# "A free thinker is Satan's slave"



## Dragon (Mar 16, 2012)

That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.

In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.

To a traditional Christian, there is a very, very narrow range of thought, feeling, and action that are permissible. To think freely is to be a heretic or an unbeliever. To feel freely is to lust, to desire, almost certainly to be an adulterer or fornicator in one's imagination, and in some cases to be a homosexual; it's to be angry at times, to long for what traditional morality says should not be yours, to envy and resent.

Freedom means nothing if it is not freedom to sin. Traditional Christianity is opposed to sin. Therefore, traditional Christianity is opposed to freedom.


----------



## jodylee (Mar 16, 2012)

The free thinking man that discovered fire and learnt to cook food, the free thinking hunter that used his magnificent brain the create tools, the free thinker that decided to settle down and farm crops and keep  live stock, thus creating civilisation, ALL SATAN'S SLAVES,


----------



## nitroz (Mar 16, 2012)

found it on reddit.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 16, 2012)

Of course the power hungry control freaks that are religious dogmatists are against free thought.

DUH!


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 16, 2012)

Well dragon you tried to prove a point but you lost me at the end.  Freedom can and does coincide with rules.  Freedom to break rules/sin is there however the same freedom that allowed you to break the rules/sin is the same freedom which serves as the conduit through which the consequences of said decision are arrived at.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

> Freedom means nothing if it is not freedom to sin. Traditional Christianity is opposed to sin. Therefore, traditional Christianity is opposed to freedom.



Seems counterintuitive. For some "sins" rob others of their freedom, right down to their life. If freedom means nothing unless I can by force, take your life, are any of us truly free? 
There are established rules and code in order to maintain everyones freedom, or liberty to be in pursuit in the USA.

Christians may believe that free thinkers are sinners, but there is no established laws within our nation that allow the church (of any religion) to make commanded rules based on belief.

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really add up in the end.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 16, 2012)

OK, I guess I need to clarify.

If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

It's called character..also known as self control. 

Character is NOT anti-liberty.

Most cultures have historically viewed self control and strong character favorably.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".

Atheists are Satan's slaves, and anyone who has read Dragon's drivel knows it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

I wonder where an agnostic falls on the chart.....


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Slave.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 16, 2012)

Hells Janitor


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

Hmmmm....interesting. Slave to what exactly?


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 16, 2012)

Radical Islamists think the same way, free thinking is dangerous and needs to be put down.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> 
> Atheists are Satan's slaves, and anyone who has read Dragon's drivel knows it.



And just who maligned the term freethinker into atheism?
And why?


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 16, 2012)

Jesus was a bit of a free thinker.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 16, 2012)

Dragon said:


> OK, I guess I need to clarify.
> 
> If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.



Absolutely correct Dragon.  The only things that I can think of as actually being "sins" are those that are laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or those that are laid out in the 10 Commandments (which both basically say the same thing incidentally).

However, it seems that Christians are so busy trying to "out purify" each other that they deem anything that they have either had trouble with, or things they think are against their particular "morals" as sins also.  Case in point, the current Santorum war on pornography, saying that being gay is a sin, or drinking alcohol even.

Porn, being gay and drinking AREN'T "sins" they're actually vices, and if left unchecked, can lead to behavior which would cause one to sin.

Incidentally, I'm wondering why the good Christians of the GOP continually ignore God's command to mankind to take care of the earth?  We're told to be stewards of the planet, yet they are more interested in strip mining and destroying the environment.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 16, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> Jesus was a bit of a free thinker.



Yes He was.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> ...


 

Oh. My. God.

" one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; *especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma*"

Freethinker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the free thinker..."the voice of atheism since 1881"

The Freethinker


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was a bit of a free thinker.
> ...


 
No, he wasn't. He didn't reject religious dogma. He stated he wasn't there to challenge it, or to reject it, but to fulfill it.

You guys really need to bone up on your vocabulary, and while you're at it, it couldn't hurt to take a history class or two.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Thanks. So, with that in mind of religious dogma, are those who subscribe to other faiths also slaves to satan? What of the religions that far pre-date christianity and were not accounted for when the greek and roman philosophers wrote the original scripture? Just curious, I haven't been in college in decades and in so, haven't put much thought into religious dogma.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Greek and roman philosophers did not write the original scripture. Sorry.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

Who wrote them?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Not Greek and Roman philosophers. I don't know where you got that, but it's patently incorrect.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Mar 16, 2012)

I should brush up on this stuff. It's been a long time since I gave it any relevance.

I know some of the authoring was both greek and roman. Some was wrtten (I believe the main oldest "laws") by the jewish, some exiled to Babylon wrote other parts...you really aren't helpful here.

Thanks anyway.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

It depends on what book you are referencing.

The Pentateuch is generally believed to have been written mostly by Moses.


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




I didn't give Homosexuals the Rainbow and I don't give Atheists and Agnostics the right to the term "Free Thinker" either.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 16, 2012)

WOAH WOAH WOAH Jesus was NOT a free thinker.  Why do you think I'm payin tithes????????


----------



## Dragon (Mar 16, 2012)

"Freethinker" is sometimes used to mean an atheist, but it seems to me that the word as literally interpreted -- anyone who thinks freely, atheist or not -- allows the statement, "A freethinker is Satan's slave" to truly state traditional Christian belief. In the context of traditional Christianity, not believing certain things is an unforgivable sin, and anyone who thinks freely risks changing his mind and becoming an unbeliever. Traditional Christianity, therefore, is opposed to free thought. It's also opposed to freedom of religion.

In fact, it's opposed to freedom generally.

