sacrificialgoddess wrote:

Gotta say something here.



Replace Bill Clinton with George Bush and sex with lying about weapons of mass destruction and you could be describing the current administration. They are all crooks, otherwise they would never rise to the presidency. But personally, I would rather someone lie about sex. Sex doesn't get folks killed. But that's for another board.

I agree completely. They are all crooks. And your analogy is apt.

I want someone whos faith is private and there concern when in office is the office and prtecting the law . And not gradually removing rights, such as when the current pres. said that Wicca should not be considered a religion. (thank the g-ds that did not work) That is dangerous and NOT tolerant of others beliefs. I think the word bigot works there.
Sorry if I strayed off topic a bit. something I just read still in my head.

sacrificialgoddess wrote:

Love Ya, Bron!   :D

:pThat sooo made my day. Love you, too, wild child!

mainecaptain wrote:

I want someone whos faith is private and there concern when in office is the office and prtecting the law .

Amen!

mainecaptain wrote:

And not gradually removing rights, such as when the current pres. said that Wicca should not be considered a religion.

What??? Are you kidding??? I thought I heard it all from this whack job prez...lol!

mainecaptain wrote:

Sorry if I strayed off topic a bit. something I just read still in my head.

I don't mind going off topic at all, just as long as at least a 'touch' of the topic is still being seen. What do you think about extremism? Should it be tolerated?

I find I'm bringing in a contradiction by posting about prezie bush about this because it is his intolerance of Islamic extremism that is bringing about even more chaos in the world.......

:o

...so, I'm kinda wondering how one could show intolerance and yet still be...sane (?), lol. Any ideas Maine? :)

friendofsaints&angels wrote:

Hey B thanks for writing back and answering.

My happiness to do so. ; )

friendofsaints&angels wrote:

If someone blows themselves up, and kills many innocent people in the name of religion, I don't think our Prayers will even save that person. The Bible teaches us too hate the sin, but not the sinner, but I would imagine there will not even be a cool place in hell, for schmucks like that. P.S. speaking of hating the sin and not the sinner, Hi S.G.

If prayers can't help them even after they die, do you think prayer even for them now would not help? What I mean is....do you think you have any answers for this type of extremist mentality for one's religion?

I would love to hear your views....

p.s. how do you know SG sins?

Brønwyn wrote:

p.s. how do you know SG sins?

Bron, my gods have no concept of sin.  How about yours?   :D

Unless we have reduced sin to f'cking up.  Everyone does that, but it has never been my understanding of what sin means.  I have always understood sinning to be transgressing against the gods.  My gods aren't that petty.   :rolleyes:

sacrificialgoddess wrote:

Bron, my gods have no concept of sin.  How about yours?   :D

Unless we have reduced sin to f'cking up.  Everyone does that, but it has never been my understanding of what sin means.  I have always understood sinning to be transgressing against the gods.  My gods aren't that petty.   :rolleyes:

I know you didn't ask me, and it's not even my religion, but if I may...

My understanding is that calling someone a "sinner" means one of three things:

* A personal judgment against a particular individual, especially (but not necessarily) for one or more specific disapproved of acts.
* A reference to the concept that all people are born with an indelible flaw because of ancestral disobedience to God committed by the original human beings.
* Acknowledgment that everybody makes mistakes, coupled with the belief that whatever one does to the least of God's creatures one does to God.

A Christian could find Biblically based justification for each of these, of course.

Now, I don't personally know FoS&A or all the history of discussion you may have with each other. But, simply from the tone of the post in question, I'm going to guess it was the third of these options that was intended, in a sort of "Hey there, fellow human being!" kind of way. My original impression of it was that it really wasn't intended to insult, and the posted apology that followed seems to confirm that.

"Sin" and "sinner" have become terribly loaded words. It's easy for anybody to react to them. I don't happen to use them, myself. They're not a part of my faith. But if somebody else does, I just try to look behind the word at the statement that may have been intended. I can't be offended by the second and third on the list above, and I don't really disagree with the third (though it doesn't stop me from eating or from fighting off cold germs!)

You know, I had to laugh at myself when I read your post. I must admit I fuss over my posts to make sure I'm saying exactly what I want to say, and I still can't be sure I'm making the impression I intend. I honestly didn't want to sound like I was trying to be everybody's mother - or some kind of lunchroom monitor! I have stopped by that other thread and seen the posts that you're referring to, on my way to making my own post there. In my own defense, I can only confess that, in replying to posts, I often try not just to respond to the person who made the statements I'm commenting on. I also try to contribute something that might provide information, insight, or just plain food for thought to anyone else who happens by that might be interested in what's going on.

Your point is well taken. :D right back atcha!