Bible Questions

[Gracie]

Your explanation makes sense to me, Foxfyre. Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear DT: about deadlocks
We'd have to resolve all the deadlocking issues in advance, before presenting the policies to be rubberstamped by courts and congress after reviewing to make sure they are within govt limits. in the process we could determine which officials/party leaders are in it to resolve conflicts and represent ALL people not just one party view or belief over others.
And I would recommend putting those people in charge of facilitating decisions, while
letting the people who lobby for particular views play a different role in the process.

You can also pre-screen participants by reviewing and assessing the extent to which conflicts can be resolved; which I do by promoting everyone to equally enforce Constitutional laws and ethics, not just the Bill of Rights and 14th, but also the Code of Ethics for govt service. Depending on how people see the ability of people and govt to cooperate on reforms and enforcement, you can already start to assess which people need to be in charge of facilitating the other groups that aren't so open to working together.

A. so what if we made it a requirement all people or reps could give input into decisions openly where everyone is included; but when making the actual decisions on policy, only the facilitators and leaders with the ability to include and RESOLVE the conflicting points blocking the resolution would be allowed to facilitate the end decision. could we separate the different roles, where lobbyists/advocates still present their information to be included, but in order to RESOLVE all conflicts, then only the people who agree to and are able to include all the input and make a decision that respects views across the spectrum are in charge of THAT part of the process. If this is done right, then all objections ARE resolved.
Where even the objectors agree, yes the mediators did resolve the issues blocking it.
If objectors don't even have faith this can be done, that is where you screen them out.
but include the ones who say, yes I have a bias and will fight for it to the end, but I do know consensus when I see it and I do agree that is the requirement for laws to be public.

When people are assessed correctly (per issue), then the ones who are blocking for the sake of blocking can be determined objectively (not subjectively by guessing or assuming for political reasons) by IDENTIFYING the exact groups or issues this person is not able to resolve things with and ADMITS projecting that blockage onto the process. This is not hard to discern; people READILY admit where they CANNOT tolerate or work with such and such group or bias on this or that issue. So these are easy to distinguish, they will SAY NO! consensus is not possible with that group that I/we cannot work with; while the people who are able to act as go betweens and resolve all the points that the others were objecting to should be able to proceed without being blocked by the political posturing going on.

We can include all types by agreeing what role we are playing and honor that.

In short, again, those who believe in restorative jsutice and conflict resolution should have the right to access policies and process that respect that approach; i have seen the green party use this system of consensus based decisionby taking in all input and resolving the points, and it only fails where someone wants to block things WITHOUT resolving the reasons for the block! So it is easy to add the requirement to let such people be in the input role but not the final decision if they are just going to protest without resolving things.

B. Three levels that I find determine if things are constitutional or not
(ie both all inclusive so there is equal protections for all, and consistent with laws
and roles of government by the constitution)
1. first it has to be by the consent of the governed or some group is going to yell that it is not constitutional, either blaming religious or political bias that exceeds the jursidiction of limited government or whatever. also even if someone agrees with the policy, if it doesn't fit the rules and roles of govt, then this gets objected to because people or someone will NOT consent to govt making decisions outside of constitutional jurisdiction, so this totally counts as violating consent if it violates the rules period, people will object and not consent
2. secondly whatever policy is being pushed or opposed to lobby for change, the groups for or against must take FULL responsibility for their side, and not be forcing the OTHER group OPPOSED to pay the cost or consequences of whatever side they are pushing; if any person or group feels forced to pay for or support something that is another group's agenda, the change in policy is going to be opposed because it imposes some bias excluding them
3. thirdly there cannot be some complication or consequence of the policy pushed that creates an undue burden that violates the rights or beliefs of people opposing it for that reason. ex: roe v wade the law was overturned because the laws against abortion did not account for the due process of women in mitigating circumstances that could not be determined without violating privacy. so the court ruled abortion could not be illegal. insetad of fighting over when does life begin which is a religious debate that govt should not be deciding for the people; the legislation could be changed where it does not fall under civil or criminal penalties, but there could be "health and safety" codes passed per district or state where people determine their own policies locally based on CONSENT to what THEY agree to be responsible for (again, not imposing the cost or complications of their policies on people who don't agree and don't want to pay for or support that, but want to take responsibility for the other policy instead). So instead of deadlocking, let people fund their own policies, and resolve all other objections in the same process of separating.