I use the expression "traditional Christianity" to implicitly acknowledge that there are forms and sects of Christianity for which none of this is true, and that it doesn't follow from the teachings of Jesus, either. However, in the types of Christianity believed in and followed by those who call themselves "conservative Christians" or "religious conservatives," it is certainly true.


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 16, 2012)

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Who cares what it seems to you, Dragon?

The term "freethinker" refers to those who dismiss religion and God. It is what it is.

You can try to pretend something else, of course. But then, you would be motivated to, since as an atheist you are committed to making atheism appear like something other than what it is.....

slave.


----------



## earlycuyler (Mar 16, 2012)

nitroz said:


> found it on reddit.



Photo shop.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 16, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> Jesus was a bit of a free thinker.



Yep and it got him crucified at the request of organized religion.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Who cares what it seems to you, Dragon?
> 
> The term "freethinker" refers to those who dismiss religion and God. It is what it is.
> 
> ...



free·think·er
&#8194; &#8194;[free-thing-ker] Show IPA
noun
a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief. 

Free thinker | Define Free thinker at Dictionary.com


----------



## Douger (Mar 16, 2012)

No. Free thinkers are enemies of uh murka.
" You're either with us or against us"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 16, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> Jesus was a bit of a free thinker.



No he was parroting what the man in the sky told him to say.

Lucifer was the real free thinker as are most iconoclasts.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> 
> Atheists are Satan's slaves, and anyone who has read Dragon's drivel knows it.



Dragon is not an atheist, by the way......


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Dragon said:


> "Freethinker" is sometimes used to mean an atheist, but it seems to me that the word as literally interpreted -- anyone who thinks freely, atheist or not -- allows the statement, "A freethinker is Satan's slave" to truly state traditional Christian belief. In the context of traditional Christianity, not believing certain things is an unforgivable sin, and anyone who thinks freely risks changing his mind and becoming an unbeliever. Traditional Christianity, therefore, is opposed to free thought. It's also opposed to freedom of religion.
> 
> In fact, it's opposed to freedom generally.
> 
> I use the expression "traditional Christianity" to implicitly acknowledge that there are forms and sects of Christianity for which none of this is true, and that it doesn't follow from the teachings of Jesus, either. However, in the types of Christianity believed in and followed by those who call themselves "conservative Christians" or "religious conservatives," it is certainly true.


 
yes, I'm sure you could change the meaning to mean anything you like.

In THIS instance, where YOU started a thread talking about EVANGELISTS who were decrying freethinkers as satan's slaves, I think we can comfortably assume they're talking about ATHEISTS, you dishonest barf receptacle.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 16, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> ...



A Free thinker is anyone that thinks objectively concerning matters of conventional theology.

For instance, Dragon is a free thinker, but Dragon is not an atheist and may or may not be an agnostic.  (Dragon does makes claims concerning mysic experiences so I think that places him in the non-conventional free thinker association.)

The argument that free thinkers are Satan slaves is an attempt by theologians to scare their flock from writings by free thinkers.   

Think about it, If new ideas begin to creep into the heads of their sheep, their sheep may turn into something else.

Like wolves, rabbits and eagles.  How do you fleece Wolves, Rabbits and Eagles?  Better to keep them as simple minded sheep!


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Huh?

Anyway.

Dragon IS an atheist.

And in THIS instance, the instance where freethinkers are being touted as slaves to satan on church billboards, they are specifically referring to ATHEISTS you fucking loon.

You have to change the reality to suit your bigotry and ignorance. I get it.

But regardless of your own mistaken understanding, I promise you, they aren't saying "all smart ppls is de enemies of GAWD!"

Despite the fact that you did not understand the definition of "freethinker" as it is being used by the churches to identify atheists as slaves of Satan, I promise you, they are talking about atheists. Regardless of your own small vocabulary, they do know of whom they are referring.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Huh?
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> ...



First thing.  The Church should use language correctly in order for us lay folks to understand what they are saying.  Their refusal to do so and use concepts with multiple meanings such as "Death" and "God" tends to lead to rejection by the very people they are trying to convert.  Instead of "Freethinkers" the church should say ATHEISTS, since you believe this is who they are talking about.

Now "Free Thinker" is anyone that does not adhere to conventional theology.  This includes more than atheist and agnostics, although atheist and agnostic embraced the term because they think it defines them.  But that may be some arrogance in those feelings.....

Finally, I think that anyone that can talk about Satan as an actual being that can
own human slaves and then turn around and call someone else a loon is a bit absurd.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

The church used it just fine. You are the ones who didn't know what the hell it means...and Dragon is an atheist.

So either he's the most ignorant atheist in the world, or he's being deceitful.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 16, 2012)

Quick question for you

Was Martin Luther a freethinker?

Consider his time and try to answer that question.  I say he was.  This is due to his challenge to the established religion of his time, Catholicism.  

Nowadays, he would not be considered one.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

No, not in the sense that it's usually used. Because the way it's USUALLY used is to describe those (usually atheists) who reject the dogma and deity of religion.


----------



## Ariux (Mar 16, 2012)

Anyone who thinks himself a free-thinker is dangerously deluded.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 16, 2012)

amrchaos is correct. I am not an atheist. However, I do consider myself a "free thinker."

I'm well aware of the fact that "freethinker" is sometimes used as a synonym for "atheist." However, traditional Christianity is opposed to any sort of free thought, not just the kind that is a synonym of atheism. Free thought that does not venture in an atheist direction will instead become heresy and/or apostasy, either of which is considered just as bad by traditional Christianity as atheism, or even worse, since atheism isn't really a rival the way another religion or a heretical form of Christianity is.

Traditional Christianity is opposed, not just to atheism, but to free thought itself, and indeed to freedom in general.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

I don't care what you say you consider yourself. A freethinker is an atheist.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

As for the rest of your idiocy, it's just dishonest blather.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm going to Hell.

