Comments
201 - 220 of 319 Comments Last updated Mar 29, 2013

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#205
Mar 17, 2013
 
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
So just where should our moral compass come from?
The majority vote would be representative of a Democratic Society using the voting system as it was intended. Otherwise we'd be lowered to your hope of being ruled by your religious morals which would not be representative of all people.
So when the German people voted to execute the Jews, that's ok? And it was wrong for the North to fight the South over slavery since that's what the people in the south voted for?

Still waiting for you to actually put together a coherent thought rather than just a bunch of rambling opinions but then my experience is that for folks like you, there is no logic, just bigotry and anger.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that you proclaim mormonism as an individual religion.
Care to explain?
Really? Mormanism isn't a Christian religion any more than Islam is. Seriously? That's news to you?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Vivek Golikeri wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but the hold of Christianity on the American mind and the nation's life has been gradually and consistently weakening over the decades. Ever-increasing percentages of Americans profess to no affiliation. It will take time, but the country will eventually be as secular as western Europe.
You may be right. We could go the way of ancient Rome where anything goes. Or like Europe, Islam could eventually take over.

Either way the future of the country is pretty dim.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It is realized the Treaty of Tripoi was entered into by the new government of the United States in 1796 isn't it?
The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That is to mean if this country is in danger of, or is actually seeing a dim future because of the threat of Islam, it has been since 1796 and surely 1797 when it President John Adams received ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
It is realized the Treaty of Tripoi was entered into by the new government of the United States in 1796 isn't it?
The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
That is to mean if this country is in danger of, or is actually seeing a dim future because of the threat of Islam, it has been since 1796 and surely 1797 when it President John Adams received ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
And you do realize that the Muslim countries of today don't give a tinker's toot about this Treaty, don't you? since they don't recognize the United States as a valid country? You are just like a person I used to work for....a whole boatload of book knowledge, but zero common sense or street smarts.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Mormanism isn't a Christian religion any more than Islam is. Seriously? That's news to you?
I'm happy I can burst your bubble...I love it when christians deny other christians are actually christians...you guys crack me up...

This is a direct quote...
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995-2008), said:

“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior..."

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
It is realized the Treaty of Tripoi was entered into by the new government of the United States in 1796 isn't it?
The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
That is to mean if this country is in danger of, or is actually seeing a dim future because of the threat of Islam, it has been since 1796 and surely 1797 when it President John Adams received ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
And you believe everything that politicians say? That's a switch.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm happy I can burst your bubble...I love it when christians deny other christians are actually christians...you guys crack me up...
This is a direct quote...
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995-2008), said:
“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior..."
You didn't burst my bubble, I've been engaged in this a lot longer than you have.

Officially, major Christian denominations view the LDS Church as standing apart from creedal Christianity,a point the LDS Church itself does not dispute.

Differences between the LDS Church and most of traditional Christianity include disagreement with aspects of the Nicene Creed, belief in a unique theory of human salvation that includes three heavens (referred to as "degrees of glory"),a dietary code called the Word of Wisdom, unique ceremonies performed privately in LDS temples, such as the endowment and sealing ceremonies.
and especially the doctrine of "exaltation" which includes the ability of humans to become gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

If Mormans are Christians, please show me the Christian doctrine where people can become gods and goddesses or one in which there are millions of gods and goddesses today.

Another belief with a significant area of departure is the rejection by the LDS Church of certain parts of ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene Creed, which defines the predominant view of the Christian God as a Trinity of three separate persons in "one essence". LDS Church theology includes the belief in a "Godhead" composed of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate Persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct Beings making one Godhead.

To claim that any religion which believes people can become gods/goddesses and rejects the Trinity is "Christian" shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Jimmy Swagert, Creflo Dollar, and others who profess to have had personal conversations with god who have made predictions that have never happened.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shoeless Eluder wrote:
If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Jimmy Swagert, Creflo Dollar, and others who profess to have had personal conversations with god who have made predictions that have never happened.
Yep. Also associated with folks who have heard from God and made predictions that have come true. As well as healed people, raised folks from the dead, brought food and water to starving people around the world and has done more to ease pain and suffering than any other religious or non-religious group. And while I'd rather be associated with Mother Teresa and Billy Graham than Stalin and Kim Jong Il, even better is that I'm the child of the living God.

