quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand

Oh, tsk tsk, theoctobercountry. Surely you jest? But of course you don't jest.

What's 150,000 Christians being put to death for their faith to you? And by whose hands are these Christians put to death? Why should you care? They mean nothing to you, other than they cause trouble in the world, and the likes of Rick Warrens of the world.

tsk tsk!

Again, nothing you have said has any reflection on the topic at hand. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense. If you care to start a new topic on this thread, by all means do so---just make your case and we can discuss it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,

Your just a phony.

Appealing to your sense wouldn't be worth it.

I don't think theoctobercountry is a phony. A phony what? He definitely sounds like an unchurched. Likely hasn't a clue to the term of redemption. So what does that make him?: A phony unchurched? There is a war out there on every level of morality and decency, of what is right and what is wrong. The liberal media is very against Warren. However, somehow he managed to be on Meet The Press this Sunday and he answered a lot of questions, including some that theoctobercountry has presented.

Best you check the archives of Meet The Press and check out a video on last Sunday Rick Warren interview.

"Likely hasn't a clue to the term of redemption."

Ah, charming---and as always, here is an example of a broad statement that does not address a single issue which I raised. Is there anyone on this board who actually thinks that a concentrated effort to murder all those who do not agree with one's religious viewpoint is acceptable?

theoctobercountry: I think you are spinning out of control! Can't you even keep charge of this simple little posting board?

quote:

Anyone who thinks that it is okay to kill those who do not agree with one's religious viewpoints are sad examples of human beings, in my opinion. Is this just a taste of what we in America could expect, if the theocracy promoted by the religious far right would become a reality?

This is pure fantasy. No offense intended. I know of no credible attempt in America to create a far right religious theocracy that would include the ability to kill people who disagree with you. Please be more careful with your language and document this kind of preposterous claim.

Pure fantasy? There are certainly far right religious sects who believe this---very definitely in the minority, but they do exist.

The point I've been making, is why has Warren not come right out and said that what is going on in Uganda, sponsored by one of his protégés, is completely unacceptable? There's no excuse for foot-dragging on a matter like this.

If the President of the United States has ties to a minister who is in any way assisting in some sort of genocide overseas we should all be very alarmed! If it isn't true, Warren should straighten it out and if necessary sue for defamation for attempting to link him to this.

Here is the MEET THE PRESS interview with Rick Warren last weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbxarOGDqOE

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
Here is the MEET THE PRESS interview with Rick Warren last weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbxarOGDqOE

Yes, I quoted from Meet the Press. I'm a bit puzzled by Warren's statement "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Um, what? I thought the main POINT of a pastor's job was to take sides on moral issues... And I find it to be utterly immoral not to condemn the situation in Uganda. Now, if Warren here is only referring to taking a political "side," well---he's done that exact thing many times in the past, so why is he suddenly so hesitant to do so now?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,

Okay, suddenly this struck me as being very funny indeed:

"He definitely sounds like an unchurched. Likely hasn't a clue to the term of redemption."

Hmmmm... Since my topic has centred on the situation in Uganda, this statement would imply that objecting to the murder of those who do not share one's religious beliefs is equivalent to being 'an unchurched.' (And no mistake about it, this mess in Uganda has been fueled by religious belief.) If that is the case, then does being 'churched' mean that one has no problem with the killing of those who don't agree with you? I simply cannot believe that anyone here would take such a completely indefensible stand.

As for charges of being a 'phony,' well, perhaps a passage from the dictionary is in order: "not real or genuine; fake; counterfeit." Hmmm, can't say that applies to me. I am quite sincere and truthful when I say that the situation in Uganda disgusts me, and in my opinion only a morally bankrupt human being would agree with the legislation under consideration in that nation.

I never cease to find some amusement in those responses to my posts which never address the topic at hand, but instantly degenerate into petty name calling and assassination of character. Wow, that would almost make me think that the people responding simply don't have any logical, concrete, or intelligent responses that are specific to the topic under discussion... Oh, wait.... Heh.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:

This is pure fantasy. No offense intended. I know of no credible attempt in America to create a far right religious theocracy that would include the ability to kill people who disagree with you. Please be more careful with your language and document this kind of preposterous claim.

Hmmm, I've been thinking a bit more about your statement. And actually, I think what I said bears some consideration. Now, I did not say that what is happening in Uganda is going to happen here. But the situation in Africa is EXACTLY what one would expect to transpire when religion and politics are mixed. And that is precisely why I am pleased that America has a definite separation of church and state.

However, here in America we've long had religious leaders like Dobson who have repeatedly said that not only do they not believe in the separation of the church and the government, but that the original founding fathers had no such aim in mind at the time of the founding of this country. So, it seems entirely reasonable to wonder what exactly would happen in the US, if these walls were broken down and blurred even more than they already are.

You got cobwebs in your hat? When did Dobson ever say that? The original intent was that the government would not impede on the affairs of the church.

Really, are you more than 21 years of age?

theoctobercountry, you were given the link to the Saddleback website to email Rick Warren. Why don't you just email him a short question and see what kind of answer you get. Then tell us.

The framers believe in Natural Law--most believed in a God and that that faith drove what we call "The Civil Society". There is NO separation of church and state in the Declaration or Constitution. The 1st amendment has two clauses dealing with religion: (1) Government shall not establish a religion, and (2) Government shall not interfere with the free expression of religion. We are safe from No. 1 in this country, but I see real risk to No. 2.