I can live with that. Better that than give in to group think...


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

Whatever.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 16, 2012)

Wanna know why most churches don't like free thinkers?

They challenge dogma.

Wanna know why most Christians think free thinkers are slaves of the SaTan?  Because they don't like having their dogma challenged.

Interestingly enough, Yeshua (Jesus) was a free thinker, why else do you think that He challenged the religious authority and chased the money changers out of the Temple?


----------



## nitroz (Mar 16, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> 
> Atheists are Satan's slaves, and anyone who has read Dragon's drivel knows it.



So being human is bad? <:|


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 16, 2012)

How you came to that conclusion, I have no idea.

But never mind, one doesn't expect the fascists to speak to the topic. You aren't well served that way.

ABS, churches don't like freethinkers not because they challenge the church. They don't like them because they are slaves of Satan. 

Which is exactly what that billboard or marquis is all about, as Dragon knows...despite his attempt (true to the freethinker mission) to lie about it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> How you came to that conclusion, I have no idea.
> 
> But never mind, one doesn't expect the fascists to speak to the topic. You aren't well served that way.
> 
> ...



You mean, they challenge the DOGMA.

Did you forget that Yeshua (Jesus) was Jewish?

Incidentally, most Christians don't think that Jews are going to Heaven.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

Sheesh get off the pretentious yeshua kick.

And don't feed me shit like "most Christians" blah blah blah unless you have something to back it up.

Not that it is even relevant to the topic.


----------



## nitroz (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> How you came to that conclusion, I have no idea.
> 
> But never mind, one doesn't expect the fascists to speak to the topic. You aren't well served that way.
> 
> ...



You just said it was bad for one to think for themself.

So it's bad to live your live to how you want to live it? Or make human decisions?


----------



## editec (Mar 17, 2012)

_Thinking free _
_is thought by some_
_a kind of _
_liberation._​ 
_While others think_
_that thinking free_
_will cost you your_
_salvation _​ 
Burma Slave​


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

"Slaves to Satan" is another way of saying that they challenge dogma, and the authority by which traditional Christians would bind and chain freedom. In fact, Satan is another link in that chain, and it's traditional Christians, not free thinkers, who are slaves to Satan: they live in fear of him, and of Hell, and tremble in their cages of dogma, afraid to open the cage door.

Traditional Christianity is _about_ slavery. It's a system of slavery, and one becomes free by stepping outside its limits and boundaries.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I don't care what you say you consider yourself. A freethinker is an atheist.




Atheists do not have a monopoly on free thinking.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care what you say you consider yourself. A freethinker is an atheist.
> ...



LOL that's certainly true, but I have to say koshergrl's statement is making my point for me.

An atheist, of course, is someone who does not believe in God or gods. A free thinker is someone whose thinking isn't bound by dogma. Obviously those are not identical concepts.

For everyone's information, I'm a Pagan. I have opinions about the nature of deity and divinity that are unconventional and would take too long to go into on this thread if I could even explain them, but I certainly believe that the Gods exist. So no, I am not an atheist.

Not that it really matters. The point here would be the same even if I were.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Yup.  Anyone who surrenders critical thought for ANY _dogma_ (and I emphasize the word, dogma), religious or otherwise, is no longer a free thinker.  _Faith_ and free thinking can certainly coexist because they involve separate types of thought and their processes.

Faith is a set of beliefs and beliefs are ideas an individual accepts as true without any proof - more an emotional and right brain process, IMO.  Free thought, in my book, implies the application of critical thought which is more a left brain process.

That's the way I see it.


----------



## nitroz (Mar 17, 2012)

2+2=4

_omg! I'm going to hell!_


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care what you say you consider yourself. A freethinker is an atheist.
> ...


 

Si Modo, look up the term. The TERM "free thinker" means atheist..someone who challenges religion.

And of course they don't have a monopoly on the ACT of free thinking, they are a mess. But they hide behind that term.

My objection was the fact that Dragon pretended  that the term "free thinker" when used by the CHURCH meant something else.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking," and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers."[4][5]

Oh, the HORROR!

(Please tell me that you are not serious.....)


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

nitroz said:


> 2+2=4
> 
> _omg! I'm going to hell!_


 

Probably, but that is not evidence that you are a free thinker.

FREE THINKER does not mean logical, nitwit. Though that's what the atheists WANT you to believe.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
Si, the way the church used it and the way it has been used for the most part is as a description of ATHEISTS...

Here is a cut and paste of the first three hits on a search of "freethinker definition"...

*freethinker (n) - Bing Dictionary*


free·think·er [ free thíngk&#601;r ] 


*somebody who does not accept dogma:* an independent thinker who refuses to accept established views or teachings, especially on religion
Synonyms: individualist, free spirit, nonbeliever, skeptic, nonconformist, rationalist


Bing Dictionary




*Freethinker - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...*







*Definition* of *FREETHINKER*: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially: one who doubts or denies religious dogma
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/*freethinker*

*Freethinker | Define Freethinker at Dictionary.com*







noun a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason , independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established 

My ONLY point is that the term, contrary to what militant atheists like Dragon and a few others would have us believe, has a specific meaning particular to ATHEISTS. 

So holding up the church for ridicule on the basis that they are attacking LOGICAL thinkers is disengenuous...they are not attacking logical thinkers, they are making a point about atheists, and about the term that atheists use to describe themselves when they want to lend themselves credibility...."freethinkers".

I know people use it incorrectly and to mean something else. But in THIS instance, it has a specific meaning. And that meaning is not "any logical thinker".


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...


