tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post625799098176847867..comments2023-06-13T10:03:01.228-05:00Comments on Blue Christian on a Red Background: California's Proposition 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban Passed: Should Evangelicals Be Glad?Jon Trotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08667858230128323729noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-57589629057784712012009-03-19T13:58:00.000-05:002009-03-19T13:58:00.000-05:00Hi Jon,So sorry I'm late to the party here. I saw ...Hi Jon,<BR/>So sorry I'm late to the party here. I saw your post at a recent CBE blog and thought I'd drop by and see what you have to say.<BR/><BR/>Regarding this statement of yours. "What I won't do is to militate for political control over my neighbor's love life with another consenting adult. I know plenty of heterosexually married individuals who live ungodly, selfish, and angry lives... some of them are Christians. As for me, my own marriage is imperfect of course, but fuels me with one of the most visible signs of God's love I know. All I can do is live out that marriage, and this life, as though I really mean what I say and say what I mean."<BR/><BR/>Does your approach change if the topic switches to creation care? Do you think it is right to militate for political control over your neighbor's waste disposal of used car oil in his own yard? Is creation care, which is a moral ambition, worth pursuing legislation over? I think so, because physical pollution affects others, sometimes including me. Don't you agree that moral pollution affects others? Isn't that why we have zoning where adult stores can sell their filth? Or are you opposed to that as well? Is there a difference? As a Christian, you know that immorality can damage a community. As a casual google search can tell you, homosexual behavior affects homosexuals negatively as well as those around them. <BR/><BR/>How do you determine what moral things are worth legislating?<BR/><BR/>God is good<BR/>jpu<BR/>a friend in ConnecticutJohn Umlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403644529498645914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-70279068525090356022009-03-14T13:09:00.000-05:002009-03-14T13:09:00.000-05:00Umm-yeah, Barak Obama's election is STILL tear pro...Umm-yeah, Barak Obama's election is STILL tear producing for me as well (and probably will be for a long time to come).Wordladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884395477076148434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-71350106147580763642008-12-22T20:06:00.000-06:002008-12-22T20:06:00.000-06:00bdul, I find it odd that the very things you are a...bdul, I find it odd that the very things you are accusing me of are the things you have done throughout this discussion.<BR/><BR/>How very sad for you.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-33671732404858158252008-12-17T18:44:00.000-06:002008-12-17T18:44:00.000-06:00e ekeer...Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. ...e ekeer...<BR/><BR/>Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. You consistently make fun of my name, come in here and attack, ignore my responses, and accuse me of the same. Yes, I'm not going into long detailed responses to you, Seeker, because I really don't want to. I've learned you attack, and don't discuss. I gave you a short answer, which you ignored, and I gave a short answer because you were again making assumptions about what I said, in order to argue. The most hilarious bit is this short answer actually agreed with you, because my original post agreed with you, but all you could see was disagreement. Really- I don't want to talk with you, because you keep on attacking. Talking with a bully is no fun.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-70565301380302705002008-12-17T13:23:00.000-06:002008-12-17T13:23:00.000-06:00Jon, I appreciate your post in many ways, especial...Jon, I appreciate your post in many ways, especially because of the desire to emphasize the view of love that you want to present. There are some things that I need to put forth, for balance.<BR/><BR/>You pondered about my "central point," Jon and, although the discussion has covered a lot of territory, my theme has been consistent as follows: <BR/><BR/>1) "Sin" exists and every human is full of sin (ie - "sinful")<BR/><BR/>2) To quote Glenn K from "Live Bootleg": "Jesus didn't say 'believe,' he said 'repent and believe.'" So, we must indeed love those who are in their sin, but we MUST never forget to call sin what it is "sin" and call those involved in homosexuality, for example, to repent and put aside those sins as part of following the Lord...this is evidence of whether salvation has occurred in that person or not: not just giving in because we are in a constant battle, but instead fighting our own predilection towards sin.