Posts by Susan Price30

Quincy:

Benjamin Taylor6 Asks: Some theologians looked into this and decided to rewrite the rulebook to better suit the evolution of modern capitalism. What exactly defines the Protestant work ethic? Is it just about being busy, or is there something deeper at play within the American spirit? The Protestant work ethic is rooted in a sincere, straightforward devotion directed toward the worship of the Holy Trinity. It stems from a Christian heritage that encourages personal piety through prayer and studying the Bible, alongside communal devotion within the Church. This ethical framework is built upon a fundamental theological premise: any profession can be done for the glory of God if performed with honesty, dedication, and persistence. Simply put, this type of devotion fosters thriftiness; when diligent work is paired with saving, it creates the social conditions necessary for capital accumulation. When capital is used rationally and reinvested, it generates profit, ultimately leading to material prosperity for both the individual and society at large.

Yes. 🙂 Perhaps it’s worth pointing out that many of the early bankers—or capitalists, if you prefer—in the United Kingdom were actually Quakers. They happened to be some of the most successful, with businesses that managed to endure for generations.

Tell me more about them. Is there anything else? Known as the "Society of Friends"—a Christian movement that operates without priests or formal rituals.

They were truly frugal people—never wasteful, mind you. They possessed an incredible work ethic and felt a deep sense of duty to support those in our society who needed it most.

Some nations—whether they be entire countries, major cities, or even just individual people and their unique destinies—are truly something else. Blessed.Some are on the fringe, perhaps. Is it just bad collective karma, as some might say? Or is it more like those heavy "sins of the fathers" that Christians believe haunt generations?

.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:It’s because people spend so much time pouring over the Bible and various Eastern texts. They all lean into that idea—you know the one—that it's easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy person to enter heaven. So why does that narrative stick?
Because, let's be real, money buys comfort. And when you have plenty of material wealth, it's easy to get lost in indulging the physical self. Some people hit their limit quickly, others take longer... and then you have those who find a way to balance pleasure with purpose—meditating in a Rolls-Royce, for instance. 😁

yes, why? 😁

* because for the (pagan) rich man in the parable, money clearly got in the way of much more important things?

* because for the (pagan) rich man in the parable, wealth is the center of his life, thereby occupying God's place.

* because (for the rich man in the parable) wealth creates a distorted relationship with material goods—things like recklessness, greed, self-reliance, and so on.

Generally speaking, it's because

* it isn't wise to prioritize financial success.

Quincy:

No one can serve two masters. Either they will hate one and love the other, or they will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. (Matthew 6:24)

(what does the English word Mammon actually mean? well... Christian theologians claim Jesus is actually naming a demon in cases where such people are truly being controlled. does the word money derive from it? possibly).

In general, while it isn't impossible, it is difficult for the wealthy to enter God's kingdom.

(again, the point is about trust—about priorities. plus motivation—why do they want money and for whom or what.

* and because the love of money leads to Evil.

* and because human satisfaction is not tied to the amount of money or the size of the fortune one possesses (but rather to their spiritual state and relationship with God).

* because a person's interests lie wherever they invest their money. (if their priority is earthly, that is what they attach themselves to)

Quincy:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:21)

etc etc

Oh yeah, they actually ran some statistics on this in the United Kingdom and it was published in all the newspapers just a few months ago. The study looked at which faiths were most prominent in high-level positions within banking and finance.

According to the research, 8 out of 10 were Jewish, followed by Hindus in second place. Christians were the least represented. Catholics weren't even close, lol. Good news, I guess 😁 and it's somewhat expected that it might turn out that way. It seems Christians don't 'worship' Mammon, even in the UK, 2000 years after that true story in the Bible about the rich man whose only treasure was material and transient rather than spiritual.

.

Robert Fisher9 said:Money itself, just like anything else, isn't inherently good or bad—it’s like a knife... you can use it to cook a great dinner or cause some serious harm... the choice is entirely yours. Having a ton of cash doesn't mean someone lacks spiritual depth; it's only the obsession with money that does that. Same goes for getting too attached to anything material—whether it's a house, a car, a person, or even an idea...

