TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I believe they banned all outward displays of religion including head scarves in all public buildings including schools. They have an attitude of being French in public and whatever religion you are at home in private.

That sounds like a very reasonable stance to me. It's sorta' like "separation of church and state", isn't it? Maybe we should try it?

We don't have a "separation of church and state clause." Here's what we've got:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Thank you. I was thinkin' that the "...whatever religion you are at home in private" part of your post would be a swell, if somewhat novel, idea. IOW, we should all try minding our own business and stop trying to force our will/beliefs on others.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I happen to agree with this American atheist, Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame, concerning proselytization.

chartreuse wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I happen to agree with this American atheist, Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame, concerning proselytization.

He makes an excellent point. IMHO, it's one that doesn't negate Oldgringo's point about not forcing our beliefs on others. Decades ago, as an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge, one of my proudest moments was when, a young atheist informed one of the more aggressive evangelicals that the way I lived my faith was more likely to bring him to Christ than any amount of overt proselytization.

That's kind of what I meant by "low key". Of course, we're all fallen and I, for one, can't claim not to have let myself down over the following years. But we can try.

OldGringo wrote:Hoi,

I tried to look at your YouTube thinghy but lost interest because Penn took too long to get to whatever point he was trying to make; i.e., TMI. Thanks anyway.

EDIT:
We're not supposed to be talking religion, yours, mine or the other guy's, on this forum... and I ain't.

Oldgringo wrote:I still think the world would be a better place if everybody would mind their own business.

Oldgringo wrote:Okay Hoi, since you've clarified my misconception that the preceding posts were leading to religious discussion; I can now tell you and Chartreuse that y'all can be as fallen as you want, but I think I'm still gonna' pass. Thanks again.

I still think the world would be a better place if everybody would mind their own business.

45 4 life wrote:So when do we get to stop being the ones with all of the tolerance for such things.

45 4 life wrote:I don't think any book should be burned including theirs. I also have that same view about flags.
So when do we get to stop being the ones with all of the tolerance for such things.
Our flags get burned and we turn the other cheek!
Americans are beheaded, oh well it is just extremist!
Mosque to be built near ground zero, it is their right!
While Americans were holding memorials in NYC, protesters for the mosque were just a few blocks away, where is THEIR COMPASSION?

Do ya think they will hate us less since the book burning did not take place, could they hate us more?

Have you noticed that they do not care at all what we think of them, we are nothing to them, nothing.

Liberty wrote:There probably has been enough said about this, but I can't resist.
I was taught ever since I was a very young boy, to simple things.
Defend your self and those you care with all your heart and all you have.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you
An extension of the second principle is to love thine enemy.

Its a good thing to fight our enemies. But should we antagonize them just for the sake of making them mad or angry with us? If we destroy the enemy in their own camps, it means there are fewer to fly planes into our buildings. Burning their Koran does nothing in the war to defeat them.

Purplehood wrote:

Liberty wrote:There probably has been enough said about this, but I can't resist.
I was taught ever since I was a very young boy, to simple things.
Defend your self and those you care with all your heart and all you have.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you
An extension of the second principle is to love thine enemy.

Its a good thing to fight our enemies. But should we antagonize them just for the sake of making them mad or angry with us? If we destroy the enemy in their own camps, it means there are fewer to fly planes into our buildings. Burning their Koran does nothing in the war to defeat them.

That is how I feel in a nutshell.

Oldgringo wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Liberty wrote:There probably has been enough said about this, but I can't resist.
I was taught ever since I was a very young boy, to simple things.
Defend your self and those you care with all your heart and all you have.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you
An extension of the second principle is to love thine enemy.

Its a good thing to fight our enemies. But should we antagonize them just for the sake of making them mad or angry with us? If we destroy the enemy in their own camps, it means there are fewer to fly planes into our buildings. Burning their Koran does nothing in the war to defeat them.

That is how I feel in a nutshell.

I'm having a problem/question with the "love thine enemy" part, perhaps it will pass? Maybe when it's over and we're all friends we can do the love thinghy? ITMT, the enemy is the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expounding_of_the_Law
The Jewish Encyclopedia states:
… Jesus asserted the principle of brotherly love as applied by the liberal school of Hillel to all men. Indeed, the Talmud insists, with reference to Lev. xix. 18, that even the criminal at the time of execution should be treated with tender love (Sanh. 45a). As Schechter in "J. Q. R." x. 11, shows, the expression "Ye have heard …" is an inexact translation of the rabbinical formula (שןמע אני), which is only a formal logical interrogation introducing the opposite view as the only correct one: "Ye might deduce from this verse that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but I say to you the only correct interpretation is, Love all men, even thine enemies."
—Jewish Encyclopedia: Brotherly love

See also Christianity and Judaism#Love.

Love here has a much more restricted sense than the normal English term. Greek considered there to be four quite different forms of love, having a word for each, all of which we now translate as love:

* eros - erotic love
* storge - brotherly/familial love
* philia - deep affection
* agape - the selfless love of God for humanity which, through Christ, can be echoed back.

Agape, the word translated as love in the instruction love thine enemy, is referred to some 140 times in the New Testament, and so its meaning is the focus of some debate. That it appears elsewhere in Greek use tends not to influence the arguments. Barclay translates it as continued benevolence, Tertullian viewed it as referring to charity, and ancient philosophers used it in a sense of universal, all encompassing love, like a lust for life, and like philanthropy. This kind of love had a high priority in Early Christianity, and the ritual of the love feast was viewed as one of the most important. Enemies is also a broad term, and it applies to all manner of foes and adversaries, and so several commentators have sought to restrict it only to non-Christians, to make it have the sense that one should love converting non-Christians to Christianity, though this advocation is not supported as its meaning by scholars.

As a motive for acting according to the commandment to love thine enemy, the exposition recommends imitating God rather than groups whom the listeners despised. [...]

This exposition, and the whole collection of expositions, culminates with the instruction Be perfect, just as God is perfect.

This is known as the imitatio Dei — the imitation of God — and also appears in Luke's Sermon on the Plain. It originates in the holiness code's fundamental command to be holy because God is holy. There is some debate in Christian circles about what exactly this verse means, since many view being as perfect as God something of a complete impossibility. Some Christians believe that this is deliberate on Jesus' part, that the purpose is not what it seems at first but instead a goal is being set that cannot be reached in order to teach people humility,[citation needed][99] though others interpret it for what it appears to be - that the pursuit of perfection is important, even if the attainment of it impossible, see also Theosis.