Finally some great news on the movement for tolerance!!!

[Logical]

Finally organized religion is taking the right step towards tolerance. Congratulations to the Synod of the United Church of Christ for their show of common sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/national/04cnd-church.html?hp&ex=1120536000&en=c11eb4df569a28c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Logical]

For some reason I could not get the article to post in the header so here it is:

Christian Group Passes Resolution to Support Same-Sex Marriage

ATLANTA, Ga., July 4 - With a movement to amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage picking up steam, the United Church of Christ became the first mainstream Christian denomination to officially support same-sex marriages today when its general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."

The resolution was both a theological statement and a blow to discrimination, said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the president and general minister of the denomination, which has 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members.

"On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages," Mr. Thomas said at a news conference following the vote.
Some churches and at least one conference had said that such a vote could prompt them to leave the denomination, and one group called for Mr. Thomas's resignation when he came out in support of the resolution. One amendment offered on the synod floor, and accepted, added a phrase acknowledging the "pain and struggle" passage of the resolution would engender.

Yet the resolution, submitted by the church's Southern California-Nevada Conference, appeared to have overwhelming support on the synod floor, where the vote was done by a show of hands after about 45 minutes of debate.

[Metrolike]

Nice.

[Saggysack]

now try to convince that to the mass..es...

[BCD]

Baby steps, I guess...

[Electric]

I don't think this church is the last word in whether gay marriage is acceptable.

If you read the bible (I know many of you do not believe) Soddam and Gomorah suffered the fruits of their sins.

Just because a portion of the world's population think that it is OK doesn't mean that we should embrace their deviation from what is normal.

The bottom line is that if we tolerate and/or embrace their abnormality we could suffer the same as S and G.

There are many ideas of what is right and wrong. Check out what some have said on Sean Hanity's website:

http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-245.html

[CHIEF4EVER]

What a travesty. I can't say I didn't see it coming though. I can safely say that anyone voting for or supporting something like this just needs to stop posing and drop the moniker "Christian" right now. Someone who is a true Christian does NOT pick and choose which of GODs laws he/she will or will not obey. It is a package deal, no exclusions.

[Saggysack]

What a travesty. I can't say I didn't see it coming though. I can safely say that anyone voting for or supporting something like this just needs to stop posing and drop the moniker "Christian" right now. Someone who is a true Christian does NOT pick and choose which of GODs laws he/she will or will not obey. It is a package deal, no exclusions.

So I guess you are going to sleep with your brothers wife when he passes? Are women subservient to men in your eyes, should they stay silent in church? Should women not be allowed to lead in church? Do you believe gays should be put to death for homosexual acts? If a child curses at their parents should they be put to death? Should a cheating husband be put to death, along with his mistress? And lastly but not least...

Do you love your neighbor as yourself, even if they are gay?

[CHIEF4EVER]

Do you love your neighbor as yourself, even if they are gay?

Yes. The person is not what is being judged but instead the CONDUCT. The person doing this is still a human being and deserving of the same compassion as any other. The same person is also doing what is wrong and a Christian should attempt to help him/her to turn from this conduct. I find it amazing that those who don't believe try to pervert the scriptures in a hypocritical fashion to justify their views without actually reading and UNDERSTANDING their content.

[Braincase]

So I guess you are going to sleep with your brothers wife when he passes? Are women subservient to men in your eyes, should they stay silent in church? Should women not be allowed to lead in church? Do you believe gays should be put to death for homosexual acts? If a child curses at their parents should they be put to death? Should a cheating husband be put to death, along with his mistress? And lastly but not least...

Do you love your neighbor as yourself, even if they are gay?

For all we know, on God's grand scale of eternal damnation, eating shrimp & rabbit is a 10 , and two consenting adults expressing affection for one another in a way that seems natural to them is a one.

If God hate's gays, why did he make so many of them?

(Edited out my inappropriate comment))

[1adam1238]

I don't even claim to be religious any longer, but Christians have a right to believe the way they do based upon the Bible. By the way, Mary wasn't married to Joseph at the time of conception.

[Patriot 21]

Finally organized religion is taking the right step towards tolerance. Congratulations to the Synod of the United Church of Christ for their show of common sense.

This is an attempt to "legislate" within the UCC.

Tolerance, just like morality can not be legislated. Tolerance can only come from changing peoples hearts.

[Brock]

why do they bother calling themselves a christian church, if their practices are going to be 180 degrees from doctrine?

[Cochise]

Hasnt the COC always been a liberal denomination? I don't think this should be surprising. If I'm thinking of the right church they already backed off on authority of scripture too.

[Simplex3]

I love it when Christians go all "Bible says this, Bible says that" on us. ROFL

Which revision of the Bible are you speaking of? I mean, which "word of God" is serving your purpose right now? Old Testement? New?

[Electric]

If God hate's gays, why did he make so many of them?

(Edited out my inappropriate comment))

Just for clarity; God does not hate gays, you've been listening to Fred Phelps crap for too long. God hates all SIN boys and girls. Lies, murder, etc. all fall into one category and that category is sin.

All humans on the earth are free moral agents, they choose what they want to do with their lives. If you wanted to step infront of a truck and commit suicide it's your choice.

Too many people associate something said by man's interpetation of what the bible says without checking it out for themselves.

Nobody is perfect, so take your best shots.

[Jenson71]

More...



"Every indication was that it was going to go that way," said Brice Thomas, 42, a United Church of Christ pastor in Lebanon, Ohio, who is gay. "But still, to hear it come to a vote and see it processed in such a positive way to me was transformative."

Some, like Harlan Hall, a delegate from Wisconsin, supported a failed effort to change the resolution to apply to "covenanted relationships" rather than legal marriage. "As a well-over-30-years-old, heterosexual white male capitalist, who seems like he's losing his position in the church - but still can vote, I am in favor of the proposal," Mr. Hall said. "I could find it much easier to sell back home."

But another delegate, Gregory Morisse, who opposed the amendment, said, "Covenanted relationships are not under constitutional threat."

Hector Lopez, a minister from a small Latino church in Southern California, said he was not at first enthusiastic about same-sex marriage. But after officiating at about a dozen such ceremonies in Oregon and seeing the respect and commitment of the couples, he said, "I experienced a passionate conversion."

Several major religious groups permit same-sex unions, but do not give them the same status as marriage, including the Episcopal Church, with about 2.3 million members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church, with 5 million; and Reform Judaism, with 1.7 million.

"Today's word is not the last word in the U.C.C. about marriage," Mr. Thomas said. "It is a crucial and groundbreaking first word in a difficult but important churchwide discussion."

He said the church strove to have "diversity without division, unity without uniformity." His hope, he said, is that "we will not run from one another, because if we run from one another we run from Christ."

There was some evidence that the denomination could comfortably encompass dissenters, in part because the mood after the vote was more conciliatory than triumphant. The Rev. Barbara Headley, pastor at a predominantly black United Church of Christ church in Hartford, said she voted against the resolution and that many blacks were more "orthodox" in their interpretation of Scripture.

"There are those of us who live in the tension of affirming love and relationships for people who have not had enough of that, and feeling like the theological evidence for it just hasn't been presented," she said.

Ms. Headley was with Beverly Deloatch, another black delegate from Connecticut, who said, "I voted for it, and I agree with everything she's saying."

Jeanette Mott Oxford, who described herself as the first openly lesbian member elected to the Missouri House of Representatives, said she was pleased by the "brave prophetic witness" of the vote, but "very concerned about my brothers and sisters who may be hurt by this."

The United Church of Christ prides itself on being in the forefront of human and civil rights issues. On its Web site, the denomination says it and its predecessors were among the first churches to take a stand against slavery, in 1700, the first to ordain a woman, in 1853, and the first to publish an inclusive-language hymnal, in 1995.

Its slogan, "God is still speaking," is meant to suggest that the Bible is not the sole source of divine instruction, and that Scripture must be interpreted in today's context.

The equal marriage rights resolution states, in part, "Ideas about marriage have shifted and changed dramatically throughout human history, and such change continues even today." It continues, "In the Gospel we find ground for a definition of marriage and family relationships based on the affirmation of the full humanity of each partner, lived out in mutual care and respect for one another."

Last year, two major networks refused to broadcast a United Church of Christ commercial that showed two bouncers standing in front of a church, allowing some people to come in and refusing others, including nonwhites and a gay couple. "Jesus didn't turn people away," the text said. "Neither do we."

[Electric]

Which revision of the Bible are you speaking of? I mean, which "word of God" is serving your purpose right now? Old Testement? New?

I'd recommend that you read both the old and new and determine for yourself. There are many different translations so be sure to pick one that you feel is the closest to the actual script.

I don't think you really believe that all Christians use the Bible for "serving their current purpose". I know that it has been done, but to use a blanket statement like that is just wrong.

[RINGLEADER]

Just for clarity; God does not hate gays, you've been listening to Fred Phelps crap for too long. God hates all SIN boys and girls. Lies, murder, etc. all fall into one category and that category is sin.

All humans on the earth are free moral agents, they choose what they want to do with their lives. If you wanted to step infront of a truck and commit suicide it's your choice.

Too many people associate something said by man's interpetation of what the bible says without checking it out for themselves.

Nobody is perfect, so take your best shots.


Yeah. He's right. I saw it on The Devil's Advocate right before Keanu Reeves blew his brains out...

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...spoiler warning!

[Cochise]

Just for clarity; God does not hate gays, you've been listening to Fred Phelps crap for too long. God hates all SIN boys and girls. Lies, murder, etc. all fall into one category and that category is sin.

All humans on the earth are free moral agents, they choose what they want to do with their lives. If you wanted to step infront of a truck and commit suicide it's your choice.

Too many people associate something said by man's interpetation of what the bible says without checking it out for themselves.

Nobody is perfect, so take your best shots.

Hello, new-er member. I admire what you are trying to do, but trust me in advance when I say that no one is going to let honest discussion get in the way of their religion-bashing party. It's some kind of a morbid sport around here. I admire your resolve in throwing yourself to the lions though.

Speaking of which, I'm reading a book set in the mid first century AD in the Roman empire and I several times thought that the way the Romans treated the Jews in those days sharply resembles the D.C. forum. None of us have been made into torches yet but you take my meaning I'm sure.

[jiveturkey]

Hello, new-er member. I admire what you are trying to do, but trust me in advance when I say that no one is going to let honest discussion get in the way of their religion-bashing party. It's some kind of a morbid sport around here. I admire your resolve in throwing yourself to the lions though.

Speaking of which, I'm reading a book set in the mid first century AD in the Roman empire and I several times thought that the way the Romans treated the Jews in those days sharply resembles the D.C. forum. None of us have been made into torches yet but you take my meaning I'm sure.
You should try reading this place through the eyes of a Dem. I'm also betting that this place isn't very inviting to gays either.

[Cochise]

You should try reading this place through the eyes of a Dem. I'm also betting that this place isn't very inviting to gays either.

I dunno. I think largely the people who are savaged by others are begging for it. There are people of other stripes that I don't roll my eyes when I scroll down and see one of their posts coming. Brain is one of those, Saggysack another, Amnorix another. The only ones who are truly disliked are the ones telling you that you're an idiot and sheep all the time, or posting the same BLPD threads almost daily.

Of course both sides are dramatic and exaggerate but that is the difference I think. If you can discuss something without ridiculing someone's religion for example, if you can see how someone can have a different opinion from you without being mentally deficient, then you will be ok.

[Simplex3]

I'd recommend that you read both the old and new and determine for yourself. There are many different translations so be sure to pick one that you feel is the closest to the actual script.

I don't think you really believe that all Christians use the Bible for "serving their current purpose". I know that it has been done, but to use a blanket statement like that is just wrong.
I have read the New Testement, but that was 15+ years ago. I believe it was the King James version, but I could be completely wrong.

You are correct that I didn't intend to paint all Christians with that brush. The only point I'm trying to make is that Christian doctorine has changed and I see no evidence that God was the one that changed it. That being the case it seems a little dubious to claim a book changed by someone other than God would be used to determine what God wants from us.

[RINGLEADER]

You should try reading this place through the eyes of a Dem. I'm also betting that this place isn't very inviting to gays either.


I welcome the POV of Dems (or gays or whatever group) around here. In fact I challenge them constantly with facts. I never get any answers, but it's still fun to debate and point out the hypocrisy of the left on all sorts of issues (the latest of which is the assumption that Bush, who previously was a simpleton, was actually directing Rove to out Valerie Plame when - last I checked - Rove hasn't been accused of doing it by anyone other than some partisans on the left).

[RINGLEADER]

I have read the New Testement, but that was 15+ years ago. I believe it was the King James version, but I could be completely wrong.

You are correct that I didn't intend to paint all Christians with that brush. The only point I'm trying to make is that Christian doctorine has changed and I see no evidence that God was the one that changed it. That being the case it seems a little dubious to claim a book changed by someone other than God would be used to determine what God wants from us.

That is a bit of an issue...didn't the Old Testament say you can't amend the bible? Or was that the New Testament? I distinctly remember reading it somewhere in one of those books.

[Electric]

I have read the New Testement, but that was 15+ years ago. I believe it was the King James version, but I could be completely wrong.

You are correct that I didn't intend to paint all Christians with that brush. The only point I'm trying to make is that Christian doctorine has changed and I see no evidence that God was the one that changed it. That being the case it seems a little dubious to claim a book changed by someone other than God would be used to determine what God wants from us.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Doctrine of any denomination is something written by man. Anything man medles with can be/or is corrupted. If you want religion you normally associate with a denomination that most fits your beliefs. All of us that want to be Christians have to share space with other believers. Besides, when we fellowship there is always good food!!! (I's say that the food thing is biblical, Jesus fed the masses and they had the last supper. That's two witnesses for eating when you have a gathering!!!)

[Cochise]

The only point I'm trying to make is that Christian doctorine has changed and I see no evidence that God was the one that changed it.

Is it not entirely conceivable that a denomination could have had a certain policy wrong, recognized it, and then changed to the right policy?

And how can you say that you see no evidence that the changes are justified when you say you haven't picked up a Bible in 15 years?

[Simplex3]

Is it not entirely conceivable that a denomination could have had a certain policy wrong, recognized it, and then changed to the right policy?

And how can you say that you see no evidence that the changes are justified when you say you haven't picked up a Bible in 15 years?
First, I don't think the Bible has changed in the last 15 years. Second, 15+ years was the last time I read it cover to cover. Admitedly it was probably over a decade ago that I even picked one up except to move it and get the phone book in a hotel room.

To your first point, what's to say that same denomination doesn't have the gay marriage thing wrong? If they then recognized it, then changed it to "the right policy", would you hold it against them?