<BR/><BR/>You see, there is a tightrope, so to speak between love and license. Yes, as Christians, we sin, but to say it doesn't matter (or as bdul seems to indicate that some Christians believe homosexuality is not sin) is anti-Christian in and of itself, since it calls God a liar. <BR/><BR/>Some ask: "Isn't that harsh to tell another person s/he is a sinner."<BR/><BR/>I say it is literally hell to not tell them of their sin (thereby discouraging their repentance) and let them end up in hell. There are MANY so-called churches that are homosexual in themselves (Metropolitan, etc). They tell people it is ok to act out homosexually...it is no sin. Those are false prophets and they are leading their followers into hell itself.<BR/><BR/>As far as your view that "culture wars," as you call it, aren't good to get involved in. I think it depends upon one's attitude, but we DO know that the Lord commanded us to be salt (ie - the preserving influence regarding sin versus non-sin). Again, remember that nobody ever became a true Christian without recognition of sin and repentance from one's sinfulness.<BR/><BR/>There is another fairly large issue that you mentioned and it puzzles me because it directly contradicts your presentation of how we ought to treat others. You wrote: "It seems abundantly clear that after eight years of one of the most vicious and undemocratic administrations on record -- one backed by the Christian Right -- many people are incredibly sick of further "culture wars" and reject that ultra-divisive approach." (Actually, in California, about 70% of blacks voted FOR Prop 8, as did the majority of all Californians...sounds like many people in such a liberal state think it is a good thing to fight this "culture war").<BR/><BR/>First, why are you so giving and loving to homosexuals (ie - those that we KNOW hate God, according to the Scripture), yet so extremely judgemental towards President Bush? That is one of the MOST judgemental and love-less statements I have read by a "Christian" writer in my life. <BR/><BR/>In my view, it is not at all "clear" that the President is "vicious" nor "undemocratic" in any regard. (It sounds like the nasty lies peddled by the far anti-Christian left on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post). In fact, I challenge this view as being false. President Bush will go down in history as the best President since Reagan, if we evaluate his presidency honestly. The left says these things without any TRUE evidence of it (of course, there have been many lies told about the President...that is how the left survives: lies. Sadly, even some Christians have been duped by the lies of the left).<BR/><BR/>Back to the main point, this issue of marriage is very important. We are not denying homosexuals their "civil rights" at all. They are trying to change the very definition of marriage for EVERYBODY and force us to accept their views as legitimate/acceptable/etc, which they simply are not.<BR/><BR/>Jesus is either both Lover and Lord or He is not our Savior at all (Mat 16:24 Jesus said unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.)<BR/><BR/>That is our hearts desire.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-63999516374750713332008-12-17T10:42:00.000-06:002008-12-17T10:42:00.000-06:00Yo, everyone... let's cool off the rhetoric just a...Yo, everyone... let's cool off the rhetoric just a touch.<BR/><BR/>There are multiple issues at play here in this discussion. I note that an article somewhere on the Christianity Today site (sorry, I'm rushed and can't look it up right now) suggests that perhaps the state should get out of the "marriage business" altogether, and deal ONLY with civil unions across the board. That way, marriage and its definition becomes the property of the couple, the church (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Wiccan for that matter), and their traditions / beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Seeker, I'm unsure what your central point is here. My point isn't that Christians are disallowed from participating in democracy. Far from that -- this is a political blog done by a Christian. I am simply asking if, by getting ourselves into a "culture wars" frame regarding marriage, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It seems abundantly clear that after eight years of one of the most vicious and undemocratic administrations on record -- one backed by the Christian Right -- many people are incredibly sick of further "culture wars" and reject that ultra-divisive approach. <BR/><BR/>For myself, I support the biblical model of marriage between one man and one woman. And I hope I do it best by loving my wife and being loved by her in return. I want people to fall in love with Jesus Christ, to encounter Him, to be transformed by Him. That includes gay people. My firm belief is that if someone -- hetero or homo -- falls in love with Jesus Christ and as a result begins to attempt to walk out Jesus' commands, their sexuality will be challenged and ultimately transformed along with everything else.