http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html
Why is this not surprising?
Ya! Christianity is all about love and togetherness! unless of course you are not a Christian, then watch your a55! This is the lesson learned from the actions of the Christians themselves!
FGG
Love thy neighbor, all right. 
If we're not all murdering each other in the 'good' name of God, it all seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?
g.
g.
QUOTE (FGG+Jul 9 2008, 03:16 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html
Why is this not surprising?
Ya! Christianity is all about love and togetherness! unless of course you are not a Christian, then watch your a55! This is the lesson learned from the actions of the Christians themselves!
FGG
Had some similar issues myself during boot camp. When asked what religion to put on my dog tags I said "none". The DI gave me all kinds of shite about it. But it stayed none.
I avoided christian groups (there weren't that many of them) and for the most part, most Marines respected my beliefs. I didn't shout them out either, I simply avoided those that were devout christians. In fact, ran a couple of them out of my room when we played "musical barracks".
I refused to tolerate some bible thumping idiot trying to convert me. told them it would be to their benefit to find a room with similar ideologies than to bunk with me. They listened. Especially when I cranked up Black Sabbath and NIB... (great tune)
MM
Why is this not surprising?
Ya! Christianity is all about love and togetherness! unless of course you are not a Christian, then watch your a55! This is the lesson learned from the actions of the Christians themselves!
FGG
Had some similar issues myself during boot camp. When asked what religion to put on my dog tags I said "none". The DI gave me all kinds of shite about it. But it stayed none.
I avoided christian groups (there weren't that many of them) and for the most part, most Marines respected my beliefs. I didn't shout them out either, I simply avoided those that were devout christians. In fact, ran a couple of them out of my room when we played "musical barracks".
I refused to tolerate some bible thumping idiot trying to convert me. told them it would be to their benefit to find a room with similar ideologies than to bunk with me. They listened. Especially when I cranked up Black Sabbath and NIB... (great tune)
MM
It really is getting hard to find anyone in public office/government that truly believes in the constitution. I grew up hearing "the constitution the words we live by". Shame that it's just propaganda now.
I was in the military for 11 years, and this looks like a load of bull to me.
If his own troops were out to frag him as it says in the linked article, I SERIOUSLY doubt it was because he was an Atheist.
And atheists complaining about following the constitution is just precious.
If his own troops were out to frag him as it says in the linked article, I SERIOUSLY doubt it was because he was an Atheist.
And atheists complaining about following the constitution is just precious.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 12 2008, 09:49 PM)
And atheists complaining about following the constitution is just precious.
Why, is insisting that the government follow it a bad thing or something?
And don't give me that crap about "science is a religion, teaching science in school is unconstitutional", that's a load of bullshit.
Why, is insisting that the government follow it a bad thing or something?
And don't give me that crap about "science is a religion, teaching science in school is unconstitutional", that's a load of bullshit.
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jul 13 2008, 01:52 AM)
Why, is insisting that the government follow it a bad thing or something?
And don't give me that crap about "science is a religion, teaching science in school is unconstitutional", that's a load of bullshit.
Wow, up your med dosage dude.
It is not the ATHEISTS usually complaining about following the constitution.
If you think "seperation of church and state" in the constitution, you might want to actually read it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And don't give me that crap about "science is a religion, teaching science in school is unconstitutional", that's a load of bullshit.
Wow, up your med dosage dude.
It is not the ATHEISTS usually complaining about following the constitution.
If you think "seperation of church and state" in the constitution, you might want to actually read it.
QUOTE (first amendment+)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 12 2008, 10:20 PM)
If you think "seperation of church and state" in the constitution, you might want to actually read it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That seems a pretty clear statement supporting separation of church and state to me... specifically that the state is not allowed to pass any law that supports or opposes any religion or that forces or restricts any practice of religion. Why would any atheist have a problem with that?
QUOTE (first amendment+)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That seems a pretty clear statement supporting separation of church and state to me... specifically that the state is not allowed to pass any law that supports or opposes any religion or that forces or restricts any practice of religion. Why would any atheist have a problem with that?
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jul 13 2008, 02:27 AM)
[/QUOTE]
That seems a pretty clear statement supporting separation of church and state to me... specifically that the state is not allowed to pass any law that supports or opposes any religion or that forces or restricts any practice of religion. Why would any atheist have a problem with that?
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
That seems a pretty clear statement supporting separation of church and state to me... specifically that the state is not allowed to pass any law that supports or opposes any religion or that forces or restricts any practice of religion. Why would any atheist have a problem with that?
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 12 2008, 10:36 PM)
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
No, I support preventing religion from being practiced in government.
No, I support preventing religion from being practiced in government.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
As it is forcing atheist or non-Christian representatives or senators to participate in a religious practice, then yes it should be prohibited.
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
As it is forcing atheist or non-Christian representatives or senators to participate in a religious practice, then yes it should be prohibited.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
No government official should be allowed to promote or condemn any religious perspective as part of their role as a government representative. What they choose to do in their private life is irrelevant.
No government official should be allowed to promote or condemn any religious perspective as part of their role as a government representative. What they choose to do in their private life is irrelevant.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
I do not feel that atheism is a religion, but I do not feel that atheism should be promoted by the government either. The law should not say that there is not a god any more than it should say that there is a god.
I do not feel that atheism is a religion, but I do not feel that atheism should be promoted by the government either. The law should not say that there is not a god any more than it should say that there is a god.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 02:36 AM)
That seems a pretty clear statement supporting separation of church and state to me... specifically that the state is not allowed to pass any law that supports or opposes any religion or that forces or restricts any practice of religion. Why would any atheist have a problem with that? [/QUOTE]
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
Devils advocate
- Atheism is usually pretty neutral, the primary issue is that if you are going to allow a christian based prayer, then you had better include the rest. Buddism, Muslim, etc... eh? Otherwise, it might appear that the christian based faith might be considered a bit .... favored?
the idea was to create a government that was void of favoritism, so that all could enjoy the right to pursue whatever religion they chose, not just christian based faiths. It wasn't to wipe religion out, it was meant to keep it from running the country, which based on current results was a complete failure. The religious right have done some pretty crazy shite in the name of faith... ie, same sex marriage, stem cell research, and the list goes on... Even though they are not suppose to be setting policy, they do... which is why we athiests raise hell when we see blantant rampage of christian based faith groups.
Don't tax us, but let us donate and organize for political figures... and run for office.... do I need to go on?
MM
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
Devils advocate
- Atheism is usually pretty neutral, the primary issue is that if you are going to allow a christian based prayer, then you had better include the rest. Buddism, Muslim, etc... eh? Otherwise, it might appear that the christian based faith might be considered a bit .... favored?
the idea was to create a government that was void of favoritism, so that all could enjoy the right to pursue whatever religion they chose, not just christian based faiths. It wasn't to wipe religion out, it was meant to keep it from running the country, which based on current results was a complete failure. The religious right have done some pretty crazy shite in the name of faith... ie, same sex marriage, stem cell research, and the list goes on... Even though they are not suppose to be setting policy, they do... which is why we athiests raise hell when we see blantant rampage of christian based faith groups.
Don't tax us, but let us donate and organize for political figures... and run for office.... do I need to go on?
MM
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 01:49 AM)
I was in the military for 11 years, and this looks like a load of bull to me.
Well, ya musta not talked to anyone or done anything durin them 11 years, otherwise ya'd know jes how christian the military really is.
I'm jes gonna let that bit o baseless an unsupported speculation stand. It's so dumb it don't need me to point out it's dumness...
I'm jes gonna let that bit o baseless an unsupported speculation stand. It's so dumb it don't need me to point out it's dumness...
And atheists complaining about following the constitution is just precious.
Here comes the whinin about atheists, again!
If religion is barred or excluded from some process, then that process is already atheistic, without any need fer proclaimin it as such. Ya really can't wrap yer tiny lil head around the idea that atheism ain't a belief, it's a LACK o beliefs, can ya?
Deadbeat don't be a knucklehead!!
I can just imagine those soundbites now:
"...In God we do not trust..."
or maybe:
"...One Nation over God..."
Your US constitution is neutral in regards to religion, freedom of it and freedom from it.
Ironically here in the UK despite the apparently more secular appearance, is more vulnerable to becoming an official theocracy/monarchy.
Jefferson drafted something to be proud of and more importantly uphold.
You are free to practice your religion are you not? What more do you want?
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
Devils advocate
- Atheism is usually pretty neutral, the primary issue is that if you are going to allow a christian based prayer, then you had better include the rest. Buddism, Muslim, etc... eh? Otherwise, it might appear that the christian based faith might be considered a bit .... favored?
No, you are wrong about the "favored" part. If the Atheist position was used instead, that would not be "secular" but ATHEIST favoritism. Now you may want to listen closely, as this is where I digress and where most people fail to understand my position.
"Seperation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution as it is used now in modern practice, it references a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and was rejected as wording from the first amendment and the constitution.
The accepted idea and the final compromise was to prevent any religion from taking over the Government and eliminating or preferring itself over others. The idea was NOT to remove religion from government, but to divorce the direct connection between it and the Federal government. As a matter of fact, several states HAD state religions when the constitution was ratified.
The entire idea was not to remove religion, but to make it completely free and unfettered. To allow the individual to practice freely and without governmental interference.
But this is an idea which is impossible as an absolute. That is why REMOVAL of religion from government is impossible, insofar as none may be favored.
Religion can be AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OUR COUNTRY part of our government, from the prayers and ceremonies, and all of the religious (christian) overtones, traditions and ceremonies. This is not unconstitutional, it is the original intention of the framers, and yes, even by Thomas Jefferson himself, who wrote the letter originally to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
The first amendment is not protection FROM religion, it is protection OF religion, which is very different. And why Atheism is considered equivalent in protection by the first amendment (seventh circuit court precedent, unchallenged by the supreme court). So, in governmental, legal terms, Atheism is EQUIVALENT to religion, if not in beliefs or whatever, but in legal treatment. It is not superior or preferred over religion as some would like to think.
Now as to "preferrment", the first amendment guarantees FREEDOM but not unfettered or unconditional consideration of all religions, or all philosophies that do not call themselves religions, whatever. Indeed, that would be completely impossible. Why? Because if we had to consider EVERY religion or philosophy INDEPENDENT of how many people it represented, or its popularity or makeup, it would be impossible. Why? Because EVERY possible combination or permutation would have the same strength and voice and authority. And every possible combination would mean no choice of any kind could be made, even murder could be considered "good" (Machiavelli for instance).
So it is inevitable that the government must represent the people. If the people are overwhelmingly Christian (as they are), the government, traditions, laws, everything will have a christian flavor to it, as it has for many years and still does.
EVERY possible religion does not need to be represented, nor could they be, just the ones most predominant in the populace. As Atheism is only considerably less than 10% (any number higher than that or even that high unfairly cheats and includes people who "believe in God" which is NOT atheism), they are not going to be preferred or even represented much.
Still, they have first amendment protection to prevent anyone trampling their individual rights, or forcing them to participate in another religion...BUT it does not mean REMOVAL of religion. It is a delicate balance. It does not mean that all references to any religion must be removed from their sight, that is ridiculous and an obvious violation of the "Free Exercise" clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can you not agree that REMOVAL of religious ceremonies and tradition is DIRECTLY "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Seems simple enough?
the idea was to create a government that was void of favoritism, so that all could enjoy the right to pursue whatever religion they chose, not just christian based faiths. It wasn't to wipe religion out, it was meant to keep it from running the country, which based on current results was a complete failure. The religious right have done some pretty crazy shite in the name of faith... ie, same sex marriage, stem cell research, and the list goes on... Even though they are not suppose to be setting policy, they do... which is why we athiests raise hell when we see blantant rampage of christian based faith groups.
Ah and here is where Atheists (and you ) have it quite wrong. Just because WE believe something, and base an ethical or moral decision on it, it does not mean that the Atheist position is automatically superior. (Abortion, stem cell research, etc.)
OUR Ethical and moral position has every bit as much authority and importance as yours, and due to larger numbers, we usually win. (So long as it does not trample individual rights or freedom.) Whether it is based on a flying spaghetti monster, John Locke, Jefferson or Machiavelli, the laws and rules running and enforced by our government will reflect the ethics and morals of the people it represents.
Don't tax us, but let us donate and organize for political figures... and run for office.... do I need to go on?
MM
What say you to that?
Pope to apologise for sex scandal
The Pope's visit has prompted mixed reactions from Australians
Pope Benedict XVI has begun a nine-day visit to Australia, where he is due to apologise for decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.
As he began the longest foreign trip of his papacy, he said paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7503246.stm
g.
Well, ya musta not talked to anyone or done anything durin them 11 years, otherwise ya'd know jes how christian the military really is.
QUOTE
If his own troops were out to frag him as it says in the linked article, I SERIOUSLY doubt it was because he was an Atheist.