My original point was that it's laughable when a Christian uses the Bible as the end-all word of God in an argument when it's a known fact that it has been changed by man over the years.

[Duck Dog]

now try to convince that to the liberals...

I fixed it for you.

[Cochise]

First, I don't think the Bible has changed in the last 15 years.

That isn't the point. If a teaching in scripture was always A, and some denomination interpreted it as B, but then realized their policy was contrary and reverted to A, then a policy could have changed without scripture changing.

Since it seems like you are being obtuse rather than not understanding I will not belabor the point, but surely this does not escape you. At one time, man thought the sun revolved around the earth, but later we discovered the opposite was true. Does that mean that when our belief changed the solar system was changed to go with it?


To your first point, what's to say that same denomination doesn't have the gay marriage thing wrong? If they then recognized it, then changed it to "the right policy", would you hold it against them?


If they find the 'gay marriage is ok' teaching in scripture then I will embrace it wholeheartedly.


My original point was that it's laughable when a Christian uses the Bible as the end-all word of God in an argument when it's a known fact that it has been changed by man over the years.

I admire you for once again not being condescending. I know I can always count on that.


...it's a known fact that it has been changed by man over the years.

So if it's a known fact, surely you have an example where it was blatantly changed, where the change was a change that altered meaning and not merely in grammar or spellchecking or copyist' error, etc.

I should hope you'll not need to go googling for an example. Since you stated it was a 'known fact' off the top of your head, I would expect you to have several examples of changes in mind that are scholarly settled that you are basing this opinion off, ones that you can reel off instantly.

Note: I am not denying that some groups have not changed it. I just want to know what translations you don't trust and on the basis of what passages.

[Simplex3]

I should hope you'll not need to go googling for an example. Since you stated it was a 'known fact' off the top of your head, I would expect you to have several examples of changes in mind that are scholarly settled that you are basing this opinion off, ones that you can reel off instantly.

Note: I am not denying that some groups have not changed it. I just want to know what translations you don't trust and on the basis of what passages.
And if I did point some out without links would you trust me? I'm not going to put in research time on this, if you want to hold that there was no major philisophical shift between the Old and New Testements then that's your option.

[Cochise]

And if I did point some out without links would you trust me? I'm not going to put in research time on this, if you want to hold that there was no major philisophical shift between the Old and New Testements then that's your option.

What does OT vs NT have to do with scripture being changed through the years? I thought you were questioning the reliability of our current copies.

[Simplex3]

What does OT vs NT have to do with scripture being changed through the years? I thought you were questioning the reliability of our current copies.
I don't know Hebrew so I won't pretend I know how good the translations are.

[Cochise]

I don't know Hebrew so I won't pretend I know how good the translations are.

It sounded like, (paraphrasing) you thought Chrstianity was silly because the Bible has been changed so many times over the years, there's no way to believe the copies we have are reliable. I was asking you what what example makes you distrust it.

[patteeu]

What a travesty. I can't say I didn't see it coming though. I can safely say that anyone voting for or supporting something like this just needs to stop posing and drop the moniker "Christian" right now. Someone who is a true Christian does NOT pick and choose which of GODs laws he/she will or will not obey. It is a package deal, no exclusions.

LOL, sometimes you guys crack me up. I don't think there is a Christian on this board who hasn't either done some picking and choosing on their own or had a thought leader somewhere down the line do some picking and choosing for them. Including you.

[Warrior5]

That is a bit of an issue...didn't the Old Testament say you can't amend the bible? Or was that the New Testament? I distinctly remember reading it somewhere in one of those books.

Last Book of the Bible; Revelation 22:18-19.

[patteeu]

It sounded like, (paraphrasing) you thought Chrstianity was silly because the Bible has been changed so many times over the years, there's no way to believe the copies we have are reliable. I was asking you what what example makes you distrust it.

To me it sounded like he said the Bible was originally written by men and later translated by men, not that it was necessarily "changed so many times over the years," but I suppose that measure is more a matter of opinion than of fact.

[Pitt Gorilla]

What a travesty. I can't say I didn't see it coming though. I can safely say that anyone voting for or supporting something like this just needs to stop posing and drop the moniker "Christian" right now. Someone who is a true Christian does NOT pick and choose which of GODs laws he/she will or will not obey. It is a package deal, no exclusions.Wow. Just wow. (waiting for a full response to Saggy's questions...)

[Cochise]

So I guess you are going to sleep with your brothers wife when he passes? Are women subservient to men in your eyes, should they stay silent in church? Should women not be allowed to lead in church? Do you believe gays should be put to death for homosexual acts? If a child curses at their parents should they be put to death? Should a cheating husband be put to death, along with his mistress?

There are many differences in the way these commands are recorded. Some are applicable to one person one specific time. Some are applicable to Israel during the time of a theocratic state. Some are applicable to the post-theocratic Israel. Some are recorded cultural preferences. Some are superceded by changes in later scriptures.

Without context a jumbled pile of hastily listed references is meaningless.

Do you love your neighbor as yourself, even if they are gay?

Again, context would reveal the answer to this, particularly the parable of the Samaritan, although that is not in the same book as the statement you are referring to.

[Electric]

To me it sounded like he said the Bible was originally written by men and later translated by men, not that it was necessarily "changed so many times over the years," but I suppose that measure is more a matter of opinion than of fact.
If you believe in God and the whole divine providence you believe that the bible was written by the inspired word of God.

Those that want to debunk the bible have but to explain why it has been a book that sells on and on regardless of which translation you want to speak about. And if you read each different translation of the bible the base beliefs or storyline has remained the same from translation to translation.

Believe or don't, that is your choice. To play the "forced religion" card; if you don't believe don't try to convince those that do of why you don't.

A Christian's one directive is to spread the good news about Jesus. What is your one directive?

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!

[BIG_DADDY]

If you believe in God and the whole divine providence you believe that the bible was written by the inspired word of God.

Those that want to debunk the bible have but to explain why it has been a book that sells on and on regardless of which translation you want to speak about. And if you read each different translation of the bible the base beliefs or storyline has remained the same from translation to translation.

Believe or don't, that is your choice. To play the "forced religion" card; if you don't believe don't try to convince those that do of why you don't.

A Christian's one directive is to spread the good news about Jesus. What is your one directive?

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!

It's not how you play the game it's you win or lose you can choose.

[Pitt Gorilla]

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!I'm a Christian and I'm glad that I've never uttered this line of reasoning.
:shake:

[Chieficus]

This isn't a show of "tolerance." This is a show of a particular group calling themselves Christians going agisnt the grain of a long-held Christian belief in order to accomodate a particular opposing worldview that is crying out under the banner of psuedo-civil rights.

If the UCC wants to come together and change their constitution to reflect a certain political sentiment held by a majority of their congregants, that is fully their right, within the confines of United States law. However, to say that what they have done is an "act of tolerance" and therefore infer that Church organizations opposed to homosexual marriage are intolerant, well, it is assinine at best.

Tolerance is not defined as changing our beliefs to make everybody and their agenda feel happy. (Though a growing constituant would like us to believe that is so.) Tolerance is saying: I have my beliefs, you have yours; I have the right to hold mine, you have the right to hold yours; and we both have the right to discuss it and attempt to convince each other and others in a civil manner in both the private and public arena.

[BIG_DADDY]

I'm a Christian and I'm glad that I've never uttered this line of reasoning.
:shake:

Call me silly but I would never make my decision based upon fear.

[BIG_DADDY]

This isn't a show of "tolerance." This is a show of a particular group calling themselves Christians going agisnt the grain of a long-held Christian belief in order to accomodate a particular opposing worldview that is crying out under the banner of psuedo-civil rights.

If the UCC wants to come together and change their constitution to reflect a certain political sentiment held by a majority of their congregants, that is fully their right, within the confines of United States law. However, to say that what they have done is an "act of tolerance" and therefore infer that Church organizations opposed to homosexual marriage are intolerant, well, it is assinine at best.

Tolerance is not defined as changing our beliefs to make everybody and their agenda feel happy. (Though a growing constituant would like us to believe that is so.) Tolerance is saying: I have my beliefs, you have yours; I have the right to hold mine, you have the right to hold yours; and we both have the right to discuss it and attempt to convince each other and others in a civil manner in both the private and public arena.

Good take.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Call me silly but I would never make my decision based upon fear.
Yup, that's certainly part of my point.

BTW,
Did you get my Smoke Sig?

[Logical]

That isn't the point. If a teaching in scripture was always A, and some denomination interpreted it as B, but then realized their policy was contrary and reverted to A, then a policy could have changed without scripture changing.

Since it seems like you are being obtuse rather than not understanding I will not belabor the point, but surely this does not escape you. At one time, man thought the sun revolved around the earth, but later we discovered the opposite was true. Does that mean that when our belief changed the solar system was changed to go with it?
....

What that analogy does is point out how imperfect the Bible is, it's interpretation can be changed to suit the desires of each organized religion when in reality there is no evidence that God made the changes. The Bible is not as some would claim the actual word of God but the interpretation of different men throughout history and their recordings of those interpretations. What is even worse is that it has been through many translations by many more imperfect men and women (for that matter) until today you have many active versions of what the Bible says of which their are many conflicts amongst those interpretations. My quarrel is not with believing in God or even forming your own opinion of what the Bible means to you. My quarrel is with mindless sheep who need some big mystical and powerful organized religion to do it for them. To be blindly led like sheep to slaughter happy to be fed the same nonsense year after year because that way they do not need to think. If they want to live life like mushrooms, in the dark with shit dumped on them, that is their choice but quit trying to convince/force others that they want to be mushrooms as well.

[Simplex3]

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!
Call me crazy but I'm betting God can sort out those who went to church just to be safe and those who never went but led good lives.

[Logical]

This isn't a show of "tolerance." This is a show of a particular group calling themselves Christians going agisnt the grain of a long-held Christian belief in order to accomodate a particular opposing worldview that is crying out under the banner of psuedo-civil rights.

If the UCC wants to come together and change their constitution to reflect a certain political sentiment held by a majority of their congregants, that is fully their right, within the confines of United States law. However, to say that what they have done is an "act of tolerance" and therefore infer that Church organizations opposed to homosexual marriage are intolerant, well, it is assinine at best.

Tolerance is not defined as changing our beliefs to make everybody and their agenda feel happy. (Though a growing constituant would like us to believe that is so.) Tolerance is saying: I have my beliefs, you have yours; I have the right to hold mine, you have the right to hold yours; and we both have the right to discuss it and attempt to convince each other and others in a civil manner in both the private and public arena.
Your view of tolerance is more like a freedom of choice view than a tolerance view. You have the right to believe blacks are Ni**ers it is not a tolerant viewpoint no matter how willing you are to let others believe otherwise or to debate with them the merits of your beliefs.

[Cochise]

The Bible is not as some would claim the actual word of God but the interpretation of different men throughout history and their recordings of those interpretations.

Well if you disagree with someone on that point, you are probably not going to be able to understand them on any others as that is the foundation.


Call me crazy but I'm betting God can sort out those who went to church just to be safe and those who never went but led good lives.


Well, I would submit that the lion's share of both groups will end up in the same place, since neither going to church nor living a good life get you any closer to saving yourself.

Again, no offense is intended whatsoever, but if you don't know that living a good life does nothing to get you standing in the Christian afterlife, I seriously doubt you have done any reading of the New Testament at all. The very reason the New Testament exists is to contradict that idea.

[BIG_DADDY]

Yup, that's certainly part of my point.

BTW,
Did you get my Smoke Sig?

What's a smoke sig?

[Logical]

It sounded like, (paraphrasing) you thought Chrstianity was silly because the Bible has been changed so many times over the years, there's no way to believe the copies we have are reliable. I was asking you what what example makes you distrust it.

Because I distrust men/women as flawed the Bible cannot be trusted as perfect. I really is that simple.

[patteeu]

If you believe in God and the whole divine providence you believe that the bible was written by the inspired word of God.

I understand that.

Those that want to debunk the bible have but to explain why it has been a book that sells on and on regardless of which translation you want to speak about. And if you read each different translation of the bible the base beliefs or storyline has remained the same from translation to translation.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "base beliefs." I don't claim to know much about the bible, but I've seen enough disagreements between Christians about the meaning of Biblical passages and enough controversy based on the particular translation that I think there's plenty of room to criticize human involvement in the process (even if you maintain that some versions remain divinely inspired).

I don't think sales figures indicate anything other than popularity.

Believe or don't, that is your choice. To play the "forced religion" card; if you don't believe don't try to convince those that do of why you don't.

A Christian's one directive is to spread the good news about Jesus. What is your one directive?

I don't try to convince anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong.

BUT, I do find it offensive for people like you to tell others not to do it. If you want to evangelize, don't whine about it when someone with views that differ from yours decides to do the same.

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!

If that's your best argument for your belief then you aren't going to win many converts. If a Christian is wrong and the muslims are right, I guess you can save me a seat in hell (or wherever nonmuslims end up).

[Logical]

What's a smoke sig?Its a PM (private message)

[BIG_DADDY]

Its a PM (private message)

No I didn't get it then, that's weird.

[Logical]

Well if you disagree with someone on that point, you are probably not going to be able to understand them on any others as that is the foundation.



Well, I would submit that the lion's share of both groups will end up in the same place, since neither going to church nor living a good life get you any closer to saving yourself.

Which is an opinion, IMO it is a silly opinion but since I do believe in freedom of choice I do not begrudge you your silly opinion. Yet I believe if a person accepts Jesus Christ as his personal saviour and lives a decent life it is one way to heaven. I certainly do not believe it is the only way.

[Donger]

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!

Do you think that all non-Christians don't believe there is a God?

[Cochise]

Because I distrust men/women as flawed the Bible cannot be trusted as perfect. I really is that simple.

Well, see post #50. I mean, there's really no point in even discussing lower issues such as whether gay marriage should be allowed since that is the case. If you disagree on the origin of scripture that you will disagree on just about anything else.

[Logical]

Do you think that all non-Christians don't believe there is a God?:thumb:

[Electric]

I'm a Christian and I'm glad that I've never uttered this line of reasoning.
:shake:

What you missed was that there are many people that look at it like that. Most of the people I've heard use that line of reasoning were choosing to go with God rather than against him.

It's good that you are a Christian, that means that if I've offended you I can be forgiven.......right?

[BIG_DADDY]

Whole country is going gay or being femanized anyway. Frankly I am getting sick of hearing about it.

[|Zach|]

Good move...

[Cochise]

Yet I believe if a person accepts Jesus Christ as his personal saviour and lives a decent life it is one way to heaven.

Living a decent life has nothing to do with it. A murderer can be converted by a member of the clergy in prison, on his deathbed perhaps, and be redeemed.

Having done one thing wrong is the same has having done a million - imperfect.

