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

a reply to: TzarChasm

Quite possible. I personally like to think the ultimate fulfillment is the salvation of the believers as opposed to the punishment of the wicked. Love over revenge.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TzarChasm

Quite possible. I personally like to think the ultimate fulfillment is the salvation of the believers as opposed to the punishment of the wicked. Love over revenge.

TheRedneck

You can prefer all you like but it's actually love AND revenge, if memory serves. But maybe it only looks like love from inside the vehicle because that's how psychosis works. All I know is that history warns us about "righteous crusades", no matter who is doing the exterminating and how brilliant their strategy appears on paper, they always end up hurting innocent people and creating more problems than they solve.

With that said, I respect your lifestyle and don't want to deprive you of that identity.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Another good point. There have been "benevolent dictators" in history, but they have been few and far between, whatever their choice of rationale.

More often, tyrants and dictators have used divine authority to prop up their tyranny.

If I'm not mistaken, some Roman Emperors ("Caesars") claimed that they themselves were "gods," or at least divine rather than human. This in part fed the early schism in the Church over whether Jesus Himself was wholly divine, part divine, or initially human and then wholly divine after being baptized by John the Baptist.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now you are coming very close to a form of Gnosticism -- personal "knowledge" of the spirit. (Which was considered a heresy in the early Church and up to and including today by many!)

But I'm not sure what your greater point is. Of course there are many interpretations and perspectives on Christianity, including doctrines and principles that are not directly attributed to Jesus. But how does that figure in the thinking and reasoning of the Founding Fathers, who considered it right and necessary to omit and preclude a Christian foundation for the new union/nation they were establishing?

In terms of the "divine rights of kings" accepted as divine truth and official state religions at the time of our founding, versus the understanding we have today that religious worship/practice is a personal thing not subject to government dictates, it is BECAUSE the founding fathers rejected entirely in theory and in practice that rulers were ordained by God, and ensured that our founding principles were universal, not religious. We could not and would not have this perspective otherwise. We would still be practicing (or fighting) whatever official faith the government forced upon us.

originally posted by: Boadicea
If I'm not mistaken, some Roman Emperors ("Caesars") claimed that they themselves were "gods," or at least divine rather than human.

Yes and no. They claimed divine ancestry, like the Julii claiming to be descended from Venus. There was also apotheosis but it was more of a demi-god type role then a co-equal with say Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Even the living ones who claimed divinity were not recognized the same as the regular Roman Pantheon beyond their own individual reigns.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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

Of course that's not what I'm saying! If anything, what I'm saying is that MAN got it wrong!!!

I'm not debating Christianity with you. I am arguing that this nation was NOT founded on Christian principles, which varies with the person and the times. And at the time of our founding, religious beliefs and practices were dictated by both the Church and the State in collusion, cooperation and coordination. (With tragic consequences)

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

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes and no. They claimed divine ancestry, like the Julii claiming to be descended from Venus. There was also apotheosis but it was more of a demi-god type role then a co-equal with say Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Even the living ones who claimed divinity were not recognized the same as the regular Roman Pantheon beyond their own individual reigns.

Ahhhhh... gotcha!

So something of divine status within a divine hierarchy bestowed by their ancestry or heredity, among the many gods/goddesses. I know I stated that very awkwardly!

a reply to: TzarChasm

history warns us about "righteous crusades"

It certainly does. That's the paradox of religion... it is entirely possible to violate the very tenets of religion while sincerely believing one is following those tenets. I continually feel the need to remind myself to shut up and sit down, because there is a desire to over-evangelize. That desire is not based on a desire to control (which I believe is a sin in and of itself) but a desire to help... but that does not excuse it.

The Spanish inquisition was a time of great torment of Christians and non-Christians alike, led by Christians who thought they were doing "good." The same with the Salem Witch Trials.

On the other hand, one need not hold to a particular religion to oppress. The same history that cautions us against "righteous crusades" also cautions us against crusades in general. One need not be religious to be fanatical; one only need be fanatical. Nazi Germany, for example, was not a theocracy; it was more secular than anything. Yet, atrocities were committed on par with some of the worst religious crusades.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

Now you are coming very close to a form of Gnosticism -- personal "knowledge" of the spirit.

