Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


just_abc last won the day on April 8 2013

just_abc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

221 Good

About just_abc

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,643 profile views
  1. What makes a person a Christian is accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. If someone has not accepted Jesus yet as their Lord and Saviour.. then they are not born again.. and therefore not a Christian.. regardless of what term they might call themselves.. or how good their character is.. or what good things they may or may not do. It is the accepting of Jesus as Lord and Saviour that makes a person a Christian. Sorry just wanted to mention that. Not meant as a lecture or anything! Btw. welcome to worthy!
  2. Just a small note. I don't know very much about this organisation.. so please note that I am neither trying to promote or un-promote (is there such a word lol) it.. But just wanted to mention that in some countries.. depending on the context the term is used in etc.. the word 'tolerence' might sometimes not always have the same meaning as I am guessing it might sometimes have in countries such as the Usa.. For example.. to me a hypothetical example of 'religious tolerance' might be if say Christians are a minority religion in a country but the country allows Christian student fellowship groups in public schools even if Christians are just a minority.. Just a hypothetical example of a possible meaning of the term.. There can be other meanings of course.. And perhaps not all might be in line with Christianity.. But just wanted to mention one of the type of meanings that the term 'tolerance' can have in some countries outside the Usa.. Because I am thinking that in the Usa perhaps it can often have a different meaning? Just some general thoughts. Thanks.
  3. hi Just a small note. When used in a Christian context.. by Christians in Indonesia and malaysian Borneo.. the word is not used as a name.. but rather it is used in basically the same way as english speaking Christians use the english word 'God' The english word 'God' is also not a name. If one were to compare many /most widely used reputable Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia) Bibles.. with english language Bibles such as KJV or NIV..... and.. and look at verses such as Genesis 1:1.. ..one would often see a certain word used in that verse in the Indonesian Bible ..for where in english Bibles the english word 'God' is used.. Or in other words regardless of how non-Christians may or may not use or view words.. it does not automatically mean Christians also use it the same way.. Just some thoughts. Thanks. Ps. Want to add that the majority of Christians in places such as malaysia.. have never been muslim.. The word is used by many indigenous Christians who were not from muslim backgrounds. It is a language issue.
  4. Perhaps some people might believe that Christianity and non-Christian religions are the same thing.... however this does NOT mean that everyone believes that.. or that such a belief is correct. Perhaps some people might even believe that Christianity and mormonism (a cult) are the same thing.... however this does NOT mean that everyone believes that.. or that such a belief is correct. Even if someone pointed to english speaking Christians in Utah using the same words (such as God and Jesus) that mormons also use.... and automatically assumed that this meant that american Christians believe that Christianity and mormonism are the same....(simply because they happen to use the same words).... ....this does NOT mean that such an assumption is correct or that all american Christians even believe such a thing.... -------------------- The point I am trying to make is that it is often two separate things. One is whether or not Christians and non-Christians who happen to speak the same language .. also use the same word/s. The other is whether or not people are saying that Christians and non-Christians are both worshiping the same Lord.. or that Christianity and non-Christian religions are the same thing etc.... These two things are often separate things. I think it can sometimes be helpful to not conflate these two things together. Because just because Christians in some languages might sometimes use the same general term for God as non-Christians .... it does not automatically mean that the Christians are saying or believing that Christianity and non-Christian religions are the same etc. Sometimes it is just the same word that is being used and that's all.. Just some thoughts. Thanks.
  5. OneLight Thank you very much brother. um.. it is actually not simply political correctness to the many Christians in Indonesia and malaysian Borneo who have used that word in Bibles and churches.. sometimes even for generations. It is a language issue For example : A different example might be the english word "God" and how this english word is used in places such as Usa... Both Christians as well as people of non-Christian religions such as mormonism (a cult) might use the english word God.. but this does not mean that all the american Christians are simply being politically correct or that mormonism and Christianity is the same thing etc (because it is not!). No matter how non-Christian religions such as mormonism (cult) might view or use the english word... even if any cults use the english word as an actual name.. that does not mean that Christians in the Usa are using the word in tbe same way or with the same meaning as those non-Christian religions.. It is just the same language that is being used thats all..(ie the english language) .. not the same belief /meanings of the word.. Just some thoughts. No offence intended. Thanks.
  6. Good point The Bible has been translated into many different languages apart from the english language. I think it would be interesting to see how words are translated into different languages.
  7. Btw sorry for my rather convoluted earlier post. The main point I was / am trying make is that.. Firstly the term 'jurisdiction' can have more than one meanings or rather types.. and.. If the meaning of the term 'jurisdiction' in the ammendment sentence is refering to type of jurisdiction that countries might have over their own citizens only.. then could that possibly mean that in order to be subject to such a jurisdiction of the Usa.. a person might need to already be an american citizen first? and.. If so.. does this mean there might possibly be an almost catch 22 type situation.. not just for children born in the Usa.. but also for adult naturalised citizens of the Usa? Since that particular ammendment sentence is specifically refering both to those born and those naturalised in the Usa ? (And not to the parent?) For example.. if the foreign spouse of an american citizen wanted to become a naturalised citizen of the Usa.. they would need to be 'subject to the jurisduction thereof' of the Usa.. But if in order for them to be subject to such a jurisdiction.. they might first need to already be an american citizen.. um how is this possible? i.e That in order to become an american citizen ..one would first need to already be an american citizen? That is confusing. Which is why I am wondering if the term 'jurisdiction' in that particular ammendment sentence could be refering to a different type of jurisdiction.. such as say someone being subject to the jurisdiction of many of the laws in a country etc? Rather than to the type of jurisdiction a country might have over its own citizens only? Just a thought. Thanks.
