Mitt Romney said No to an Apostle

[MG 2.0]

As is often the case we come to an impasse created by differing views concerning Christ. Is he or isn’t he who Christians proclaim him to be. I’ve read through your Jesus is a Roman God thread and it appears you have questions concerning Jesus’s divinity. As such, we are going to have…naturally…conflicting views as to whether a divine Christ would deign to speak at times to the Brethren.

We’re on a different wavelength.

And we both believe what we believe or don’t believe for reasons that appear reasonable to us.

No rocket science there.

Regards,
MG

Sure. But a core issue for me is whether or not the religious views of one group should be forced on another by law. My answer is no.

I agree. And it goes both ways. Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks.

Another is whether I would agree to obey flawed people who claim to speak for God. Again, my answer is no. So, you are right to say we are on a different wavelength.

We are all flawed people. We live in a country in which we follow the laws created by flawed people. Those folks are all around us. You and I most likely fall into that category.

That’s why, for me, I think it is important to not focus on flaws. Rather, focus on the substance and meaning of those ‘commandments’ and laws that are prescribed and whether or not at its foundation these laws and commandments have their origins in a deity who is the mastermind of the universe and all that is in it.

To focus solely on people who may be conduits for eternal truth is going to be an exercise in frustration, right?

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.

[Marcus]

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

Why are you making a point that many of us don’t take issue with? Who is your audience?

Regards,
MG

You excerpted my post and took out the part which answered your question exactly, which point about 4 other posters also made to you. Why play these games?

As is often the case we come to an impasse created by differing views concerning Christ. Is he or isn’t he who Christians proclaim him to be...

You are completely missing the point. It is irrelevant what type of deity YOU or anyone else believes in, or does not believe in.

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

...No rocket science there...

One would think.

[Marcus]

...And it goes both ways. Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks....

No, it doesn't. But others already explained it quite well, so i'll just quote them:

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.

[MG 2.0]

Why are you making a point that many of us don’t take issue with? Who is your audience?

Regards,
MG

You excerpted my post and took out the part which answered your question exactly, which point about 4 other posters also made to you. Why play these games?

You are completely missing the point. It is irrelevant what type of deity YOU or anyone else believes in, or does not believe in.

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.


One would think.

In my answer to Kishkumen I said, “Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks.”

And visa versa.

It is up to the politicians to negotiate and find the middle ground where all parties can coexist in peace. I am happy to leave that to those that make those decisions. What other choice is there?

For my part all I can do is vote for those that hold similar values to my own. And you have that same right and opportunity.

I’m not sure what the point is that you’re wanting to argue about.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Social media or special interest groups should not be the final arbitrators. Unfortunately, I think there are those that would have that be the case.

We may disagree on certain moral values and how they should or shouldn’t be approached at the local and federal level. Fortunately we still have a system by which we can work things out to the benefit of all. There are those that would have that system disappear.

This would be my fear.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

Except that one party no longer seems to believe in elections, and it is no coincidence that this is the party the fanatics have hitched their wagon to.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

Yes, by breaking with tradition, one party managed to stack the court with religious fanatics to give their fellow religious fanatics what they want.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

Except that the party engaged in undemocratic efforts to block people from voting and gerrymander them out of effective voting power wants to make sure that the playing field is skewed in favor of minority rule.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

Nope. It's almost too late to hope that there is any chance of keeping us out of a tyranny. The playing field has been terribly skewed in favor of religious fanatics.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Exactly. That is precisely what the GOP has done with the support of its religious fanatic supporters. To see how the highest court in the land is abused by being in the pocket of billionaires and stacked with religious fanatics. It is terrifying, but that is where we are. When you can't even count on most Republicans in office to admit that Joe Biden won the last presidential election, as all of the evidence clearly indicates, you are in deep doodoo.

Mind you, I am fine with religion. I am not hostile to it. I am hostile toward religious fanaticism and abusing the system to lord it over others and tilt the law strongly in their favor.

[MG 2.0]

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

Except that one party no longer seems to believe in elections, and it is no coincidence that this is the party the fanatics have hitched their wagon to.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

Yes, by breaking with tradition, one party managed to stack the court with religious fanatics to give their fellow religious fanatics what they want.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

Except that the party engaged in undemocratic efforts to block people from voting and gerrymander them out of effective voting power wants to make sure that the playing field is skewed in favor of minority rule.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

Nope. It's almost too late to hope that there is any chance of keeping us out of a tyranny. The playing field has been terribly skewed in favor of religious fanatics.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Exactly. That is precisely what the GOP has done with the support of its religious fanatic supporters. To see how the highest court in the land is abused by being in the pocket of billionaires and stacked with religious fanatics. It is terrifying, but that is where we are. When you can't even count on most Republicans in office to admit that Joe Biden won the last presidential election, as all of the evidence clearly indicates, you are in deep doodoo.

Mind you, I am fine with religion. I am not hostile to it. I am hostile toward religious fanaticism and abusing the system to lord it over others and tilt the law strongly in their favor.

Looks like we’re in it for the long haul. I hope there isn’t a civil war a brewin’.

Remember the old Beatles’ song? All You Need Is Love. That seems to be in shorter and shorter supply.

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

Will it ever end?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

Did you see this Kishkumen? When will it end? Just as you are criticizing Donald Trump and company for trying to steal the election, Donald Trump and his supporters, including MG, are accusing "the left" of trying to steal the election.

Can't we agree to disagree and just get along?

[mcjathan]

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.