PDA

View Full Version : Religion Notice how many gods you reject.


Pages : 1 [2]

KILLER_CLOWN
11-26-2012, 09:49 AM
That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

huh? link?

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 09:52 AM
That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.
It is a waste of time trying to debate with this poster. She is not sharp enough to understand how little she knows~

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 09:53 AM
huh? link?

Just read the bible~

KILLER_CLOWN
11-26-2012, 09:54 AM
Just read the bible~

ok and link?

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 09:59 AM
ok and link?

If you do not own one, or cannot find one, it will gain you nothing to read it. It is very easy material to get your hands on. If that simple task evades you, save yourself further effort~

donkhater
11-26-2012, 10:11 AM
That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

I can see where you could come to that conclusion. I, on the other hand, have a different perspective.

I see the impact of divine influence on our ABILITY to make decisions about right and wrong. Whether or not they become the law of the land or morally acceptable is society's decision. However, the individual can come to a conclusion on morality faster than it is accepted by society.

If the Creator could simply decree that everyone knew the difference between right and wrong and acted accordingly, then this discussion would be moot. However, He created us with free will. Your decision to acknowledge and follow his laws and believe in Him are your choice .

Fish
11-26-2012, 10:12 AM
huh? link?

Do you need me to link Bible verses?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27

htismaqe
11-26-2012, 10:17 AM
Of course they have. Barely 200 years ago, I could have owned an African American. Modern Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years, yet I could legally own another person. If social laws don't evolve, then why am I unable to own another person today? Why have we let women vote? How do you explain changes like that to our laws?

We can point to things in the Bible itself, that were perfectly acceptable in the time it was written, but yet would be condemned and punishable by imprisonment or even death under today's laws. For that to exist, either the omnipotent all knowing God changed his mind, or our laws have changed independently of religion.

Feelings of empathy and justice are absolutely visible in nature. Countless non human species have visible hierarchies of order, and can observably tell "Right from wrong".

Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

How would you explain observations such as the above?

The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

donkhater
11-26-2012, 10:25 AM
The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

Well done. Simple yet elegant argument.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 10:29 AM
It is a waste of time trying to debate with this poster. She is not sharp enough to understand how little she knows~

If'n you noticed he was not debating my point. He was saying how it supported his. But nice projection here since you just showed how unsharp you were being to understand it. Not to mention your typical use of the same logical fallacy you rely on. This is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
When you can no longer refute, you resort to this logical fallacies. You got nothing and have ceded the argument. Thank you for proving this point about atheists again.

Fish
11-26-2012, 10:39 AM
I can see where you could come to that conclusion. I, on the other hand, have a different perspective.

I see the impact of divine influence on our ABILITY to make decisions about right and wrong. Whether or not they become the law of the land or morally acceptable is society's decision. However, the individual can come to a conclusion on morality faster than it is accepted by society.

If the Creator could simply decree that everyone knew the difference between right and wrong and acted accordingly, then this discussion would be moot. However, He created us with free will. Your decision to acknowledge and follow his laws and believe in Him are your choice .

The idea of divinely-granted "Free will" kind of invalidates itself though. If God has foreknowledge of all things, then free will can't really exist.

”Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

If man has free will, then God cannot know all things. And as such, he would not be a God. True free will, and an omnipotent God, cannot really exist simultaneously.

And getting back to the evolution of laws, we also have proof of moral evolution and ethics in our observation of indigenous tribes who have never had contact with the outside world. These people came to have a social hierarchy and an evolution of rules completely untouched by religion of any kind. If a species is to prosper, it must abide by certain basic rules, else it cannot prosper. We see this happen with countless species. If there is no basic social order, then species would simply kill each other aimlessly, and the species would fail. The most basic premise of life is to continue your species. All species abide by this. If there weren't some sort of base morality in all species, we wouldn't see any non-human species living in any groups or families.

Fish
11-26-2012, 10:45 AM
The necessity of having a defined all-powerful "deity" in our government is self-explanatory.

Rights granted by "God", as our founding father's detailed, can only be revoked by GOD.

If there is no "God" in government, then our freedom comes from man. Thus man can revoke our freedom at any time he sees fit.

Who determines which is which? Show me how to separate the two and convince the majority that you've done so...

BWillie
11-26-2012, 10:57 AM
I practise BWillieism. Everything I do is in the best interest of myself. In fact, I have a theory that everybody, everywhere, is acting in their best interest. If someone help the poor, they feel good because they are helping them. It is impossible to do something that is intrinsically selfless if it is a voluntary action.

htismaqe
11-26-2012, 11:09 AM
Who determines which is which? Show me how to separate the two and convince the majority that you've done so...

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution determine which is which.

The "evolution of law" is the reason the Constitution was designed to be amended.

The necessity for freedom to be derived not from man but from transcendent "law" (the laws of God and Nature - note that our founding father's used BOTH, not just one) is the reason the Declaration of Independence enumerates our INALIENABLE rights.

donkhater
11-26-2012, 11:12 AM
The idea of divinely-granted "Free will" kind of invalidates itself though. If God has foreknowledge of all things, then free will can't really exist.

If man has free will, then God cannot know all things. And as such, he would not be a God. True free will, and an omnipotent God, cannot really exist simultaneously.

I guess if your idea of a God is that he knows or cares about every day-to-day decision in your life, then I can see how you would believe that. That isn't inconsistent with the apparent views of some people of faith who say things are done 'by God's will' or 'only God knows'.

Again, I take a different point of view. I see God as having set the wheels in motion, not only from the standpoint of man but as it pertains to the laws of nature. This is how I can reconcile believing in both an evolutionary and creationist theory of life on Earth. Once the wheels are in motion, God lets the will of man decide his fate. He reveals Himself and His intentions through His creations--both in their thoughts and actions.

And getting back to the evolution of laws, we also have proof of moral evolution and ethics in our observation of indigenous tribes who have never had contact with the outside world. These people came to have a social hierarchy and an evolution of rules completely untouched by religion of any kind. If a species is to prosper, it must abide by certain basic rules, else it cannot prosper. We see this happen with countless species. If there is no basic social order, then species would simply kill each other aimlessly, and the species would fail. The most basic premise of life is to continue your species. All species abide by this. If there weren't some sort of base morality in all species, we wouldn't see any non-human species living in any groups or families.

I'm not sure a social hierarchy is proof of morals, but your argument still begs the question: Where did this drive to propogate your own species come from? If we and other animals are derived from a mass of atoms, why would that evolved mass of atoms care if other masses of atoms even exist at all?

Brock
11-26-2012, 11:55 AM
I practise BWillieism. Everything I do is in the best interest of myself. In fact, I have a theory that everybody, everywhere, is acting in their best interest. If someone help the poor, they feel good because they are helping them. It is impossible to do something that is intrinsically selfless if it is a voluntary action.

That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 12:02 PM
That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

It is a theory, psychological egoism, and if true then there would be no altruistic acts because they would not exist. Among those chief complaints would be the examples of a hero selflessly falling on a bomb, mother giving the last bit of food to her child, etc. Psychological egoists describe that in terms of expected benefits or avoiding harm. The ones that they use to counter selfless acts is that they are avoiding the bad affect of guilt by performing these actions.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 12:50 PM
That's idiotic. Congressional Medal of Honor winners alone blow your argument out of the water. Most of them did something so selfless the award was posthumous.