I'm jes gonna let that bit o baseless an unsupported speculation stand. It's so dumb it don't need me to point out it's dumness...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If his own troops were out to frag him as it says in the linked article, I SERIOUSLY doubt it was because he was an Atheist. |
I'm jes gonna let that bit o baseless an unsupported speculation stand. It's so dumb it don't need me to point out it's dumness...
And atheists complaining about following the constitution is just precious.
Here comes the whinin about atheists, again!
QUOTE
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
If religion is barred or excluded from some process, then that process is already atheistic, without any need fer proclaimin it as such. Ya really can't wrap yer tiny lil head around the idea that atheism ain't a belief, it's a LACK o beliefs, can ya?
QUOTE
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
Deadbeat don't be a knucklehead!!
I can just imagine those soundbites now:
"...In God we do not trust..."
or maybe:
"...One Nation over God..."
Your US constitution is neutral in regards to religion, freedom of it and freedom from it.
Ironically here in the UK despite the apparently more secular appearance, is more vulnerable to becoming an official theocracy/monarchy.
Jefferson drafted something to be proud of and more importantly uphold.
You are free to practice your religion are you not? What more do you want?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jul 13 2008, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Oh so you would object to preventing religion from being practiced in government?
For instance,
saying a prayer or benediction before each session of congress,
Mention of any religion in any government setting or publicly funded venue,
And even more importantly, do you consider ATHEISM appropriate for inclusion when religion is barred or excluded?
Devils advocate
- Atheism is usually pretty neutral, the primary issue is that if you are going to allow a christian based prayer, then you had better include the rest. Buddism, Muslim, etc... eh? Otherwise, it might appear that the christian based faith might be considered a bit .... favored?
No, you are wrong about the "favored" part. If the Atheist position was used instead, that would not be "secular" but ATHEIST favoritism. Now you may want to listen closely, as this is where I digress and where most people fail to understand my position.
"Seperation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution as it is used now in modern practice, it references a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and was rejected as wording from the first amendment and the constitution.
The accepted idea and the final compromise was to prevent any religion from taking over the Government and eliminating or preferring itself over others. The idea was NOT to remove religion from government, but to divorce the direct connection between it and the Federal government. As a matter of fact, several states HAD state religions when the constitution was ratified.
The entire idea was not to remove religion, but to make it completely free and unfettered. To allow the individual to practice freely and without governmental interference.
But this is an idea which is impossible as an absolute. That is why REMOVAL of religion from government is impossible, insofar as none may be favored.
Religion can be AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OUR COUNTRY part of our government, from the prayers and ceremonies, and all of the religious (christian) overtones, traditions and ceremonies. This is not unconstitutional, it is the original intention of the framers, and yes, even by Thomas Jefferson himself, who wrote the letter originally to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
The first amendment is not protection FROM religion, it is protection OF religion, which is very different. And why Atheism is considered equivalent in protection by the first amendment (seventh circuit court precedent, unchallenged by the supreme court). So, in governmental, legal terms, Atheism is EQUIVALENT to religion, if not in beliefs or whatever, but in legal treatment. It is not superior or preferred over religion as some would like to think.
Now as to "preferrment", the first amendment guarantees FREEDOM but not unfettered or unconditional consideration of all religions, or all philosophies that do not call themselves religions, whatever. Indeed, that would be completely impossible. Why? Because if we had to consider EVERY religion or philosophy INDEPENDENT of how many people it represented, or its popularity or makeup, it would be impossible. Why? Because EVERY possible combination or permutation would have the same strength and voice and authority. And every possible combination would mean no choice of any kind could be made, even murder could be considered "good" (Machiavelli for instance).
So it is inevitable that the government must represent the people. If the people are overwhelmingly Christian (as they are), the government, traditions, laws, everything will have a christian flavor to it, as it has for many years and still does.
EVERY possible religion does not need to be represented, nor could they be, just the ones most predominant in the populace. As Atheism is only considerably less than 10% (any number higher than that or even that high unfairly cheats and includes people who "believe in God" which is NOT atheism), they are not going to be preferred or even represented much.
Still, they have first amendment protection to prevent anyone trampling their individual rights, or forcing them to participate in another religion...BUT it does not mean REMOVAL of religion. It is a delicate balance. It does not mean that all references to any religion must be removed from their sight, that is ridiculous and an obvious violation of the "Free Exercise" clause.
QUOTE (Free Exercise clause+)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can you not agree that REMOVAL of religious ceremonies and tradition is DIRECTLY "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Seems simple enough?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jul 13 2008, 02:52 AM)
the idea was to create a government that was void of favoritism, so that all could enjoy the right to pursue whatever religion they chose, not just christian based faiths. It wasn't to wipe religion out, it was meant to keep it from running the country, which based on current results was a complete failure. The religious right have done some pretty crazy shite in the name of faith... ie, same sex marriage, stem cell research, and the list goes on... Even though they are not suppose to be setting policy, they do... which is why we athiests raise hell when we see blantant rampage of christian based faith groups.
Ah and here is where Atheists (and you ) have it quite wrong. Just because WE believe something, and base an ethical or moral decision on it, it does not mean that the Atheist position is automatically superior. (Abortion, stem cell research, etc.)
OUR Ethical and moral position has every bit as much authority and importance as yours, and due to larger numbers, we usually win. (So long as it does not trample individual rights or freedom.) Whether it is based on a flying spaghetti monster, John Locke, Jefferson or Machiavelli, the laws and rules running and enforced by our government will reflect the ethics and morals of the people it represents.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jul 13 2008, 02:52 AM)
Don't tax us, but let us donate and organize for political figures... and run for office.... do I need to go on?
MM
What say you to that?
Pope to apologise for sex scandal
The Pope's visit has prompted mixed reactions from Australians
Pope Benedict XVI has begun a nine-day visit to Australia, where he is due to apologise for decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.
As he began the longest foreign trip of his papacy, he said paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7503246.stm
g.
deadbeat
I say I have never read a more thorough misunderstanding of the words in that amendment ever. The Constitution is not meant to protect the prerogatives of the many, but the rights of the FEW, or even the ONE. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.
Since murder violates the rights of the person murdered it IS NOT TRUE that a belief that murder is moral has to be respected.
Did you never take a course in civics??? Or were you home schooled???
Grumpy
QUOTE
What say you to that?
I say I have never read a more thorough misunderstanding of the words in that amendment ever. The Constitution is not meant to protect the prerogatives of the many, but the rights of the FEW, or even the ONE. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.
Since murder violates the rights of the person murdered it IS NOT TRUE that a belief that murder is moral has to be respected.
Did you never take a course in civics??? Or were you home schooled???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 13 2008, 12:41 PM)
deadbeat
I say I have never read a more thorough misunderstanding of the words in that amendment ever. The Constitution is not meant to protect the prerogatives of the many, but the rights of the FEW, or even the ONE. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.
Since murder violates the rights of the person murdered it IS NOT TRUE that a belief that murder is moral has to be respected.
Did you never take a course in civics??? Or were you home schooled???
Grumpy
Oh yeah murder could never be philosophically justified.
might want to tell Charles Manson that
For some time, too, Manson had been saying that racial tension between blacks and whites was growing and that blacks would soon rise up in rebellion in America's cities.[36][37] He had emphasized Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, which had taken place on April 4, 1968.[30] On a bitterly cold New Year's Eve at Myers Ranch, the Family members, gathered outside around a large fire, listened as Manson explained that the social turmoil he had been predicting had also been predicted by The Beatles.[33] The White Album songs, he declared, told it all, although in code. In fact, he maintained (or would soon maintain), the album was directed at the Family itself, an elect group that was being instructed to preserve the worthy from the impending disaster.[36][37]
In early January 1969, the Family escaped the desert's cold and positioned itself to monitor L.A.'s supposed tension by moving to a canary-yellow home in Canoga Park, not far from the Spahn Ranch.[38][39][33] Because this locale would allow the group to remain "submerged beneath the awareness of the outside world,"[38][40] Manson called it the Yellow Submarine, another Beatles reference. There, Family members prepared for the impending apocalypse,[41][42] which, around the campfire, Manson had termed "Helter Skelter," after the song of that name.
By February, Manson's vision was complete. The Family would create an album whose songs, as subtle as those of The Beatles, would trigger the predicted chaos. Ghastly murders of whites by blacks would be met with retaliation, and a split between racist and non-racist whites would yield whites' self-annihilation. Blacks' triumph, as it were, would merely precede their being ruled by the Family, which would ride out the conflict in "the bottomless pit" — a secret city beneath Death Valley.[43] At the Canoga Park house, while Family members worked on vehicles and pored over maps to prepare for their desert escape, they also worked on songs for their world-changing album. When they were told Terry Melcher was to come to the house to hear the material, the girls prepared a meal and cleaned the place; but Melcher never arrived.[41][36]
The point is a religion or philosophy could be invented with ANY ethical and moral position, even the most repugnant you can imagine, Mayans and human sacrifice, cannibalism, genital disfiguration, come on, I know you can think of an incredible array of examples if you try.
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful. You see YOUR vision of what you think is right, but refuse to acknowledge that anyone else with opinions you dislike EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, matter. Because you are so much smarter. That is what every despot and dictator in history believed too.
THAT is why the ethical and moral judgement of the represented population is what actually forms the laws. When the ethical and moral judgement of the people is ignored and the judgement of one or a few individuals is substituted "for their own good", it is Fascism, dictatorship, despotism...you know, that sort of government.
It is so obvious, your own self assuredness of your own rightness is the only thing in the way of your understanding.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=...duleId=10005206
g.
I say I have never read a more thorough misunderstanding of the words in that amendment ever. The Constitution is not meant to protect the prerogatives of the many, but the rights of the FEW, or even the ONE. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.
Since murder violates the rights of the person murdered it IS NOT TRUE that a belief that murder is moral has to be respected.
Did you never take a course in civics??? Or were you home schooled???
Grumpy
Oh yeah murder could never be philosophically justified.
might want to tell Charles Manson that
QUOTE (charles manson+ wiki)
For some time, too, Manson had been saying that racial tension between blacks and whites was growing and that blacks would soon rise up in rebellion in America's cities.[36][37] He had emphasized Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, which had taken place on April 4, 1968.[30] On a bitterly cold New Year's Eve at Myers Ranch, the Family members, gathered outside around a large fire, listened as Manson explained that the social turmoil he had been predicting had also been predicted by The Beatles.[33] The White Album songs, he declared, told it all, although in code. In fact, he maintained (or would soon maintain), the album was directed at the Family itself, an elect group that was being instructed to preserve the worthy from the impending disaster.[36][37]
In early January 1969, the Family escaped the desert's cold and positioned itself to monitor L.A.'s supposed tension by moving to a canary-yellow home in Canoga Park, not far from the Spahn Ranch.[38][39][33] Because this locale would allow the group to remain "submerged beneath the awareness of the outside world,"[38][40] Manson called it the Yellow Submarine, another Beatles reference. There, Family members prepared for the impending apocalypse,[41][42] which, around the campfire, Manson had termed "Helter Skelter," after the song of that name.
By February, Manson's vision was complete. The Family would create an album whose songs, as subtle as those of The Beatles, would trigger the predicted chaos. Ghastly murders of whites by blacks would be met with retaliation, and a split between racist and non-racist whites would yield whites' self-annihilation. Blacks' triumph, as it were, would merely precede their being ruled by the Family, which would ride out the conflict in "the bottomless pit" — a secret city beneath Death Valley.[43] At the Canoga Park house, while Family members worked on vehicles and pored over maps to prepare for their desert escape, they also worked on songs for their world-changing album. When they were told Terry Melcher was to come to the house to hear the material, the girls prepared a meal and cleaned the place; but Melcher never arrived.[41][36]
The point is a religion or philosophy could be invented with ANY ethical and moral position, even the most repugnant you can imagine, Mayans and human sacrifice, cannibalism, genital disfiguration, come on, I know you can think of an incredible array of examples if you try.
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful. You see YOUR vision of what you think is right, but refuse to acknowledge that anyone else with opinions you dislike EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, matter. Because you are so much smarter. That is what every despot and dictator in history believed too.
THAT is why the ethical and moral judgement of the represented population is what actually forms the laws. When the ethical and moral judgement of the people is ignored and the judgement of one or a few individuals is substituted "for their own good", it is Fascism, dictatorship, despotism...you know, that sort of government.
It is so obvious, your own self assuredness of your own rightness is the only thing in the way of your understanding.
QUOTE
When the ethical and moral judgement of the people is ignored and the judgement of one or a few individuals is substituted "for their own good", it is Fascism, dictatorship, despotism...you know, that sort of government.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=...duleId=10005206
g.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 07:34 PM)
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful. You see YOUR vision of what you think is right, but refuse to acknowledge that anyone else with opinions you dislike EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, matter. Because you are so much smarter. That is what every despot and dictator in history believed too.
