Christian utopia?

[Mister Agenda]

Let's have that quote from Clinton on removing the First Amendment, Drich, and source it. My guess is that you're interpreting her words your own way as hard as you do the words of the Bible.

this is clinton land supports at the core, yale university students signing a petition to eliminate the 1st amendment. this shows that this next generation is being programmed to give up their rights for "safe spaces."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsKZf4EPlzo

here is a video of ted cruise explaining a purposed amendment that eliminates the first amendment... Your people (the dims) have already tried to pull the amendment! They want "reasonable speech." in this amendment they tried to pass! Again this has already happened!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygt8hNpy6M

"deep seeded religious view will be changed to conform with the new laws and freedoms afforded by the government.'
She was speaking specifically about abortion and reproductive matters but also moved to include all rights and social liberties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj1T1gP4Q9M

Again bottom line even after trump won you "Dims" tried to move the plan legislation/repeal of the first amendment through the congress despite her not being in office to approve it! This HAPPENED 8 MONTHS AGO! If she was in office the first amendment would be gone by now,plus if the antichrist i mean hillary also preloaded the supreme court with "judges who see the constitution as a living document meant to be changed to fit the times." the first and second amendment would be gone!

That seems like a pretty long-winded way to say that you couldn't source her saying anything tjat, but here's what some people who are not Clinton were saying. I particularly liked the Ted Cruz bit, it's so rare to hear him say something negative about Clinton that just means so much more coming from him. Thanks for the gossip and hearsay.

The president doesn't have the power to change the Constitution, btw.

[vulcanlogician]

I do find this passage interesting.  I do believe the key to the passage is do not resist evil as well.  He makes a good point.  

Additionally, the Lord told His disciples to carry swords for self-defense.  He told them to carry two swords between the twelve of them.  The Lord also teaches not to murder but killing in battle and in self-defense are allowed. 

I'd like to further discuss this passage if you have more questions or comments about it.

This is the problem with getting your morality from a book (with over a thousand pages) that isn't always clear about what it means.

Jesus had two of his followers carry swords during their travels. So what? What does that even mean? And, if it does mean something, just how much are you going to read into it?

If Jesus asked his followers to carry swords, it seems logical that he advocated their use. But (in another verse) when one of his followers uses a sword to inflict violence, Jesus rebukes him for it.

You could use that verse to mean many things. Perhaps, as the Republicans believe, America ought to "show its power" from time to time to let the other nations know we aren't afraid to use military force. This might be the equivalent of "our nation carrying two swords"... just as Christ commanded. But did Christ command that his disciples murder a passing ruffian or two to show that "his group shouldn't be fucked with" ...? Because that is the equivalent of the Republicans' national defense policy.

No clear answer is found in the Bible. And it frustrates me when people present things as clear answers when they are not. Christians are supposed to offer the other cheek when slapped, offer up their cloak when their shirt is stolen, go two miles when coerced to walk one... but not bake a cake when someone asks nicely and offers to pay for it....?

***

Personally, I find nothing immoral about defending oneself from violence. This is one of the few exceptions. Even Jains believe it is okay to defend oneself.

And what moves me about the Tolstoy passage is NOT his submission to Biblical authority, but rather, that he discloses the essence of pacifism. Pacifism isn't about getting slapped around and "playing the victim" because you didn't hurt someone back. Pacifism is really a commitment to doing good, even if people harm you along the way... continuing to do good. One of the things that can distract a person from keeping this commitment is the desire for revenge, retaliation, and universal respect. These things are not in line with a moral commitment to do good to others. So, to Tolstoy, one ought to endure these hardships so that one may "keep his eyes on the prize."

The fact that Tolstoy's writing is clothed in Christian language lends it some kind of special beauty, but (make no mistake) an atheist can get something valuable out of this passage just as much as any Christian can. Maybe even more, since a Christian is tempted to flip over to another part of the Bible and start talking about swords. An atheist thinks of Tolstoy's pacifism in regards to how it can change the world for the better.

