Quote: @medaille said:
@ greediron said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
I agree with that. Faith should affect our life (including our political views) but it shouldn't be drug down to be used as a cudgel.
I agree with your general sentiment, but how can a person tell the
difference between someone trying to use their religion as an
explanation and metaphor for their morality and someone using their
religion as a weapon? I think that any true faith based person would be
committed to their viewpoint and their morality and want to share it
because they're expanding the "truth". To assert that someone is using
their religion as a "religious shield" or a cudgel is to imply that they don't believe their own beliefs, but are saying it anyway because their politics comes first. That's a pretty big accusation to me.
I think that a very close comparable example is the manmade global climate change issue. With climate change, you have a small number of experts who have created this theory. Then you have a very large number of people who understand a very simplified and incomplete version of the theory. If you press them to explain it further, you get something like "Well all the experts agree", which is a faith based argument. From a 3rd party perspective, this is equivalent to "A book was written by one who can't be questioned". These people with their incomplete knowledge, use their faith in a more knowledgeable expert, to "weaponize" their political POV. They call for higher taxes to fund these efforts, efforts like the Green New Deal, which in order to achieve would take more taxes than the people could afford to provide. They challenge the intelligence of those who question their beliefs, but the answer to any question is "Those that are too smart to be questioned agree ...", so you must be stupid.
I know that I used "climate change" above. I hope people don't get sidetracked by that, but I think people need to be more aware of when they themselves are trying to use things they don't really understand, but believe on faith anyway as a way to bully other people.
Yes, because peer-reviewed scientific consensus is exactly the same as faith-based belief in God. In drawing this equivalency, you not only belittle the scientific process, you belittle the beauty of faith.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ greediron said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
I agree with that. Faith should affect our life (including our political views) but it shouldn't be drug down to be used as a cudgel.
I agree with your general sentiment, but how can a person tell the
difference between someone trying to use their religion as an
explanation and metaphor for their morality and someone using their
religion as a weapon? I think that any true faith based person would be
committed to their viewpoint and their morality and want to share it
because they're expanding the "truth". To assert that someone is using
their religion as a "religious shield" or a cudgel is to imply that they don't believe their own beliefs, but are saying it anyway because their politics comes first. That's a pretty big accusation to me.
I think that a very close comparable example is the manmade global climate change issue. With climate change, you have a small number of experts who have created this theory. Then you have a very large number of people who understand a very simplified and incomplete version of the theory. If you press them to explain it further, you get something like "Well all the experts agree", which is a faith based argument. From a 3rd party perspective, this is equivalent to "A book was written by one who can't be questioned". These people with their incomplete knowledge, use their faith in a more knowledgeable expert, to "weaponize" their political POV. They call for higher taxes to fund these efforts, efforts like the Green New Deal, which in order to achieve would take more taxes than the people could afford to provide. They challenge the intelligence of those who question their beliefs, but the answer to any question is "Those that are too smart to be questioned agree ...", so you must be stupid.
I know that I used "climate change" above. I hope people don't get sidetracked by that, but I think people need to be more aware of when they themselves are trying to use things they don't really understand, but believe on faith anyway as a way to bully other people.
Yes, because peer-reviewed scientific consensus is exactly the same as faith-based belief in God. In drawing this equivalency, you not only belittle the scientific process, you belittle the beauty of faith.
Please elaborate. I explained my point. Then you responded with a 2 sentence insult with nothing behind it.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ greediron said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
I agree with that. Faith should affect our life (including our political views) but it shouldn't be drug down to be used as a cudgel.
I agree with your general sentiment, but how can a person tell the
difference between someone trying to use their religion as an
explanation and metaphor for their morality and someone using their
religion as a weapon? I think that any true faith based person would be
committed to their viewpoint and their morality and want to share it
because they're expanding the "truth". To assert that someone is using
their religion as a "religious shield" or a cudgel is to imply that they don't believe their own beliefs, but are saying it anyway because their politics comes first. That's a pretty big accusation to me.