[Logical]

Well, see post #50. I mean, there's really no point in even discussing lower issues such as whether gay marriage should be allowed since that is the case. If you disagree on the origin of scripture that you will disagree on just about anything else.

I believe the Bible is an outstanding collection of parables that a person can use to improve how they lead their lives if they apply common sense, thought, and logic to them and do not blindly follow others opinions of what they mean. For it is when a person becomes a sheep that he will surely be led astray.

[Pitt Gorilla]

What's a smoke sig?
Eh, I sent you a PM about finding someone. Do you still have that service? I'll try to resend it.

[Logical]

Living a decent life has nothing to do with it. A murderer can be converted by a member of the clergy in prison, on his deathbed perhaps, and be redeemed.

Having done one thing wrong is the same has having done a million - imperfect.

Again your opinion (possibly or then again it could be you are just being a sheep), you are welcome to it.

[Electric]

Call me crazy but I'm betting God can sort out those who went to church just to be safe and those who never went but led good lives.

You are right, but if they are in church don't you think that some of the things taught might sink in?

[|Zach|]

I have never been that interested in being proactive in making the church do this and that. They are welcome to make decisions and they see fit for their group. When church groups seem to be active in working to stop the gay rights\marriage movement is when I disagree with them. I think the people on both sides should be free to choose as they wish...

[Cochise]

I believe the Bible is an outstanding collection of parables that a person can use to improve how they lead their lives if they apply common sense, thought, and logic to them and do not blindly follow others opinions of what they mean. For it is when a person becomes a sheep that he will surely be led astray.

I find your implication that I and others like me a sheep ironic considering your post re: N***ers/intolorance.

I assure you that I am no sheep. There was a period in my life a few years ago where I doubted everything as well. I believed in God, but didn't know if I should believe things the way I was raised. I would have told you that I didn't think our world could have been an accident, but I thought that the way Christianity was run was dubous. Over about a year I started investigating. I read books about all the religions of the world, talked to people in Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hindu, Bahai, Buddhism, you name it. I had read the Bible in entirity before, but I read form the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Catholic literature, and so on. Read pointform defenses of each and criticisms of each. Of the atheist/agnostic point of view too. I exchanged emails with a somewhat notable Christian author and a skeptic/academic who had debated him. And other types of investigation, just talking to people I ran into when appropriate, and so forth.

I really did perform an honest investigation and this is where I ended up. To me it made the most logical sense. I had the same questions as you on many fronts but had them answered to my satisfaction.

So, I do resent being called a sheep, since I figure you just assumed I was raised in a church and never looked at anything else. I guess I respect your right to think that, even if I find it to be something of a slur and 'intolorant'.

[Ultra Peanut]

Hello, new-er member.It's tomcash, tard.

[Ultra Peanut]

I'd recommend that you read both the old and new and determine for yourself. There are many different translations so be sure to pick one that you feel is the closest to the actual script.So, it's... "randomly guess, then oppress?"

Sounds fun...

My bible says creating dozens of alternate identities on a message board is a sin. Repent, or you're going to hell!

[Electric]

I don't think sales figures indicate anything other than popularity.

I disagree with your thought about the indications.



I don't try to convince anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong.

For someone that doesn't try to convince people they are wrong you sure seem to be making a case for it.

BUT, I do find it offensive for people like you to tell others not to do it. If you want to evangelize, don't whine about it when someone with views that differ from yours decides to do the same.

I'm not sure that you have any understanding of what my beliefs are.

Who is whining? FWIW, I have worked with people that have converted, but I will not claim to have converted them, that is totally their choice.



If that's your best argument for your belief then you aren't going to win many converts. If a Christian is wrong and the muslims are right, I guess you can save me a seat in hell (or wherever nonmuslims end up).

I don't believe that I corresponded the intent correctly, the Muslim religion was never mentioned. I don't believe it to be part of Christianity.

I just finished a contract job working with quite a few muslims, some that were born into it and some that were converted to it. The beliefs that most of them have are not too different than those of Christians, but most of them were converted from Christianity to Muslim via marriage. If you want to convert to Muslim that, again, is your choice. I know you were trying to make a point, but what was it?

[Electric]

So, it's... "randomly guess, then oppress?"

Sounds fun...

My bible says creating dozens of alternate identities on a message board is a sin. Repent, or you're going to hell!

Since I haven't reached "dozens" yet, I'd guess that I'm OK.

[Cochise]

It's tomcash, tard.

I had a suspicion it was him or Kris Phoneyqualizer_Fan's newest, which is why I said new-er. But i wasn't really talking to him so much as trying to make a point for others.

[Logical]

I find your implication that I and others like me a sheep ironic considering your post re: N***ers/intolorance.

I assure you that I am no sheep. There was a period in my life a few years ago where I doubted everything as well. I believed in God, but didn't know if I should believe things the way I was raised. I would have told you that I didn't think our world could have been an accident, but I thought that the way Christianity was run was dubous. Over about a year I started investigating. I read books about all the religions of the world, talked to people in Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hindu, Bahai, Buddhism, you name it. I had read the Bible in entirity before, but I read form the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Catholic literature, and so on. Read pointform defenses of each and criticisms of each. Of the atheist/agnostic point of view too. I exchanged emails with a somewhat notable Christian author and a skeptic/academic who had debated him. And other types of investigation, just talking to people I ran into when appropriate, and so forth.

I really did perform an honest investigation and this is where I ended up. To me it made the most logical sense. I had the same questions as you on many fronts but had them answered to my satisfaction.

So, I do resent being called a sheep, since I figure you just assumed I was raised in a church and never looked at anything else. I guess I respect your right to think that, even if I find it to be something of a slur and 'intolorant'.

I see no inconsistency at all and certainly no intended slight for you. I think if you will read back I clearly point out that as long as it is a persons choice and that they use common sense, thought and logic to apply it and not blindly follow others then that is great. Such a person would not be a sheep. If you have determined the sheep label fits you then that is a self imposed insult you bring to the table.

[BIG_DADDY]

I have never been that interested in being proactive in making the church do this and that. They are welcome to make decisions and they see fit for their group. When church groups seem to be active in working to stop the gay rights\marriage movement is when I disagree with them. I think the people on both sides should be free to choose as they wish...

By the time your barebacking days are over and you want to settle down I am sure you will most likely be allowed to get married by then.

[Chieficus]

Your view of tolerance is more like a freedom of choice view than a tolerance view. You have the right to believe blacks are Ni**ers it is not a tolerant viewpoint no matter how willing you are to let others believe otherwise or to debate with them the merits of your beliefs.

Your analogy there is a bit flawed--it throws the issue of a person's physical appearance into a discussion that is more centered upon behavioral issues. It also puts forth a word as an example that is connected in with a commonly understood idiology that goes against what I presented as a definition of tolerance. "Ni**er" itself is simply a word, the attitude and desired action behind it drives what is meant. Among certain groups with in the black culture, it is used as a term of friendship and endearment--which would clearly fit into most people's ideas of "tolerance."

But from the point of view in which I believe you're trying to present it, it would fit more in line with the view point: "Ni**ers--they either need to be working the fields or sent back to Africa." And that certainly doesn't fit with an attitude of civil discussion.

[|Zach|]

By the time your barebacking days are over and you want to settle down I am sure you will most likely be allowed to get married by then.
There is only one poster here who is obsessed with homoeroticism.

Of course I could pull a Big Daddy by getting drunk and making a thread calling out for another man.

[Logical]

By the time your barebacking days are over and you want to settle down I am sure you will most likely be allowed to get married by then.:shake: This post is just silly Troy, I know you don't like Zach for some reason I guess I missed, but I always thought you above gay bashing.

[Cochise]

I see no inconsistency at all and certainly no intended slight for you. I think if you will read back I clearly point out that as long as it is a persons choice and that they use common sense, thought and logic to apply it and not blindly follow others then that is great. Such a person would not be a sheep. If you have determined the sheep label fits you then that is a self imposed insult you bring to the table.

You said that whomever-it-was was intolorant because they didn't want their church to saction gay marriage, in the same way as someone who acknowledged a black person's right to exist but called them n***ers. And here, you are acknowledging my right to believe this if I want, but calling me a sheep for it. What's the difference?

And further, you were calling me a sheep before you had any idea how I arrived at my conclusions. Seems kind of prejudice to me. I don't see how it's any less prejudice than if you saw I was black and decided that I must love fried chicken and was going to rob you at my first opportunity.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Eh, I sent you a PM about finding someone. Do you still have that service? I'll try to resend it.
Bump for BD. I sent you a PM.

[Chieficus]

You said that whomever-it-was was intolorant because they didn't want their church to saction gay marriage, in the same way as someone who acknowledged a black person's right to exist but called them n***ers. And here, you are acknowledging my right to believe this if I want, but calling me a sheep for it. What's the difference?

And further, you were calling me a sheep before you had any idea how I arrived at my conclusions. Seems kind of prejudice to me. I don't see how it's any less prejudice than if you saw I was black and decided that I must love fried chicken and was going to rob you at my first opportunity.

Personally, I like the idea of being called a "sheep" it fits very well with what Jesus called His followers... then again, I guess my definition of "sheep" is a bit different than the idea presented... :)

[BIG_DADDY]

:shake: This post is just silly Troy, I know you don't like Zach for some reason I guess I missed, but I always thought you above gay bashing.


It's a 2 way street Jim.

[Logical]

Your analogy there is a bit flawed--it throws the issue of a person's physical appearance into a discussion that is more centered upon behavioral issues. It also puts forth a word as an example that is connected in with a commonly understood idiology that goes against what I presented as a definition of tolerance. "Ni**er" itself is simply a word, the attitude and desired action behind it drives what is meant. Among certain groups with in the black culture, it is used as a term of friendship and endearment--which would clearly fit into most people's ideas of "tolerance."

But from the point of view in which I believe you're trying to present it, it would fit more in line with the view point: "Ni**ers--they either need to be working the fields or sent back to Africa." And that certainly doesn't fit with an attitude of civil discussion.

LOL

If a gay is not effeminate/butch (same thing as a physical characteristic in that an obvious difference exists) you would not even know the ones that were gay, short of them declaring it. I suppose fag is not equally as bashing as ni**er, eh? I suppose that a large number of Americans do not want gays to have the same rights (marriage as one example) as did a large number of Americans did not for Blacks.

Is kind of painful when you find out that you really are not tolerant, you only want to believe you are.

[Cochise]

Personally, I like the idea of being called a "sheep" it fits very well with what Jesus called His followers... then again, I guess my definition of "sheep" is a bit different than the idea presented... :)

It's my biggest pet peeve I guess, when someone presumes to be so intelligent that no one could disagree with them without being mentally deficient in some way, or at least willfully ignorant.

[jiveturkey]

It's a 2 way street Jim.No pun intended. :shrug:

[Cochise]

Is kind of painful when you find out that you really are not tolerant, you only want to believe you are.

I thought you might have that reaction. Anyway, I can see we are getting nowhere so I will let it die now.

[Logical]

You said that whomever-it-was was intolorant because they didn't want their church to saction gay marriage, in the same way as someone who acknowledged a black person's right to exist but called them n***ers. And here, you are acknowledging my right to believe this if I want, but calling me a sheep for it. What's the difference?

And further, you were calling me a sheep before you had any idea how I arrived at my conclusions. Seems kind of prejudice to me. I don't see how it's any less prejudice than if you saw I was black and decided that I must love fried chicken and was going to rob you at my first opportunity.

Sorry, but you are full of shit. I did not call you a sheep.

I believe the Bible is an outstanding collection of parables that a person can use to improve how they lead their lives if they apply common sense, thought, and logic to them and do not blindly follow others opinions of what they mean. For it is when a person becomes a sheep that he will surely be led astray.

Unless you blindly follow others, something I cannot determine from this BB so it would be impossible for me to determine. If you think I have called you a sheep as I said before it is a self-determination you have made. I would have actually guessed you to have been someone who applies common sense, thought and logic to the stories in the Bible and determines for yourself what you believe. Perhaps I was wrong.

[Duck Dog]

I have never been that interested in being proactive in making the church do this and that. They are welcome to make decisions and they see fit for their group. When church groups seem to be active in working to stop the gay rights\marriage movement is when I disagree with them. I think the people on both sides should be free to choose as they wish...


So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:

[Logical]

It's a 2 way street Jim.I guess Zach illustrated that shortly after I started writing my post. Oh well I guess the animosity runs deep between you two.

[Ultra Peanut]

So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:That's exactly what he said...

Well, you know, aside from the fact that it's the complete opposite of what he said.

[Chieficus]

LOL

If a gay is not effeminate/butch (same thing as a physical characteristic in that an obvious difference exists) you would not even know the ones that were gay, short of them declaring it. I suppose fag is not equally as bashing as ni**er, eh? I suppose that a large number of Americans do not want gays to have the same rights (marriage as one example) as did a large number of Americans did not for Blacks.

Is kind of painful when you find out that you really are not tolerant, you only want to believe you are.

Hmmm, I've known some homosexuals who don't fit the effeminate/butch type, and I've known some heterosexuals who do.

So as I said, it's a matter of behavior. If you want to discuss the underlying causes of that behavior, that's a whole different issue--choice, genetic, environmental, or some combination. But even then we have laws concerning morality that still hold us accountable for vertain behavior that has been more celarly shown to be genetically related than homosexuality. So the debate goes deeper still.

But to simply present the idea that those against homosexual marriage are intolerant and make it comparable to the plight of blacks (which is clearly not a behavioral issue), that is just ignorant.

[Cochise]

So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:

Are you really surprised that he took fenceriding position?

[|Zach|]

So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:
Not at all, did you actually read my post?

[Logical]

So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:

Could you have missed the point by a larger margin?

The Church is not an individual, it is an organization and it's use of it's influence to try and keep individuals from believing the way they determine is best on matters like gay marriage is what is wrong IMO.

[Ultra Peanut]

Are you really surprised that he took fenceriding position?His words, paraphrashed: "They can do what they want, and I'm fine with that, until they begin trying to keep rights away from others."

If you couldn't comprehend that post, just step off before Al Gore kicks you off the internet.

[Cochise]

His words, paraphrashed: "They can do what they want, and I'm fine with that, until they begin trying to keep rights away from others."

If you couldn't comprehend that post, just step off before Al Gore kicks you off the internet.

I understand. They can do what they want in their denomination (duh), but he doesn't want them participating in democracy like any other organization. It's located just about exactly between the two major positions like usual, that's all I'm pointing out.

[BIG_DADDY]

So everyone gets to do as they wish 'cept the Church, eh?

:rolleyes:

He has a vested interest.

[Logical]

Hmmm, I've known some homosexuals who don't fit the effeminate/butch type, and I've known some heterosexuals who do.

