This user has been banned.
We should call ourselves to pray. And we should pray for them. They shouldn’t call for us to pray when one thing we obviously pray for is for them to do something when they insist on doing nothing but to call for us to pray.
So they automatically not allowed to pray or ask for prayer because they are politicians?
Again, criticize them for doing nothing then.
But again, I criticize the insincerity; the disingenuousness. That they likely use a call to prayer to gain popularity with people of faith than actually being genuine in their own faith.
Then criticize them for being disingenuous, not the prayer itself.
My dad always said he doesn’t like people putting a cross or an ichthus on their business cards or marketing materials, because it is not clear that they aren’t just using it disingenuously to drum up sales.
But what the ones that aren’t doing it to drum up sales?
We don’t know which is which. That is the problem.
So you assume disingenuiosness. Guily until proven innocent. That seems like problem too.
Let us do the praying, while they do the legislating. They shouldn’t call us to pray, because it is not clear they mean it.
They can do both. I somehow don’t think that because it is not clear, means they shouldn’t ask for prayer.
Your suspicions of my real motivations for asking for prayer, won’t stop me from asking people to pray.
There is nothing wrong with our leaders playing the violin… as long they are also providing adequate fire-fighting services and fire-safety legislation.
True, but if they don’t provide adequate fire-fighting services and fire-safety legislation, criticize them for that, not playing the violin.
Why not both? If they don’t actually play the violin but are instead pretending to make the crowd like them better?
Then critize them for their reason for playing the violin.
But again, I criticize the insincerity; the disingenuousness. That they likely use a call to prayer to gain popularity with people of faith than actually being genuine in their own faith.
Then criticize them for being disingenuous, not the prayer itself.
My dad always said he doesn’t like people putting a cross or an ichthus on their business cards or marketing materials, because it is not clear that they aren’t just using it disingenuously to drum up sales.
But what the ones that aren’t doing it to drum up sales?
There is nothing wrong with our leaders playing the violin… as long they are also providing adequate fire-fighting services and fire-safety legislation.
True, but if they don’t provide adequate fire-fighting services and fire-safety legislation, criticize them for that, not playing the violin.
criticize them if they act like asking for prayer is enough, or if they use prayer to mask their lack of doing anything about guns
That’s what Wheaton was doing.
Didn’t sound that way to me.
He didn’t say it bothered him when politicians pray.
With all due respect to people’s religions, it irks me when politicians tell me that I need to pray.
He said it irks him when politicians tell him to pray, not when politicians themseleves pray.
Do politicians spefically tell him to pray? When they that, they mean it in general. Obviously the non-religous can disregard.
I don’t care if politicians pray - they have that religious freedom. But let’s look at gun legislation… first the republicans say that existing laws should be enforced rather than enacting new laws. I’d agree with them, except that they are simultaneously gutting the agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. Instead, Paul Ryan says we should pray because “prayer works”. Well, he might believe that, but there is absolutely no evidence that prayer works. In fact, every single scientific study ever done has concluded that prayer does nothing. So when the politicians do things that demonstrably make the laws weaker, while asking us to do something religious and that doesn’t do anything, it shows me that they have absolutely no interest in solving the problem.
Of course, the reason has nothing to do with their faith, and everything to do with the votes they receive from evangelicals, and even more so the money they are receiving from gun lobbies.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, criticize them for what do/don’t do about guns. Don’t criticize the asking for prayer. Heck, criticize the reason for them asking for prayer if yoy honestly think it has to do with votes and not faith. As long as it is worded clearly criticize them if they act like asking for prayer is enough, or if they use prayer to mask their lack of doing anything about guns. Just do criticize the praying or asking for prayer itself.
Why do people act like its either do one or the other? One can pray AND legislate.
Complain about them not legislating. Whether they are praying or not, has nothing to do about it.
they can do both! but it pisses me off when they only do ONE OF THEM.
Then complain about the one they don’t do, instead of complaing about the praying or asking for prayer.
They should lead with doing the thing they were elected to do. and if they want to also pray, go for it.
Well sometimes, these things happen on Sunday or some other time when Congress isn’t in session. When that happens, it makes sense to lead off with prayer. Also many religious people would argue that prayer is the first thing you should do.
He didn’t say it bothered him when politicians pray.
With all due respect to people’s religions, it irks me when politicians tell me that I need to pray.
You know, it irks me that politicians wear ties. Leave the tie wearing to other people. You’re legislators, Legislate!
With all due respect to people’s religions, it irks me when politicians tell me that I need to pray. I’m not religious, and we are supposedly in a country that values separation of church and state. Yet every time some catastrophe happens, the first thing politicians tell us is that we need to pray. Not “pray if you’re religious”, but “we need to pray”. While I don’t mind if people want to pray, I don’t appreciate politicians telling me that I need to become religious.