Well, it didn't take you long to return to your roots of preaching majority mob rule theocracy under a democracy.
You continually forget that we live constitutional republic and mob rule is trumped and restricted by the constitution and the establishment clause you have posted that you wish to see removed.
Also odd is how you now simply pander to the majority again yet before you spoke about how a concensus from all points of view must be made.
Well, it didn't take you long to return to your roots of preaching majority mob rule theocracy under a democracy.
You continually forget that we live constitutional republic and mob rule is trumped and restricted by the constitution and the establishment clause you have posted that you wish to see removed.
Also odd is how you now simply pander to the majority again yet before you spoke about how a concensus from all points of view must be made.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 13 2008, 10:42 AM)
Pope to apologise for sex scandal
The Pope's visit has prompted mixed reactions from Australians
Pope Benedict XVI has begun a nine-day visit to Australia, where he is due to apologise for decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.
As he began the longest foreign trip of his papacy, he said paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7503246.stm
g.
The best he could come up with is "paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest" !!! Is he that removed from humanity that paedophilia is just incompatible!
My god is he deluded!
FGG
The Pope's visit has prompted mixed reactions from Australians
Pope Benedict XVI has begun a nine-day visit to Australia, where he is due to apologise for decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.
As he began the longest foreign trip of his papacy, he said paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7503246.stm
g.
The best he could come up with is "paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest" !!! Is he that removed from humanity that paedophilia is just incompatible!
My god is he deluded!
FGG
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 06:34 PM)
Oh yeah murder could never be philosophically justified.
might want to tell Charles Manson that
Might wanna tell the Texas gov that too. I think we lead the country in executions.
might want to tell Charles Manson that
Might wanna tell the Texas gov that too. I think we lead the country in executions.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 14 2008, 12:10 AM)
Well, it didn't take you long to return to your roots of preaching majority mob rule theocracy under a democracy.
You continually forget that we live constitutional republic and mob rule is trumped and restricted by the constitution and the establishment clause you have posted that you wish to see removed.
Also odd is how you now simply pander to the majority again yet before you spoke about how a concensus from all points of view must be made.
Funny, I say Representative Democracy, and you say "Majority Mob Rule". Then you are calling for a despotic dictatorship instead, how is that a "constitutional republic" Genius?
So the majority of the population has an ethical and moral position against stem cell research using Aborted fetal tissue, and your answer is....We should do it anyway, because I think its right.
Do point out where research on aborted fetal tissue is protected in the constitution.
You continually forget that we live constitutional republic and mob rule is trumped and restricted by the constitution and the establishment clause you have posted that you wish to see removed.
Also odd is how you now simply pander to the majority again yet before you spoke about how a concensus from all points of view must be made.
Funny, I say Representative Democracy, and you say "Majority Mob Rule". Then you are calling for a despotic dictatorship instead, how is that a "constitutional republic" Genius?
So the majority of the population has an ethical and moral position against stem cell research using Aborted fetal tissue, and your answer is....We should do it anyway, because I think its right.
Do point out where research on aborted fetal tissue is protected in the constitution.
QUOTE (Deadbeat+)
Funny, I say Representative Democracy, and you say "Majority Mob Rule".
Funny considering that is not what you posted.
Funny considering that is not what you posted.
QUOTE (DB+)
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful.
Next evasion?
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority. You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority. You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
So the majority of the population has an ethical and moral position against stem cell research using Aborted fetal tissue, and your answer is....
That you red hearing is self evident considering we were and are talking about the rights of the individual begin protected over the demands of a mob who think they are morally superior due tot their religion.
Stem cell research? No, we should pursue it as we would any other potentially viable medical science and not limit science due to the demands of those who follow stone age mythology rather than who operate on a rational POV.
Stem cell research? No, we should pursue it as we would any other potentially viable medical science and not limit science due to the demands of those who follow stone age mythology rather than who operate on a rational POV.
Do point out where research on aborted fetal tissue is protected in the constitution.
And do point out where aborted fetal tissue is what is used in stem cell research. The blastocysts or collection of 16 cells were created in a laboratory not harvested as the xian fear mongering often claims.
Next pitiful xian apologist claim?
Next evasion?
Too funny. I talk about how our government works, and you call it MOB RULE hehe.
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority.
No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position. Somehow, whenever YOUR opinion is in the minority, you declare "Mob Rule" and demand protection of your rights. Sad.
You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
Since you are either lacking any honesty or reason, let me explain it for everyone else, when individual rights are not at issue, Laws are ethical and moral positions that are passed based on the REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS of the people represented. This is what you call Mob Rule. This is what we Americans call our Government.
The rest of your ranting is not even worth addressing, I should not have bothered to even answer this one.
Next evasion?
QUOTE
Then you are calling for a despotic dictatorship instead, how is that a "constitutional republic" Genius?
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority. You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you are calling for a despotic dictatorship instead, how is that a "constitutional republic" Genius? |
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority. You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
So the majority of the population has an ethical and moral position against stem cell research using Aborted fetal tissue, and your answer is....
That you red hearing is self evident considering we were and are talking about the rights of the individual begin protected over the demands of a mob who think they are morally superior due tot their religion.
QUOTE
We should do it anyway, because I think its right.
Stem cell research? No, we should pursue it as we would any other potentially viable medical science and not limit science due to the demands of those who follow stone age mythology rather than who operate on a rational POV.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We should do it anyway, because I think its right. |
Stem cell research? No, we should pursue it as we would any other potentially viable medical science and not limit science due to the demands of those who follow stone age mythology rather than who operate on a rational POV.
Do point out where research on aborted fetal tissue is protected in the constitution.
And do point out where aborted fetal tissue is what is used in stem cell research. The blastocysts or collection of 16 cells were created in a laboratory not harvested as the xian fear mongering often claims.
Next pitiful xian apologist claim?
My ex wife and I went through the in vitro fertilization bit. It didn't take - she cannot have kids - period. There's still 7 embryos in deep freeze. Should they just be thrown out? I don't know. It's not black and white.
Maybe they could be used for research. At least some good could come from the entire fiasco.
Maybe they could be used for research. At least some good could come from the entire fiasco.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 14 2008, 01:38 AM)
Next evasion?
Too funny. I talk about how our government works, and you call it MOB RULE hehe.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 14 2008, 01:38 AM)
No, again I call for the rights of the one to protected over the demands of the majority.
No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position. Somehow, whenever YOUR opinion is in the minority, you declare "Mob Rule" and demand protection of your rights. Sad.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 14 2008, 01:38 AM)
You continually call for the demands of the majority. Take for example your veiled threat regarding how little fo the population is atheist versus the number of people who are theist.
Since you are either lacking any honesty or reason, let me explain it for everyone else, when individual rights are not at issue, Laws are ethical and moral positions that are passed based on the REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS of the people represented. This is what you call Mob Rule. This is what we Americans call our Government.
The rest of your ranting is not even worth addressing, I should not have bothered to even answer this one.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 08:58 PM)
The rest of your ranting is not even worth addressing, I should not have bothered to even answer this one.
Man, you should open a home goods store. You have amassed a fine collection of pots and kettles.
Man, you should open a home goods store. You have amassed a fine collection of pots and kettles.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 13 2008, 06:37 AM)
OUR Ethical and moral position has every bit as much authority and importance as yours, and due to larger numbers, we usually win. (So long as it does not trample individual rights or freedom.) Whether it is based on a flying spaghetti monster, John Locke, Jefferson or Machiavelli, the laws and rules running and enforced by our government will reflect the ethics and morals of the people it represents.
What say you to that?
so your ethical and moral position does not trample on individual rights or freedoms? Then tell me this. I assume that you have been with the majority about freezing research on stem cells because it is against your "moral turpitude".
You are directly trampling on every paralyzed person in this country. The only existing technology that might help my brother in law walk again is in that research. And YOU and your MORAL MAJORITY trample on his rights every day that you fight it. Personally, I would be happy to paralyze you for just a week, and let you spend some time in a chair, then blow your christian horn about how that is morally wrong.
So blow your morals and your bible out yourass, as far as I am concerned.
MM
What say you to that?
so your ethical and moral position does not trample on individual rights or freedoms? Then tell me this. I assume that you have been with the majority about freezing research on stem cells because it is against your "moral turpitude".
You are directly trampling on every paralyzed person in this country. The only existing technology that might help my brother in law walk again is in that research. And YOU and your MORAL MAJORITY trample on his rights every day that you fight it. Personally, I would be happy to paralyze you for just a week, and let you spend some time in a chair, then blow your christian horn about how that is morally wrong.
So blow your morals and your bible out yourass, as far as I am concerned.
MM
QUOTE (DB+)
Too funny. I talk about how our government works, and you call it MOB RULE hehe.
No, you ranted on about how you wish our government works or how you think the majority has a right to rule by simply being a majority.
And where exactly have I done that? Care to cite where or do I get more evasions form you?
And it is a question of individual rights over the demands of the theistic majority who think that they have a right to violate the freedoms of others based upon factor such as majority rule, their theology and the fallacious notion that this is a xian nation and founded upon xian laws.
And where exactly have I done that? Care to cite where or do I get more evasions form you?
And it is a question of individual rights over the demands of the theistic majority who think that they have a right to violate the freedoms of others based upon factor such as majority rule, their theology and the fallacious notion that this is a xian nation and founded upon xian laws.
Somehow, whenever YOUR opinion is in the minority, you declare "Mob Rule" and demand protection of your rights.
Not so. You are simply being intellectually dishonest again. I have stated over and over that the rights of the individual is protected form the demands of the majority. You seem to think that such personal freedoms need to be approved by the majority first.
Yes, but we are accustomed to your double talk, intellectual dishonesty and evasions.
Yes, but we are accustomed to your double talk, intellectual dishonesty and evasions.
Since you are either lacking any honesty or reason, let me explain it for everyone else,
In other words, you cannot argue my claims, so you post a personal comment about me.
And again, only if they do not seek to violate the personal freedoms that we are guaranteed which, by your xian mob rule or your "concencus" claim, would do just that.
And again, only if they do not seek to violate the personal freedoms that we are guaranteed which, by your xian mob rule or your "concencus" claim, would do just that.
This is what you call Mob Rule.
And rightfully so as I have explained over and over.
Only those who also believe that this nation is xian in foundation, function and law.
Only those who also believe that this nation is xian in foundation, function and law.
The rest of your ranting is not even worth addressing,
Oh, you mean like how I pointed out the fact that you just mentioned democracy and not a representative form of government? Yes, avoid that which you cannot face or debate.
Or would it be the red hearing of stem cell research? Like your laughable xian claim that stem cells are being harvested form abortion clinics?
Or would it be the topic of limiting science due tot eh stone age beliefs of certain followers of theology?
Yes, by all means, let us not address anything you have failed to back up.
And yet your ego compels you to do it predictably over and over again.
When you can actually back up your laughable claims or care not to post more untenable claims to begin with, then feel free to try again. Oh, and dropping your hatred of non-xains or atheists would also be of some help.
<repetitive bleating>
Yeah yeah, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is what we have, not your fascist idea of despotism.
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
No, you ranted on about how you wish our government works or how you think the majority has a right to rule by simply being a majority.
QUOTE
No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position.
And where exactly have I done that? Care to cite where or do I get more evasions form you?
And it is a question of individual rights over the demands of the theistic majority who think that they have a right to violate the freedoms of others based upon factor such as majority rule, their theology and the fallacious notion that this is a xian nation and founded upon xian laws.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position. |
And where exactly have I done that? Care to cite where or do I get more evasions form you?
And it is a question of individual rights over the demands of the theistic majority who think that they have a right to violate the freedoms of others based upon factor such as majority rule, their theology and the fallacious notion that this is a xian nation and founded upon xian laws.
Somehow, whenever YOUR opinion is in the minority, you declare "Mob Rule" and demand protection of your rights.
Not so. You are simply being intellectually dishonest again. I have stated over and over that the rights of the individual is protected form the demands of the majority. You seem to think that such personal freedoms need to be approved by the majority first.
QUOTE
Sad.
Yes, but we are accustomed to your double talk, intellectual dishonesty and evasions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sad. |
Yes, but we are accustomed to your double talk, intellectual dishonesty and evasions.
Since you are either lacking any honesty or reason, let me explain it for everyone else,
In other words, you cannot argue my claims, so you post a personal comment about me.
QUOTE
when individual rights are not at issue, Laws are ethical and moral positions that are passed based on the REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS of the people represented.
And again, only if they do not seek to violate the personal freedoms that we are guaranteed which, by your xian mob rule or your "concencus" claim, would do just that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| when individual rights are not at issue, Laws are ethical and moral positions that are passed based on the REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS of the people represented. |
And again, only if they do not seek to violate the personal freedoms that we are guaranteed which, by your xian mob rule or your "concencus" claim, would do just that.
This is what you call Mob Rule.
