of court findings of
guilt and innocence and whether someone is a danger to society without equally giving
the option of funding programs for life in prison and/or working to paying back restitution for the damages and costs to society and taxpayers incurred by the crime and aftermath.

What is your take on that?

Note: I believe if people don't want to fund the death penalty why not fund a prison exchange program where convicts agree to forfeit their citizenship and go work in a labor camp to replace sweatshop workers and work for life to pay restitution to victims and society in proportion to the damages and debts they incurred with their crimes. this solution could solve both the criminal justice problems and the immigration problems, where workers who are law-abiding switch places and receive guest visas or residency as work-study students in exchange for people forfeiting their citizenship for committing premeditated capital crimes such as robbery with abuse of firearms, rape, murder or other violence instead of getting help for their addictions or criminal illness etc. So this would encourage people to come forward and cooperate with authorities fully if they want to serve their time as US citizens,
whereas if they fail to cooperate they risk losing their citizenship while working for restitution.
Something like that. I believe restorative justice should be a separate but equal option to accommodate people of both views, and offer both choices equally, so the authorities can still negotiate with offenders and compel them to work out the best way to answer for crime.

Especially if the death penalty is involved, I believe this is a religious/spiritual matter, and should be decided by consensus of the people affected; so if the victims/survivors of a capital crime want restitution another way and don't want the death penalty, I believe this is important for their spiritual healing and right to due process and should be accounted for.
Likewise if people believe in the death penalty, this needs to be set up to begin with where there is agreement, and not wait until after a murder occurs to find out people disagree! We waste a lot of resources fighting political and legally over this, while those resources coudl be focused on helping survivors and also preventing murder, violence, addiction and crimes to begin with by addressing the causes and cures for criminal illness, abuse and addiction.
So I have a real problem with this not being resolved, but costing resources and lives while the system is not correcting causes of homicidal crime but spending billions after the fact.

I am more concerned about the "billions of dollars" wasted on failed prisons that don't cure people of criminal illness, that could go into expanding medical education, health care and service programs to help BOTH the criminally and mentally ill and serve the general public health at the same time with those same resources, more than the time wasted by opening a meeting with prayer which seems miniscule in comparison.

So as conscientious as you are about principle, where even the prayer issue concerns you, I am hoping you are equally consistent and concerned about differences in religious practice by the state that could be addressed to stop the waste of billions of dollars in comparison.

Can we discuss this? I would like to hear QW's take on criminal justice also, given the responses that favor the more retributive justice approach while I favor restorative justice. QW way of retribution can spell disaster for people who prefer to resolve conflict and share responsibility for corre cting wrongs directly; while my way is easily abused by people who NEED to be "slapped up-side the head" as people who bully and rebel sometimes need to be put in their place by a bigger bully. I am not suited for that role or circumstance, as QW is; so both approaches are necessary, in respective situations, but must be applied appropriately or it is disastrous to get them in reverse! What do you think?

Since you brought up the issue of not wasting public resources on something religiously biased or based,
do you include the death penalty as another example of the same or similar problem.

Tax dollars are secular.
Religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes.
Both of those facts are indisputable.

When the prior administration attempted to institute "faith based iniatives" funded with tax dollars they failed miserably. The reason for their failure was not because of any protests from Atheists but rather religious organizations refused the funds on the basis that they would not be able to preach their message while using secular tax dollars. From the above you can see that even from a religious perspective the use of government funding has serious implications as far as what is and isn't allowed.

Except that is not what happened, mostly because "faith based" organizations have been receiving government funds for decades. Bush sought to expand that by rewriting the legal requirements involved in accepting government funds, and the reaction from churches was mixed. The reasons for that is are a lot more complex than the puerile argument you put forth.

The oath of office for any government position has no religious aspect whatsoever. It is merely an oath to uphold the constitution. This is not "one nation under God" either. For anyone becoming a US citizen there is no religious requirement. The CINS allows new citizens to exclude the the phrase "under God" when they say the pledge of allegiance.

The reason for that, believe it or not, is that many religious people objected, not because it offended non religious people.

There is no such thing as a "secular prayer".

Prayer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All forms of prayer are religious in nature. For any government official acting in that capacity to lead a prayer is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

All of them? Without exception?

Would that include this?

The Serene Atheist: The Secular Serenity Prayer

Or these?

https://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/quotations-about-religion/secular-and-agnostic-prayers/

Just because you cannot imagine something does not mean it is impossible.

Besides, as I have pointed out more than once, the Supreme Court established the whiny little bitch test (aka Lemon test) that only requires that the prayer serve a secular purpose, not that it actually be secular.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate what a person of integrity will do and to admit you are wrong. My guess is that you will not do so, you will instead continue to ignore the facts and remain a goat that shepherds are supposed to separate from the sheep.

These are also indisputable facts.

If they were actually indisputable I wouldn't have been able to dispute them, which gives you another opportunity to demonstrate integrity.

The only instances where it can be deemed "appropriate" are when there are meetings between government officials and religious leaders for the express purpose of solving common problems. Even then it should not be the government officials who would be leading the prayers.

Because, as we all know, government officials are not actual humans, which explains why they have no rights.

Wait...

So having established that there is clearly a separation of tax dollars and faith your capital punishment question can be addressed. From a moral perspective of right or wrong there are both pro and con arguments to be found in the bible regarding capital punishment. Neither arguments are persuasive enough to be definitive in my opinion.

The death penalty is not a religious matter but one of retribution instead. It has been established that the death penalty is not a deterrent to anyone intending to commit a capital crime. The current legal system is such that the cost of executing someone exceeds the cost of incarcerating them for life. In addition the current legal system is flawed in that innocent people do end up on death row. Once executed there is no remedy for anyone subsequently found to be innocent. From a purely pragmatic standpoint the death penalty is ineffective and cost prohibitive. From a personal perspective it should be reserved for only those whose crimes are so heinous (Bundy, McVeigh, etc.) and whose guilt is established beyond any doubt whatsoever that they no longer deserve to remain alive more than a single day after sentence is passed. The sentence should then be carried out the following day.

