CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 "Think global, act local" has been attributed to Scots town planner and social activist Patrick Geddes. Love is great. Love is all you need The Beatles and all that stuff. But it doesn't pay the bills at the end of the month. Having the form of a democratically elected republic but denying the power there of. I've never advocated for the squelching of religious voices. Just that your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.Love is exactly what Joseph Smith said it is, and putting it to use does pay the bills! I'm glad you're not advocating the squelching of religious voices. No need for fist-swinging; the kind of religion I'm talking about makes me a lover, not a fighter! I'm not sure in the USA who is actually advocating the passage of laws to support a State religion and to worship in a prescribed way.
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Love is exactly what Joseph Smith said it is, and putting it to use does pay the bills! I'm glad you're not advocating the squelching of religious voices. No need for fist-swinging; the kind of religion I'm talking about makes me a lover, not a fighter! I'm not sure in the USA who is actually advocating the passage of laws to support a State religion and to worship in a prescribed way. I love my wife and my kids. I worked for the money. I'm a lover too. Unfortunately my sad experience is that many when they get a little power seek unrighteous dominion. See Dominionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I love my wife and my kids. I worked for the money. I'm a lover too. Unfortunately my sad experience is that many when they get a little power seek unrighteous dominion. See Dominionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_TheologyHave you noted the "criticism of the usage" section of this article? It's a fake word invented to generate paranoia, consipracy theories and confusion and to smear. The article actually suggests that is actually wise to engage the religious right in political discourse. What is your plan to prevent "them" from even getting a little power and seeking unrighteous dominion (much less actualy exercising it)? After all, all we're talking about is political discourse.
Stone holm Posted April 14, 2014 Author Posted April 14, 2014 I love my wife and my kids. I worked for the money. I'm a lover too. Unfortunately my sad experience is that many when they get a little power seek unrighteous dominion. See Dominionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology Its interesting how the domino theory gets applied and then denied depending on whose ox is being gored at the moment.
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Have you noted the "criticism of the usage" section of this article? It's a fake word invented to generate paranoia, consipracy theories and confusion and to smear. The article actually suggests that is actually wise to engage the religious right in political discourse. What is your plan to prevent "them" from even getting a little power and seeking unrighteous dominion (much less actualy exercising it)? After all, all we're talking about is political discourse. http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Its interesting how the domino theory gets applied and then denied depending on whose ox is being gored at the moment. Either way it is the ox that pays the price.
CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-governmentWe can dredge up all sorts of things from the Internet. Is this one suppsoed to represent "dominionism"? where it says, "whoever gains the most political power will dominate."? My question was, what's your plan to prevent "them" from getting a little power and exercising unrighteous dominion within that little sphere?
CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Its interesting how the domino theory gets applied and then denied depending on whose ox is being gored at the moment.Weak. Which part of this thread has to do with the domino theory? Either way it is the ox that pays the price.Are you saying the interests of the ox should be heard as well?
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Are you saying the interests of the ox should be heard as well? Why not? Not that its interests should be the only one's heard.
CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Why not? Not that its interests should be the only one's heard.That's my point: a religious person could be advocating for the ox.
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 That's my point: a religious person could be advocating for the ox. Where have I ever said they shouldn't? 1
USU78 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Rubbish, and I should add bull honkey. Uhhhhhh . . . isn't this thread all about shutting down religious input into public affairs?
CV75 Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Where have I ever said they shouldn't?I agree with your point that a religious person could be advocating for the ox. But my question was, what's your plan to prevent "them" (the religious people) from getting a little power and exercising unrighteous dominion within that little sphere?
Bikeemikey Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Uhhhhhh . . . isn't this thread all about shutting down religious input into public affairs? I just like the term bull honkey. You are probably right. 1
Stone holm Posted April 15, 2014 Author Posted April 15, 2014 I agree with your point that a religious person could be advocating for the ox.But my question was, what's your plan to prevent "them" (the religious people) from getting a little power and exercising unrighteous dominion within that little sphere?Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated. Normally not that hard.
USU78 Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated. Normally not that hard.And if we're just cantankerous enough and unartful that we reveal our true religious heart, do we get ignored or arrested?
CV75 Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated. Normally not that hard.And how does that keep anyone (in this case, the religious) from getting a little power and exercising unrighteous dominion within that little sphere?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) What we really should do is rename this thread "The dangers of non religious voices in our politics." Now those are the real dangers we should be talking about. Edited April 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
thesometimesaint Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 And how does that keep anyone (in this case, the religious) from getting a little power and exercising unrighteous dominion within that little sphere? Ultimately it is up to the individual citizen to accept that his friend knows everything about him and still likes him anyway. In the mean time get informed and vote. If all men were angels no government would be necessary, and if all men were devils no government would be possible
thesometimesaint Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 What we really should do is rename this thread "The dangers of non religious voices in our politics." Now those are the real dangers we should be talking about. Unfortunately our sad experience is just the opposite.
CV75 Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Ultimately it is up to the individual citizen to accept that his friend knows everything about him and still likes him anyway. In the mean time get informed and vote. If all men were angels no government would be necessary, and if all men were devils no government would be possibleSo if you "Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated," that would be a good way inform the voters about your intentions of whether or not to get a little power and exercise unrighteous dominion? This is a very political discussion because I'm not getting any straight-forward answers to my simple question. Edited April 15, 2014 by CV75
wenglund Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 If all men were angels no government would be necessary, and if all men were devils no government would be possible Ah...there you go interjecting religion into politics. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 So if you "Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated," that would be a good way inform the voters about your intentions of whether or not to get a little power and exercise unrighteous dominion?This is a very political discussion because I'm not getting any straight-forward answers to my simple question. It is not a simple question. In pluralistic society such as ours. How can we best assure that everyone rights to fully participate are repected? All the great religions, of the world, along with Atheists have some variant of the Golden Rule; Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. I submit that that is a good place to start.
thesometimesaint Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Ah...there you go interjecting religion into politics. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Not really. That is a play on a Thomas Jefferson's quote.
wenglund Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Not really. That is a play on a Thomas Jefferson's quote. I see what you are saying. As with many things, to the liberal mind, it is only interjecting religion into politics when conservatives do it. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Recommended Posts