[Drich]

this is clinton land supports at the core, yale university students signing a petition to eliminate the 1st amendment. this shows that this next generation is being programmed to give up their rights for "safe spaces."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsKZf4EPlzo

here is a video of ted cruise explaining a purposed amendment that eliminates the first amendment... Your people (the dims) have already tried to pull the amendment! They want "reasonable speech." in this amendment they tried to pass! Again this has already happened!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygt8hNpy6M

"deep seeded religious view will be changed to conform with the new laws and freedoms afforded by the government.'
She was speaking specifically about abortion and reproductive matters but also moved to include all rights and social liberties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj1T1gP4Q9M

Again bottom line even after trump won you "Dims" tried to move the plan legislation/repeal of the first amendment through the congress despite her not being in office to approve it! This HAPPENED 8 MONTHS AGO! If she was in office the first amendment would be gone by now,plus if the antichrist i mean hillary also preloaded the supreme court with "judges who see the constitution as a living document meant to be changed to fit the times." the first and second amendment would be gone!

That seems like a pretty long-winded way to say that you couldn't source her saying anything tjat, but here's what some people who are not Clinton were saying. I particularly liked the Ted Cruz bit, it's so rare to hear him say something negative about Clinton that just means so much more coming from him. Thanks for the gossip and hearsay.

The president doesn't have the power to change the Constitution, btw.

Are you in denial or delude? She says SHE WILL CHANGE DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS TO FIT MODERN FREEDOMS.

How does one change a view written in a 2000 year old book? by making it illegal to discriminate against gay people or women's rights. which means federal law will be written which will impede the free practice of religion.

Then in video two you have democrats recorded on the senate floor 8 months ago literally trying to introduce a literal amendment that senator ted cruz points out it abolishes the first amendment!

So again for allof the indoctrinated into the Dim-o-cratic party Clinton in her campaign makes a promise to change the first admentment. and two years later the legislation in the form of a bill that passed the Dim-ly controlled house that purposes a constitutional change get halted by the republican held senate. What the video moron this is not a conspericy theory THIS HAPPENED 8 MONTHS AGO!!! YOUR PARTYIS BENT ON CHANGING THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

However if clinton won she would have had the house and senate and then the authority to put judges on the bench to make this abolishment of the 1st amendment perminate. 

How do we know she would have supported this bill? The 3rd you tube video she makes promises to support this bill! Again IT HAS HAPPENED it is not speculation on what she would have done, the bill made it 1/2 way up the hill before sanity shot it down in the form of republican held senate. Which would not be in place had she won. plus she would have no problem signing it as that is the wish of the new socialist order of the democratic party.

---

you are so ignorant you do not know the difference between a interpretation and a direct reading..

Says a guy who doesn't understand the difference between his imagination and actual real world and history of Christian behavior.

The founding father's knew this (something you also seem oblivious to/The this country was a model of christian society from the beginning)

  i mean 

 sorry can't help it  


what a douche... did you even watch you own video?

It's a commerical that gives no evidence of any kind.. it just plays on christian hatred, and the want little people like you have to say the US was not found in christianity... The biggest thing this ad says is WHAT IF.... Someone said the US was not founded on Christian values??? Someone did!!!  so what.. What if someone made a video walking through congress pointing out historical fact cross referencing with statement and book found in the libary of congress that support the idea that this country was founded on judeao christian beliefs.... Someone did, And the can back up everything they say with historical records and makes mention of these documents and where they can be found through out the presentation. unlike you plee to sell a book that ticks the ears of the ignorant god hating part of the population.




Seriously douche watch the video. again the difference is reference material. the man in this video sources his claims... your commercial to buy a book only asks rhetorical questions that feed your want for something to be true but never supports anything with any evidence.

---

The founding father's knew this (something you also seem oblivious to/The this country was a model of christian society from the beginning)

No it freaking wasn't

so like the one above your response is to say nut-huh when someone says the us was a christian based country... No evidence no support of any kind, you just believe the us was built on atheism because you wish it so...

Nice. I wish I had blind faith like that. Your faith is greater than any christian could ever produce.

---

it was a christian utopia doomas.. or maybe you need to look up Christian.. Christians are not about perfection but about redemption endurance God and family. A place that would allow this and allow us to grow spiritually unimpeded by the government is/was a utopia. 

No it is not paradise. that is what the next life is about, to be christian is to be tested is to endure trials is to come out on top through God despite the hardships. To live in a christian utopia is to live in a place where we can endure all the wind and rain the lord needs to throw at us in order for us to shed the chaff from our souls. Without interference.

---

Freedom to practice our beliefs without governmental or societal interference.