So as I said, it's a matter of behavior. If you want to discuss the underlying causes of that behavior, that's a whole different issue--choice, genetic, environmental, or some combination. But even then we have laws concerning morality that still hold us accountable for vertain behavior that has been more celarly shown to be genetically related than homosexuality. So the debate goes deeper still.

But to simply present the idea that those against homosexual marriage are intolerant and make it comparable to the plight of blacks (which is clearly not a behavioral issue), that is just ignorant.

While you certainly have a right to your own form of bigotry (everyone is bigoted in someway) pretending it is not their is what is ignorant.

[|Zach|]

Are you really surprised that he took fenceriding position?
Hey Cochise...sorry it took me a while to respond I am still basking in all the glory I get from being a moderate. Let me get into more detail about the fence.

The church is a private organization...they are free to make decisions however best fits their organization. I have never been interested in forcing churches to support gay marriage or preform them or even let gays into their church no matter what my personal opionion on each of those issues is.

On the other side of the token I support civil unions for gays and believe that in the eyes of uncle sam all unions should be seen as civil unions.

If you go to a church and do not agree with homosexuality then I don't agree with you but I support your right to feel that way and your right to raise your family as you see fit with that ideaology. Nobody should (or can IMO) force homosexuality into your family.

I am against someone going out of their way to hinder someone ELSE'S ability to do that. If two guys or girls want to marry eachother than more power to them. Its not my cup of tea but I don't think I (or anyone else) is in a position to deny that.

[Cochise]

If you think I have called you a sheep as I said before it is a self-determination you have made. I would have actually guessed you to have been someone who applies common sense, thought and logic to the stories in the Bible and determines for yourself what you believe. Perhaps I was wrong.

ROFL I am self-loathing I guess :rolleyes: I've no problem with security in what I think. I was only pointing out Simplex's misunderstandings of doctrine when you began quoting me I believe. You didn't say, Cochise is a sheep, but by calling people who think the way I do sheep, the implication was definitely clear that you have a low opinion in advance of people who think the way I do. It definitely didn't take long for you to make that clear, anyways.

[Chieficus]

While you certainly have a right to your own form of bigotry (everyone is bigoted in someway) pretending it is not their is what is ignorant.

Oh, well then, care to explain in clear and simple terms just how and why being against homosexual marriage is bigoted?

(You could surprise me, and I hope you do, but the typical response tends to be along the line of their civil rights, which then begs the question as to why it is a civil right, and then spirals into the issues I mentioned above.)

[Cochise]

Hey Cochise...sorry it took me a while to respond I am still basking in all the glory I get from being a moderate. Let me get into more detail about the fence.

No problem. Someday, someday you are going to take a position and I just hope I have my camera. ROFL

[|Zach|]

No problem. Someday, someday you are going to take a position and I just hope I have my camera. ROFL
I thought I made myself pretty clear...in my previous post...anything you want me to explain?

[Cochise]

I thought I made myself pretty clear...in my previous post...anything you want me to explain?

Nah. Come on, we will never get anywhere debating with each other, why take it seriously. Just pressing your buttons.

[|Zach|]

Nah. Come on, we will never get anywhere debating with each other
You think?

[Cochise]

You think?

I'm moderately sure.

[Logical]

ROFL I am self-loathing I guess :rolleyes: I've no problem with security in what I think. I was only pointing out Simplex's misunderstandings of doctrine when you began quoting me I believe. You didn't say, Cochise is a sheep, but by calling people who think the way I do sheep, the implication was definitely clear that you have a low opinion in advance of people who think the way I do. It definitely didn't take long for you to make that clear, anyways.I still don't follow you, are you saying you do blindly follow others in setting your beliefs? Yes I have disdain for that type of person, but I am still of the opinion that does not appear to be your modus operandi!

[Logical]

Oh, well then, care to explain in clear and simple terms just how and why being against homosexual marriage is bigoted?

(You could surprise me, and I hope you do, but the typical response tends to be along the line of their civil rights, which then begs the question as to why it is a civil right, and then spirals into the issues I mentioned above.)Simple, due to a prejudice you hold (apparently religion based for you), you want to deny them what should be a basic fundamental right (now as to whether it is a Civil Right could be debated). In that way you are bigoted, please lets not get into the whole marriage is an institution between man and woman, that is only the religious definition. I do not support forcing Churches to perform weddings. But gays should have the same right to marry under the common law as any other pair of individuals.

[Cochise]

I still don't follow you, are you saying you do blindly follow others in setting your beliefs? Yes I have disdain for that type of person, but I am still of the opinion that does not appear to be your modus operandi!

No, I don't. Perhaps I've been a bit obtuse here. But I think there are a lot more than you think who were searching in the same way at one time. There is the sheep quotient as with any system, but I felt you were improperly judging them in advance.

[Chieficus]

Simple, due to a prejudice you hold (apparently religion based for you), you want to deny them what should be a basic fundamental right (now as to whether it is a Civil Right could be debated). In that way you are bigoted, please lets not get into the whole marriage is an institution between man and woman, that is only the religious definition. I do not support forcing Churches to perform weddings. But gays should have the same right to marry under the common law as any other pair of individuals.

What determines whether or not marriage is a basic fundamental right. By wanting to separate religion from the equation, you preclude the possibility of a higher authority. What does that leave us with? The opinion of the masses? The "enlightened" idiology of the day? Hmmm... all highly subjective and hardly a grounds for a fundamental right.

You are defining marriage as a "fundamental right" by your particular attitude/belief/presupposition and that alone. What if someone comes along and says, "It's my fundamental right to marry a donky," or "It's my fundamental right to marry four women and two men at the same time." Are you going to agree with them? Are you going to say, "No, you're wrong."--but then, what's your basis for that? Or are you just going to sit back and be "bigoted" (by your definition) against them?

You're idea that I'm a bigot is wholly rooted in your subjective belief system which is exactly what you think my religion is. Ironic, really.

[vailpass]

Why all the attention for teh gheys? If some rinky-dink outfit wants to condone mAnSeXx then hwatever. Just keep that crap where me and mine can't see it/hear about it or it's time to fire up the Crusades once again. We'll show this SUCC (hah their initals say 'suck') what a real religion can be all about when our rage is righteously summoned.

[Logical]

What determines whether or not marriage is a basic fundamental right. By wanting to separate religion from the equation, you preclude the possibility of a higher authority. What does that leave us with? The opinion of the masses? The "enlightened" idiology of the day? Hmmm... all highly subjective and hardly a grounds for a fundamental right.

You are defining marriage as a "fundamental right" by your particular attitude/belief/presupposition and that alone. What if someone comes along and says, "It's my fundamental right to marry a donky," or "It's my fundamental right to marry four women and two men at the same time." Are you going to agree with them? Are you going to say, "No, you're wrong."--but then, what's your basis for that? Or are you just going to sit back and be "bigoted" (by your definition) against them?

You're idea that I'm a bigot is wholly rooted in your subjective belief system which is exactly what you think my religion is. Ironic, really.There really ought to be an equivalent to the automatic use lose by equating a thread topic to Nazis to when people equate gay marriage to a person marrying an animal. Sorry that is so stupid as to not even warrant consideration unless you know of an animal that can sign a marriage certificate and can give informed verbal consent to acceptance of marriage.

As far a marrying four women/men I see no reason that should be illegal either. If someone wants to endure that much suffering and four other people want to give their consent (as long as they all approve) it should be their fundamental right as well. They are not harming another living person in so doing. Marriage in this country is first a legal institution and secondarily for some a religious instituion. I am only concerned with the legal institution and frankly religion does not belong in that in any consideration at all and is a violation of State imposing religion on the people if it were to be so, definitely a non-starter.

[Logical]

No, I don't. Perhaps I've been a bit obtuse here. But I think there are a lot more than you think who were searching in the same way at one time. There is the sheep quotient as with any system, but I felt you were improperly judging them in advance.I freely admit I detest and am bigoted against the sheep, people who do not think for themselves are a waste of a human brain. Tolerance quotient for sheeple is 0.

[vailpass]

I freely admit I detest and am bigoted against the sheep, people who do not think for themselves are a waste of a human brain. Tolerance quotient for sheeple is 0.

Cool. How did you get appointed as judge and jury as to what constitutes a wasted human experience? That must be quite a burden but then I am guessing you don't have a lot of other things in your life (i.e. human companionship, etc.) to get in the way of your judging duties.

[Logical]

Cool. How did you get appointed as judge and jury as to what constitutes a wasted human experience? That must be quite a burden but then I am guessing you don't have a lot of other things in your life (i.e. human companionship, etc.) to get in the way of your judging duties.

See you would guess wrong, but I really am not suprised. I said nothing about a wasted human experience, not even close. I said the waste of a human brain if a person does not think for themselves. Don't be offended unless you don't think for yourself.

[Chieficus]

There really ought to be an equivalent to the automatic use lose by equating a thread topic to Nazis to when people equate gay marriage to a person marrying an animal. Sorry that is so stupid as to not even warrant consideration unless you know of an animal that can sign a marriage certificate and can give informed verbal consent to acceptance of marriage.

Says the one who equates being anti-homosexual marriage to being like one who thinks blacks are "ni**ers".

But you're right, an animal can't give consent. A fourteen/fifteen year old boy can, though. The National Man-Boy Love Association would love that.

But the point really isn't so much in the analogy, as it is in the question of "Where is the line drawn?" Obviously you push it fairly far:

As far a marrying four women/men I see no reason that should be illegal either. If someone wants to endure that much suffering and four other people want to give their consent (as long as they all approve) it should be their fundamental right as well. They are not harming another living person in so doing. Marriage in this country is first a legal institution and secondarily for some a religious instituion. I am only concerned with the legal institution and frankly religion does not belong in that in any consideration at all and is a violation of State imposing religion on the people if it were to be so, definitely a non-starter.

But then, as I said: This is all based on your subjective belief system anyway. But no matter what I say, you're simply going to continue with the conception that your belief system is superior than mine, without any true rhyme or reason in any logical fashion.

It is funny, though, you make the appeal that the main proprietor of marriage should be the legal institution. We live in a country that was founded by deeply religious men. They didn't necessarily base our law upon the Christian religion, solely, but they did base our law upon the religious idea of a higher authority. They knew that either you had some sort of moral Godhead or you were simply left to the opinion of the masses (or the opinion of the few who can manipulate the masses). You put the law into the hands of opinion alone, then today, all sorts of marriages might be legal, yet tomorrow it could be that none are legal. Today, we could have the freedom to choose the number of kids we want to have, tomorrow the number could be chosen for us.

But if you want to keep living in your make-believe world of false security, be my guest. And I guess, in your opinion, I'll just go on being a bigot.

[Logical]

Says the one who equates being anti-homosexual marriage to being like one who thinks blacks are "ni**ers".
....

No I did not, I equated the concept of tolerance (actually intolerance) of the two subjects. I certainly did not say that if one accepted the concept of anti-gay marriage then they would equate blacks with ni**ERS.

[Logical]

...


It is funny, though, you make the appeal that the main proprietor of marriage should be the legal institution. We live in a country that was founded by deeply religious men. They didn't necessarily base our law upon the Christian religion, solely, but they did base our law upon the religious idea of a higher authority. They knew that either you had some sort of moral Godhead or you were simply left to the opinion of the masses (or the opinion of the few who can manipulate the masses). You put the law into the hands of opinion alone, then today, all sorts of marriages might be legal, yet tomorrow it could be that none are legal. Today, we could have the freedom to choose the number of kids we want to have, tomorrow the number could be chosen for us.

But if you want to keep living in your make-believe world of false security, be my guest. And I guess, in your opinion, I'll just go on being a bigot.James Madison, Washington, Franklin Ethan Allen, Ezekiel Polk, Charles Polk, Charles and Ezra Alexander, and Thomas Jefferson were all founding fathers. All were Deists.

As Deists, they believed in the supremacy of human reason over faith and revelation, and disdained the supernatural. They opposed both government suppression and government establishment of religion.

Washington was well-known for attending Episcopal churches, though he always left before the communion was administered, arousing controversy within the congregation.

Here aresome nice quotes from our founding fathers:“What influence, in face, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison “...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”
Thomas Jefferson “The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of church and state. If we have nothing else to boast of, we could lay claim with justice that the first among the nations we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his maker were a private concern, into which other men have no right to intrude. To measure the stride thus made for the Emancipation of the race, we have only to look back over the centuries that have gone before us, and recall the dreadful persecutions in the name of religion that have filled the world.”
“The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of church and state. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his maker after his own judgment... Such is the great experiment which we have tried; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.”
(Pres. John Tyler, 10th U.S. President and supporter of state-church separation). “Nothing is more dreaded that the national government meddling with religion.”
and

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
John Adams “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson

[Electric]

Isn't this about the third time around for this whole discussion? I say that because I remember Vlad's discourse with his last post from another post.

Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be. Simple concept, but the supreme courts have modified what I think the intent of the founding fathers was.

[Logical]

Isn't this about the third time around for this whole discussion? I say that because I remember Vlad's discourse with his last post from another post.

Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be. Simple concept, but the supreme courts have modified what I think the intent of the founding fathers was.Tom is that supposed to be a quote I made?

I highly doubt I ever said the underlined portion of that statement. That does not sound like my views as ever expressed on this BB.

[Electric]

Tom is that supposed to be a quote I made?

I highly doubt I ever said the underlined portion of that statement. That does not sound like my views as ever expressed on this BB.

No it is not a quote you made, it's a comment I made after studying the events that led up to the founding of America.

[Logical]

No it is not a quote you made, it's a comment I made after studying the events that led up to the founding of America.I believe the quotes from the founding fathers that I provided would say you are on shaky ground blaming it on the Courts.

[Electric]

I believe the quotes from the founding fathers that I provided would say you are on shaky ground blaming it on the Courts.

It's actually the courts that have changed the intent of the constitution. I know you have your opinion, but everyone else does too. We could cuss and discuss this until we are both dead and it won't mean anything as neither of us was there and the information that is used as a reference was written with a bias. What I read is more likely to be biased in the direction I beleive and what you read is biased in a manner that makes you agree with their opinion.

Still have gutters to clean before it gets too dark.

[stevieray]

I am pretty sure James Madison, Washington, Franklin Ethan Allen, Ezekiel Polk, Charles Polk, Charles and Ezra Alexander, and Thomas Jefferson. All were Deists.

As Deists, they believed in the supremacy of human reason over faith and revelation, and disdained the supernatural. They opposed both government suppression and government establishment of religion.

Washington was well-known for attending Episcopal churches, though he always left before the communion was administered, arousing controversy within the congregation.

Here aresome nice quotes from our founding fathers:


Uhoh...they better get the word Creator out of the Declaration of Independence.