I think that a very close comparable example is the manmade global climate change issue. With climate change, you have a small number of experts who have created this theory. Then you have a very large number of people who understand a very simplified and incomplete version of the theory. If you press them to explain it further, you get something like "Well all the experts agree", which is a faith based argument. From a 3rd party perspective, this is equivalent to "A book was written by one who can't be questioned". These people with their incomplete knowledge, use their faith in a more knowledgeable expert, to "weaponize" their political POV. They call for higher taxes to fund these efforts, efforts like the Green New Deal, which in order to achieve would take more taxes than the people could afford to provide. They challenge the intelligence of those who question their beliefs, but the answer to any question is "Those that are too smart to be questioned agree ...", so you must be stupid.
I know that I used "climate change" above. I hope people don't get sidetracked by that, but I think people need to be more aware of when they themselves are trying to use things they don't really understand, but believe on faith anyway as a way to bully other people.
Yes, because peer-reviewed scientific consensus is exactly the same as faith-based belief in God. In drawing this equivalency, you not only belittle the scientific process, you belittle the beauty of faith.
please explain. That phrase doesn't seem to fit.
I think Medaille explained his position beautifully. appealling to higher powers without proof or being able to explain is faith. And medaille, I agree it is impossible to judge the heart. I don't know the heart of the advertiser. But I do agree with PF that it appears to be dragging religion down to politics. But then again, in our post-Christian society, it is hard to speak of the faith without sticking out.
I understood what Maroon was getting at.
:#
Could have used a better reference is all I took from it. One can choose to except data, study's and conclusions or question their source, bias and validity. That is not the same as faith which offers none. That can be measured at least. Choice it the only thing that is comparable.
Quote: @pumpf said:
Oh, and let me add one more thing: if a Christian actually tries to tell someone the Truth- in order that they might enter that heavenly Promised Land to come- they are characterized as "hateful". The prevailing sentiment among most Democrats seems to be (regarding Christianity): "You want to believe that stuff? Fine, but keep it to yourself."
Or... "no skin off my teeth"....
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
Well one is a fairy tale about a sky daddy (which you may choose to believe or not. No skin off my teeth)
In the opening salvo..."No skin off my teeth"... then... the closer....
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
But I get off topic..... please explain to me how using ones religion to sell meat products is somehow in the same vein of "Go tell it on a mountain"..... Over the T-bones and ever-ee-way-yer? And then tell me how I must respect your religion.
In one paragraph we go from the secular "Fine, whatever, I don't care, no skin off my teeth" (fair enough) to "I'm really bothered by your position/I can't respect you." Tell me why I should (respect) your religion." My question is.. if it's "no skin off your teeth"... why are you seeking respect? Or even commenting in this thread?
And Christians are the ones "set upon" as suggested by the OP, as the ones in a quandary/dilemma?
First of all, P-Faithful... don't buy your groceries in the South... if this ad offends you so much. 
(My guess is... you don't buy your groceries in La... so not quite sure your consternation.)
2nd... this 'offensive' observation "quote" was run in the owner's masthead, at the top of the page. (Yeah, right above the meat)
The owner is clearly exercising his first amendment right of freedom of religion/expression, identifying his business as "Christian".
What is (fundamentally) more American....than that?
This grocery owner has done nothing wrong but ID himself/his store as a Christian/Christian shoppe.
That this has even become a 'story'... has more to say about our country, than the OP, itself
And before you tell me the "war on Christians" is a make-believer fantasy, read this from the Never-Trump (valid!) media:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/i...n-america/
Moreover, secular students observe and learn from administrators’ scorn for the fundamental freedoms of orthodox Christian students. They learn that there is something wrong with Christian expression. They too often emerge from their campus experience believing that opposition to religious liberty advances social justice rather than contradicts American constitutional ideals.
Across the United States, state officials are repeatedly telling American Christians that there is something inherently wrong with their faith. They’re even claiming that it’s out of bounds for Christian groups to seek Christian leadership and often claiming that orthodox Christian beliefs are on a moral par with defenses of slavery or other repugnant forms of bigotry. They engage in rank favoritism and blatant viewpoint discrimination. These actions warp American culture and transform American politics. They deserve far more media attention than they receive.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ pumpf said:
Oh, and let me add one more thing: if a Christian actually tries to tell someone the Truth- in order that they might enter that heavenly Promised Land to come- they are characterized as "hateful". The prevailing sentiment among most Democrats seems to be (regarding Christianity): "You want to believe that stuff? Fine, but keep it to yourself."
Or... "no skin off my teeth"....
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
Well one is a fairy tale about a sky daddy (which you may choose to believe or not. No skin off my teeth)
In the opening salvo..."No skin off my teeth"... then... the closer....
