* Jesus Christ: The Living Bible *

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what makes the *New Testament* or *New Covenant*?
2. It is Jesus Christ.
3. It was the fact that Jesus Christ, Gawd among us, that the Amendment of the Old Testament was in fact ratified by the sacrifice of HIMSELF, in order to bring forth a Better Covenant.
4. That is far easier for Mankind to Keep, and bring forth *fruit*, (good works), than the strict Old Covenant ever could.
4. a) Jesus Christ is indeed a Walking and Living Bible, who came to mankind, in order to save all mankind, but willingly.
5. All this and a bag of chips, right here on DF.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

I thought God didn't change the way he does things Chess? That's what you said, so how could there EVER be a change in the bible and the way he does things? At least a real one that wasn't created by man.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But making assertions as to what I, The Great CWN has said or will say is hilarious coming from a heathern.
2. I got nothing for that statement of yours, its a phony statement.
3. Please try again.
4. And know that you may blaspheme The Lord, in attacking The Lord.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

2. I got nothing for that statement of yours, its a phony statement.


Are you able to eat Shellfish and still get into heaven? If so, then god changed.

Thank you for playing, you are proven wrong again.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But more blasphemy from a heathern.
2. I really feel sorrow for you.
3. You have got to be kidding me, am I right?
4. Oh boy, will you be surprised.
5. You take it easy.
6. Maybe some other will waste his time to answer your blasphemous statements.
7. I was never proven wrong bud.
8. Good luck with anyone explaining your blasphemous statements.
9. You really are undeserving of a clarification.
10. Its funny how the heatherns rage.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

6. Maybe some other will waste his time to answer your blasphemous statements.



CWN sticking his fingers in his hears saying, "La la la la la la la la..."

Not a very convincing argument, shellfish-eating sinner. ;)

[Elrathin]

8. Good luck with anyone explaining your blasphemous statements.
9. You really are undeserving of a clarification.
10. Its funny how the heatherns rage.


In other words, you can't explain it because it goes against what you said. Thanks for the clarification.

[BoogyMan]

I thought God didn't change the way he does things Chess?Â*Â*That's what you said, so how could there EVER be a change in the bible and the way he does things?Â*Â*At least a real one that wasn't created by man.

His command for man has changed from the O.T. to the N.T. I don't see the issue you are trying to create here Elrathin. God has always been the same and always will be, but the change in covenants does not negate His authority or power.

I don't get where you are coming from here.

[Nitrus]

Chess, Elrathin is not being blasphemous.

Are you able to eat Shellfish and still get into heaven? If so, then god changed.

Thank you for playing, you are proven wrong again.

Based on that statement, he is not wrong until you can prove that shelfish-eating people DO in fact go to heaven.

[Elrathin]

I don't get where you are coming from here.


Simple, there are some here who say god does not change in regards to what is sin and what is not. This has proven he does change. Unless of course you are saying you will not go to heaven for eating shellfish now?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But you go ahead and rage on man.
2. I won't protect you from yourself.
3. Its way to funny to me to stop you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

Simple, there are some here who say god does not change in regards to what is sin and what is not.Â*Â*This has proven he does change.Â*Â*Unless of course you are saying you will not go to heaven for eating shellfish now?

I would have to make supposition that you are referring to the instruction given to Moses and Aaron and the people of Israel that they were not to eat things without scales or fins from Leviticus 11:9-12.

You are missing something here though Elrathin, we are no longer under that covenant. There is no New Testament prohibition of eating shellfish.

[Elrathin]

You are missing something here though Elrathin, we are no longer under that covenant. There is no New Testament prohibition of eating shellfish.


Read my last post again carefully at what I said my point was. You just made it again for me. God changed it. There are those that have said god does not change anything.

[BoogyMan]

Read my last post again carefully at what I said my point was.Â*Â*You just made it again for me.Â*Â*God changed it.Â*Â*There are those that have said god does not change anything.

God's nature does not change but God does change his mind.Â*Â*Consider Moses pleading with God not to destroy the Israelites in the desert after they had brought out of Egypt and time after time showed no faith in God.Â*Â*Moses was successful in his pleading with God.

The old law was definately done away with and a new law, as was part of God's plan, was brought about with Christ.

[Danoz]

You are missing something here though Elrathin, we are no longer under that covenant. There is no New Testament prohibition of eating shellfish.


You are correct. In fact Peter has a vision of him being told to eat all sorts of prohibited foods, although this can alternatively be interpereted as him being told to stop being a rasist bastard (which he was and for which Paul had a fight with him over and left Jerusalem)

There is however no new testament prohibition of necrophillia, so by your logic that's cool with god. Too bad god didn't write the ten commandments - version 2.0 beta (since it'd get "improved" by monks allong the way)

The fact is that to cover up biblical contradictions, this whole concept of a new covernant had to be braught into place. Without this workaround no other nations would have been able to have been accepted into christianity and it would have stayed a sect of Judaism.

What I find really worrysome is how christians cherry pick the laws in the old testament that they see as fitting to their opinions and igore the others. Where does it say that it's ok to work on the Sabbath or to allow women to speak in public or to revoke the death penalty for disrespecting your parents?

I might also mention that god in the new testiment is not a softer more palatable god either. For the rather paltry sin of lying about how much money they recieved for selling thier house and keeping some for themselves Ananias and Saphira were both struck dead. In fact in Corinthians it is mentioned that god has been killing people because they've been sleeping around. Apparently things didn't change back then, although I've certainly not seen or heard of any blasphemers or crimnals stealing money from a church being stuck down lately, so who knows, maybe there's a third edition of the bible floating around? Maybe the Mormons are right?

No, I don't think that they are, well not if you take the last chapter of Revalations to be truth anyway.

Actually I think it's all just a bunch of rubbish that apologists try to patch together with rickety arguments excusing plain contradiction, but Christians will believe and believe and believe till the cows come home because they've been told to do so by the church, and if they don't then their whole world view is challanged, and that's too bitter a pill to swallow.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Danoz, you are some what confused, I would conclude.
2. Half of what you wrote, kinda defends Gawd.
3. Other half shows how you disapprove of Gawds word.
4. Seems your fence sitting.
5. Just an observation.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

I wonder how many of you know why eating shellfish is a no no.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Considered unclean, bottom feeders.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Thats right Chess and the rule against shellfish or bottomfeeders has to do with hygiene, not belief in God or in sinning. Its part of the rules of Kosher foods, their preparation and consumption.

[BoogyMan]

You are missing something here though Elrathin, we are no longer under that covenant.Â*Â*There is no New Testament prohibition of eating shellfish.


You are correct. In fact Peter has a vision of him being told to eat all sorts of prohibited foods, although this can alternatively be interpereted as him being told to stop being a rasist bastard (which he was and for which Paul had a fight with him over and left Jerusalem)

There is however no new testament prohibition of necrophillia, so by your logic that's cool with god. Too bad god didn't write the ten commandments - version 2.0 beta (since it'd get "improved" by monks allong the way)

The fact is that to cover up biblical contradictions, this whole concept of a new covernant had to be braught into place. Without this workaround no other nations would have been able to have been accepted into christianity and it would have stayed a sect of Judaism.

What I find really worrysome is how christians cherry pick the laws in the old testament that they see as fitting to their opinions and igore the others. Where does it say that it's ok to work on the Sabbath or to allow women to speak in public or to revoke the death penalty for disrespecting your parents?

I might also mention that god in the new testiment is not a softer more palatable god either. For the rather paltry sin of lying about how much money they recieved for selling thier house and keeping some for themselves Ananias and Saphira were both struck dead. In fact in Corinthians it is mentioned that god has been killing people because they've been sleeping around. Apparently things didn't change back then, although I've certainly not seen or heard of any blasphemers or crimnals stealing money from a church being stuck down lately, so who knows, maybe there's a third edition of the bible floating around? Maybe the Mormons are right?

No, I don't think that they are, well not if you take the last chapter of Revalations to be truth anyway.

Actually I think it's all just a bunch of rubbish that apologists try to patch together with rickety arguments excusing plain contradiction, but Christians will believe and believe and believe till the cows come home because they've been told to do so by the church, and if they don't then their whole world view is challanged, and that's too bitter a pill to swallow.


Well Danoz, that is one interesting skreed.Â*Â*You think there is no condemnation of necrophilia?Â*Â*Consider the following:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,Â*idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

It fits well into several of the condemnations listed. Try again.

[Danoz]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Danoz, you are some what confused, I would conclude.
2. Half of what you wrote, kinda defends Gawd.
3. Other half shows how you disapprove of Gawds word.
4. Seems your fence sitting.
5. Just an observation.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Yes, I am a fence sitter by nature. That is because I actively question, scrutenize and test my beliefs rather than blindly follow them. It flies in the face of religious argument, and so if you've been a good christian and isolated yourself in a god centered bubble you most likely would not have heard much argument like that at all. That's why christian scientists get taken with a pinch of salt - they've already arrived at their conclutions, but they're just trying to proove them. The scientific method works the other way around. Postulate a hypothesis, then try to disprove it. The less you succeed, the more you become convinced of its validity.

I am not content to just go with the status quo, which generally makes me unpopular amoungst both the superstitious and the complete athiest, however you ARE RIGHT! I am confused. However as one of my more witty maths lecturers once said to a cocky student in front of the whole class:

"There are three types of people in this world: those that know that they know; Those that know that they do not know, and those that do not know that they do not know, and only the last one is dangerous"


With regards to the existance of god, I think anybody that claims that they know that they know is comeptetely arrogant - as well as being wong about thier assumtions. Personally I'd rather be the admittendly confused thinker than the addement fool. To use christesque language: you fail to see that your pride is blinding your eyes of reason.