Replace the word "women" with "free thinker".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wse_hgca220&feature=related]BEST Movie Line ever in film history - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Si modo (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Not seeing freethinkers being equivalent to atheists or the reverse.

Anyway, churches don't define words for me.  Regardless, although there is religious dogma, all dogma is not religious.

You know that.

And, I've known Dragon for years, now.  He is not an atheist.  You keep saying that, but he is not.

I don't buy hook, line, and sinker ANY dogma of any kind.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 17, 2012)

nitroz said:


> 2+2=4
> 
> _omg! I'm going to hell!_


now now... you just have to think more freely and imagine a world where there are other answers for 2+2.

I'm all for keeping an open mind, but don't keep it so open your brains fall out.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Koshergrl is missing the point.

First of all, as I said in the OP I can't be sure that billboard isn't a hoax. If I had to guess, I'd say probably it is, and that no church actually posted those words. So the church's WORDS and what they meant by them (if they even said them to begin with) aren't the issue here.

This isn't something that I'm saying a church has said, it's something I'm saying that traditional Christians BELIEVE, whether they say it or not, and whether that billboard is real or not. If it is, then maybe "atheist" is all the church meant by "free thinker."

But be that as it may, traditional Christianity IS opposed to free thinking, and to freedom in general, as those words literally mean -- not just atheism, but any freedom of thought, and any freedom of feeling, and any freedom of action, and freedom generally.

Traditional Christianity is an anti-freedom religion. And THAT is what I mean. What the church meant by the word "freethinker," if any church even said that in the first place, is irrelevant.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Koshergrl is missing the point.
> 
> First of all, as I said in the OP I can't be sure that billboard isn't a hoax. If I had to guess, I'd say probably it is, and that no church actually posted those words. So the church's WORDS and what they meant by them (if they even said them to begin with) aren't the issue here.
> 
> ...


Oh, please.    There are plenty of free thinkers of every religion.  When any religious person goes fundy, though, they surrender free thought.  Absolutely.

If that's what you meant - fundies - I completely agree.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

You can go back to pretending you are ignoring me, Dragon, you stupid piece of shit. 

"
In order to avoid any misunderstandings, let me clarify what I mean. In stating that an Evangelical Christian cannot be a freethinker, I am _not_ saying that Evangelical Christians are gullible or that there are no Evangelical scholars worth taking seriously. On the contrary, having attended an Evangelical university, I know first-hand that there are intelligent Evangelicals. (As an aside, I wish that more Evangelicals could return the favor and admit there are honest, intelligent atheists who are familiar with the facts and yet are convinced there is no God.) But a person's intelligence has nothing to do with whether he or she is a freethinker. A person can be very smart and not be a freethinker; likewise, an uneducated person can be a freethinker. Freethought is an _epistemology_, one that is incompatible with an Evangelical worldview.
That Evangelicals cannot be freethinkers is confirmed by leading Evangelical scholars themselves. For example, in addressing the 'problem' of doubt, theologian William Lane Craig writes:
It is unbiblical to think of doubt as a virtue; to the contrary, doubt is always portrayed in the Scriptures as something detrimental to spiritual life. Doubt never builds up; it always destroys.[3]
Craig then proceeds to argue that Christians should not confuse "_thinking_ about their faith with _doubting_ their faith." Then, in a passage that I think reveals why it is so difficult for Christian websites to link to opposing websites like the Secular Web, Craig states that Christian teachers who encourage their students to doubt their faith are _literally_ acting as "Satan's advocate in the classroom!" Therefore, Craig declares, he "resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections."[4] Given Craig's worldview, that is exactly what he _should_ do. But that is also why Evangelicals cannot be freethinkers. Unlike Evangelicals, freethinkers do not consider doubt a 'problem'; on the contrary, freethinkers believe doubt is healthy and should be encouraged."

Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Oh, please.    There are plenty of free thinkers of every religion.  When any religious person goes fundy, though, they surrender free thought.  Absolutely.
> 
> If that's what you meant - fundies - I completely agree.



That's what I meant. I even pointed out, at least once and I think twice, that there are Christians who aren't like that at all. Which is why I have been at pains to always say "traditional Christianity" here, and not just "Christianity."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2012)

> The TERM "free thinker" means atheist..someone who challenges religion.



Wrong again. 

As already correctly noted: one can be a free thinker and a theist. 



> You can go back to pretending you are ignoring me, Dragon, you stupid piece of shit.


Thats not very Christian of you.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The TERM "free thinker" means atheist..someone who challenges religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And of course, that kind of behavior is why the little jerk IS on my ignore list (no pretense). But when someone else quotes her, I can still read it. This gives me a chance from time to time to see if someone has changed his/her ways and deserves to be taken off ignore.

In KG's case, clearly that moment has not yet arrived.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



Spoken like a true slave of Satan, perhaps?    J/K


Submission to God and/or submitting our thoughts to God and/or to others is still a CHOICE.   It's called love and loving God and others is a choice we make all the time.  It's a choice to be patient, not seek our own, and bear all things, endure all things.  Does it come easy? Hell no!  It's extremely difficult in many cases because alot of times we are thinking about "self".  

_Choosing_ to love God and loving others doesn't take away from our freedom to do so.  It's still a _choice_ we all make every day.




> 1 Cor 13: 4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Marie, I'm not referring to love, either of God or of others. There is no conflict between that and free, rational thought. The conflict is between free thought and dogma, not love. 
Dogma puts the mind in prison, but love gives the heart wings.


----------



## nitroz (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > 2+2=4
> ...



So that means planned parenthood and the other uses for contraception shouldn't be a big deal, right? Because there are other uses for contraception and planned parenthood aids people in planning and promotes safety and abstinence. That's logical.