<BR/><BR/>Jesus is all or nothing, the Pearl of Great Price. He is the ultimate form of gravity, pulling all of our life into his orbit and radically reordering it all. <BR/><BR/>I am heterosexual, though probably could have swung either way (occasionally did in my young years). My heterosexuality was disgusting, non-relational, self-focused, lust. Frankly I think there were (are) homosexual lovers who probably did a better job of loving as human beings than I did way back then.<BR/><BR/>Jesus demands I radically change my whole attitude about sexuality. Sex is at the core of who I am as a person, and if my sexual world is disordered, there is no chance the rest of my world will exist in Christ. As I am hard on myself regarding my predilection toward sexual impurity, so there might be a time I will be hard on my friend if he is caught up in sexual sin. But for those who do not know me, and who have been assaulted by the self-righteous morality police (a.k.a., the Christian Right and/or the Mormon Church), I'm not going to go after their sexuality. I'm going to go after their hearts with the most winsome and singularly brilliant human being who ever was, is, or will be. Jesus is the heart of the gospel, not heterosexual marriage. "We" can win the battle over defining marriage and lose the war for thousands of hungry hearts and minds. <BR/><BR/>Jesus. He is what makes me an Evangelical. The rest of this moralistic CRAP which is really the most self-righteous and therefore sinful assault on my neighbors merely stops them from seeing the Beloved. He is winsome. He is wholly good. He is Love in Flesh Appearing. God is love, and Jesus Christ proves it beyond all doubt. That is the first message I have for my gay neighbor. If he or she embraces Jesus Christ, and if he or she wants my input about what following Jesus' model of sexuality consists of, I'll attempt to prayerfully and forthrightly give that input.<BR/><BR/>What I won't do is to militate for political control over my neighbor's love life with another consenting adult. I know plenty of heterosexually married individuals who live ungodly, selfish, and angry lives... some of them are Christians. As for me, my own marriage is imperfect of course, but fuels me with one of the most visible signs of God's love I know. All I can do is live out that marriage, and this life, as though I really mean what I say and say what I mean.<BR/><BR/>And with that overly long ramble, I'll shut up now.<BR/><BR/>Merry Christmas!<BR/><BR/>JonJon Trotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269111052515857956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-59484084626839888422008-12-17T03:51:00.000-06:002008-12-17T03:51:00.000-06:00b dull,My arguments are not about me, no matter ho...b dull,<BR/><BR/>My arguments are not about me, no matter how much you attempt to frame them as such. <BR/><BR/>Apparently you prefer to go into your ad hominem attacks upon people rather than dealing with the issues at hand in a rational, logical manner founded upon Scripture.<BR/><BR/>As was written before:<BR/><BR/>bdul wrote: "There are many Christians who think homosexuality is not immorral (sic)"<BR/><BR/>So, people who follow Jesus Christ think homosexuality is not immoral?<BR/><BR/>Only 2 options:<BR/><BR/>1) they are unskilled in the Scripture and believe falsely and will be willingly corrected by the Word when they hear it or...<BR/><BR/>2) They are sheep in wolves' clothing and do not know the real Jesus (perhaps a false one, but not the real One)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The Word of God is undeniable: homosexuality is sinful and those involved in it need repentance that leads to forgiveness. They don't need encouragement to continue in sin and die apart from the Lord.<BR/><BR/>Calling sin "sin" is the most compassionate thing we can do, if it leads them to repentance and a real relationship with the true God.<BR/><BR/>That is not merely "my opinion," that is the truth of the Christian God.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-54208558520896189732008-12-16T20:14:00.000-06:002008-12-16T20:14:00.000-06:00eeker,I have no control over how much your argumen...eeker,<BR/><BR/>I have no control over how much your arguments are about you or not.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-29213628304342885892008-12-16T05:59:00.000-06:002008-12-16T05:59:00.000-06:00bdul wrote: "I would say the entire point of democ...bdul wrote: "I would say the entire point of democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the majority."<BR/><BR/><BR/>False, that is in no way "the entire point of democracy." <BR/><BR/>The reason the USA's "democracy" (actually we are a Republic, not a strict democracy) was constructed was to allow for the MAJORITY to choose how they will be governed (remember that ol' King the founders escaped from and fought against?)