The problem of homicidal crime is another matter entirely and belongs in a different forum. Suffice to say that there is a paucity of hard statistical evidence as to the causes. However this link might give you some idea of what might be done about reducing the incidence. If you wish to discuss this topic any further though it is probably wiser to start another thread.

Gun Free - Latest gun related facts and figures

There are actually very conclusive arguments moral against the death penalty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are nothing but an empty vessel. Have a nice day.

Dear DT: Maybe Koshergirl's spiritual role and gifts are different, would you consider that?

I understand what she is saying trying to warn of demons and negative influences that are muddling what people are trying to say. Even if she does not have gifts for addressing these, maybe her role is to judge and point out some of these negatives from the positives. Sometimes having an empty or more objective less engaged position helps with that process.
Maybe she is here to help in other ways. And we are here to help her in return, since obviously we have different knowledge and perspectives. Can we use this to our advantage?

KG has openly admitted that she is only interested in taunting and mocking. Given the meaningless drivel she posts there is no reason to doubt her intentions. Unlike you and Foxy she has neither the willingness nor the intellect to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. Until there is some sign that she intends to reform her behavior she will be treated accordingly.

Which makes her honest, unlike you. You chose to openly mock and taunt, and then pretend you are above it when people fight back.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Foxfyre and thank you for your thoughtful response.

(I am still laughing and smiling to myself, BTW, about your response to the bad
karoake analogy as applying to the Westboro Baptists!)

I am not against keeping the choice of the death penalty, but I do believe that by civil constitutional laws on religious freedom, that people who believe in funding prevention, correction and restitution for capital crimes as an alternative to executions should have
the right to fund that instead; similar to conscientious objectors not funding war itself,
but having the option of funding defense in terms of diplomacy and violence prevention.
Since this is not possible to separate funding down to the line item, I am proposing that
issues of church-state conflicts could be resolved by giving taxpayers the option of funding
alternatives they believe in through the Political Parties they can elect and fund to represent and manage the programs, administration and funding/resources for policies of their choice.

I believe this would help protect and promote equal representation and due process for people of differing views, especially concerning church-state issues where people disagree religiously and do not consent to be forced by law to fund or support policies against their beliefs.

You can still believe in the rule of law and all the consequences of crime and punishment, and have separation of funding and policies where people don't support certain beliefs.
Some of these things are better off paid for by the people who support them, instead of wasting resources fighting politically where these conflicts keep coming up over and over.

Emily didn't direct her question to me, but historically, laws involving crime and punishment, from a Christian perspective, have been far more focused on consequences rather than vengeance, at least up until the last several decades in which, in my opinion, civil rights have been twisted and manipulated for sometimes less than justifiable reasons.

But how it should work, if we are to be a people of law, is that the rules are set down for how society shall conduct itself so that all rights are protected. If you litter, there is a prescribed consequence for being convicted of that act. If you speed in your automobile, there is a prescribed consequence for being convicted of that act. If you rob a bank, there is a prescribed consequence for being convicted of that act, etc. And if you commit the most cruel, senseless, unconscionable crimes against humanity, there is a prescxribed consequence for being convicted of that act. And some advocate the death penalty as being the ultimate consequence for certain kinds of terrible crimes.

There was a time when the less dangerous convicted criminals were assigned to work details and did hard physical labor working on roads or other projects that were beneficial to society as a whole. This seemed just as compensation for the cost to society for enforcing the consequences for certain kinds of crime. The social do-gooders though now object to this kind of forced labor as cruel and inhumane or degrading or demeaning and have put a stop to a lot of it.

I had an occasion to visit with a young man incarcerated in our local detention center. He had just returned from a detail in which the prisoners when out to pick up trash along the roadways. I asked him if he liked doing that. He shrugged and said he volunteered for it. It was better being out in the sunshine than it was sitting around in the jail.

But then I am one who think welfare recipients should be doing some community service in return for their welfare check and who have no problem with prisoners working for the room and board provided to them. This is, as it were, the Christian way.

Yes, I do believe the prison and welfare systems will need to be refomed to be self-sufficient, where people are held accountable for the consequences and costs of their actions. i believe this level of social responsibility for civil laws and the cost of govt and democratic process should be required for citizenship in order to invoke those privileges.

Thanks again for replying and for your other msgs as well!

 

[emilynghiem]

A person of integrity would have admitted that they were wrong about shepherds being guides when provided with an unimpeachable 3rd party source. DW not only failed to admit that he was wrong (mistaken, ignorant, whatever) and instead attempted to deflect attention with an utterly irrelevant remark about the use of color. That spoke volumes about his lack of honesty and I held him accountable for it.

I don't expect anyone to admit they were wrong on a public forum.
If they change their minds, good for them, but they don't have to answer to me.
If they do admit that, I respect that even more, but I don't expect it.

I trust people to hold themselves accountable, which isn't my job to do for them.
I might say something that helps them, but in return they also help me so we both benefit, even if we don't say it.
Nobody I know enjoys being wrong, so once they get something, of course
they change what they think. What they do with their new thinking is up to them.

however, if they are put on the spot they tend to get defensive and cover up.
So I learned don't put people on the spot, and maybe they won't act that way!

When we give each other freedom to speak and be honest without judgment or conditions,
it is much easier to work things out by ourselves, and people usually respond better WITHOUT pressure to look right or wrong. Again I find people are more sensitive about this.

Instead of expending energy trying to prove each other wrong,
I'd rather focus on what we're getting right. The other stuff will fix itself
because people's consciences prefer to be consistent. No one likes to suffer conflicts.

What people change on their own is up to them, and is usually
best done in private where there is more room to think and work it out themselves.

The really deep change on matters that make the most difference is done
internally, and I respect that people need to have their own space and process for that.