So Illogical thinking will send you to hell?

If so, Santorum, Romney, and Limbaugh all are going to get whats coming to them.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie, I'm not referring to love, either of God or of others. There is no conflict between that and free, rational thought. The conflict is between free thought and dogma, not love.
> Dogma puts the mind in prison, but love gives the heart wings.



Love is 100% relevant to your topic because love is a choice.  

Love IS our FREEDOM that no man can take from us.  Love also rejoices in the truth.  We wake in the morning having daily to make choices in everything we do; whether to love, or not to love.   

When we love, we yield to God or others, but many times everything in our flesh wants to scream out against it. (Yes, depending on the situations or trials we each have)  Over all, still, love is a specific choice and freedom we have.

In other words, I'm presenting to you that God is love.  And that love is a choice.  If you agree, how can your OP be correct?

.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> Love is 100% relevant to your topic because love is basis of choice.
> 
> Love IS our FREEDOM that no man can take from us.  Love also rejoices in the truth.  We wake in the morning having daily to make choices in everything we do; whether to love, or not to love.
> 
> ...



It can be correct because, as I said, love is not dogma. In fact, absolutely nothing you have presented in this post is unique in any way to Christianity, any form of Christianity, let alone the dogmatic form. I can say the exact same thing as a Pagan, except maybe I would say Goddess or the Gods rather than God -- same concept, though.

To surrender one's heart to love is NOT the same as surrendering one's critical thought to a belief system. And love of God does NOT imply adherence to the rigid behavioral, belief, and feeling codes of traditional Christianity.

Simply put, traditional Christians do not own God, as much as they seem to think they do. Nor do they own love.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 17, 2012)

Or afterthought - perhaps I should ask - what do you mean by "traditional" Christianity?

Those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, such as myself are called Christians.  First called "Christians" in Antioch. 



> Acts 11:26
> and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> Or afterthought - perhaps I should ask - what do you mean by "traditional" Christianity?



Ah, a good and pertinent question. Traditional Christians share the following beliefs, which may not be an exclusive list:

1) Christianity is the only true religion.
2) The Bible is God's word and is true in every passage. (In most cases, I could add the word "literally" before "true.")
3) There is a very narrow list of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors which can be considered morally acceptable; everything outside that list is sinful and wrong.
4) Everyone who sins (i.e., thinks, feels, or behaves at any time in his/her life outside that narrow band of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior, which of course means everyone) will be condemned by God to Hell, unless forgiven by God; but:
5) God is willing to forgive any Christians who sincerely repent of their sins. (Non-Christians need not apply unless they become Christians first.)

One may of course follow the teachings of Christ without being a traditional Christian in the above sense, and there are many non-traditional Christians around, of whom you may be one yourself.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Love is 100% relevant to your topic because love is basis of choice.
> ...




Perhaps I'll come to better understanding of where you are coming from if I may please ask these questions?

Who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

What do you believe the Bible is? (Made for us by God/His Word; or man made "dogma")?

Or, what do you consider "dogma"?


.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> Perhaps I'll come to better understanding of where you are coming from if I may please ask these questions?
> 
> Who do you believe Jesus Christ is?



If you had asked that question in the past tense, I would have answered that he WAS a Jewish spiritual teacher who was executed by the Romans at the behest of Jewish religious authorities sometime around 30-35 AD, whose followers continued to follow his teachings as part of their Jewish practices for some time after his death, and upon whose teachings a new religion was very loosely based after the mission of Paul of Tarsus.

Since you asked in the present tense, however, I will say that Jesus IS the main God-form of the Christian religion. There is an association between this God Jesus and the man Jesus referred to above; Christians believe them to be one and the same; I do not.



> What do you believe the Bible is? (Made for us by God/His Word; or man made "dogma")?



The Bible is a collection of writings written over a period of several thousand years in three different languages (Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, ancient Greek), containing the oral history and religious teachings of the ancient Hebrew peoples and a careful selection of early Christian writings. I do not regard either the Bible or any other book as "God's word" in the sense Christians mean that term.



> Or, what do you consider "dogma"?



Dogma is any intellectual belief held on the strength of authority rather than reason or evidence, especially if one feels bound by a duty to hold that belief immune from question.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I'll come to better understanding of where you are coming from if I may please ask these questions?
> ...




Ok, thank you.   However, I think you would call me a "traditional" Christian, for the most part, based upon your answers.  


If you do not believe that Jesus Christ God in the flesh - who do you say that God is then?


.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 17, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Hey Kosher Twit..........by the very definitions of what you've posted here, if you're not a Catholic but rather another denomination, you can thank a free thinker who challenged the dogma of the Catholic church (indulgences for one)............................

His name was Martin Luther.  You know, the guy that founded the Protestant Church (which is where most Christian denominations originated from).

Try again ya freaking idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 17, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > The TERM "free thinker" means atheist..someone who challenges religion.
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> ...


1. You are correct, Christians can be free thinkers.  The catch is that the vast majority of self titled free thinkers think and act in ways that are "anti-Christ".  Hence Si is correct in the common Vulgate of the word.

2.  Never accept the definition a non-Christian uses for what they call Christian behavior, apply a litmus test for a faith they do not prescribe to OR understand what a rebuke is.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> Ok, thank you.   However, I think you would call me a "traditional" Christian, for the most part, based upon your answers.



