Church & State

[Reverend Blair]

Not really they don't. You can make any claim you like. You can teach your dogs whatever amuses you. However, those words already have meanings, however much you might like to change them.

Deliberately changing the meaning of a word doesn't make me an educator.
Deliberately misinterpreting God's word doesn't make me a Christian.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[LadyC]

Then we must be arguing the same point, Rev.

Bottom line, though, you calling a milk bone a "Vallarta" doesn't make it one. No-one's arguing that man is infallible.

I also used the word "deliberately" intentionally.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think it's the same point at all...You keep changing the meaning of words to suit your purposes and think it's okay. I think it's the kind of a thing a man in a funny does to dogs for his own amusement.

I guess you do a lot of deliberately, C.

 

[LadyC]

Do you even read my posts, Rev? Or do you refuse to look beyond the word "Christian" because you think you have us all figured out?

Where have I changed the meanings of words to suit my purposes? Where have I even hinted that I think that's okay?

Biblical scholars to this day study the ancient manuscripts to interpret the meaning as best they can. They factor in what archaeologists discover to provide the best context of the ancient customs.

Arguing the differences between "murder" and "kill" is semantics. No matter how "man" tries to interpret God's word there will be mistakes. It doesn't change the basic intent.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I think he was trying to illustrate how with the Lord, all things are not possible...it seems the almighty has a problem with scrap iron go-carts...

All right then... let's have another look-see at the original quote.

...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

Who is "he"? Since it's lower case, I'd say it's referring to Judah, not God. Thus, it would have been possible, but God chose not to oust the valley folk.

So the Lord was with Judah, and Judah with He...the Book of Judges is filled to the brim with stories of Judah slaughtering everyone he engaged, the moral of these stories, if one can glean a moral from all the bloody carnage, would be that with God on your side, you can conquer any indigenous peoples...however, Judah was not able to conquer the people of the valley, due to those new-fangled contraptions they rode around in...no explanation is given...so one must surmise that God was not up to the task of routing the charioteers...

Surely a creator of heaven and Earth should be able to handle a few chariots...

Can God do anything?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Nevermind, Vanni...she'll just change the words to mean whatever the hell she wants then accuse you of not reading her posts.

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Church & State

Ummm... okay.

But what ambiguity? Most of the major religions actually worship the same God.

The Never Stop fella was, if I remember correctly, in the context of same sex marriage pointing out that the Charter recognized the supremacy of God and it seemed to be as if they were automatically implying that this was the Christian God that was being referred to that made homosexuality adhorrent to the Creator, or something.

I forget exactly what happened and frankly I don't feel like going bakc and checking, lol, but it seemed to me as if he were implying that this was the Christian God - and for that matter the conservative, CHPish interpretation of the Christian God - that was being referred to in the Charter.

 

[Scape]

Which brings us full circle. For what God (or Gods) are Canadian gods? If Jesus or Buddha were to run for a party what party would they run for or if they were to vote who would best represent them?

A party like CHP can't discriminate on the basis of religion not by policy but because it is against the law. Not that such a party would attract a great amount of diversity in the 1st place. That still doesn't make it right to bring the idea of theology into democracy. I do not want Canada vote in the next Taliban. The war on terror is a great example of what extreme religious beliefs will bring to politics and thinking they won't come in the guise of parties using the banner of a religion is simply foolish. We have a hard enough time now keeping a tolerant society, what if we become tolerant of the intolerant?

 

[LadyC]

Re: RE: Church & State

I'll start with you, and get it out of the way.

Nevermind, Vanni...she'll just change the words to mean whatever the hell she wants then accuse you of not reading her posts.

Perhaps you, as a moderator of this site, can explain to me how you're ensuring we stay on-topic. This post added nothing to the discussion. As attacks go, it's mild, and I'm far from offended, but the point remains, it is, in fact, a personal attack.

If you expect others to refrain from insulting you, you have to extend the same courtesy.

 

[Never Give Up]

Re: RE: Church & State

The Never Stop fella was, if I remember correctly, in the context of same sex marriage pointing out that the Charter recognized the supremacy of God and it seemed to be as if they were automatically implying that this was the Christian God that was being referred to that made homosexuality adhorrent to the Creator, or something.