[Cochise]

Uhoh...they better get the word Creator out of the Declaration of Independence.

It says that inalienble rights are from the Creator. Thus no creator means that creator didn't bestow those rights, and they came from the government. And what the government gives the government can take away, can't it..?

[Logical]

Uhoh...they better get the word Creator out of the Declaration of Independence.

Actually no Creator fits quite nicely with the beliefs of Deists.

Historical and modern Deism are defined by the view that reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), rather than revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation) or tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions. This "rational" basis was usually founded upon the cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument) (first cause argument), the teleological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument) (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology). Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

[Logical]

It says that inalienble rights are from the Creator. Thus no creator means that creator didn't bestow those rights, and they came from the government. And what the government gives the government can take away, can't it..?

Again Deism does not deny God as the Creator, quite the opposite. Read the Wikpedia meaning for Deism that I provided to Stevieray.

[GoChiefs]

Whole country is going gay or being femanized anyway. Frankly I am getting sick of hearing about it.

So true. Why, I saw your dogs humping in the bushes just the other day.

[stevieray]

Actually no Creator fits quite nicely with the beliefs of Deists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist


That's great. 95% weren't diests. That's why you always cherry pick the ones who were.

[Logical]

That's great. 95% were diests. That's why you always cherry pick the ones who were.Good so you see my point being as a basic precept of deism is that
Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions.

[GoChiefs]

Acknowledging a creator is not the same as worshipping him.

[stevieray]

Good so you see my point being as a basic precept of deism is that

Free will bestowed by God.

[Amnorix]

I welcome the POV of Dems (or gays or whatever group) around here. In fact I challenge them constantly with facts. I never get any answers, but it's still fun to debate and point out the hypocrisy of the left on all sorts of issues (the latest of which is the assumption that Bush, who previously was a simpleton, was actually directing Rove to out Valerie Plame when - last I checked - Rove hasn't been accused of doing it by anyone other than some partisans on the left).

Give me a break. You make it sound like the facts always prove you win in any debate you enter into 'round here.

[Logical]

That's great. 95% weren't diests. That's why you always cherry pick the ones who were.

By the way, no way it is 95% I named 9 in this thread that were major founding fathers that were all Deists, to repeat for your benefit James Madison, Washington, Franklin Ethan Allen, Ezekiel Polk, Charles Polk, Charles and Ezra Alexander, and Thomas Jefferson. All were Deists.

[Logical]

Free will bestowed by God.

Not a principle of Deists sorry

Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.

Nothing in that about free will bestowed by God.

[Amnorix]

Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be. Simple concept, but the supreme courts have modified what I think the intent of the founding fathers was.

It's actually the courts that have changed the intent of the constitution. I know you have your opinion, but everyone else does too. We could cuss and discuss this until we are both dead and it won't mean anything as neither of us was there and the information that is used as a reference was written with a bias. What I read is more likely to be biased in the direction I beleive and what you read is biased in a manner that makes you agree with their opinion.

Synthesizing several of your posts -- you honestly think the court has told each person what religion they would be? What do you base that on??

The Court has tried to erect firm barriers between state sponsorship of religion, any religion. How in the world do you spin that around to the Court endorsing or enforcing certain religions on people?

[Amnorix]

Uhoh...they better get the word Creator out of the Declaration of Independence.

Right, and why are you citing to the Declaration of Independence and not to the Constitution? You know, the actual document that governs the relationship between the federal government, the various states, and the citizens of the US?

Oh, right, because the words "God", "Creator", "Jesus Christ", etc. appear exactly ZERO times in that document.

[stevieray]

Not a principle of Deists sorry



Nothing in that about free will bestowed by God.

If God intervened, you wouldn't have free will.

What is the first textbook for schools printed by the Library of Congress?

[stevieray]

Right, and why are you citing to the Declaration of Independence and not to the Constitution? You know, the actual document that governs the relationship between the federal government, the various states, and the citizens of the US?





You've just answered your own question. We aren't talking about mans relationship from a government standpoint..

[stevieray]

Oh, right, because the words "God", "Creator", "Jesus Christ", etc. appear exactly ZERO times in that document.

Seperation of Church and State

[Cochise]

By the way, no way it is 95% I named 9 in this thread that were major founding fathers that were all Deists, to repeat for your benefit James Madison, Washington, Franklin Ethan Allen, Ezekiel Polk, Charles Polk, Charles and Ezra Alexander, and Thomas Jefferson. All were Deists.

George Washington was a 'diest', when he personally lead church services in the military and carried a prayer journal with him at all times? Who served on the vestry for an episcopal parish? Who rode 10 miles to church and never missed but for illness? I would think that someone believing that no god interfered in the would might stay home once in a while.

[Logical]

If God intervened, you wouldn't have free will.

What is the first textbook for schools printed by the Library of Congress?

But you do not hqve free will just because you may feel God does not intervene. First how can you prove he does or does not intervene? You cannot, that is a matter of faith.

I am sure you are going to try and say it is the Bible, if so please provide a link to the Library of Congress that says it is true and more importantly that it was published as a textbook. I went to the LOC website and as far as I can tell the only thing they have ever published is Catalogs of the volumes collected over the years.

[Logical]

George Washington was a 'diest', when he personally lead church services in the military and carried a prayer journal with him at all times? Who served on the vestry for an episcopal parish? Who rode 10 miles to church and never missed but for illness? I would think that someone believing that no god interfered in the would might stay home once in a while. I see you have a limited historical knowledge on Washington. It is well known fact that:
Washington was well-known for attending Episcopal churches, though he always left before the communion was administered, arousing controversy within the congregation.


For more check out this website:

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

[Logical]

Seperation of Church and StateThat was a lucid argument. NOT.

[Cochise]

I see you have a limited historical knowledge on Washington. It is well known fact that:


For more check out this website:

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

ROFL an authorless column on deism.com. Why an I not surprised at its conclusion?

What about his biographer that went through his entire collected writings in the early 1800s? He seemed to have a different opinion than webmaster_01. His name was Sparks if memory serves, it's been years since I read his opinion but I assure you he did not share your opinion.

[penchief]

now try to convince that to the mass..es...

Isn't that, "now try to convince the asses?..."

Just kidding.

[stevieray]

That was a lucid argument. NOT.

as is your counterpoint.

[Logical]

ROFL an authorless column on deism.com. Why an I not surprised at its conclusion?

What about his biographer that went through his entire collected writings in the early 1800s? He seemed to have a different opinion than webmaster_01. His name was Sparks if memory serves, it's been years since I read his opinion but I assure you he did not share your opinion.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html

by John Remsburg

Washington, the young Virginia planter, might, perhaps, with some degree of truthfulness, have been called a Christian; Washington, the Soldier, statesman and sage, was not a Christian, but a Deist.

But if Bishop White cherished a faint hope that Washington had some faith in the religion of Christ, Dr. Abercrombie did not. Long after Washington's death, in reply to Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him as to his illustrious auditor's religious views, Dr. Abercrombie's brief but emphatic answer was: "Sir, Washington was a Deist." Washington rarely attended, as we have seen, any church but the Episcopal, hence, if any denomination of Christians could claim him as an adherent, it was this one. Yet here we have two of its most distinguished representatives, pastors of the churches which he attended, the one not knowing what his belief was, the other disclaiming him and asserting that he was a Deist.





Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later. When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception." Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html
Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

Just a few there are many, many more.

[Logical]

as is your counterpoint.OK why don't you explain how the separation of Church and State does anything to refute Ammorix's fact that words "God", "Creator", "Jesus Christ", etc. appear exactly ZERO times in our Constitution..

[|Zach|]

I am still waiting for Duck Dog to come here and defend his reading comprehension skills.

[Electric]

[QUOTE=Amnorix]Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Electric
Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be. Simple concept, but the supreme courts have modified what I think the intent of the founding fathers was. <HR SIZE=1>Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Electric
It's actually the courts that have changed the intent of the constitution. I know you have your opinion, but everyone else does too. We could cuss and discuss this until we are both dead and it won't mean anything as neither of us was there and the information that is used as a reference was written with a bias. What I read is more likely to be biased in the direction I beleive and what you read is biased in a manner that makes you agree with their opinion. <HR SIZE=1>
Synthesizing several of your posts -- you honestly think the court has told each person what religion they would be? What do you base that on??

The Court has tried to erect firm barriers between state sponsorship of religion, any religion. How in the world do you spin that around to the Court endorsing or enforcing certain religions on people?QUOTE]

Read what was written.

Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be.

You want to twist the original concept, just as the courts have been doing over the past 43 years. It was in 1962 that MMO was successful in taking prayer out of schools (a stance which she later reversed).

[Chieficus]

James Madison, Washington, Franklin Ethan Allen, Ezekiel Polk, Charles Polk, Charles and Ezra Alexander, and Thomas Jefferson were all founding fathers. All were Deists.

As Deists, they believed in the supremacy of human reason over faith and revelation, and disdained the supernatural. They opposed both government suppression and government establishment of religion.

Washington was well-known for attending Episcopal churches, though he always left before the communion was administered, arousing controversy within the congregation.

Here aresome nice quotes from our founding fathers:

Here are some more quotes from the founders from various aspects of our founding hsiotry, including Washington, Madison, and Jefferson that squarely put the idea of law, government and libertry as being based upon a divine being, hence, supporting what I said:

They didn't necessarily base our law upon the Christian religion, solely, but they did base our law upon the religious idea of a higher authority.

“God…is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.”—James Wilson, signer of Constitution and Supreme Court justice

The law of nature, “which being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”—Alexander Hamilton

“The laws of nature and of nature’s God…of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government.”—John Quincy Adams

“The only true basis of all government is the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of heave, designed by the all benevolent Creator.”—Samuel Adams

“The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties, is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.”—John Jay

“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”—George Washington

“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”—James Madison

"No People ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and fo the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States....And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those provileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land."--James Madison

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”—Ben Franklin

“The great pillars of all government and of social life…[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.”—Patrick Henry

“…and especially that the union of the American colonies in defense of their rights, for which, hitherto, we desire to thank Almighty God…”—John Hancock

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath.”—Thomas Jefferson

[Lzen]

LOL, sometimes you guys crack me up. I don't think there is a Christian on this board who hasn't either done some picking and choosing on their own or had a thought leader somewhere down the line do some picking and choosing for them. Including you.

Lol, sometimes you non-Christians and/or Christian bashers crack me up. You pretend to know about something when you don't truly understand. We don't pick and choose what is right and wrong. For instance, when I drink too much and become intoxicated, I know I've sinned. And I repent - ask for forgiveness. Same thing when I lie, lust, covet, etc. I don't try to claim that it's not a sin. I know I, as man, am never going to be perfect and sinless like Jesus was.

Now there are different denominations. Like Cochise said, people tend to choose the one that most closely resembles their interpretation of the Bible. I grew up Catholic and grew up believing that all their teachings were the absolute truth and everything else was wrong. But I rebelled as a teen and didn't follow any religion for a few years there. I believe God called me back when I was 25 years old. But I still don't follow the Catholic teachings. I became a Southern Baptist.

[Lzen]

There are many differences in the way these commands are recorded. Some are applicable to one person one specific time. Some are applicable to Israel during the time of a theocratic state. Some are applicable to the post-theocratic Israel. Some are recorded cultural preferences. Some are superceded by changes in later scriptures.

Without context a jumbled pile of hastily listed references is meaningless.



Again, context would reveal the answer to this, particularly the parable of the Samaritan, although that is not in the same book as the statement you are referring to.

:clap:

[Donger]

I know I, as man, am never going to be perfect and sinless like Jesus was.

Jesus was sinless?

[patteeu]

I don't try to convince anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong.

For someone that doesn't try to convince people they are wrong you sure seem to be making a case for it.

Where? Maybe that's just your tendancy toward victimhood talking. OTOH, maybe you're faith is easily shaken. As a matter of fact, my only post in this thread that could possibly be taken as threatening toward religious belief is essentially the same as one of your posts:

LOL, sometimes you guys crack me up. I don't think there is a Christian on this board who hasn't either done some picking and choosing on their own or had a thought leader somewhere down the line do some picking and choosing for them. Including you.

Compare that with:

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Doctrine of any denomination is something written by man. Anything man medles with can be/or is corrupted. If you want religion you normally associate with a denomination that most fits your beliefs. All of us that want to be Christians have to share space with other believers. Besides, when we fellowship there is always good food!!! (I's say that the food thing is biblical, Jesus fed the masses and they had the last supper. That's two witnesses for eating when you have a gathering!!!)

If I'm guilty of taking shots aimed at shaking Christian belief, so are you.

[patteeu]

BUT, I do find it offensive for people like you to tell others not to do it. If you want to evangelize, don't whine about it when someone with views that differ from yours decides to do the same.

I'm not sure that you have any understanding of what my beliefs are.

That has nothing to do with my statement. In one breath you implored me not to try to convince those who believe why I don't (which BTW I haven't done) and in the very next breath you state that "A Christian's one directive is to spread the good news about Jesus." I repeat, it's offensive to hear you telling people not to evangelize non-belief while you want your own evangelism tolerated. Go ahead and evangelize all you want, but don't play the victim when others who have different beliefs (or non-beliefs) choose to do the same.

[patteeu]

If a Christian is wrong and there is no God, what has he lost? Nothing. If a non-Christian is wrong and there IS God, what has he lost? Everything!! After all Bernerd, you get to choose!!

If that's your best argument for your belief then you aren't going to win many converts. If a Christian is wrong and the muslims are right, I guess you can save me a seat in hell (or wherever nonmuslims end up).

I don't believe that I corresponded the intent correctly, the Muslim religion was never mentioned. I don't believe it to be part of Christianity.

I just finished a contract job working with quite a few muslims, some that were born into it and some that were converted to it. The beliefs that most of them have are not too different than those of Christians, but most of them were converted from Christianity to Muslim via marriage. If you want to convert to Muslim that, again, is your choice. I know you were trying to make a point, but what was it?

As others have already pointed out, that is one of the lamest arguments for belief that there is. I don't know how you can be so confused about my response. It's not even worth trying to clear it up.

[Lzen]

I find your implication that I and others like me a sheep ironic considering your post re: N***ers/intolorance.

So, I do resent being called a sheep, since I figure you just assumed I was raised in a church and never looked at anything else. I guess I respect your right to think that, even if I find it to be something of a slur and 'intolorant'.

Don't you know? It's intolerance for Christians to hold a certain belief and stand up for that belief. But it's okay for someone to bash Christians. Get with the program, man. :p

On a serious note, I think we Christians shouldn't be fighting with them. I think we should be praying for God to change their hearts and minds.