Actually, the only thing you should conclude from those answers is that I'm not a Christian at all, which I'm not. If you take a look at my post #82, I answered your question about what I meant by that term. To repeat what I said there, a "traditional" Christian is one who believes the following (not necessarily as an exclusive list):

1) Christianity is the only true religion.
2) The Bible is God's word and is true in every passage. (In most cases, I could add the word "literally" before "true.")
3) There is a very narrow list of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors which can be considered morally acceptable; everything outside that list is sinful and wrong.
4) Everyone who sins (i.e., thinks, feels, or behaves at any time in his/her life outside that narrow band of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior, which of course means everyone) will be condemned by God to Hell, unless forgiven by God; but:
5) God is willing to forgive any Christians who sincerely repent of their sins. (Non-Christians need not apply unless they become Christians first.)

So the question is whether you agree with the above five ideas.



> If you do not believe that Jesus Christ God in the flesh - who do you say that God is then?



Well, I do believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, but I have the same belief about everyone else, too. God/Goddess is (on one level) the cosmos in its entirety, or the intelligence and will thereof, and (on another level) the attempts of our own imagination and spiritual perception to interact with same. That latter takes many different forms.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 17, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
Yeah, right.
You remain one of the more ignorant Christian bashers on the board. Which is sort of amazing, you'd think by now you would have at least accidentally absorbed some understanding of the things you like to moronically opine on....


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

One really good question is just how Christianity (and some other religions, as noted above) got to the point where so many of its sects and denominations are anti-freedom. It wasn't always like this. Going by the Gospel accounts, Jesus himself was just the opposite: he was a liberator, and his chief opponents were the dogmatists of his own day. Or, as some have noted, he was a freethinker.

How does a religion founded by someone like that devolve to the point where it puts the mind in shackles? How does it go from a founder who says (correctly) "the Kingdom of God is within you," to a situation in which those who see visions and hear the voice of God are condemned and exiled, or even (not so very long ago) burned at the stake?

We can point to the joining of church and state which was the rule for so long, but that only reinforced the authoritarian tendencies that were already part of some versions of the religion, and armed them with the power to suppress all the more liberal and freedom-loving versions. So it was an important step, that co-opting of Christianity by the Roman Empire in 325, but the disease pre-existed it. Not only that, but I've even seen the makings among Pagans. We generally don't tolerate that sort of foolishness, but that doesn't stop would-be religious authorities from trying every now and then.

The urge to control the thoughts of others must be an ingrained part of certain kinds of people. It may be a desire to make things safe and predictable, and so squelch free thought, which has the unsettling tendency to come up with ideas that are new and potentially dangerous. Or it may be something darker, a desire to utterly dominate and spiritually devour another. Something like what C.S. Lewis talked about in _The Screwtape Letters_ as the dominant impulse of Hell: a desire of one person to (metaphorically) eat someone else, reducing the victim to a totally-submerged extension of his will.

This impulse, which I agree with Lewis is hellish, seems to prevail in dogmatic and authoritarian religions, in which it transcends the personal wicked ambition of an individual (we see that more often in tiny cults with charismatic leaders), and becomes a collective desire of the organization itself.

In that sense, a free thinker is simply someone who refuses to be devoured and digested.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

How odd that you don't specifically name any of the freedoms Christians are trampling.

In other words, you're lying.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

And this is fairly ironic...the poster who prides himself on bopping around to Christian sites to attack Christians online thinks we're the ones who are trying to force others to think like US.

Please provide evidence of us attempting to force people to believe.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 18, 2012)

jodylee said:


> The free thinking *man that discovered fire *and learnt to cook food, the free thinking hunter that used his magnificent brain the create tools, the free thinker that decided to settle down and farm crops and keep  live stock, thus creating civilisation, ALL SATAN'S SLAVES,



Man did not "discover fire".  There was lots of fire around before humans.  Man noticed that fire cause animals to run..man notice that animals burned in fires were tasty and the meat lasted a bit longer.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

Another item for thought concerns the concept of "Satan" himself. This is a very interesting figure, and I submit an integral part of the whole system of control and mind-devouring.

The first Biblical reference to Satan is in the Book of Job, where he is a kind of prosecuting attorney calling on God to put Job to the test -- not a figure of evil at all, even if from Job's point of view he was not very nice. But it's clear that he and God were on the same side in that account. (Calling the Serpent from Genesis Satan is a later interpretation; that is certainly not evident from the Garden of Eden story itself.)

By the time of the Apostolic letters, though, Satan had morphed into something not unlike the way dogmatic Christians think of him today: the great boogie-man, the rebel against God, the monster that would victimize the souls of those who do not submit to the authority of the church, to those who allow their thinking to be free.

In fact, I would say this is the whole point of the myth of Satan: to scare people away from asserting their freedom, and especially from free-thinking. The image is of a monstrous, incredibly powerful hostile force out there, roaming about and ready to grab you as your mind roams free. The only way to be safe from Satan's clutches is to be a good little mind-slave of the church's dogma. Note that in this conception there is no real concept of freedom at all; either you are a slave of the church, or you risk becoming a slave of Satan.

It's a brilliant ploy, in a sick, despicable way.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> One really good question is just how Christianity (and some other religions, as noted above) got to the point where so many of its sects and denominations are anti-freedom. It wasn't always like this. Going by the Gospel accounts, Jesus himself was just the opposite: he was a liberator, and his chief opponents were the dogmatists of his own day. Or, as some have noted, he was a freethinker.
> 
> How does a religion founded by someone like that devolve to the point where it puts the mind in shackles? How does it go from a founder who says (correctly) "the Kingdom of God is within you," to a situation in which those who see visions and hear the voice of God are condemned and exiled, or even (not so very long ago) burned at the stake?
> 
> ...




Kinda responding to both your replies here, but just quoting this one.

I had meant above that you would probably think I'M the traditional Christian, not yourself. Because...