That being said, in today's world, money often acts as this awesome catalyst for spiritual growth... so honestly, thanks for existing, money! I'm a fan.=)

Using "too often" as a rule of thumb is flawed, because that would be the first sign that someone is, figuratively speaking, bowing before the altar of Mammon. Jesus spoke extensively on this topic... regarding the spirit of greed, and how one cannot serve two masters.

The pursuit of spiritual fulfillment and the pursuit of material wealth cannot be forced simultaneously; if you have a goal, you have one ultimate objective, not ten or fifteen conflicting ones.

Of course, there are wealthy and influential people who might, say, follow a Divine mission, but for them, money is merely a by-product rather than being their primary life purpose.

In the first instance, money will not bring happiness to a person, whereas in the second, it truly can.

quote:

Engaging in this kind of discussion violates the laws of the USA, and it goes directly against the policy declared by the new President of the United States during her inaugural address....

Excuse me?? This was explicitly stated in the presidential 'inaugural address'

Jesus Christ 🤦

The United States Department of Culture, Washington, D.C., the National Endowment for the Arts, and an FCC grant fund are all working together to promote LGBT stories to children.

http://www.voxfeminae.net/gender-art...price-za-djecu

Bless today's youth; they are discovering their sexuality at such an early age. Is that truly considered "progressive" in the literal sense of the word?

It is comforting to know that my hard-earned money is being funneled into such progressive initiatives.

This is the opening post for a private thread on ExxonMobil.

The explanation provided doesn't seem accurate, nor does it actually align with the facts. To put it simply—the person offering this explanation looks... He's offering nothing but false excuses.If those reasons aren't actually valid, then what would constitute legitimate ones? That is my question here.

Subject. The link provided.

Are there too many people here framing homosexuality as a medical disorder?

That kind of discussion violates the United States Penal Code and goes directly against the policy declared by the President of the United States during her inaugural address.It goes without saying that this violates every ethical standard this Forum has stood for since its very inception.

The moderation team has decided to permanently close this thread. We will also be closing any "replacement" threads created to continue this specific discussion; please be advised that attempting to circumvent this decision will be treated as a violation of our community guidelines.

Thank you.

PL

As far as I know, according to the law... It isn't prohibited. If we are debating whether homosexuality constitutes a deviation or disorder—as some moderators might suggest—it is important to remember that the law doesn't prohibit discussing views regarding sin or religious morality. The only thing that remains strictly off-limits is hate speech, or any language that incites hatred, violence, or terror based on someone's sexual orientation.

Could someone provide some clarification or an excerpt from the American website regarding this:

Hate speech consists of verbal or written expressions that publicly incite or provoke animosity toward a specific group—or an individual—based on their identity. Its purpose is to foster intolerance, division, discrimination, and violence, while simultaneously fueling and intensifying existing hatred through public discourse.

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, Under Article 174 of the United States Penal Code, penalties are prescribed for those who... ...for the purpose of spreading racial or religious hatred, Sexual matters? Does anyone else find it troubling when people publicly preach ideas about one race, religion, gender, or nationality being superior to another? It’s essentially using hateful rhetoric to claim dominance over certain groups based on their identity or skin color. Is this kind of behavior ever truly acceptable in our society?

;;;
The US Cabinet.

While the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly bar revisionism—like denying or downplaying genocide or crimes against humanity—the US Cabinet has suggested that member states take a firmer stand against hate speech. This follows recommendations similar to those seen in international frameworks, where bodies have worked to establish commissions to combat racism and intolerance.www.coe.int/ecri ) which has published more reports on member states and general recommendations than anyone else—for instance, regarding antisemitism or intolerance toward Muslims.