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
But I get off topic..... please explain to me how using ones religion to sell meat products is somehow in the same vein of "Go tell it on a mountain"..... Over the T-bones and ever-ee-way-yer? And then tell me how I must respect your religion.
In one paragraph we go from the secular "Fine, whatever, I don't care, no skin off my teeth" (fair enough) to "I'm really bothered by your position/I can't respect you." Tell me why I should (respect) your religion." My question is.. if it's "no skin off your teeth"... why are you seeking respect? Or even commenting in this thread?
And Christians are the ones "set upon" as suggested by the OP, as the ones in a quandary/dilemma?
First of all, P-Faithful... don't buy your groceries in the South... if this ad offends you so much.
(My guess is... you don't buy your groceries in La... so not quite sure your consternation.)
2nd... this 'offensive' observation "quote" was run in the owner's masthead, at the top of the page. (Yeah, right above the meat)
The owner is clearly exercising his first amendment right of freedom of religion/expression, identifying his business as "Christian".
What is (fundamentally) more American....than that?
This grocery owner has done nothing wrong but ID himself/his store as a Christian/Christian shoppe.
That this has even become a 'story'... has more to say about our country, than the OP, itself
And before you tell me the "war on Christians" is a make-believer fantasy, read this from the Never-Trump (valid!) media:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/i...n-america/
Moreover, secular students observe and learn from administrators’ scorn for the fundamental freedoms of orthodox Christian students. They learn that there is something wrong with Christian expression. They too often emerge from their campus experience believing that opposition to religious liberty advances social justice rather than contradicts American constitutional ideals.
Across the United States, state officials are repeatedly telling American Christians that there is something inherently wrong with their faith. They’re even claiming that it’s out of bounds for Christian groups to seek Christian leadership and often claiming that orthodox Christian beliefs are on a moral par with defenses of slavery or other repugnant forms of bigotry. They engage in rank favoritism and blatant viewpoint discrimination. These actions warp American culture and transform American politics. They deserve far more media attention than they receive.
Very well thought out response Savannah. However in reading both the flyer and the link in the OP I don't come to the conclusion that it is an attack on his Christian beliefs. The angry comments toward this business were not about him being Christian per se. It was his poorly worded flyer comment that insinuated if you are a Christian you must support the wall because not means you support hell. Let that sink in Mac. This is not purely an attack on his beliefs. If he had a simple message about we are a Christian based company and there was still this outrage then there would be an argument over about his beliefs being attacked. Now your trying to use this political stand he took to paint a picture of broad based Christian oppression as in your link. This is where your argument loses me. The same was done at Chick-Fil-A. How many knew or cared about his beliefs till he used them to make a LBGT stand? It is just leading into that whole public vs private religious displays thing that must walk a fine line in a country that courts and schools and other public places are not for Christian use only. There for must be neutral to the satisfaction of almost nobody. If you chose to make religion part of your business model you are completely entitled to. As Jimmy said when you mix your religion with politics what could go wrong? In business you are doing so at your own risk or benefit. As greediron said your beliefs should effect your politics and life. Just remember the business of politics is not about losing customers.
i dont care what you believe or how you express it, just keep it out of our legislation. This ad is stupid and furthers the idea that christians and the political right go hand in hand. Which should piss off most conservatives and chrisitians who do not buy into this monolithic ideology
Quote: @Skodin said:
i dont care what you believe or how you express it, just keep it out of our legislation. This ad is stupid and furthers the idea that christians and the political right go hand in hand. Which should piss off most conservatives and chrisitians who do not buy into this monolithic ideology
Just to clarify. One person said something, and that leads you to believe that this is reflective of the group as a whole, and that this group should focus on the things that divide them rather than the things that bind them together.
I see this thought process as similar to statements like: - A black person committed a crime, this furthers the idea that black people are criminals. Black people should take care of their own problems.
- 2 leaders of the womens march expressed anti-semitic views, this furthers the idea that feminists are anti-semitic. Women and feminists in particular need to be more proactive in countering this opppressive ideology.