I'm not sure I would call it Gnosticism, at least not as I understand Gnosticism. I do have some knowledge of the Holy Spirit, because I have received the Holy Spirit. That does not translate to me knowing God's overall plan, or even His plan for me... just because I know where the controls are on a Camaro, it does not follow that I know everything about said Camaro.

I have received some information, but that information was intended for me. It is not my place to disseminate it; that is not my calling. For all I know, it might not apply to anyone else.

But I'm not sure what your greater point is. Of course there are many interpretations and perspectives on Christianity, including doctrines and principles that are not directly attributed to Jesus. But how does that figure in the thinking and reasoning of the Founding Fathers, who considered it right and necessary to omit and preclude a Christian foundation for the new union/nation they were establishing?

it comes into play because the Founding Fathers were primarily Christian. They approached life from a Christian perspective. Thus, Christian principles were incorporated into the founding documents.

One of those is the right to be secure in one's own home. Believe it or not, that is a Christian principle; Jesus said that we are to pray in private, not in public to draw attention to ourselves. How can one pray in private if one has no privacy? The right to freedom of speech as well allows for that special, personal relationship with our Creator; without it, people would be unable to speak of things that God may wish spoken.

You are making a correlation between historical abuses of Christianity and Christianity itself as defined by the Christ (through Jesus). Of course the religion can be perverted... what religion has not at some time been perverted by man? To use that as a yardstick is to deny all religion, which would be the equivalent of denying truth... and is denying truth not what this thread is ultimately about? We are (were) discussing how NJ schools were promoting untruths such as multiple genders and promoting a lifestyle that children cannot comprehend and will lead to future pain as acceptable and normal.

Man does not define Christ. Christ defines man. Christian law (which is really not even a "law" as it is completely voluntary) is "natural law" since nature comes from the same source as Christianity.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

I am obviously not pushing any religion on anyone and you haven't and cannot quote where I have.

I'm not going to keep reiterating my point, what I typed here were facts wheather you want to accept them or not.

This discussion is terminated. Have a good day!

a reply to: Boadicea

Of course that's not what I'm saying! If anything, what I'm saying is that MAN got it wrong!!!

Good; I was in hopes that I was misunderstanding, which is why I asked the question.

I am also in complete agreement with the fact that man got things wrong. We seem to be quite good at accomplishing that. I suppose it's a species talent.

So let me ask this: if man "got it wrong" (as we both agree on), why does that wrongness need be incorporated into the religion? If it is wrong it is wrong. The concept of establishing the USA on "Christian principles" would be those principles that the Founding Fathers recognized; I get that. But who are we to say what principles they understood at the time?

In my previous post, I gave two examples of how the Bill of Rights included items that promoted Christianity. At the same time, the "freedom of religion" clause specifically forbids the establishment of an official religion. Could that be because the leader of the Church of England was interfering with their practice of Christianity? I think so. In the Declaration of Independence, they state the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This was also an unheard-of statement at the time. As you mentioned, governments back then more often than not believed they ruled by divine privilege. The Founding Fathers stated different, that their rights were "unalienable," indicating that these rights were not conferred by any government. A right conferred by a government can be removed by said government.

They also stated all men are created equal, an obvious reference to a Creator, and stating such creation is equal also indicates the same as is stated in the Bible in Acts 10:34:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

These are statements of faith incorporated seamlessly into the documents our country is founded on. However, in their wisdom, those same Founding Fathers saw how easily religion could be used to oppress and forbad the use of religion to the government. That does not mean the Christian principles did not exist; it meant they were reserved for people, not for government.

We agree on quite a lot here. I believe the major point of contention is a misunderstanding of "Christian principles" versus "natural law." Perhaps you could provide a definition of those terms?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have no idea how you got this --

Of course the religion can be perverted... what religion has not at some time been perverted by man? To use that as a yardstick is to deny all religion...

-- from me saying that our nation was founded on Natural Law, and NOT on Christian principles. Albeit, all three -- our founding principles, Natural Law, and Christian principles -- are often compatible and even complementary. But, obviously, at the time of the founding, freedom of religion and freedom of worship were not Christian principles, as practiced and understood at the time. That is our understanding and interpretation of scriptures now, as informed by the philosophy and institutionalization of Natural Law by the Founding Fathers.