[patteeu]

Lol, sometimes you non-Christians and/or Christian bashers crack me up. You pretend to know about something when you don't truly understand. We don't pick and choose what is right and wrong. For instance, when I drink too much and become intoxicated, I know I've sinned. And I repent - ask for forgiveness. Same thing when I lie, lust, covet, etc. I don't try to claim that it's not a sin. I know I, as man, am never going to be perfect and sinless like Jesus was.

Now there are different denominations. Like Cochise said, people tend to choose the one that most closely resembles their interpretation of the Bible. I grew up Catholic and grew up believing that all their teachings were the absolute truth and everything else was wrong. But I rebelled as a teen and didn't follow any religion for a few years there. I believe God called me back when I was 25 years old. But I still don't follow the Catholic teachings. I became a Southern Baptist.

See what I mean? In at least your own little microcosm of the Christian world, you proved my point precisely. Don't tell me that you haven't chosen from among the various possible Christian beliefs the set that appealed to you the most. You just admitted it. The fact that you chose a full meal deal instead of going ala carte doesn't make you any less of a picker and a chooser.

Long before you were around, people were shaping the different denominations by picking and choosing their beliefs. Today's Christians either make their own choices (as you've admitted doing) or they accept the choices others have made, or both.

I'm no Christian basher. I have nothing against Christians. I go to church every Sunday myself (even though I'm not a believer). I'm happy for you that you are comforted by your belief.

[Lzen]

Jesus was sinless?

yes

[Adept Havelock]

All this name calling, over who has the better inivisible friend.

How amusing.

Good move by the UCOC though. I assume all those Christians outraged by this, as it violates their interpretation of theology, also support closing all hospitals, fire stations, police stations, and military bases on Sunday as we are supposed to not labor on the "Sabbath", to keep it holy.

How dare all these govt. institutions defy the law of god.....or do you just pick and choose which prohibitions you follow?

[Lzen]

See what I mean? In at least your own little microcosm of the Christian world, you proved my point precisely. Don't tell me that you haven't chosen from among the various possible Christian beliefs the set that appealed to you the most. You just admitted it. The fact that you chose a full meal deal instead of going ala carte doesn't make you any less of a picker and a chooser.

Long before you were around, people were shaping the different denominations by picking and choosing their beliefs. Today's Christians either make their own choices (as you've admitted doing) or they accept the choices others have made, or both.

I'm no Christian basher. I have nothing against Christians. I go to church every Sunday myself (even though I'm not a believer). I'm happy for you that you are comforted by your belief.

I thought I just explained the difference. There are clear commandments in the Bible. Some interpretations are different. Some religions add doctrine. I just don't see that as picking and choosing. I feel in my heart that I know what is right and wrong. I believe that if you listen, God will tell you. In any case, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't see your point as valid.

In any case, I have a question for you. If you are not a believer, why do you go to church every Sunday? That one made me scratch my head.

[Donger]

yes

From birth?

Or just after baptism?

[Mr. Kotter]

See what I mean? In at least your own little microcosm of the Christian world, you proved my point precisely. Don't tell me that you haven't chosen from among the various possible Christian beliefs the set that appealed to you the most. You just admitted it. The fact that you chose a full meal deal instead of going ala carte doesn't make you any less of a picker and a chooser.

Long before you were around, people were shaping the different denominations by picking and choosing their beliefs. Today's Christians either make their own choices (as you've admitted doing) or they accept the choices others have made, or both.

I'm no Christian basher. I have nothing against Christians. I go to church every Sunday myself (even though I'm not a believer). I'm happy for you that you are comforted by your belief.

Are you a deist? I'm just curious...

I too, go to church, but philosophically I consider myself a deist.

[Lzen]

From birth?

Or just after baptism?

From birth, course. Where are you trying to go with this?

[Mr. Kotter]

....
In any case, I have a question for you. If you are not a believer, why do you go to church every Sunday? That one made me scratch my head.

Are you familiar with Deism?

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

http://www.deism.com/

[Mr. Kotter]

All this name calling, over who has the better inivisible friend.

How amusing.

Good move by the UCOC though. I assume all those Christians outraged by this, as it violates their interpretation of theology, also support closing all hospitals, fire stations, police stations, and military bases on Sunday as we are supposed to not labor on the "Sabbath", to keep it holy.

How dare all these govt. institutions defy the law of god.....or do you just pick and choose which prohibitions you follow?

Good to see you again, Hel'n. Welcome back.

[Lzen]

Are you familiar with Deism?

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

http://www.deism.com/

No, I'm not familiar with it.

[Mr. Kotter]

No, I'm not familiar with it.

If you are at all inclined, you might find some of the information, at least, interesting...

As Jim has said, many of the founding fathers were, in fact, deists--not Christians as in a member of a particular denomination.

[Lzen]

Ok, from that link you posted, I still don't get patteau's motive. He said:
"I go to church every Sunday myself (even though I'm not a believer)

Yet, Deism is:

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

Does he believe or doesn't he? And if he denies religion, what's the point of going to church? I still dont' get it.

[|Zach|]

If you are at all inclined, you might find some of the information, at least, interesting...

As Jim has said, many of the founding fathers were, in fact, deists--not Christians as in a member of a particular denomination.
Thanks for the links.

[mlyonsd]

Ok, from that link you posted, I still don't get patteau's motive. He said:


Yet, Deism is:



Does he believe or doesn't he? And if he denies religion, what's the point of going to church? I still dont' get it.

I believe there is a God of some kind.....but don't think worship'ing him on Sunday gives me a better chance of getting to his level.

Some people still go to church though regardless.

[Mr. Kotter]

Ok, from that link you posted, I still don't get patteau's motive. He said:


Yet, Deism is:



Does he believe or doesn't he? And if he denies religion, what's the point of going to church? I still dont' get it.

Critics would call Deists who attend church "cultural Christians" or some more offensive pejorative, I suppose. Deists would compare their attending church services to being an avid fan of the NFL, but attending an Arena Football League game or another sporting event perhaps.

Deists I know, believe in God....but tend argue that institutionalized religion has real problems, and in many ways is very manipulating and self-serving.

I understand that can come off as convenient rationalizing for one's own behavior and lifestyle choices, but it also speaks to the contridicitions and hypocrisy that many see in demoninational religions.

FTR, I'm not saying I agree entirely, but it's something worth pondering in my view...

[mlyonsd]

Critics would call Deists who attend church "cultural Christians" or some more offensive pejorative, I suppose. Deists would compare their attending church services to being an avid fan of the NFL, but attending an Arena Football League game or another sporting event perhaps.

Deists I know, believe in God....but tend argue that institutionalized religion has real problems, and in many ways is very manipulating and self-serving.

I understand that can come off as convenient rationalizing for one's own behavior and lifestyle choices, but it also speaks to the contridicitions and hypocrisy that many see in demoninational religions.

FTR, I'm not saying I agree entirely, but it's something worth pondering in my view...

Thanks for clearing that up.....now I know which category I fall into.

[Mr. Kotter]

Thanks for the links.

No prob. :thumb:

[Lzen]

Critics would call Deists who attend church "cultural Christians" or some more offensive pejorative, I suppose. Deists would compare their attending church services to being an avid fan of the NFL, but attending an Arena Football League game or another sporting event perhaps.

Deists I know, believe in God....but tend argue that institutionalized religion has real problems, and in many ways is very manipulating and self-serving.

I understand that can come off as convenient rationalizing for one's own behavior and lifestyle choices, but it also speaks to the contridicitions and hypocrisy that many see in demoninational religions.

FTR, I'm not saying I agree entirely, but it's something worth pondering in my view...

I agree to a certain extent. Sometimes organized religions can become political. Not in the sense of vote Rep or Dem but in playing politics. I am of the opinion that each Christian's interpretation of the Bible is influenced by his walk with God. Man is born into Sin and even religious orgranizations are not immune to it. There are obvious examples that I won't go into here, but I'll tell you one of my stories.

I've always been taught that profanity is sinful. But I've never understood that part. I always argued that I don't see anywhere in Scriptures where it says anything about made up words being sins. Someone somewhere along the lines decide certain words were wrong. To me, that's like someone out of nowhere saying that you can't say oogalaboogala because it's a sin. My FIL even presented some scripture awhile back to justify this. I still wasn't completely convinced, though. The thing I did get out of it is that a Christian should present himself so that the rest of the world knows he is a Christian. In that light, I have some work to do there.

[Adept Havelock]

"Good to see you again, Hel'n. Welcome back."

Don't know who Hel'n is......and don't much care, I guess.

[Donger]

From birth, course. Where are you trying to go with this?

I was under the impression that some Christians thought that Jesus was capable of sin until he was baptised, and even after. I thought that he only became sinless after being ressurected.

[Chieficus]

If you are at all inclined, you might find some of the information, at least, interesting...

As Jim has said, many of the founding fathers were, in fact, deists--not Christians as in a member of a particular denomination.

That's actually a bit of a historical fallacy. Most of the founding fathers were involved in Christian organizations such as Bible Societies, evangelistic efforts, or other church involvements.

Very few would fit the mold of "deist" by today's definitions.

A few who almost always tody get called "deists":

George Washington: To call him a deist is based more upon revisionist tinkering than actual fact. There is certainly speculation, as Vlad posted earlier concerning his leaving church before communine--but that doesn't mean that he was a deist. His view of providence fits the mold with some deists, but also fits perfectly with Christianity. His view of prayer, however, is outside the realm of the deist--even those who pray simple "thanks" and "appreciation." According to the Annals of Congress v. 1, speaking of Washington's inaugural address, Washington declared: 'It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first offical act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who persides int eh councils of nations, and whose providential aid can supply every human defect..."

"Fervent supplications" is a far cry from not praying/simple "thanks."

Ben Franklin: Called himself a deist, but likewise held to a view of divine providence, and a more "Christian" vew of prayer. (See: comments made by James Madison in The Papers of James Madison v. II)

Thomas Jefferson would most clearly today be associated with Deism because of his clear disdain for the supernatural, as evidenced by his cut-and-paste "Jefferson Bible." But even he did not consider himself to be a deist, but rather a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 14.

Certianly there were men like Thomas Paine who hated organized religion, but the vast majoity of the founding fathers were involved heavily in organized religion and saw organized religion to be the backbone of a good society. Most were Christians, a few are debatable, few were Deists.

[Mr. Kotter]

That's actually a bit of a historical fallacy. Most of the founding fathers were involved in Christian organizations such as Bible Societies, evangelistic efforts, or other church involvements.

Very few would fit the mold of "deist" by today's definitions.

A few who almost always tody get called "deists":

George Washington: To call him a deist is based more upon revisionist tinkering than actual fact. There is certainly speculation, as Vlad posted earlier concerning his leaving church before communine--but that doesn't mean that he was a deist. His view of providence fits the mold with some deists, but also fits perfectly with Christianity. His view of prayer, however, is outside the realm of the deist--even those who pray simple "thanks" and "appreciation." According to the Annals of Congress v. 1, speaking of Washington's inaugural address, Washington declared: 'It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first offical act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who persides int eh councils of nations, and whose providential aid can supply every human defect..."

"Fervent supplications" is a far cry from not praying/simple "thanks."

Ben Franklin: Called himself a deist, but likewise held to a view of divine providence, and a more "Christian" vew of prayer. (See: comments made by James Madison in The Papers of James Madison v. II)

Thomas Jefferson would most clearly today be associated with Deism because of his clear disdain for the supernatural, as evidenced by his cut-and-paste "Jefferson Bible." But even he did not consider himself to be a deist, but rather a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 14.

Certianly there were men like Thomas Paine who hated organized religion, but the vast majoity of the founding fathers were involved heavily in organized religion and saw organized religion to be the backbone of a good society. Most were Christians, a few are debatable, few were Deists.

I think our disagreement is mainly semantic. I would maintain that many of the founding fathers though practicing Christians, were philosophically Deists....

They went to church, nodded, even shared many of the beliefs of the denomination they may have been attending....but were not rigid, dogmatic, or fundamentalists with regard to their personal beliefs as opposed to denominational teachings.

In other words, they may have disagreed personally with the "teachings" of church, but basically....they kept their mouth shut, because they understood what most come to understand--when it comes to relgion, you rarely change another thinking person's mind...

[Chieficus]

I think our disagreement is mainly semantic. I would maintain that many of the founding fathers though practicing Christians, were philosophically Deists....

They went to church, nodded, even shared many of the beliefs of the denomination they may have been attending....but were not rigid, dogmatic, or fundamentalists with regard to their personal beliefs as opposed to denominational teachings.

Being a deist is more than being opposed or silent on denomination teachings, it would involve a rejection of most supernatural ideals found in Christianity. That's simply not the case. Another website that Logical posted, deism.org shows how deism today and Christianity are "wholly other."

The majority of the founders were not deists by any measure of definition.

[Mr. Kotter]

Being a deist is more than being opposed or silent on denomination teachings, it would involve a rejection of most supernatural ideals found in Christianity. That's simply not the case. Another website that Logical posted, deism.org shows how deism today and Christianity are "wholly other."

The majority of the founders were not deists by any measure of definition.

We disagree over the definition of deism. I believe you have a much narrower view of it, than is warranted....

Merriam Webster says:
Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe


From my knowledge of the founding fathers, though many professed differing degrees of allegiance to particular denominations....many would have accepted the definition offered here.... :hmmm:

FWIW, liberals and liberitarians would have almost as much heartburn over deists "legislating" their version of morality, as the do with the so-called "religious right" ....heh...interesting bit of irony, I'd say.

[Chieficus]

We disagree over the definition of deism. I believe you have a much narrower view of it, than is warranted....

Merriam Webster says:
Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe


From my knowledge of the founding fathers, though many professed differing degrees of allegiance to particular denominations....many would have accepted the definition offered here.... :hmmm:

Most, as far as we know, believed in the supernatural, hence an issue with the first phrase, and most believed in divine providence, hence an issue with the last phrase.

You would be right on the emphasizing of morality, though...

[patteeu]

I thought I just explained the difference. There are clear commandments in the Bible. Some interpretations are different. Some religions add doctrine. I just don't see that as picking and choosing. I feel in my heart that I know what is right and wrong. I believe that if you listen, God will tell you. In any case, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't see your point as valid.

We can agree to stop discussing it, but as far as I'm concerned we are in agreement. We are just using different words to describe the same thing. The big remaining difference between us is that you believe you've chosen the truth by being open to God's guidance and I believe that you've just chosen. But like I said, I don't want my disbelief to spoil your belief (and I'm sure it won't).

In any case, I have a question for you. If you are not a believer, why do you go to church every Sunday? That one made me scratch my head.

First, I do have to admit that I miss a Sunday every once in a while (e.g. when I'm traveling or sick), but for the most part I go every Sunday.

I have several reasons.