I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

Brock
11-26-2012, 12:53 PM
I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

You need to read more about these people, the type of people they were, what their friends said about them, and the circumstances surrounding what they did before commenting if you want to be taken seriously.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 12:59 PM
I don't think you can come up with an argument that blows his out of the water. People can do things to earn honor or establish a legacy even if it kills them in the process. To those people, honor or the way others remember them may be more important than life.

How is dying in his best interest?

Psychological egoism is false.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 01:08 PM
You need to read more about these people, the type of people they were, what their friends said about them, and the circumstances surrounding what they did before commenting if you want to be taken seriously.

You need to reflect on the types of things that can be more important to a person than that person's own life before you have anything to say on this subject. Self interest isn't always about survival and it doesn't always manifest itself in behavior that is traditionally considered selfish.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 01:09 PM
How is dying in his best interest?

Psychological egoism is false.

Struggling psychology student fail.

Fish
11-26-2012, 01:43 PM
I guess if your idea of a God is that he knows or cares about every day-to-day decision in your life, then I can see how you would believe that. That isn't inconsistent with the apparent views of some people of faith who say things are done 'by God's will' or 'only God knows'.

Again, I take a different point of view. I see God as having set the wheels in motion, not only from the standpoint of man but as it pertains to the laws of nature. This is how I can reconcile believing in both an evolutionary and creationist theory of life on Earth. Once the wheels are in motion, God lets the will of man decide his fate. He reveals Himself and His intentions through His creations--both in their thoughts and actions.



I'm not sure a social hierarchy is proof of morals, but your argument still begs the question: Where did this drive to propogate your own species come from? If we and other animals are derived from a mass of atoms, why would that evolved mass of atoms care if other masses of atoms even exist at all?

I don't feel that I can say for certain where they come from. But I do feel that it is in every living thing. Those attributes that help propagate the species are rewarded with increased reproduction and the passing on of those attributes. Those attributes which are detriment to the continuation of the species will eventually hamper that species and discourage propagation until extinction. Species that develop morality naturally over time, will help one another and develop into a supportive community. The progression of life itself rewards moral behavior. The fact that this pattern can be seen in countless species over billions of years tells me that religion has nothing to do with it.

This also touches on my personal view on God. I do not believe in an omnipotent or even a sentient God. My belief is that God and evolution are interchangeable. God is the pattern by which the universe works. The pattern by which all life follows. Deus sive Natura... God or Nature.

An interesting read on this would be Spinoza's Ethics. I think it highlights a lot of what we've discussed here. And touches on what you question when you try to fit Creationism and Evolution into the same universe.

"Whether we say…that all things happen according to the laws of nature, or are ordered by the decree and direction of God, we say the same thing."

In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God/Nature. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While components of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence. Spinoza also asserted that sense perception, though practical and useful for rhetoric, is inadequate for discovering universal truth; Spinoza's mathematical and logical approach to metaphysics, and therefore ethics, concluded that emotion is formed from inadequate understanding. His concept of "conatus" states that human beings' natural inclination is to strive toward preserving an essential being and an assertion that virtue/human power is defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of reason as one's central ethical doctrine. According to Spinoza, the highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of God/Nature/Universe.

In the final part of the "Ethics", his concern with the meaning of "true blessedness", and his explanation of how emotions must be detached from external cause and so master them, give some prediction of psychological techniques developed in the 1900s. His concept of three types of knowledge – opinion, reason, intuition – and his assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, lead to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal. His unique contribution to understanding the workings of mind is extraordinary, even during this time of radical philosophical developments, in that his views provide a bridge between religions' mystical past and psychology of the present day.

Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 02:30 PM
Struggling psychology student fail.

Nice redirect. That would be the study of ethics from the philosophical minor, where we explore the concept of psychological egoism. Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question instead of trying to attack me from an angle in which you have no knowledge of, I would be mighty obliged.

The question being: how does dying serve his best interest?

Thank you in advance.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 02:46 PM
Nice redirect. That would be the study of ethics from the philosophical minor, where we explore the concept of psychological egoism. Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question instead of trying to attack me from an angle in which you have no knowledge of, I would be mighty obliged.

The question being: how does dying serve his best interest?

Thank you in advance.

If dying to save someone's life means more to him than living with the memories of the death of a friend, his interests are served by jumping on that grenade. It's really not rocket science. It just requires you to be able to empathize with people who have values that you might not share.

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 03:09 PM
That has nothing to do with establishing a church. George Washingtons Thanksgiving Proclamation contradicts this. But thank you for proving my point.

Look this material over and get back with me nitwit~

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

How about James Madison on the subject~

Direct references to separation:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Or~

Article VI which clearly states "There shall be no religious test for public office"

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 03:10 PM
If dying to save someone's life means more to him than living with the memories of the death of a friend, his interests are served by jumping on that grenade. It's really not rocket science. It just requires you to be able to empathize with people who have values that you might not share.

With all due respect, caring about the friend isn't an option in self interest. The only option is to perform the action due to fear of a negative consequence to yourself such as guilt over inaction.

Fish
11-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Look this material over and get back with me nitwit~

[...]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

[...]


Man, that sounds like a great foundation for a government. WTF happened?

patteeu
11-26-2012, 03:28 PM
With all due respect, caring about the friend isn't an option in self interest. The only option is to perform the action due to fear of a negative consequence to yourself such as guilt over inaction.

Trying to find a way to feel good about yourself or to avoid feeling bad about yourself is self-interest.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 03:33 PM
Those are not the Constitution RNR. That letter shows Jefferson's views. Jefferson did not attend the original CC. He was a deist and he referred to a Creator in his Dec, as to where rights came from. That was a public policy document justifying our secession from Britain.

My only point is that there is NOT a hard line. No one is compelled to believe in any religion. Some religious words here and there such as on coins are not a violation. Even the Constitution closes with the word "Lord" capital letters. Neither establish a church.

BWillie
11-26-2012, 03:35 PM
How is dying in his best interest?

Psychological egoism is false.

When I say "best interest" it is in the terms of the own individuals interpretation. Maybe a better word is "utility". Any voluntary action you take, you take that because you decided it would give your life/legacy/ etc the greatest utility. So, in the case of someone jumping in front of a car to save their loved one. They may value their loved ones life more than their own and it was the best option at the time, thus, giving them most satisfaction or utility out of any other option. If premeditated, say someone risked their life to diffuse a bomb they may seek fame even if it is posthumous of their good deeds or they weighed the risk vs. reward thinking that if they were successful at diffusing the bomb it could further their career or give them notoriety in their everyday life of such an accomplishment.

My point is I believe all individuals are selfish in their own way whether they admit it or not. It is in human nature.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Trying to find a way to feel good about yourself or to avoid feeling bad about yourself is self-interest.

So thats why a soldier would do such a thing? Out of the need to not feel "bad" or guilt?

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 03:51 PM
When I say "best interest" it is in the terms of the own individuals interpretation. Maybe a better word is "utility". Any voluntary action you take, you take that because you decided it would give your life/legacy/ etc the greatest utility. So, in the case of someone jumping in front of a car to save their loved one. They may value their loved ones life more than their own and it was the best option at the time, thus, giving them most satisfaction or utility out of any other option. If premeditated, say someone risked their life to diffuse a bomb they may seek fame even if it is posthumous of their good deeds.