Unfortunately your utopia has come at the cost of far too much of the population. You're grounded until you learn how to practice your beliefs without trying to impose it on others.

you mean like the purposed policies of the new green deal? the 90% tax on the wealth 40 to 75% for everyone else, the elimination of all air travel the destruction of all building over 30 years old. the government check for people who can't or simply don't want to work, food restrictions (near elimination of beef pork and sea food has farming and harvesting is a green house gass nightmare) , limiting a family to one low/no emmission car push for public transportation, ect??

Are you seriously stupid enough to compare someone asking you to goto church or having a christian network on tv, to living in the 4th reich the dims are trying to create??

---

Freedom to practice our beliefs without governmental or societal interference.

will never happen . You will never be permitted to impose your ideology on the rest of us .

Hey stupid... we almost had 200 years of this type of living in this country.. I can remember a time when we lived this way. and I see a push to return to it (Make america Great again) poor slow minded people think the world was as it is now. it wasn't and there are enough of us to push the future back onto a track that sees religious freedoms again, even if we have to fight you and people like you for it.

[Chad32]

No, we're not talking about people just asking others to go to church. You're trying to gloss over the worst things Christians do, when they have enough power. Granted, some non Christians do messed up stuff too, but it seems religion manages to go a step farther in some respects.

[Drich]

what is it you think I am doing here if not enduring the elaborate tortures of the mind set fourth not by the church but by the devil himself?

So having a civil discussion albeit with someone who you do not agree with and having your limbs disjointed or being burnt at stake is the same level of suffering. Interesting to know.

Also why would you think that Devil has nothing better to do than to argue with you on the Internet? Are you that important to him?

Seriously?

do you see the efforts of your peers?

Do you think you are the only person I speak with?

I am of a major minority here in word thought and deed. for every subject you might want to be apart of you might have 5 to 10 posts per thread. I may have 20 to 50 on a average thread. now in those posts are you saying can you seriously speak and say all your peers seek to have a civil discussion albeit with someone who you do not agree with? 

And if words where not meant to mame spur or hurt then why do we criminalize hate speech? why make speech which is supposed to be free an added crime when someone is caught doing something harmful?

Put it another way.. Lets say in a day you get 20 to 30 people trying to beat you up intellectually, spiritually by attacking your intellegence self worth self esteem just because you think differently, now put yourself through such a thing no restrictions on what can be said. now do this every day on every subject including tender moments from your life that you choose to share. Now do this almost everyday for 10 years...

Who among you could endure being site upon for a decade almost everyday by people you are supposed to love and care for?

Another perspective, in the bible when paul encounters someone who wants to fight and argue we are given permission to walk away from such people, and remembered paul was martyred. there is no mandate that any of us be in a ministry where we are not welcome. in fact Christ said don't throw your pearls of wisdom before swine. but because I came from your ranks and I unlike christ can not comletely discern who can be tossed away and who can't be I am not willing to assume all of you are swine because you do not or at this moment can not think as i do. so i slog it out in the mud trying to find that one diamond in the rough that fell through the cracks.

[Fake Messiah]

It's a commerical that gives no evidence of any kind.. it just plays on christian hatred

Yeah evidence, like you care for evidence. You repeatedly post a video clip where a known liar David Barton (writer of such idiotic books like "The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson") claims how Congress printed the first English language translation of the Bible. This claim is so easily checked that only fanatics like you who don't care about any evidence can believe in.

The truth is that Robert Aitken approached Congress for an endorsement after he had printed the Bible himself at his own expense. A committee of Congress passed the Bible over to the chaplains who vouched for the accuracy of the work. Congress then recommended the Bible as an accurate version to the people.

Here are the pages from the Journals of Congress dated September 12, 1782 which detail what Congress did with Mr. Aitken’s Bible.







So there you go, Drich, EVIDENCE. Now what will you do? Cry, moan and call it "hatred toward Christians"?

Lets say in a day you get 20 to 30 people trying to beat you up intellectually, spiritually by attacking your intellegence self worth self esteem just because you think differently, now put yourself through such a thing no restrictions on what can be said. now do this every day on every subject including tender moments from your life that you choose to share. Now do this almost everyday for 10 years...

Especially when that 'someone' doesn't even know how to spell 'intelligence'.

[Drich]

No, we're not talking about people just asking others to go to church. You're trying to gloss over the worst things Christians do, when they have enough power. Granted, some non Christians do messed up stuff too, but it seems religion manages to go a step farther in some respects.