Frankly, I'm amazed at all how much we can share on public forums like this!
I am so grateful we have this freedom to interact, I am not going to complain
what the process comes out like, and whether people admit they change or not.

We are all going to co-influence and mutually change how each other looks at things, just by interacting, so what.
If people want to share, let them share, but I am not going to insist that they do
or judge them for what they say or don't say, that's up to them and I trust the process, which I think is beautiful!

A lot of the deeper changes happen internally or in relation between people
and that's not always communicated, so what. I'm just glad it's happening, naturally.

Thanks again for sharing BTW. I see your style is very objective and I find that fascinating
because I can't always do that. I hope we make the most of our different angles and ways of
framing things, and learn to work around the flaws and clashes that arise because of these.

 

[emilynghiem]

Which makes her honest, unlike you. You chose to openly mock and taunt, and then pretend you are above it when people fight back.

Hi QW thanks for your detailed response above, which I will take more time to read in depth and reply after DT.

I agree that at least KG was honest, so I thanked you for your response pointing this out, even before I did as I was thinking the same thing!

I would not judge either DT or KG negatively for any mocking, as both have shown they will post meaningful msgs with good content, which I found helpful. If we mock, I hope we agree to keep it friendly, like "c'mon silly you know better" and nothing meant with ill will.

I know these are sensitive issues that easily become volatile, anything to do with religion or politics, so the fact we can share at all is well-appreciated and not to be taken for granted.
I think this is wonderful!

Thanks for going into more detail because I am fascinated to read viewpoints like
yours and DT that are giving much different perspective than I'm used to reading.

Thank you for that,
I gotta go but I will catch up later....

 

[Derideo_Te]

If people fear you are going to judge them and impose conditions, the unconscious pressure this puts on people can invoke the very opposite response of what you would have preferred. Kids go through this all the time, trying to please their parents and the fear makes it backfire. I find adults go through this, too, especially if conditions from their past are repeated and whatever isn't resolved from past interactions with parents or other authority figures patterns or biases their behavior toward others. So it is connected to past patterns, from childhood and/or other relations, where imposing this kind of condition on social expectations and acceptance affects how people respond to each other. It happens.
But it can also change when people are around unconditional acceptance and nonjudgment.
I've had people totally open up and drop their previous patterns of self-censorship and self-judgment after they quit judging themselves or others because I didn't judge them either.

Dear Emily,

This is supposed to be an adult forum. People who have demonstrated that they cannot behave like adults are a waste of time and energy in my opinion. Granted everyone has feelings and it is possible to inadvertently post something hurtful given the nature of this forum. However when this is pointed out an adult would apologize and the other adult would accept the apology and both would move on.

The essence of this forum is credibility. Without honesty and integrity there can be no credibility. When challenged to substantiate a position the onus is on the person who posted the position to back it up. Failure to do so means a loss of credibility. Deflecting indicates a level of inherent dishonesty. If there is any "judgmental" aspect to this it stems not from any individual but from the forum itself. Credibility is earned and/or lost by what is posted. While this post is a response to you it will be read by others. They will be the "jury" of the content and decide for themselves what level of credibility to grant or withhold. This applies to all posts in this forum.

The problems facing this nation need to be addressed sooner rather than later. In order to have a substantive discussion about these problems there needs to be a willingness on all sides to have an open and honest debate. Those who cannot participate in any meaningful way or bring anything of value to the table are part of the problem in my opinion and are best ignored.

These national issues are too urgent to have to waste time dealing with the unresolved character flaws from someone's childhood. (Your compassion when dealing with them is commendable.) However if this process is going to move forward it cannot be impeded by those who are only here to vent their adolescent rage.

Fortunately there are adults like you and Foxy who are willing to engage and have meaningful discussions. For that I am truly grateful and appreciative.

Sincerely
Derideo_Te

 

[emilynghiem]

Note to DT: I find below that QW answers quite specifically and maturely as an adult, so whatever childish bickering was going previously was limited to that context.

???

DT, I find it more than clear that QW answered quite honestly!

A person of integrity would have admitted that they were wrong about shepherds being guides when provided with an unimpeachable 3rd party source. DW not only failed to admit that he was wrong (mistaken, ignorant, whatever) and instead attempted to deflect attention with an utterly irrelevant remark about the use of color. That spoke volumes about his lack of honesty and I held him accountable for it.

I always admit I am wrong, eventually. There is one prerequisite for me admitting I am wrong though, I actually have to be wrong. Despite the fact that both of us can find plenty of dictionaries that say that shepherds are supposed to guide, that is not what the Bible instructs them to do.

Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the..." NIV - Online Bible Study

1. regarding shepherds and shepherding roles, I find that different circumstances may call for one or the other or both. Sometimes you need to outright rescue a sheep from falling in a ditch or washing away in a river. Sometimes you need to go out and look for a lost sheep as Jesus referred to.

If you insist it must be either/or for ALL situations, you can both prove each other wrong and argue about that, too. or you can look at different cases, where sometimes the shepherd guides and sometimes protects or both or something else.

Jesus can mean different things per context from charity to justice, peace and law, conscience and mediation, etc. these are all manifestations of Jesus but they are not the same thing.

Except that is not what happened, mostly because "faith based" organizations have been receiving government funds for decades. Bush sought to expand that by rewriting the legal requirements involved in accepting government funds, and the reaction from churches was mixed. The reasons for that is are a lot more complex than the puerile argument you put forth.


The reason for that, believe it or not, is that many religious people objected, not because it offended non religious people.

again I find it a mix of both. as long as we disagree, then anything can be ruled by govt, like gambling with chance, and we can blame any number of things for why the outcome went which way.

All of them? Without exception?

Would that include this?

The Serene Atheist: The Secular Serenity Prayer

Or these?

https://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/quotations-about-religion/secular-and-agnostic-prayers/

Just because you cannot imagine something does not mean it is impossible.