My point is I believe all individuals are selfish in their own way.

That's utilitarianism, which states that all things are weighed out and the one that yields the best consequence is the act you perform. However, that runs into problems as well.

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 04:23 PM
Those are not the Constitution RNR. That letter shows Jefferson's views. Jefferson did not attend the original CC. He was a deist and he referred to a Creator in his Dec, as to where rights came from. That was a public policy document justifying our secession from Britain.

My only point is that there is NOT a hard line. No one is compelled to believe in any religion. Some religious words here and there such as on coins are not a violation. Even the Constitution closes with the word "Lord" capital letters. Neither establish a church.

And my only point is our government was intended to remain completely neutral regarding religious beliefs. Which is why the language of any relligious belief should not appear on a government building. Also no relligious test is in the 1st amendment of the constitution~

patteeu
11-26-2012, 04:48 PM
So thats why a soldier would do such a thing? Out of the need to not feel "bad" or guilt?

How could you have been confused by my response?

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 04:50 PM
How could you have been confused by my response?

Not confused, just clarifying.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 04:52 PM
Not confused, just clarifying.

If you're not confused, what's unclear?

stevieray
11-26-2012, 05:00 PM
not the TJ letter again..:rolleyes:

..ignore the Washington monument, ignore the Liberty Bell, ignore the Jefferson Memorial..get it out so the fundamental transformation can take place.

"And with all deceitfulness of unrightousness in them that perish:because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In the near future, and it's already starting, look for those who wiil do backflips to discredit God and Christians, will go to bat to defend Allah and Islam.

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 05:24 PM
For those who hang their hat on Divine Providence as in God's intervention on the world claiming we would not have morals without him. That is fine as long as those people will acknowledge the same God created those who are evil and commit atrocious acts. They cannot have it both ways. I happen to believe it is a survival instinct derived from countless years of humans recognizing the need to work together. If you have ever walked near a birds nest and ducked as the mother bird swooped down on you several times attempting to chase you away from her offspring, or witnessed a female dog protect her litter you have a hint to what I am getting at.

One man could not kill a predator by himself, however 5 men could. Man learned that they must look out for each other in order to survive. A person only needs to see the genocide, rape, murder that goes on everyday to understand some humans do not care and clearly no invisible man is involved. If he is, then he is either incompetent or capricious at best. I have many flaws but put forth an effort to help those who need help and exceed the 10% vig charge by the holy every year. I am a nonbeliever so how does the invisible man fit into my equation?

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 05:27 PM
not the TJ letter again..:rolleyes:

..ignore the Washington monument, ignore the Liberty Bell, ignore the Jefferson Memorial..get it out so the fundamental transformation can take place.

"And with all deceitfulness of unrightousness in them that perish:because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In the near future, and it's already starting, look for those who wiil do backflips to discredit God and Christians, will go to bat to defend Allah and Islam.

Bro where does it state this is a Christian nation...not anywhere~

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 05:28 PM
not the TJ letter again..:rolleyes:

..ignore the Washington monument, ignore the Liberty Bell, ignore the Jefferson Memorial..get it out so the fundamental transformation can take place.

"And with all deceitfulness of unrightousness in them that perish:because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In the near future, and it's already starting, look for those who wiil do backflips to discredit God and Christians, will go to bat to defend Allah and Islam.

I know as if it's never been used before in this argument—particularly by atheists.
They ALWAYS use that like clockwork it's so predictable. Seen it a zillion times. Quotes by other Founders get ignored and Madison changed his views on some things so it depends on what period his words get used from. Ultimately he did not take a hard line clear line. ( In fact he didn't even get the Constitution he wanted, being a Federalist. Later he went with Jefferson's side after he saw what Hamilton did after ratification and under Washington. )

Now we need to remove images of the Ten Commandments in the SC building which places them on par with other laws showing their historical influence. Only 4 commandments are visible leaving out the first two very religious ones.Then remove the court room frieze which shows there's other historic and religious lawgivers such as Islam ( Muhammad is shown holding the Quran), Confucianism, sun worship, Egyptian and Greek/Roman paganism.

Yup, some atheists want freedom from any mention of religion. Meanwhile, the SC has never judged "in God we trust" to be an excessive entanglement with religion.

whoman69
11-26-2012, 05:47 PM
Atheist Family Loses Lawsuit to Have ‘Under God’ Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist-family-loses-lawsuit-to-have-under-god-removed-from-the-pledge-of-allegiance/

Some have tried to get "In God We Trust" off of our money too.

You read the blaze? That explains so many things.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 05:51 PM
You read the blaze? That explains so many things.

No I don't. I just googled the concept because I know that's happened before.* That was at the top of the list. But I see you got nuthin but a logical fallacy. Thank you very much for ceding the point.

* actually was looking for another specific case because I couldn't remember the man's name.

RedNeckRaider
11-26-2012, 06:15 PM
You read the blaze? That explains so many things.

She is a odd duck. I took exception to a misleading post from her regarding Jewish leaders meeting with Iranian leadership. Knowing her history as a Iran apologist it angered me. I have since realized I was giving her too much credit to think she was being disingenuous. It was a wacko fringe group and an absolute insult to the Jewish community to pretend those shitbags represent the Jewish community. She however was convinced this was worthy of posting not realizing it occurred in 2007 and has been widely mocked and dismissed. She clearly thought it was recent. Much like her stolen election thread from the other day. She is the perfect target for people like Glenn Beck~

stevieray
11-26-2012, 06:27 PM
Bro where does it state this is a Christian nation...not anywhere~

and the beat goes on...

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 06:29 PM
If you're not confused, what's unclear?

Just making sure that is what you meant to say. So your stance is that some people will kill themselves to avoid feeling bad rather than a sense of duty?

patteeu
11-26-2012, 07:12 PM
Just making sure that is what you meant to say. So your stance is that some people will kill themselves to avoid feeling bad rather than a sense of duty?

What does killing yourself have to do with Congressional Medal of Honor winners? I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 07:16 PM
She is a odd duck. I took exception to a misleading post from her regarding Jewish leaders meeting with Iranian leadership. Knowing her history as a Iran apologist it angered me. I have since realized I was giving her too much credit to think she was being disingenuous. It was a wacko fringe group and an absolute insult to the Jewish community to pretend those shitbags represent the Jewish community. She however was convinced this was worthy of posting not realizing it occurred in 2007 and has been widely mocked and dismissed. She clearly thought it was recent. Much like her stolen election thread from the other day. She is the perfect target for people like Glenn Beck~

Yup more logical fallacies by a real redneck. You've even stooped allying with an Obama-bot too.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 07:34 PM
What does killing yourself have to do with Congressional Medal of Honor winners? I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

The conversation was started on the basis that everything acts in their own self interest. Brock stated that a congressional medal of honor winner blows that theory out of the water(I presume that you, Brock, and I assume that means someone giving their life so another can live). You stated that it didn't, because they'd be doing out of self interest Your premise to back that up was they would do so in order to not feel "bad" I disagree. I state they do that out of duty to others, not self interest.

