NJ parents outraged: Second-graders will learn you can 'have boy parts but feel like a girl'

a reply to: TheRedneck
Has it ever been considered that Polytheism is where there are two lords?
You + God.

a reply to: TzarChasm

See, it's funny because women don't seem to know what being a woman means and what factors or elements that identity is rooted in. If you can't explain it, how am I supposed to comprehend it except by deferring to some amorphous gender model that contradicts itself every 5 minutes.

Exactly.

Which then begs the question if literal adult human females do not know what being a woman means or feels like, then how can literal males know?

And why on earth would we accept literal non-females determining what it means and feels like to be a woman?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not Christian.

Doesn't matter for these purposes. You are still trying to impose your version of Christianity upon the rest of us.

Regardless of what the founding documents say, MOST people in the country that founded the country were Christian therefore the countries foundation is built upon those principles wheather you like it or not that is a fact.

Oh my dear lordy. I do lots of things every day that are compatible with -- and even complement -- my Christian faith, because our founding principles respect and honor the Natural Right endowed by our Creator to do so, under the Natural Laws of Nature's God. So too can Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and so on and so forth. NOT because of Christian values and principles, but because of our foundation of Natural Law and Natural Rights.

Whether you like it or not.

Yes the founding documents provide for freedom of religion and did not establish a formal religion however that point is moot and irrelevant to these facts.

Not moot at all. That is the entire point!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

Specifically, at the time of the Founding Fathers, it was NOT a "Christian" principle that government cannot interfere in the people's relationship with their Creator.

Neither Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary"), or her father King Henry XIII, or for that matter any monarch or leader, defines what is and is not Christian. Only Jesus was capable of doing that. To believe otherwise is to attribute god status to a man (or woman), and that is a direct violation of one of the few actual "rules" that Christianity has.

Jesus preached and taught individual and direct, personal communication with God Himself. The very point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was that all would then be able, in His name, to communicate with God. How can a ruler define what God is going to tell one of His followers? The very concept of that is the equivalent of placing that ruler above God Himself! How is that not like someone not the parent of a child telling that child what their parents are supposed to allow, the very thing this thread is based on? The entire point of contention of this thread is that someone without such authority is purporting to speak to children on behalf of those they do not speak for.

It may be true that some governments of that time period believed they had the right to interfere in a person's relationship with God, but that does not make such a belief a "Christian principle." It makes it a government policy... one the Founding Fathers rightfully saw as intrusive and anti-Christian and thus forbad for the USA.

Under Queen Elizabeth I, England began a process of allowing religious freedom, but only after the horrors of her half-sister, "Bloody Mary," and wars were fought for centuries over the acts -- in complicity and collusion -- of Church and State.

Bloody Mary's reign of violence was based on reinstating Catholicism (a denomination as I defined such above) as the official religion of England. Mary was the daughter of King Henry XIII and Queen Catherine of Aragon, a marriage which was arranged between King Henry's brother and Catherine to unite the powers of England and Spain (Catherine was a Spanish princess, the daughter of Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II of Aragon). When his brother died prematurely, Henry became the heir to the throne of England and the arranged marriage fell to him. Afterwards, Henry became disillusioned with Catherine and wished to divorce her and marry Anne Boleyn.

To do so required special dispensation from the Holy Roman Church, which was denied Henry. So Henry broke from the Holy Roman Church (Catholic) and founded the Church of England based on Protestant principles. As head of the Church of England, Henry was able to grant that special dispensation to himself and marry Queen Anne.

Bloody Mary's reign was primarily an act of vengeance against Henry and his rejection of Catholicism, since her mother Catherine had been "shamed" by Henry's actions. I believe her ultimate goal was to reunite the Church of England with the Holy Roman Church, a goal she was never able to accomplish.

Now how does any of that have anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Uh, what? How can there be two lords? Are you sure you know what a lord is?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Are you sure you know what you are?

All these labels and camps....lol..... it's so divisive......but the labels are believed in.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yeah, pretty sure I'm a redneck.

ETA: I wasn't aware I was labeling anyone. I am using words which have set definitions. I know of no other way to communicate.

My Dad used to say, "It's good to keep an open mind, but no so open your brains fall out." Words have meanings which cannot be changed without changing the ideas conveyed in ways unintended by the speakers.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yeah, pretty sure I'm a redneck.

So you are just a word....a label?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No, I am what I define as a redneck. Words are like boxes used to convey ideas and concepts. We receive those boxes not because we like the boxes but because of what's inside them... what they convey.