YES I agree with QW that there are secular and univeral expressions of prayer that can be all inclusive and thus not discriminating religiously to exclude or favor one group or others.

Besides, as I have pointed out more than once, the Supreme Court established the whiny little bitch test (aka Lemon test) that only requires that the prayer serve a secular purpose, not that it actually be secular.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate what a person of integrity will do and to admit you are wrong. My guess is that you will not do so, you will instead continue to ignore the facts and remain a goat that shepherds are supposed to separate from the sheep.

If they were actually indisputable I wouldn't have been able to dispute them, which gives you another opportunity to demonstrate integrity.

Thanks for the clarification about secular purpose.
The TX court also allowed Biblical references to be kept on public land around the Capitol
because it was part of legal history and not just religious in nature.
So being used for religion does not exclude other secular purposes as well!

The only instances where it can be deemed "appropriate" are when there are meetings between government officials and religious leaders for the express purpose of solving common problems. Even then it should not be the government officials who would be leading the prayers.

Because, as we all know, government officials are not actual humans, which explains why they have no rights.

Wait...

Mayor Parker in Houston challenged this by advocating publicly for gay marriage against criticisms of using her position as a public figure to lobby. She explained she is still a citizen and has the right to free speech and participate democratically.

The problem is if federal govt officials lobby for one side and not for resolution that includes and protectsall sides' interests eaually; as Obama administrators caused problems by taking sides and actively directing public resources to attack the AZ immigration law as unconstitutional but not doing the same equally for unconstitutional issues with the health care bill and now gun issues. So that is where govt is being abused by parties to lobby instead of defending and representing all interests equally.

So having established that there is clearly a separation of tax dollars and faith your capital punishment question can be addressed. From a moral perspective of right or wrong there are both pro and con arguments to be found in the bible regarding capital punishment. Neither arguments are persuasive enough to be definitive in my opinion.

The death penalty is not a religious matter but one of retribution instead. It has been established that the death penalty is not a deterrent to anyone intending to commit a capital crime. The current legal system is such that the cost of executing someone exceeds the cost of incarcerating them for life. In addition the current legal system is flawed in that innocent people do end up on death row. Once executed there is no remedy for anyone subsequently found to be innocent. From a purely pragmatic standpoint the death penalty is ineffective and cost prohibitive. From a personal perspective it should be reserved for only those whose crimes are so heinous (Bundy, McVeigh, etc.) and whose guilt is established beyond any doubt whatsoever that they no longer deserve to remain alive more than a single day after sentence is passed. The sentence should then be carried out the following day.

The problem of homicidal crime is another matter entirely and belongs in a different forum. Suffice to say that there is a paucity of hard statistical evidence as to the causes. However this link might give you some idea of what might be done about reducing the incidence. If you wish to discuss this topic any further though it is probably wiser to start another thread.

Gun Free - Latest gun related facts and figures

There are actually very conclusive arguments moral against the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

my issue is that as long as people disagree religiously, then how can the state take one side and enforce/endorse that without iposing a religous bias exclusing the dissenting beliefs?

 

[Foxfyre]

Theoretically, as the Founders envisioned this country, the people tell the state what to do and how to do it. It was never intended to be the other way around.

So it should be the people who set aside all personal investment and come to an agreement of what offense violate or endanger the unalienable rights of others and/or society as a whole. They do this in person or via their elected representatives.

Should jaywalking be legal? If not what is the assigned consequence for doing it?

Should littering be legal? If not what is the assigned consequence for doing it?

And you go down the line assigning a prescribed consequence for those who would assault, who would steal, who would drive drunk, who would text while driving, who would abuse animals or children or spouses, who would commit armed robbery, who would rape, who would murder, who would torture, etc.

And if the people deem the death penalty to be a prescribed consequence for certain specified crimes, or determine that the death penalty is not acceptable for any crime, it really doesn't matter if their motivation is religious or comes from some other value principle.

The Founders considered such matters to be the prerogative of the people in their individual states, counties, communities, and not the prerogative of the federal government except in very specific and narrow circumstances in which crimes are committed against the whole country rather than in the individual states.

 

[emilynghiem]

If people fear you are going to judge them and impose conditions, the unconscious pressure this puts on people can invoke the very opposite response of what you would have preferred. Kids go through this all the time, trying to please their parents and the fear makes it backfire. I find adults go through this, too, especially if conditions from their past are repeated and whatever isn't resolved from past interactions with parents or other authority figures patterns or biases their behavior toward others. So it is connected to past patterns, from childhood and/or other relations, where imposing this kind of condition on social expectations and acceptance affects how people respond to each other. It happens.
But it can also change when people are around unconditional acceptance and nonjudgment.
I've had people totally open up and drop their previous patterns of self-censorship and self-judgment after they quit judging themselves or others because I didn't judge them either.

Dear Emily,

This is supposed to be an adult forum. People who have demonstrated that they cannot behave like adults are a waste of time and energy in my opinion. Granted everyone has feelings and it is possible to inadvertently post something hurtful given the nature of this forum. However when this is pointed out an adult would apologize and the other adult would accept the apology and both would move on.

The essence of this forum is credibility. Without honesty and integrity there can be no credibility. When challenged to substantiate a position the onus is on the person who posted the position to back it up. Failure to do so means a loss of credibility. Deflecting indicates a level of inherent dishonesty. If there is any "judgmental" aspect to this it stems not from any individual but from the forum itself. Credibility is earned and/or lost by what is posted. While this post is a response to you it will be read by others. They will be the "jury" of the content and decide for themselves what level of credibility to grant or withhold. This applies to all posts in this forum.

The problems facing this nation need to be addressed sooner rather than later. In order to have a substantive discussion about these problems there needs to be a willingness on all sides to have an open and honest debate. Those who cannot participate in any meaningful way or bring anything of value to the table are part of the problem in my opinion and are best ignored.

