CPAPtalk.com

rooster wrote:

Liam1965 wrote:......
Liam, tired of proponents of various religions angry at me for not following THEIR teachings.........

At what time of day/week/year does this happen? I am in the Bible belt and just tried to remember when I was last approached like that. The only example I came up with was at least 30 years ago.

Oh, in that particular case, I was thinking about an argument I was having with someone over actions of people like Ted Haggard. I have some very Christian friends who are willing to forgive his homosexuality, extramarital excursions and drug use, because he's Christian and knows that they are bad and knows he needs to confess and atone, while feeling that people who are NOT Christian are therefore much worse for doing the same things, because they haven't accepted the rules that say they're bad.

For me, I tend to think if you believe something is bad but you do it anyway, you're arguably WORSE than someone who does something bad that they have not realized or accepted IS bad.

Sort of the old "do as I say, not as I do" writ large.

Liam, whose scale is writ larger than he would like.

Ted Haggard is probably not the best example I could come up with, he's just the one that sprang first to mind.

It's the idea of people who have several divorces under their belts moralizing on the "sanctity" of marriage. Or people like Elliot Spitzer making a career out of taking down prostitutes and their "johns" while employing the services of prostitutes themselves. Or people who make a career out of demonizing homosexuals while getting a little "guy strange" on the side.

Whenever pushed, they always seem to fall back on an argument that boils down to "No one is perfect, but at least as a Christian, I know that what I'm doing is wrong and I'm constantly working to atone and get the forgiveness of my Lord", which seems ludicrous to me. If I am a member of a religion that does not view homosexuality as wrong, that perhaps views homosexuality as another human condition that God made and therefore just as much a part of God's creation as heterosexuality, then I don't think a member of my church is worse for being gay than the member of a church who is, but "at least knows it is wrong".

I keep talking around it, and I don't feel like I'm making my point any clearer, so I'll stop.

Liam, who doesn't think anything is wrong, and is therefore free to do whatever he wants. Er, um, yeah.

Yea ... kind'a like some state governors (well in my state anyway) who "profess" being pro life and then turn right around and sign orders for execution of state inmates. And then there are all those law makers who create our tax laws and then cheat on or don't pay their taxes.

DreamStalker wrote:Yea ... kind'a like some state governors (well in my state anyway) who "profess" being pro life and then turn right around and sign orders for execution of state inmates. And then there are all those law makers who create our tax laws and then cheat on or don't pay their taxes.

Well, not exactly equal, considering the state inmate probably killed at least one person, and I don't think an unborn child has killed anyone.

Maybe some other argument would work, but not this one.

But, I understand the point you're trying to make---don't say one thing and do something else.

EDIT: Not arguing for or against the death penalty here; but to me, the comparison doesn't fit.

Liam1965 wrote:Ted Haggard is probably not the best example I could come up with, he's just the one that sprang first to mind.

It's the idea of people who have several divorces under their belts moralizing on the "sanctity" of marriage. Or people like Elliot Spitzer making a career out of taking down prostitutes and their "johns" while employing the services of prostitutes themselves. Or people who make a career out of demonizing homosexuals while getting a little "guy strange" on the side.

Whenever pushed, they always seem to fall back on an argument that boils down to "No one is perfect, but at least as a Christian, I know that what I'm doing is wrong and I'm constantly working to atone and get the forgiveness of my Lord", which seems ludicrous to me. If I am a member of a religion that does not view homosexuality as wrong, that perhaps views homosexuality as another human condition that God made and therefore just as much a part of God's creation as heterosexuality, then I don't think a member of my church is worse for being gay than the member of a church who is, but "at least knows it is wrong". Y

I keep talking around it, and I don't feel like I'm making my point any clearer, so I'll stop.

Liam, who doesn't think anything is wrong, and is therefore free to do whatever he wants. Er, um, yeah.

Speaking from a Christian faith perspective here...No one is exempt from temptations and falling prey to them, including real Christians, the Christian faith, BUT, continuing on the, say, homosexual path (as an example), and then using the excuse that I've highlighted above isn't right, I agree. Jesus forgave the prostitute, but then told her to "go and sin no more." So, thinking you can just ask for God's forgiveness and then continue on down the same path doesn't cut it. You have to be making strides in the direction out of that if you're truly sincere in your desire to change. Sometimes you have to struggle with it as you attempt to change, but there should be some progress.