So who are you associated with?:-)
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Really wrote:
<quoted text>And you do realize that the Muslim countries of today don't give a tinker's toot about this Treaty, don't you? since they don't recognize the United States as a valid country? You are just like a person I used to work for....a whole boatload of book knowledge, but zero common sense or street smarts.
So as the master researcher you should know they didn't give a tinker's toot about us then either. They didn't care if the United States was a valid country or not. "Validity" has always hinged on religious continuity.

As usual you missed the point.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#216
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't burst my bubble, I've been engaged in this a lot longer than you have.
Officially, major Christian denominations view the LDS Church as standing apart from creedal Christianity,a point the LDS Church itself does not dispute.
Differences between the LDS Church and most of traditional Christianity include disagreement with aspects of the Nicene Creed, belief in a unique theory of human salvation that includes three heavens (referred to as "degrees of glory"),a dietary code called the Word of Wisdom, unique ceremonies performed privately in LDS temples, such as the endowment and sealing ceremonies.
and especially the doctrine of "exaltation" which includes the ability of humans to become gods and goddesses in the afterlife.
If Mormans are Christians, please show me the Christian doctrine where people can become gods and goddesses or one in which there are millions of gods and goddesses today.
Another belief with a significant area of departure is the rejection by the LDS Church of certain parts of ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene Creed, which defines the predominant view of the Christian God as a Trinity of three separate persons in "one essence". LDS Church theology includes the belief in a "Godhead" composed of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate Persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct Beings making one Godhead.
To claim that any religion which believes people can become gods/goddesses and rejects the Trinity is "Christian" shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
I can't say this any better than a quote from Religious Tolerance.org ...and you fall right into this...no matter how smart or studied you THINK you are...
Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%.

Christians can't figure out what a christian is...
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Their definitoin would include, fundamentalist and other evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.

However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. That is, they have repented of their sin and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

And finally...
Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs should be included in the list.

There are many many folks that disagree with you Beav...and unfortuantely for you, your opinion is a minor one amoungst many others that only holds bearing in your own mind. Maybe you need to study some more? Or you could just be part of the 1% not the 75%...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#217
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
And you believe everything that politicians say? That's a switch.
That's another non-response just to have a rebuttal. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. And read the Constitution of the United States...ALL treaties become the law of the land.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And you too missed the point of if the future of the United States looks dim because of Islam, as you said, it has been "looking dim because of Islam" for 216 years.

Yes one should always be aware of possible downfalls but to continually use fear tactics because of irrational belief systems is more dangerous than the possibility of the threat itself. It's a Jim Jones tactic.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218
Mar 18, 2013
 
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Jimmy Swagert, Creflo Dollar, and others who profess to have had personal conversations with god who have made predictions that have never happened.
I disagree with "If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of...". One can put on the cloak of and present themselves as and not be an actual of anything.

I agree though that the proclamations and presentations of fear tactics are on par with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Jimmy Swagert, Creflo Dollar, that are in it for their personal gain. Be that monetary or even just ego of self righteousness.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#219
Mar 18, 2013
 
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't say this any better than a quote from Religious Tolerance.org ...and you fall right into this...no matter how smart or studied you THINK you are...
Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%.
Christians can't figure out what a christian is...
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Their definitoin would include, fundamentalist and other evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.
However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. That is, they have repented of their sin and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.
And finally...
Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs should be included in the list.
There are many many folks that disagree with you Beav...and unfortuantely for you, your opinion is a minor one amoungst many others that only holds bearing in your own mind. Maybe you need to study some more? Or you could just be part of the 1% not the 75%...
I understand what you are saying. There are many folks who don't consider Catholics to be Christians (I'm not one). But to open the definition up to anyone who simply believes that Jesus is the Son of God opens it up to Satan and demons who know that Jesus is the Son of God.

I don't get caught up in the tertiary issues, but denying the Trinity and advocating polytheism pretty much nullifies any claim to be a Christian. And I don't think I'm the one out of step. If Mormanism was simply another form of Christianity why was his religion such a big part of the conversation on the right? Don't ever remember anyone talking about Reagan being a Presbyterian or Nixon being a Quaker.

I think a lot of folks who are Mormans don't really know the spritual foundations of their church, nor do many non-Mormans really know what the LDS teach. Another challenge is that what the church teaches can be at odds with its foundational beliefs. And by church I'm including every major faith.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#220
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That's another non-response just to have a rebuttal. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. And read the Constitution of the United States...ALL treaties become the law of the land.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
And you too missed the point of if the future of the United States looks dim because of Islam, as you said, it has been "looking dim because of Islam" for 216 years.
Yes one should always be aware of possible downfalls but to continually use fear tactics because of irrational belief systems is more dangerous than the possibility of the threat itself. It's a Jim Jones tactic.


