The new paganism

Originally posted by Suzianne
Nothing new about paganism, it's been around for thousands of years.


Btw, I wouldn't read The Federalist if you put a gun to my head.

That's right Suzy. You need to guard you mind and only read the Huffington Post.

Other thoughts are far too dangerous to entertain.

Originally posted by whodey
That is debated by scholars but for the sake of argument I will go along with it.

As I said, the article uses the term pagan in the same way you present it.

So what of the article?

Please stop hijacking threads.

The dishonest idea that is at the heart of your posting was found on this thread so it can hardly be "hijacking" the thread to confront you on it.

Originally posted by FMF
The dishonest idea that is at the heart of your posting was found on this thread so it can hardly be "hijacking" the thread to confront you on it.

I realize that you want no part of the content of this article because you find it troubling.

However, this was mostly for Christians to see what they are now up against, like Suzy.

Trouble is, the article talks about how abortion is now being embraced like it was during the pre-Christian era, something that her beloved DNC celebrates. As a result, she is likely to reject it entirely.

Anything that Hillary or the DNC champions becomes her gospel.

Originally posted by whodey
That's right Suzy. You need to guard you mind and only read the Huffington Post.

Other thoughts are far too dangerous to entertain.

No. Just far too stupid and biased.

Originally posted by whodey
I realize that you want no part of the content of this article because you find it troubling.

However, this was mostly for Christians to see what they are now up against, like Suzy.

Trouble is, the article talks about how abortion is now being embraced like it was during the pre-Christian era, something that her beloved DNC celebrates. As a result, she ...[text shortened]... likely to reject it entirely.

Anything that Hillary or the DNC champions becomes her gospel.

Unlike you, I do not find anything wrong with being a liberal and a Christian.

I spend a fair amount of my free time tending to the homeless in the downtown area of my city. Conservatives step over these people and say they need to 'get a job' and that they just don't want to work. The last three months (summer here in Phoenix, where the high is routinely above 40C) have seen numerous homeless dying on the streets because the conservative government in my state doesn't see any need to treat them as human beings and do something for them. But they can waste billions in 'incentives' to corporations (who are already obscenely rich) to get them to move to Arizona.

Now you just try to prove to me that Jesus would be a conservative today. My state and my city FAIL the test of the 'good Samaritan'.

Originally posted by whodey
I realize that you want no part of the content of this article because you find it troubling.

However, this was mostly for Christians to see what they are now up against, like Suzy.

Trouble is, the article talks about how abortion is now being embraced like it was during the pre-Christian era, something that her beloved DNC celebrates. As a result, she ...[text shortened]... likely to reject it entirely.

Anything that Hillary or the DNC champions becomes her gospel.

Hillary?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Unlike you, I do not find anything wrong with being a liberal and a Christian.

I spend a fair amount of my free time tending to the homeless in the downtown area of my city. Conservatives step over these people and say they need to 'get a job' and that they just don't want to work. The last three months (summer here in Phoenix, where the high is routin ...[text shortened]... esus would be a conservative today. My state and my city FAIL the test of the 'good Samaritan'.

Those of faith, or I should say, those who practice their faith account from the most people who give their time and money to the poor.

Judge me and the rest of those who are conservative if you must, but I'd say you are way out of line here.

In fact, helping the poor iis one of the things that distinguishes a Christian culture from those that are not.

Atheists tend to want to elect politicians who will force them to give more of their money to government to help the poor because they don't seem to be able to do it themselves. The trouble is, only about 9 cents on the dollar actually goes to the poor.

Most of what goes on in government to help the poor can be seen in the money laundering within the Clinton Foundation, or even Social Security where the government just comes in a steals the money off the top, leaving behind worthless IOU's.

Originally posted by whodey
Those of faith, or I should say, those who practice their faith account from the most people who give their time and money to the poor.

Judge me and the rest of those who are conservative if you must, but I'd say you are way out of line here.

In fact, helping the poor iis one of the things that distinguishes a Christian culture from those that are not. ...[text shortened]... ere the government just comes in a steals the money off the top, leaving behind worthless IOU's.

Oh you're talking about the US election. What percentage of the US electorate is atheist?

Originally posted by whodey
I realize that you want no part of the content of this article because you find it troubling.

Troubling? How so? What exactly is it you claim to "realize"?

As a native English speaker who has a professional interest in the specific and correct way the language is used, I'd be interested in hearing what you think the agenda is behind capitalizing the words new and pagan to make "New Pagan".

Political partisan one-up-mans-ship and polarised perspectives seem to deeply permeate the thinking of American Christians.

Originally posted by divegeester
Political partisan one-up-mans-ship and polarised perspectives seem to deeply permeate the thinking of American Christians.

That's quite a sentence. Need to come back to that after my morning coffee. 🙂

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That's quite a sentence. Need to come back to that after my morning coffee. 🙂

We will have moved on to more complex compound sentences by then

Originally posted by whodey
Those of faith, or I should say, those who practice their faith account from the most people who give their time and money to the poor. ...

Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That's quite a sentence. Need to come back to that after my morning coffee. 🙂

Some coffee went up my nose on the word "thinking".

Originally posted by apathist
Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

Incorrect.

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

“If your goal is to connect with donors, it’s clear that one of the things that matters to them is their religious orientation,” says Shawn Landres, Jumpstart’s chief executive and a co-author of the report.

The study of more than 4,800 American households, which covers members of five major religious denominations and people who are unaffiliated with any faith, was derived from two national surveys on giving compiled this year and analyzed by Jumpstart, a nonprofit research group, and researchers at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. The report used data from two surveys: the National Study of American Religious Giving and the National Study of American Jewish Giving.

Among the findings:

• Giving rates among black Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Jews, mainline Protestants—which include Episcopalians, members of the United Methodist Church, Presbyterians, and some Lutherans—and Roman Catholics were about the same. However, while roughly half of all members of the other faith groups contribute to religious congregations, only 37 percent of Jews did the same.

• American households donated a median $375 to congregations, $150 to religiously identified nonprofits, and $250 to secular charities in 2012.

• Black Protestants, followed by Roman Catholics and Jews, were the most likely to give out of the desire to help the needy.

• The three most popular charitable causes for all households regardless of religious affiliation were, in descending order: basic social services, “combined purpose” organizations (like United Way), and health care.

The study also looked at how much money went not only to congregations but also to charities with religious identities but secular missions. It shows that religious giving is sweeping: Forty-one percent of all charitable gifts from households last year went to congregations, while 32 percent went to other nonprofits with a religious identity and 27 percent went to secular charities. The results of that piece of the study have an 8 percent margin of error.