These national issues are too urgent to have to waste time dealing with the unresolved character flaws from someone's childhood. (Your compassion when dealing with them is commendable.) However if this process is going to move forward it cannot be impeded by those who are only here to vent their adolescent rage.

Fortunately there are adults like you and Foxy who are willing to engage and have meaningful discussions. For that I am truly grateful and appreciative.

Sincerely
Derideo_Te

Dear DT: The respect is mutual. And I believe as we strive to improve ourselves, we uplift others to take the higher road and enforce higher standards also. As the studies showed when teachers treated kids as dunces they acted that way, but when the SAME kids were told they were geniuses, lo and behold, they acted that way. Adults are basically "grown up kids." I don't mean that only in a negative way either, as you point out people act adolescent all the time; Hugh Hefner said 80 is the new 40, and I do find it is generally true that people act half their age most of the time, sorry. On a positive note, where people are most teachable and open to change is where we do go back to where we feel safe internally as our "inner child" or innermost instincts BEFORE we stack on all those conditions that make us react to each other in other ways. So this is both good and bad.
As a weakness, you can see that mocking starts everyone acting as brats and bullies.
on the other hand, when we reach out and give each other verbal hugs, and thanks,
we make it safe to share openly. that is the kind of world I want to live in, where we
agree when its time to work, and when to play, and don't ruin relations bullying around.

And yes, the emotions coming out on a national scale show that our leaders are human also, and respond out of instinct and fear, just like high school or middle school, where "you can't be friends with so and so and be on my team" etc. So juvenile if you frame it that way, but everything we learn in politics we also saw in high school, cuz all people are going through the learning curve of how to deal with pecking order and classes when we are not all at the same levels in all the subjects out there. Some people are geniuses while in other areas complete novices; some are still going through teenage rebellion, while others are fighting the pressures of taking on adult responsibility of self-government and not depending on mommy or daddy figures which church and state authority trigger if there are unresolved power struggles being projected in public etc.

It is interesting that we are all thrown together in one huge school, where we aren't organized yet by class or level, and we are tyring to figure it out how to best use our given resources. I appreciate your presence and intelligent input and posts, and feel this approach of working thorugh the personal issues while we focus on the actual content is more realistic of what people are going through anyway. We do react to each other based on our past experiences, from childhood and parent experiences to romantic relations or professional/political relations where there are power-authority-control issues, and we do need to be real and address where that has an influence on whether we are effective or not. It can be both a plus and a minus, so we need to turn any failures into an opportunity to improve and get over past patterns that are divisive and aren't as productive to get where we all want to be.

I agree with Foxfyre's statement, and am interested to see what comes from all our views and perspectives coming out and intersecting here and there. I think the insights and information we get fro meach other, coming from diverse positions, is the same kind of synergy that we need to happen everywhere, inside and outside Congress in order fo rthe govt to represent the people. The people need to be in agreement on what points are public and unviersal and what things need to be decided locally where we differ. And then we can get the appropriate levels of institutions to take those approaches and fulfill them.

But we can't give mixed signals and contradictory instructions to govt and expect them to come out with anything other than some messy compromise that no one is happy with.

I would like to start a third house of Congress, unofficial, outside of govt, where people organize by party and by issues, bring all the views and input togehter, and hash out where we agree or disagree and present positoin papers to govt explaining what points can or cannot be put into law. And work these things out civilly. I hope you and others here will consider putting something like that together online through all the parties and have thes kind of discussions per issue, where we can get something done and not all this mess we have now. Thanks, I gotta go but it's great seeing the better side of eveyrone here!
Take care and look forward to more.
I think veyrone here has special insights and areas of expertise to offer,
and I'm willing to forgive the faults to get to the good stuff that is worth the effort.
I find the more I have to forgive to work with someone or vice versa for them to work with me, the more good stuff is hidden behind those walls that make it worth it proportionately.
The harder I have to struggle to resolve an issue with someone, the solutoin we arrive
at after all that work is beneficial to the same degree as the effort it took to get there.
one friend of mine calls it starting with the lump o fcoal and getting to the diamond.
clearly th ediamond is percentage wise very tiny compared to the huge mass around it that is worth less i ncomparison. But the diamond is priceless, so that is what I look for in each person and try to help get to that point. In the process we help each other to refine and
perfect ourselves to be better people, so I find it is always worth the effort.
The people and issues that challenge me the most, the rewards are even greater.
it gets easier as you go, especially the more people catch on and make mutual efforts.
yours truly,
Emily

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. regarding shepherds and shepherding roles, I find that different circumstances may call for one or the other or both. Sometimes you need to outright rescue a sheep from falling in a ditch or washing away in a river. Sometimes you need to go out and look for a lost sheep as Jesus referred to.

All that is part of protecting the flock, not guiding it.

If you insist it must be either/or for ALL situations, you can both prove each other wrong and argue about that, too. or you can look at different cases, where sometimes the shepherd guides and sometimes protects or both or something else.

I am not insisting that it is either/or, I am saying that any shepherd that takes it into his head to guide the sheep will end up misleading them because that is not his role. If we got over the idea that shepherds are supposed to guide people we would never end up with people like David Koresh or Jim Jones.

The Holy Spirit is what guides us, not the shepherd.

Jesus can mean different things per context from charity to justice, peace and law, conscience and mediation, etc. these are all manifestations of Jesus but they are not the same thing.

I do not disagree with this.

again I find it a mix of both. as long as we disagree, then anything can be ruled by govt, like gambling with chance, and we can blame any number of things for why the outcome went which way.

True. I will not insist that integrity among believers is the only reason that something happened. I do object to anyone that wants to argue that that integrity does not exist, and that it was not a factor, which is why I spoke up when DT tried to make it seem that way.

YES I agree with QW that there are secular and univeral expressions of prayer that can be all inclusive and thus not discriminating religiously to exclude or favor one group or others.