All up to speed now?

patteeu
11-26-2012, 07:41 PM
The conversation was started on the basis that everything acts in their own self interest. Brock stated that a congressional medal of honor winner blows that theory out of the water(I presume that you, Brock, and I assume that means someone giving their life so another can live). You stated that it didn't, because they'd be doing out of self interest Your premise to back that up was they would do so in order to not feel "bad" I disagree. I state they do that out of duty to others, not self interest.

All up to speed now?

I've been up to speed the whole time. Even if they do it out of what you call duty to others, it's because they think that fulfilling their duty is more satisfying than violating it.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 07:45 PM
I've been up to speed the whole time. Even if they do it out of what you call duty to others, it's because they think that fulfilling their duty is more satisfying than violating it.

what does satisfaction have to do with self interests?

listopencil
11-26-2012, 07:52 PM
1) Supposing the dog knows he does wrong, that feeling is still taught to him by humans.

2) The dog knows he did wrong because of the reaction from the human.

Sure, I agree. I was using dogs as an example that animals can get "right" and "wrong."

listopencil
11-26-2012, 07:58 PM
not the TJ letter again..:rolleyes:




It's not going to go away. Why are you so willing to reference the DOI in legal matters even though it has no bearing, and yet you turn a deaf ear to it's author when he explains part of the Constitution?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 07:58 PM
Sure, I agree. I was using dogs as an example that animals can get "right" and "wrong."

I don't know that that means they do "get" it.

listopencil
11-26-2012, 08:00 PM
I don't know that that means they do "get" it.

They seem to display the signs of guilt. Well, the smart ones seem to.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 08:03 PM
Sure, I agree. I was using dogs as an example that animals can get "right" and "wrong."

What animal can get right or wrong?

listopencil
11-26-2012, 08:03 PM
What animal can get right or wrong?

Have you ever owned a dog?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 08:04 PM
They seem to display the signs of guilt. Well, the smart ones seem to.

Yes, there are visible signs, but I still don't think that means much. Their wrongs won't eat at them like Raskolnikov afterwards.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 08:07 PM
Have you ever owned a dog?

Yes I have. Yes they are loving. They know the hand that feeds them, they know if they do wrong they will be punished, but they do not possess rational thought.

Why does a dog cower when he sees your reaction to a bad thing? Because he's pondered the morality of his actions or he reads your emotions?

patteeu
11-26-2012, 08:16 PM
what does satisfaction have to do with self interests?

It's a form of self interest.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 08:46 PM
It's a form of self interest.

and let me guess people act upon their self interest because it is satisfying

stevieray
11-26-2012, 08:55 PM
It's not going to go away. Why are you so willing to reference the DOI in legal matters even though it has no bearing, and yet you turn a deaf ear to it's author when he explains part of the Constitution?LMAO

That letter to the Dansbury Baptists has as much bearing on the the intent of the Constitution as your earlier wiki quote has on the Quaran. Nada.

but hey, keep beating that drum.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 08:56 PM
and let me guess people act upon their self interest because it is satisfying

I think I've lost interest in this. If you make an interesting point, I'll get back to you.

La literatura
11-26-2012, 08:57 PM
LMAO

That letter to the Dansbury Baptists has as much bearing on the the intent of the Constitution as your earlier wiki quote has on the Quaran. Nada.

but hey, keep beating that drum.

How much bearing on the intent of the Constitution does the Washington Monument, Liberty Bell, and Jefferson Memorial have?

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 09:18 PM
I think I've lost interest in this. If you make an interesting point, I'll get back to you.

I lost it a while back, however, I just wanted to see how long it took before you started going circular.

listopencil
11-26-2012, 11:54 PM
LMAO

That letter to the Dansbury Baptists has as much bearing on the the intent of the Constitution as your earlier wiki quote has on the Quaran. Nada.

but hey, keep beating that drum.

Umm.....yeah. I'll go ahead and go with Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution over yours. He was alive at the time and had a personal relationship with many of the people who created it. That wiki quote proves that you're wrong about Muslims as well. Dude. You're batting a big triple zero on religious takes in this thread. I don't know. Maybe you should try being Hindu?

listopencil
11-26-2012, 11:56 PM
Yes I have. Yes they are loving. They know the hand that feeds them, they know if they do wrong they will be punished, but they do not possess rational thought.

Why does a dog cower when he sees your reaction to a bad thing? Because he's pondered the morality of his actions or he reads your emotions?

Nah, that's not what I mean. I've had several dogs that will go into guilty mode before I've even known what they have done.

Ugly Duck
11-27-2012, 01:14 AM
I've had several dogs that will go into guilty mode before I've even known what they have done.

When I see my border collie act all shamed & embarrassed, I go look for what the heck she did wrong. Never fails.

craneref
11-27-2012, 04:40 AM
If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah?????

Allah and God are the same!! Christianity, Islam and Judaism all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham. That is over 3.5 billion in the world. The differences is that Chiristians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Islam view God through Mohammed and see Jesus as a prophet and Judaism just see Jesus as a prophet. I don't reject other gods, I just only believe in one.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:15 AM
Umm.....yeah. I'll go ahead and go with Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution over yours. He was alive at the time and had a personal relationship with many of the people who created it. That wiki quote proves that you're wrong about Muslims as well. Dude. You're batting a big triple zero on religious takes in this thread. I don't know. Maybe you should try being Hindu?

you've got nothing...other than a letter comfroting baptists that the government would not endorse a SPECIFIC DENOMINATION. Period.

.....show me in the koran where muslims see allah as their father, and they as his children...all you posted was a personal opinion.

being hindu? telling perspective... maybe you should try Jesus..

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:19 AM
If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah?????

Allah and God are the same!! Christianity, Islam and Judaism all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham. That is over 3.5 billion in the world. The differences is that Chiristians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Islam view God through Mohammed and see Jesus as a prophet and Judaism just see Jesus as a prophet. I don't reject other gods, I just only believe in one.

"the differences is"

...."view" God "through" mohammed. "see" Jesus as a prophet
.....just "see" Jesus as a prophet
...Jesus IS the Son of God.

proof is in the pudding.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 07:50 AM
you've got nothing...other than a letter comfroting baptists that the government would not endorse a SPECIFIC DENOMINATION. Period.

.....show me in the koran where muslims see allah as their father, and they as his children...all you posted was a personal opinion.

being hindu? telling perspective... maybe you should try Jesus..

1) Wrong. I have an amedment. Not my fault if you can't read it.
2) Once again I will take the opinion of a scholar over yours. Quote the passage in the Quran that supports your belief.
3) I don't care for your personal Jesus. Too much bigotry.

La literatura
11-27-2012, 08:08 AM
muslims do not believe in a personal relationship with God, to claim so would be as dangerous as what Christ procliamed.


.....show me in the koran where muslims see allah as their father, and they as his children...all you posted was a personal opinion.

The Islamic view of God is that there is a special relationship God has with humans (unlike, say, deism), and that God is compassionate and loving towards them (unlike, say, Greek and Roman polytheism).

From the Koran:

[2:187] And when My servants ask thee about Me, say: ‘I am near. I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me. So they should hearken to Me and believe in Me, that they may follow the right way.’