I used to be just like you (and so to a certain extent I can sympothise) until I couldn't handle it any longer. I HAD to KNOW. I couldn't just carry on pretending that God said so, and that's why. There had to be other proof out there, but I just couldn't find it. Well convincing proof anyway. The natural route seemed so much more erm.. natural than the supernatural one. I had a plausible explaination for all that surrounded me. Now I know why I chose faith over reason: because it hurt like hell to move out of my comfort zone. To loose my faith meant to loose my friends, involvement in church and the comfort of irrational mystism. If you think I've taken the easy road, you are dead wrong. If you think I'm sitting on the fence because I WON'T take a stand either way you're even more wrong. I would love to, but I am not convinced that either side holds all the answers. Yet. That is not to say that I give the christian god in particular any credit. In fact I think it's a pretty poor example of what a logical god would resemble.

I think I've given your responce allot more time than will be appreciated anyway, so I'll move on.

With regards to BoogyMan's citation... I stand corrected. I've read the bible through 3 times now, but it has admittedly been a while. Maybe I should stop arguing using the old "absense of proof means proof of absence" logic. Come to think of it though, maybe gap worshiping intelligent design proponents should too!

But the gist of my argument still stands, and I'd prefer you and the others attack that rather than the somewhat irrelavent aspects, since I'm sure you could have immediately chosen other examples, had you been that way inclined yourself. Since you have not and since I am happy to let you have your bone... well I don't think I'll try again just yet.

Dan

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But knowing and doing something about it are two different things.
2. Some people know, and do nothing, this brings confusion, and sorrow.
3. A person has to act on the word of Gawd, if it is to take root.
4. For the word of Gawd is to grow, it must be watered, nurtured, sun lighted, in order to flourish.
5. Some times Christians, want to sock their faith away like a treasure in a field, to dig it up one day when the Lord returns.
6. This kind of escapism is where I think you may have taken your faith, and sure I can see why you would be doubting it now.
7. Life's experiences involve action, and sharing, otherwise you missed the point about life.
8. Being a Christian involves more than disappearing into a cave, and becoming a hermit.
9. And action for the faith, brings assurances from the faith.
10. The unknowable things in living a life become clear, and the clear things of life become what life is, and set a pattern and a scale for which one measures all things.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

With regards to BoogyMan's citation... I stand corrected. I've read the bible through 3 times now, but it has admittedly been a while. Maybe I should stop arguing using the old "absense of proof means proof of absence" logic. Come to think of it though, maybe gap worshiping intelligent design proponentsshould too!

Hi Dan,Â*Â*I am not sure that I get what you mean in the comment that I have highlighted above.

[Danoz]

With regards to BoogyMan's citation... I stand corrected. I've read the bible through 3 times now, but it has admittedly been a while. Maybe I should stop arguing using the old "absense of proof means proof of absence" logic. Come to think of it though, maybe gap worshiping intelligent design proponentsshould too!

Hi Dan, I am not sure that I get what you mean in the comment that I have highlighted above.


Oh, sorry I should have been a bit more clear. It's a term borrowed from Richard Dawkins' latest book "The God Delusion" which is so popular right now that I thought you may have read it already. Personally I find his style to be a little caustic towards people believing in a god (I suppose I can be too), but it's still a darn good read. If you're a religious and into appologetics you owe it to yourself to read this if not just to know what you're going to be up against in the near future, since it's one of the biggest bestsellers in a while for non-fiction and I imagine it will give allot of people some very very strong arguments against what you have to say. I hope of course that they may also gain some insight into why it is that I believe what I do, and possibly a little more respect for that which religious teachers dismiss as foolishness - simply because they believe it to endanger their beliefs. It's a bit of a fad book, but still a good one.

Hmm that got off topic pretty quickly. Aaaaaanyway, "gap worship" is essentially the central approach (appart from the anthropic principle) taken to proving intelligent design i.e. that there are gaps in fossil records and gaps in our understanding of the universes' physical properties prior to one Planck Time (instant of the big bang + 5.3 x 10^-44 seconds). We clearly are a long way from having all the answers - we have some important ones, but not all. I.D. scientists assume that the state is irriducably complex, and therefore god created the universe.

It is as many other skeptics and some of the more sensible I.D. scientists point out however a bit of a failed approach because whenever somebody finds an intermediate step between two species there are then two other gaps left to fill instead of the one, and so their demands grow exponentially rather than deminishing as more evidence is collected. It is a self perpetuating argument, and not very scientific at all.

[Danoz]

Sorry bout that,

1. But knowing and doing something about it are two different things.
2. Some people know, and do nothing, this brings confusion, and sorrow.
3. A person has to act on the word of Gawd, if it is to take root.
4. For the word of Gawd is to grow, it must be watered, nurtured, sun lighted, in order to flourish.
5. Some times Christians, want to sock their faith away like a treasure in a field, to dig it up one day when the Lord returns.
6. This kind of escapism is where I think you may have taken your faith, and sure I can see why you would be doubting it now.
7. Life's experiences involve action, and sharing, otherwise you missed the point about life.
8. Being a Christian involves more than disappearing into a cave, and becoming a hermit.
9. And action for the faith, brings assurances from the faith.
10. The unknowable things in living a life become clear, and the clear things of life become what life is, and set a pattern and a scale for which one measures all things.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


1. If I understand you properly, this is just one reason why I think faith is so backward a concept. You're suggesting that I choose to believe either that god exists or doesn't without having due reason just because it's somehow wrong to not be convinced of something. Why is this the case? Why can't there be mysteries? Why is known ignorance wrong? I see it as an opportunity for finding real truth rather than cowering away from it. Faith as it turns out is the real cop out.
2. That doesn't make sense to me.
3. Since a young child (I was converted at age 9) I was in every way a model christian, and believe that even now my moral principles are allot higher than the magority of christians that I have ever known. I did all the christian stuff as well as lead bible studies and prayer groups, councilled youth and even (regretably now) led some people to Christ.

I was a fundamentalist christian for 16 years but I started having doubts about god whilst at seminary. This was after a lecturer (and devout christian) advised me to start thinking for myself rather than believing everything that my parents told me to believe, even if it meant leaving the faith. He honestly believed that if I searched for god through "spirit and truth" that I would find him. Unfortunately (from his perspective) it backfired and by prayerfully confronting my doubts head on as he advised I ended up a teary mess with my entire world view crumbling about me.

I prayed earnestsly with the last bit of my faith that god may somehow show me the piece of the puzzle that I had missed. Didn't he say that if you knocked he'd open the door? Why wasn't he listening? I kept knocking, but eventually I got sick of not hearing any footsteps to the door. My christian friends were very concerned and told me that I wasn't praying hard enough and that I wasn't reading the bible hard enough. So I tried that again, but still to no avail. Seems like god doesn't want me and didn't care that I was so "confused".

I can hardly believe that I was told myself that god put the dinosaur bones in the ground, created all the background radiation and set photons on their paths to earth from the stars at just the right positions so that they would appaear, but not really be from millions of years ago, purposely confusing his identity TO TEST MY FAITH, whilst at the same time that Darwinian evolution was somehow comparitively impractical!!! It is a rediculous and malevolant proposal, but those were the extremes I was willing to go to in order to get around passages in the scriptures that I couldn't face otherwise.

Yes, I had faith that could move mountains if that were possible, and I was a damn good example of christian piousness. That doesn't mean that I had in any way a scrap of help from god to believe anything when I really "needed" it. So much for a faithful god.

4. In other words you need to cut yourself off from any other external influences (the weeds and birds that the parable you're talking about mentions). No. Outside influence refines truth by fire. Critique burns up all the crap and you're left with what's true and real. Insular closed minded thinking creates trouble inside or outside of religion.

5. First off, you're using that scripture out of context. Secondly I believe in god as much as I believe in astrology, which is not very much...

6. Escapism? After what I've been through? Man, you're the one in denile, not me. I have nothing to gain from being agnostic except a clear concience and the knowlage that I am worth something on my own merit now and not below filthy rag status.

7. I share and I'm a man of action. I still don't see what you're saying though.

8. Yes, it's about trying to make as many other people out there become christians because god can't seem to do it himself.

9. Of course it does. When you start to base your life on something you intrsically want to believe that it is so because IT IS your life. You subconciously ignore threats to your logic because your mind wants to avoid discomfort. You therefore ease yourself into a comfy state of ignorant self assuredness where you don't have to confront anything because you are right no matter what, so why take the effort in doing so?

"10. The unknowable things in living a life become clear, and the clear things of life become what life is, and set a pattern and a scale for which one measures all things."

That sounds soo deep and mysterious when you first read it. Too bad it's just a bunch of words that don't say anything. How can unknowable things be known, much less be clear? How can clear things become what life is when they are unknowable? What the heck is this new scale? Some type of SI measurement? I darn well hope it doesn't become the pattern of things, though from the ammount of new age baloni circulating the mainstream media at the moment I think you may be right.

[BoogyMan]

Oh, sorry I should have been a bit more clear. It's a term borrowed from Richard Dawkins' latest book "The God Delusion" which is so popular right now that I thought you may have read it already. Personally I find his style to be a little caustic towards people believing in a god (I suppose I can be too), but it's still a darn good read. If you're a religious and into appologetics you owe it to yourself to read this if not just to know what you're going to be up against in the near future, since it's one of the biggest bestsellers in a while for non-fiction and I imagine it will give allot of people some very very strong arguments against what you have to say. I hope of course that they may also gain some insight into why it is that I believe what I do, and possibly a little more respect for that which religious teachers dismiss as foolishness - simply because they believe it to endanger their beliefs. It's a bit of a fad book, but still a good one.

Ahhh, OK. I thought I had heard it somewhere but to be honest I put so little stock into it I couldn't remember where. Dawkins being the progenitor of the new angry atheist movement is not very high on my "gotta read" list.