As for the unequal factor in laws, imposing more on women than on men for the consequences and legislation concerning abortion, why not define a statutory level of rape or relationship abuse to include actions that lead to "unwanted sex/children/pregnancy/abortion" where BOTH partners are subject to counseling until the causes of abuse are resolved; so that would punish neither party more than the other, and this policy could be freely adopted by community or district and not try to legislate concerning private matters, but leave it to people to address preventative counseling locally.

the immigration laws cause problems because nobody wants either problems with the existing policy or the reform policy to impose undue burdens on people who committed no crimes and yet are being forced to pay for burdens or the costs of people who do violate the law, and people are afraid that the "other side" is psuhing for that.

there are multiple layers or factors as to why a law or change to law cannot go through because it would impose some kind of unconstitutional bias or burden on people of dissenting beliefs. again if we resolve all conflicts BEFORE going into the legislative process, then we could possibly meet the above criteria and not impose unfairly but form solutions and laws that people agree to which reflect consent of the governed and authority of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

you are very humble and generous and just don't know it
I don't think you lost the cake but shared it with everyone.
well, when people quit throwing it at each other, that is!
and decided there are some really cool gifts we can all share
at this birthday party you invited everyone to.
Plenty to go around for everyone, including you!
to give is to receive, and we're all enjoying both. Thank you Gracie!
(i will post some ideas to you for more parties in the future.)

 

[Gracie]

Can I come to the big table now? But y'all gotta stop talking with big werds and political stuff in this one thread...otherwise I will stay at my little table and sneak under the big table to pinch some calves and maybe smear icing on some fancy shoes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Abel offered God the best of his flock, he put God first. Cain simply gathered some of the fruit of the ground after Abel made his offer.

So, God didn't treat them differently, they treated Him differently.

Who the giants, aka Nephilim, were is a matter of a lot of debate. The Bible is not really clear, but a lot of different cultures have legends of people who were half human and half god. They were the source of those legends.

I agree that he shouldn't have gotten drunk, but that does not excuse what Japheth did anymore than a woman getting drunk excuses the actions of a man who takes advantage of her. Maybe he made fun of Noah, or something else that was equally disrespectful.

 

[Foxfyre]

I plead immunity. Or at least beg a pass or two. I tried to excise my lapse into politics and hauled that part off to the political forum. It's really easy to get sidetracked though.

 

[Gracie]

I was thinking that as well, QW...about Abel not being too picky about the fruits and wheats and whatnot...whereas Cain picked the cream of the crop (figuratively speaking).

I also agree that the son shouldn't have gossiped about his dad to other people and embarassing him. But the punishment was a bit overboard.

I just wanted to see if my brain was clicking correctly in my assumptions on those two questions. Thank you.

 

[Gracie]

I plead immunity. Or at least beg a pass or two. I tried to excise my lapse into politics and hauled that part off to the political forum. It's really easy to get sidetracked though.

Actually, I was aiming that at Emily and Derideo_Te and what they were talking about...whatever it was they were talking about.

 

[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.

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??? ;-)

He should spend less time being immature if he doesn't like people being immature. People insult me all the time, I have never once whined about it. My experience is that there are two groups that complain about immaturity, people who are immature, and people who want others to think they are mature. The rest of us, the actual mature people, just deal with the world as it comes along.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

FoxFyre for President. Nation unites and can go home and sleep at night.
parties celebrate by resolving and funding their own issues themselves
and quit pushing their agenda on anyone else, reducing the burden on govt
where resources are invested directly in solving problems locally and all bullying stops.