I believe Gods Word is infallable.
I believe most of what you've said above in your list.
I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.  I believe there is a God, but we are not - we fall short, we mess up.  God is God and we are NOT, as we were created by Him, and Jesus Christ has always been.  I believe Jesus Christ entirley when he said (and written in the Gospels) the following:




> John 14:6
> Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.





> John 3:3
> Jesus answered and said to him, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.





> Matthew 24:9
> Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My names sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.



We either believe 100% those verses above (what Jesus said), or try to pick it apart. We have the freedom to do either.  But what is the truth?  Do you believe what Jesus said above to be the truth?  If not, how do you know what to believe?  

So regarding the "freedom" aspect of what you are saying  ---- Does believing Him and what He says to be true in any way, shape or form, take away from our freedom?

Or rather, as for anti-freedom and/or free thought - what is true?  Do we as individuals in the human race decide who the one true God is?   Do we all get to "make up" our own little god's and every one of them are "true"?  Or does the True God tell us and/or show us Who He is?  I believe the latter.  And I believe that yielding to Him still doesn't take away our FREEDOM.

Regarding this freedom -  knowing something to be true doesn't negate our free will.   For example - we all need oxygen to live.  No one argues against that.  It is a truth.  Yes, some people will try to take away our freedom, and some succeed.  But that doesn't take away from the truth.

Believing God's Word to be true 100%, (or what you perhaps would call dogma if I understand correctly) and Him revealing Himself to us, does not take away from our freedom either.   Of which, we share the Gospel, etc.

Just going to share one more verse and gotta run.  Most "traditional" Christians believe Jesus Christ to be the Word of God and that is why we hold the Bible to be true.  (not the physical pages of course).   But that His Word is 100% truth and also that one of His Names IS the Word of God.  




> Revelation 19:13
> He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.





> John 1:1
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.




Sorry for typos, etc..started rushing... 
.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

All right, Marie, yes, I guess you would fit the description. Nothing more to say except, as I noted above, God doesn't belong to you, and one does not have to subscribe to all that mind-shackling stuff in order to experience divine love.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 18, 2012)

God is too big to be shoehorned into just one religion or belief system.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> All right, Marie, yes, I guess you would fit the description. Nothing more to say except, as I noted above, God doesn't belong to you, and one does not have to subscribe to all that mind-shackling stuff in order to experience divine love.


 
That's your opinion, and as such, dismissed as irrelevant.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 18, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> God is too big to be shoehorned into just one religion or belief system.


If God is who He says He is in the Bible, and it is His word to us... that excludes every other path to Him save his chosen people, the Jews.

But if the Bible is a lie and the work of man, all other works of divine being must also be just works of man and fantasy, myth and legend, for none could be trusted to be defended.

That's the essential question of faith.  Do you take God at His word, or not?

Oh, and before you go there, another question.

If God IS who He says He is in the Bible, do you think that He would be either so weak, ignorant, uncaring or callous towards those He loves as to not defend His Word to us from the wicked so they may know His truth?

Think deep at the meaning of your answer if you choose to answer.  It's not a simple one.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 18, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > God is too big to be shoehorned into just one religion or belief system.
> ...



Wrong, because Yeshua (Jesus), who was a good Jewish man didn't come for the Jews, He came for the Gentiles, which is everyone BUT the Jews.

Why else do you think Yeshua was in Jerusalem?  He was there to celebrate Passover, which He would do as an observant Jewish man.

Do I believe that God is who He says He is?  Yes, I just don't believe the spin that many others try to put on Him.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

Where on earth do you get that Christ came for Gentiles only?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

The really simple answer to all that is that God is NOT what the Bible says he is.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

Or he is.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 18, 2012)

Well at least two things are shown.  Dragon did not think deeply about the questions, and two pays attention to those he ignores.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 18, 2012)

*"A free thinker is Satan's slave" *

Christians are fear mongering idiots.

Just sayin..


----------



## rdean (Mar 18, 2012)

old news


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 18, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> *"A free thinker is Satan's slave" *
> 
> Christians are fear mongering idiots.
> 
> Just sayin..


 
Are you afraid of slaves?


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *"A free thinker is Satan's slave" *
> ...



Maybe... Slaves are the dumbest humans.  Dumb is dangerous.  People that believe in devils and gods are dangerous.  People act on what they know.  It stands to reason that if someone irrationally believes in Devils and Gods that they will be irrational in other areas of their lives..including the part where we co mingle and I am forced to share the world with them.

I tend to watch the delusional christians more closely, the same way I watch any crazy person.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 18, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Where on earth do you get that Christ came for Gentiles only?



Because the Jews already had a covenant with God because of Abraham.  They didn't need to be "saved".


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

That's a great theory, but there's no support for it at all.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> That's a great theory, but there's no support for it at all.



Really?  Tell ya what Kaiser Twit, give the OT a read sometime.

You might be surprised.  Christians aren't the only ones that get into Heaven.


----------



## editec (Mar 19, 2012)

One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.

One can BELIEVE something of course, but if one believes that something_ without question_, if one clings to a belief even when evidence comes to light that makes that dogma dubious?

Then one is_ not_ a free thinker.

A LOT of people who are atheists are not REMOTELY _free thinkers._

They believe other dogmas which cannot be proven, which means that they are not exactly the free thinkers they might like to think they are.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


 
Actually, I meant are you afraid of Satan's slaves? If Christians are fear mongering, and the topic is Satan's slaves, then one assumes you are afraid of satan's slaves.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

editec said:


> One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.
> 
> One can BELIEVE something of course, but if one believes that something_ without question_, if one clings to a belief even when evidence comes to light that makes that dogma dubious?
> 
> ...