Fredman wrote:I wonder how many people died in the Crusades, admittedly the crusades were not in the twentieth century.

Millions. However, most Christians today will agree that the Crusades were despicable. I find that those who must use the Crusades to denigrate and vilify Christians and Christianity today typically refuse to acknowledge that Christians today just might be a bit different than the Crusaders and the corrupt individuals who were behind them. If they could acknowledge it, it would not be used as a club agains our faith.

During WWII, the prisoners of war held by the Japanese were treated brutally; tortured, maimed and such. For years some people in the US vilified Japan and those of Japanese descent, until it was no longer politically correct (rightfully so), after all, we can't judge the general Japanese public for the decades old actions of a segment of their people. Germany exterminated millions of Jews, but today Germans do not get vilified for the atrocities committed by a segment of their nation's peoples decades ago. Yet, an atrocity that occurred centuries ago is still used by those who choose to use that as a tool to "bash" Christianity and Christians. I would like to go on record that *I* personally did not participate in the Crusades, and like most people, feel they are a very dark period of history. As such, I would appreciate it if the Crusades are not used to vilify me for being a Christian today.


Regarding the "religion" of atheism, however, even today there are campaigns in the world to persecute, imprison and in some cases, even kill those who are Christian (or many other religions). I still find it difficult to understand what is is about my faith in God that makes others so angry, to the point where I am called derisive names and treated harshly. I do not go around pushing my faith on others. I will discuss it, if the other person wants to. Otherwise, I simply make it known that I am a Christian, and try to live the example I've been taught to live. I don't judge other's "sins", I have too much difficulty trying to get rid of the plank in my own eye.

DreamStalker wrote:Yea ... kind'a like some state governors (well in my state anyway) who "profess" being pro life and then turn right around and sign orders for execution of state inmates. And then there are all those law makers who create our tax laws and then cheat on or don't pay their taxes.

We are having a speaker at our church later this month that will speak to exacly that issue, that pro-life is pro-life, regardless of the circumstances. I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons, but primarly because all life is sacred, and with the exception of clear self defense, no one has the right to take someone else's life.

WearyOne wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:Yea ... kind'a like some state governors (well in my state anyway) who "profess" being pro life and then turn right around and sign orders for execution of state inmates. And then there are all those law makers who create our tax laws and then cheat on or don't pay their taxes.

Well, not exactly equal, considering the state inmate probably killed at least one person, and I don't think an unborn child has killed anyone.

Maybe some other argument would work, but not this one.

But, I understand the point you're trying to make---don't say one thing and do something else.

EDIT: Not arguing for or against the death penalty here; but to me, the comparison doesn't fit.

No no ... you misunderstood. I didn't say the unborn were killers at all nor was I even comparing the unborn to adult killers ... I said the governor claims to be FOR life but then signs orders FOR death. Comparison was between hypocrites and pro life governors and it fits quite well and is exactly equal.

Debjax wrote:

Fredman wrote:I wonder how many people died in the Crusades, admittedly the crusades were not in the twentieth century.

Millions. However, most Christians today will agree that the Crusades were despicable. I find that those who must use the Crusades to denigrate and vilify Christians and Christianity today typically refuse to acknowledge that Christians today just might be a bit different than the Crusaders and the corrupt individuals who were behind them. If they could acknowledge it, it would not be used as a club agains our faith.

... As such, I would appreciate it if the Crusades are not used to vilify me for being a Christian today.

... I still find it difficult to understand what is is about my faith in God that makes others so angry, to the point where I am called derisive names and treated harshly. I do not go around pushing my faith on others...Otherwise, I simply make it known that I am a Christian, and try to live the example I've been taught to live. I don't judge other's "sins", I have too much difficulty trying to get rid of the plank in my own eye.

-SWS wrote: ........ Forcing human will, in the name of a creator and belief system, is an overly recurring sad failure in the history of mankind, IMHO.