Hmm that got off topic pretty quickly. Aaaaaanyway, "gap worship" is essentially the central approach (appart from the anthropic principle) taken to proving intelligent design i.e. that there are gaps in fossil records and gaps in our understanding of the universes' physical properties prior to one Planck Time (instant of the big bang + 5.3 x 10^-44 seconds). We clearly are a long way from having all the answers - we have some important ones, but not all. I.D. scientists assume that the state is irriducably complex, and therefore god created the universe.

It is as many other skeptics and some of the more sensible I.D. scientists point out however a bit of a failed approach because whenever somebody finds an intermediate step between two species there are then two other gaps left to fill instead of the one, and so their demands grow exponentially rather than deminishing as more evidence is collected. It is a self perpetuating argument, and not very scientific at all.


I take a more straight forward approach to creation that is easily found in the first 2 chapters of the book of Genesis.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Unless you are tried, which sounds like you were, you are not one worthy of Gawds testing.
2. You may have back tracked on Gawd, but it seems Gawds not done with you.
3. You may have pulled back in disbelief, to a degree, but you haven't burnt any bridges.
4. Your, Highly Trained Biblical Adviser led you astray.
5. Who is he, I want to write him and letter and ask him to step down from any more instructional disasters.
6. He should be the one out on his a$$.
7. Danoz, you have be spun out, by a soul stealer, who ever the Adviser was.
8. Expose him.
9. That is what you should do first, in order to uproot that vulture, from the teaching ranks.
10. This will prove profitable to your soul.
11. Make a stand to defend the faith, and it will reap dividends that you seek, and sought.
12. Gawd isn't blind and or deaf, you then will be heard.
13. You took advise from a mole, and instead of listening to Gawd, you listened to the mole, this cost-ed you.
14. But if you repent of this, you can break free of it, ask Gawds forgiveness for straying away, and go after this guy, even if he is dead already.
15. You must come clean of this choice you took, repent of it, and expose the evil teacher that continues, and or does not, in death, but even still he being dead shouldn't matter, he should be exposed for his unfaithfulness of the faith.
16. If you have not the stomach to go after this guy, you will continue on into darkness, you must turn, and move into the light, and fight.
17. Also Dinosaurs were around during Adam and Eve, and were killed off during The Flood, Go read my thread on (Link below) and read what happened to them.
www.debatepolitics.com
(In Conspiracy Theories) Thread title: Human Footprints Next To Dino's? How so?
18. You have only been mislead, I will try to get you backontrack, if you will allow The Great CWN to help you.
19. Do as I have instructed, and you will hear Gawds voice, I have several times, and be assured Gawd is real, and listening.
20. Unless you do these things expect more confusion.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Danoz]

Ahhh, OK. I thought I had heard it somewhere but to be honest I put so little stock into it I couldn't remember where. Dawkins being the progenitor of the new angry atheist movement is not very high on my "gotta read" list.

Yeah, as I said they guy comes on way too strong, which is why he's so popular amoungst said angry athiests, but he makes a number of very valid points that I for one had never considered. Having said that, I've read the classic appologetic: "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, which is hardly an unbiased book, and also gotten something out of it, so I don't see how you couldn't do the opposite too. I'm sure it'll make you feel uncomfortable, but nobody said that learning (well the good stuff anyway) was easy.


Hmm that got off topic pretty quickly. Aaaaaanyway, "gap worship" is essentially the central approach (appart from the anthropic principle) taken to proving intelligent design i.e. that there are gaps in fossil records and gaps in our understanding of the universes' physical properties prior to one Planck Time (instant of the big bang + 5.3 x 10^-44 seconds). We clearly are a long way from having all the answers - we have some important ones, but not all. I.D. scientists assume that the state is irriducably complex, and therefore god created the universe.

It is as many other skeptics and some of the more sensible I.D. scientists point out however a bit of a failed approach because whenever somebody finds an intermediate step between two species there are then two other gaps left to fill instead of the one, and so their demands grow exponentially rather than deminishing as more evidence is collected. It is a self perpetuating argument, and not very scientific at all.


I take a more straight forward approach to creation that is easily found in the first 2 chapters of the book of Genesis.
[/quote]

Damn, I was hoping you'd be in the ID camp. That way we could actually have a discussion since believe it or not, I think you're fairly intelligent person.

Intelligence is no grounds for clear thinking however, and seeing as though your beliefs are grounded on the assumption that the bible cannot be wrong and that if contradictions or moral dilemmas are encountered that you simply have not interpereted a passage correctly or that it's a convenient "mystery" (read: the trinity), nor that your perception of scriptural perfection could be flawed in the first place I see no middle ground with regards to truth. You purposefully distort every non agreeing fact around you to bend it to your logical desire of seeing god as you'd like to see him. I know that you know this to be true in your deepest thoughts, but you block it out.

I know all this because I used to have a belief very much like your own and almost every single ex fundamentalist christian I've spoken to has had a similar experience and can identify with my mindset at the time. Stop denying yourself intellectual freedom or it will consume your mind and make your miserable as it did me. But I know that you won't take any head to what I have to say because my words are supposedly the devil's own. I am his tool apparently and I'm not trying to help you, but am just arguing for my own personal gratification, and for the oppertunity to steal a soul for my "father". Not true.

Anyway however you choose to live out your 70 or so years as long as you're happy I don't really care. Only I know you'll never be happy as a critically thinking christian.

[Danoz]

Sorry bout that,

1. Unless you are tried, which sounds like you were, you are not one worthy of Gawds testing.
2. You may have back tracked on Gawd, but it seems Gawds not done with you.
3. You may have pulled back in disbelief, to a degree, but you haven't burnt any bridges.
4. Your, Highly Trained Biblical Adviser led you astray.
5. Who is he, I want to write him and letter and ask him to step down from any more instructional disasters.
6. He should be the one out on his a$$.
7. Danoz, you have be spun out, by a soul stealer, who ever the Adviser was.
8. Expose him.
9. That is what you should do first, in order to uproot that vulture, from the teaching ranks.
10. This will prove profitable to your soul.
11. Make a stand to defend the faith, and it will reap dividends that you seek, and sought.
12. Gawd isn't blind and or deaf, you then will be heard.
13. You took advise from a mole, and instead of listening to Gawd, you listened to the mole, this cost-ed you.
14. But if you repent of this, you can break free of it, ask Gawds forgiveness for straying away, and go after this guy, even if he is dead already.
15. You must come clean of this choice you took, repent of it, and expose the evil teacher that continues, and or does not, in death, but even still he being dead shouldn't matter, he should be exposed for his unfaithfulness of the faith.
16. If you have not the stomach to go after this guy, you will continue on into darkness, you must turn, and move into the light, and fight.
17. Also Dinosaurs were around during Adam and Eve, and were killed off during The Flood, Go read my thread on (Link below) and read what happened to them.
www.debatepolitics.com
(In Conspiracy Theories) Thread title: Human Footprints Next To Dino's? How so?
18. You have only been mislead, I will try to get you backontrack, if you will allow The Great CWN to help you.
19. Do as I have instructed, and you will hear Gawds voice, I have several times, and be assured Gawd is real, and listening.
20. Unless you do these things expect more confusion.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


I'm not going to repsond to the magority of your post because I think you're the one that's misled, not me. You'll never see things that way until you somehow are able to overcome the emotionally crippling chains that you're in.

My lecturer's name I'll withhold for obvious reasons, but he lectured at the Bible Institute of South Africa - a highly conservative bible school teaching reformed pimarily baptist thelogy. He's retired from accademia now and involved with mission work amoungst muslims at the moment. I haven't seen him for years, but I still consider him to be a friend, so your remark about him being a "vulture" was very hurtful and unfair. Hold your tongue and stop being so rude because you think you're on some crusade. He opened my eyes to many things, and I'm sure he'd be proud of the man I am today, though I'm sure he'd love to see me believe in god again.

Concerning human and dinosaur tracks, the most commonly referenced set of tracks are those found in Turkmenistan. Having two sets of prints is one thing. Rigorously documenting and scientifically testing these results is another. Even in Answers in Genesis we find this admission:

"one needs to be cautious about accepting the prints described on the basis of just this report. None of our sources has been able to obtain any further information on the prints, nor any photographs to this date."
Answers in Genesis website, 2006

It's a shaky piece of pseudoscience at best, and reminiscant of the type of thing you hear about UFO evidence and the like. I'm not saying that evolutionists haven't been guilty of the same thing, and many in both camps have manufactured evidence, but if you're gonna make a startelingly revolutionary claim the proponents should at least try to be professional about it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But suit yourself.
2. I won't provide more info on this matter.
3. Its done.
4. Dinosaurs were around before the flood, and were killed by it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Danoz]

4. Dinosaurs were around before the flood, and were killed by it.


Why, did Noah forget a few thousand species or something? I thought he was supposed to account for all animals.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. They were feared, and were not accepted as normal regular animals.
2. There wasn't all that many Dinosaurs.
3. And they were not instructed by Gawds whisper to follow Noah.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Just a simple question about that Ark filled with animals......elephants, tigers, bird, fish, horses, bears, all kind. Some were vegetarians, other carnivorous. Some were dangerous and some were not. But they all had two thinks in common. They all had to eat and they all had to defecate. My question is.........where did they store all that food that had to stay fresh for 40 days and forty night and when it came time to clean up........who manned the brooms and mops? And since there were no compactors at the time, did God approve of polluting the oceans that way?

Chess, please dont try to convince us that they had refrigerators and ice boxes and that none of the animals never had to "go".Â*Â*Â*Â*And I still want to know who went to the North pole to get the Polar Bears and to the south Pole to get the Penguins.

[Danoz]

Chess, please dont try to convince us that they had refrigerators and ice boxes and that none of the animals never had to "go". And I still want to know who went to the North pole to get the Polar Bears and to the south Pole to get the Penguins.


No! Don't be rediculous Newscaster, elecricity wasn't discovered back then. They used 1.21 jigawatt holy spirit powered fridges with flux capacitors braught back by Marty McFly.

