Yes! I eagerly await an explanation of why this phrase is deemed discriminatorily offensive!
Would it be fair to say that the aims of meditation typically include the exaltation of human consciousness?
If so, how could repetition of such practice, fail to deliver an elevated level of awareness?
Exactly how many times does the word "god" feature in the Lord's prayer?
The ten commandments debuted centuries before Christ was born.
The goals are contained within the prayer, and, contrary to popular misconstruance, those goals do not exclude the interests of any person truly seeking to live in a harmonious and prosperous society.
Did you fail to notice that a beneficent prayer, advocating for virtuous qualities, and much admired by many, many, (past and present) members of the human populace, has now been demonised in a very public manner?
o, it now appears that one has chosen to identify oneself as a potential victim of persecution, via naught more than, audible recital of another's prayer!!
How can hearing somebody praying beneficently, cause such angst?
The same can be rightly said of many religions.
Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".
Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.
Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.
I fail to understand why any Christian should have a problem respecting the right of others to engage in the practice of Pastafarianism!Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".
And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.
Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?Not to forget the fact that the purpose of parliament is to do the will of the people, not that of a particular deity who didn't partake in the elections.
And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.
How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?...The question is, is "Our Father" God or Jesus ? If it's God then we should not be endorsing his evils by repeating a prayer dedicated to him.
How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?
Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.So define God's will as you understand it.
Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.Libertariansm vs PC ?
Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386
Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?
If so, how so?
Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.
The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists.
It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!!Because it requests the will of that particular deity be satisfied.
Why are you asking me?!! My deity happens to be female!What is your deity's will regarding Gay Marriage for a start? Some of his supporters here are adamant that he is opposed to it.
Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OTonly"?Also, his will is that we are to obey the God of the OT only. That is also out of accord with the wishes of the people. Does one need to go on?
I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:Much of the Bible is historically inaccurate or cannot be confirmed.
The Great Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the walls of Jericho being blown down, even Jesus walking on water cannot be proven, so you want people to obey myths ?
How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.
I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:
How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?
The following would indicate that Sarah Hanson Young did not state "that all men are rapists", this was the description/interpretation of Senator Leyonhjelm, biased at best imhv.Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.
It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!
Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OT only"?
(You wouldn't perchance be talking of a jealous, vengeful, deity that favours one race of humanity, above all others, would you?!)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?