I didn't say the treaty wasn't legal. My point was that politicians say whatever they need to.

For example the phrase you referred to was NOT in the copy signed by Tripolitania and a second Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Prior to the latter 1900's the number of Muslims in the US could be counted on one hand. On the flip side there weren't a lot of Islamic leaders calling for the destruction of the US in 1850. Going further back, the Crusades began when the forces of Islam tried to overrun Europe and eliminate Christianity. But then there were centuries of relative peace.

Oh, and I did not say it looked dim because of Islam. There are a number of possible futures and I was discussing two of them that made the future dim. Go to any bookstore and you'll find thousands of books about the future, most of them are pretty pessimistic. Ref. 1984 by Orwell written in 1949. While he missed the date, the possibilities he writes about are still possible.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#221
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say the treaty wasn't legal. My point was that politicians say whatever they need to.
For example the phrase you referred to was NOT in the copy signed by Tripolitania and a second Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Prior to the latter 1900's the number of Muslims in the US could be counted on one hand. On the flip side there weren't a lot of Islamic leaders calling for the destruction of the US in 1850. Going further back, the Crusades began when the forces of Islam tried to overrun Europe and eliminate Christianity. But then there were centuries of relative peace.
Oh, and I did not say it looked dim because of Islam. There are a number of possible futures and I was discussing two of them that made the future dim. Go to any bookstore and you'll find thousands of books about the future, most of them are pretty pessimistic. Ref. 1984 by Orwell written in 1949. While he missed the date, the possibilities he writes about are still possible.
My point for the Treaty of Tripoli, be that 1797 or 1805, is the fear mongering of being taken over by Islam is centuries long.

And your saying the future of this country looking dim was not for the threat of Islam sure didn't read that way;
"You may be right. We could go the way of ancient Rome where anything goes. Or like Europe, Islam could eventually take over.

Either way the future of the country is pretty dim."

It surely read like the fear of Islamic take over was part and parcel to the dim future projection.

And though Article XI in the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli wasn't in the Arabic version is irrelevant. That it was in the English version that the Senate ratified and President Adams signed and made the law of the land is relevant.

I happen to agree with;
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
As Islamic countries have always been Theocracies.

I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic and leave the theism to the people's private lives. As the people should run their private lives with respect for others living theirs. This is where separate but equal has a place.

But, the nuances of such "public" interactions with respect to others theistic viewpoints is far too intricate to be getting into on a venue such as this one.

Oh, and I disagree with your take on the Crusades. That was all about European Christians being out to secure "the holly land" for Christianity.

And the Islamic leaders were pissed off at the United States for being behind in their tribute and the subsequent war that led to the Treaty of 1805.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#222
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shoeless Eluder wrote:
If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Jimmy Swagert, Creflo Dollar, and others who profess to have had personal conversations with god who have made predictions that have never happened.
So they're fallible humans just like the rest of us. Big deal.
I don't recall reading anywhere that being Christian means you're suddenly infallible and perfect.
And who are you to say that God can't and doesn't talk to people? You think God is incapable of that?
free thinker

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#223
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
I disagree with "If you are "christian" in any sense of the word you do know you are affiliated with the likes of...". One can put on the cloak of and present themselves as and not be an actual of anything.
Tell that to Mr. Wiggley...they seem to think that simply calling yourself a Christian or saying you are one makes you one no matter how much your actions don't line up with your words.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#224
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you are saying. There are many folks who don't consider Catholics to be Christians (I'm not one). But to open the definition up to anyone who simply believes that Jesus is the Son of God opens it up to Satan and demons who know that Jesus is the Son of God.
I don't get caught up in the tertiary issues, but denying the Trinity and advocating polytheism pretty much nullifies any claim to be a Christian. And I don't think I'm the one out of step. If Mormanism was simply another form of Christianity why was his religion such a big part of the conversation on the right? Don't ever remember anyone talking about Reagan being a Presbyterian or Nixon being a Quaker.
I think a lot of folks who are Mormans don't really know the spritual foundations of their church, nor do many non-Mormans really know what the LDS teach. Another challenge is that what the church teaches can be at odds with its foundational beliefs. And by church I'm including every major faith.
Well, that's a start...I understand what you are saying also.
Hope you have a great day!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••

Grandville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Grandville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grandville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grandville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••