1) My wife is a believer and I go with her.

2) My parents are believers and the fact that I go gives my mother, in particular, some level of comfort.

3) I have two young kids and I think

(a) that the general principles/morals taught by Christianity are good for kids, and

(b) IMO, it's a lot easier for them to begin as believers and convert to skepticism when they grow up if they so choose than it would be to go the other direction (and I want them to have a chance to believe because I think it can provide useful support when you encounter life's inevitable hardships).

I realize that as a skeptic, I'm probably not providing the best opportunity for my kids to become true believers, but I do try to reinforce the teachings of our church and I don't share my skepticism with my kids. Maybe when they are older, but for now I'll let religion sink in a little bit to see how that goes.

[patteeu]

Are you a deist? I'm just curious...

I too, go to church, but philosophically I consider myself a deist.

I don't really know what a deist is, but I'm agnostic.

[Mr. Kotter]

Most, as far as we know, believed in the supernatural, hence an issue with the first phrase, and most believed in divine providence, hence an issue with the last phrase.

You would be right on the emphasizing of morality, though...

I'm not sure you could find evidence many of them truly believed in the "supernatural" (whatever way one wants to define that), or that they believed in a God that "micromanaged" the universe....

Divine providence is one thing; answering prayers of Chief's fan for their team to win the Superbowl....is quite another....heh.

[patteeu]

"Good to see you again, Hel'n. Welcome back."

Don't know who Hel'n is......and don't much care, I guess.

Are you a male, a female, or both?

[Logical]

Don't you know? It's intolerance for Christians to hold a certain belief and stand up for that belief. But it's okay for someone to bash Christians. Get with the program, man. :p

On a serious note, I think we Christians shouldn't be fighting with them. I think we should be praying for God to change their hearts and minds.Pray to your heart's content. I have never said I do not believe in God. I am only against the inherent evils of organized religions.

[Logical]

I don't really know what a deist is, but I'm agnostic.

For a long time I did not know that I was in essence a Deist (and thought I was an agnostic). Here is what a Deist is by definition:

Historical and modern Deism are defined by the view that reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), rather than revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation) or tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions. This "rational" basis was usually founded upon the cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument) (first cause argument), the teleological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument) (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology). Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

I must give HolyHandGrenade credit for showing me that my beliefs are primarily consistent with Deism.

[BIG_DADDY]

For a long time I did not know that I was in essence a Deist (and thought I was an agnostic). Here is what a Deist is by definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

I must give HolyHandGrenade credit for showing me that my beliefs are primarily consistent with Deism.

I tend to agree with much of this as well. I never felt the need to go to an organized religious event even though I was raised as a Nazarene. Selling the fear factor has always been what has kept me away. I still remember being like 6 or 7 years old and asking why there had to be a hell for those who did not believe. I never quit asking that question and absolutely refuse to make any decision based out of fear.

[Amnorix]

Basically the country was founded on a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The founding fathers intended for each person to select his own religion, not to have the government tell them what religion they would be.

You want to twist the original concept, just as the courts have been doing over the past 43 years. It was in 1962 that MMO was successful in taking prayer out of schools (a stance which she later reversed).

Your error lies in equating what you call "freedom from religion" to what you also call "hav[ing] the government tell them what religion they would be."

The Constitution, via the Establishment clause, simply says that the government will make no laws with regard to the establishment of a state religion. The primary concern was that the citizens be protected from a Church of England-like imposition by the government upon the citizenry.

I assume we can agree with all that.

The Courts have expanded the notion a bit, I will also agree, via erecting a protective "separation of Church and State" concept which is designed to implement and give effect to the Establishment Clause.

Realize that the Courts never have it easy when it comes to these kinds of issues. It's obvious that Congress and the President could not declare Catholicism, for example, to be THE state religion of the USA. But what about these issues:

1. Giving tax breaks to religious groups, and having a branch of the government be the sole determiner of what is a "valid" religious group.

2. Permitting state officials to make constant, regular and repeated references to belief in one particular religion, while ignoring others?

etc. ad infinitum.

Let me put it this way -- what if the federal government didn't "Establish" an official religion, but it did create a 24 hour radio and TV network, broadcast nationwide, that carried nothing but Catholic speakers preaching, etc., and also gave Catholics tax breaks that other groups weren't given.

That's obviously a Constitutional violation, right? Think we can all agree there.

(NOTE: I'm picking on Catholics for no particular reason. Could just as easily be Muslims, Jews or any other religious sect).

But how does the government decide what is a valid religion for tax break purposes? Are they allowed to give any religion a tax break? To what extent can the government and its agencies promote one religion (say, Christianity) over any other religion?

The example above would be an obvious violation, but isn't a Nativity scene in front of town hall similar? It's a government agency promoting Christianity, in a way, right?

These are complex issues, not susceptible to easy answers in all cases.

[patteeu]

For a long time I did not know that I was in essence a Deist (and thought I was an agnostic). Here is what a Deist is by definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

I must give HolyHandGrenade credit for showing me that my beliefs are primarily consistent with Deism.

I think I'm a true agnostic because I don't know and I don't think I can figure it out. But thanks for the definition. :thumb:

[Electric]

Originally Posted by Electric
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Doctrine of any denomination is something written by man. Anything man medles with can be/or is corrupted. If you want religion you normally associate with a denomination that most fits your beliefs. All of us that want to be Christians have to share space with other believers. Besides, when we fellowship there is always good food!!! (I's say that the food thing is biblical, Jesus fed the masses and they had the last supper. That's two witnesses for eating when you have a gathering!!!)

If I'm guilty of taking shots aimed at shaking Christian belief, so are you.



That isn't taking shots at the Christian belief, it is taking shots at doctrines written by someone that has established or is establishing a denominational church. You have apparently missed the fact that Christianity is trying to live life the way Jesus would have. Religion is something that was created by man.

I am not perfect, but I would rather be known as someone that tried to be Christ like rather than religious.

[Electric]

That has nothing to do with my statement. In one breath you implored me not to try to convince those who believe why I don't (which BTW I haven't done) and in the very next breath you state that "A Christian's one directive is to spread the good news about Jesus." I repeat, it's offensive to hear you telling people not to evangelize non-belief while you want your own evangelism tolerated. Go ahead and evangelize all you want, but don't play the victim when others who have different beliefs (or non-beliefs) choose to do the same.

You are such a dorf. You only have emphasized the fact that you feel like a victim because I don't want to hear your dirvel about non-belief. How do you evangilize non belief sport?

If you want to be offended by my unbelief of witnessing non belief, sobeit. I have never claimed to be a victim, but if you want to see me that way it is totally your choice.

[Saulbadguy]

Shut up, Tom.

[Electric]

Are you a deist? I'm just curious...

I too, go to church, but philosophically I consider myself a deist.

Does that mean that you do not believe that Jesus died for your sins? Does it also mean that you disbelieve that Jesus is the only way to heaven?

You comment seems to be like the one girl said once, I'm just a little pregnant.

[Electric]

Shut up, Tom.

I wasn't aware that you had revoked the freedom of speech amendment.

Shut up yourself.

[|Zach|]

I wasn't aware that you had revoked the freedom of speech amendment.

Shut up yourself.I thought you were revoking that amendment for yourself on this board.

[Saulbadguy]

I thought you were revoking that amendment for yourself on this board.
He hasn't found the "unsubscribe" option.

[patteeu]

That isn't taking shots at the Christian belief, it is taking shots at doctrines written by someone that has established or is establishing a denominational church. You have apparently missed the fact that Christianity is trying to live life the way Jesus would have. Religion is something that was created by man.

I am not perfect, but I would rather be known as someone that tried to be Christ like rather than religious.

I wasn't taking any shots at Christian belief either, I was doing the same thing you are doing (except without the self-serving, pretend hair splitting). At least we agree that religion was created by man. Beyond that, every description of Jesus and how he lived was created (not necessarily made up) by man too. The bible was written and translated by man too. In fact, everything you've ever been taught about your Christian God was created by man. Whether any or all of it was divinely inspired is a question that I don't believe you or I have any way of knowing. I understand that you are convinced that you have the answer, but that doesn't have any impact on me.

[Electric]

I wasn't taking any shots at Christian belief either, I was doing the same thing you are doing (except without the self-serving, pretend hair splitting). At least we agree that religion was created by man. Beyond that, every description of Jesus and how he lived was created (not necessarily made up) by man too. The bible was written and translated by man too. In fact, everything you've ever been taught about your Christian God was created by man. Whether any or all of it was divinely inspired is a question that I don't believe you or I have any way of knowing. I understand that you are convinced that you have the answer, but that doesn't have any impact on me.

If you ever find your knower, let me know!!!

Where did you get the information that I have the answer? I don't have your answer, only you do.

I may not be the best at explaining my position, but I don't need your help to define me or what I believe.

If you don't believe that the bible was written by the divine inspiration of God himself, that is something you live with. For me, I believe.

Have you ever heard God's voice? Have you ever witnessed a miracle that could only be explained by intervention by God?

If you believe and are luke warm you are in as much trouble as everyone else. There are only two ways, hot and cold; lukewarm gets you spewed out. FWIW, we are all in varying degrees of lukewarm.

The only difference between believers and non-believers is that believers have hope beyond the grave, non-believers do not.

[Electric]

I thought you were revoking that amendment for yourself on this board.

When did you join the discussion? I do not ever remember telling you to stfu and stfd, that's not to say I haven't or haven't thought of it, but to date you are still being seen (not iggyd).

As for your opinion, I have the same view of yours as you do of mine.

[Donger]

If you ever find your knower, let me know!!!

Where did you get the information that I have the answer? I don't have your answer, only you do.

I may not be the best at explaining my position, but I don't need your help to define me or what I believe.

If you don't believe that the bible was written by the divine inspiration of God himself, that is something you live with. For me, I believe.

Have you ever heard God's voice? Have you ever witnessed a miracle that could only be explained by intervention by God?

If you believe and are luke warm you are in as much trouble as everyone else. There are only two ways, hot and cold; lukewarm gets you spewed out. FWIW, we are all in varying degrees of lukewarm.

The only difference between believers and non-believers is that believers have hope beyond the grave, non-believers do not.

Forgive me for jumping in, but when you say 'God,' are you referring to Jesus?

[|Zach|]

As for your opinion, I have the same view of yours as you do of mine.
Which are...

[Mr. Kotter]

Does that mean that you do not believe that Jesus died for your sins? Does it also mean that you disbelieve that Jesus is the only way to heaven?

You comment seems to be like the one girl said once, I'm just a little pregnant.

Truthfully....my own beliefs are still evolving, but...

I consider myself to be Christian; I accept Christ as my savior...but do not necessarily believe Jesus to be the "only" way to God.

I've expressed it before, but presently my contention is that God reaches different cultures and reveals himself to other people, in different ways. Christianity is very clearly influenced by the history of Western civilization; likewise, Budhism is very much a reflection of Eastern culture and values. Hence, I would contend most of the world's relgions are at least as much a product of cultural influence, as divine inspiration. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God; on the contrary, it makes sense....God reaches out to different cultures in a language they can understand and relate to.

I believe doctrine and theology as practiced by most Christian denominations to have been corrupted by man's influence and "interpretations." Therefore I'm suspicious of the motives and teachings of many organized faiths...

Bottom-line: I don't KNOW, but neither does anyone else. Anyone who professes to know is arrogant and narrow-minded in my view.

This all is JMHO.

[|Zach|]

Which are...
With Tom running off and Duck Dog running off before he could prove he knows how to read this has been a strange thread. Do I smell bad?

[Electric]

Forgive me for jumping in, but when you say 'God,' are you referring to Jesus?

If you referring to my belief, yes. I believe in the Trinity.

[Electric]

With Tom running off and Duck Dog running off before he could prove he knows how to read this has been a strange thread. Do I smell bad?

Tom didn't run off, he is working and cannot spend 100% of the time replying to those that do have the time to play.


Yes you smell bad.

[patteeu]

I may not be the best at explaining my position, but I don't need your help to define me or what I believe.

And of course, I don't need any help from you either.

If you don't believe that the bible was written by the divine inspiration of God himself, that is something you live with. For me, I believe.

Of course. Congratulations.

Have you ever heard God's voice? Have you ever witnessed a miracle that could only be explained by intervention by God?

No, how about you? I would ask you to share your experiences, but I'd be tempted to challenge your interpretation which isn't really something I want to do.

I do remember one time when I was driving along wonder why God doesn't give people unmistakeable signs of his existance (if he does in fact exist) when out of the blue a car drove by with a bumper sticker that said "Pray Hard, Life is Short." I started to think that might be the kind of sign I was thinking about when the next car drove by with a Clinton/Gore campaign bumper sticker that kind of destroyed the moment.

[QUOTE=Electric]If you believe and are luke warm you are in as much trouble as everyone else. There are only two ways, hot and cold; lukewarm gets you spewed out. FWIW, we are all in varying degrees of lukewarm.

I'm not lukewarm, I'm barely above the freezing point.

The only difference between believers and non-believers is that believers have hope beyond the grave, non-believers do not.

That's only true if we accept your Christian premise. From an agnostic's POV, anything is possible.

If I were to say that I believed in a god who rewarded those who practiced homosexuality with a blissful afterlife more perfect than the Christian heaven, but who condemned all those who refused to practice homosexuality to a place a billion times worse than the Christian hell, would you hook up with some dude just to be safe? Do you see why that kind of argument is ridiculously weak?

[Electric]

Truthfully....my own beliefs are still evolving, but...

I consider myself to be Christian; I accept Christ as my savior...but do not necessarily believe Jesus to be the "only" way to God.

I've expressed it before, but presently my contention is that God reaches different cultures and reveals himself to other people, in different ways. Christianity is very clearly influenced by the history of Western civilization; likewise, Budhism is very much a reflection of Eastern culture and values. Hence, I would contend most of the world's relgions are at least as much a product of cultural influence, as divine inspiration. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God; on the contrary, it makes sense....God reaches out to different cultures in a language they can understand and relate to.

I believe doctrine and theology as practiced by most Christian denominations to have been corrupted by man's influence and "interpretations." Therefore I'm suspicious of the motives and teachings of many organized faiths...

Bottom-line: I don't KNOW, but neither does anyone else. Anyone who professes to know is arrogant and narrow-minded in my view.

This all is JMHO.

It's not a case of arogance or being narrow-minded, it's a case of faith. You believe or you don't. In my case it's that I believe what is written, if I'm wrong that's my problem, if you're wrong that's your problem.

As far as Jesus being the only way, you have to believe the New Testament to be true and that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth. How does the trinity work into this? I'm not sure, but I'm basing my belief on what I read in the NT as well as the OT. FWIW, being a good person doesn't seem to get you much.