Like, for example, a moment of silence during a public ceremony. Everyone there will have different beliefs, and some cultures even support expressive emotions while grieving, but it is possible to have prayer without being about religion. I personally don't see the point, but I won't belittle people just because I don't get it.

Thanks for the clarification about secular purpose.
The TX court also allowed Biblical references to be kept on public land around the Capitol
because it was part of legal history and not just religious in nature.
So being used for religion does not exclude other secular purposes as well!

I was specifically addressing prayer, not public displays of religion or religious symbols. The truth is that the court decisions on religion are really murky, and that no one knows how any particular case will be decided, even if the precedent seems pretty clear.

I tend to vehemently object whenever someone unilaterally declares themselves an expert, and then says that any public display of religion is prohibited.

Mayor Parker in Houston challenged this by advocating publicly for gay marriage against criticisms of using her position as a public figure to lobby. She explained she is still a citizen and has the right to free speech and participate democratically.

Good for her, no one should be forced to stifle their speech simply because they run for office, even if I disagree with them.

The problem is if federal govt officials lobby for one side and not for resolution that includes and protectsall sides' interests eaually; as Obama administrators caused problems by taking sides and actively directing public resources to attack the AZ immigration law as unconstitutional but not doing the same equally for unconstitutional issues with the health care bill and now gun issues. So that is where govt is being abused by parties to lobby instead of defending and representing all interests equally.

That is why we should demand that we go back to being a nation of laws, which is another topic entirely.

my issue is that as long as people disagree religiously, then how can the state take one side and enforce/endorse that without iposing a religous bias exclusing the dissenting beliefs?

There are religions that say human sacrifice is acceptable. The state taking a position that murder, even in the guise of a sacrifice to a god, is wrong is not, in and of itself, religious bias unless they use religion to justify that position. Personally, ny objection to the death penalty comes down to one thing, I don't trust the government enough to want them to be able to kill people for any reason. Nothing religious about that, and if the government drops the death penalty because they admit that they make mistakes, I see no reason for anyone to say that it is religious bias.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dear Emily,

This is supposed to be an adult forum.

Actually, it is a a forum where people can discuss things. There only rules about it being adult exist inside the minds of deluded whiners who think being adult means not speaking your mind. The only age requirement I am aware of for this place is that you be over 123, and that probably only exists because some stupid idiot decided that under 13 was too young to know how the real world works and wrote a law that says that they can't join places like this without parental approval.

You probably agree with them.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Dear DT: Maybe Koshergirl's spiritual role and gifts are different, would you consider that?

I understand what she is saying trying to warn of demons and negative influences that are muddling what people are trying to say. Even if she does not have gifts for addressing these, maybe her role is to judge and point out some of these negatives from the positives. Sometimes having an empty or more objective less engaged position helps with that process.
Maybe she is here to help in other ways. And we are here to help her in return, since obviously we have different knowledge and perspectives. Can we use this to our advantage?

KG has openly admitted that she is only interested in taunting and mocking. Given the meaningless drivel she posts there is no reason to doubt her intentions. Unlike you and Foxy she has neither the willingness nor the intellect to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. Until there is some sign that she intends to reform her behavior she will be treated accordingly.

Which makes her honest, unlike you. You chose to openly mock and taunt, and then pretend you are above it when people fight back.

And you don't openly mock and taunt? ...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

KG has openly admitted that she is only interested in taunting and mocking. Given the meaningless drivel she posts there is no reason to doubt her intentions. Unlike you and Foxy she has neither the willingness nor the intellect to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. Until there is some sign that she intends to reform her behavior she will be treated accordingly.

Which makes her honest, unlike you. You chose to openly mock and taunt, and then pretend you are above it when people fight back.

And you don't openly mock and taunt? ...

Read the thread, I already said I do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If people fear you are going to judge them and impose conditions, the unconscious pressure this puts on people can invoke the very opposite response of what you would have preferred. Kids go through this all the time, trying to please their parents and the fear makes it backfire. I find adults go through this, too, especially if conditions from their past are repeated and whatever isn't resolved from past interactions with parents or other authority figures patterns or biases their behavior toward others. So it is connected to past patterns, from childhood and/or other relations, where imposing this kind of condition on social expectations and acceptance affects how people respond to each other. It happens.
But it can also change when people are around unconditional acceptance and nonjudgment.
I've had people totally open up and drop their previous patterns of self-censorship and self-judgment after they quit judging themselves or others because I didn't judge them either.

Dear Emily,

This is supposed to be an adult forum. People who have demonstrated that they cannot behave like adults are a waste of time and energy in my opinion. Granted everyone has feelings and it is possible to inadvertently post something hurtful given the nature of this forum. However when this is pointed out an adult would apologize and the other adult would accept the apology and both would move on.

The essence of this forum is credibility. Without honesty and integrity there can be no credibility. When challenged to substantiate a position the onus is on the person who posted the position to back it up. Failure to do so means a loss of credibility. Deflecting indicates a level of inherent dishonesty. If there is any "judgmental" aspect to this it stems not from any individual but from the forum itself. Credibility is earned and/or lost by what is posted. While this post is a response to you it will be read by others. They will be the "jury" of the content and decide for themselves what level of credibility to grant or withhold. This applies to all posts in this forum.

The problems facing this nation need to be addressed sooner rather than later. In order to have a substantive discussion about these problems there needs to be a willingness on all sides to have an open and honest debate. Those who cannot participate in any meaningful way or bring anything of value to the table are part of the problem in my opinion and are best ignored.

These national issues are too urgent to have to waste time dealing with the unresolved character flaws from someone's childhood. (Your compassion when dealing with them is commendable.) However if this process is going to move forward it cannot be impeded by those who are only here to vent their adolescent rage.

Fortunately there are adults like you and Foxy who are willing to engage and have meaningful discussions. For that I am truly grateful and appreciative.