And rightfully so as I have explained over and over.
QUOTE
This is what we Americans call our Government.
Only those who also believe that this nation is xian in foundation, function and law. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is what we Americans call our Government. |
Only those who also believe that this nation is xian in foundation, function and law. The rest of your ranting is not even worth addressing,
Oh, you mean like how I pointed out the fact that you just mentioned democracy and not a representative form of government? Yes, avoid that which you cannot face or debate.
Or would it be the red hearing of stem cell research? Like your laughable xian claim that stem cells are being harvested form abortion clinics?
Or would it be the topic of limiting science due tot eh stone age beliefs of certain followers of theology?
Yes, by all means, let us not address anything you have failed to back up.
QUOTE
I should not have bothered to even answer this one.
And yet your ego compels you to do it predictably over and over again.
When you can actually back up your laughable claims or care not to post more untenable claims to begin with, then feel free to try again. Oh, and dropping your hatred of non-xains or atheists would also be of some help.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 14 2008, 02:26 AM)
<repetitive bleating>
Yeah yeah, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is what we have, not your fascist idea of despotism.
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
deadbeat
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position.
Sorry, that is exactly what the Constitution DOES protect, the opinion(and rights) of the individual to be FREE from the "Tyranny of the Masses" you seem to believe in.
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
The point is a religion or philosophy could be invented with ANY ethical and moral position, even the most repugnant you can imagine, Mayans and human sacrifice, cannibalism, genital disfiguration, come on, I know you can think of an incredible array of examples if you try.
Like gays should be killed, or kids who talk back or women not thought to be virgins on their wedding night??? Your right to BELIEVE such garbage is superseded by the Constitution's protection of those gays and women rights to be free from the repression of those who believe that garbage, even if they believe that garbage came straight from god. Your beliefs and "morals" stop where someone else's begins, whether they are in the majority or not and whether you think they are "moral" or not.
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm? |
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
No, you call for the OPINION OF A MINORITY on an ethical and moral issue, that is NOT a question of individual rights or equal protection, in open defiance of the majority position.
Sorry, that is exactly what the Constitution DOES protect, the opinion(and rights) of the individual to be FREE from the "Tyranny of the Masses" you seem to believe in.
QUOTE
Oh yeah murder could never be philosophically justified.
might want to tell Charles Manson that
might want to tell Charles Manson that
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh yeah murder could never be philosophically justified. might want to tell Charles Manson that |
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
The point is a religion or philosophy could be invented with ANY ethical and moral position, even the most repugnant you can imagine, Mayans and human sacrifice, cannibalism, genital disfiguration, come on, I know you can think of an incredible array of examples if you try.
Like gays should be killed, or kids who talk back or women not thought to be virgins on their wedding night??? Your right to BELIEVE such garbage is superseded by the Constitution's protection of those gays and women rights to be free from the repression of those who believe that garbage, even if they believe that garbage came straight from god. Your beliefs and "morals" stop where someone else's begins, whether they are in the majority or not and whether you think they are "moral" or not.
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Like gays should be killed, or kids who talk back or women not thought to be virgins on their wedding night??? Your right to BELIEVE such garbage is superseded by the Constitution's protection of those gays and women rights to be free from the repression of those who believe that garbage, even if they believe that garbage came straight from god.
Grumpy: Great...three more OLD TESTAMENT examples that you neither understand nor have any desire to understand. Rather than bother to attempt to explain them, I'll simply make the following point AGAIN:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."(Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Under the NEW COVENANT or NEW TESTAMENT, God's laws are to be "in the inward parts, written in the heart." God's laws are NOT to be OUTWARD, in some form of LEGISLATED MORALITY, as they once were under the OLD COVENANT or OLD TESTAMENT when they were written in tables of stone which were indicative of the hard-heartedness of the people to whom they were given(God's so-called "chosen people"). Although GeneSplicer keeps referring to those who consider this nation to be xian/Christian in origin, any true Christian nation would be GOVERNED FROM WITHIN...NOT from without.
Grumpy: Great...three more OLD TESTAMENT examples that you neither understand nor have any desire to understand. Rather than bother to attempt to explain them, I'll simply make the following point AGAIN:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."(Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Under the NEW COVENANT or NEW TESTAMENT, God's laws are to be "in the inward parts, written in the heart." God's laws are NOT to be OUTWARD, in some form of LEGISLATED MORALITY, as they once were under the OLD COVENANT or OLD TESTAMENT when they were written in tables of stone which were indicative of the hard-heartedness of the people to whom they were given(God's so-called "chosen people"). Although GeneSplicer keeps referring to those who consider this nation to be xian/Christian in origin, any true Christian nation would be GOVERNED FROM WITHIN...NOT from without.
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Your beliefs and "morals" stop where someone else's begins, whether they are in the majority or not and whether you think they are "moral" or not.
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
In this, you are correct. NOWHERE did Jesus condone the "forcing" of one's beliefs upon another. Christians are instructed to preach(they're also instructed to have "good works"...) to individuals and if the individuals don't want to hear it, then they are instructed to move on.
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
In this, you are correct. NOWHERE did Jesus condone the "forcing" of one's beliefs upon another. Christians are instructed to preach(they're also instructed to have "good works"...) to individuals and if the individuals don't want to hear it, then they are instructed to move on.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Oh, you mean like how I pointed out the fact that you just mentioned democracy and not a representative form of government? Yes, avoid that which you cannot face or debate.
GeneSplicer: Although I'm no fan of deadbeat and although I personally disagree with his viewpoints in regards to government and "legislated morality", in all fairness, he did state the following:
Why are you so sure you're actually understanding what it says? I could find ten different people who think ten different things about the same portions of the Bible, all of whom think they're correct. Who's correct? Who's wrong?
GeneSplicer: Although I'm no fan of deadbeat and although I personally disagree with his viewpoints in regards to government and "legislated morality", in all fairness, he did state the following:
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful.
That sounds like he was describing a "representative democracy" to me...even though I disagree with his viewpoints in regards to government. Anyhow...
deadbeat: I'm pretty sure that I've asked you this before...if I did, then I don't recall ever getting an answer. Since the Bible is LOADED with examples of how an EXTERIOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT does not work and since God has clearly stated that He desires an INTERIOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE HEARTS OF WILLING PARTICIPANTS, why do you continue to argue for a government enforced morality? I already know the answer to this question...it's really for your own sake that I ask.
That sounds like he was describing a "representative democracy" to me...even though I disagree with his viewpoints in regards to government. Anyhow...
deadbeat: I'm pretty sure that I've asked you this before...if I did, then I don't recall ever getting an answer. Since the Bible is LOADED with examples of how an EXTERIOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT does not work and since God has clearly stated that He desires an INTERIOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE HEARTS OF WILLING PARTICIPANTS, why do you continue to argue for a government enforced morality? I already know the answer to this question...it's really for your own sake that I ask.
QUOTE (FGG+Jul 13 2008, 01:58 PM)
The best he could come up with is "paedophilia was "incompatible" with being a priest" !!! Is he that removed from humanity that paedophilia is just incompatible!
My god is he deluded!
FGG
Sadly true.
A person in that amount of 'position' could actually do much better for the world. But he is a poor politician, laughable only in an 'insane' kind of way.
g.
My god is he deluded!
FGG
Sadly true.
A person in that amount of 'position' could actually do much better for the world. But he is a poor politician, laughable only in an 'insane' kind of way.
g.
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 14 2008, 11:05 AM)
Grumpy: Great...three more OLD TESTAMENT examples that you neither understand nor have any desire to understand. Rather than bother to attempt to explain them, I'll simply make the following point AGAIN:
So, When is the new new testament coming out to replace the old new testament? It seems the current new testament is getting pretty out of touch!
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament!
FGG
So, When is the new new testament coming out to replace the old new testament? It seems the current new testament is getting pretty out of touch!
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament!
FGG
QUOTE (FGG+)
So, When is the new new testament coming out to replace the old new testament? It seems the current new testament is getting pretty out of touch!
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament has!
FGG: In regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it has been said:
"The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed."
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says. Out of curiosity, in what specific sense do you feel/believe that the New Testament is "completely out of touch"? I've heard so many outlandish claims in regards to what Christianity is...I'm just wondering if your objections are based upon what the Bible actually teaches or just another parroting of what some ignoramus posted on a website somewhere. Just one or two specific references from the New Testament will suffice. I'll be in and out for most of the day, but I'll check back later for your response. Thanks.
P.S. By the way, in case you don't already know, I started a thread very similar to this one some time ago. You can view it at the link below, if you'd like:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21386
As I said then, so I say now...this is just another misrepresentation of Christianity from the so-called "Christians" themselves. Take care.
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament has!
FGG: In regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it has been said:
"The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed."
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says. Out of curiosity, in what specific sense do you feel/believe that the New Testament is "completely out of touch"? I've heard so many outlandish claims in regards to what Christianity is...I'm just wondering if your objections are based upon what the Bible actually teaches or just another parroting of what some ignoramus posted on a website somewhere. Just one or two specific references from the New Testament will suffice. I'll be in and out for most of the day, but I'll check back later for your response. Thanks.
P.S. By the way, in case you don't already know, I started a thread very similar to this one some time ago. You can view it at the link below, if you'd like:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21386
As I said then, so I say now...this is just another misrepresentation of Christianity from the so-called "Christians" themselves. Take care.
QUOTE
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says.
Why are you so sure you're actually understanding what it says? I could find ten different people who think ten different things about the same portions of the Bible, all of whom think they're correct. Who's correct? Who's wrong?
QUOTE (excaza+)
Why are you so sure you're actually understanding what it says? I could find ten different people who think ten different things about the same portions of the Bible, all of whom think they're correct. Who's correct? Who's wrong?
excaza: I do have to run out shortly for a few hours, but I'll give you a brief response while I wait for my wife to get ready. One way, and I fully recognize that this will "open a can of worms" since many people claim what I'm about to say, is that I know Jesus, the One of Whom the book is written. Without attacking my claim to "know Jesus", hopefully you can understand, IN PRINCIPLE, that if somebody knows somebody else and then outlandish things are attributed to the individual that you know, you can pretty safely assume them to be false. For example, I've had a multitude of things attributed to me by certain forum members over the last almost 3 years that I know to be patently false. Some of them were probably said to just "yank my chain", but others were/are apparently believed by the people who posted them. I hope you get my point. Additionally, as you might imagine, I have had a multitude of coversations/debates with individuals over the last 20+ years who held/still hold to differing views than I hold to in regards to the teachings of scriptures. On some occasions, upon review, the other individuals were proven to be correct and I adjusted accordingly. On other occasions, and a vast multitude of them at that, others had absolutely no scriptural justification for their viewpoints(they're certainly free to maintain their viewpoints as long as they don't contend that they're backed by scripture) and either resorted to insults or threats of violence or excommunication/blacklisting. Anyhow, if there is a specific passage that you'd like to debate, then simply cite it. As I recently documented in relation to one direction this thread has headed(as most threads that deadbeat gets involved in eventually head), the scriptures teach that God's laws are to be INTERNAL. With this in mind, I'm still waiting to hear from deadbeat why he, a professing Catholic(I perfectly understand the many differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, so I'm not surprised by his stance), continues to seek to have morality legislated from the government. As I just stated to you a moment ago, he is perfectly free to have/hold this viewpoint, but it is NOT representative of New Testament Christianity in any way, shape or form. In this case, deadbeat is wrong(if he's trying to justify his position from scripture) and I am right. If not, then let's see his New Testament defense of his stance. There are actually some New Testament scriptures that he could cite...I'll be happy to address them if he does. Anyhow, I've gotta run... I'll check back later.
excaza: I do have to run out shortly for a few hours, but I'll give you a brief response while I wait for my wife to get ready. One way, and I fully recognize that this will "open a can of worms" since many people claim what I'm about to say, is that I know Jesus, the One of Whom the book is written. Without attacking my claim to "know Jesus", hopefully you can understand, IN PRINCIPLE, that if somebody knows somebody else and then outlandish things are attributed to the individual that you know, you can pretty safely assume them to be false. For example, I've had a multitude of things attributed to me by certain forum members over the last almost 3 years that I know to be patently false. Some of them were probably said to just "yank my chain", but others were/are apparently believed by the people who posted them. I hope you get my point. Additionally, as you might imagine, I have had a multitude of coversations/debates with individuals over the last 20+ years who held/still hold to differing views than I hold to in regards to the teachings of scriptures. On some occasions, upon review, the other individuals were proven to be correct and I adjusted accordingly. On other occasions, and a vast multitude of them at that, others had absolutely no scriptural justification for their viewpoints(they're certainly free to maintain their viewpoints as long as they don't contend that they're backed by scripture) and either resorted to insults or threats of violence or excommunication/blacklisting. Anyhow, if there is a specific passage that you'd like to debate, then simply cite it. As I recently documented in relation to one direction this thread has headed(as most threads that deadbeat gets involved in eventually head), the scriptures teach that God's laws are to be INTERNAL. With this in mind, I'm still waiting to hear from deadbeat why he, a professing Catholic(I perfectly understand the many differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, so I'm not surprised by his stance), continues to seek to have morality legislated from the government. As I just stated to you a moment ago, he is perfectly free to have/hold this viewpoint, but it is NOT representative of New Testament Christianity in any way, shape or form. In this case, deadbeat is wrong(if he's trying to justify his position from scripture) and I am right. If not, then let's see his New Testament defense of his stance. There are actually some New Testament scriptures that he could cite...I'll be happy to address them if he does. Anyhow, I've gotta run... I'll check back later.
