[Andyman_1970]

That's one I would love to stand by and watch. Can I be your corner man? Maybe help with a little Mr. Miyagi... Concentrate, focus power... balance in whoooole life Andy-san...

Wax on............wax off.................

 

[Andyman_1970]

wait...
while i consider you quite an educated man in jesus ways...

who defines what is "christianity" or "good christianity" from within??? i mean, you could argue on rational grounds thru direct interpretation an interpolation on the bible.. yet the other side might be able to do so.

I think I sense what you’re getting at Alex, how can one determine what is “good” or “bad” Christianity? This may sound like dancing around the point, but instead of “good” and “bad” I think a more accurate representation would be what is “relevant” Christianity and what is “non relevant” Christianity.

Essentially that’s the issue at hand. With the example of the chick screaming on the street corner about burning in Hell and such. While what she is say is technically in the Bible, is she presenting her point in the most Biblically accurate manner? Is she presenting her point in the most effective manner?

The problem seems to be that most of the “fire and brimstone” types are stuck in the late 19th century with both their thinking and their fundamental understanding of how a follower of Jesus interacts with the culture. This is why I see fundamental Christianity as becoming more and more irrelevant to our culture and why possible it is becoming such a vocal political player – a desperate attempt to remain in the forefront and relevant.

I guess a good objective (as objective as it can be) indicator of the difference between “good” and “bad” Christianity is which offers a message of unconditional love and hope and which offers a message of fear, judgment and hate/disrespect.

 

[Changleen]

Ha! I am not disagreeing that people's contribution to the greater good varies. And some of what you said is true, and perhaps if it were possible to know the full effect of each and every person's ultimate effect on society (and indeed of the lack of their presence) there could be an argument for removing them (though we both know that concept is impossible).

Don't remove them, just don't let them vote until they can measure up and get informed.

However you cannot deny that have initially proposed measuring people's intelligence then their potential and valuing them accordingly.

How can you measure potential? I stand by a proposal that voting should not be granted as a basic right - it should be earned through a level of understanding of the issues.

 

[DRB]

Don't remove them, just don't let them vote until they can measure up and get informed.
How can you measure potential? I stand by a proposal that voting should not be granted as a basic right - it should be earned through a level of understanding of the issues.

Unfortunately understanding becomes stance and then its Jim Crow all over again.

 

[Changleen]

No, Because I'll administer it. I'm completely impartial.