<BR/><BR/>The allowance given to minorities to not be overrun completely was a PART of USA Republic's democracy, but NOT the "entire point" of it at all.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-75334612720752219782008-12-16T05:57:00.000-06:002008-12-16T05:57:00.000-06:00bdul,Don't make this about "me," the Scripture is ...bdul,<BR/><BR/>Don't make this about "me," the Scripture is what true Christians FOLLOW, NOT what they alter to their own preferences.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, they are wolves in sheep clothing (deceived and deceiving).Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-27639801227470189282008-12-11T21:48:00.000-06:002008-12-11T21:48:00.000-06:00I would say the entire point of democracy is to av...I would say the entire point of democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the majority.<BR/><BR/>I think the problem with your previous statement is that you stated only one of the factions was Christian. You would have been on more solid ground to say that "only one of the viewpoints was Christian", though certainly some would argue with that as well.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-29904167998100705602008-12-11T18:52:00.000-06:002008-12-11T18:52:00.000-06:00Bdul,I am a Christian, understand the difference b...Bdul,<BR/>I am a Christian, understand the difference between the Christian and Mormon tenets, and that some Christians between homosexuality is immoral and some believe it is not.<BR/><BR/>My point was to respond to Jon's premise that Christians shouldn't be defining marriage for someone else. The entire enterprise of democracy it is the people who define law (and thereby, morals and culture). To participate in democracy is to participate in definition. Bottom line - every one else - every other faction - has the opportunity to voice his opinion - why shouldn't the Christian (whatever his position on homosexuality is)?Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-70983994564458367512008-12-11T18:27:00.000-06:002008-12-11T18:27:00.000-06:00Yes, Seeker, not everyone who follows Jesus believ...Yes, Seeker, not everyone who follows Jesus believes the same thing, and not everyone who follows Jesus is always right about what they believe.<BR/><BR/>Even you.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-63569951862187846402008-12-11T06:10:00.000-06:002008-12-11T06:10:00.000-06:00bdul wrote: "There are many Christians who think h...bdul wrote: "There are many Christians who think homosexuality is not immorral (sic)"<BR/><BR/>So, people who follow Jesus Christ think homosexuality is not immoral?<BR/><BR/>Only 2 options:<BR/><BR/>1) they are unskilled in the Scripture and believe falsely and will be willingly corrected by the Word when they hear it or...<BR/><BR/>2) They are sheep in wolves' clothing and do not know the real Jesus (perhaps a false one, but not the real One)<BR/><BR/>Also, Mormons are just ONE part of the reason that Prop 8 passed...not by any means the primary reason (but thank God that He uses even those who only have a "form of religion")Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-31273654985116312052008-12-09T19:49:00.000-06:002008-12-09T19:49:00.000-06:00Jeff,There are many, many Christians who feel that...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>There are many, many Christians who feel that homosexuality is wrong but support equal rights for gays. There are many Christians who think homosexuality is not immorral. Did you mean that the Christian faction was the opponents of Prop 8?<BR/><BR/>The Mormons were the overwhelming financial support for Prop 8- without that backing, Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Were this perhaps the group you were referring to as the Christian faction? If so, are you familiar with the basic tenants of Christianity, and the basic tenants of Mormonism?Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-19061828149235432282008-12-09T17:08:00.000-06:002008-12-09T17:08:00.000-06:00Jon, While I can surely empathize with you about t...Jon, <BR/>While I can surely empathize with you about the vanity of legislating morality, I don't think that's what the passage of Prop 8 is - it's simply different factions in a democracy - only one of which is Christian - coming together to form a majority opinion. See my blog, "Life in the Big Democracy" at my website, www.sophiesladder.com<BR/><BR/>Regards, <BR/>Jeff CarterJeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-65101594499762355822008-12-02T23:33:00.000-06:002008-12-02T23:33:00.000-06:00I'm truly disappointed that a member of the Jesus ...I'm truly disappointed that a member of the Jesus Movement would have such an arcane view of marriage and love between two people, particularly where scripture is concerned. There is MUCH progressive biblical scholarship that soundly and roundly debunks the misinterpretations regarding homosexuality and scripture. <BR/><BR/>The most glaring is quoting Leviticus. You cannot be that dense, brother. Read all the arcane laws around them, put them into context, take into account Jesus Messiah's teachings and you will plainly see that the Annointed's message was that love is far more important than dogma. If you're going to quote arcane Jewish law, be prepared to have the book thrown at you (pun intended)!