All prisons and death row are converted to medical and military teaching hospitals to cure criminal and mental illness, cut the costs and cycle of crime and violence, and free up billions in resources to pay for infrastructure and jobs in education, health care and
building sustainable communities, including along the border for national security.

And China agrees to resolve the debts by applying them to cancel fines for mass human rights violations, in exchange for billions in vouchers for work credits to facilitate corrections with the help of American administrators, who take shifts serving in China as guest teachers in English or conflict resolution training, or consultants and constructors in converting sweatshop factories into sustainable work-study school programs, or spiritual healing training to stop the torture of Asian moon bears for superstitious medical practices that are replaced by more cost-effective measures.

Yeah! God Bless America!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can I come to the big table now? But y'all gotta stop talking with big werds and political stuff in this one thread...otherwise I will stay at my little table and sneak under the big table to pinch some calves and maybe smear icing on some fancy shoes.

Come on up, we can sent the whiners to the kids table, they will fit right in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was thinking that as well, QW...about Abel not being too picky about the fruits and wheats and whatnot...whereas Cain picked the cream of the crop (figuratively speaking).

I also agree that the son shouldn't have gossiped about his dad to other people and embarassing him. But the punishment was a bit overboard.

I just wanted to see if my brain was clicking correctly in my assumptions on those two questions. Thank you.

Anytime. I happen to think the punishment was a bit overboard, but things tended to be over the top in stories like that in order to drive the point home. Just because we don't get the point does not mean there is not one.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: People insult you but you don't whine about
I think both you and DT came across as insulting each other's intention or integrity
and both equally complaining about it. because you were both right, you were both wrong also.

He should spend less time being immature if he doesn't like people being immature. People insult me all the time, I have never once whined about it. My experience is that there are two groups that complain about immaturity, people who are immature, and people who want others to think they are mature. The rest of us, the actual mature people, just deal with the world as it comes along.

RE: immaturity vs maturity
You just described everyone on here, and all people on the planet.
We all have our strong suits and weak points, where we act responsibly or we don't and let someone else deal with it.

Yes, I would say DT is focused on assessing people like that, but perhaps it is because the level of processing DT is capable of is annoyed by and wasted on nonsense and needs to be focused with people ready to take it to higher levels, including pushing it to govt leaders, not just theorizing about it online for the sake of our own benefit which happens also.

I believe working one-on-one will build to a consensus from the ground up to the very top.
So my job here may be different, to assess who is connecting on which issues, and focus there, but someone else may be geared to just certain issues and not care for others.
Sometimes this comes out as judging people, just because they have so little interest they have no motivation to dig deeper into what someone IS good at which isn't their field.

I've had people totally misread and reject me for "wrong reasons" just because we were meant to work separately. I even lost a job unjustly after someone lied to CYA because I was "needed elsewhere" and would not have left voluntarily but only when I was forced to!
That was completely not about me, but some outside reason why I was falsely accused.

I know one spiritual healer who deal with anyone who calls at any stage of the recovery process no matter how many years it takes between steps. while another doctor in spiritual healing will NOT spend 10 minutes arguing if the person is still in negative denial, but specializes only with people ready to really make that last leap and quit cold turkey. So each person may have their own range of people they need to focus on. That's fine.
That's how it should be, though I agree with you we do not need to be negative about this.

If it bothers you so much, then be equally careful not to be negative either so at least you know it isn't coming from your side. Can you see a constructive purpose going on,
where there is equal good potential as the bad things going on? If I can see both the good and bad in a person or situation, it bothers me less than when I only see the bad sides.

Does DT remind you of certain people or patterns of behavior you patently can't stand?
Can you use interactions here to practice how to deal with such people you normally cannot stand, where you develop better skills in responding anyway? You can still and should point out corrections where you help others, so why not let others help as well? Wouldn't they be more opening to listening to your corrections the more they see you do the same?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can I come to the big table now? But y'all gotta stop talking with big werds and political stuff in this one thread...otherwise I will stay at my little table and sneak under the big table to pinch some calves and maybe smear icing on some fancy shoes.