Sincerely
Derideo_Te

Dear DT: The respect is mutual. And I believe as we strive to improve ourselves, we uplift others to take the higher road and enforce higher standards also. As the studies showed when teachers treated kids as dunces they acted that way, but when the SAME kids were told they were geniuses, lo and behold, they acted that way. Adults are basically "grown up kids." I don't mean that only in a negative way either, as you point out people act adolescent all the time; Hugh Hefner said 80 is the new 40, and I do find it is generally true that people act half their age most of the time, sorry. On a positive note, where people are most teachable and open to change is where we do go back to where we feel safe internally as our "inner child" or innermost instincts BEFORE we stack on all those conditions that make us react to each other in other ways. So this is both good and bad.
As a weakness, you can see that mocking starts everyone acting as brats and bullies.
on the other hand, when we reach out and give each other verbal hugs, and thanks,
we make it safe to share openly. that is the kind of world I want to live in, where we
agree when its time to work, and when to play, and don't ruin relations bullying around.

And yes, the emotions coming out on a national scale show that our leaders are human also, and respond out of instinct and fear, just like high school or middle school, where "you can't be friends with so and so and be on my team" etc. So juvenile if you frame it that way, but everything we learn in politics we also saw in high school, cuz all people are going through the learning curve of how to deal with pecking order and classes when we are not all at the same levels in all the subjects out there. Some people are geniuses while in other areas complete novices; some are still going through teenage rebellion, while others are fighting the pressures of taking on adult responsibility of self-government and not depending on mommy or daddy figures which church and state authority trigger if there are unresolved power struggles being projected in public etc.

It is interesting that we are all thrown together in one huge school, where we aren't organized yet by class or level, and we are tyring to figure it out how to best use our given resources. I appreciate your presence and intelligent input and posts, and feel this approach of working thorugh the personal issues while we focus on the actual content is more realistic of what people are going through anyway. We do react to each other based on our past experiences, from childhood and parent experiences to romantic relations or professional/political relations where there are power-authority-control issues, and we do need to be real and address where that has an influence on whether we are effective or not. It can be both a plus and a minus, so we need to turn any failures into an opportunity to improve and get over past patterns that are divisive and aren't as productive to get where we all want to be.

I agree with Foxfyre's statement, and am interested to see what comes from all our views and perspectives coming out and intersecting here and there. I think the insights and information we get fro meach other, coming from diverse positions, is the same kind of synergy that we need to happen everywhere, inside and outside Congress in order fo rthe govt to represent the people. The people need to be in agreement on what points are public and unviersal and what things need to be decided locally where we differ. And then we can get the appropriate levels of institutions to take those approaches and fulfill them.

But we can't give mixed signals and contradictory instructions to govt and expect them to come out with anything other than some messy compromise that no one is happy with.

I would like to start a third house of Congress, unofficial, outside of govt, where people organize by party and by issues, bring all the views and input togehter, and hash out where we agree or disagree and present positoin papers to govt explaining what points can or cannot be put into law. And work these things out civilly. I hope you and others here will consider putting something like that together online through all the parties and have thes kind of discussions per issue, where we can get something done and not all this mess we have now. Thanks, I gotta go but it's great seeing the better side of eveyrone here!
Take care and look forward to more.
I think veyrone here has special insights and areas of expertise to offer,
and I'm willing to forgive the faults to get to the good stuff that is worth the effort.
I find the more I have to forgive to work with someone or vice versa for them to work with me, the more good stuff is hidden behind those walls that make it worth it proportionately.
The harder I have to struggle to resolve an issue with someone, the solutoin we arrive
at after all that work is beneficial to the same degree as the effort it took to get there.
one friend of mine calls it starting with the lump o fcoal and getting to the diamond.
clearly th ediamond is percentage wise very tiny compared to the huge mass around it that is worth less i ncomparison. But the diamond is priceless, so that is what I look for in each person and try to help get to that point. In the process we help each other to refine and
perfect ourselves to be better people, so I find it is always worth the effort.
The people and issues that challenge me the most, the rewards are even greater.
it gets easier as you go, especially the more people catch on and make mutual efforts.
yours truly,
Emily

Dear Emily,

You are correct in that we are both working towards the same goals even if we are approaching them from different perspectives. As far as "messy compromises" go they beat the alternative which is an unsatisfactory deadlock. Obviously it is preferable to reach a compromise where all parties obtain at least some of what they need. However the current situation is untenable where there a childish refusal to agree to any compromise. The topical case in point is the threat to filibuster any legislation that enacts universal background checks even though 90% of the nation supports them. That reaches the level of an impeachable offense in my opinion. Only the merchants of death stand to gain from a filibuster while who knows how many more must die needlessly?

These are the issues that the 3rd house of congress must debate. The compromises reached by the Vox Populi house should be drafted as resolutions and sent not only to both houses and the executive branch but also the media. These resolutions can take the form of a consensus of the opinions of those participating.

Great idea. What are the next steps towards making it a reality?

Sincerely
Derideo_Te

 

[Gracie]

Couple of questions:

Why did God show such favoritism towards Abel? Cain was wanting the same love and appreciation yet was not. Why not? Are they not equal in God's eyes as His children? So why show more for one then be surprised when the other feels shut out? Which of course made him kill his brother in anger which was not too slick to do.

4 There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Who were the giants?

20 Now Noah became a farmer and decided to plant a vineyard. 21 One day he drank too much of the wine he had made and fell into a deep, drunken sleep in his tent. As he lay there stark naked, 22 Ham (the father of Canaan) peeked in and saw his father’s exposed body. After leaving the tent, he told his two brothers what he had seen. 23 So Shem and Japheth took a large cloak and laid it across their shoulders, and they walked backward into the tent. They never looked behind, as they covered their father’s nakedness. Out of respect, they purposely kept their faces turned away, so they wouldn’t see their father lying there naked. 24 When Noah regained consciousness and realized what his youngest son had done, 25 he uttered this curse:

Noah: A curse upon your son, Canaan!
May he become the lowest of servants to his brothers.
26 May the Eternal One, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and let Canaan be his slave!
27 May God make plenty of room for Japheth’s family
and give them homes among Shem’s tents.
And let Canaan be his slave also!