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 14 2008, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (FGG+)
So, When is the new new testament coming out to replace the old new testament? It seems the current new testament is getting pretty out of touch!
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament has!
FGG: In regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it has been said:
"The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed."
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says. Out of curiosity, in what specific sense do you feel/believe that the New Testament is "completely out of touch"? I've heard so many outlandish claims in regards to what Christianity is...I'm just wondering if your objections are based upon what the Bible actually teaches or just another parroting of what some ignoramus posted on a website somewhere. Just one or two specific references from the New Testament will suffice. I'll be in and out for most of the day, but I'll check back later for your response. Thanks.
P.S. By the way, in case you don't already know, I started a thread very similar to this one some time ago. You can view it at the link below, if you'd like:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21386
As I said then, so I say now...this is just another misrepresentation of Christianity from the so-called "Christians" themselves. Take care.
Hmm. I was led to believe that ANY changes to the bible was heresy, and would lead to eternal damnation to those that changed it. Is that correct or just a misunderstanding?
And if they can change it, well that would lead me to believe that it has been modified many times throughout its long history, yes?
Just questioning.
It seems that the perfect word of god is not so perfect after all if it needs reinterpreted when it has been shown to the majority to be completely out of touch as is the current new testament has!
FGG: In regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it has been said:
"The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed."
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says. Out of curiosity, in what specific sense do you feel/believe that the New Testament is "completely out of touch"? I've heard so many outlandish claims in regards to what Christianity is...I'm just wondering if your objections are based upon what the Bible actually teaches or just another parroting of what some ignoramus posted on a website somewhere. Just one or two specific references from the New Testament will suffice. I'll be in and out for most of the day, but I'll check back later for your response. Thanks.
P.S. By the way, in case you don't already know, I started a thread very similar to this one some time ago. You can view it at the link below, if you'd like:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21386
As I said then, so I say now...this is just another misrepresentation of Christianity from the so-called "Christians" themselves. Take care.
Hmm. I was led to believe that ANY changes to the bible was heresy, and would lead to eternal damnation to those that changed it. Is that correct or just a misunderstanding?
And if they can change it, well that would lead me to believe that it has been modified many times throughout its long history, yes?
Just questioning.
Censor again posts you cannot deal with, your claims you cannot back up and be a slave to your ego forcing you to reply.
QUOTE (Deadbeat+)
Yeah yeah, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is what we have, not your fascist idea of despotism.
Again, constitutional republic. Do I need to post your own claim regarding a democracy and majority rule for the third time?
Strawman since I never claimed it was. Care to cite where I did?
Care to back up your laughable xian fear-based claim that stem cells are/were begin harvested from abortion clinics?
And again, we were and are talking about the persecution of an atheist by theists in the military, the restriction of religion and protection of personal freedoms and your desire for a mob-rule xian theocracy.
After all, it is you who seeks to have the establishment clause removed from the Constitution based upon the erroneous idea that this is a xian nation based upon xian laws.
Would all that be the "repetitive bleating" you cannot reply to while feeling ego driven to reply to me?
Again, constitutional republic. Do I need to post your own claim regarding a democracy and majority rule for the third time?
QUOTE
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
Strawman since I never claimed it was. Care to cite where I did?
Care to back up your laughable xian fear-based claim that stem cells are/were begin harvested from abortion clinics?
And again, we were and are talking about the persecution of an atheist by theists in the military, the restriction of religion and protection of personal freedoms and your desire for a mob-rule xian theocracy.
After all, it is you who seeks to have the establishment clause removed from the Constitution based upon the erroneous idea that this is a xian nation based upon xian laws.
Would all that be the "repetitive bleating" you cannot reply to while feeling ego driven to reply to me?
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 14 2008, 07:05 AM)
That sounds like he was describing a "representative democracy" to me...even though I disagree with his viewpoints in regards to government. Anyhow...
Newguy,
Yes, but read the entire relevant post as I first quoted:
Which ties into what Grumpy quoted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Which ties into what Grumpy quoted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.[1]
You also forget or may not be aware of deadbeat making the claim or veiled threat of majority rule of the theists over everyone else by sheer numbers.
"bush signed into law"
that was a constitutional crime that got swept under the rug quite well.
and exactly who was bush 'representing' in the 'demockracy'?
i guess bush never heard of the magna carta, the actual basis of civilized society that america WAS based on.
seperation of church and state? no. seperation of representative and public. it's a de-public, now.
Newguy,
Yes, but read the entire relevant post as I first quoted:
QUOTE
Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful. You see YOUR vision of what you think is right, but refuse to acknowledge that anyone else with opinions you dislike EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, matter. Because you are so much smarter. That is what every despot and dictator in history believed too.
Which ties into what Grumpy quoted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because EVERY religion and philosophy is possible, that is why the version selected in a democracy is a reflection of the people represented, that is why it is successful. You see YOUR vision of what you think is right, but refuse to acknowledge that anyone else with opinions you dislike EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, matter. Because you are so much smarter. That is what every despot and dictator in history believed too. |
Which ties into what Grumpy quoted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.[1]
You also forget or may not be aware of deadbeat making the claim or veiled threat of majority rule of the theists over everyone else by sheer numbers.
newguy
I am well aware of the teleological arguments that try to smooth over the obvious fact that the old and new testaments are talking about two completely different concepts of god, I just don't buy it. And even if you are correct, how then can a Christian still condemn homosexuality???
The Bible is simply a book of religious beliefs, some are good, some not so good. I try to live by the good, and reject the bad as my REASON informs me.
One of the more glaring errors IS the Bibles condemnation of gays, in this area it is completely out of date and wrong.
Grumpy
I am well aware of the teleological arguments that try to smooth over the obvious fact that the old and new testaments are talking about two completely different concepts of god, I just don't buy it. And even if you are correct, how then can a Christian still condemn homosexuality???
The Bible is simply a book of religious beliefs, some are good, some not so good. I try to live by the good, and reject the bad as my REASON informs me.
One of the more glaring errors IS the Bibles condemnation of gays, in this area it is completely out of date and wrong.
Grumpy
QUOTE
n "Education Day" 1991, George Bush Sr. made explicit reference to the "education" subject that this day represents. Bush signed into law a proclamation stating that the Talmudic "Noahide Laws" are the "basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;" the "ethical values and principles [which] have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;" and "without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;" and that "in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe' [Menachem Mendel Schneerson], this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws;" and that "the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world ..."
"bush signed into law"
that was a constitutional crime that got swept under the rug quite well.
and exactly who was bush 'representing' in the 'demockracy'?
i guess bush never heard of the magna carta, the actual basis of civilized society that america WAS based on.
seperation of church and state? no. seperation of representative and public. it's a de-public, now.
QUOTE (MaskedMarauder+)
Hmm. I was led to believe that ANY changes to the bible was heresy, and would lead to eternal damnation to those that changed it. Is that correct or just a misunderstanding?
MaskedMarauder: You either misunderstood what I stated or I wasn't clear enough(probably the latter). I wasn't talking about "ANY changes" at all. I'd really like to clarify what I meant because it will lay the groundwork for any number of questions that I might get in the future in relation to God. Unfortunately, it will have to wait until later tonight as I'm swamped with things to do and I have to leave on another extended business trip in a couple of days. Until then...
Grumpy: I'll attempt to incorporate the answer to your question in my response to MaskedMarauder.
GeneSplicer: As busy as I've been of late, I've only skimmed this thread. I didn't see that entire quote of deadbeat's until just now...I had previously only seen that one line that you had quoted from in another post of yours. Anyhow, like I said, I'm not into "mob rule"...regardless of who "the mob" is. Gotta run...
MaskedMarauder: You either misunderstood what I stated or I wasn't clear enough(probably the latter). I wasn't talking about "ANY changes" at all. I'd really like to clarify what I meant because it will lay the groundwork for any number of questions that I might get in the future in relation to God. Unfortunately, it will have to wait until later tonight as I'm swamped with things to do and I have to leave on another extended business trip in a couple of days. Until then...
Grumpy: I'll attempt to incorporate the answer to your question in my response to MaskedMarauder.
GeneSplicer: As busy as I've been of late, I've only skimmed this thread. I didn't see that entire quote of deadbeat's until just now...I had previously only seen that one line that you had quoted from in another post of yours. Anyhow, like I said, I'm not into "mob rule"...regardless of who "the mob" is. Gotta run...
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
I am well aware of the teleological arguments that try to smooth over the obvious fact that the old and new testaments are talking about two completely different concepts of god, I just don't buy it. And even if you are correct, how then can a Christian still condemn homosexuality???
Grumpy: Although I disagree with your assessment regarding "two completely different concepts of God", I'll not bother to comment on that at this time. In regards to Christians condemning homosexuality, Christians ought not be condemning anyone. A Christian's role, AFTER THEY HAVE TAKEN THE BEAM OUT OF THEIR OWN EYE, is to "plant" and "water" or to share God's Word. It is true that God's Law is referred to as "the ministry of condemnation" in scripture in that one of its purposes is to bring the knowledge of sin. This knowledge, however, is NOT possible apart from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is of the Lord. Any conviction of sin must come from God...not from manipulative arguments of man. If one has truly been convicted of their sins by God, then Godly sorrow ought to lead to genuine repentance which in turn results in salvation. "Condemnation" should only be the end result of one's continual refusal to yield to God's Spirit and ought not occur in this lifetime. I am totally opposed to those who take matters into their own hands as if they are somehow doing God a service. We've both, no doubt, read/heard accounts of abuses carried out against homosexuals "in the name of God". Last time I checked, God said that vengeance belonged to Him...NOT anyone else.
I am curious about something though...why do you always address the issue of homosexuality when the Bible has MUCH MORE to say about things like adultery, even including it in "the Big Ten"(the Ten Commandments)? Am I opposed to homosexuality? Absolutely. No more/no less than I'm opposed to adultery, fornication or even bestiality. Quite frankly, as I've told you before, I've had quite a number of "run-ins" with adulterers(almost all of them professing Christians) and maybe one or two "run-ins" with homosexuals in the 20+ years that I've been a Christian. In fact, I have 4 sisters and 1 brother who were married(they're all divorced now) and at least 4 of them have been/still are in adulterous relationships according to scripture. I just attended a high school graduation party for one of my nieces this past Saturday(I attended another party for another niece two weeks ago). You should see the devastation in the lives of my nieces and nephews as the direct result of divorce/adultery. In some instances, they are forced to watch as their parent that they live with shares their bed with a "stranger". Anyhow, whether with the adulterer or homosexual, the issue is really not one of sexuality...it has a lot more to do with not knowing the Lord than anything else. It is NOT my job or the job of any professing Christian to "legislate morality" or to exact vengeance on another. That, Grumpy, is solely the job of God Himself. None of you have anything to fear from the likes of me. Although I've spoken casually about some of the people that I've encountered in the past(mostly in Christian circles), the truth of the matter is that when I attended church/Christian functions regularly, GRIEF was what characterized me more than anything else. As those who know me/knew me could easily attest, there were many nights when I couldn't eat or sleep due to the intense amount of grief that I had in watching those who professed to know God. I can honestly say that there were times when I genuinely wished that I had never been born. Why am I telling you this? Because, unlike the stereotypical "Christians" that many of you people describe, my biggest griefs that I've ever encountered have come through my dealings with people who call themselves "the people of God". I know that groups like "Godhatesfags" exist. God hates these people at least as much as any type of individual that they could seek to blame this nation's woes on. Unlike them, I'm NOT out "targeting gays". If I've targeted anyone, then it's hypocrites who bring a reproach upon the name of God. As I stated to GeneSplicer some time ago(I think it was in the "Atheism Ranting" thread), I personally attribute most of the world's problems to the so-called Christians. It is the ones who profess to be "the light of the world" who will be held the most accountable by God according to what Jesus taught. Anyhow, I'm groggy and my children are asking me to watch a video with them. Sorry for the mini-rant, but my desire is not to "condemn" anyone. My desire is to help remove any stumblingblocks that people might be saved. Good night.