[50:17] And assuredly, We have created man and We know what his physical self whispers to him, and We are nearer to him than even his jugular vein. [Speaking of God and Guardian Angels]

[34:51] Say, ‘ If I err, I err only against myself; and if I am rightly guided, it is because of what my Lord has revealed to me. Verily, He is All-Hearing, Nigh.’

[57:5] He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He settled Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters the earth and what comes out of it, and what comes down from heaven and what goes up into it. And He is with you wheresoever you may be. And Allah sees all that you do.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 08:08 AM
listopencil,
I think the problem on this issue is that the final Constitution was the work of many, even per Madison, who did not all agree but compromised in the end. Not every Framer agreed where the line would be drawn on this, obviously by the actions of many of them that would become president. Jefferson was probably one of the more agnostic and strict as to where that line should be drawn. That's all the Danbury letter shows is Jefferson's line.

Brock
11-27-2012, 08:15 AM
"the differences is"

...."view" God "through" mohammed. "see" Jesus as a prophet
.....just "see" Jesus as a prophet
...Jesus IS the Son of God.

proof is in the pudding.

"proof" :LOL:

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 09:08 AM
If'n you noticed he was not debating my point. He was saying how it supported his. But nice projection here since you just showed how unsharp you were being to understand it. Not to mention your typical use of the same logical fallacy you rely on. This is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
When you can no longer refute, you resort to this logical fallacies. You got nothing and have ceded the argument. Thank you for proving this point about atheists again.
There is absolutely nothing false in my post. I can pull up the threads if you wish or would you rather I save you the fake ignoring? As far as siding with a poster that supports Obama lol That is more silliness from you. I like several posters who support Obama here. You have called me a Neo Con, atheist, and now I guess I am a liberal~

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 09:17 AM
I wasn't talking to you.

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 09:29 AM
Yup more logical fallacies by a real redneck. You've even stooped allying with an Obama-bot too.

I wasn't talking to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider
She is a odd duck. I took exception to a misleading post from her regarding Jewish leaders meeting with Iranian leadership. Knowing her history as a Iran apologist it angered me. I have since realized I was giving her too much credit to think she was being disingenuous. It was a wacko fringe group and an absolute insult to the Jewish community to pretend those shitbags represent the Jewish community. She however was convinced this was worthy of posting not realizing it occurred in 2007 and has been widely mocked and dismissed. She clearly thought it was recent. Much like her stolen election thread from the other day. She is the perfect target for people like Glenn Beck~
Yup more logical fallacies by a real redneck. You've even stooped allying with an Obama-bot too.

Why would you directly quote me if you were not talking to me LMAO
__________________
"It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.” – THOMAS PAINE, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 12, 1777

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 09:32 AM
Did you say something?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 09:37 AM
you've got nothing...other than a letter comfroting baptists that the government would not endorse a SPECIFIC DENOMINATION. Period.

.....show me in the koran where muslims see allah as their father, and they as his children...all you posted was a personal opinion.

being hindu? telling perspective... maybe you should try Jesus..

So Madison did not understand the Constitution either?

James Madison on the subject~

Direct references to separation:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Or~

Article VI which clearly states "There shall be no religious test for public office"
__________________

listopencil
11-27-2012, 12:54 PM
listopencil,
I think the problem on this issue is that the final Constitution was the work of many, even per Madison, who did not all agree but compromised in the end. Not every Framer agreed where the line would be drawn on this, obviously by the actions of many of them that would become president. Jefferson was probably one of the more agnostic and strict as to where that line should be drawn. That's all the Danbury letter shows is Jefferson's line.

Yes, true. There were a lot of compromises on many issues. And that famous letter is Jackson expressing the concept in his own way. I think the phrasing of the amendment is pretty clear though.

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 02:25 PM
Did you say something?

Standard reply for when you are caught. That or the fake ignore LMAO

stevieray
11-27-2012, 05:41 PM
1) Wrong. I have an amedment. Not my fault if you can't read it.
2) Once again I will take the opinion of a scholar over yours. Quote the passage in the Quran that supports your belief.
3) I don't care for your personal Jesus. Too much bigotry.

you have an amnendment that keeps government from interfering with worship and religion. not to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the STATE out of relgion...that's why they are worded "shall not"

I'm talking God, not a man made denomination, which the founders knew they had no right to proclaim for the country.... This is WHY different denominations, through Jefferson, were allowed to sahre the Capitol bulidng for services. This is WHY the first States Consttitutions include GOD. This is also why GOD was included in the charters and emblems of the first institutions of higher learning...Keep ignoring the Washinton monument, the Liberty Bell and the Jefferson Memorial...it conflicts with the agenda.

I understand why you keep cherrypicking my posts, I also already told you why this is happening...you just keep playing the part. ..but it's cool man...it HAS to go this way.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 05:45 PM
The Islamic view of God is that there is a special relationship God has with humans (unlike, say, deism), and that God is compassionate and loving towards them (unlike, say, Greek and Roman polytheism).

From the Koran:

[2:187] And when My servants ask thee about Me, say: ‘I am near. I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me. So they should hearken to Me and believe in Me, that they may follow the right way.’

[50:17] And assuredly, We have created man and We know what his physical self whispers to him, and We are nearer to him than even his jugular vein. [Speaking of God and Guardian Angels]

[34:51] Say, ‘ If I err, I err only against myself; and if I am rightly guided, it is because of what my Lord has revealed to me. Verily, He is All-Hearing, Nigh.’

[57:5] He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He settled Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters the earth and what comes out of it, and what comes down from heaven and what goes up into it. And He is with you wheresoever you may be. And Allah sees all that you do.

...proves nothing about being in a relationship with God.

Fish
11-27-2012, 05:47 PM
you have an amnendment that keeps government from interfering with worship and religion. not to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the STATE out of relgion...that's why they are worded "shall not"

I'm talking God, not a man made denomination, which the founders knew they had no right to proclaim for the country.... This is WHY different denominations, through Jefferson, were allowed to sahre the Capitol bulidng for services. This is WHY the first States Consttitutions include GOD. This is also why GOD was included in the charters and emblems of the first institutions of higher learning...Keep ignoring the Washinton monument, the Liberty Bell and the Jefferson Memorial...it conflicts with the agenda.

I understand why you keep cherrypicking my posts, I also already told you why this is happening...you just keep playing the part. ..but it's cool man...it HAS to go this way.

Do you believe there will be an apocalypse in your lifetime? I get that impression from some of your posts.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 05:50 PM
So Madison did not understand the Constitution either?

James Madison on the subject~

Direct references to separation:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Or~

Article VI which clearly states "There shall be no religious test for public office"
__________________

Jefferson and Adams both understood the Consttution. so did Washington...why don't you quote his letter, urged on by Congress, regarding the day of Thanks we just celebrated?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 05:53 PM
Do you believe there will be an apocalypse in your lifetime? I get that impression from some of your posts.
...an apocalypse is an unveiling...I think that the Mayan date is misunderstood, and the implications of it are far reaching.

do you know what happens on that date?

Dave Lane
11-27-2012, 05:55 PM
Atheist Family Loses Lawsuit to Have ‘Under God’ Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist-family-loses-lawsuit-to-have-under-god-removed-from-the-pledge-of-allegiance/

Some have tried to get "In God We Trust" off of our money too.

