Oh, My Trembling Heart

[the_human_being]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

My personal observations do not support your conclusion, for the most part I've found Christians to be caring, understanding and generally speaking open minded, of course there have been exceptions but no more than with any other group people I've encountered. Perhaps you needed to broaden your sample base?

In any case you're never going to get anywhere with respect to "compromise" by assuming the worst about adherents of the largest religion in the country.

And you've been a member of this forum for HOW long now? I'm sorry but this is a secular nation, and that is a good thing. We want to keep religious beliefs far away from government.

You are speaking for the total of "We". Who are you? God?

 

[ChrisL]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

My personal observations do not support your conclusion, for the most part I've found Christians to be caring, understanding and generally speaking open minded, of course there have been exceptions but no more than with any other group people I've encountered. Perhaps you needed to broaden your sample base?

In any case you're never going to get anywhere with respect to "compromise" by assuming the worst about adherents of the largest religion in the country.

And you've been a member of this forum for HOW long now? I'm sorry but this is a secular nation, and that is a good thing. We want to keep religious beliefs far away from government.

You are speaking for the total of "We". Who are you? God?

I think MOST Americans would agree. There is really no place for religious beliefs when running a government. That is very much like Sharia law. You can have your religious beliefs. You just cannot force other people to abide by them through laws that affect us all.

 

[the_human_being]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

I didn't say all anywhere in my post.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

If you want to argue with me, you are going to have to do MUCH better. MUCH.

 

[the_human_being]

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

My personal observations do not support your conclusion, for the most part I've found Christians to be caring, understanding and generally speaking open minded, of course there have been exceptions but no more than with any other group people I've encountered. Perhaps you needed to broaden your sample base?

In any case you're never going to get anywhere with respect to "compromise" by assuming the worst about adherents of the largest religion in the country.

And you've been a member of this forum for HOW long now? I'm sorry but this is a secular nation, and that is a good thing. We want to keep religious beliefs far away from government.

You are speaking for the total of "We". Who are you? God?

I think MOST Americans would agree. There is really no place for religious beliefs when running a government. That is very much like Sharia law. You can have your religious beliefs. You just cannot force other people to abide by them through laws that affect us all.

Well, "most" is certainly better than "all" or "we". I would even say "some" would be more appropriate.

 

[NightFox]

You haven't pointed out any flaws. Lol. You simply said that Christianity was the majority religion

Hmmm.. Someone has a reading deficiency but apparently I'll have to file that one under "unsolvable".

Does that mean you think it's okay for personal belief systems to be a part of government?

Whether it's "okay" is irrelevant, it's the reality of human nature, unless you've come up with a means to re-engineer the human psyche you either deal with it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist; My personal preference is to deal with the way things really are not the way that I imagine them to be.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't agree with them on their views on many issues. So yes, that is part of discussion.

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to tell a gay couple they cannot marry because of religious beliefs? What about if a couple wants to have an abortion? Should the government be able to force a couple to carry a child to birth or should this be a private and personal decision?

Edit: Oops, that should be until birth. Lol. Fixed it!

 

[ChrisL]

You haven't pointed out any flaws. Lol. You simply said that Christianity was the majority religion

Hmmm.. Someone has a reading deficiency but apparently I'll have to file that one under "unsolvable".

Does that mean you think it's okay for personal belief systems to be a part of government?

Whether it's "okay" is irrelevant, it's the reality of human nature, unless you've come up with a means to re-engineer the human psyche you either deal with it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist; My personal preference is to deal with the way things really are not the way that I imagine them to be.

Well, that's the only point you've come up with.

No, I asked you a direct question. Are you going to be a coward and refuse to answer a simple and direct question?

 

[ChrisL]

You haven't pointed out any flaws. Lol. You simply said that Christianity was the majority religion

Hmmm.. Someone has a reading deficiency but apparently I'll have to file that one under "unsolvable".

Does that mean you think it's okay for personal belief systems to be a part of government?

Whether it's "okay" is irrelevant, it's the reality of human nature, unless you've come up with a means to re-engineer the human psyche you either deal with it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist; My personal preference is to deal with the way things really are not the way that I imagine them to be.

I personally disagree with abortion, but I realize that it is not MY decision to make through laws for other people. Imagine that?

 

[the_human_being]

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

I didn't say all anywhere in my post.

See your own post #88. You said "Christians". Any third-grader would say you meant all Christians because you failed to qualify it by stating "some" Christians. Did you have trouble in English class?

 

[the_human_being]

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to tell a gay couple they cannot marry because of religious beliefs? What about if a couple wants to have an abortion? Should the government be able to force a couple to carry a child to birth or should this be a private and personal decision?

Edit: Oops, that should be until birth. Lol. Fixed it!

I don't make laws. I simply exercise my right to vote for the candidate of my choice. Now go back and post the link and stay on subject.

 

[the_human_being]

That's fine, however your previous posts on the subject suggest that your position goes beyond mere disagreement and into the realm of questioning the basis for their positions, yet you have in this thread expressed a desire to return to a state where parties are capable of compromise in pursuit of the greater good.

I would suggest that compromise is not possible if you do not grant those with whom you have disagreements the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motives (i.e. you have to assume that their positions are based on good intentions). In short you can never expect Christians to ever compromise with you if begin negotiations harboring the assumption that their motives are based on ill intentions.

Christians (like most religions) don't want to compromise. They want it their way or the highway.

That's a whole lot of judgment there. Are you certain you're qualified to speak for all people?

All one has to do is point to how they have reacted over gay marriage laws and other things that may go against their personal belief systems. I don't think it's the government's job to tell us how we need to live our lives.

ALL reacted the way you claim? ALL of them? Really? Can you post a link to back up what you claim? I don't believe you can but go right ahead.

If you want to argue with me, you are going to have to do MUCH better. MUCH.

Actually, I prefer to argue with adults who are familiar with the proper use of the English language and don't make unintelligent statements.

 

[NightFox]

You haven't pointed out any flaws. Lol. You simply said that Christianity was the majority religion

Hmmm.. Someone has a reading deficiency but apparently I'll have to file that one under "unsolvable".

Does that mean you think it's okay for personal belief systems to be a part of government?

Whether it's "okay" is irrelevant, it's the reality of human nature, unless you've come up with a means to re-engineer the human psyche you either deal with it or continue to pretend it doesn't exist; My personal preference is to deal with the way things really are not the way that I imagine them to be.

I personally disagree with abortion, but I realize that it is not MY decision to make through laws for other people. Imagine that?

How very enlightened of you....however you must have missed the part where your personal beliefs entered into your decision process (you know that part where you determine that it would be immoral to impose your abortion views on others; yeah that's personal belief skippy), sorry no unique snowflake merit badge for you.

On the bright side as a die hard libertarian, I like that you demonstrated an example of the non-aggression principle at work even if you didn't realize you were doing it.

 

[Clementine]

Frightening! I can do without the religious extremists.

What religious "extremists"? all I see in that image is a group of politicians with a tendency to wear their Christianity on their sleeves... it's not like they're members of the Spanish Inquisition or anything.

They are religious extremists who would like to make laws outlawing things that they believe go against their religious beliefs. Of course people will deny that, but we've all heard them speak.

There are always people who want to make laws to reflect their beliefs. They are allowed to express that. What they don't do is threaten death to people who reject their beliefs. And they don't ignore the constitution and use executive order to do as they please.

So, bash those Christians all you want and feel safe because they won't come after you. If a random nut does do something, no one will make excuses and blame the victims.

 

[longknife]

Well, after ChrisL has thoroughly trolled the thread, it's time to Unwatch