Grumpy: Although I disagree with your assessment regarding "two completely different concepts of God", I'll not bother to comment on that at this time. In regards to Christians condemning homosexuality, Christians ought not be condemning anyone. A Christian's role, AFTER THEY HAVE TAKEN THE BEAM OUT OF THEIR OWN EYE, is to "plant" and "water" or to share God's Word. It is true that God's Law is referred to as "the ministry of condemnation" in scripture in that one of its purposes is to bring the knowledge of sin. This knowledge, however, is NOT possible apart from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is of the Lord. Any conviction of sin must come from God...not from manipulative arguments of man. If one has truly been convicted of their sins by God, then Godly sorrow ought to lead to genuine repentance which in turn results in salvation. "Condemnation" should only be the end result of one's continual refusal to yield to God's Spirit and ought not occur in this lifetime. I am totally opposed to those who take matters into their own hands as if they are somehow doing God a service. We've both, no doubt, read/heard accounts of abuses carried out against homosexuals "in the name of God". Last time I checked, God said that vengeance belonged to Him...NOT anyone else.
I am curious about something though...why do you always address the issue of homosexuality when the Bible has MUCH MORE to say about things like adultery, even including it in "the Big Ten"(the Ten Commandments)? Am I opposed to homosexuality? Absolutely. No more/no less than I'm opposed to adultery, fornication or even bestiality. Quite frankly, as I've told you before, I've had quite a number of "run-ins" with adulterers(almost all of them professing Christians) and maybe one or two "run-ins" with homosexuals in the 20+ years that I've been a Christian. In fact, I have 4 sisters and 1 brother who were married(they're all divorced now) and at least 4 of them have been/still are in adulterous relationships according to scripture. I just attended a high school graduation party for one of my nieces this past Saturday(I attended another party for another niece two weeks ago). You should see the devastation in the lives of my nieces and nephews as the direct result of divorce/adultery. In some instances, they are forced to watch as their parent that they live with shares their bed with a "stranger". Anyhow, whether with the adulterer or homosexual, the issue is really not one of sexuality...it has a lot more to do with not knowing the Lord than anything else. It is NOT my job or the job of any professing Christian to "legislate morality" or to exact vengeance on another. That, Grumpy, is solely the job of God Himself. None of you have anything to fear from the likes of me. Although I've spoken casually about some of the people that I've encountered in the past(mostly in Christian circles), the truth of the matter is that when I attended church/Christian functions regularly, GRIEF was what characterized me more than anything else. As those who know me/knew me could easily attest, there were many nights when I couldn't eat or sleep due to the intense amount of grief that I had in watching those who professed to know God. I can honestly say that there were times when I genuinely wished that I had never been born. Why am I telling you this? Because, unlike the stereotypical "Christians" that many of you people describe, my biggest griefs that I've ever encountered have come through my dealings with people who call themselves "the people of God". I know that groups like "Godhatesfags" exist. God hates these people at least as much as any type of individual that they could seek to blame this nation's woes on. Unlike them, I'm NOT out "targeting gays". If I've targeted anyone, then it's hypocrites who bring a reproach upon the name of God. As I stated to GeneSplicer some time ago(I think it was in the "Atheism Ranting" thread), I personally attribute most of the world's problems to the so-called Christians. It is the ones who profess to be "the light of the world" who will be held the most accountable by God according to what Jesus taught. Anyhow, I'm groggy and my children are asking me to watch a video with them. Sorry for the mini-rant, but my desire is not to "condemn" anyone. My desire is to help remove any stumblingblocks that people might be saved. Good night.
newguy, People will not be "saved" by Christianity or Jesus or "sky faeries." 
People will be saved by learning, appreciating and ACTING on the realities of science.
Global warming will NOT be addressed by praying. It will be remedied or lessened by using the best of science and technology.
The atheism issue in the military would best be dealt with through an understanding of the social sciences and training seminars for military brass and recruits. It won't be dealt with through religion.
Militarism combined with religion have resulted in the worse bloodbaths this planet has seen since the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago! 
Get off your religious "high horse" in this science forum. It only makes you look like a complete fool for having been so thoroughly indoctrinated you can't see how incompatible science and religion are. The best minds on this planet have chosen atheism or agnosticism over ANY of the 5,000+ living religions out there. Christianity is no exception or does not stand apart from the others. ALL are myth-based misinterpretations of folklore, fables and ancient literature.
Please take some time to peruse http://www.edge.org and see what questions the more intelligent people are asking each other, the breadth of the replies and the importance of the responses. Look at their discussions of Dawkins, Gould and countless others and their justified derision of Behe, Dembski and others of that ilk. See how they put religion in the true context of man's accomplishments, belief systems and misguided attempts to understand reality. Science has and will forever continue to be mankind's optimum quest for the truth and how nature and the universe really function. There is no place in that view for religion. It is as outmoded as alchemy and astrology. Look to science, not God.
"SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS!"
People will be saved by learning, appreciating and ACTING on the realities of science.
Global warming will NOT be addressed by praying. It will be remedied or lessened by using the best of science and technology.
The atheism issue in the military would best be dealt with through an understanding of the social sciences and training seminars for military brass and recruits. It won't be dealt with through religion.
Militarism combined with religion have resulted in the worse bloodbaths this planet has seen since the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago! Get off your religious "high horse" in this science forum. It only makes you look like a complete fool for having been so thoroughly indoctrinated you can't see how incompatible science and religion are. The best minds on this planet have chosen atheism or agnosticism over ANY of the 5,000+ living religions out there. Christianity is no exception or does not stand apart from the others. ALL are myth-based misinterpretations of folklore, fables and ancient literature.
Please take some time to peruse http://www.edge.org and see what questions the more intelligent people are asking each other, the breadth of the replies and the importance of the responses. Look at their discussions of Dawkins, Gould and countless others and their justified derision of Behe, Dembski and others of that ilk. See how they put religion in the true context of man's accomplishments, belief systems and misguided attempts to understand reality. Science has and will forever continue to be mankind's optimum quest for the truth and how nature and the universe really function. There is no place in that view for religion. It is as outmoded as alchemy and astrology. Look to science, not God.
"SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS!"
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 15 2008, 12:06 AM)
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
I am well aware of the teleological arguments that try to smooth over the obvious fact that the old and new testaments are talking about two completely different concepts of god, I just don't buy it. And even if you are correct, how then can a Christian still condemn homosexuality???
Grumpy: Although I disagree with your assessment regarding "two completely different concepts of God", I'll not bother to comment on that at this time. In regards to Christians condemning homosexuality, Christians ought not be condemning anyone. A Christian's role, AFTER THEY HAVE TAKEN THE BEAM OUT OF THEIR OWN EYE, is to "plant" and "water" or to share God's Word. It is true that God's Law is referred to as "the ministry of condemnation" in scripture in that one of its purposes is to bring the knowledge of sin. This knowledge, however, is NOT possible apart from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is of the Lord. Any conviction of sin must come from God...not from manipulative arguments of man. If one has truly been convicted of their sins by God, then Godly sorrow ought to lead to genuine repentance which in turn results in salvation. "Condemnation" should only be the end result of one's continual refusal to yield to God's Spirit and ought not occur in this lifetime. I am totally opposed to those who take matters into their own hands as if they are somehow doing God a service. We've both, no doubt, read/heard accounts of abuses carried out against homosexuals "in the name of God". Last time I checked, God said that vengeance belonged to Him...NOT anyone else.
I am curious about something though...why do you always address the issue of homosexuality when the Bible has MUCH MORE to say about things like adultery, even including it in "the Big Ten"(the Ten Commandments)? Am I opposed to homosexuality? Absolutely. No more/no less than I'm opposed to adultery, fornication or even bestiality. Quite frankly, as I've told you before, I've had quite a number of "run-ins" with adulterers(almost all of them professing Christians) and maybe one or two "run-ins" with homosexuals in the 20+ years that I've been a Christian. In fact, I have 4 sisters and 1 brother who were married(they're all divorced now) and at least 4 of them have been/still are in adulterous relationships according to scripture. I just attended a high school graduation party for one of my nieces this past Saturday(I attended another party for another niece two weeks ago). You should see the devastation in the lives of my nieces and nephews as the direct result of divorce/adultery. In some instances, they are forced to watch as their parent that they live with shares their bed with a "stranger". Anyhow, whether with the adulterer or homosexual, the issue is really not one of sexuality...it has a lot more to do with not knowing the Lord than anything else. It is NOT my job or the job of any professing Christian to "legislate morality" or to exact vengeance on another. That, Grumpy, is solely the job of God Himself. None of you have anything to fear from the likes of me. Although I've spoken casually about some of the people that I've encountered in the past(mostly in Christian circles), the truth of the matter is that when I attended church/Christian functions regularly, GRIEF was what characterized me more than anything else. As those who know me/knew me could easily attest, there were many nights when I couldn't eat or sleep due to the intense amount of grief that I had in watching those who professed to know God. I can honestly say that there were times when I genuinely wished that I had never been born. Why am I telling you this? Because, unlike the stereotypical "Christians" that many of you people describe, my biggest griefs that I've ever encountered have come through my dealings with people who call themselves "the people of God". I know that groups like "Godhatesfags" exist. God hates these people at least as much as any type of individual that they could seek to blame this nation's woes on. Unlike them, I'm NOT out "targeting gays". If I've targeted anyone, then it's hypocrites who bring a reproach upon the name of God. As I stated to GeneSplicer some time ago(I think it was in the "Atheism Ranting" thread), I personally attribute most of the world's problems to the so-called Christians. It is the ones who profess to be "the light of the world" who will be held the most accountable by God according to what Jesus taught. Anyhow, I'm groggy and my children are asking me to watch a video with them. Sorry for the mini-rant, but my desire is not to "condemn" anyone. My desire is to help remove any stumblingblocks that people might be saved. Good night.
You are making mock of Me.
You are saying that I, God, made inherently imperfect beings, then have demanded of them to be perfect, or face damnation.
You are saying then that, somewhere several thousand years into the world’s experience, I relented, saying that from then on you didn’t necessarily have to be good, you simply had to feel bad when you were not being good, and accept as your savior the One Being who could always be perfect, thus satisfying My hunger for perfection. You are saying that My Son—who you call the One Perfect One—has saved you from your own imperfection—the imperfection I gave you.
In other words, God’s Son has saved you from what His Father did.
Kick that around a bit.
MM
Grumpy: Although I disagree with your assessment regarding "two completely different concepts of God", I'll not bother to comment on that at this time. In regards to Christians condemning homosexuality, Christians ought not be condemning anyone. A Christian's role, AFTER THEY HAVE TAKEN THE BEAM OUT OF THEIR OWN EYE, is to "plant" and "water" or to share God's Word. It is true that God's Law is referred to as "the ministry of condemnation" in scripture in that one of its purposes is to bring the knowledge of sin. This knowledge, however, is NOT possible apart from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is of the Lord. Any conviction of sin must come from God...not from manipulative arguments of man. If one has truly been convicted of their sins by God, then Godly sorrow ought to lead to genuine repentance which in turn results in salvation. "Condemnation" should only be the end result of one's continual refusal to yield to God's Spirit and ought not occur in this lifetime. I am totally opposed to those who take matters into their own hands as if they are somehow doing God a service. We've both, no doubt, read/heard accounts of abuses carried out against homosexuals "in the name of God". Last time I checked, God said that vengeance belonged to Him...NOT anyone else.
I am curious about something though...why do you always address the issue of homosexuality when the Bible has MUCH MORE to say about things like adultery, even including it in "the Big Ten"(the Ten Commandments)? Am I opposed to homosexuality? Absolutely. No more/no less than I'm opposed to adultery, fornication or even bestiality. Quite frankly, as I've told you before, I've had quite a number of "run-ins" with adulterers(almost all of them professing Christians) and maybe one or two "run-ins" with homosexuals in the 20+ years that I've been a Christian. In fact, I have 4 sisters and 1 brother who were married(they're all divorced now) and at least 4 of them have been/still are in adulterous relationships according to scripture. I just attended a high school graduation party for one of my nieces this past Saturday(I attended another party for another niece two weeks ago). You should see the devastation in the lives of my nieces and nephews as the direct result of divorce/adultery. In some instances, they are forced to watch as their parent that they live with shares their bed with a "stranger". Anyhow, whether with the adulterer or homosexual, the issue is really not one of sexuality...it has a lot more to do with not knowing the Lord than anything else. It is NOT my job or the job of any professing Christian to "legislate morality" or to exact vengeance on another. That, Grumpy, is solely the job of God Himself. None of you have anything to fear from the likes of me. Although I've spoken casually about some of the people that I've encountered in the past(mostly in Christian circles), the truth of the matter is that when I attended church/Christian functions regularly, GRIEF was what characterized me more than anything else. As those who know me/knew me could easily attest, there were many nights when I couldn't eat or sleep due to the intense amount of grief that I had in watching those who professed to know God. I can honestly say that there were times when I genuinely wished that I had never been born. Why am I telling you this? Because, unlike the stereotypical "Christians" that many of you people describe, my biggest griefs that I've ever encountered have come through my dealings with people who call themselves "the people of God". I know that groups like "Godhatesfags" exist. God hates these people at least as much as any type of individual that they could seek to blame this nation's woes on. Unlike them, I'm NOT out "targeting gays". If I've targeted anyone, then it's hypocrites who bring a reproach upon the name of God. As I stated to GeneSplicer some time ago(I think it was in the "Atheism Ranting" thread), I personally attribute most of the world's problems to the so-called Christians. It is the ones who profess to be "the light of the world" who will be held the most accountable by God according to what Jesus taught. Anyhow, I'm groggy and my children are asking me to watch a video with them. Sorry for the mini-rant, but my desire is not to "condemn" anyone. My desire is to help remove any stumblingblocks that people might be saved. Good night.
