20 comments for “Ozy And Millie

  1. The problem with freedom of interpretation, of course, is that you’re free to interpret a moral code as a guideline rather than a rule…

  2. Yes, there are Christians who don’t always practice that rule. (Actually, that’s everybody, including me.) But the fact that I don’t practice the Bible perfectly doesn’t mean that the Bible isn’t true. You might as well say, because a 3rd-grade orchestra performed Mozart’s music so badly, that Mozart was a lousy composer! You shouldn’t judge the Bible based solely on my (imperfect) attempts to obey it; you should judge it based on what it says. I guess I sound a little upset; I guess I am. I’m just sick of the people who, throughout history, have created hospitals to help the poor, taught congregations not to take revenge on their neighbors, run a large number of charity drives to help people overseas, and FOUNDED AMERICA are vilified and labelled bigots everywhere I go.

    • I see little point in arguing with you, but I must take issue with the idea that the founders of the country were unambiguously Christian. Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly was not fond of any organized church, and argued strenuously against the US being founded as an explicitly Christian nation.

      “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

      “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”

      “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

      “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

      • hmm… You’re right. I was a bit hasty to say something so extreme.
        However, I still believe that there was a substantial Christian influence in the population of America at that time, and it would also have had a corresponding influence in the committee that created the Constitution.

        • Yeah they why they one of the first thing that substantially religious population demanded to be added so that they accept the Constitution was the bit about the Church getting no say in the countries law.

          • Probably not unrelated to the fact that, for the first couple of hundred years at least, a major factor in many people’s decision to emigrate was a disagreement with the Established Church back home. Even if that were only a small minority and centuries ago, it’s a very emotive precedent that nearly anyone would want to avoid repeating.

            It also produces a country whose notable people come from quite a mix of religions and denominations. The Established Church in most countries is one that’s literally been the only one there for a thousand or so years, or that’s been rebranded by a single monarch, or transplanted to a colony as the Established Church of the Colonial Power. The USA was such a mix already by the time it came to the Constitution that no denomination had the necessary dominant position, hence no denomination being given Established status.

    • No one said that. What we said was some Christians are engaged in very regressive policy-making, if I say ISIL is a Muslim Organization that engages in sexual violence against young boys, am I calling all Muslims boy raping fiends?

  3. i find it interesting that no one has pointed this out yet, but the rules towards the back are heavily arguably more important than the ones towards the front, wouldn’t you think?

  4. She almost said “These laws are ancient and that’s all there is to it.” You know what else is an ancient law? Sexism.

  5. Being bisexual, a group of friends and I did something very similar to this once. My at-that-time-boyfriend came up with a large sign proclaiming “You don’t see us telling YOU who to date, yeah?!?”
    My… We were UNPOPULAR little so-an’-so’s there for a while!
    Olé, INDEED, sirrah!

  6. There is a difference between causing harm to someone and telling them what they’re doing is wrong. The second one – *when done properly* – is done out of sincere concern for them and a desire to see them change for the better. I’d much rather know when I am wrong, so I can change to become right, than remain ignorant of it. “The Golden Rule” can be an appropriate reason to tell someone their behavior is wrong and needs to be changed.

    However, picketing in the streets with signs targeting the individual rather than the behavior definitely isn’t doing it right.

  7. The protesters Llewelyn is messing with are not representative of all Christians. In fact, they are being VERY un-Christlike. Jesus held people to VERY high moral standards while going to parties with prostitutes and tax collectors. We should always speak the truth but speak it in love.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.