If we carry your apparent intention forward, all these symbols we are reading are words. If these words have no set definition agreed upon by those using them, then they carry no actual meaning whatsoever and we are unable to communicate.

So I could take this:

Has it ever been considered that Polytheism is where there are two lords?
You + God

and decide it syas this:

I want a pony.

I can't help you get a pony.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now how does any of that have anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus?

Apparently, we agree that it doesn't.

But we cannot pretend that all of Christianity is limited to the teachings of Jesus. There have long been divisions and acrimony over the role of Saul of Tarsus aka St. Paul, and his perceived authority and teachings which often directly contradict the teachings of Jesus. Faith over works, for example.

PAUL vs. JESUS A List of Contradictory and Incompatible Statements

Nor can we pretend that monarchs/governments were not reigning under a belief that their authority was ordained directly from God -- the so-called "divine right of kings". As you noted, Henry VIII consulted the Pope of the (Catholic) Church first to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and only when rejected did he decide to reject the Church and establish his own -- the Church of England, which is still the official religion of England, governed by the reigning monarch. Henry could have simply rejected all forms of religious authority in government, but he did not. Henry also used the perceived power and authority of religion to prop up his power and authority as king.

But Henry was not the first to rebel/protest against the power and authority of the Church. The Huguenots for example were protesting the authority of the Church long before Henry VIII decided to rebel against the Church.

So --

Now how does any of that have anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus?

It doesn't. But the reigning monarchs still used the Church to fortify and legitimize their tyranny to dictate and persecute the masses to their will, which is the point. The Founding Fathers well knew this, it was their reality and lived experience, and their inspiration/motivation to ensure that it could not and would not happen in founding the union of these united states.

Hence, our foundation of Natural Law and Natural Rights endowed by our Creator... Nature's God. NOT a Christian god.

a reply to: Boadicea

Notice that the constitution and bill of rights were penned by mortal hands and not carved in clay tablets by enigmatic agencies that may or may not be democratic in nature.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Have you ever heard the term 'know thyself'?

a reply to: Boadicea

Your Christianity is not necessarily my Christianity, or anyone else's Christianity. And you cannot force it upon me or anyon else.

You are still trying to impose your version of Christianity upon the rest of us.

You keep saying this. Can you quote me where I am doing this?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Boadicea

Notice that the constitution and bill of rights were penned by mortal hands and not carved in clay tablets by enigmatic agencies that may or may not be democratic in nature.

Excellent observation! (Although I would like to know a bit more about that particular burning bush... clambake anyone???)

The Founding Fathers did not proclaim any divine right or knowledge of their own, but rather they proclaimed a natural and universal system of laws and principles that are self-evident. In other words, demonstrable and knowable by any and all simply by the facts of what we can do for ourselves and by ourselves. No God or divine ordination necessary or proper.

Taking that a bit further, Jesus Himself made the same point in his ministry and parables, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan, and making a clear distinction between that which is man and that which is of God in telling the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, to God that which is God's." Those are just a couple examples.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

You keep saying this. Can you quote me where I am doing this?

The very fact that you are insisting we are founded on "Christian" principles, although there is absolutely no mention of Christian principles in our founding documents, and no definitive description of these Christian principles in our founding documents, so whatever Christian principles you are spouting are your own version of Christian principles.

As I have already pointed out in other comments, at the time of our founding, religious freedom was NOT a Christian principle. In fact, it was exactly the opposite!

The contradiction should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see and the ears to listen...

a reply to: Boadicea

That kind of language is revealing in the sense that "Caesar" is a title as much as a name, representing the sovereign authority type official that is often disdained in modern politics. Emperor, king, fuhrer, the mantle doesn't matter as much as the reputation and influence. Has there ever been a "Caesar" who wasn't ultimately resented or punished for their crimes?

Apparently 3 times, unless you can find more examples.

Park Chung Hee: South Korean dictator. Paved the way for SK's economic "miracle on the Han River" by fostering industry and economic reforms. Although he was assassinated, many older Koreans remember him fondly and his daughter is now the democratically elected president of South Korea.

Cincinnatus: (5th century BC Rome) The "first" "good dictator". A farmer who took control of Rome (in a constitutional way, having been acclaimed by the people) after a series of catastrophic Roman defeats at the hands of nearby tribes. Cincinnatus leads Rome to victory, and then voluntarily resigns absolute power to go back to being a farmer.