The theory is that for penguins, god strapped little boosters powered by his pilar of fire that he used as a beacon in the desert and bound the polar bears to them using left over chains he has imprisoned the devil with.

The animals were to fast and pray for 40 days and 40 nights like jesus, which simultaneously alleviated the problem of the eating and pooping, whilst also keeping Noah's rickety wooden behemoth together which had little more than tar keeping the water out.

Shallow dwelling salt water fish took refuge from all the new fresh water by living in the beaks of kindly pelicans who (unlike the evil dinosaurs) were also observing the fast, and so kept them alive.

This is not confirmable like any good miricle, but it has scriptural roots and is about as likely as god stopping the sun from moving in the sky (well the earth from rotating if you believe in a round earth, whilst simultaneously suspending the law of conservation of momentum so that Joshua and his men didn't go hurtling off into space) so you'd better believe it or you'r going to hell man!

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Newscaster, that's to easy, next question.
2. Same goes for Danoz, next question.
3. Also you could go find my in-depth thread on Debate Politics, *Human Footprints Next To Dino's, How So?*
4. Its been covered.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But Newscaster, that's to easy, next question.
2. Same goes for Danoz, next question.


If it was soo easy, you would have answered it. Little boy that cried wolf has returned folks, he won't answer his own lie.

[Newscaster]

Well, if you cant answer my first question, answer this one. All the water that we find on the surface of the earth and below ground has been on earth since day one. So, if there was enough water to cover the entire earth, where is all that water today? Water may evaporate but it does not disappear. It floats in the air until the droplets join and become heavy and drop to the ground. This happens every day of wevery year sice the planet was formed and water appeared. But it is the very same water. so, if there was enough water to cover the mountains of earth of every continent, where is that water today....why is so much dry land showing? What happened to the flood waters. If they receded, they had to recede to somewhere. Where is that somewhere?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this is all covered in that thread I spoke of in
1.a)Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*www.debate politics.com
2. I will give you a clue, before the flood there were no mountains, just some high hills, it was easy for the water to engulf the planet when the firmament was breached, which was a barrier of water on the outer atmosphere, and the waters from the deep burst forth.
3. The hills were no taller than 300 feet before the flood.
4. The Mountains were formed at the end of the Flood, and were a product of the Flood, they jutted up from the watery globed creating the land masses where they presently are, so the mountains rose up pulling the land masses with them, all happening at the same time, while the Oceans sank down creating the deep blue Seas, and within a short period of time, approximately, a 24 hour period.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this is all covered in that thread I spoke of in
1.a) www.debatepolitics.com
2. I will give you a clue, before the flood there were no mountains, just some high hills, it was easy for the water to engulf the planet when the firmament was breached, which was a barrier of water on the outer atmosphere, and the waters from the deep burst forth.
3. The hills were no taller than 300 feet before the flood.
4. The Mountains were formed at the end of the Flood, and were a product of the Flood, they jutted up from the watery globed creating the land masses where they presently are, so the mountains rose up pulling the land masses with them, all happening at the same time, while the Oceans sank down creating the deep blue Seas, and within a short period of time, approximately, a 24 hour period.


To bad a little thing like science refutes your "Mountains were formed at the end of the flood" statement. But then seeing as you missed high school, I can understand that you didn't get that part of your education so I forgive you.

Still might want to take some courses though and learn something about the world you live in, instead of taking the bible as fact.

[Newscaster]

Mr Chess knows very little about earth stresses. Mountains do not form because they are underwater. Any mound of dirt will ten to flatten out in water, not build up. Most mountains were formed eaither by violent earthquake which occurred while the planet was first being formed or by the dry land being pushed during the period we called the ice age, as the glaciers moved south, pushing the loose dirt surface ahead of it. As the glaciers receeded or melted, the great mounds of earth remained where they were and are now the mountain ranges with now can see and enjoy.
Chess, Jesus Christ man, open a textbook and read. Dont just spout nonsense.

[BoogyMan]

Just a simple question about that Ark filled with animals......elephants, tigers, bird, fish, horses, bears, all kind. Some were vegetarians, other carnivorous. Some were dangerous and some were not. But they all had two thinks in common. They all had to eat and they all had to defecate. My question is.........where did they store all that food that had to stay fresh for 40 days and forty night and when it came time to clean up........who manned the brooms and mops? And since there were no compactors at the time, did God approve of polluting the oceans that way?

Chess, please dont try to convince us that they had refrigerators and ice boxes and that none of the animals never had to "go".Â*Â*Â*Â*And I still want to know who went to the North pole to get the Polar Bears and to the south Pole to get the Penguins.


Read Genesis chapters 4-9 Newscaster. If you are honestly asking questions of those believe in the flood, your answers are there.

[Newscaster]

Genesis 6-21, "and take thou unto thee, all the food that is eaten and gather it to thee and it shall be food for thee and for them."

That is the only mention of food for Noah, his family and the animals. Just a passing mention. But it says nothing of what food, how to gather it in time for the floods to begin, where to store it, how to keep it fresh, and maybe most important off all, how to keep animals such as lions and tigers and bears, oh my, with keen senses of smell away from that food in between meals. And what about those animals that wont eat live prey? The scavengers will need a supply of live food. You are going to need food for them too.

Now the bible says God just gives some basic instructions on how big thos ark is supposed to be. A study was done to see if a craft that size could hold all the animals, two by two, safely in a storm tossed sea. The conclusion was.....not possible. You first problem will be elbow room. Those animals would be jammed together and you know tempers would rise among them. Hygiene problems would be horrendous. Noah and his sons were no shipbuilders. They were shepherds. The quality of workmanship would almost certainly be suspect. In short, the bible asks you to accept an almost impossible scenario as true while leaving untold questions unanswered. and again, I ask, what happened to all that water when the flood waters receeded? Where did it all go?

Now, some of you, I wager, are upset that I am even asking the questions. Well, I will stop as soon as I get some answers. Thats what a good reporter does....ask ask ask until he gets answers and not a minute earlier.

[BoogyMan]

Hi Newscaster, you assume these questions have angered some, the truth is that questions like these cause Christians to feel pity for your lack of trust in God.

Matthew 19:26 tells us a bit about God in that it says "...with God all things are possible."

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what's really hard to believe for those unbelievers is, it had never rained before the flood.
2. The world and time that Noah knew in his life before the flood, things were watered by a dew that settled over the land during the night.
3. Noah likewise never saw an Ocean, seeing there wasn't one yet.
4. Just small bodies of water existed at that time.
5. More or less ponds.
6. It wasn't till the flood that there was even many rivers, and those that were, were driven by springs.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

Hi Newscaster, you assume these questions have angered some, the truth is that questions like these cause Christians to feel pity for your lack of trust in God.


Guess you never saw the "god warrior".

But, some christians feel pity (which in turn usually sparks anger, disgust or pity), while others have respect or contempt.

[BoogyMan]

Hi Newscaster, you assume these questions have angered some, the truth is that questions like these cause Christians to feel pity for your lack of trust in God.


Guess you never saw the "god warrior".

But, some christians feel pity (which in turn usually sparks anger, disgust or pity), while others have respect or contempt.


Pity is just that Zo, pity.

[Buck Laser]

Hi Newscaster, you assume these questions have angered some, the truth is that questions like these cause Christians to feel pity for your lack of trust in God.

Matthew 19:26 tells us a bit about God in that it says "...with God all things are possible."

Boogy, I am as much a Christian as anyone else here, but I don't really have a problem with the mythology of the flood in the OT--I think it carries a whole variety of important truths for believers. But it is not a description of a literal event. Frankly, I don't know personally any Christians who insist on that kind of literality. I know there are some, but I've always moved within the ambit of what's generally called "mainstream protestantism," and I don't think one is required to believe literally.

Futhermore, as a "standup philosopher," you should have studied epistemology at some time or another in you education. You would know, then, that there are many varieties of knowledge in the realm of thought. In fact, the biblical tradition is pretty explicity on this point: particularly in the Pentateuch, but also throughout the OT, there are numerous references to sexual intercourse as knowledge. This isn't some quirk or a euphemism by the translators: it's because there are many different forms of knowledge. Some knowledge is gained in the flesh (hurrah!), some by seeing or hearing, some, like music or art, communicate themselves directly to us, and some, like authentic religious experience, simply overwhelm us.

I am getting really tired of seeing the discussion of the validity of one's faith turn on whether or not someone is willing to believe this or that passage of scripture literally. I can see from your posts that you are well acquainted with the scriptures, but it disappoints me to see you using single passages and accounts as proof texts. For one thing, I think it communicates a lack of respect for those who understand faith differently. For another, it suggests that those who come to a different conclusion than you do in, for example, political issues, can't really be Christians. I don't think I'd ever deny you the right to call yourself a Christian, but you DO seem to be implying that one must believe as you do to be a Christian--at least, to be a good Christian.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Buck, that was hogwash, Hehehehehehehe,.........
2. Bogyman does fairly good, in bringing some scripture.
3. Brings far more actual scripture than I do.
4. And I would bring more, if I knew how to cut and paste.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, I am as much a Christian as anyone else here, but I don't really have a problem with the mythology of the flood in the OT--I think it carries a whole variety of important truths for believers.Â*Â*But it is not a description of a literal event.Â*Â*Frankly, I don't know personally any Christians who insist on that kind of literality.Â*Â*I know there are some, but I've always moved within the ambit of what's generally called "mainstream protestantism," and I don't think one is required to believe literally.

The flood is not a literal event?Â*Â*Enlighten me then, what does the flood detail for us since God is, in your own view, presenting a non-literal event?