  8. hi Just a small note. I came across this article / page from an american government website (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). It has information about citizenship for children born outside the Usa but with an american parent. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3 Also below is link to an article / page from the american state department website which has info about dual nationality. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html
  9. Thanks for explaining. I am still a bit puzzled though. Is the term "jurisdiction" in the 14th Ammendment sentence refering to a different type of jurisdiction and not refering to someone being subject to a country's laws etc? If so I am wondering what is the type of jurisdiction that is being refered to? Is it refering to jurisdiction countries have over their own citizens? I am wondering partly because *if * the jurisdiction that is being refered to is the jurisdiction that different countries have over their own citizens.... then in the case of any child being born on Usa soil.. including those born to american parents.. wouldn't that child need to already have american citizenship in order to be subject to that type of jurisdiction? (since I think that type of jurisdiction applies to those who are already citizens of a country?.. and that sentence in the Ammendment regarding jurisdiction I think seems to be refering specifically to the child and not the parent?) So in other words.. in order to be given american citizenship.. a child would need to already be an american citizen..... ? Or in yet other words.. in order for the child to be 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' .. (assuming that the word jurisdiction in that sentence is refering to a jurisdiction that countries have over their own citizens).. the child would need to already be an american citizen.... But to already be an american citizen the child would first have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Usa.. Sorry but to me I think that is confusing..? It seems almost like a catch 22 situation? Or maybe I am just confusing myself lol Sorry! Thanks for your patience. ps I don't know the whole Ammendment.. so am just refering to the sentence /clip that was quoted earlier in this thread. ..If elsewhere in the American Constitution or Ammendment.. this issue had already been explained .. then please forgive me. Just basing the catch 22 perception on just that earlier sentence / clip. Thanks and sorry.
  10. Ok I am puzzled. In my country whether someone is in the country legally or legally.. I think they are still under the jurisdiction of the laws here? Isn't it the same in the Usa? Just wondering what was meant. Thanks. *edited to add the correction below An exemption : folk with diplomatic immunity etc might not be under the jurusdiction of the laws of the country they are serving in.. but most other folk are I think?
  11. Agreed. Most people around the world are just people.. Human beings.. Made in His image.. Loved by Him.. But who need Him too.. so very much.
  12. Thanks very much for explaining In the past in my country .... phrases along the lines that if someone was not happy with such-and-such then they should go back (to the countries their ancestors came from)... has been used by certain quarters against individuals who are born citizens of my country but from non-indigenous minority ethnicities.. Sometimes even if their family had lived in the country for generations.. some still viewed them as 'outsiders' or 'immigrants' (with the term for immigrant being used derisively in this context not positively) So yeah a "go back" phrase does not always have just nice meanings.. outside of the Usa.. I have never been to the Usa though.. so was/ am not certain what the meaning is in the Usa.. Thanks to you and deb for taking the time and trouble to explain to me. Much appreciated.
  13. hi sis Thanks for explaining To me though I think there is a big difference between say telling someone who is a born citizen of a country.. "that if they don't like the situation in the country they could simply move to any other country they wish".. and telling them.. "to go back to the countries of their ancestors".. If the tweet had been worded the same way as your sentence then I might not have even posted in this thread. Because your sentence is a perfectly normal sentence. Not something necessarily racist / bigoted /prejudiced or anything like that. Just an ordinary normal sentence. A "go back" sentence is different. The keyword is the phrase "go back". One can only go back to someplace that one came from. If someone is a born citizen of a country.. and grew up in that country etc.. then how can they "go back" to a country they were never from in the first place? Often the term "go back" to where your ancestors came from is used when the target of that phrase is not being viewed as an actual or full citizen of their own country.. but either just as second class citizens.. or perhaps even viewed as 'foreigners' in their own country. That is why.. to me.. that phrase is usually offensive or even bigoted etc. especially when used against those who are actually born citizens of a nation. Sorry just wanted to explain. I dont know if in the Usa perhaps the meaning is different? Thanks.
  14. hi Not sure if this will help or not.. but I came across this news article online https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-racist-tweets-progressive-democratic-congresswomen-go-back-to-countries-nancy-pelosi-slam-president/ hi sis. I have a question. Since three of the ladies are born citizens of the Usa.. does that mean they are being told to go back to the Usa? Sorry no offence intended truly sis. I am not from the Usa. But where I live "go back" comment type phrases directed at born citizens of the same country might often be viewed by many as racist or bigoted or prejudiced etc etc. Is it not also viewed that way in american culture? Or does "go back" phrase have a different meaning in your country compared to other countries? Sorry I hope it is ok for me to ask. To me it is highly highly offensive. One of the most bigoted or prejudiced etc types of comments in countries such as mine. So i am surprised more american Christians do not seem to view "go back" type comments the same way (if I am not mistaken). And I am wondering why? It is so hard to try to understand . Thanks. And truly not meaning any offence. Thank you.
  • Create New...