quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
octobercountry!
Holy Scripture and the Laws of the land nowadays are in many ways completely opposed. There is absolutely no connecting Godly behavior thru the Holy Spirit, (not thru human behavior), but thru the Holy Spirit, with what some of the human laws of our government would demand. Jesus Christ was asked in scripture, "Who does one adhere to in terms of their allegiance? God or Country?" And Jesus, if you recall the passage, picked up a Roman coin and asked the fellow asking the question, "Who's face is on this coin?" "Caesar," was the answer. So Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God."

I believe the best MODEL for how to maintain one's belief system in the face of Government(s) controlling hand over the civil day-to-day activies might come from the history of the Jewish people. For over 2500 years, since the Torah was observed as the word of God and they became the People of The Book, they have steadfastly maintained the Torah through wars, the disapera(s), and even when having to become conversos to Catholism to remain alive. Ask a follower of the Jewish faith what a Dreidel is and why it came about. Hint: it allowed the Jewish children to be taught, in secret, about one of their historical celebrations. There are many levels of meaning in the use of a spinning top, but it allowed the Jewish children to learn a lession in the face of their apparent conversion to Catholism in many countries.

Today, the Torah is unchanged and can still be adhered to establish the methods and laws of living AS A JEW. So, why should Christians of any flavour feel the need to change government to protect their beliefs? This is the reason the US of A was established, to allow those who wanted to follow a specific belief system to do so in peace, while allowing all others who belief differently, to follow their own. Live and let live. Cast not the first stone, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, still works for me.

http://judaism.about.com/od/chanukah/f/dreidel.htm

Trouble with these postings, is that after someone may make an effective, maybe over the top explanation of something, which some have done, the next post totally ignores anything valuable and trounces around in its own underwear and, thus attracting attention to a fully stupid new take on the subject, often the same subject. And so no progress is made.

Only if someone wanted to diligently take the time to go thru all the posts and make some sort of continuity out of it all and, like an editor of a journal or magazine, make some intelligent sense. That, unfortunately, has been the fate of so much posted here. Only what sticks on the wall here, sticks.

So, patrask, should I really address your take about Jews and the governing body politic?

Gee, lets look at Germany, and what happened when the Jews let all those groups have their freedoms. Thru the years, it all ends in disaster, like November 9th, 1938! No Jew will forget that date. It was just celebrated a few days ago and was all over the news. Synagogues were everywhere fired or dynamited on that day 60 years ago. Numberless Jews of both sexes were beaten by mobs from the Baltic to the Brenner. The complicity of the German Government was proved by the fact that in most cases police made no effort to restrain the so-called "mobs".

There is hardly a use to go on, here. It's seems it's up to the board-hooligans who throw the mud on the walls, for the most part, since there seems to a insignificant number here willing to knock the mud from the places of impact.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
And so no progress is made.

And never will be, Friend Knox.

It's been my experience that people are going to believe what they believe, and that's it.

Intelligent debate, however, is always good. Let's just try to keep it clean, and not insult the opposing debater, and it'll all be good.

I think this thread is fine on this board, as long as it stays just a thread.

Hooligans is a good word.

Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse - and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness -
And Wilderness is Paradise enow.

- Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Quatrain XI, 1st edition

I have ane edition beautifully illustrated by Arthur Rackham

Hey! Wait a minute! Muslims are supposed to eschew wine, aren't they?

"Hey teacher, these words all look funny."

- W

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Hey! Wait a minute! Muslims are supposed to eschew wine, aren't they?

Eschew is a good word. So is wine.

Well, I wonder if there will be Californians moving to Connecticut, and then NY? I guess we californians are not as ahead of the curve as we would like to think, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregion/13marriage.h...0556dcca4&ei=5087%0A

That's interesting, because CT is a fairly conservative state, whilst CA is a fairly liberal one.

Lordy, lordy.

A-Rabs, indeed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doug Spaulding,

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
I never did figure out why King David could get away with 800 wives ...

Hmmm! Mr Tinkerbell reckons that one wife is enough to contend with.

I think this board has been pretty much overtaken by liberals and atheists and so called atheists and liberals thinking they are mainstream and everything in between. What's wrong with More gay programs on TV, and for our kids to watch, along with more ED commercials. (More More is the cry here!!)

Christians, there are still empty seats at the back of the bus on this board.

What is wrong with being "liberal" :


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

Why that sounds like a person I would like to know?

Ok, enough of this name calling, it worked for the past eight years as engineered by Karl Rove to split the country into two camps, a Red camp and a Blue camp. Great strategy. As Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

No more name calling. I love you and you are of a different belief system than I; so what, I still can love you and share this wonderful country with everyone. But; the name calling stops now.

This is a country that allows people to group into their comfort zones by association, and the assembly of all such groups should have mutual respect for the rights of the individuals under the law. No one group has a predetermined right to rank over the others. This is country where ideas matter, and the free exchange of ideas results in a better fabric of society, a stronger weave, than one by itself would be.

Let's begin by stating our views as an individual and letting the opinions of others fall where they may. No judgments, just statement of personal beliefs, if that matters, and then acceptance that others may not agree with those views. Both have validity and the freedom under our system of Government to so express their views.

A free exchange of ideas is what the country needs now, so that the best solutions to our mutual problems can be achieved. Not a Red state or Blue state solution, but a solution for the United States that will carry us forward to our place on that shining hill again.

When in doubt, Phil, drive the agenda! F451 predicted this to the letter. Plugged in ears, electronic navels, Dunham's Dentrifice, fine looking politicians with bright smiles on every channel and pictured on every front cover. Freedom Act! (Hmm. Is this an oxymoron?)

Govt. just got a whole lot huger. No ones seems to understand the siren's call is drawing us closer to a rocky shore. Who will pay for this dilemma? Don't worry about it...get another wall screen. The White Clown is on in an hour.

(I try to stay off the soap box here because it is a site to share in the life and works of Mr. Bradbury. I agree...of late, too oft, much to do about nothing RB. Amen!)

Impeach Bush now! What a war criminal.

Man, I have to laugh every time I hear someone complaining about "liberals and atheists," as if all Christians are necessarily conservative. Those darn liberals, responsible for pesky things like giving women the right to vote and equal rights for racial minorities... oh, wait. If that's the case, I'd be proud to be considered a liberal.

As for the board being "overrun" by any one group or another---sorry, I have to smile again. Far as I know, if there is a requirement for being a member of this board, it is to be a fan of Bradbury's. His work appeals to all people, not just those of one particular philosophical outlook or another. Heck, when it comes right down to it, I would say Bradbury's work celebrates non-conformity. He's no fan of every person thinking the same as everyone else. And though his politics may skew conservative, he is not (far as I know) a Christian in any sense of the word.

Yep, I think there's room for everyone on this board. If a reader finds the opinions expressed on the religion or political threads not to their liking, they are of course free to stay away from those threads, problem solved.