Come on up, we can sent the whiners to the kids table, they will fit right in.

Where's the table for throwing jello and crayons?
or the corner for sitting in time out?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

OK I see that you are assigning the guidance part to another role.
You are not denying that guidance is a role, just represented by something other
than the shepherd. Also I did not get you mean local shepherds as opposed to Jesus
as the Shepherd for both folds of the one flock.

The problem is not that these people were in a guiding role, but a misguiding role.
If a "guide" directs you to reject and cut people off especially family then that is
controlling for the wrong reasons and misguided.

The key to telling if someone is biased for their own control and gain, is if they are unforgiving of a certain issue, group or person and they project that onto their agenda.
Of course, this is not going to be universal, it is going to be politically or personally driven.
So the factor of unforgiveness and dividing people from others insetad of resolving
conflicts is going to reveal who is under false guidance and thus misguiding others.

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.

I think your point is better established in context, when you actually talk about real examples where this distinction can be made. Trying to defend your point or discredit DT without giving an example context where this is applied is not going to meet the level of logic and examination that you both show you use to clarify points like this.
Thanks for giving and clarifying real examples, this helps where we don't have to argue
in general, which goes nowhere, but can point to specific cases and pinpoint the issues.

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.

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.

1. I will say again that I question the reason for targeting relatively minor issues of public prayer while overlooking huge glaring issues of religious differences and biases that cost millions of dollars and lives if these are not resolved. capital crime and punishment, spiritual healing that can be proven to cure dangerous drug addiction and even criminal illness like pedophilia over time, things of real consequence that are life-threatening compared with prayer that doesn't pose danger or damages in comparison.

2. one issue I will bring up to get people's responses to it is the cross thing.
Let me start a new post on here for that, so we can get everyone's take on that.

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

Yes and I'd like to take that a step further and have everyone share responsibility for
participating in govt. both the training and education are needed in themselves, plus the actual solutions that could come from diverse groups cooperating to include all views.

I'm glad you are consistent with your views. We do need to defend the same equal protections for all sides in order to be enforced with full authority, not just politics.

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

yes, agree totally, both for the sake of the laws that need to be consistently enforced, and the sake of empowering people by free and equal distribution of KNOWLEDGE of the laws and of independent self-government, not abusing govt to redistribute the resources, but teaching everyone to govern independently including financial and property management.

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.

re: human/animal sacrifice or killing
consent of the governed and respect for due process would check against religious abuse
to cause harm or damage. corporations could also be kept in check by holding any collective organization or entity (whether govt religious nonprofit business etc.) to the same standards of due process and protection of individual rights/freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

one of my friends asked what about satanists who believe in free will and not punishing anyone even for murder. and I said to be consistent, they could only kill people "who agree to be killed" or that's not free will for everyone equally. you CAN exercise your faith with people who agree to the same, but not impose on people who disagree and don't consent.

he may have thought I was being sarcastic, but even using reverse psychology by giving people what they ask for, then most of the reason they asked for it goes away. if they were just testing authority, then when you hold them to their own principles and put it back on them to take responsibility for enforcing the beliefs they jsut said, then there are very few cases where they would actually be able to kill where it is consistent with even their OWN beliefs. they would end up contradicting their own principles so they couldn't do it.

the things that I find unjust, wrong or incorrect can be shown to be against or in conflict with the person's own system; you don't necessarily need to impose an outside standard.

As for the death penalty, I would keep it as a choice on the books, in order to use it to negotiate if that's what it takes to get cooperation to resolve facts of a case for closure and justice, but would only invoke it where people agree, since I see it as religious where the govt/state can reflect what people agree to even if it is religious, but can't impose that.

So that people don't abuse the right to consent, I would require that people need to respect consent, and agree to follow due process for both themselves and the others equally, if you are going to invoke such rights and privileges under law; I would stop this nonsense of having the state pay for defense just for lawyers/clients to abuse the law to subvert due process of the victims and survivors of the crime, where this denies equal justice/protection. that makes no sense to me; so we would need to spell out the rules, teach and train people to follow them, and agree in advance to hold citizens responsible.

