- Time
- Post link
Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Religion — Page 74
- Time
- Post link
Yea or nay?
- Time
- Post link
Those are my only choices?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
In God I trust. In man claiming to speak for God, I give them a case-by-case evaluation.
- Time
- Post link
Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Ooh, I can’t resist giving my two cents here…
Freedom of worship is not equivalent to freedom of religion, despite the opinion of many non-religious or nominally religious people. Therefore, I firmly believe that politicians must be allowed to let their religous beliefs influence their policies, since for them, it is no different than a non-religious person allowing their political beliefs to affect their decisions.
So I think a Catholic politician, assuming they are actually Catholic (i.e. believe everything the Church teaches), would be obliged to oppose abortion, regardless of what the majority felt was right within their constituency. It would be wrong for such a politician to promise that he would vote to maintain the status quo (which in Canada is 0 laws restricting abortion). On the other hand, such a politician would be wrong to vote to impose aspects of Catholicism on the general population that are only required of Catholics, such as abstaining from work on Sunday (and these two categories sort of blend into each other, so there’s definitely a grey area).
I also think those working in any public institution, whether they be a teacher, a senator, or a civil servant, should be free to express their religious beliefs openly and freely, provided they do not actually impose such beliefs on others. The idea that religion is a private affair that ought to be left at home when one goes to work is absurd, in my opinion, and preventing people from bringing their religion into the public sphere is a violation of their religious rights, as far as I am concerned.
- Time
- Post link
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
- Time
- Post link
In God I trust. In man claiming to speak for God, I give them a case-by-case evaluation.
But the question is really about allowing man to speak about God in the public setting, rather than speaking for him: Ten Commandments in front of court houses, references to Deity on currency, mentions of God in political discourse…that sort of thing.
- Time
- Post link
Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Ooh, I can’t resist giving my two cents here…
Freedom of worship is not equivalent to freedom of religion, despite the opinion of many non-religious or nominally religious people. Therefore, I firmly believe that politicians must be allowed to let their religous beliefs influence their policies, since for them, it is no different than a non-religious person allowing their political beliefs to affect their decisions.
So I think a Catholic politician, assuming they are actually Catholic (i.e. believe everything the Church teaches), would be obliged to oppose abortion, regardless of what the majority felt was right within their constituency. It would be wrong for such a politician to promise that he would vote to maintain the status quo (which in Canada is 0 laws restricting abortion). On the other hand, such a politician would be wrong to vote to impose aspects of Catholicism on the general population that are only required of Catholics, such as abstaining from work on Sunday (and these two categories sort of blend into each other, so there’s definitely a grey area).
I also think those working in any public institution, whether they be a teacher, a senator, or a civil servant, should be free to express their religious beliefs openly and freely, provided they do not actually impose such beliefs on others. The idea that religion is a private affair that ought to be left at home when one goes to work is absurd, in my opinion, and preventing people from bringing their religion into the public sphere is a violation of their religious rights, as far as I am concerned.
Well put and I agree, my friend.
- Time
- Post link
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
Can I choose “My little buttercup has the sweetest smile”?
- Time
- Post link
Well put and I agree, my friend.
That’s boring, how am I supposed to argue with people if no one disagrees with me? 😉
- Time
- Post link
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
Can I choose “My little buttercup has the sweetest smile”?
Only if it’s true and you’re not imposing that belief on anybody.
- Time
- Post link
In Frink’s little buttercup we trust.
- Time
- Post link
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
Can I choose “My little buttercup has the sweetest smile”?
Oh, I love that in-famous song!
- Time
- Post link
That song is evil and murderous? And it will save you money?
- Time
- Post link
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-god-were-a-giant-game-of-plinko/
- Time
- Post link
In light of the universe as it is, it’s impossible for God to be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Thus I choose to believe God is the former, not the latter.
- Time
- Post link
In light of the universe as it is, it’s impossible for God to be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Thus I choose to believe God is the former, not the latter.
It’s nice to hear this since there are many who think that it is possible for God to be both of those things at once with the evil in our world.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
.
.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Counter point: if God is all good, why would he waste his time with such depraved beings? He could still be omnipotent and have just given up on us.
Because They love us, perfectly. And such perfect love entails absolute freedom — freedom from compulsory belief, freedom from absolute obedience, and freedom of choice — be it good or evil.
But we’re children of God, and as such God exists in us, speaks to us, even if we’re unaware of it. it doesn’t matter what religion we follow, if we follow any religion at all — God reveals Their will to us, and we respond to that will. It has taken three million years of evolution, but we are improving as a species, and we are capable of shaping the imperfect universe around us into into a beautiful, godly paradise.
- Time
- Post link
Man you really are drunk.
- Time
- Post link
Man you really are drunk.
FYI, I was sobering up when I submitted my last post.
- Time
- Post link
Man you really are drunk.
FYI, I was sobering up when I submitted my last post.
FYI, it was a joke about how much the world actually sucks.
- Time
- Post link
impossible for God
False.
I don’t believe in god, but if it’s real, there’s nothing that’s impossible for it.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
God literally created time and space. There was no “beginning” before the beginning because before the beginning there was no time. As our universe expands, so does the boundaries of the space-time continuum. God created it. Therefore, he does not have to exist within it.
And therefore, because he created time itself and space itself, he is omnipotent and omnipresent because he is capable of being everywhere all the time.
Also, people who discount the existence of angels have never considered the concept of extradimensional planes of existence on which other beings may exist and be capable of some level of interaction with this one.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
- Time
- Post link
impossible for God
False.
I don’t believe in god, but if it’s real, there’s nothing that’s impossible for it.
Depends on the god. The God of the Old Testament wasn’t really portrayed as omnipotent or omnipresent all the time. Granted, that’s because many different people wrote the books of the Bible. The gods of a lot of other ancient religions weren’t written as all-powerful or even necessarily immortal. The Greek gods are a great example of that.
The Person in Question