The law seems pretty straightforward to me. Looking back at that thread (which was locked after just five pages of discussion), I don't see even a hint of hate speech or any kind of animosity toward the LGBTQ+ community. Honestly, it feels like the moderator who shut that topic down was being incredibly subjective in their decision.

Can we get an admin's opinion on this?

Thanks.

(And by the way, this isn't the first time. Every time LGBTQ+ topics come up on the Politics board, that specific moderator—based on past comments here—either hands out lightning-fast bans (which the admins later overturned) or just shuts the whole conversation down. For the record, none of the other moderators on the Politics board act this way.)

Ashley Smith24 said:Following Sarah Doyle54's reaction to the topic, I also noticed a post by Satnik's user, who expressed agreement with that controversial Guggenheim post. However, he was immediately flagged, and just moments later, his entire post was deleted.

To be objective, the deleted post might have deserved a flag since it contained elements insulting the moderation team, but why did it have to be wiped out entirely...? Is it just to create the impression that no one supports Guggenheim's perfectly valid point? Soon, there won't be anyone left who dares to think like Guggenheim. I wonder, is that really what we want?

Guggenheim isn't some political outlier; if the administration maintains objectivity, that needs to be acknowledged. Opposition should be met with arguments, not by deleting posts where someone expresses support for views we happen to dislike.

To reiterate, my objection isn't toward the flagging, but toward the deletion of Satnik's post.

I took another look at the controversial Guggenheim's post, so I want to expand on my thoughts.

The eight points Guggenheim listed in the post fall under the issue of so-called special measures according to the Equal Rights Amendment (points 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13), and in that regard, the post stays strictly on topic. Since gender quotas in politics are inherently such special measures, it is logical and necessary to discuss the legal framework that allows them.

.

I would love to hear your take on how Guggenheim violated those super-moderator warnings.

The controversial post that earned the flag was a logical follow-up to the previous one—anyone joining the thread could more easily understand exactly what was being discussed. Essentially, the first Guggenheim's post dealt with the Equal Rights Amendment and the specific special measures prescribed by it, while his second post (the one you reacted to) provided an overview of some of those mentioned measures.

.

🤣

while 'advocating' for other users or debating someone else's flags is what?

this looks like literal advocacy to me, doesn't it?

and maybe something else is going on... because it's just you and 'Guggenheim' holding the same view on this topic, which differs from most everyone else (I'm not speculating, just pointing out the possibility).

slybison8 said:I don't see any kind of "cover-up" here; honestly, even if this had been posted in Chinese instead of English, you could still make sense of it using Google Translate.

Is your entire post basically on the same level as that old joke: "Truth is our most precious commodity, so let's try to use it sparingly"?!

No hard feelings, man. 🙂 🙂

rapidnomad512 said:Nobody is actually suggesting we scrap anything. Every kind of content you see here is welcome and usually isn't an issue. It’s just about the "overkill"—there's a lack of moderation regarding scale. I'm simply calling for some restraint, not a ban or the removal of any elements that make this forum what it is.

It looks like William Bennett has already stepped up with a solid point. For those of us trying to have a conversation, constant flooding makes things unreadable and drags everything down. But then again, if certain mods don't mind it and aren't seeing an issue, fine—let's all just start dumping endless media quotes into every thread, too (though maybe we were holding back specifically because of the reasons mentioned above).

And I guess that solves it. If the mods aren't bothered by it, I don't see why those of us who don't moderate should be.

northerntiger said:Regarding my post and that article from The New York Times—I followed the rules by summarizing what I quoted. I included two direct sentences from the piece and provided the link. Is that still somehow an issue? 😂

Setting that specific post aside—the whole point was that misunderstandings happen when people rely on untranslated English text or snippets, which forces you to spend pages explaining what a foreign news piece actually means versus what it doesn't. It's all about those misunderstandings.

That’s what I was talking about. 👍

And obviously, I'm not targeting you per se, but rather a general rule. As far as I know, the standard practice isn't to just use Google Translate, but to provide a full translation of the text being posted, or at least the most vital part.