This process would weed out people who don't intend to resolve conflicts or take responsibility for the costs/damages of their abuses/crimes; and also identify which people are mentally or criminally ill and in need of treatment/supervision if legally incompetent.
we need to identify and resolve dangers in advance, not wait after the fact to intervene.

This is another reason I push for spiritual diagnosis and healing methods of criminal illness to be proven medically in order to assess with scientific accuracy (not legalized politics) whether people are unsafe to run free if they pose deadly danger to themselves or others, and whether addiction or sickness is in remission, fully cured or what stage of recovery/rehab people are in so they can be properly treated or supervised in detention. If we get the scientific technology for medical diagnosis and treatment, we can get the politics and bureaucracy of criminal justice and legalities out of the mix and focus on early intervention for more cost-effective prevention and correction, and stop wasting resources where law-abiding citizens no longer have to pay several times for the crimes of others.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Gracie: If you are reading from the OT, these are the setting stages where the cycle of retributive justice is in progress; the cycle is broken later in the NT part of human history but to understand where the karma or generational sin/conditioning came from we look back at early history where this was passed down and repeats until the issues are forgiven and resolved.

1. some of hte creation and pre-creation symbolism may refer to the pre-humanoid stages of humanity before there was full awareness of conscience and free will. I would take the story of Adam and Eve as the advent of self-awareness and knowledge of some of the laws of life and death, and human relations between self and other, including God.

If you want to generalize, there were matriarchal earth-based cultures before the Hebrew lineage in the Bible that Adam and Eve represent. And with the introduction of Mosaic law this started replacing matriarchal egalitarian type holistic cultures with patriarchal linear structures of society. a major difference is that instead of women passing property and authority to their daughters, where women naturally knew who their children are; men passing power to their first male heirs don't have this same ability so the laws were enforced to protect the family assets by including women and children as part of the estate, and you can see from the laws these were written by men for men and guarded against stealing property, coveting servants and adultery that would infiltrate their family lines.
people to this day complain of oppression of women by men that is embedded in both church laws and cultural traditions, so you can see where it comes from. in the OT there were genocides committed to wipe out these matriarchal tribes and enforce the new laws.

in the NT instead of the power play and fighting between male/female or church/state etc. we are supposed to be equal in Christ Jesus and submit equally under one law for all humanity, and not judge or exclude/mistreat others, but love equally as children of one God. the people are collectively the bride of christ or the church, we are all the female role; and the govt is supposed to be under one law of equal justice for all which Jesus represents as Lord or Law universal for all people, perfect peace and jsutice. we are not supposed to be living under personal greed or fear that biases justice and law for politics.

So we are supposed to overcome the injustices passed down from past generations,
and break through these divisions and hurtful hate we may have inherited from before.
when we love each other with forgiveness and unconditional acceptance for all humanity, then we can make corrections and resolve our issues together, not as divided tribes fighting. so what you see today are the echoes of past issues repeating and repeating from the past, where the sins of the fathers are revisited upon the next generations, until these are finally forgiven.

So when you read about punishments of one group or another as symbolized by tribes killed off, or Cain and Abel, etc. some of these issues are not finished yet, but repeat and affect future generations until they are resolved.

2. as for the story of punishing the famiy for seeing the nakedness of their father,
this seems to represent how all society suffers consequences or punishment if
the authority figure is corrupted or wrong and "exposed"; if we don't fix the problem but we make more issues and problems out of it, then we all suffer. we do this in politics all the time, and when we don't solve the problem but gossip about the wrongs to discredit the people in office or with authority, then the govt is not corrected but suffers loss of respect and this disrupts social order for everyone. maybe that is the msg, that we should correct the problem not spread rumors and make a bigger mess than has already happened.

both this example and genocide/war in the bible are forms of "collective punishment"
so if we do not want to keep suffering this level of consequence, then this motivates
us to solve problems so they don't escalate and make all humanity suffer for it.
again the msg in the NT is about restorative justice, to heal relations and bring peace.
the OT is to give us the fuller historic context of where all the problems and patterns
developed over time so we understand why it takes so much effort to turn all that around into the positive. the more we forgive from the past the more we can correct for the future.