1940s america what was the worst thing christian america did? end the war in europe? prevent the genocide of all the jews? give the jews back their homeland? save a million american lives and 10 million japanese men women and children by dropping the bomb one on a city garrison and the secon on a hill side next to a city industrial war park? by allowing Japan to save face by not arresting the emperor and making him face human rights violations like we did the germans? was it the fact that we rebuilt japan and 1/2 of germany as well as the rest of war torn europe? sure sounds like christian american are indeed monsters! no wonder you shutter when you think of a christian america.

Imagine where we would be with all of our racial and women's rights advancements we had since then but still served God under our flag!

---

It's a commerical that gives no evidence of any kind.. it just plays on christian hatred

Yeah evidence, like you care for evidence. You repeatedly post a video clip where a known liar David Barton (writer of such idiotic books like "The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson") claims how Congress printed the first English language translation of the Bible. This claim is so easily checked that only fanatics like you who don't care about any evidence can believe in.

The truth is that Robert Aitken approached Congress for an endorsement after he had printed the Bible himself at his own expense. A committee of Congress passed the Bible over to the chaplains who vouched for the accuracy of the work. Congress then recommended the Bible as an accurate version to the people.

Here are the pages from the Journals of Congress dated September 12, 1782 which detail what Congress did with Mr. Aitken’s Bible.







So there you go, Drich, EVIDENCE. Now what will you do? Cry, moan and call it "hatred toward Christians"?

Lets say in a day you get 20 to 30 people trying to beat you up intellectually, spiritually by attacking your intellegence self worth self esteem just because you think differently, now put yourself through such a thing no restrictions on what can be said. now do this every day on every subject including tender moments from your life that you choose to share. Now do this almost everyday for 10 years...

Especially when that 'someone' doesn't even know how to spell 'intelligence'.

I don't see it sport...

show me where your notes show the bible was not used.

I see where atkins bible was put fourth to be examined by the congress for official US use... That right there douche is enough to end the argument. or do you not understand that if congress is reviewing bibles for official state/federal government use you loose the argument... anyway the congress then put 2 of the congressional chaplains o the job to read it cover to cover to see if it is in error. They make mention that mr. atkins has invested his whole family fortune and this review must happen asap.

They come back and report the bible is very well constructed and appropreite for use by the us congress. Then like the video says congress adopted the bible...

or are you reading something else? meaning did you read a commentary and they referenced these three pages and you assumed they where not lying/you did not read these pages for your self?

I rather be labeled dumb by someone like you because I can't spell a word from time to time than be perpetually ignorant and completely reliant on other people to do my thinking for me. Meaning You are dangerously ignorant and have sow little to no original thought, example rather than be smart enough to look up the congressional minutes concerning this bible you looked up someone's tertiary commentary (someone elses thoughts on the subject AND YOU WHERE SO GULLIBLE AS TO NOT VET THEIR FINDINGS!!! YOU BLINDLY ASSUMED THEY WHERE RIGHT BECAUSE OF THE REFERENCE!!! To Which they themselves are probably perpetuating someone else's lie because like you they did not vet the story./no original thought.

Page 574 of your reference material is word for word what the tour guide says to the guided congressional tour "Congress has reviewed and accepted Mr atkins bile for personal and federal use!!!

By your own posting you STUPID Douche! you ended this argument...

seems to me if you where less interested in how intelligence was spelled maybe you could have worked on your own intelligence rather than wrongly try and perceive mine.
Or maybe in your circles things like not reading reference material before posting so you don't look like a fool, or posting reference material that proves yourself wrong is not considered to be an unintelligent move...

[Fake Messiah]

I see where atkins bible was put fourth to be examined by the congress for official US use... That right there douche is enough to end the argument. or do you not understand that if congress is reviewing bibles for official state/federal government use you loose the argument...

Oh well, here's from actual Christians, maybe they can persuade you:

One of the hardiest Christian America myths is the idea that Congress gave financial support to print the first American-published Bible in 1782, or even that Congress printed it themselves. Neither is true, though Congress did give an endorsement to the Bible printed by Robert Aitken. In the past, Christian America writers such as David Barton have routinely circulated mistaken ideas about the connection between the 1782 Congress and the Bible.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...can-bible/

[Mister Agenda]

That seems like a pretty long-winded way to say that you couldn't source her saying anything tjat, but here's what some people who are not Clinton were saying. I particularly liked the Ted Cruz bit, it's so rare to hear him say something negative about Clinton that just means so much more coming from him. Thanks for the gossip and hearsay.