Shouldn't be there and wasn't till the 1950's on currency.

Dave Lane
11-27-2012, 05:56 PM
...an apocalypse is an unveilng...I think that the Mayan date is misunderstood, and the implications of it are far reaching.

do you know what happens on that date?

Yes. Absolutely fucking nothing.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 05:58 PM
Yes. Absolutely ****ing nothing.

sad, considering you like the stars/space so much...you're clueless.

Fish
11-27-2012, 05:59 PM
...an apocalypse is an unveilng...I think that the Mayan date is misunderstood, and the implications of it are far reaching.

do you know what happens on that date?

Well, I've heard a few different versions. Plagues, death, confusion, fire from the sky. That kind of thing.

Do you think the date is near?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:04 PM
Well, I've heard a few different versions. Plagues, death, confusion, fire from the sky. That kind of thing.

Do you think the date is near?

The unveiling? Sure....prolly sooner than we think.


...Apocalypse as most people know it? no. too much still has to happen.

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 06:06 PM
Jefferson and Adams both understood the Consttution. so did Washington...why don't you quote his letter, urged on by Congress, regarding the day of Thanks we just celebrated?

Why don't you? Also why are you not thankful you live in a country that protects your beliefs along with others that hold different beliefs just as sacred as you hold yours?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:07 PM
Why don't you? Also why are you not thankful you live in a country that protects your beliefs along with others that hold different beliefs just as sacred as you hold yours?

:spock:

washington's letter...look it up.

Fish
11-27-2012, 06:13 PM
The unveiling? Sure....prolly sooner than we think.


...Apocalypse as most people know it? no. too much still has to happen.

I'm confused about the difference between the unveiling and the apocalypse. What exactly is the unveiling?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 06:14 PM
:spock:

washington's letter...look it up.

I have and you are more than welcome to post it. I am on a mobile device right now. Also how about answering my question~

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:16 PM
I have and you are more than welcome to post it. I am on a mobile device right now. Also how about answering my question~

what's the point of your question?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:17 PM
I'm confused about the difference between the unveiling and the apocalypse.

in what way??

what do you think apocalypse means?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 06:21 PM
what's the point of your question?

The point is that one of the amazing and wonderful things about our country is everyone's beliefs are protected. I take great pride if the fact no persons beliefs are forced by our government on anyone else~

Fish
11-27-2012, 06:27 PM
in what way??

what do you think apocalypse means?

I guess I do not. I would appreciate your interpretation.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:31 PM
I guess I do not. I would appreciate your interpretation.
you're a smart guy ..kind of hard to believe.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:32 PM
The point is that one of the amazing and wonderful things about our country is everyone's beliefs are protected. I take great pride if the fact no persons beliefs are forced by our government on anyone else~

I thought that was obvious...protected from the government, not by the governemnt...our inalienble rights don't come from man.

Fish
11-27-2012, 06:38 PM
you're a smart guy ..kind of hard to believe.

Again, I would like your interpretation. I mean no harm. I'm just curious.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 06:42 PM
you have an amnendment that keeps government from interfering with worship and religion. not to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the STATE out of relgion...that's why they are worded "shall not"

I'm talking God, not a man made denomination, which the founders knew they had no right to proclaim for the country.... This is WHY different denominations, through Jefferson, were allowed to sahre the Capitol bulidng for services. This is WHY the first States Consttitutions include GOD. This is also why GOD was included in the charters and emblems of the first institutions of higher learning...Keep ignoring the Washinton monument, the Liberty Bell and the Jefferson Memorial...it conflicts with the agenda.

I understand why you keep cherrypicking my posts, I also already told you why this is happening...you just keep playing the part. ..but it's cool man...it HAS to go this way.

No, stevieray, you're dead wrong. The part that states,"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." keeps the State out of the Church. The first part keeps the Church out of the State. Both are necessary for a free society.

You're fighting another losing battle by referencing individual state constitutions. They were deeply flawed. Go read the original Constitution of Virginia.

No agenda, stevieray. Other than pointing out that this isn't and never has been a Christian nation. Your religious beliefs are yours and have no place in policy or law. I'm glad that you are free to worship. I'm glad that I did what I could do to help defend this nation so that people like yourself are free to worship as they choose. But that doesn't mean that I have to allow people like yourself to bastardize the Constitution, and it doesn't mean that I can't speak out when people like yourself try to force your religious beliefs on the rest of the country.

When it comes to social issues that deny citizens in their "pursuit of happiness", I'll vote against you every time. "Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason for a substantial law to exist. Other than that; de minimis non curat lex.

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 06:43 PM
I thought that was obvious...protected from the government, not by the governemnt...our inalienble rights don't come from man.
That is another discussion. I am glad you agree this nation is not founded on or stands for any single religion~

Brock
11-27-2012, 06:43 PM
...proves nothing about being in a relationship with God.

Sure, if you don't read it.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:50 PM
Other than pointing out that this isn't and never has been a Christian nation.

funny how you guys always come back to Christ, when that's never been the argument.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 06:53 PM
funny how you guys always come back to Christ, when that's never been the argument.

It's always the argument with you. You refuse to separate your religious beliefs from your opinions on anything.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:54 PM
No, stevieray, you're dead wrong. The part that states,"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." keeps the State out of the Church. The first part keeps the Church out of the State. Both are necessary for a free society.

[/I]


ya, religion, not God.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 06:57 PM
It's always the argument with you.

Incorrect...that would be you.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 06:59 PM
Incorrect...that would be you.


I know you are, but what am I?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
I know you are, but what am I?
deflecting.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
ya, religion, not God.

You're half way there. Come on big fella. Make the leap.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
You're fighting another losing battle by referencing individual state constitutions. They were deeply flawed. Go read the original Constitution of Virginia.

Were they "deeply flawed?" If so how. Or is this going by today's standards? I don't think that's a fair way to judge a past document. I don't know since I haven't read many of them. However, the whole of idea of a Bill of Rights did come from the states.

The thing that needs to be realized is that any state can be oppressive at any particular time. They should be changed at that level as it is closer to the people. States eventually disestablished their official churches and this was nearly complete or complete by the middle of the 19th century.

Centralizing social issues is not the best solution because if a violation of a right happens it applies everywhere. There's no where to go. So you can't always count on that. The other thing is too much centralization is more likely to lead to greater abuses because of the nature of that amount of power.

No system is perfect.

No agenda, stevieray. Other than pointing out that this isn't and never has been a Christian nation.

I think asking: "What does this mean?" would be a good starting point.

When people say this is a Christian "nation" it applies generally to the people of this country as well as the people who founded it—not the federal govt. Many of the people of that time were Christian, few were agnostic or Deist. Many Framers were Deist but some were devout Christians. Franklin and Jefferson were perhaps the most agnostic. The people's local laws reflected their values. Saying this does not mean the govt itself is Christian....it simply allows it.

na·tion
A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Your religious beliefs are yours and have no place in policy or law.

I don't see how anyone can really make this claim as an absolute, which is just not obtainable.
Why should secular humanists have the right to impose their beliefs via policy or law?
Or atheists their atheism? It don't see how it is any different.