 

[Gracie]

Interesting read, Emily. Much to think about, so thank you for your input.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

RE: People insult you but you don't whine about
I think both you and DT came across as insulting each other's intention or integrity
and both equally complaining about it. because you were both right, you were both wrong also.

He should spend less time being immature if he doesn't like people being immature. People insult me all the time, I have never once whined about it. My experience is that there are two groups that complain about immaturity, people who are immature, and people who want others to think they are mature. The rest of us, the actual mature people, just deal with the world as it comes along.

RE: immaturity vs maturity
You just described everyone on here, and all people on the planet.
We all have our strong suits and weak points, where we act responsibly or we don't and let someone else deal with it.

Yes, I would say DT is focused on assessing people like that, but perhaps it is because the level of processing DT is capable of is annoyed by and wasted on nonsense and needs to be focused with people ready to take it to higher levels, including pushing it to govt leaders, not just theorizing about it online for the sake of our own benefit which happens also.

I believe working one-on-one will build to a consensus from the ground up to the very top.
So my job here may be different, to assess who is connecting on which issues, and focus there, but someone else may be geared to just certain issues and not care for others.
Sometimes this comes out as judging people, just because they have so little interest they have no motivation to dig deeper into what someone IS good at which isn't their field.

I've had people totally misread and reject me for "wrong reasons" just because we were meant to work separately. I even lost a job unjustly after someone lied to CYA because I was "needed elsewhere" and would not have left voluntarily but only when I was forced to!
That was completely not about me, but some outside reason why I was falsely accused.

I know one spiritual healer who deal with anyone who calls at any stage of the recovery process no matter how many years it takes between steps. while another doctor in spiritual healing will NOT spend 10 minutes arguing if the person is still in negative denial, but specializes only with people ready to really make that last leap and quit cold turkey. So each person may have their own range of people they need to focus on. That's fine.
That's how it should be, though I agree with you we do not need to be negative about this.

If it bothers you so much, then be equally careful not to be negative either so at least you know it isn't coming from your side. Can you see a constructive purpose going on,
where there is equal good potential as the bad things going on? If I can see both the good and bad in a person or situation, it bothers me less than when I only see the bad sides.

Does DT remind you of certain people or patterns of behavior you patently can't stand?
Can you use interactions here to practice how to deal with such people you normally cannot stand, where you develop better skills in responding anyway? You can still and should point out corrections where you help others, so why not let others help as well? Wouldn't they be more opening to listening to your corrections the more they see you do the same?

I am going to be honest with you, I don't pay attention to anyone that tries to tell me how to talk to them. I find it offensive when people try to dictate my actions, and love to shove the fact no one has a right not to be offended down their throat. You are not going to change the wway I treat a whiny little bitch by showing me how smart you are, or how much you understand where he is coming from. Frankly, I don't care where he is coming from, all I care about is what he is doing.

What he is doing is coming into a thread that specifically asks believers for their opinions, declaring himself smarter than anyone who believes in something they cannot see, and belittling the people who are trying to be sincere. He also tried to misrepresent my words, tried to tell me what I believe, and tried to use the Bible as a club to shut anyone who disagreed with him up.

If you want to keep talking about him, feel free. I am tired of it, and will no longer talk about him or anyone else. I don't like talking about people, I prefer to talk to them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK I see that you are assigning the guidance part to another role.
You are not denying that guidance is a role, just represented by something other
than the shepherd. Also I did not get you mean local shepherds as opposed to Jesus
as the Shepherd for both folds of the one flock.

The problem is not that these people were in a guiding role, but a misguiding role.
If a "guide" directs you to reject and cut people off especially family then that is
controlling for the wrong reasons and misguided.