So, in practice, and to bring this directly back to the OP, neither Gender Ideologists NOR Christians may impose their beliefs on anyone else, but both have a right to believe what they believe.

Further, we have decided for reasonable and rational reasons that the choices of and for children MUST be safeguarded and protected, including medical procedures with known and unknown short-term and long-term adverse consequences, and that parents are virtually always their greatest advocate AND the one with primary responsibility for doing so. But we must also protect their developing minds from undue influence, and especially dangerous influences, while providing children with the best facts and information appropriate and necessary to be thoughtful and reasonable adults. At which time, they can make their own choices and believe what they choose to believe.

No religion necessary or appropriate.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And yet the early Christians were persecuted for failing to recognize the divinity of the Roman emperors. So the Romans clearly put their emperors in a divine level at least by that time. However, Romans were into ancestor worship. It was the catch-22 in Roman religious tolerance. They were more than willing to allow you to carry on with your own religion and worship, and quite likely Romans would then pick it up as some new, interesting cult, but you had to acknowledge the divinity of the Roman emperor.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So let me ask this: if man "got it wrong" (as we both agree on), why does that wrongness need be incorporated into the religion?

It doesn't need to be! But it is incorporated into religion by men (and women -- not being sexist here!), and especially those who use religion for their own power and benefit.

If it is wrong it is wrong.

Agreed.

The concept of establishing the USA on "Christian principles" would be those principles that the Founding Fathers recognized; I get that. But who are we to say what principles they understood at the time?

I'll go back to my previous example of Church and State working together, under self-proclaimed divine power and authority, to deny people freedom of religion and worship. So, yes, the Founding Fathers recognized that was wrong, and turned to the philosophy of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and others -- Natural Law. The principles are compatible and complementary, but the authority is derived from a universal "Nature's God" and "our Creator", rather than the Christian practice and principles of the time. The Founding Fathers needed to -- and did -- look outside the official (forced) Christian religion to the highest source of all and found it was "self-evident".

In my previous post, I gave two examples of how the Bill of Rights included items that promoted Christianity. At the same time, the "freedom of religion" clause specifically forbids the establishment of an official religion. Could that be because the leader of the Church of England was interfering with their practice of Christianity?

I would say most definitely!!!

In the Declaration of Independence...[snip]...This was also an unheard-of statement at the time. As you mentioned, governments back then more often than not believed they ruled by divine privilege. The Founding Fathers stated different, that their rights were "unalienable," indicating that these rights were not conferred by any government.

In the previous paragraph, they give their source and their inspiration:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They did not say "Laws of Jesus and of Jesus' God," because these are universal and common to all mankind -- not just for or by Christians.

A right conferred by a government can be removed by said government.

Yup! If they have the power to give it, they have the power to take it away. Whatever they have the power to do for you, they have the power to do to you.

These are statements of faith incorporated seamlessly into the documents our country is founded on. However, in their wisdom, those same Founding Fathers saw how easily religion could be used to oppress and forbad the use of religion to the government.

Perhaps the lesson and inspiration here for us is that mankind hasn't completely screwed up the teachings of Jesus! But Jesus did tell us that we on earth are limited in our ability to fully comprehend that which is of Heaven. And since mankind is of God, it must include us and our existance as well. God don't make no junk, but we're still a work in progress.

That does not mean the Christian principles did not exist; it meant they were reserved for people, not for government.

Of course they existed! But they were flawed then (due to man) and are still flawed today (due to man). Albeit not completely (lucky for us!).

We agree on quite a lot here. I believe the major point of contention is a misunderstanding of "Christian principles" versus "natural law." Perhaps you could provide a definition of those terms?