<BR/><BR/>I won't discuss every verse here. You're all adults and these books are readily available. You can find multiple truths for yourselves. Realize that your interpretations aren't the only ones from salvation, and that, indeed, a dynamic and diverse community of interpretations is what Christianity was founded on.Travis Trotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15194081621124160587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-41997675119767280722008-11-30T18:27:00.000-06:002008-11-30T18:27:00.000-06:00Blogger Rachel wrote: "I've also been pondering h...Blogger Rachel wrote: "I've also been pondering how we Christians should be behaving in the political arena. Jesus was so noticeably non-political, even though his followers wanted him to be. They still do.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Rachel, you are correct in one regard, but I really believe that many will misunderstand your statement.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Jesus was "non-political," if by that you mean that he didn't run for office, and the like, as some of His followers would've had Him to do. (Even though running for office is in no way against the will of the Lord. Jesus had a different, very specific mission, and office-holding was not included in His mission). However He ALWAYS stood up for what was right versus what was sin, both by His words and His deeds. <BR/><BR/>He constantly distinguished between following God or sin; between being saved or being lost. (We all know that the greatest indication to others about what condition we each are in is our actions). He knew that to be saved one must first distinguish between sin and not sin, recognize one's own sinful state, repent of it, ask for God's mercy through Jesus' shed blood, and yield to Jesus.<BR/><BR/>I hope by your post you didn't mean that calling sin "sin" (as many of us Californians did with Prop 8) was getting too "political," because that isn't politics at all...that is Jesus' domain. It is also our domain, since we are the "salt" (preservative). A preservative is in the middle of the "mix," warding off the evil by all means: exemplary living; telling others about the Lord; and voting for those things that prevent the decay that we are supposed to preserve our fellow humans from (even though many of them are completely ignorant of their own decay).<BR/><BR/><BR/>You also wrote: Dr. Dobson could do so much for the cause of Christ if he would stay out of politics and really focus on supporting families."<BR/><BR/>It isn't "politics" that determine sin or not. I remember Dobson and others lamenting a few years back that they should've done more to stop the legalization of abortion (legalized murder) in the USA back in the 1970's). You know, if they had been just a LITTLE more "political," as you seem to call it, there would've been millions less babies murdered.<BR/><BR/>Whether it's called political or not, as Christians we are ALL called to protect the innocent and helpless by all acceptable means, which include voting and speaking out.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-2286348971780333992008-11-28T00:15:00.000-06:002008-11-28T00:15:00.000-06:00I've also been pondering how we Christians should ...I've also been pondering how we Christians should be behaving in the political arena. Jesus was so noticeably non-political, even though his followers wanted him to be. They still do.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Dobson could do so much for the cause of Christ if he would stay out of politics and really focus on supporting families.Rambling Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10367652954139839430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-13395085475256393962008-11-27T14:26:00.000-06:002008-11-27T14:26:00.000-06:00@bdul muHib wrote: "No, seeker, you... are the one...@bdul muHib wrote: "No, seeker, you... are the one who first brought up the idea these guys were all Deists, and I agreed that such a concept was ludicrous."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Actually, bdul, YOU first used the term "Deist" when you specifically stated the following: "I don't see how a bunch of Deists were able to found a country on a Judeo-Christian ethic..."<BR/><BR/>Now, those who take the time to actually read the posts will see your statement that those who founded this country were "...a bunch of Deists..." giving no room to the idea that not all of them were deists (how many "bunches" of people were there? You only indicated one). That is a flat-out statement made by you: the founders were deists and those skilled in English would naturally understand it as such. <BR/><BR/>You then LATER restate that the "majority" were Deists and claim that is exactly what you said at the beginning, which is false (perhaps it is what you MEANT, but it is not what you wrote).<BR/><BR/>Then, I wrote: "Yes there were SOME Deists, that is true (eg - Thomas Jefferson) but nobody who has actually studied the Founding Fathers and is honest about the lives of these men agrees with you that they were ALL Deists. That is a ludicrous idea."<BR/><BR/>My goal was to simply get you to admit the FACT that NOT all the Founding Fathers were Deists. Now, can we get to that point or is an argument all that you desire?<BR/><BR/><BR/>@bdul muHib then wrote: "The original point I brought up related directly to pacifism. Again, if you care to actually read the previous posts, you'll see that."<BR/><BR/>And my original response was to Jon Trott, not to your post...anybody can read that by scrolling up (I even used his name, specifically).<BR/><BR/><BR/>@bdul muHib then wrote: "I'm sorry you never bothered to read my previous assertions that there were exceptions to the Deist rule."<BR/><BR/>The real problem is that I did indeed read the posts and understand English quite well. Yes, there were exceptions made by you only after I called you on it. Then you acted as though you had left room for those exceptions from the beginning, which is simply not true.<BR/><BR/><BR/>@bdul muHib then wrote: "It doesn't count if you say you don't want semantics and in the same sentence engage in it."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Very true, so why are you trying to change the original meaning of the statement I called you on?<BR/><BR/>Now, if we can get on to more useful things and away from your semantic twists, it would be much better for all.<BR/><BR/>ShalomSeekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-62768806642345456542008-11-27T10:20:00.000-06:002008-11-27T10:20:00.000-06:00No, seeker, you seek to jump to conclusions rather...No, seeker, you seek to jump to conclusions rather than to seek. You are the one who first brought up the idea these guys were all Deists, and I agreed that such a concept was ludicrous. You then quoted me out of context to prove your point. It's an easy thing to proof text. It's also an easy thing to simply go up and read the string above to see the clear progression, which is why I felt no need to repeat it here.<BR/><BR/>The original point I brought up related directly to pacifism. Again, if you care to actually read the previous posts, you'll see that.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry you never bothered to read my previous assertions that there were exceptions to the Deist rule. I'm sorry you don't like it when I point out the ways that I agreed with you in the beginning. It doesn't count if you say you don't want semantics and in the same sentence engage in it. But I see you're fully capable of having an argument with yourself; I don't need to be here. Do as you will.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-442530503334971222008-11-26T17:12:00.000-06:002008-11-26T17:12:00.000-06:00The problem here is that you wrote exactly what I ...The problem here is that you wrote exactly what I quoted from your post, but now you want to say it means something different than the words you used, yet you won't even provide a sentence to explain why you didn't mean what you wrote nor what the alternative meaning is. The issue isn't on my end of understanding - it is on your end of either not being able to express yourself clearly and/or trying to alter what your quote says (sadly, it appears you are being a Bill Clinton: "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.") <BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in a semantic battle as I stated long before you did. The answer is for you to explain what you mean or somehow try to reconcile it with your past statement. You are the one who, sadly, seems to be running from his own past statement.<BR/><BR/>Judeo-Christian ethics (those that the USA was founded on) are not universally accepted. This is proven time and again by those who show their "religious" ethic by throwing acid on young school girls' faces simply because they want to learn, or, even worse murdering people with a strap-on bomb simply to strike terror into the hearts of those who may not agree with you...THAT is not the same ethic by a long shot.<BR/><BR/>BTW - I said nothing explicitly about pacifism (although I know it is one ethical view that some hold to)...I guess that is a focus of yours and you want to shift to that specific?<BR/><BR/>Also, what about my response to your Founding Fathers were "a bunch of" Deists assertion: George Washington (not a Deist) was the most respected Father, yet he "founded" this country. Was he one leader that wasn't a part of your assumed "bunch." It seems odd that you bake them all in one big pie and ignore the fact that there are those Founding Fathers who never fit into the Deist system of thought.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-88365378081355916072008-11-26T09:24:00.000-06:002008-11-26T09:24:00.000-06:00No, I don't know where you got it, Seeker, since w...No, I don't know where you got it, Seeker, since what I said and what you just quoted me as saying is not the same thing as what you said previously. So you are wrong; I do not know where you got that. But since I pointed out immediately thereafter the difference in what we were saying, you do know this, and are just playing word games now.<BR/><BR/>You say you don't want to get into a semantic dual, yet you insist on doing only that. When you state there is an importance to the our nation being founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, and I point out that in truth it was founded simply on universal religious ethics, and therefore is not in that tied to the Jewish or Christian tradition, you want to focus on that not changing Judeo-Christian ethics, which is true, but was hardly the point, at any point.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you are correct in stating that the roots of nonviolent resistance are in the Old Testament. However, pacifism was never a Jewish philosophical system in Old Testament times, and is certainly not now. It remains something unique to overall Buddhism and Christianity, with scatterings within most other religions (with the notable exception of Islam). Those two (Buddhism and Christianity) approach pacifism in uniquely different philosophical ways, allowing for us to say that there is a unique Christian and a unique Buddhist philosophical system on this seemingly narrow but horribly significant issue. Therefore to argue that Christian ethics is then not distinct from Jewish ethics on this manner is to argue semantics of the word "Jewish", which is hardly necessary, because then we are on the road of talking about if a man is a true Jew if he is one inside or not, and that was really, really not the original point.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-1601039238819085012008-11-23T05:53:00.000-06:002008-11-23T05:53:00.000-06:00@bdul muHib wrote: "Yes Seeker, that would be a lu...@bdul muHib wrote: "Yes Seeker, that would be a ludicrous idea. I'm not sure where you got that."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, @bdul muHib, I think you know where it came from since YOU wrote the following which was obviously what I was replying to: "I don't see how a bunch of Deists were able to found a country on a Judeo-Christian ethic..."<BR/><BR/><BR/>As to your view on the Deist founding of the USA: George Washington: NOT a Deist (and he was obviously the one most regarded, hence most influential compared to all of the others).<BR/><BR/>Now, as to ethical systems, it doesn't change Judeo-Christian ethics into ANYTHING else simply because a Muslim, Hindu, etc happens to believe SOME of the same points (and no they are not in agreement on all of them, by any means).<BR/><BR/>Your view of Christian ethics (as you like to distinguish it from Judeo-Christian ethics) is not separate and distinct.<BR/><BR/>Jesus said, for example, that the Commandments were summed up in love...therefore those Commandments are founded in love. The question is whether those who take those Commandments in the correct manner or not.<BR/><BR/>We need not get into a semantic dual here.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355162783791598934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11057324.post-11998821005510193042008-11-22T12:17:00.000-06:002008-11-22T12:17:00.000-06:00Yes Seeker, that would be a ludicrous idea. I'm n...Yes Seeker, that would be a ludicrous idea. I'm not sure where you got that.<BR/><BR/>However, if someone has studied the founding fathers, you'd find that the <I>majority</I> were Deists. And pretty much all of the most influential; the ones we consider the most important.<BR/><BR/>And your next statement likewise concurs with what I wrote above. What you are calling Judeo-Christian ethics also happen to be Muslimo-Hindu-Buddhist ethics. Pretty much every ethical system has that in common.<BR/><BR/>Now, there are such a thing as Christian ethics. Had the founding fathers based their ideas on turning the other cheek and loving your enemy, then yes, this would be different than other ethical systems- although the Buddhists might have a run at that idea. It would, however, quit labeling it as <I>Judeo</I>-Christian ethics.Jed Carosaarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775889983099808362noreply@blogger.com