The key to telling if someone is biased for their own control and gain, is if they are unforgiving of a certain issue, group or person and they project that onto their agenda.
Of course, this is not going to be universal, it is going to be politically or personally driven.
So the factor of unforgiveness and dividing people from others insetad of resolving
conflicts is going to reveal who is under false guidance and thus misguiding others.

Ever read my signature? I know it is really small, but it packs some interesting stuff into it, like this.

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

Every single person that sets himself up as a guide is starting on the road to tyranny. Anyone that ever tells anyone else not to read something just because they think it is bad for the is taking a step on the road to tyranny. You do that, and you end up in the wrong place.

Every single time.

The Gifts are split among the Body for a reason, the same thing occurs with the fife fold ministerial gifts, they are split for a reason. No one person is supposed to lead the flock, it is not Biblical, and thus will always result in error, just like avoiding fellowship with the Body entirely will.

I think your point is better established in context, when you actually talk about real examples where this distinction can be made. Trying to defend your point or discredit DT without giving an example context where this is applied is not going to meet the level of logic and examination that you both show you use to clarify points like this.
Thanks for giving and clarifying real examples, this helps where we don't have to argue
in general, which goes nowhere, but can point to specific cases and pinpoint the issues.

I actually don't have to be specific, I can simply point to history, and all the problems that result whenever one person suddenly becomes a leader. Lots of people like to point to the fact that Jesus called us sheep, sheep do not have a social structure where one sheep is the leader, which is why shepherds use goats to lead sheep to the slaughter.

We have a Shepherd, we do not need guides.

1. I will say again that I question the reason for targeting relatively minor issues of public prayer while overlooking huge glaring issues of religious differences and biases that cost millions of dollars and lives if these are not resolved. capital crime and punishment, spiritual healing that can be proven to cure dangerous drug addiction and even criminal illness like pedophilia over time, things of real consequence that are life-threatening compared with prayer that doesn't pose danger or damages in comparison.

Why is it important? Because Satan knows that, if he can get us to stop praying, he can take over the world. Prayer is what gives us a connection to God. The question you should be asking is why anyone would have a problem with that, even a non believer, especially if the people praying go out of their way to not be offensive.

2. one issue I will bring up to get people's responses to it is the cross thing.
Let me start a new post on here for that, so we can get everyone's take on that.


Yes and I'd like to take that a step further and have everyone share responsibility for
participating in govt. both the training and education are needed in themselves, plus the actual solutions that could come from diverse groups cooperating to include all views.

I'm glad you are consistent with your views. We do need to defend the same equal protections for all sides in order to be enforced with full authority, not just politics.

One thing that has been drilled into me since I was a child, I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I truly believe that it has made the world a better place, which is why I refuse to allow political correctness to go unchallenged.

yes, agree totally, both for the sake of the laws that need to be consistently enforced, and the sake of empowering people by free and equal distribution of KNOWLEDGE of the laws and of independent self-government, not abusing govt to redistribute the resources, but teaching everyone to govern independently including financial and property management.

I actually don't care if laws are enforced inconsistently. I don't want a person who steals because they are hungry to get the same punishment a person who steals because they want to steal gets, even if they steal the same thing. I just don't want laws specifically written in a way that they are impossible to obey, or that exempt one group of people while applying to another. Compassion is something I can live with, arbitrariness gives the government way to much power.

re: human/animal sacrifice or killing
consent of the governed and respect for due process would check against religious abuse
to cause harm or damage. corporations could also be kept in check by holding any collective organization or entity (whether govt religious nonprofit business etc.) to the same standards of due process and protection of individual rights/freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

one of my friends asked what about satanists who believe in free will and not punishing anyone even for murder. and I said to be consistent, they could only kill people "who agree to be killed" or that's not free will for everyone equally. you CAN exercise your faith with people who agree to the same, but not impose on people who disagree and don't consent.

he may have thought I was being sarcastic, but even using reverse psychology by giving people what they ask for, then most of the reason they asked for it goes away. if they were just testing authority, then when you hold them to their own principles and put it back on them to take responsibility for enforcing the beliefs they jsut said, then there are very few cases where they would actually be able to kill where it is consistent with even their OWN beliefs. they would end up contradicting their own principles so they couldn't do it.

the things that I find unjust, wrong or incorrect can be shown to be against or in conflict with the person's own system; you don't necessarily need to impose an outside standard.