Futhermore, as a "standup philosopher," you should have studied epistemology at some time or another in you education.Â*Â*You would know, then, that there are many varieties of knowledge in the realm of thought.Â*Â*In fact, the biblical tradition is pretty explicity on this point: particularly in the Pentateuch, but also throughout the OT, there are numerous references to sexual intercourse as knowledge.Â*Â*This isn't some quirk or a euphemism by the translators: it's because there are many different forms of knowledge.Â*Â*Some knowledge is gained in the flesh (hurrah!), some by seeing or hearing, some, like music or art, communicate themselves directly to us, and some, like authentic religious experience, simply overwhelm us.

Buck, standup philosopher is intended as a joke, it is taken from a movie.Â*Â*The rest of this commentary has NOTHING to do with the content of my post and is intended to obfuscate rather than educate.

I am getting really tired of seeing the discussion of the validity of one's faith turn on whether or not someone is willing to believe this or that passage of scripture literally.Â*Â*I can see from your posts that you are well acquainted with the scriptures, but it disappoints me to see you using single passages and accounts as proof texts.Â*Â*For one thing, I think it communicates a lack of respect for those who understand faith differently.Â*Â*For another, it suggests that those who come to a different conclusion than you do in, for example, political issues, can't really be Christians.Â*Â*I don't think I'd ever deny you the right to call yourself a Christian, but you DO seem to be implying that one must believe as you do to be a Christian--at least, to be a good Christian.

I am getting really tired of your immediate frothy mouthed attacks based upon a supposition that you have some kind of understanding of what was being said that you obviously don't hold.

If I choose to evidence pity for what I consider to be a belief that will condemn someone it is not another queue for you to fly into an ecuminically minded rage.

Think about your own commentary Buck you just did what you are errantly trying to say that I am doing.Â*Â*I find this amazing.

[Buck Laser]

The flood is not a literal event? Enlighten me then, what does the flood detail for us since God is, in your own view, presenting a non-literal event?
My, oh my...I must have touched a nerve there, Boogy. But let me see if I can explain it. As I read the bible, the real history begins with Abraham. Most, if not all of the stories and events prior to the story of Abraham have close parallels in other creation accounts. I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I think the geological event most closely associated with Noah's flood may have been the creation of the Black Sea (or was it the Caspian?) through the action of a major earthquake. Whatever the details of the event, it affected pretty much everyone in the middle east at the time. Without doing some research right now, I can't put a date on it. So I'm not denying that there was a big flood. But it was in the middle east, not world wide, and seeking to contort geological history to accomodate what was a small and fairly insignificant tribe just a few years removed from polytheism is a big stretch. I certainly don't mind your viewing it that way, but for God's sake don't ask me to buy into your idiosyncratic interpretation.

Buck, standup philosopher is intended as a joke, it is taken from a movie. The rest of this commentary has NOTHING to do with the content of my post and is intended to obfuscate rather than educate.
Sorry. I guess I'm just too literal minded. But I did study philosophy pretty extensively, and epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is a critically important field in philosophy these days, as we begin to discover that knowledge is a hell of a lot more complicated than we once thought it was. I'm sorry you thought I was trying to obfuscate--I guess I just assumed that you were using your philosophy to try to understand faith.

I am getting really tired of your immediate frothy mouthed attacks based upon a supposition that you have some kind of understanding of what was being said that you obviously don't hold.

If I choose to evidence pity for what I consider to be a belief that will condemn someone it is not another queue for you to fly into an ecuminically minded rage.
Frothy mouthed?:P Ecumenically minded rage?:( I don't know about you, but in my mind there's a big difference between being annoyed and flying into a rage. I expressed my feelings strongly, yess, because I really get tired of being caught between the fundamentalists and the anti-religionists. I have been what I am for a very long time, and I am still learning. I've studied enough Hebrew and Greek that I could at one time read the scriptures in their original language. Sadly, I've let those skills slide. I have spent a lifetime in the study of the scriptures and of the world in which they originated. I am not asking you to look at the world as I do, but simply to quit putting me in the "hell box" if I don't read it the way you do. If that's a "frothy mouthed ecuminically (sic) minded rage, then I guess I need a refresher course on emotional definitions.:)
Think about your own commentary Buck you just did what you are errantly trying to say that I am doing. I find this amazing.

Well, I guess de gustibus non disputandum est.

[BoogyMan]

My, oh my...I must have touched a nerve there, Boogy.Â*Â*But let me see if I can explain it.Â*Â*As I read the bible, the real history begins with Abraham.Â*Â*Most, if not all of the stories and events prior to the story of Abraham have close parallels in other creation accounts.Â*Â*I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I think the geological event most closely associated with Noah's flood may have been the creation of the Black Sea (or was it the Caspian?) through the action of a major earthquake.Â*Â*Whatever the details of the event, it affected pretty much everyone in the middle east at the time.Â*Â*Without doing some research right now, I can't put a date on it. So I'm not denying that there was a big flood.Â*Â*But it was in the middle east, not world wide, and seeking to contort geological history to accomodate what was a small and fairly insignificant tribe just a few years removed from polytheism is a big stretch.Â*Â*I certainly don't mind your viewing it that way, but for God's sake don't ask me to buy into your idiosyncratic interpretation.

You give yourself way too much credit here Buck, all you did was give me a good laugh. I come to the table with a biblical account and you present little more than revisionist postdeluvian theory?

Sorry.Â*Â*I guess I'm just too literal minded.Â*Â*But I did study philosophy pretty extensively, and epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is a critically important field in philosophy these days, as we begin to discover that knowledge is a hell of a lot more complicated than we once thought it was.Â*Â*I'm sorry you thought I was trying to obfuscate--I guess I just assumed that you were using your philosophy to try to understand faith.

I am trying to remember the movie I got that line from, I think it was Mel Brooks History of the World Part I. Standup philosopher was, according to that movie, the equivalent of a standup comic. I found the term funny and have self deprecated with it ever since.

Frothy mouthed?:P Ecumenically minded rage?:(Â*Â*I don't know about you, but in my mind there's a big difference between being annoyed and flying into a rage.Â*Â*I expressed my feelings strongly, yess, because I really get tired of being caught between the fundamentalists and the anti-religionists.Â*Â*I have been what I am for a very long time, and I am still learning.Â*Â*I've studied enough Hebrew and Greek that I could at one time read the scriptures in their original language.Â*Â*Sadly, I've let those skills slide.Â*Â*I have spent a lifetime in the study of the scriptures and of the world in which they originated.Â*Â*I am not asking you to look at the world as I do, but simply to quit putting me in the "hell box" if I don't read it the way you do.Â*Â*If that's a "frothy mouthed ecuminically (sic) minded rage, then I guess I need a refresher course on emotional definitions.:)

LOL, I can understand being caught between two sides in a debate, but you put yourself there Buck no-one drug you there. :)

I am currently studying Greek and truly enjoying it. What you are doing though, Buck, is asking me to compromise my beliefs and to not try and debate anyone else with whom I disagree. Why have a religion forum if we are not to debate religion?

Well, I guess de gustibus non disputandum est.

Umm, you have lost me on this one Buck, what does the equivalent of "there is no accounting for taste" have to do with our current debate? :)

[Buck Laser]

It's clear that you want the debate to be on your terms, not open. I have no need to convert you, and I doubt that you can teach me anything I need to know. But I will continue to call 'em as I sees 'em. You surely have more in common with CWN than with me.

[BoogyMan]

It's clear that you want the debate to be on your terms, not open.Â*Â*I have no need to convert you, and I doubt that you can teach me anything I need to know.Â*Â*But I will continue to call 'em as I sees 'em.Â*Â*You surely have more in common with CWN than with me.


In a debate forum those participating in the debate actually stand on their views, not cave to the will of the first person to oppose them.Â*Â*Of course I will defend my positions, to ask me to do otherwise is silly.

As for your calling them "as you sees'em" I would have expected nothing less of you, and will expect that you should respect my ability so to do.

You never answered my question at the end of the previous post.

[Elrathin]

As for your calling them "as you sees'em" I would have expected nothing less of you, and will expect that you should respect my ability so to do.


No offense Boogy, but if I posted that I believe in the BOOGY GOD and he tells me that all Christians will go to hell PERIOD, would you be able to insert any so called "LOGIC" to my claim religious or otherwise to dispute me?

[BoogyMan]

As for your calling them "as you sees'em" I would have expected nothing less of you, and will expect that you should respect my ability so to do.


No offense Boogy, but if I posted that I believe in the BOOGY GOD and he tells me that all Christians will go to hell PERIOD, would you be able to insert any so called "LOGIC" to my claim religious or otherwise to dispute me?


Elrathin, I don't see your logic here. This is a public debate forum so if you guys were in a discussion why would others not be welcome to join the debate?

I truly don't see your point Elrathin.

[Elrathin]

Elrathin, I don't see your logic here. This is a public debate forum so if you guys were in a discussion why would others not be welcome to join the debate?

I truly don't see your point Elrathin.


My point is religious wise as you so called said I can't dispute you. Logic wise I can.

Your so called logic is "God can do whatever he wants" so how can someone logically dispute that. No more than you can dispute my religious logic of all Christians must die because my god says so. See what I mean now?

It is quite funny, because I can actually see where the extremist Muslims come from after talking with you. I don't agree with them, but I can see how they can believe what they do and no one can convince them otherwise because "God does what god does" and there is no convincing them otherwise just as there is no convincing you.

Which brings me to the conclusion, religion is a dangerous thing. Almost like killing over Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. Thank you for the clarification of religion.

Makes me believe a world without religion, might actually be a beautiful thing.

[BoogyMan]

My point is religious wise as you so called said I can't dispute you.Â*Â*Logic wise I can.

Your so called logic is "God can do whatever he wants" so how can someone logically dispute that.Â*Â*No more than you can dispute my religious logic of all Christians must die because my god says so.Â*Â*See what I mean now?

It is quite funny, because I can actually see where the extremist Muslims come from after talking with you.Â*Â*I don't agree with them, but I can see how they can believe what they do and no one can convince them otherwise because "God does what god does" and there is no convincing them otherwise just as there is no convincing you.