You can find a person of every group that says something you think is stupid. Furthermore, you probably can't find a single person on this Earth that doesn't believe at least one thing you think is stupid. That doesn't mean that everyone in that group is stupid, nor does it mean everyone has to be reactive to that one persons belief, or harbor anger. If you're getting pissed off over what one random person in another state says, I think that just suggests that you are easy to anger.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
Well one is a fairy tale about a sky daddy (which you may choose to believe or not. No skin off my teeth)... And the other is an extremely wasteful use of taxpayers dollars which will never get built even if we appropriate billions of dollars and hand them off to a foreign steel manufacturer, because the ensuing legal battles brought on by land owners in the area will ensure that this thing doesn't get built anywhere in our life times. It also hasn't undergone any sort of feasibility study, environmental impact study, or actual cost analysis but let's start haphazardly pulling dollar amounts out of our asses, because???? It simply is a very large money transfer which was never really designed to be built in the first place. It does make for a lovely distraction while we argue about handing our money over to people that certainly do not need it. But I get off topic..... please explain to me how using ones religion to sell meat products is somehow in the same vein of "Go tell it on a mountain"..... Over the T-bones and ever-ee-way-yer? And then tell me how I must respect your religion.
I took the "ad" as a bit of a joke. Kind of like when churches put funny little saying on their "billboards". If he is trying to say that Christians should endorse the building of the wall, because heaven has one- yes, I would have an issue with that. I don't agree with "using" my relationship with Christ for anything other than proclaiming His glory and trying to carry out His command to "Go and make disciples of all nations". My main comment (in this thread) was directed at those who might think the opposite of what the "ad" was saying: that heaven doesn't really have a "wall" (gate). I *think* that I'm in agreement with Suncoast on that: that "using" his faith (if that's what he was trying to do) to sell food... was wrong.
As for my "sky daddy"... at least I'm in good company. The most brilliant philosophers and scientists in history have believed in a "God" (who or what was "God" was always a point of contention). I don't know how one could see the universe... and just assume that it brought itself into existence. Spontaneous existence? That seems about as plausible as Darwinian evolution (which many scientists are abandoning as science continues to prove his theory wrong). I guess people can put their faith in whatever they want. They always have. But there is certainly more evidence for an invisible sky-daddy than there is for Global Warming. But so many of those GW cult members (who put their faith in "science") also believe that being transgendered is a "thing", despite all the absolute and obvious scientific evidence that sex is a biological reality, which is not changed by one's feelings.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
I understood what Maroon was getting at.
:#
Could have used a better reference is all I took from it. One can choose to except data, study's and conclusions or question their source, bias and validity. That is not the same as faith which offers none. That can be measured at least. Choice it the only thing that is comparable.
I’m a big believer in science and that science and the
scientific method will be right in the long term. I’m also a big believer that there is a lot
of stuff that masquerades as science, but is either bad science, was setup to
prove whatever point the person who paid for the study wanted, hasn’t been
sufficiently peer reviewed, is taken out of context by the media or social
media, etc.
With regards to your point that people can choose to look
deeper into the science, that is true sort of.
The possibility that you can look deeper exists. That doesn’t mean that anyone has, or that
the right critical mind has, or that you are believing the right critical mind. If you aren’t
intimately familiar with the variety of research that has been done on an
issue, you are by definition operating on faith (Faith that whatever science
was done, was done correctly, was adequately peer reviewed, wasn’t taken out of
context, etc.) You have faith in the
scientific community and experts. You
can probably have more confident faith in something like Global Warming which
has garnered so much attention. You
should have less confidence, probably to the point of skepticism, in a study
produced by a company that has a large profit motive to get a specific result.
I see a lot of people who aren’t aware that they are
operating on faith in science, and aren’t aware of how much confidence they
should have in any particular conclusion that claims to be backed by science. They just see a conclusion that meshes with
their pre-existing beliefs, see the word science, and assume it’s a fact, they
assume that it’s good science. Because
it’s now a fact in their mind, anyone that doesn’t agree with them doesn’t
agree with facts is stupid, too stupid to listen to, not smart enough to not
talk down to.
As someone who doesn’t really fit in with many traditional political
viewpoints, I’ve found the left seems a lot more arrogant and condescending in
their viewpoints the last several years.
I think the right for the most part has been called out for their ignorance,
can see the flaws that they had, and have worked through it, and are more aware
of their blind spots. I don’t think the
left sees their own ignorance yet, although I think things like Covington are
starting to wake people up to how quick to anger and how easily they can be
manipulated by sources they once trusted.
|