The fact is all law, save for procedural, is based on someone's values whether they come from humanism or religion. It's hard to absolutely perfectly neutral in policy or law. Fact is some personal behaviors do wind up on other people's plates—especially in a welfare state.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
deflecting.


Is Jesus the son of God?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 07:02 PM
funny how you guys always come back to Christ, when that's never been the argument.

The only reason it always comes back to that is because of the large faction of Christians making claims regarding our founding and this being a Christian nation~

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:03 PM
You're half way there. Come on big fella. Make the leap.

I've always been here...I'm the one who has always claimed no SPECIFIC denomination, regarding the founding fathers

...feel free to link to where I've ever said we were a Christian nation.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:05 PM
Is Jesus the Son of God?

Sure.

lewdog
11-27-2012, 07:06 PM
Stevieray

Do you believe something will happen on December, 21st?

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:07 PM
The only reason it always comes back to that is because of the large faction of Christians making claims regarding our founding and this being a Christian nation~


large faction? where?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 07:09 PM
large faction? where?

Ok bro talk to you later~

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:11 PM
Ok bro talk to you later~
so no answer? where is this large faction on the board claiming this?

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 07:16 PM
so no answer? where is this large faction on the board claiming this?

I was not referring to you or anyone here. However if you are going to say this subject is not commonly debated in this country you are not paying attention. Hence my talk to you later reply~

Brock
11-27-2012, 07:16 PM
large faction? where?

LMAO

stevieray
11-27-2012, 07:18 PM
I was not referring to you or anyone here. However if you are going to say this subject is not commonly debated in this country you are not paying attention. Hence my talk to you later reply~

ahhh. my context was here on the board...therefore our miscommunication!


:thumb:

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 07:20 PM
ahhh. my context was here on the board...therefore our miscommunication!


:thumb:

It all good bro talk to you later~

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 07:30 PM
The original and the many amended versions:

The original Virginia Constitution of 1776 was enacted in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence by the first thirteen states of the United States of America. Virginia was the first state to adopt its own constitution, and the document was widely influential both in the United States and abroad.[1] In addition to frequent amendments, there have been six major subsequent revisions of the constitution (in 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and the one currently in effect, in 1971). These new constitutions have been part of, and in reaction to, periods of major regional or social upheaval in Virginia.

Seems like it evolved and added amendments to handle things. Some of the evolutions paralleled things that our national Constitution evolved out of such as property owners being able to vote. I don't see that it was "deeply flawed " since it was amended as needed. It's around 1902 when the people brought Jim Crow laws into the state. But Woodrow Wilson also brought Jim Crow to Washington D.C. and segregated bathrooms in the WH etc.

The original one had the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Later expanded to include more from the national BoRs such as due process.


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

listopencil
11-27-2012, 07:37 PM
Were they "deeply flawed?" If so how.

Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.


I think asking: "What does this mean?" would be a good starting point.

When people say this is a Christian "nation" it applies generally to the people of this country as well as the people who founded it—not the federal govt. As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law. If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.



I don't see how anyone can really make this claim as an absolute, which is just not obtainable.
Why should secular humanists have the right to impose their beliefs via policy or law?
Or atheists their atheism? It don't see how it is any different.

The fact is all law, save for procedural, is based on someone's values whether they come from humanism or religion. It's hard to absolutely perfectly neutral in policy or law. Fact is some personal behaviors do wind up on other people's plates—especially in a welfare state.See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law. "Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.

listopencil
11-27-2012, 07:40 PM
BEP- I'm not meaning to ignore you but I have a busy night around the house tonight. Dad's Taxi Service is in full swing. I'll try to come back to this thread when I have more time.

RedNeckRaider
11-27-2012, 07:42 PM
Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.


As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law. If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.



See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law. "Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.

I was going to reply to this babbling nonsense but was too lazy. Now if she wants to talk uncounted votes and a election being lost over it, or the pending peace between Jews and Iran I am in! Sadly she is not responding to those threads~

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 08:16 PM
Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.
That's no different than the national level in the early days. Nor could women vote.
I have to say at this point in time, keeping some property ties may have prevented some of the crimes against property that we have today by govt from the Progressive era and Marxism creeping in. It's one of the few natural rights that never seems to be protected by the incorporation doctrine.

As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law.
Sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with this part.The foundations of our society were Christian in nature because that's who originally populated the New World, due to many of coming here for religious freedom. The Puritans persecuted the Quakers because they thought they were heretics...in fact anyone who wasn't Anglican but that eventually ended. Six of the American colonies were founded for religious reasons. Eventually the colonies were a patchwork of diverse religious communities. These colonies are the early foundations of our states and society including at the time of the ratification and early Republic. Your claim took root in the modern era and I say it's stems from the influence of the cultural Marxists.

If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.
No it wasn't always that way. Before then it had to be natural right...not just something that was or is bothersome to some minority. No law pleases everyone. The Framers and even courts have always held that areas of crime and morality were to be left to the states per other Amendments.

Another reason I say it wasn't always this way is because the 14th Amendment was not adopted until 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Even then that was narrowly construed at first ( it was written for black people not for privacy) but slowly was usurped in the modern era, expanding it under liberal construction... then using the incorporation doctrine with the BoRs. I'd argue at this point it's been abused because it's destroying federalism. Yet, it's more accepted but it's bogus.

It seems you have bought into the left's idea of a living constitution where anything bothersome is some natural right and/or that the incorporation doctrine is bonafide. Many original constructionists argue this is bogus, per the notes from the original convention, and the expressed fear that the states would not being left alone. It's part of the centralization of power that the Framers warned against and the Federalists assured would not happen—but has.

There are libertarian centralizers though. Like Roger Pilon and Randy Barnett. Constitutionalists, who are also libertarians, like Woods and Paul disagree with them.

See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law.

I disagree because there's no such thing as perfect neutrality. There's no such thing as saying beliefs can't dictate, no matter their origin, won't ever dictate law. They always do to some degree. You can't separate it as if it's two-valued logic. There are always going to be overlaps.

"Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.
Which can come from religious beliefs or anti-religious sentiments. Religious people are capable of using reason to defend some of those positions instead of just saying "God said so." It's not black and white there either. What is good or bad; right or wrong are opinions though.

I think it has to be excessive entanglement with religion like a theological denominational point. Like Prostestant Dispensationalists wanting armageddon in the ME so they can convert and perfect Jews. That to me is excessive entanglement.

Not "In God We Trust", chaplains, the frieze in the Supreme Court building, Thanksgiving originally being a national day of prayer and thanks, Christmas being a national holiday or religious creches on local town property.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 08:21 PM
BEP- I'm not meaning to ignore you but I have a busy night around the house tonight. Dad's Taxi Service is in full swing. I'll try to come back to this thread when I have more time.

That's okay I'm supposed to be packing for a long drive to Charlotte NC and I am goofy off here instead.

La literatura
11-27-2012, 08:22 PM
...proves nothing about being in a relationship with God.

It proves how Muslims view their relationship with God. It is personal.

La literatura
11-27-2012, 08:25 PM
Yeah, I would like to know what you think the "unveiling" that will happen soon is, stevieray.

stevieray
11-27-2012, 10:43 PM
It proves how Muslims view their relationship with God. It is personal.

that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

Brock
11-27-2012, 10:59 PM
that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

Do they have to prove it to you beyond what's stated in the Koran? Can such a thing be proven by anyone? Because you started this facet of your argument saying that Muslims cannot have a personal relationship with their god, when clearly they can and do. Can you simply not admit you were wrong about what Islam teaches?

