Posts that seem less than useless, or something like that

[jasong]

I know a lot of people on this board aren't Christians, and some don't believe in God, or at least don't believe in Jesus Christ. Since you're on the outside looking in, in terms of Christians collective goals, I can understand the resistence to the church. What you don't understand, and you might disagree with my opinion, is that Christianity is meant to make the overall lives of people in general better, and less stressful. If someone claims to be a Christian and has, for instance, a stress-induced heart attack, something about their lifestyle is screwed, whether it be their acceptance of the existence of God or the way they serve him. Similar to Al Gore using technology to solve envirornmental problems, a properly grounded Christian should have the goal of creating as little tension as possible in their politics. Christians don't kill abortion doctors, idiots kill abortion doctors.

On another note, there are plenty of ways that Christianity has influenced Americans and their politics. Americans ideas of human kindness are very much influenced by Christian idealism. Even if you go to another country, I doubt you'll find a whole heck of a lot of free clinics based on Buddhism or Islam. Mercy is a very Christian concept, one could say that Christianity is grounded in mercy.

While I understand that there are plenty of people that are non-Christians, I believe, in a country where tons of people claim to be Christian, for this very reason, laws should at least acknowledge in some way, our Christian heritage.

Despite that, I can totally understand judges rulings that prevent Christian outreach because it's on the government's dime. People should not have to give money to something that they don't feel they will ever need themselves. Christians are called on to be responsible for their own programs. This is a Bible-given perogative that shouldn't be ignored.

[Greenbank]

I'll bite.

Even if you go to another country, I doubt you'll find a whole heck of a lot of free clinics based on Buddhism or Islam.

Have you ever been outside the US? It may shock you.

[Prime95]

I think you've opened up a can of worms by starting this thread!

Originally Posted by jasong

What you don't understand, is that Christianity is meant to make the overall lives of people in general better

I don't think you'll find much disagreement on this point.

If someone claims to be a Christian and has, for instance, a stress-induced heart attack, something about their lifestyle is screwed, ... a properly grounded Christian should have the goal of creating as little tension as possible in their politics.

I'm not sure where you're going with this argument. If you are saying you should support political policies in keeping with your Christian values then I agree. If you're saying the government should force a variety of Christian values on its citizens - for their own good - then I must disagree.

Mercy is a very Christian concept

Christianity does not have a monopoly on mercy. Putting down other religions will not advance your cause nor is it particularly good form.

I believe, in a country where tons of people claim to be Christian, for this very reason, laws should at least acknowledge in some way, our Christian heritage.

Again I do not know what you are advocating here. Laws can and will reflect the country's heritage and values.

People should not have to give money to something that they don't feel they will ever need themselves.

Dang - all those years I wasted making contributions to the Social Security system!

***********************

Perhaps you can elaborate for us where you stand on the "Christian right-wing nut-job meter". Ok, that was mean. I actually agree with the majority of Christian values, but will in no way endorse using the government's power to impose them.

Should recreational drug use be illegal?

Should alchohol be banned?

Should gambling be outlawed?

Should gays unions be banned? Should gay adoptions be outlawed?

Should abortions be banned?

Should physician-assisted suicide be outlawed?

In short, where do individual rights end and the government's powers begin? I think this is why the Christian right is so loathed and feared. It is their political goal to take away several freedoms citizens currently enjoy.

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Dang - all those years I wasted making contributions to the Social Security system!

You're a victim of that lottery scam, too?

Should gays unions be banned? Should gay adoptions be outlawed?

That reminds me of this.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by flouran

As Americans,...i.e. ...in the Bush

You mean e.g. you illiterate ....

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by flouran

As Americans, I think we can safely say that most US politics (i.e. in the Bush era and so far in the Obama era) has been bullshit.

Originally Posted by davieddy

You mean e.g. you illiterate Bowdlerized.

No he doesn't; he means 'i.e', i.e. 'that is' and not something else like e.g. 'e.g.', i.e. 'for example', you functionally illiterate sandals-with-socks-wearing-tourist. Or am I pulling a 10metreh here for believing that the Bowdlerized/bush wordplay is so bottom drawer that it must certainly be unintended?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

This thread could do with some moderation.

It would obviously be the end of civilization if other people were allowed to write about subjects you disapprove of, with a style you disapprove of, using diction you disapprove of.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

No he doesn't; he means 'i.e', i.e. 'that is' and not something else like e.g. 'e.g.', i.e. 'for example', you functionally illiterate sandals-with-socks-wearing-tourist. Or am I pulling a 10metreh here for believing that the Bowdlerizedt/bush wordplay is so bottom drawer that it must certainly be unintended?

Put this in your pipe and smoke it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYTQ6gpcuYA

Happy New Year

Eleanor

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

No he doesn't; he means 'i.e', i.e. 'that is' and not something else like e.g. 'e.g.', i.e. 'for example', you functionally illiterate sandals-with-socks-wearing-tourist. Or am I pulling a 10metreh here for believing that the Bowdlerized/bush wordplay is so bottom drawer that it must certainly be unintended?

I realize that an expensive (Non NHS) US lawman might
try to argue the toss about i.e. being justified in this particular case.
I just knew instinctively that he meant e.g. and couldn't resist
pulling his leg about it.
BTW George's censorship of my post is priceless
PS I now see Paul has trumped it!

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by davieddy

BTW George's censorship of my post is priceless
PS I now see Paul has trumped it!

Has anyone else tried to explain the wonders of Kundt's tube to
teenagers?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by flouran

I agree ... is not a bad word.

You're right. Perfectly acceptable email shorthand for see you next time, so especially acceptable for use in pubic forums.

Originally Posted by davieddy

I realize that an expensive (Non NHS) US lawman might
try to argue the toss about i.e. being justified in this particular case.
I just knew instinctively that he meant e.g. and couldn't resist
pulling his leg about it.
BTW George's censorship of my post is priceless
PS I now see Paul has trumped it!

You'll stop laughing when akruppa finds out and goes ballistic by revoking the posting privileges of everyone who might have accidentally read the word.