I posted these earlier for another poster, hopefully one of these might better explain where I'm coming from:

Natural Law: The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law

JOHN LOCKE and the NATURAL LAW and NATURAL RIGHTS TRADITION

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW- and the brilliance of the Founding Fathers

a reply to: Boadicea

when you went with saying promoting "christian tyranny" you clearly show your INGORANCE due to religious/Christian hatred.

first the founding fathers did say "natural law" but in context that GOD CREATED NATURE hence "natural law"

so the "natural law" they stated was RELIGIOUS christian NON DENIMOINATIONAL based vs your concept of NON RELIGIOUS (without / not religious based) law which is law of the jungle.

you cant have it both ways you claim they were for natural law but DISCOUNT/REMOVE religion from it.

two.. if you had even did a brief .025 google search on the first immigrants to the new world you see they were escaping a PARTICULAR version of religious persecution

that the "church of england" was the official and ONLY ALLOWED religion of england.. if you worshiped ANY OTHER from non church of england CHRISTIAN sects to jews to islam or even NO RELIGION AT ALL.. you could not hold office, there were laws on other things you could not do and any "persecution" to include physical attacks and DEATH.

The founders wanted RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR ALL.. not just "christians" and you could (as stated multiple times in their writings) NOT WORSHIP OR BELIEVE AT ALL.

hence NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

if you dont believe.. then DONT GO WORSHIP and unlike england you had no restrictions or risk of DEATH for not following any or a particular one.

third and most final

SHOW ME WHERE YOU OR ANY EXAMPLE OF PERSECUTION due to "christianity being forced on you"

btw forced DOES NOT MEAN you hear a prayer at a graduation, the coach calls the team in prayer , ect.. your NOT FORCED TO PARTICIPATE OR BELIEVE.. just be RESPECTFUL and silent . you know like when people stand at the olympics for the national athem of other countries.

also having the ten commandments in a courtroom wall is NOT FORCING RELIGION ON YOU .. you dont have to (as previously stated) honor the first two and the rest are THE BASIS OF ALL LAWS / PROTECTION YOU ENJOY.

in short show me EXACTLY WHERE you face even part of what the FOUNDING FATHERS fled from england.

just because you "feel" forced /threatened/offended" does not constitute what you claim

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Nothing you said has any bearing or significance to what I am saying. And you don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying. You have, however, made very clear with your rude and insulting comments that you are exactly the type of Christian that I do not want to have any power at all whatsoever over me or my nation.

If I'm wrong, I have had a really awesome discussion with another poster in which I explain, expand and clarify my reasoning, history and facts that you can read for further understanding. If you want to continue with a reasonable discussion, I am happy to do so. If not, that's okay too.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: scrounger

Nothing you said has any bearing or significance to what I am saying. And you don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying. You have, however, made very clear with your rude and insulting comments that you are exactly the type of Christian that I do not want to have any power at all whatsoever over me or my nation.

If I'm wrong, I have had a really awesome discussion with another poster in which I explain, expand and clarify my reasoning, history and facts that you can read for further understanding. If you want to continue with a reasonable discussion, I am happy to do so. If not, that's okay too.

so what your saying is you cant counter or own up to your claim of "christian tyranny" so go with the "exactly the type of christian" crack

again simple question

what "christian tyranny" have you had DONE TO YOU in USA law..

its a simple question

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

so what your saying is you cant counter or own up to your claim of "christian tyranny" so go with the "exactly the type of christian" crack

I said what I said. I meant what I said. And I said what I meant. Choosing not to do something is not inability to do something. Your presumptions are your own.

again simple question

what "christian tyranny" have you had DONE TO YOU in USA law..

its a simple question

A simple question I choose not to answer, because it's not a reasonable question, nor is it asked in any good faith. Rather, it's snarky and presumptuous.

So no thanks. I'm not playing.

a reply to: Boadicea

so what your saying is "i can make a claim of christian tyranny", say someone (me) who calls you out on it with facts is a "christian tyrant" then when AGAIN asked a DIRECT QUESTION about what YOURSELF CLAIMED/ACCUSED..

you then REFUSE TO ANSWER with YOUR OPINION its "not a reasonable question".

YOU MADE THE ACCUSATION, NOW BACK IT UP..

or your just an anti religious attacking BLOWHARD that thinks they cannot be challenged, just accepted.

so "take your ball and go home" childish antics..

sad you cant back up your words..

so you cannot in any logical way be taken seriously except for an anti christian spewing blowhard.
as seen by your comments

got it

scrounger

originally posted by: ketsuko
And yet the early Christians were persecuted for failing to recognize the divinity of the Roman emperors.

They were persecuted for not accepting the Roman pantheon of gods.