The Gonghe regency: (8th century BC China). The King of China is overthrown by a coalition of nobles (supposedly because he was oppressing the people as well as the nobles). Instead of seizing power for themselves, the nobles nominate two dukes to rule until the King's heir came of age. The two lords kept their word, and allowed the King's heir to come to the throne once he became an adult.

More trivia than damning evidence but these are the best historical accounts of a "successful" Caesar type administration, two of which self terminated.

a reply to: Boadicea

But we cannot pretend that all of Christianity is limited to the teachings of Jesus.

Of Jesus? No. But of Christ (the anointing of God)? Certainly so.

I repeat, Christ (christos) is not Jesus of Nazareth's last name. Others can have God's anointing; it is what Christianity generally refers to as the "Holy Spirit." Jesus, however, has it in a greater amount as He is the only one born without sin. To accept teachings that are not of Christ is to accept teachings that are not of God and are false.

This all ties back to that personal relationship with God I spoke of. I realize to someone who has never experienced it (and that even includes some Christians), the concept seems alien and even irrational; it did to me before I experienced it. But it is an actual thing, and it is not simple adherence to rules... it is actual communication on a basic level with a greater Being: the Creator Himself. That is what the anointing is: a personal relationship with a Being so much greater than ourselves, and yet One who loves us to a degree that itself seems impossible.

It is a poor comparison, but consider your relationship with your best friend... is it based on rules they have written down and by which you must abide? Or is it based in trust and personal communication?

John had the anointing. Yet John was simply a man. Therefore, if John stated something that contradicted Jesus, it would be foolhardy to think that John would have superior insight. I looked over your link, and yes, at first glance it would appear John said things contrary to Jesus... but are those statements shown in context? I cannot say for sure at this time (it will take time to study them all) but I would suspect not.

Nor can we pretend that monarchs/governments were not reigning under a belief that their authority was ordained directly from God -- the so-called "divine right of kings".

I can believe I am an orange frog. Does that mean I can jump between lily pads?

Just because a man believes something, it does not make that something real. King Henry died of syphilis, which caused literal insanity toward the end of his life. Maybe he wound up believing he was an orange frog.

The Church has no authority, as we define authority. There is only one true authority, and that is God Himself. God granted humanity (man) with free will when He made man, so man has the right to accept or deny God. Any attempt to force men into acceptance of God is futile, and I believe actually harmful to accomplishing the goal. Our purpose is to evangelize, yes, but not to shove the Word down people's throats... instead, our actions and our lives serve to entice the unbelievers into at least investigating what we have.

Those who refuse to accept God have every right to do so, and we as Christians have no right whatsoever to tell them different. There will be consequences down the road, but it is still each person's individual choice and cannot be forced by definition. I will not bother talking to others about my faith unless and until they bring the subject up; then I am glad to answer any questions they have. I do not wish to bore them. If they are ready to hear, they will ask.

To attribute authority to men who call themselves a church is in itself a denial of God's supremacy. I am a Christian; I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and that the same Jesus rose from the dead three days later and ascended to the right hand of God. I accept that there are many who have greater faith than I, but I do my best. I enjoy a good sermon that helps clarify God's Word. But there is only one Being in the Universe that has any true authority over me, and that is God. A church has absolutely zero authority over me.

But the reigning monarchs still used the Church to fortify and legitimize their tyranny to dictate and persecute the masses to their will, which is the point. The Founding Fathers well knew this, it was their reality and lived experience, and their inspiration/motivation to ensure that it could not and would not happen in founding the union of these united states.

I will agree with that.

Hence, our foundation of Natural Law and Natural Rights endowed by our Creator... Nature's God. NOT a Christian god.

There is no "Christian God." There is but one God. He may go by different names to different cultures, and some of those cultures may or may not actually serve the true God... I do not know and I do not judge. But I do know that there is only one God.

I also know that that one true God is also the God of nature... He created it, after all. So nature's law is also a part of God's law.

And on that, I leave you with this:

Matthew 5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

To be fulfilled, a thing must have a purpose. What is the purpose of the law? How was that purpose fulfilled?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I believe revelations answers the question of purpose and fulfilment in all it's apocalyptic dystopian glory.

Not that it has anything to do with gender politics and youth indoctrination.

a reply to: Boadicea

at the time of our founding, religious freedom was NOT a Christian principle.

So you're saying that God is fickle over time? That He changes his mind based on what men think at the time?

I disagree.

TheRedneck