-SWS,

In my opinion it is sad when this happens to even one individual.

But I believe this has been a very small part of the world history of atrocities. If you count deaths, more than 95% of the history was dominated by non-religious encounters.

However, the sins of Christianity are routinely exaggerated and I would like to see the record set straight.

Regards,

Rooster

Debjax, my comment was not an attack or trying to vilify Christianity. It was an honest question in response to Roosters comments. Yeah unfortunately, whether you are a Christian, Muslim or other faith sometimes society and yes history, revisionist or not - for whatever reasons relates atrocities to a religion. Your example of the Japanese is an excellent one and again my question was just that.

Do you assume that I am not Christian?

Finally sme good news out of Washington D.C.

Senate Rejects Obama Plan to Cut Tax Breaks on Charitable Gifts
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Brian Faler

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate rejected a proposal by President Barack Obama to finance an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system by limiting the ability of the well-to-do to take tax deductions for charitable contributions.

The chamber unanimously approved an amendment to a pending budget plan that rejects the proposal to limit the size of itemized deductions that can be taken by those earning more than $250,000.

Obama proposed using the estimated $318 billion such a change would generate to help finance a health-care overhaul, which he says will cost at least $630 billion. Lawmakers said they feared the effect of such a tax change on charities.

“The Senate sent a clear message to the president,” said Senator Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican who sponsored the amendment. “Charities benefit greatly from the donations made by individuals in this income bracket, and raising taxes on these contributions would be a disservice to Americans and the millions of charities across the country.”

That was something that always worried me about a "flat tax" which I always kind of favored except that pearl.

It seems to me, tho, that the charitable donations should be restricted to cash only so "items" don't become the heathily overestimated value they are now. So many charitable "item" donations today are just that, overvalued, ovestimated tax dodges.

Debjax, my comment was not an attack or trying to vilify Christianity. It was an honest question in response to Roosters comments. Yeah unfortunately, whether you are a Christian, Muslim or other faith sometimes society and yes history, revisionist or not - for whatever reasons relates atrocities to a religion. Your example of the Japanese is an excellent one and again my question was just that.

Do you assume that I am not Christian?

Nope, I ass/u/me nothing.... My comment was a general one, in response to your question. I did not mean to infer that your question was critical of Christianity, I was making the comment based on observations over the years.....One of my next classes will be on church history, I suspect we'll be covering the Crusades in detail. My apologies if my comments seemed to be personal towards you, they were not meant that way.

I usually don't have much to say when a person has an opinion when they don't know ALL the issues or only present one side of an issue, but can anyone here remember which president or political party put our back against this rock and hard place? To label someone or their actions as communist, socialist, or Marxist, is an easy way out of really trying to develop an understanding of the entire reality of a problem. It's not a positive mental effort because it's real purpose is negativity.

My father always asked when i returned home from school,
"So what did you learn today? Did you learn how to think or what to believe?"

nuff said.
close this topic.

DYNE540 wrote:I usually don't have much to say when a person has an opinion when they don't know ALL the issues or only present one side of an issue, but can anyone here remember which president or political party put our back against this rock and hard place?

Oooo, ooooo. I know, I know. Carter.

. . . no wait - Clinton.

. . . Barrack Osama?

Debjax wrote:

Debjax, my comment was not an attack or trying to vilify Christianity. It was an honest question in response to Roosters comments. Yeah unfortunately, whether you are a Christian, Muslim or other faith sometimes society and yes history, revisionist or not - for whatever reasons relates atrocities to a religion. Your example of the Japanese is an excellent one and again my question was just that.

Do you assume that I am not Christian?

Nope, I ass/u/me nothing.... My comment was a general one, in response to your question. I did not mean to infer that your question was critical of Christianity, I was making the comment based on observations over the years.....One of my next classes will be on church history, I suspect we'll be covering the Crusades in detail. My apologies if my comments seemed to be personal towards you, they were not meant that way.

Thanks Debjax. But I really do appreciate your comments. Too many people stand on the sidelines and don't express their thoughts or concerns. That's why we have a forum! At the end of the day

We are all Hosers!