Noah got drunk, passed out naked. His kid saw him. Instead of Noah being shamed for getting drunk and being naked, his son got the punishment. Why? Perhaps he shouldn't have gotten sloshed and flopped around naked to begin with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Emily,

This is supposed to be an adult forum.

Actually, it is a a forum where people can discuss things. There only rules about it being adult exist inside the minds of deluded whiners who think being adult means not speaking your mind. The only age requirement I am aware of for this place is that you be over 123, and that probably only exists because some stupid idiot decided that under 13 was too young to know how the real world works and wrote a law that says that they can't join places like this without parental approval.

You probably agree with them.

QW thanks for your great responses which I will go through point by point.

As for DT I think the point was expressing frustration and not wanting to waste time with silly game playing that seems "immature" in comparison with intelligent discourse we could be using this forum for, and our free speech and intellectual freedom we are gifted with.

I think we all agree with that, and just DON'T agree when WE are the one being judged as acting like the immature people, when clearly we are all capable and more interested in intelligent discussion. I believe these posts prove that everyone here is discerning and insightful even if we miss points that other people catch, etc. that is going to happen and that's a good thing, if we use it to our advantage, like sharpening our minds where the other person can add some clarity to how we see or say things. why insult anyone over that

what adults do that backfires is making some political issue if people change their minds or are wrong or incomplete about something; this makes it harder for corrections, while kids who are supposed to be learning are encouraged to find and correct mistakes. why can't we set up environments to make it safe to learn and grow instead of embarrass the heck out of each other if we mispeak or overlook something, either minor or obvious.

why isn't it a positive relationship to have people from both parties check and balance each other, or each work on separate issues the other doesn't specialize in and that's okay?
why this push to take one policy or way of doing something and mandate for everyone, when there could be diverse ways, or the solution could necessitate a combination and balance of the two opposing positions working in tandem (like how scissors work with both blades, or a bird flies - even Rev. Moon said it takes both the left and right wing to fly!)

So in a way maybe we all need to grow up, and at the same time grow down and make it safe to study and learn together like kids in a classroom without fear of bullying and shame.
why can't we take the BEST of kids and adults, instead of the WORST habits of both??? ;-)

 

[Gracie]

I feel like a little kid sitting at the little kid table while the adults are at the big table. Funny thing is..it was my birthday party to begin with (figuratively speaking) and not only did I lose the cake, I am now deligated to "be seen and not heard", so to speak. Figuratively speaking, mind you.

lol

 

[Foxfyre]

Couple of questions:

Why did God show such favoritism towards Abel? Cain was wanting the same love and appreciation yet was not. Why not? Are they not equal in God's eyes as His children? So why show more for one then be surprised when the other feels shut out? Which of course made him kill his brother in anger which was not too slick to do.

4 There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Who were the giants?

20 Now Noah became a farmer and decided to plant a vineyard. 21 One day he drank too much of the wine he had made and fell into a deep, drunken sleep in his tent. As he lay there stark naked, 22 Ham (the father of Canaan) peeked in and saw his father’s exposed body. After leaving the tent, he told his two brothers what he had seen. 23 So Shem and Japheth took a large cloak and laid it across their shoulders, and they walked backward into the tent. They never looked behind, as they covered their father’s nakedness. Out of respect, they purposely kept their faces turned away, so they wouldn’t see their father lying there naked. 24 When Noah regained consciousness and realized what his youngest son had done, 25 he uttered this curse:

Noah: A curse upon your son, Canaan!
May he become the lowest of servants to his brothers.
26 May the Eternal One, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and let Canaan be his slave!
27 May God make plenty of room for Japheth’s family
and give them homes among Shem’s tents.
And let Canaan be his slave also!

Noah got drunk, passed out naked. His kid saw him. Instead of Noah being shamed for getting drunk and being naked, his son got the punishment. Why? Perhaps he shouldn't have gotten sloshed and flopped around naked to begin with.

In the ancient Hebrew culture, sheep, goats, and cattle were at the mercy of wild animals and human maurauders alike and they were necessary for food and as sacrificial offerings. They required more attention and care and protection and hands on work than crops of the field, and were therefore of higher value than was a bushel of grain or other crops. Abel was the son to be keeper of the flocks while Cain was assigned to be keeper of the fields. Thus Abel's offering was of more value than Cain's which the ancients assumed would make it viewed more favorably by God.

The scripture is clear however that God assured Cain that he had nothing to be concerned about. And even after Cain slew Abel and was driven out to be on his own, God put his mark on Cain--not a mark of punishment but a mark of God's protection.

In these allegorical stories, a lot has to be surmised within the understanding of the particular culture and sometimes is to be taken within a larger meaning rather than absolutely literally.

As for the giants, the Hebrew word Nephilim translated 'giant' in English appears only twice in the entire Bible. Once in Genesis where you found it and once in Numbers. In both cases it referred to a race of people that lived nearbly, at least one of which was in Canaan. It could be surmised that these people were of large stature. Some interpret the giants as fallen angels and other such as that, but I don't see that as important to the story. We could also go with the visitors from other planets theory as Van Daniken suggested, but I don't think we have to go that far.

Again not too much needs to be made of this except that it explains how sin spreads through the region and eventually into the world. And also could explain where Cain found a wife since up until then the only people we knew about on Earth were Adam, Eve, and their three sons and then suddenly, voila Cain has a wife.

And many theologians have attempted to come up with a translation for that strange account in the story of Noah. Any could be true. Or not. I prefer to think it was just one of those ancient stories that we probably only got a fragment of and the part that would have fully explained it was lost. I take it as a part of the motif of sin spreading in God's originally perfect creation.