Which brings me to the conclusion, religion is a dangerous thing.Â*Â*Almost like killing over Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.Â*Â*Thank you for the clarification of religion.Â*Â*

Makes me believe a world without religion, might actually be a beautiful thing.

You truly have an interesting view Elrathin, one which is a constitutionaly protected freedom to be able to speak as you will. I also have that freedom and find your idea of a world free from God to be a world that would be a horrible debauched place without hope.

Your attempt to draw ire by the comparison to radical islam does little more than make my pity for your position grow, you wont get the attack for which you are mining.

Let me now leave you with this thought from Isaiah chapter 5 and verse 20.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[Newscaster]

Now, I can see thuis thread is getting a bit bizarre but I will add one last post on this subject. You folks have pasinted me as having a lack of trust in God. You have done this wqithout knowing me, without ever laying eyes on me, with not understanding what I have acheved in my life time but mostly....you have characterized me as lacking trust in God when you know nothing of my beliefs. So let me lay it out for you.
I believe in God and have been believing longer than any of you. I am 71 years old.
I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I am a full blown believer but I am also one who requires answers and proof. I dont not believe something is true just because it is written somewhere. And one I am convinced of something, then trust comes into play. But I also have access to people who are extremely knowledgable about the bible, its purpose and its misuse. That knowledge comes from leaders of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths. I will take their word over your anyday though I fully endorse your right to believe as you wish and say what you want. And after spending considerable time studying I can spot inaccuracies a mile away. I dont claim to be an expert but I do claim to have a good solid understanding without the need to memorize passages and quote disjointed scripture. And being a reporter and writer, I am fully skilled in research whch I take joy in doing.
Oh, and by the way.....I know that most of you, to one degree or another disagree with me on many things. Thats cool but consider this....I am not a Christian, nor am I a Muslim, or Hindu or even a Catholic. I'll let you decide what I am.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if you are not a Christian, you will be surprised Newscaster.
2. Why not exclaim what you are?
3. If you know its for real for sure?
4. Man you opened yourself up for ridicule.
5. Let me decide what you are??
6. Okay, I will decide Newscasters is a Krishna follower, little blue boy.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Wrong Chess, I am not a Krishna. Its so freakingh obvious what I am but you, in your absolute brilliance you cant see it.

[Buck Laser]

Newscaster sounds to me like one of God's good prophets from the OT. I've always admired the characters in the OT, at least from Abraham on, because of their intense humanity and their willingness to question God, to bargain with him, and to complain when they perceive what seems to them to be injustice or cruelty on God's part. I know that attitude seems to horrify certain "true believers" on DF, but it's always seemed closer to me to real humanity than the candy-coated manikins most of us got in Sunday School.

So Newscaster, I don't know what faith you profess, but I do know that you're a mensch.

[Elrathin]

I also have that freedom and find your idea of a world free from God to be a world that would be a horrible debauched place without hope.

Well considering that it would be a world where others do not force other people to worship some invisible being and killing over it, I find that world a much better one.


Your attempt to draw ire by the comparison to radical islam does little more than make my pity for your position grow, you wont get the attack for which you are mining.

The comparison wasn't to insult you or provoke an attack, it was a simple statement that you cannot argue logic with someone that believes in a being that defies logic.

No matter what evidence I can provide you, the "nuh uh" response will prevail from you just like it would prevail from someone that believes in radical Islam or ANY religion.

You choose to believe the bible as literal, when in fact many things in there are no more factual than a story with aliens coming down to the Earth.


Let me now leave you with this thought from Isaiah chapter 5 and verse 20.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!


I have never called religion itself evil, just manipulative.

[BoogyMan]

Well considering that it would be a world where others do not force other people to worship some invisible being and killing over it, I find that world a much better one.

You commentary assumes that religion forces something on people.Â*Â*This is a completely incorrect view of the religion of Christ.Â*Â*Where in the NT are we ever commanded to kill in the name of Christ, or to force religion on anyone?Â*Â*Nowhere, and those claiming to do so are making a mockery of the truth.

The comparison wasn't to insult you or provoke an attack, it was a simple statement that you cannot argue logic with someone that believes in a being that defies logic.Â*Â*

No matter what evidence I can provide you, the "nuh uh" response will prevail from you just like it would prevail from someone that believes in radical Islam or ANY religion.

You choose to believe the bible as literal, when in fact many things in there are no more factual than a story with aliens coming down to the Earth.

A view based on scripture is a "nu uh" response?Â*Â*I have more fact behind my approach than you have in your insistance that the bible is not literal.

I have never called religion itself evil, just manipulative.


There is obviously little difference in your view as is evidenced by your attitude towards it.

[Elrathin]

You commentary assumes that religion forces something on people.

So the majority of Christians voting against gay marriage has nothing to do with forcing their version of morality on others? There are other examples of morality being forced as well so as for your comment, Puuuhlease.


A view based on scripture is a "nu uh" response? I have more fact behind my approach than you have in your insistance that the bible is not literal.

So if I reference some book that has aliens coming down, does that somehow make my statements factual? No, they don't. Just like the validity of the bible itself is in question, basing your views on it makes it that much more questionable. The bible has not been proven as fact, therefore basing anything on it, is about as credible as basing it on Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.


There is obviously little difference in your view as is evidenced by your attitude towards it.


Sorry, but religion HAS been manipulative. The self-righteous always trying to force their morality on others and in some cases killing over it. I can sure do without that thank you very much.

[BoogyMan]

So the majority of Christians voting against gay marriage has nothing to do with forcing their version of morality on others?Â*Â*There are other examples of morality being forced as well so as for your comment, Puuuhlease.

So per your commentary Christians should not have the right to vote? The converse of this ridiculous example is just as valid if we uphold your thought process here Elrathin. So to use your own vocabulary, puuhlease.

So if I reference some book that has aliens coming down, does that somehow make my statements factual?Â*Â*No, they don't.Â*Â*Just like the validity of the bible itself is in question, basing your views on it makes it that much more questionable.Â*Â*The bible has not been proven as fact, therefore basing anything on it, is about as credible as basing it on Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Just as basing your whole argument on I don't believe it therefore it must be false is a valid form of argumentation? You need to get a new line of argumentation Elrathin, this one is old and moldy.

Sorry, but religion HAS been manipulative.Â*Â*The self-righteous always trying to force their morality on others and in some cases killing over it.Â*Â*I can sure do without that thank you very much.


Hmm, so if Christians voting for what they believe in is manipulative, you MUST agree that the converse of non-Christians voting their conscience is ALSO manipulative, correct?

[Elrathin]

So per your commentary Christians should not have the right to vote?

Never said that, I was just saying that the religious DO try to force things on people, which is something you denied.


Just as basing your whole argument on I don't believe it therefore it must be false is a valid form of argumentation? You need to get a new line of argumentation Elrathin, this one is old and moldy.

And because you are basing all your views on a book that is no more valid that Santa Clause, does not excuse your beliefs from criticism either. You're argument of "I believe it, therefore you can't criticize me for it" is getting old as well.

The simple fact is you try and come off as your saying fact when quoting scripture, but you're not. Scriptres are no more factual, then fairy tales. Sorry you don't like the truth, but then that is why it is called FAITH and not FACT.


Hmm, so if Christians voting for what they believe in is manipulative, you MUST agree that the converse of non-Christians voting their conscience is ALSO manipulative, correct?


Never said that people don't, however you were denying that religion is manipulative.

[BoogyMan]

Never said that, I was just saying that the religious DO try to force things on people, which is something you denied.

Elrathin, words mean things. You brought up how Christians vote as if execising their liberty is an effort at forcing their views on others. That dog just wont hunt.

And because you are basing all your views on a book that is no more valid that Santa Clause, does not excuse your beliefs from criticism either.Â*Â*You're argument of "I believe it, therefore you can't criticize me for it" is getting old as well.

The simple fact is you try and come off as your saying fact when quoting scripture, but you're not. Scriptres are no more factual, then fairy tales.Â*Â*Sorry you don't like the truth, but then that is why it is called FAITH and not FACT.

I base my views on the Bible. I will teach it continually as fact without regard to your insistance that it is not. I love the truth Elrathin, as a matter of fact let me quote some of that truth for you.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Never said that people don't, however you were denying that religion is manipulative.

The outcome of the ridiculous assertion that voting a certain way is forcing Christian views on other is EXACTLY what you said.

I will deny that religion is manipulative because I don't believe that it is. It tells people that to be acceptable to God they must change, that isn't manipulation.

[Elrathin]

You brought up how Christians vote as if execising their liberty is an effort at forcing their views on others.

If you cannot see that morality is being forced on others, you are beyond hope for any discussion in this. I see it all the time many Christians wanting censorship, morality, and a slew of other things forced on others. This is FACT and it is UNDENIABLE unless you are blind.

Many Christians cannot stand people living their way and want to force THEIR morality on them. I have no problem with Christians and their religion until they start telling me what I can or cannot do because of a book they cannot even validate is fact.


I will teach it continually as fact without regard to your insistance that it is not.

Then you will continually be in error. Not my problem.


I love the truth Elrathin, as a matter of fact let me quote some of that truth for you.

Where? All I see if fariy tale nonsense. When you want to quote truth, let me know, I'll be here. ;p


I will deny that religion is manipulative because I don't believe that it is. It tells people that to be acceptable to God they must change, that isn't manipulation.


Then again, you are in denial. Christianity teaches if you don't follow THEIR religion and THEIR ways you go to hell.

[BoogyMan]

You brought up how Christians vote as if execising their liberty is an effort at forcing their views on others.Â*Â*

If you cannot see that morality is being forced on others, you are beyond hope for any discussion in this.Â*Â*I see it all the time many Christians wanting censorship, morality, and a slew of other things forced on others.Â*Â*This is FACT and it is UNDENIABLE unless you are blind.