As for the death penalty, I would keep it as a choice on the books, in order to use it to negotiate if that's what it takes to get cooperation to resolve facts of a case for closure and justice, but would only invoke it where people agree, since I see it as religious where the govt/state can reflect what people agree to even if it is religious, but can't impose that.

So that people don't abuse the right to consent, I would require that people need to respect consent, and agree to follow due process for both themselves and the others equally, if you are going to invoke such rights and privileges under law; I would stop this nonsense of having the state pay for defense just for lawyers/clients to abuse the law to subvert due process of the victims and survivors of the crime, where this denies equal justice/protection. that makes no sense to me; so we would need to spell out the rules, teach and train people to follow them, and agree in advance to hold citizens responsible.

This process would weed out people who don't intend to resolve conflicts or take responsibility for the costs/damages of their abuses/crimes; and also identify which people are mentally or criminally ill and in need of treatment/supervision if legally incompetent.
we need to identify and resolve dangers in advance, not wait after the fact to intervene.

This is another reason I push for spiritual diagnosis and healing methods of criminal illness to be proven medically in order to assess with scientific accuracy (not legalized politics) whether people are unsafe to run free if they pose deadly danger to themselves or others, and whether addiction or sickness is in remission, fully cured or what stage of recovery/rehab people are in so they can be properly treated or supervised in detention. If we get the scientific technology for medical diagnosis and treatment, we can get the politics and bureaucracy of criminal justice and legalities out of the mix and focus on early intervention for more cost-effective prevention and correction, and stop wasting resources where law-abiding citizens no longer have to pay several times for the crimes of others.

In order to diagnose people spiritually we first have to be able to consistently heal people spiritually. I fully believe in the gift of healing, but I really don't see much evidence that anyone has it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dear Emily,

These posts are becoming huge so let's try and summarize the points. (Not to imply that your detailed points aren't valid. ) Can we agree on the following;

1. Everyone has an equal say but when it comes to a consensus proposal it is a subset working group who drafts the proposal.

2. All taxpayer funds are equal and while individuals/minorities might have objections to funding certain government functions that cannot be a reason to prevent a compromise if the majority consents. e.g. Believers objecting to contraception funding while Atheists object to "in God we trust" on the currency. Neither group has a majority position on their individual objections so they have to bow to the majority will as long as no individual rights are impacted or minority oppression is involved.

3. We adopt the Nixonian approach to dealing with all issues under review. Nixon insisted that all arguments must be presented to him in writing as opposed to orally. The reason for this was to prevent personalities influencing his decision making. (This practice was continued throughout all subsequent administrations except for the prior one.) The goal here is that all positions, both pro and con, must be submitted in writing with reasons and justifications for those positions. This eliminates most of the personal biases/objections since it requires facts and logical arguments. (The Supreme Court uses a similar method but focuses more on legal issues.)

4. The subgroup tasked with reaching the compromise proposal takes the written submissions and summarizes them. From this each of the points is examined and thrashed out based upon constitutionality, cost, potential consequences and need. A draft proposal is then submitted for approval. Since the goal of the compromise proposal is to be inclusive the basis for any exclusions must be given with stated reasons such as unconstitutional, too costly, undue burden, etc.

5. A cost/benefit analysis must be drafted to go along with the compromise proposal.

6. The results of 4 and 5 above must be posted on the internet and pushed to as many forums and media outlets as is feasible. This builds a national consensus on the compromise proposal and initiates momentum for it be passed. Since all sides have had a chance to contribute and the benefits are non partisan there should be no basis for this not being passed with bi-partisan support.

What do you think?

Regards,
Derideo_Te