How about I was pointing out that I had supported my arguments, using various credible sources, whereas Reverend Blair is content to make unsupported statements apparently assuming that his saying it makes it truth.

I forget exactly what happened and frankly I don't feel like going bakc and checking, lol, but it seemed to me as if he were implying that this was the Christian God - and for that matter the conservative, CHPish interpretation of the Christian God - that was being referred to in the Charter.

Now you can read it for yourself... without the trouble of looking back.... and see how far off the mark you were. :roll:

I’ve hunted high and low, Reverend Blair, and I just can’t find your supporting evidence for:

• You promote discrimination against gays and lesbians,
  are trying to limit women's rights, and
  are biassed against people who do not share your religious leanings.
  
  Because there is a strong element of extremism evident in your proposed policies.
  
  the ones trying to push their relgious agenda through politics are extremists though...incapable of separating their church from our state.

Normally, reasons and sources are advanced to support or counter a matter under discussion. It would be kind of nice if you could support your statements rather than simply make them and assume that they are true.

I’ve used:

• The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which incidently begins with... “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”
  Oxford Dictionary
  Geneva Convention
  Canada Elections Act
  Asia News
  Global PeaceWorks

:cheers:

 

[LadyC]

So the Lord was with Judah, and Judah with He...the Book of Judges is filled to the brim with stories of Judah slaughtering everyone he engaged, the moral of these stories, if one can glean a moral from all the bloody carnage, would be that with God on your side, you can conquer any indigenous peoples...however, Judah was not able to conquer the people of the valley, due to those new-fangled contraptions they rode around in...no explanation is given...so one must surmise that God was not up to the task of routing the charioteers...

Surely a creator of heaven and Earth should be able to handle a few chariots...
Can God do anything?

Nice link... the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? :wink:

The Old Testament is full of bloody carnage, true. I don't know what's up with that, but there are plenty of cases where people are punished for killing or waging war against God's wishes.

Back to your link... (nice Googling, BTW)

Of the 3 examples given, one has been discussed. The 2nd is taken out of context (imagine my shock! 8O ) The following verse says,

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

The missing ingredient here is faith. How many times did Jesus send people on their way with the words, "your faith has made you well"?

Finally, the 3rd example says,

Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

I would hope so. :wink:

 

[Never Give Up]

A party like CHP can't discriminate on the basis of religion not by policy but because it is against the law. Not that such a party would attract a great amount of diversity in the 1st place. That still doesn't make it right to bring the idea of theology into democracy. I do not want Canada vote in the next Taliban.

Actually, as I previously mentioned we received support from some Muslims in the last election because they have noticed that in our great country we have become tolerant of everything except someone who's opinion or beliefs differ from our own.

Perhaps you need to study a little history of the Taliban. But I'll not try to educate you here. I'd hate to head off topic.

The war on terror is a great example of what extreme religious beliefs will bring to politics and thinking they won't come in the guise of parties using the banner of a religion is simply foolish. We have a hard enough time now keeping a tolerant society, what if we become tolerant of the intolerant?

The war on terror is nothing to do with religion. It is to do with the Project for the New American Century. (PNAC) This is a document prepared by the neo cons in 1997. It's goal is Pax American. One of its stated goals, even back then, was an invasion of Iraq. Within days of 9/11 rather than the focus being stricly on Al Qaeda, the attack was already being planned for Iraq.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Back to your link... (nice Googling, BTW)

Actually, I have that site bookmarked, as it is an essential resource for skeptics such as myself... :wink:

Of the 3 examples given, one has been discussed. The 2nd is taken out of context (imagine my shock! 8O )

Taken out of who's context...wasn't it you, just a mere couple posts ago that was contending that the scriptures are sometimes misinterpretted, and that you are able to pick and choose which interpretation suits you best? Whose interpretation are we to follow then? Who's to say that the attempt to interpret the bad stuff out of the bible is not the misinterpretation? In other words, who's to say that all of the bad in the bible is not supposed to be read that way...

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

What I got from this is that Jesus could not convince the skeptics among his own people...which justifies the assertion that God, or his earthly manifestation, cannot do everything...

Finally, the 3rd example says,

Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

I would hope so. :wink:

And yet...