(And yes, there were some "nonsense" bits in English too, not just plain text)

Sarah Doyle54 said:If you're happy about 🤣 , I don't really see the point. It's unlikely anyone is going back to dig through ancient threads just to find some missed details.

Man, you've worn me out 🤣

Seeing this bit from The New York Times on page made me realize how much we've been circling this topic lately. Our user northerntiger speaks fantastic English, but since there wasn't a translation provided, people ended up leaving long comments and things got lost in translation.

That's all from me, enjoy yourselves. 😁

Sarah Doyle54 said:We mostly cleared them out, but if you spot any posts about those spreadsheets in a foreign language that we missed, please post them here. 😁

I'm well aware of that, and I know you're scrubbing it all. 🙂It caught my eye because there were several different English texts posted on that same thread.

If I recall correctly, that first thread about Hillary Clinton was posted before the election. Let me go back and take a look...

northerntiger said:Let’s clear the air—which other rule am I supposedly breaking? 🙂

Chuck shared the link to the site rules, so I’m asking nicely: could you please just copy and paste the specific rule I’m violating? I don't want us getting into an argument here about how things work on this forum based purely on personal bias rather than actual logic. 🙂

Looking through that list, I don't see any other violations on my part.
Where does it say we aren't allowed to post content that isn't "contrary, objective, or neutral in tone"? 🙂

How on earth can posting a link or quoting a portion of someone's official biography—like Viti Turšić's, whom Hillary Clinton kept on staff as reported today—be interpreted as "aggressive propaganda"? 🙂

Well, the supermoderator actually already addressed this.

If it's constant or excessive, it can be considered disrupting the normal flow of the forum. Sure, a massive copy-paste dump might be technically okay (though one wonders if anyone actually reads it or if it adds anything productive to the discussion), but if that's how someone chooses to participate, it's clearly a different story.

William Bennett53 said:Please, just bear with us for a moment...
We are currently discussing this matter and will reach a conclusion, which we will then post right here in this thread.

Understood—thanks.

northerntiger said:Thanks to Charles Fox10 for reminding us all about the old ruleQuote, which explains why my own "copy-paste" posts look like this next:

.

but you seem to be breaking a different rule that Charles Fox10 didn't even mention.

>

all these biased texts—nothing objective or neutral. Seriously, what is this? Is this aggressive propaganda that’s been tolerated for far too long, or what???

.

Charles Fox10 said:As long as these posts don't violate this rule Quote from the Politics section PDF rules everything is fine.

They clearly are violating it—if they just post endless walls of copy-pasted text from columns (which is often pretty irrelevant since it's just one person's opinion, and on top of that, it's a politician writing a column???). Basically, it's copy-pasting text without any personal input or anything else... besides a series of walls of text that nobody on these forums really reads anyway...

Why not just post a link to those columns instead of these massive walls of text?

Because they clutter up the threads, plus in this case, they aren't posting objective pieces or opinions; from what I've seen, it's mostly just ones that take an opposing view. Is that intentional spamming, or what?

Well, what you're saying seems wrong... because you know all of this is happening right in front of us and it's already been brought up in previous complaints. You also know there were walls of copy-pasted text in English before, yet nothing was done.

Should I post a link for that?

Joy, beautiful sparkle of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium!

We enter, intoxicated by fire,
Heavenly one, your shrine.

Your magic once more unites
What tradition has torn apart.

All men become brothers
Where Your tender wing lingers.

Whoever Has Had The Great fortuna to be a friend's friend ,
Whoever Has won a devoted wife ,

Join in Our jubilation!

Truly, anyone who can claim just one soul,
As their own on this earth!

And those who never could, must crawl
Tearfully away from this circle!

Truly, anyone who can claim just one soul, His own on this earth
!

And those who never could, must crawl
Tearfully away from this circle!
Joy, beautiful sparkle of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium!

We enter, intoxicated by fire,
Heavenly one, your shrine.