Many Christians cannot stand people living their way and want to force THEIR morality on them.Â*Â*I have no problem with Christians and their religion until they start telling me what I can or cannot do because of a book they cannot even validate is fact.


I will teach it continually as fact without regard to your insistance that it is not.Â*Â*

Then you will continually be in error.Â*Â*Not my problem.


I love the truth Elrathin, as a matter of fact let me quote some of that truth for you.

Where?Â*Â*All I see if fariy tale nonsense. When youÂ*Â*want to quote truth, let me know, I'll be here. ;p


I will deny that religion is manipulative because I don't believe that it is.Â*Â*It tells people that to be acceptable to God they must change, that isn't manipulation.


Then again, you are in denial.Â*Â*Christianity teaches if you don't follow THEIR religion and THEIR ways you go to hell.


The most wonderful thing about this whole discussion is that we can have it because, despite your wishes, Christians are not relegated to the societal curb. You actually used Christians voting as an example of moral oppression and you have run from that example rather quickly.

I can respect your POV Elrathin, but I will argue from the truth of the bible in this religion forum and do so with an honest desire to teach the truth. You have the freedom to choose not to listen to the truth. THAT, is the way the truth was spread in the NT. Teach it openly and those who would hear it are better for having done so, those who wont suffer the fate of their own choosing.

[lily]

Case in point.........Bush's one and only veto.

[BoogyMan]

Case in point.........Bush's one and only veto.


Good evening Lily,

I have to repeat what I previously asked Elrathin. Is the president not exercising his rights in accord with the duties of his office when he vetos a bill? If this is within his rights just as with Christians voting based on their conscience, I don't see that you have a point.

[lily]

No, Boogy........he is forcing his morality on others. Congress passed this bill, it was the will of the people. Now, he can preach all day every day for all I care, but don't force your morality on me, which is what he did and said when he vetoed this bill.

[BoogyMan]

No, Boogy........he is forcing his morality on others. Congress passed this bill, it was the will of the people. Now, he can preach all day every day for all I care, but don't force your morality on me, which is what he did and said when he vetoed this bill.


Well Lily, I cannot put this any other way than to say that you must not understand government. It is the right and duty of the president to veto what he considers to be bad legislation and he did so. Why is it that the house and senate are not forcing their view of morality on us? It is because in this incident you agree with them and it is skewing how you view this argument.

If we carry this ridiculous line of argumentation out to its ultimate end and include Elrathin's voting commentary and your veto commentary a case could be made that there should be no ability to veto and Christians should not be allowed to vote. Its just silly Lily. Silly.

[Elrathin]

The most wonderful thing about this whole discussion is that we can have it because, despite your wishes, Christians are not relegated to the societal curb.

Yes, it is good we can have this discussion because there are finally laws in place to keep Christians from forcing their religion in schools and government.


You actually used Christians voting as an example of moral oppression and you have run from that example rather quickly.

I have not run away from anything. The fact people vote on it does not mean that it isn't oppressive against non-Christians.

Case in point, if congress amended the constitution and allowed people to vote on whether to BAN praying everywhere but churches, are you saying you would not find that oppressive if it passed?


I can respect your POV Elrathin, but I will argue from the truth of the bible in this religion forum and do so with an honest desire to teach the truth.

Again, you can do what you want in that regard, but when you call it truth, do not be surprised when you are criticized for it. Just because you are free to do something does not mean you are free from criticism for doing it.

[Elrathin]

Is the president not exercising his rights in accord with the duties of his office when he vetos a bill?

He is exercising his rights yes, but he is doing so in an inconsistant manner. I can damn well guarantee you if it was an atheist president voting against a Christian bill the Christians would go NUTS over it, if the reason the president gave was he can't vote for something against his beliefs in atheism.


If this is within his rights just as with Christians voting based on their conscience, I don't see that you have a point.


He is well within his LEGAL rights, but not within his duties as president for an entire nation. He should take EVERYTHING into effect, not just his own faith and religion.

[Elrathin]

If we carry this ridiculous line of argumentation out to its ultimate end and include Elrathin's voting commentary and your veto commentary a case could be made that there should be no ability to veto and Christians should not be allowed to vote. Its just silly Lily. Silly.


Religion belongs in the church, not dominating the government. And no one said Christians couldn't vote, I just said it was legal oppression. of a majority that aren't even Christians for the most part, just weekend prayers that go to church on Christmas and Easter.

Morality should not play the ONLY part in making decisions for other people. Christians want EVERYONE to live like them and will force laws on others to do it. That is oppression at it's finest. Enjoy and good day.

[BoogyMan]

Religion belongs in the church, not dominating the government.Â*Â*And no one said Christians couldn't vote, I just said it was legal oppression. of a majority that aren't even Christians for the most part, just weekend prayers that go to church on Christmas and Easter.

Elrathin, it is a logical end to your line of argumentation. If it is seen as oppression for Christians to vote their conscience, you obviously have a problem with Christians voting. You don't seem to see, however, that the converse would be true in your scenario as well.

Morality should not play the ONLY part in making decisions for other people.Â*Â*Christians want EVERYONE to live like them and will force laws on others to do it.Â*Â*That is oppression at it's finest.Â*Â*Enjoy and good day.

Who said it played the ONLY part Elrathin, that is simply another in a long line of assumptions that you have made about Christians.

Desire is not oppression Elrathin and there is no way that you can spin it to be so.

[Elrathin]

Who said it played the ONLY part Elrathin, that is simply another in a long line of assumptions that you have made about Christians.

Desire is not oppression Elrathin and there is no way that you can spin it to be so.


Umm Colorado Blue Book Laws that state alcohol cannot be purchased on Sunday from licquor stores and car dealerships must be closed on Sunday was done out of pure morality.

Same with gay marriage. My point is proven, no matter how YOU spin it.

And as for desire, yes it is oppression if you are wanting to force your morality on others. There is no way to spin that as well.

[BoogyMan]

Who said it played the ONLY part Elrathin, that is simply another in a long line of assumptions that you have made about Christians.

Desire is not oppression Elrathin and there is no way that you can spin it to be so.


Umm Colorado Blue Book Laws that state alcohol cannot be purchased on Sunday from licquor stores and car dealerships must be closed on Sunday was done out of pure morality.

Same with gay marriage. My point is proven, no matter how YOU spin it.

And as for desire, yes it is oppression if you are wanting to force your morality on others.Â*Â*There is no way to spin that as well.


So when you vote FOR gay marriage I should see it as oppression? You tried to say that Christians voting their conscience is oppression and want to run from it now. You conveniently sidestep the converse of your argumentation. If it is oppression one direction it is also oppression from the other. Are you trying to oppress me? I doubt you will see it that way, but it is a logical end to your line of argumentation.

[Elrathin]

So when you vote FOR gay marriage I should see it as oppression?

Yes, if I am voting for you to be forced into gay marriage, then yes that would be oppression. But voting for gay marriage is not that is it.

However, voting against gay marriage is forcing someone else to conform to YOUR morality which is oppression.


You tried to say that Christians voting their conscience is oppression and want to run from it now. You conveniently sidestep the converse of your argumentation. If it is oppression one direction it is also oppression from the other.

I have not ran away from anything on that. It is oppressing if I am trying to force you to be gay. This is not the case, however you are forcing someone else not to get married. The fact you can't see that just shows the self-righteousness of Christians.


Are you trying to oppress me? I doubt you will see it that way, but it is a logical end to your line of argumentation.

The ONLY way I can oppress you with gay marriage is if I say you cannot marry unless it is someone of the opposite sex. You are confusing freedom and choice with oppression in this regards.

However voting AGAINST gay marriage is in fact forcing someone that is gay not to have the right to marry someone of the same sex which is oppression. When you know the difference, come back. I think you need to think a little more on this one.

[BoogyMan]

Go ahead and come out with it Elrathin, you honestly think it is self-righteous to vote in any way that YOU don't agree with. I cannot even wrap a thought around that kind of arrogance.

America provides me the right to vote and I will use it as my conscience guides me. My vote does NOT equal oppression, it equals a constitutionaly protected voice in how this country is run.

When people start calling my ability to vote oppression lights and sirens go off and I quickly see that there is nothing I can say that will make any difference in the debate as emotion is all that is guiding your commentary.

[Elrathin]

Go ahead and come out with it Elrathin, you honestly think it is self-righteous to vote in any way that YOU don't agree with. I cannot even wrap a thought around that kind of arrogance.

No, that isn't it, however, I have given you the reasons why voting against gay marriage and other laws is oppresive because it is only done out of morality issues.


America provides me the right to vote and I will use it as my conscience guides me. My vote does NOT equal oppression, it equals a constitutionaly protected voice in how this country is run.

Saying it doesn't mean oppression doesn't make it so. People used to have the right to vote against blacks having rights, that doesn't mean it wasn't oppression.


When people start calling my ability to vote oppression lights and sirens go off and I quickly see that there is nothing I can say that will make any difference in the debate as emotion is all that is guiding your commentary.


And likewise, when someone wants to vote their morality on others and not allow them rights that they should have my sirens go off and and I quickly see there is nothing I can say that will make any difference because their decisions are being guided by a fairy tale book.

[BoogyMan]

Go ahead and come out with it Elrathin, you honestly think it is self-righteous to vote in any way that YOU don't agree with.Â*Â*I cannot even wrap a thought around that kind of arrogance.

No, that isn't it, however, I have given you the reasons why voting against gay marriage and other laws is oppresive because it is only done out of morality issues.


America provides me the right to vote and I will use it as my conscience guides me.Â*Â*My vote does NOT equal oppression, it equals a constitutionaly protected voice in how this country is run.

Saying it doesn't mean oppression doesn't make it so.Â*Â*People used to have the right to vote against blacks having rights, that doesn't mean it wasn't oppression.