You are making mock of Me.
You are saying that I, God, made inherently imperfect beings, then have demanded of them to be perfect, or face damnation.
You are saying then that, somewhere several thousand years into the world’s experience, I relented, saying that from then on you didn’t necessarily have to be good, you simply had to feel bad when you were not being good, and accept as your savior the One Being who could always be perfect, thus satisfying My hunger for perfection. You are saying that My Son—who you call the One Perfect One—has saved you from your own imperfection—the imperfection I gave you.
In other words, God’s Son has saved you from what His Father did.
Kick that around a bit.
MM
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 14 2008, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (excaza+)
Why are you so sure you're actually understanding what it says? I could find ten different people who think ten different things about the same portions of the Bible, all of whom think they're correct. Who's correct? Who's wrong?
excaza: I do have to run out shortly for a few hours, but I'll give you a brief response while I wait for my wife to get ready. One way, and I fully recognize that this will "open a can of worms" since many people claim what I'm about to say, is that I know Jesus, the One of Whom the book is written. Without attacking my claim to "know Jesus", hopefully you can understand, IN PRINCIPLE, that if somebody knows somebody else and then outlandish things are attributed to the individual that you know, you can pretty safely assume them to be false. For example, I've had a multitude of things attributed to me by certain forum members over the last almost 3 years that I know to be patently false. Some of them were probably said to just "yank my chain", but others were/are apparently believed by the people who posted them. I hope you get my point. Additionally, as you might imagine, I have had a multitude of coversations/debates with individuals over the last 20+ years who held/still hold to differing views than I hold to in regards to the teachings of scriptures. On some occasions, upon review, the other individuals were proven to be correct and I adjusted accordingly. On other occasions, and a vast multitude of them at that, others had absolutely no scriptural justification for their viewpoints(they're certainly free to maintain their viewpoints as long as they don't contend that they're backed by scripture) and either resorted to insults or threats of violence or excommunication/blacklisting. Anyhow, if there is a specific passage that you'd like to debate, then simply cite it. As I recently documented in relation to one direction this thread has headed(as most threads that deadbeat gets involved in eventually head), the scriptures teach that God's laws are to be INTERNAL. With this in mind, I'm still waiting to hear from deadbeat why he, a professing Catholic(I perfectly understand the many differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, so I'm not surprised by his stance), continues to seek to have morality legislated from the government. As I just stated to you a moment ago, he is perfectly free to have/hold this viewpoint, but it is NOT representative of New Testament Christianity in any way, shape or form. In this case, deadbeat is wrong(if he's trying to justify his position from scripture) and I am right. If not, then let's see his New Testament defense of his stance. There are actually some New Testament scriptures that he could cite...I'll be happy to address them if he does. Anyhow, I've gotta run... I'll check back later.
newguy,
You seem very arrogant! Your interpretation of the bible/jesus/god is no more valid then anyone else's, yet because you say that you "know jesus" this makes your interpretation correct and all others false! Truly arrogant! How can you be so sure that you have the correct interpretation? You cannot! All you can be is sure that your interpretation fits you and makes you comfortable.
You see, every christian despot, emperor, barbarian, butcher, televangelist, serial killer... has the same position that they "know god/jesus". You are no more special or enlightened or delusional then they are, maybe a little more rational in conversation, but they all seemed rational at one time to the masses that they coned into becoming followers.
Also, This goes for your personal interpretation of the bible(s). Yours is no more valid then dud1's, excaza or Grumpy's.
FGG
excaza: I do have to run out shortly for a few hours, but I'll give you a brief response while I wait for my wife to get ready. One way, and I fully recognize that this will "open a can of worms" since many people claim what I'm about to say, is that I know Jesus, the One of Whom the book is written. Without attacking my claim to "know Jesus", hopefully you can understand, IN PRINCIPLE, that if somebody knows somebody else and then outlandish things are attributed to the individual that you know, you can pretty safely assume them to be false. For example, I've had a multitude of things attributed to me by certain forum members over the last almost 3 years that I know to be patently false. Some of them were probably said to just "yank my chain", but others were/are apparently believed by the people who posted them. I hope you get my point. Additionally, as you might imagine, I have had a multitude of coversations/debates with individuals over the last 20+ years who held/still hold to differing views than I hold to in regards to the teachings of scriptures. On some occasions, upon review, the other individuals were proven to be correct and I adjusted accordingly. On other occasions, and a vast multitude of them at that, others had absolutely no scriptural justification for their viewpoints(they're certainly free to maintain their viewpoints as long as they don't contend that they're backed by scripture) and either resorted to insults or threats of violence or excommunication/blacklisting. Anyhow, if there is a specific passage that you'd like to debate, then simply cite it. As I recently documented in relation to one direction this thread has headed(as most threads that deadbeat gets involved in eventually head), the scriptures teach that God's laws are to be INTERNAL. With this in mind, I'm still waiting to hear from deadbeat why he, a professing Catholic(I perfectly understand the many differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, so I'm not surprised by his stance), continues to seek to have morality legislated from the government. As I just stated to you a moment ago, he is perfectly free to have/hold this viewpoint, but it is NOT representative of New Testament Christianity in any way, shape or form. In this case, deadbeat is wrong(if he's trying to justify his position from scripture) and I am right. If not, then let's see his New Testament defense of his stance. There are actually some New Testament scriptures that he could cite...I'll be happy to address them if he does. Anyhow, I've gotta run... I'll check back later.
newguy,
You seem very arrogant! Your interpretation of the bible/jesus/god is no more valid then anyone else's, yet because you say that you "know jesus" this makes your interpretation correct and all others false! Truly arrogant! How can you be so sure that you have the correct interpretation? You cannot! All you can be is sure that your interpretation fits you and makes you comfortable.
You see, every christian despot, emperor, barbarian, butcher, televangelist, serial killer... has the same position that they "know god/jesus". You are no more special or enlightened or delusional then they are, maybe a little more rational in conversation, but they all seemed rational at one time to the masses that they coned into becoming followers.
Also, This goes for your personal interpretation of the bible(s). Yours is no more valid then dud1's, excaza or Grumpy's.
FGG
QUOTE (FGG+)
newguy,
You seem very arrogant! Your interpretation of the bible/jesus/god is no more valid then anyone else's, yet because you say that you "know jesus" this makes your interpretation correct and all others false! Truly arrogant! How can you be so sure that you have the correct interpretation? You cannot! All you can be is sure that your interpretation fits you and makes you comfortable.
FGG: I'm not arrogant at all.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogant
Main Entry: ar·ro·gant
Pronunciation: \-gənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
Date: 14th century
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>
2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <an arrogant reply>
synonyms see proud
— ar·ro·gant·ly adverb
Far from "exaggerating my own worth", my time here has been spent in defense of Biblical Christianity. Once again, as those who know me(see what I mean about having things falsely attributed to someone?) can easily attest, I keep myself "very low to the ground". In fact, over the years, I've had several people make such comments to me:
"Do you walk around with a noose around your neck?"
"Do you walk around with a dark cloud over your head?"
"Lighten up, brother!"
Etc., etc., etc.
These comments, and others like them, were the direct result of my constant introspection before God. As I've plainly stated here numerous times, most of my fellowship with God over the years has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION. Boy, that really "makes me comfortable"...to use your totally off the mark words. Do you know how many times I've had people approach me and tell me that they're a PhD? Do you know what my response has been EVERY TIME? I tell them that I'm a PoD...a Piece of Dust. If that sounds "arrogant" to you, then I would suggest that you start checking for "delusion" in your own backyard. I'll stick with my own "interpretation" of myself as that is the one that reflects reality. Thanks.
You seem very arrogant! Your interpretation of the bible/jesus/god is no more valid then anyone else's, yet because you say that you "know jesus" this makes your interpretation correct and all others false! Truly arrogant! How can you be so sure that you have the correct interpretation? You cannot! All you can be is sure that your interpretation fits you and makes you comfortable.
FGG: I'm not arrogant at all.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogant
Main Entry: ar·ro·gant
Pronunciation: \-gənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
Date: 14th century
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>
2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <an arrogant reply>
synonyms see proud
— ar·ro·gant·ly adverb
Far from "exaggerating my own worth", my time here has been spent in defense of Biblical Christianity. Once again, as those who know me(see what I mean about having things falsely attributed to someone?) can easily attest, I keep myself "very low to the ground". In fact, over the years, I've had several people make such comments to me:
"Do you walk around with a noose around your neck?"
"Do you walk around with a dark cloud over your head?"
"Lighten up, brother!"
Etc., etc., etc.
These comments, and others like them, were the direct result of my constant introspection before God. As I've plainly stated here numerous times, most of my fellowship with God over the years has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION. Boy, that really "makes me comfortable"...to use your totally off the mark words. Do you know how many times I've had people approach me and tell me that they're a PhD? Do you know what my response has been EVERY TIME? I tell them that I'm a PoD...a Piece of Dust. If that sounds "arrogant" to you, then I would suggest that you start checking for "delusion" in your own backyard. I'll stick with my own "interpretation" of myself as that is the one that reflects reality. Thanks.
QUOTE (FGG+)
You see, every christian despot, emperor, barbarian, butcher, televangelist, serial killer... has the same position that they "know god/jesus". You are no more special or enlightened or delusional then they are, maybe a little more rational in conversation, but they all seemed rational at one time to the masses that they coned into becoming followers.
In the words of Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter:
"There you go, again!"
What the hell are you talking about? "Christian despot"? No true Christian could be a despot. "Christian barbarians"? An impossibility. Your problem, and one that you probably knowingly embrace due to your own bias, is that you don't allow for HYPOCRITES even though the Bible clearly warns of such all throughout its pages. How ironic that in your supposed rebuke of me, you actually helped prove my point. Show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to become "despots". Go ahead, I'm waiting. While you're at it, show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to be "barbarians", "butchers" or "serial killers". Cite chapter and verse. How nice of you to include me in the same conversation with them. Once again, the "delusion" is clearly at your end as I've incessantly spoken of Christ's command to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. "Conning people into becoming followers"? Not my bag. If you bothered to read my most recent response to Grumpy(not to mention a whole host of my other posts elsewhere), then you would know that this is totally foreign to who I am and what I believe. Well, I guess that it's YOU who would like to CON people into believing fallacies about your "another newguy". Good luck with that. I'll be gone for about two weeks for business related reasons. I wish you and your imaginary friend(the "another newguy") the best in my absence. Take care.
EDIT: Here's a little message that you can forward to all those "Christian despots" out there...
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
Misinterpet that, if you will.
In the words of Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter:
"There you go, again!"
What the hell are you talking about? "Christian despot"? No true Christian could be a despot. "Christian barbarians"? An impossibility. Your problem, and one that you probably knowingly embrace due to your own bias, is that you don't allow for HYPOCRITES even though the Bible clearly warns of such all throughout its pages. How ironic that in your supposed rebuke of me, you actually helped prove my point. Show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to become "despots". Go ahead, I'm waiting. While you're at it, show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to be "barbarians", "butchers" or "serial killers". Cite chapter and verse. How nice of you to include me in the same conversation with them. Once again, the "delusion" is clearly at your end as I've incessantly spoken of Christ's command to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. "Conning people into becoming followers"? Not my bag. If you bothered to read my most recent response to Grumpy(not to mention a whole host of my other posts elsewhere), then you would know that this is totally foreign to who I am and what I believe. Well, I guess that it's YOU who would like to CON people into believing fallacies about your "another newguy". Good luck with that. I'll be gone for about two weeks for business related reasons. I wish you and your imaginary friend(the "another newguy") the best in my absence. Take care.
EDIT: Here's a little message that you can forward to all those "Christian despots" out there...
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
Misinterpet that, if you will.
Saying your interpretation is correct and others' is wrong is arrogance.
excaza: That's some short-term memory that you have there. Here is what I said TO YOU, YESTERDAY:
Let me know when you'd like to discuss the interpretation of a specific passage. Until then, I'm not going to waste what little free time I have going around in circles with you or anyone else. Take care.