[Electric]

If I were to say that I believed in a god who rewarded those who practiced homosexuality with a blissful afterlife more perfect than the Christian heaven, but who condemned all those who refused to practice homosexuality to a place a billion times worse than the Christian hell, would you hook up with some dude just to be safe? Do you see why that kind of argument is ridiculously weak?

Your comment might have some validity if being homosexual was a normal thing, it is not. As a matter of fact the Bible indicates just the opposite, that's why Soddam and Gommorah were destroyed.

To even attempt to twist what I said to your perverse comment is ludicrous, but then if it weren't you wouldn't be patteeu.

[patteeu]

Your comment might have some validity if being homosexual was a normal thing, it is not. As a matter of fact the Bible indicates just the opposite, that's why Soddam and Gommorah were destroyed.

To even attempt to twist what I said to your perverse comment is ludicrous, but then if it weren't you wouldn't be patteeu.

You can't use your bible to evaluate my hypothetical god's risk/reward system. You can either hope that your belief in your God is justified and risk a hell that's a billion times worse than your Christian hell or you can find yourself a boyfriend. Those are really the only two options I see for you.

[BIG_DADDY]

It's not a case of arogance or being narrow-minded, it's a case of faith. You believe or you don't. In my case it's that I believe what is written, if I'm wrong that's my problem, if you're wrong that's your problem.

As far as Jesus being the only way, you have to believe the New Testament to be true and that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth. How does the trinity work into this? I'm not sure, but I'm basing my belief on what I read in the NT as well as the OT. FWIW, being a good person doesn't seem to get you much.

Phoney Gonzales is that you?

Like I would expect him to tell me the truth. ROFL

[Logical]

You are such a dorf. You only have emphasized the fact that you feel like a victim because I don't want to hear your dirvel about non-belief. How do you evangilize non belief sport?

If you want to be offended by my unbelief of witnessing non belief, sobeit. I have never claimed to be a victim, but if you want to see me that way it is totally your choice.

Wow, how wrong a person can be is well demonstrated by this post. I feel I am doing the right thing by trying to convince people that organized religion is evil and that following ones own beliefs, thoughts and rationale when it comes to God is not only logical but desirable. If I convince but one I have done the world a service, how is that different than your idea of evangelism.

[Mr. Kotter]

I feel I am doing the right thing by trying to convince people that organized religion is evil ...

Expressing doubts and "suspicions" about organized religion is one thing; to call it "evil" is way over the top....IMO :shake:

[Logical]

Expressing doubts and "suspicions" about organized religion is one thing; to call it "evil" is way over the top....IMO :shake:Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I could tell from your posts long ago that you were too far lost to convince. You like your comfort zone undisturbed which is why the Gay Marriage issue freaks you out so badly.

[vailpass]

Wow, how wrong a person can be is well demonstrated by this post. I feel I am doing the right thing by trying to convince people that organized religion is evil and that following ones own beliefs, thoughts and rationale when it comes to God is not only logical but desirable. If I convince but one I have done the world a service, how is that different than your idea of evangelism.

Couldn't hack it so you quit, now you want everyone else to feel as disenfranchised as you huh?
Pathetic loser. You've already quit so why don't you leave the building, and it's occupants, in peace?

[Logical]

Couldn't hack it so you quit, now you want everyone else to feel as disenfranchised as you huh?
Pathetic loser. You've already quit so why don't you leave the building, and it's occupants, in peace?


LOL, that is the worst attempt at baiting I have ever witnessed. You are obviously the one who feels threatened by his own doubts. I can detect the fear in your writing and your attacking prose. A person of strong faith and will would not be bothered by what I say in the least, most likely they would outright ignore it as not worth their time to confront. I am encouraged by your fear and look forward to breaking you down.

[vailpass]

LOL, that is the worst attempt at baiting I have ever witnessed. You are obviously the one who feels threatened by his own doubts. I can detect the fear in your writing and your attacking prose. A person of strong faith and will would not be bothered by what I say in the least, most likely they would outright ignore it as not worth their time to confront. I am encouraged by your fear and look forward to breaking you down.

We always shoo stray dogs away when they are shitting in our front yard.

[Logical]

We always shoo stray dogs away when they are shitting in our front yard.Bad analogy as you would be considered the stray dog on this BB.ROFL

Yet i have always been cordial and friendly towards you.

[vailpass]

Bad analogy as you would be considered the stray dog on this BB.ROFL

Let me slow it down for you..
"We" being members of any given church
"Stray dogs shitting in the front yard" being anyone who claims to have denounced organized religion yet continues to interact with church members in an attempt to persuade them to become quitters (i.e. you)

Kalifornia is the place for you boy as you are quite clearly a whack job.

[Logical]

Let me slow it down for you..
"We" being members of any given church
"Stray dogs shitting in the front yard" being anyone who claims to have denounced organized religion yet continues to interact with church members in an attempt to persuade them to become quitters (i.e. you)

Kalifornia is the place for you boy as you are quite clearly a whack job.Gee is this place your Church, well I guess I could be considered a Deity around these parts, you may kiss my ring my son.;)

I don't evangelize at peoples Churches so your analogy is just stupid. In fact I don't seek people out. I do my best work in places where the doubtful and fearful choose to provide opinion that allows me to work them. Places just like this BB. Perhaps you should avoid this BB if you do not have the strength of character to argue your beliefs logically.

[Electric]

You can't use your bible to evaluate my hypothetical god's risk/reward system. You can either hope that your belief in your God is justified and risk a hell that's a billion times worse than your Christian hell or you can find yourself a boyfriend. Those are really the only two options I see for you.

Your life must be really miserable. Now you want me to take up your lifestyle? What a loser.

[Taco John]

Would it be possible for Satan to sneak things into the New Testament in order to accomplish a Great Deception?

Or do people thin that is pretty much impossible?

[Electric]

Wow, how wrong a person can be is well demonstrated by this post. I feel I am doing the right thing by trying to convince people that organized religion is evil and that following ones own beliefs, thoughts and rationale when it comes to God is not only logical but desirable. If I convince but one I have done the world a service, how is that different than your idea of evangelism.

You are wrong about organized religion. My comments are based on the imperfection of mankind, it doesn't take away the true desire to believe from anyone that belongs to the Christian denominations that have "rules" that may or may not follow the writings in the Bible.

If you convince one person to not believe in God or to reject him you will be responsible for his soul. On the other hand if I were to convince one person that God exists and he has life everlasting I am responsible for his gain.

Either way, you lose.

I do find it interesting that you reject God, but you still refer to him as God. I actually suspect an underlying fear that you are wrong and hedging your bets!!!

[Electric]

Would it be possible for Satan to sneak things into the New Testament in order to accomplish a Great Deception?

Or do people thin that is pretty much impossible?

I don't know Desi, let me know when you figure it out.

[Logical]

You are wrong about organized religion. My comments are based on the imperfection of mankind, it doesn't take away the true desire to believe from anyone that belongs to the Christian denominations that have "rules" that may or may not follow the writings in the Bible.

If you convince one person to not believe in God or to reject him you will be responsible for his soul. On the other hand if I were to convince one person that God exists and he has life everlasting I am responsible for his gain.

Either way, you lose.

I do find it interesting that you reject God, but you still refer to him as God. I actually suspect an underlying fear that you are wrong and hedging your bets!!!

You're weird and evidently cannot read. I only try to convince them to turn away from organized religion, not away from God.:rolleyes:

[Logical]

Your life must be really miserable. Now you want me to take up your lifestyle? What a loser.Says the guy who has used multiple identies to make it appear he has allies in his battles on the BB.ROFL

[yoswif]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I could tell from your posts long ago that you were too far lost to convince. You like your comfort zone undisturbed which is why the Gay Marriage issue freaks you out so badly.

I would also question whether organized religion in and of itself is evil.

Religion, in combination with powerful party leaders and a powerful central government, can become a real monster. That's why we need a Constitution and Bill of Rights that limits the power of party leaders and the federal government.

Religious fanaticism is just one of many dangers when powerful party leaders are in charge of powerful central governments. I think non-partisan elections at all levels of government is the best long term protection from problems caused by powerful party leaders in control of powerful central governments.

Government should neither condone or punish voluntary associations between adults, whether it's banning gay marriage or giving them a tax break.

[Logical]

I would also question whether organized religion in and of itself is evil.

Religion, in combination with powerful party leaders and a powerful central government, can become a real monster. That's why we need a Constitution and Bill of Rights that limits the power of party leaders and the federal government.

Religious fanaticism is just one of many dangers when powerful party leaders are in charge of powerful central governments. I think non-partisan elections at all levels of government is the best long term protection from problems caused by powerful party leaders in control of powerful central governments.You have a point to a degree, but I feel that anything that encourages people to follow its precepts without thinking them through and deciding for themselves is inherently evil. (i.e. accept the idea that the only way to go to heaven is by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior or you will have no chance to go to heaven).

[Electric]

You're weird and evidently cannot read. I only try to convince them to turn away from organized religion, not away from God.:rolleyes:

You're arrogant and obviously an ass. I thrive on being wierd, try to embrace that fact.

[Logical]

You're arrogant and obviously an ass. I thrive on being wierd, try to embrace that fact.ROFL Click on the profile button on one of my posts and read what I put on my profile as occupation. Man I embraced it far before you ever came along.

[Electric]

ROFL Click on the profile button on one of my posts and read what I put on my profile as occupation. Man I embraced it far before you ever came along.

Justs let me know that my judgement is right on!!! Maybe I should have read it before!! Ya think?

[Logical]

Justs let me know that my judgement is right on!!! Maybe I should have read it before!! Ya think?

By the way this does nothing to change the fact that you did not read my post accurately and that I do not encourage people to give up God, just organized religion.

[Electric]

Government should neither condone or punish voluntary associations between adults, whether it's banning gay marriage or giving them a tax break.

I don't see the government as punishing them by not allowing them to be married. They have the contract - union - living arrangements without being punished.

I stand with not allowing marriage between same sex people. After all, I believe that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is an issue that will not be settled by anyone on this board or any other board. It will be an issue long after we are all worm fodder.

[Logical]

I don't see the government as punishing them by not allowing them to be married. They have the contract - union - living arrangements without being punished.

I stand with not allowing marriage between same sex people. After all, I believe that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is an issue that will not be settled by anyone on this board or any other board. It will be an issue long after we are all worm fodder.

I guess if you get all wrapped up in fairy tale like parables your Adam and Steve thing is cute/relevant. Actually though it is just a stupid way to hide your homophobia.

[yoswif]

You have a point to a degree, but I feel that anything that encourages people to follow its precepts without thinking them through and deciding for themselves is inherently evil. (i.e. accept the idea that the only way to go to heaven is by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior or you will have no chance to go to heaven).


In a free country, religious people and anti-religious people can think anything they want and not pose a threat to everyone else.

In a country where there are few limits on the power of party leaders, a close association between religion and party leaders becomes ominous.

The same applies for religious people; in a country where there are few limits on the power of party leaders, a close association between party leaders and anti-religious fanatics becomes ominous for religious people.

[Logical]

In a free country, religious people and anti-religious people can think anything they want and not pose a threat to everyone else.

In a country where there are few limits on the power of party leaders, a close association between religion and party leaders becomes ominous.

The same applies for religious people; in a country where there are few limits on the power of party leaders, a close association between party leaders and anti-religious fanatics becomes ominous for religious people.One more time, I am not against people being religious, I am against organized religions.

[Electric]

I guess if you get all wrapped up in fairy tale like parables your Adam and Steve thing is cute/relevant. Actually though it is just a stupid way to hide your homophobia.

I don't fear homosexuals, I have family members that are gay. You imply that because a person does believe that being homosexual is wrong they fear them. You are generalizing and are very wrong.

[yoswif]

I don't see the government as punishing them by not allowing them to be married. They have the contract - union - living arrangements without being punished.

I stand with not allowing marriage between same sex people. After all, I believe that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is an issue that will not be settled by anyone on this board or any other board. It will be an issue long after we are all worm fodder.

Government actions reward or punish public actions. I have no problem with adults saying they're married or signing marriage contracts. Other than dealing with valid marriage contracts in civil courts, I think freedom of association prevents any other actions in relation to voluntary association between adults by government. Giving married people tax breaks rewards their voluntary association and punishes taxpayers who do not have a similar voluntary associations.

[patteeu]

Your life must be really miserable. Now you want me to take up your lifestyle? What a loser.

You're the one with the bet hedging spiritual strategy. I thought this would be an easy choice for you. But I'm confident you're already saved in the eyes of HomoGod, my hypothetical deity anyway.

[Electric]

Government actions reward or punish public actions. I have no problem with adults saying they're married or signing marriage contracts. Other than dealing with valid marriage contracts in civil courts, I think freedom of association prevents any other actions in relation to voluntary association between adults by government. Giving married people tax breaks rewards their voluntary association and punishes taxpayers who do not have a similar voluntary associations.

We will have to agree to disagree. My stance will not change.

[Electric]

You're the one with the bet hedging spiritual strategy. I thought this would be an easy choice for you. But I'm confident you're already saved in the eyes of HomoGod, my hypothetical deity anyway.

I'm not hedging my bet. I know that Jesus is the true son of God and is the path to heaven. That puts me in a category to be forgiven of my shortcomings. Too bad you don't have a belief that will assure you of anything.

I presume that you are one of the homosexuals in question due to your constant references to homosexuality and your insistance that everyone must be one if you are. What a dolt.

[yoswif]

One more time, I am not against people being religious, I am against organized religions.


What about organized anti-religion?

[yoswif]

We will have to agree to disagree. My stance will not change.

You're either a strict contructionist or you believe the Constitution is a living document.

[yoswif]

We will have to agree to disagree. My stance will not change.

You're either a strict contructionist or you believe the Constitution is a living document. Can't be both.

[patteeu]

I'm not hedging my bet. I know that Jesus is the true son of God and is the path to heaven. That puts me in a category to be forgiven of my shortcomings. Too bad you don't have a belief that will assure you of anything.

But yet the first argument you offer when you encounter a skeptic is "why not hedge your bets?" LOL

I presume that you are one of the homosexuals in question due to your constant references to homosexuality and your insistance that everyone must be one if you are. What a dolt.

Why, was my hypothetical turning you on? Would it have worked better for you if I'd used AdulteryGod or GoldenCalfGod instead? Sorry if I made you lust in your heart.

[Electric]

But yet the first argument you offer when you encounter a skeptic is "why not hedge your bets?" LOL



Why, was my hypothetical turning you on? Would it have worked better for you if I'd used AdulteryGod or GoldenCalfGod instead? Sorry if I made you lust in your heart.
You are the definition of stupid. I think iggy is your new moniker.