 

[Reverend Blair]

This post added nothing to the discussion. As attacks go, it's mild, and I'm far from offended, but the point remains, it is, in fact, a personal attack.

Think I just figured out what the C stands for. No, not that, although... Nevermind.

The fact is that you've been launching all kinds of personal shit here and elsewhere for reasons having to do with something completely unrelated. Everybody who has been following things understands that. Get over it.

 

[no1important]

Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

-Genesis 7:17 says that the flood lasted forty days, but Genesis 8:3 tells us that it lasted one hundred and fifty days

-Genesis 1 tells us that the first man and the first woman were made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and then woman.

-Genesis 1:2-5 asserts that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day.

With so many contradictions and changes made over the years (like removing re incarnation) how can anyone believe a book that was written by man?

What happens to the so called righteous?

this--Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

or--Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

The Bible is inconsistant with science and written history.

I would like an explanation to the hundreds of inconsistancies and contradictions in the bible, so far in my life I have yet to recieve a satisfactory answer.

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Church & State

I’ve used:

• The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which incidently begins with... “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

• 
  
  Why, thank you for finding that quote for me.
  
  But I still don't understand exactly why you felt motivated to include the "supremacy of God" reference...very ironic in a thread about a Christian Heritage Party and in the context of you being accused of discriminating against gays and lesbians...an allegation that I do not see any refutation of.
  
  Frankly, your party's stance on the definition of marriage is appalling and unacceptable in the civilized world and that issue alone is enough to laugh the CHP off the map.
  
  Did I mention your party's policy is very sexist, as well? Why the hell can't women participate in combattive roles in the army?

 

[LadyC]

Of the 3 examples given, one has been discussed. The 2nd is taken out of context (imagine my shock! 8O )

Taken out of who's context...wasn't it you, just a mere couple posts ago that was contending that the scriptures are sometimes misinterpretted, and that you are able to pick and choose which interpretation suits you best? Whose interpretation are we to follow then? Who's to say that the attempt to interpret the bad stuff out of the bible is not the misinterpretation? In other words, who's to say that all of the bad in the bible is not supposed to be read that way...

Refresh my memory... where did I say I was able to pick and choose the interpretation I liked the best? If you're referring to the bit about the camel and the eye of the needle, I never said anything of the sort. I said I'd heard the "debunking", but I liked the concept of being humble before God.

As to context, it's a pretty basic concept, as any journalism 101 student will tell you. You can't take one verse and expect to glean it's meaning. You need the surrounding bits.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

What I got from this is that Jesus could not convince the skeptics among his own people...which justifies the assertion that God, or his earthly manifestation, cannot do everything...

Among His own people... that was the point of the passage.

I hate to think about this, but if I lived back in Biblical times, I might have been sceptical if my neighbour's kid started performing miracles.

Finally, the 3rd example says,

Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

I would hope so. :wink:

And yet...

Again... context is everything. I was going to go through them verse by verse, but it's fruitless. Not only is it off-topic somewhat, but you'll just hit another link on your Skeptic's site with the intent of proving some point. I have a difficult time understanding the version (KJV?) and it's too late to read my own Bible. My eyes aren't the same as they were the day before I turned 40. :?

As much as I enjoy debating with you, Vanni, I have too much respect for you to continue with this debate. There's no winning, just losing.

 

[LadyC]

This post added nothing to the discussion. As attacks go, it's mild, and I'm far from offended, but the point remains, it is, in fact, a personal attack.

Think I just figured out what the C stands for. No, not that, although... Nevermind.

The fact is that you've been launching all kinds of personal shit here and elsewhere for reasons having to do with something completely unrelated. Everybody who has been following things understands that. Get over it.

You still not done?

As for the "C" word... I've heard it. I wasn't impressed then, I'm not impressed now.





For the record... it's Cordelia, as any fan of Anne of Green Gables should know.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I have a difficult time understanding the version (KJV?) and it's too late to read my own Bible.

It is KJV...

As much as I enjoy debating with you, Vanni, I have too much respect for you to continue with this debate. There's no winning, just losing.

Now you're just teasing...

 

[LadyC]

Teasing's only fun til someone's in tears.

I just recognize that this is a topic that no-one's going to change their mind about.