QUOTE
Additionally, as you might imagine, I have had a multitude of coversations/debates with individuals over the last 20+ years who held/still hold to differing views than I hold to in regards to the teachings of scriptures. On some occasions, upon review, the other individuals were proven to be correct and I adjusted accordingly. On other occasions, and a vast multitude of them at that, others had absolutely no scriptural justification for their viewpoints(they're certainly free to maintain their viewpoints as long as they don't contend that they're backed by scripture) and either resorted to insults or threats of violence or excommunication/blacklisting. Anyhow, if there is a specific passage that you'd like to debate, then simply cite it.
Let me know when you'd like to discuss the interpretation of a specific passage. Until then, I'm not going to waste what little free time I have going around in circles with you or anyone else. Take care.
I'm proud of what you said. Really, I am, congratulations. Doesn't change the fact that saying one interpretation of a largely symbolic text is wrong and yours is better is arrogance.
excaza: Before I head out for the day, I'll leave you with a link to a somewhat recent debate between myself and tlocity on the topic of "just war". Please read it and tell me whose "interpretation" of the scriptures mentioned is correct/incorrect. If you honestly feel that you cannot tell, then simply say so. All I ask is that you be honest. As I mentioned briefly within parentheses near the end of my post, the particular scriptural reference being discussed was "used"(mis-) by Adolph Hitler, one of those supposed "Christian despots", to justify his slaughtering of Jews. Tell me if you can HONESTLY see any justification for this whatsoever from the passage of scripture that was cited. I'll check back this evening for your response. Thanks. Here is the link:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry335900
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry335900
Did I say that every single bible passage had multiple interpretations?
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 15 2008, 04:22 AM)
...No true Christian could be a despot. "Christian barbarians"? An impossibility...
peat and repeat...
From God.
You are making mock of Me.
You are saying that I, God, made inherently imperfect beings, then have demanded of them to be perfect, or face damnation.
You are saying then that, somewhere several thousand years into the world’s experience, I relented, saying that from then on you didn’t necessarily have to be good, you simply had to feel bad when you were not being good, and accept as your savior the One Being who could always be perfect, thus satisfying My hunger for perfection. You are saying that My Son—who you call the One Perfect One—has saved you from your own imperfection—the imperfection I gave you.
In other words, God’s Son has saved you from what His Father did.
From God.
You are making mock of Me.
You are saying that I, God, made inherently imperfect beings, then have demanded of them to be perfect, or face damnation.
You are saying then that, somewhere several thousand years into the world’s experience, I relented, saying that from then on you didn’t necessarily have to be good, you simply had to feel bad when you were not being good, and accept as your savior the One Being who could always be perfect, thus satisfying My hunger for perfection. You are saying that My Son—who you call the One Perfect One—has saved you from your own imperfection—the imperfection I gave you.
In other words, God’s Son has saved you from what His Father did.
QUOTE (excaza+)
Did I say that every single bible passage had multiple interpretations?
excaza: Well, that's open to interpretation.
Here's what you said in response to something I had said:
excaza: Well, that's open to interpretation.
Here's what you said in response to something I had said:QUOTE (newguy+)
There's really no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" it...it's just a matter of actually understanding what it says.
QUOTE (excaza+)
Why are you so sure you're actually understanding what it says? I could find ten different people who think ten different things about the same portions of the Bible, all of whom think they're correct. Who's correct? Who's wrong?
My comment was initially made in regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. This proper relationship certainly came into play in the debate between me and tlocity that I linked you to. MANY PEOPLE start with the words of the New Testament/Jesus and totally disregard the Old Testament scriptures, failing to realize that much of what Jesus/the New Testament writers said was directly related to things that had already been written in the Old Testament. In order to properly understand/interpret what is/was being said in the New Testament, it is imperative to have a working knowledge of what had previously been said in the Old Testament. That's one aspect of what I'm saying. If you bothered to read the exchange between me and tlocity, then you can hopefully realize that his cited scripture that supposedly defended the concept of "just war" actually did no such thing when viewed in context. Anyhow, breakfast is on the table and I really do need to head out for the day. I'll talk to you more later...
NeoDevin: I briefly skimmed your link...I'll view it in its entirety later on when I have more time. For now, as I already mentioned to FGG, I'll simply ask you to cite chapter and verse, showing where Jesus instructed His disciples to be either despots or barbarians. True Christians follow Christ. That is my point. Anyhow, like I said, I will read your link in its entirety later on. Gotta run...
My comment was initially made in regards to the proper relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. This proper relationship certainly came into play in the debate between me and tlocity that I linked you to. MANY PEOPLE start with the words of the New Testament/Jesus and totally disregard the Old Testament scriptures, failing to realize that much of what Jesus/the New Testament writers said was directly related to things that had already been written in the Old Testament. In order to properly understand/interpret what is/was being said in the New Testament, it is imperative to have a working knowledge of what had previously been said in the Old Testament. That's one aspect of what I'm saying. If you bothered to read the exchange between me and tlocity, then you can hopefully realize that his cited scripture that supposedly defended the concept of "just war" actually did no such thing when viewed in context. Anyhow, breakfast is on the table and I really do need to head out for the day. I'll talk to you more later...
NeoDevin: I briefly skimmed your link...I'll view it in its entirety later on when I have more time. For now, as I already mentioned to FGG, I'll simply ask you to cite chapter and verse, showing where Jesus instructed His disciples to be either despots or barbarians. True Christians follow Christ. That is my point. Anyhow, like I said, I will read your link in its entirety later on. Gotta run...
Peaty: I ignore your nonsense because it is not a reflection of what I am saying or have said in any way, shape or form. Have another tequila. Good-bye for now...
It really does get tiring educating some of you on our system of government, but i will try again.
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
EXACTLY, sheesh. Since it is NOT a specifically consitutionally reserved individual right, it IS SUBJECT TO MAJORITY INTERPRETATION.
Sorry, that is exactly what the Constitution DOES protect, the opinion(and rights) of the individual to be FREE from the "Tyranny of the Masses" you seem to believe in.
How can you be so close, and yet so wrong.
The constitution and its amendments describe our representative democracy, and how ethical and moral judgements (laws) are passed that we all must abide by. The three branches of government, and their specific responsiblities and the checks and balances. Those laws ARE INTENDED to be a representation of the majority view.
HOWEVER, you assertion of "Tyranny of the majority" is ALSO true, and provided for in the constitution and its amendments as well.
The DIFFERENCE IS, that specific individual and civil rights that are NOT subject to Majority interpretation are SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AND PROTECTED BY the Constitution and it s amendments.
IF THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY REPRESENTATION USING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
Man, it gets so tiring, you are specifically misconstruing the intention of our constitution, applying "protected status" to anything you want that the majority disagrees with, even when it is not so protected. Those rights that deserve that protection ARE SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT to prevent "tyranny of the majority".
To add additional protected rights or expand on them a constitutional amendment is required. You do not get to trot out that phrase every time you are on the losing side of an ethical or moral argument. If it AIN'T in the constitution, IT AIN'T PROTECTED.
Civics 101, crack a book or something.
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
Like gays should be killed, or kids who talk back or women not thought to be virgins on their wedding night??? Your right to BELIEVE such garbage is superseded by the Constitution's protection of those gays and women rights to be free from the repression of those who believe that garbage, even if they believe that garbage came straight from god. Your beliefs and "morals" stop where someone else's begins, whether they are in the majority or not and whether you think they are "moral" or not.
HAHAH you do not even have that right. First Amendment protects your right to SAY AND BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT no matter how offensive. It is only ACTIONS that can be punished. NO BELIEF OF ANY KIND is superseded by the constitution, as a matter of fact IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
Grumpy
HAHA And there your ignorance is shamefully on full display. MAJORITY CONSENSUS is exactly how our ethics and morals are decided by our government and enforced by our legal system. The "Tyranny of the majority" is prevented as well by the same founding documents that describe our government, by reserving rights and freedoms that may not be subjected to majority consensus.
And the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of the United States is not SECULAR
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In the words of Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter:
"There you go, again!"
What the hell are you talking about? "Christian despot"? No true Christian could be a despot. "Christian barbarians"? An impossibility. Your problem, and one that you probably knowingly embrace due to your own bias, is that you don't allow for HYPOCRITES even though the Bible clearly warns of such all throughout its pages. How ironic that in your supposed rebuke of me, you actually helped prove my point. Show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to become "despots". Go ahead, I'm waiting. While you're at it, show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to be "barbarians", "butchers" or "serial killers". Cite chapter and verse. How nice of you to include me in the same conversation with them. Once again, the "delusion" is clearly at your end as I've incessantly spoken of Christ's command to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. "Conning people into becoming followers"? Not my bag. If you bothered to read my most recent response to Grumpy(not to mention a whole host of my other posts elsewhere), then you would know that this is totally foreign to who I am and what I believe. Well, I guess that it's YOU who would like to CON people into believing fallacies about your "another newguy".
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 14 2008, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Oh, and do show me where stem cell research is constitutionally protected individual freedom? Hmmm?
It isn't, that's the point. Stem cells are only tissue, it is the religious right that tries to block research using them, based on a moral view that IS NOT in the Constitution.
EXACTLY, sheesh. Since it is NOT a specifically consitutionally reserved individual right, it IS SUBJECT TO MAJORITY INTERPRETATION.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 14 2008, 08:48 AM)
Sorry, that is exactly what the Constitution DOES protect, the opinion(and rights) of the individual to be FREE from the "Tyranny of the Masses" you seem to believe in.
How can you be so close, and yet so wrong.
The constitution and its amendments describe our representative democracy, and how ethical and moral judgements (laws) are passed that we all must abide by. The three branches of government, and their specific responsiblities and the checks and balances. Those laws ARE INTENDED to be a representation of the majority view.
HOWEVER, you assertion of "Tyranny of the majority" is ALSO true, and provided for in the constitution and its amendments as well.
The DIFFERENCE IS, that specific individual and civil rights that are NOT subject to Majority interpretation are SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AND PROTECTED BY the Constitution and it s amendments.
IF THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY REPRESENTATION USING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
Man, it gets so tiring, you are specifically misconstruing the intention of our constitution, applying "protected status" to anything you want that the majority disagrees with, even when it is not so protected. Those rights that deserve that protection ARE SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT to prevent "tyranny of the majority".
To add additional protected rights or expand on them a constitutional amendment is required. You do not get to trot out that phrase every time you are on the losing side of an ethical or moral argument. If it AIN'T in the constitution, IT AIN'T PROTECTED.
Civics 101, crack a book or something.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 14 2008, 08:48 AM)
I don't care what Charles Manson BELIEVES, he does not have the right to violate his victims right to live, and neither do you have the right to dictate how they should live. Manson is not in jail for his BELIEFS, but for his ACTIONS.
Like gays should be killed, or kids who talk back or women not thought to be virgins on their wedding night??? Your right to BELIEVE such garbage is superseded by the Constitution's protection of those gays and women rights to be free from the repression of those who believe that garbage, even if they believe that garbage came straight from god. Your beliefs and "morals" stop where someone else's begins, whether they are in the majority or not and whether you think they are "moral" or not.
HAHAH you do not even have that right. First Amendment protects your right to SAY AND BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT no matter how offensive. It is only ACTIONS that can be punished. NO BELIEF OF ANY KIND is superseded by the constitution, as a matter of fact IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 14 2008, 08:48 AM)
At least in America morals are not dictated by what the majority consensus is or by the Pope's edicts, but by the PRINCIPLES outlined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thoroughly SECULAR documents.
Grumpy
HAHA And there your ignorance is shamefully on full display. MAJORITY CONSENSUS is exactly how our ethics and morals are decided by our government and enforced by our legal system. The "Tyranny of the majority" is prevented as well by the same founding documents that describe our government, by reserving rights and freedoms that may not be subjected to majority consensus.
And the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of the United States is not SECULAR
QUOTE (declaration of independence+)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 15 2008, 11:22 AM)
In the words of Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter:
"There you go, again!"
What the hell are you talking about? "Christian despot"? No true Christian could be a despot. "Christian barbarians"? An impossibility. Your problem, and one that you probably knowingly embrace due to your own bias, is that you don't allow for HYPOCRITES even though the Bible clearly warns of such all throughout its pages. How ironic that in your supposed rebuke of me, you actually helped prove my point. Show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to become "despots". Go ahead, I'm waiting. While you're at it, show me/us where Christ instructed His disciples to be "barbarians", "butchers" or "serial killers". Cite chapter and verse. How nice of you to include me in the same conversation with them. Once again, the "delusion" is clearly at your end as I've incessantly spoken of Christ's command to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. "Conning people into becoming followers"? Not my bag. If you bothered to read my most recent response to Grumpy(not to mention a whole host of my other posts elsewhere), then you would know that this is totally foreign to who I am and what I believe. Well, I guess that it's YOU who would like to CON people into believing fallacies about your "another newguy".