When people start calling my ability to vote oppression lights and sirens go off and I quickly see that there is nothing I can say that will make any difference in the debate as emotion is all that is guiding your commentary.


And likewise, when someone wants to vote their morality on others and not allow them rights that they should have my sirens go off and and I quickly see there is nothing I can say that will make any difference because their decisions are being guided by a fairy tale book.


Elrathin, you will never convince me that Christians should not vote nor will you convince me that voting my conscience is wrong. Your refusal to accept the converse scenario proves you to be less than honest in this debate. You have a real problem with the idea that the majority rules and therefore have a problem with our system of election, not with me. If your side wins the day it has done just that, but if my side wins the day its oppression. Thats rich, really, really rich.

[Elrathin]

If your side wins the day it has done just that, but if my side wins the day its oppression. Thats rich, really, really rich.


I have already explained why it is oppression, you are making the decision for OTHER PEOPLE, not yourself. If people vote for gay marriage it is for freedom of choice where you vote for oppression and lack of choice. There is no other spin you can put on it.

And by the way majority vote does not mean it is right. There are many situations where the majority have voted for oppression of others. This is one of those times. Nuff said on that, you can't prove otherwise.

[BoogyMan]

I have already explained why it is oppression, you are making the decision for OTHER PEOPLE, not yourself.Â*Â*If people vote for gay marriage it is for freedom of choice where you vote for oppression and lack of choice.Â*Â*There is no other spin you can put on it.

You explained nothing and actually tried to redefine oppression as me voting my conscience, MY conscience.

Your spin on this is enough Elrathin, it is completely one sided and disingenuous.

And by the way majority vote does not mean it is right.Â*Â*There are many situations where the majority have voted for oppression of others.Â*Â*This is one of those times.Â*Â*Nuff said on that, you can't prove otherwise.

I never said it was "right" I said it was the system under which we live. You added an assumption as to its efficacy.

[Elrathin]

You explained nothing and actually tried to redefine oppression as me voting my conscience, MY conscience.

Your spin on this is enough Elrathin, it is completely one sided and disingenuous.

That is your opinion, I called it like I see it. You are making decisions for OTHER people based on YOUR morality trying to force it on others. There is no spin that you have been able to do to change that fact.


I never said it was "right" I said it was the system under which we live. You added an assumption as to its efficacy.


Well, then my complaints are valid then. Many Christians are trying to force morality on others. Why you don't see that is beyond me.

[BoogyMan]

You explained nothing and actually tried to redefine oppression as me voting my conscience, MY conscience.

Your spin on this is enough Elrathin, it is completely one sided and disingenuous.

That is your opinion, I called it like I see it.Â*Â*You are making decisions for OTHER people based on YOUR morality trying to force it on others.Â*Â*There is no spin that you have been able to do to change that fact.


I never said it was "right" I said it was the system under which we live.Â*Â*You added an assumption as to its efficacy.


Well, then my complaints are valid then.Â*Â*Many Christians are trying to force morality on others. Why you don't see that is beyond me.


My vote is my vote and it oppresses no-one. I have and always will continue to vote my conscience. If you don't like my having the ability to vote, vote the other way.

I find it particularly amusing that you find yourself to be free of oppression when voting on things I find objectionable yet hold me to a different standard. This is amazing, but not surprising.

What will you redefine next? Will I need constant monitoring to make sure I don't breath too much oxygen? Will I need a special ID card to make sure people know that I might disagree with them and therefore should be cast aside?

There is no spin involved here, you are just plain wrong on this one. :)

[Newscaster]

I am not sure the word OPPRESS is the correct word or term. I tend to see organized religion as a power play. One church leader tells you I will help you along the straight and narrow if you follow me and do what I say you must do but if you dont follow me, hell, demons, devils, etc are in your future. I read that as a threat and yes, threats can be oppressive. Catholics and Mormons use Excommunication.
Christian or Protestant churches use Lakes of Fire, Hell and Damnation. Jews use guilt and I have no clue what Muslims use, nor do I care.
But since the dawn of organized religion, when one man stepped up and declared that he knows it all and that he is the one to follow, the faithful have been under the watchful eye of big brother. And that, more often than not, is an uncomfortable place to be.

[Elrathin]

My vote is my vote and it oppresses no-one. I have and always will continue to vote my conscience. If you don't like my having the ability to vote, vote the other way.

Really, so when you vote against gay marriage, it doesn't oppress gay people's rights to get married? Yes, it does. All because YOUR morality doesn't like it and you wish to FORCE that morality on others.

Last I checked gay people aren't fighting for the right to force you to marry the same sex if you want to get married, yet you are forcing them to marry the opposite sex if they want to get married. That is forcing morality on others. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry the same sex then. Worry about YOUR morality, not others.


I find it particularly amusing that you find yourself to be free of oppression when voting on things I find objectionable yet hold me to a different standard. This is amazing, but not surprising.

Tell me what I vote for that affects YOU personally.


What will you redefine next? Will I need constant monitoring to make sure I don't breath too much oxygen? Will I need a special ID card to make sure people know that I might disagree with them and therefore should be cast aside?

Nope, sorry, I am not a Republican. :p


There is no spin involved here, you are just plain wrong on this one. :)


Keep on spinning :)

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But with ever hypocrite there's a story line.
2. Some hypocrites main focus is gay marriage.
3. Some are rights to murder others by strapping bombs on themselves.
4. Others are the right to murder babies, just before they consider that that baby is a real baby, and while its in the womb of a woman.
5. Some hypocrites want to claim they are oppressed because their skin color is black, and they are also full of hate towards everybody.
6. Bunch of useless hypocrites if you asked me.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

BoogyMan


Well Lily, I cannot put this any other way than to say that you must not understand government.

If you say so.

It is the right and duty of the president to veto what he considers to be bad legislation and he did so.

Yes he does......but vetoing a bill because it's against his morality is a different story. As we all know also, with his amazing amount of siging statements, he also has the right to say, "When I say so". This is a democracy......not a kingdom.

Why is it that the house and senate are not forcing their view of morality on us?

Could it be because they are doing their job and this is what the people wanted?

It is because in this incident you agree with them and it is skewing how you view this argument.

Me and many others, Boogy. I'm not alone in this.

If we carry this ridiculous line of argumentation out to its ultimate end and include Elrathin's voting commentary and your veto commentary a case could be made that there should be no ability to veto and Christians should not be allowed to vote.Â*Â*Its just silly Lily. Silly.

Holy cow........I don't know where you got this persecution complex, but it is clouding your view.

You have a real problem with the idea that the majority rules and therefore have a problem with our system of election, not with me.

Exactly! Majority rules and the majority wanted the stem cell funding.

[Danoz]

4. Dinosaurs were around before the flood, and were killed by it.


Ok, if you say so.

[BoogyMan]

Yes he does......but vetoing a bill because it's against his morality is a different story. As we all know also, with his amazing amount of siging statements, he also has the right to say, "When I say so". This is a democracy......not a kingdom.

Why else would a president veto something?Â*Â*Yes, this is a democracy, and it is a democracy that empowered its president to veto bills.Â*Â*There is no oppression there.

Could it be because they are doing their job and this is what the people wanted?

I could say the very same thing about the president vetoing that bill.

Me and many others, Boogy. I'm not alone in this.

I know you are not alone in this line of thought Lily, it doesn't change the fact that the president worked within his powers on to veto that bill.

Holy cow........I don't know where you got this persecution complex, but it is clouding your view.

I think I got it here. :)

Exactly! Majority rules and the majority wanted the stem cell funding.

Got a link for that one?Â*Â*I would truly like to read it.

[lily]

Why else would a president veto something?Â*Â*Yes, this is a democracy, and it is a democracy that empowered its president to veto bills.Â*Â*There is no oppression there.

For starters any rider or pork that has been added to the original bill. I have no clue where you pulled oppression from my posts, unless you mistake oppression with a) vetoing a bill because you don't like it, or b) adding more signing statements, often in private than all of the presidents combined. That's not oppression, that's doing what you want, no matter what anyone else says.



I could say the very same thing about the president vetoing that bill.

You could, but it wouldn't be true. Why would senators pass a bill that no one wanted?




Got a link for that one?Â*Â*I would truly like to read it.

Sure do. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html)

[BoogyMan]

For starters any rider or pork that has been added to the original bill. I have no clue where you pulled oppression from my posts, unless you mistake oppression with a) vetoing a bill because you don't like it, or b) adding more signing statements, often in private than all of the presidents combined. That's not oppression, that's doing what you want, no matter what anyone else says.

Sorry, I got your post crossed up with Elrathin where we were discussing oppression.

You could, but it wouldn't be true. Why would senators pass a bill that no one wanted?

You are kidding me with this one, right?

Sure do. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html)


Finally someone who will substantiate a claim.Â*Â*Thank you, I will read that article tonight.

[Newscaster]

Chess, I am not sure you understand what hypocrisy is.

[Danoz]

This thread is heading off in 12 different directions...

[BoogyMan]

Dan you are correct and several of us, myself included, have participated in making that happen.

Lets get back onto the topic.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But here is what, *The Great CWN* wrote to launch this topic.
2. Its a multi-layered post.
3. Weaving patterns into time and space.

Regards,
SirJameosfTexas






Sorry bout that,

1. But what makes the *New Testament* or *New Covenant*?
2. It is Jesus Christ.
3. It was the fact that Jesus Christ, Gawd among us, that the Amendment of the Old Testament was in fact ratified by the sacrifice of HIMSELF, in order to bring forth a Better Covenant.
4. That is far easier for Mankind to Keep, and bring forth *fruit*, (good works), than the strict Old Covenant ever could.
4. a) Jesus Christ is indeed a Walking and Living Bible, who came to mankind, in order to save all mankind, but willingly.
5. All this and a bag of chips, right here on DF.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas