annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'm simply quoting what the Bible says about it. The Bible says it is, that settles it.
Nope. The Constitution settles it.
I'm simply quoting what the Bible says about it. The Bible says it is, that settles it.
Nope. The Constitution settles it.
The Bible trumps the Constitution, when it comes to morality.
The Constitution trumps the Bible, when it comes to the laws in this country.
The Constitution is an invalid document to begin with.
The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court which now consists of justices who respect the authority of the Bible.The Constitution trumps the Bible, when it comes to the laws in this country.
For sure...I fully agree. But Godliness and religion are often estranged from each other.
Agreed.Trouble with that is, some of the more ardent zealots think that it's actually loving to impose their beliefs on others and deny them any say so.
I.e., to serve those who are suffering, not to rule over them, condemn them, and punish them for their weakness. Seems a lot of self=proclaimed Christians these days want to rule over their fellow humans, and judge and punish them and even blame them for their suffering.For sure...
Thank God we have the best definition of religion, in the bible.
It is written..."Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)
All I've read of the thread is this opening post and because I'm sure someone else will have already taken this tack, I'll simply throw in my two cents with as brief a response as I can think of and see if anyone wants to pick it up. If it's already been hashed over then no big deal....Many of the original European settlers coming to North America were either expelled from their homelands because they were considered religious zealots, or they were expelled by religious zealots that would no longer tolerate their different religious views at home. Such that the founders of these United States had the specific intent to establish a nation wherein church and state would forever remain separate, so that this could not happen, again. We would be a nation that would allow both religious freedom and demand mutual religious tolerance. And for the most part this seems to have been achieved. However, in the last 500 years or so of human history, religious zealotry and intolerance has been on the rise, and been responsible for a significant degree of horrifically inhumane behavior in the forms of systemic oppression, torture, rape, murder, slavery, and outright genocide. And it's still going on today.
I am not singling out any particular religion because religious zealotry seems to occur across the gamut of religious ideologies. I even read some time back about some Buddhist monks attacking and killing some other Buddhist monks. No religion is immune, it seems. So I am curious about at what point, and/or by what identifying factors do we verify what we might call "toxic religious zealotry"? At what point does one pass from being a fervent religious adherent to being a dangerous religious zealot? Is it just one's willingness to do other people harm in the name of our own presumed religious righteousness? Or is there something identifiable in the ideology, itself, that allows people to cross that line between civility and malevolence?
Do you know anyone that you would consider a religious zealot, as opposed to their being just a fervent believer? If so, how did you determine the difference? Also, how do you think we as a society should protect ourselves from people who believe that their own ideals and actions are justified by God, Himself?
It is the duty of all moral people, most especially Christians, to judge others according to righteousness and to lay blame where it properly belongs.I.e., to serve those who are suffering, not to rule over them, condemn them, and punish them for their weakness. Seems a lot of self=proclaimed Christians these days want to rule over their fellow humans, and judge and punish them and even blame them for their suffering.
Only if those laws are to be unjust.The Constitution trumps the Bible, when it comes to the laws in this country.
The Constitution is an invalid document to begin with.
The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court which now consists of justices who respect the authority of the Bible.
And therein lay the formation of the toxic religious zealot, using his own understanding of God, and his own clan's holy books to appoint himself the right hand of God. Inerrant and unquestionably righteous in his own eyes, now, and free to mete out divine vengeance as he sees fit. It's a very old story, with a very sad ending.It is the duty of all moral people, most especially Christians, to judge others according to righteousness and to lay blame where it properly belongs.
No it doesn't!And therein lay the formation of the toxic religious zealot,
No one is appointing themselves any such thing!using his own understanding of God, and his own clan's holy books to appoint himself the right hand of God.
You are truly an idiot. Honestly, is this really the sort of thing you find persuasive? This nonsense spewed from the clear blew sky in response to a post that was made not a half an hour after I had just posted that "NO ONE has the right to infringe on someone else's rights.".Inerrant and unquestionably righteous in his own eyes, now, and free to mete out divine vengeance as he sees fit. It's a very old story, with a very sad ending.
It's our responsibility to determine our own ethical priorities, and to judge our own actions in the world according to those priorities. Of course that will involve having to judge the behavior of others to determine our degree of participation and/or response. The problems arise when we presume tat our ethical priorities are God's ethical priorities, and that our ethical priorities are therefor absolute and sacrosanct: inerrant and unquestionable. Once we reach that point, we no longer have an effective conscience. Whatever we think is right is right absolutely, because (we believe) God says so.No it doesn't!
Yours is precisely the sort of stupidity that leads to governments outlawing religions. You'd fit right in over in Moscow and Beijing.
It's so idiotically hypocritical!
Your sitting there telling me that it's wrong (i.e. toxic) to judge!
The fact that you couldn't respond without insults tells me that you are not here for any positive purpose. I think we're done here.You are truly an idiot.
You're a pathetic fool who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
Black and white: Stealing is wrong. Never steal.
Gray: Ukraine war zone: my children are starving, I'm going to steal those Russian rations to feed them.
Are you always extreme black and white, with never any shades of gray?
In both these scenarios the stealing and lying part is black and white----of course you do. You steal the food, and you lie to the Nazis, absolutely no question.As anna has already alluded to, to what degree? Some things are black and white sure. If someone forces themselves on another including in marriage then it's rape.
Other things aren't quite so clear cut so I'm reckoning you have shades of grey also.
An obvious example being: You're harboring Jews or any other undesirable in Nazi Germany and a Gestapo squad call around your house and ask if you're hiding them. What do you do? Tell the truth or lie?
It's our responsibility to determine our own ethical priorities,
and to judge our own actions in the world according to those priorities.
Of course that will involve having to judge the behavior of others to determine our degree of participation and/or response.
The problems arise when we presume that our ethical priorities are God's ethical priorities,
and that our ethical priorities are therefore absolute and sacrosanct: inerrant and unquestionable.
Once we reach that point, we no longer have an effective conscience. Whatever we think is right is right absolutely, because (we believe) God says so.
This is the danger I am warning about when we encounter (or become) the religious zealot.
Okay. I have determined that my own ethical priority allows for the murder of children pre-birth or post birth, based solely on the decision of the mother.It's our responsibility to determine our own ethical priorities,
According to those priorities I have taken action by handing out vouchers to abortion clinics to pregnant women and knives to mothers of small childrenand to judge our own actions in the world according to those priorities.