Your magic once more unites
What tradition has torn apart.

All men become brothers
Where Your tender wing lingers.

Your magic once more unites
What tradition has torn apart.

All men become brothers
Where Your tender wing lingers.

It feels a bit like a reworked version of the 'Germany' anthem, actually. 😍 One, two, three—let's go... everyone to Germany!

Now, jokes aside—this is an ode to paganism and clearly to that well-known Germanic/Germanic vision of Europe.

'Tenor' Mr. Bean sings the 'Ode'. 🤣😂

neonhound18 said:I suspect the Queen possesses roughly the same amount of decision-making power as this:

so, frankly, I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to cause her any trouble. 😬

That anthem actually traces back to Gregorian chant (those liturgical chants used in medieval churches and still heard today) and was originally God Save the King. 😬

And things were absolute chaos during the Middle Ages, for sure...

Just look at these 'pagans' here 😲

the European Union anthem

Joy, beautiful sparkle of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium!

WTH is this??? 🤣

The British national anthem is my absolute favorite, and I honestly think their flag is the most beautiful one out there.
(And no, I’m not just being biased here 🍿)

Just look at these beauties 🙏, (honestly the anthem is essentially a prayer which happens to be the only one I actually know.

(While everyone else is singing about mindless scenery, mountains, "natural wonders," or other nonsense, the British pray to God to strike down all enemies of the Kingdom and ask Him to protect the Queen and the nation. 😍 It seems they’re smarter than the rest when it comes to choosing an anthem. If you ask me, they nailed it. )

anthem

brisknomad13 said:Lisa Morales4,
I’ve been spending way more time over on the Politics board lately because it's actually interesting. Honestly, I’ve felt totally fine talking about how faith plays into our political and social lives there.

Nobody’s breathed a word against me, and I haven't dealt with any warnings or penalties for it either.

When it comes to heavy political stuff, it's much better to post on the Politics board than the Religion one. If you do want to talk about it under Religion, you should probably stick to the Vatican II section—you know, "signs of the times," maybe Church Social Teaching or encyclicals... basically, you can still dive into prophecy and God's Word being channeled through people using a biblical lens.

It's a big topic, but if we try to tie it to this current presidential election, it feels pretty small compared to God's actual plan for salvation. The election is just a tiny flash in the pan that wraps up Sunday night.

Lately, society is pushing secularization so hard—call it secularism if you want—just to make it harder to link what's happening in politics to the concept of Truth.

You're free to post about that on the Politics board; you just have to watch your wording.

The real trick is learning how to adjust your vocabulary so you can say exactly what's on your mind—keeping it subtle and symbolic—without backing down even an inch. 🙂

So, is the solution to just move over to an entirely different section? 😁 Because why should the Alternative (thematically) take up three or four sub-forums on Alternative, an entire sub-forum under Spirituality, and now the Religion section too??

We've already witnessed a literal "purge" of Catholics from the Religion section, and we've seen mass exits from Muslims there several times over the last few years—what's next? 😉 And TT, is it even "your type" to post on Politics? (Actually, none of us really are, but still...) For many coming from Religion, Politics is more or less an irrelevant section, wouldn't you agree? Plus, the quality of discussion isn't exactly at the level we used to have on RE, as you probably know yourself.😉

rowdytiger13 said:Since I moderate the religion section, I want to say I’m fully on board with my colleague's decision; if I had caught it sooner, I would have handled it the exact same way.
Basically, there's an entire dedicated sub-section under politics regarding the presidential elections, plus a thread about last night's debate and separate ones for the individual candidates.
In my view, those are much more appropriate places to debate the candidates and the debates themselves, even from a Christian perspective.

Then I assume you'll be consistent and move all the topics dealing with the Alternative—including that thread on Satanism you were active in, which has nothing to do with mainstream world religions—over to the Alternative or Spirituality sub-forums.

What happened there? Why were those topics even in this section to begin with?