La literatura
11-28-2012, 06:05 AM
that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them. (As a valid point of contention, however, there seems to be much less love from God in the Koran towards non-Muslims than the love God is said to have for everyone from a traditional Christian perspective).

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs. However, calling God "Father" as you do is particularly Christian, being that the religion holds Jesus Christ as a second person of God, the Son of God.

RedNeckRaider
11-28-2012, 03:23 PM
Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them. (As a valid point of contention, however, there seems to be much less love from God in the Koran towards non-Muslims than the love God is said to have for everyone from a traditional Christian perspective).

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs. However, calling God "Father" as you do is particularly Christian, being that the religion holds Jesus Christ as a second person of God, the Son of God.

So what is your take on the trinity? This is not a setup question, just curious. I know you are catholic although I have read open minded posts by you. Not necessarily taking those stances but giving acknowledgement to the other beliefs~

stevieray
11-28-2012, 04:48 PM
Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them.

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs.

There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

btw.... do you still believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Fish
11-28-2012, 04:50 PM
There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

No offense, but how is it different than what you wrote?

Dave Lane
11-28-2012, 04:59 PM
There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

btw.... do you still believe Jesus is the Son of God?

So good works by followers are considered "dirty rags" by god?

Impressively bad behavior by god if true.

stevieray
11-28-2012, 05:02 PM
No offense, but how is it different than what you wrote?

none taken..I presume you are talking about Christians who think they have a relationship with God?

Jesus adressed this...about being neither hot ot cold, ultimately lukewarm....also of those who claim to Him that they prophesied in his name and performed miracles..and he tells them "I never knew you"

God looks to the heart, not works. Works will not help you receive Salvation...this why tribulation saints will have to die for Him, in other words..you want works? you got it.

stevieray
11-28-2012, 05:06 PM
So good works by followers are considered "dirty rags" by god?

Impressively bad behavior by god if true.
That's because you are taking it out of context and are reluctant to understand.

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:07 PM
So what is your take on the trinity? This is not a setup question, just curious. I know you are catholic although I have read open minded posts by you. Not necessarily taking those stances but giving acknowledgement to the other beliefs~

I'm a big fan of the trinity.

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:09 PM
There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

This isn't my personal opinion. This is the reality of what most Muslims generally believe.

stevieray
11-28-2012, 05:11 PM
This isn't my personal opinion. This is the reality of what most Muslims generally believe.
generally? closer...

RedNeckRaider
11-28-2012, 05:11 PM
I'm a big fan of the trinity.

I can honestly say I don't get it. Anyway good for you that you find comfort in it...seriously~

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:12 PM
generally? closer...

Please write in full sentences so I can understand you.

stevieray
11-28-2012, 05:13 PM
Please write in full sentences so I can understand you.

There are muslims who don't believe it's possible.

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:17 PM
There are muslims who don't believe it's possible.

Thanks. I can only speak in generalities. There are millions or billions of Muslims, just as there are millions or billions of Christians. There's no way to account for each person's beliefs about God.

But in general, Islamic theology holds God as a compassionate, merciful creator who loves and cares for obedient Muslims.

stevieray
11-28-2012, 05:20 PM
obedient Muslims.

This is why I say their basis of allah's love is based on works.

God loves first. God goes after backsliders. God forgives. Even in the eleventh hour.

Dave Lane
11-28-2012, 05:22 PM
Thanks. I can only speak in generalities. There are millions or billions of Muslims, just as there are millions or billions of Christians. There's no way to account for each person's beliefs about God.

But in general, Islamic theology holds God as a compassionate, merciful creator who loves and cares for obedient Muslims.

Got to go with Literature on this. Thanks for posting a fully coherent statement in this thread. I had to stop posting in this thread for awhile as it careened into a masturbatory circle jerk that was rather horrible to behold.

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:23 PM
I can honestly say I don't get it. Anyway good for you that you find comfort in it...seriously~

Oh, I don't get it either. Actually, even the Vatican doesn't fully get it. They call it one of the great mysteries that even with the aid of divine revelation, humans can't fully comprehend.

RedNeckRaider
11-28-2012, 05:24 PM
This is one of the reasons I dismiss religion. Make no mistake it is not "the" reason and is not close to the main reasons I do, it is however one of the reasons. stevieray is a good dude even though I disagree with him on this subject. I see people who believe in the same god ridiculing him because they interpret their beliefs differently than he does. On a larger scale than Chiefsplanet people fly planes into buildings over this invisible man bullshit~

Dave Lane
11-28-2012, 05:26 PM
This is why I say their basis of allah's love is based on works.

God loves first. God goes after backsliders. God forgives. Even in the eleventh hour.

So christian theology does not hold God as a compassionate, merciful creator who loves and cares for obedient christians?

Or just non-obedient ones or all of humanity including muslims or??

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:26 PM
This is why I say their basis of allah's love is based on works.

God loves first. God goes after backsliders. God forgives. Even in the eleventh hour.

I think that's a good distinction between the two conceptions of God, and I would agree with you that the Christian conception is superior. But that's my own personal opinion.

La literatura
11-28-2012, 05:35 PM
So christian theology does not hold God as a compassionate, merciful creator who loves and cares for obedient christians?

Or just non-obedient ones or all of humanity including muslims or??

Although I think stevieray was wrong when he said that Muslims don't believe they can have a personal relationship with God in the sense that Jews and Christians feel [if I understood him correctly], I do think that the God of the Koran is much less loving than the traditionally Christian conception of God. The God of the Koran resembles more the God of the Old Testament.

The Christian conception is almost like God wants everything for you to come to Him, whereas the Islamic conception is almost like God is only for a certain population.

RedNeckRaider
11-28-2012, 05:43 PM
Although I think stevieray was wrong when he said that Muslims don't believe they can have a personal relationship with God in the sense that Jews and Christians feel [if I understood him correctly], I do think that the God of the Koran is much less loving than the traditionally Christian conception of God. The God of the Koran resembles more the God of the Old Testament.

The Christian conception is almost like God wants everything for you to come to Him, whereas the Islamic conception is almost like God is only for a certain population.

And only recognized in one language. These simplistic shitbags exceed other followers of of invisible men by laying the claim I can only understand his word in one language~

Count Zarth
11-28-2012, 05:50 PM
Same god for sure.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/189958_470793299626305_1821650112_n.png

ClevelandBronco
11-29-2012, 07:18 PM
Same god for sure.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/189958_470793299626305_1821650112_n.png

Looks like Kevin Smith in a wig. But fat people all kind of look similar.

Bump
11-29-2012, 07:51 PM
This is why I say their basis of allah's love is based on works.

God loves first. God goes after backsliders. God forgives. Even in the eleventh hour.

lol

God is a terrible being. I don't like how this character supports rape, slavery and killing little kids and women. God sucks dude. I don't really see anything good about him, follow every single rule or burn in hell for eternity? seems fair.

Another thing, why do people pray if God already knows everything? It's because he wants to hear them beg. What a dick. Darth Vader shows more compassion than god.