The president doesn't have the power to change the Constitution, btw.

Are you in denial or delude? She says SHE WILL CHANGE DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS TO FIT MODERN FREEDOMS.

What she actually said:

Yes, we’ve nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we’ve increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we’ve cut the mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.

All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the twenty-first century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

[Drich]

I see where atkins bible was put fourth to be examined by the congress for official US use... That right there douche is enough to end the argument. or do you not understand that if congress is reviewing bibles for official state/federal government use you loose the argument...

Oh well, here's from actual Christians, maybe they can persuade you:

One of the hardiest Christian America myths is the idea that Congress gave financial support to print the first American-published Bible in 1782, or even that Congress printed it themselves. Neither is true, though Congress did give an endorsement to the Bible printed by Robert Aitken. In the past, Christian America writers such as David Barton have routinely circulated mistaken ideas about the connection between the 1782 Congress and the Bible.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...can-bible/

clearly you are way in over your head.. you are one of he who demands evidence for God but has no idea how to rate evidence as itis given. you don't know what for beats another or if two conflict how to determine which is true.

So I will do you a solid.. yes the man who has problems spelling words that are second nature to you knos something solid about research and evidence gathering you and all of you spelling ability is clueless about.

Evidence gathering is based on a three tier system meaning there are three primary grades of written evidence. 
1) you have primary sources
2) secondary sources
3) teteriary sources
(read the link to learn why primary source material always trumps teteriary material and how to identify primary over tertiary.
https://www.crk.umn.edu/library/primary-...ry-sources

get it? do you see why you quoting and posting some preachers commentary does not trump page 574 of the congressional journal? The congressional journal are the actual recorded minutes from the meeting meaning there is no material that can be considered any more primary than this. even if thomas jefferson was in attendance and in a letter wrote that the meeting was about something else the congressional journal would trump jefferson's letter!

Why? because the journal's primary purpose was to record the happenings in the continental congress as an official record. Jefferson's letter would be considered a secondary source.

This latest link you left is barely a tertiary source as 1 it is a commentary and two it conflicts with the written official record that says congress endorsed this bible for official and private use. not only that commissioned him to go ito full print with their complete endorsement.. page 574 settles all arguements, and you are a damn fool for posting it!!!

Not only that sport, the bible was only the beginning of th video what of all of the other things he mentioned? including jefferson preaching sermons while i office?

---

Are you in denial or delude? She says SHE WILL CHANGE DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS TO FIT MODERN FREEDOMS.

What she actually said:

Yes, we’ve nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we’ve increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we’ve cut the mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.

All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the twenty-first century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Ok so we seem to be on the same page of what she said...

However i do not think you understand the ramifications/costs that implementing 'women's rights' will cost every citizen. it start with freedom of religion.
again abortion and easily discernible topics for christian women aside. lets say this woman wants to be a preacher. now there are hundreds of different expressions of christianity that will allow this, but that is not what this woman wants. let say she wants to be a teacher in a church that do not allow women to teach. now according to clinton manifesto deeply held religious beliefs that conflict with a woman's rights will be changed. to change this prohibition of teaching women there has to b a law that mandates this woman be allow to teach in a church that will not allow it.

This literally means congress shall have to make a law regarding how a given religion is practiced! this violates the 1st amendment thus it needs to be changed not only will religious freedom be redacted freedom of speech is also on the chopping block

look again not speculation sport it already happened rather the dims in the house already passed a amendment change that would all clinton's manifesto to allow the government to enforce laws in churches, and change the freedom of speech clause to the freedom of 'reasonable' speech. Again sport this his a historical event. if it where not for the majority i the senate this bill would have went to clinton and she vowed by your own recogning to sign this bill that according to ted cruise abolishes the first amendment.

He is not saying that to sensationalize some democratic policy, he reads the bill and the language is clear. even 2/3 into the video when the dims have their  rebuttal they can not defend what ted charges. they only point back to first amendment president which get undone if this bill passes!

Don't pretend this is a what if or i have things wrong. again watch the video! 8 months ago your party trying to sneak a constitutional amendment that would eliminate our religious rights freedom of the press and or right to speak our minds, all the while winging you douche bags p lke toys with the idea they where going to impeach trump for not doing anything they claimed he did!

---

in essence your party is trying to roll back our constitutional rights, the rights that keep tyrants at bay, under the banner of supporting women's rights or children's rights.