It’s not a big deal, it just irks me. I realize I’m probably in an extreme minority.
The problem is, “Pray if you’re religious”, might not play well to the Bible belt, so they just say “pray”. They probably figure that most people won’t take it as them saying you need to become religious.
Why do people act like its either do one or the other? One can pray AND legislate.
Complain about them not legislating. Whether they are praying or not, has nothing to do about it.
oh.
*sigh*
I mean I get that. And it really is beautiful.
If you get it, I have to wonder why you’d post this wisecrack:
Is it the inaccuracies that really hit home to you?
But with something thats supposed to be the word of God that gives you instructions on how you live your life you’d want it as accurate as possible
Hence why I am not a KJV onlyist. One can use multiple translations.
I had a thought the other day when messing around with images in posts.
There is nothing more annoying than seeing a huge image quoted by someone, but it is also very unclear sometimes what image they are referring to if they don’t quote it.
I had the thought that if everyone would post their images one quote level deep, it would have the benefit of being collapsed on subsequent replies. however this requires the original poster to know what they are doing, so although it is neat, it isn’t a solution.
Two things that i think could provide similar levels of “neat”
- assign a new style to any images within a quote block. this style can behave similar to the double quote block, where it collapses the image
- assign a new style to any images within a quote block. this style can scale the image to thumbnail size (HTML 5?)
- some variation on the above
Is it necessary to make all images thumbnail size? I understand why you wouldn’t want them huge, but about medium size or a little smaller?
He asked a question, I answered it.
I’ve never even heard of the third stanza until a few weeks ago, so I don’t know why it’s so important.
It’s not.
opinion.
Its part of the National Anthem.
Huh. Ok, didn’t know that.
pretty sure I mentioned it a while back in the thread.
I assumed you believed the National Anthem was sacred.
not to the point where I am against a few lyrics in the 3rd stanza being altered to make them less offensive.
I already said I wouldn’t object if the third stanza’s lyrics were carefully altered so that they would no longer be offensive.
I would like to request the ability to add myself to other people’s private topics as well please.
I would agree with this, if everyone already in the private topic agrees with the person in question being added.
I understand the hesitancy on adding people to a private topic (i think it is a bad idea as well), but it should be possible for someone to leave an already established private topic.
It should be an option for a participant in a private topic, to leave the private topic.
It would also be nice if the creator of the private topic could remove members, but i don’t think that is important.
I agree.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/ted-lieu-moment-of-silence-protest-guns/index.html
No one was telling him to be silence about whatever it is he thinks should be done about these mass shootings and guns.
No one? Are you sure?
Well who do you think was telling him to be silent about whatever he thinks should be don about mass shooting and guns? Even if someone did, he doesn’t have to listen to them. 1st amendment.
Just one example…
Like I said, he is free to ignore that and I strongly suggest he do so. I am not saying Lieu shouldn’t scream his head off about the need for more gun control, in fact I agree with it. I am just saying he can be silent for a moment.
TM2YC said:
What you are perhaps missing, is that some people feel waaaaay more anger and frustration about this issue, than they feel sadness.They should feel both.
As I was saying, many people are so far beyond sadness with these mass shootings, that all they feel now is anger.
Well they should feel both. Yes be angry about this happening again and again and the politicians not doing enough about it. But also be sad because 26 innocent people (many of whom were kids) are dead. I guarantee you the families of the victims aren’t just angry, they are sad too.
Being sad about it isn’t going to stop it happening again, directing your anger at hypocrites like Ryan, just might.
Not being sad won’t stop it either. Politicizing a moment of silent won’t stop it either.
TM2YC said:
I’m sure they felt sad and in need of prayer, long, long ago but the amount of death and the amount of inaction (from politicians like Ryan) since then, mean that him saying people “need our prayers right now” yet again, instead of people “need us actually do something for once!” seem pretty f*cking insulting and hypocritical.Then like I said, criticize Ryan for not doing whatever it is you think he should do, instead of criticizing him for saying the people effected need our prayers. They are not mutually exclusive activities.
The people don’t need his prayers, they need his action, so more families don’t face the same situation.
Maybe you are not religious, so you do not understand the significance and importance of prayer. But I am sure the members of that church do understand the significance and importance of prayer.
Yes, they need his action. They are also need our prayers.
Ryan asking people to pray for dead families, that he happily did nothing to save is crocodile tears. Tomorrow he’ll also do nothing and the day after that there will be another mass-shooting and he’ll call for prayers again. Rinse and repeat. Ryan praying for his own soul would be more productive.
Prayer and passing gun control are not mutually exclusive activities.
The argument you are making in regards to prayer, I could make in regards to him wearing a suit and tie everyday.
Criticize him for not doing enough in Congress to prevent these tragedies. Don’t criticizing him for asking for prayers.