 
That works.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

editec said:


> A LOT of people who are atheists are not REMOTELY _free thinkers._



True. In fact, those atheists who make a point of calling themselves atheists are still following Christian (usually) dogma, just turning everything around into a negative. A slave in rebellion is still a slave; when he's truly free, there's no longer a need to rebel.

I do think there are atheists who are not dogmatists, though. You don't tend to hear from them, but I'm sure they exist.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > That's a great theory, but there's no support for it at all.
> ...


 
I didn't say they were, you loon. I said there was no support for your statement that Christ came for only gentiles.

Try to stay on topic.

PS...I have read the OT. More than once. More than twice.


----------



## Intense (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



I couldn't disagree with you more. The First Rule in Judaism and Christianity both is "God First In All Things". Couple that with Personal Responsibility, acknowledge, that We Each learn from "Cause and Effect", from "Consequence", both Good and Bad, and you find Yourself both Free and Accountable. Your first issue is with Your Own Conscience. Are you looking for a Friend or Enemy in that?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> I couldn't disagree with you more. The First Rule in Judaism and Christianity both is "God First In All Things". Couple that with Personal Responsibility, acknowledge, that We Each learn from "Cause and Effect", from "Consequence", both Good and Bad, and you find Yourself both Free and Accountable. Your first issue is with Your Own Conscience. Are you looking for a Friend or Enemy in that?



I am merely noting that in traditional Christianity, there is very little in the way of thought that is considered allowable, and a great deal of fear and bribery used to imprison the mind. You may, of course, come up with your own theology (as you seem to have done), which is "Christian" in the sense of being compatible with Christ's teaching, and which does not fit that description. If so, however, it will not be traditional Christianity.

As long as people believe that they MUST hold certain opinions or they will be punished, their minds are in prison.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't disagree with you more. The First Rule in Judaism and Christianity both is "God First In All Things". Couple that with Personal Responsibility, acknowledge, that We Each learn from "Cause and Effect", from "Consequence", both Good and Bad, and you find Yourself both Free and Accountable. Your first issue is with Your Own Conscience. Are you looking for a Friend or Enemy in that?
> ...


An interesting thing is that a big part of Christianity is forgiveness.  Until I finally learned how to forgive, I never knew how liberated my mind could be.


----------



## Intense (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't disagree with you more. The First Rule in Judaism and Christianity both is "God First In All Things". Couple that with Personal Responsibility, acknowledge, that We Each learn from "Cause and Effect", from "Consequence", both Good and Bad, and you find Yourself both Free and Accountable. Your first issue is with Your Own Conscience. Are you looking for a Friend or Enemy in that?
> ...



I both agree and disagree with aspects of your positioning. My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external. Matters of Conscience are between You and Your Maker. It is not my place to Intervene, by taking control, but only to point you to your own Conscience, your conduit.  There is a place where others make value decisions for the blind or the weak, we each have areas where we do not have sight, that is a temporary state though, which we outgrow. To me the Slave is one prisoner to addiction, obsession, Vice, not one who holds an opinion, however contrary it seems, or unpopular. What I would ask is that the perspective be validated. If it is a true perspective, it stands in adversity, on it's own merit. 

There are aspects throughout time, history, that stand for a reason, whether realized or not, and some that are misused or misrepresented. One thing is clear, We are not the Authority on what is Right or Just. We cannot decree cause and effect, though we may have become very adept at misrepresenting it. Bible Interpretation is just that too. It is a Tool, a Powerful Tool, with many pitfalls and snares, by design. There is no Light Study or Translation of it. Love God with All the Strength of Your Being. Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. It's not a bad place to start.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.



See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.
> ...


Here's the way I see things:  Some folks, as you well know, are just not all that independent of spirit an/or thought.  If following some sort of dogma works for them in reaching the same ends - a morality that jibes closely with yours, for example - what is the 'evil' associated with that?

To each his own, I say, and that includes paths taken and driving force for taking them, unless they stomp on my freedoms.

ETA:  Not that I don't promote critical thinking in every aspect of one's life, especially to the most resistant to it.


----------



## Intense (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.
> ...



Maybe it's your perspective. Try looking at Dogma,, like training wheels, which serve a purpose for a time, they are restrictive, they have purpose, they also have limits we outgrow. Who holds the keys to Salvation? Who points you in the right direction? There is One God, if You believe, it is not Me or You. Are we of God, yes. Do we define or limit what God is? I wouldn't try. Do we seek positive direction and growth? The smart ones do. Do we proceed, with endeavors that we know inside are wrong? To our peril, if we are stubborn enough to take it that far. Do I think for Each of us, the real Battle is Internal? Yes. So are we driven by external or Internal Forces? That's the choice, isn't it?


----------



## Intense (Mar 19, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Even the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. I know of Nothing Forced there Anymore.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Very true.  The mountain has moved several times.


----------



## Intense (Mar 19, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

editec said:


> One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.
> 
> One can BELIEVE something of course, but if one believes that something_ without question_, if one clings to a belief even when evidence comes to light that makes that dogma dubious?
> 
> ...


I used to think that way.  Then I became Born Again, and realized God needs us who believe in Him to be Free Thinkers.  We SHOULD question with boldness even the very nature of God, but remember that God is not a man that He may be shown a liar.  God did not give us this incredible intellect to be just robots.  He did not give us free will in which to follow blindly.

You must understand the nature and goal of God is to have us love Him.  You can't have love without free will and the choice to hate Him.  Without that choice, what can you do but follow the inevitable truth of His existence as your creator.  So when you choose to hate God, it is your choice freely given, and much to His grief.

There are certain undeniable truths to the universe, and He and his Law, as well as Grace are some of them.  Just like gravity, matter and energy.  This is just one of them. No matter how free thinking you are, you would not deny that matter, energy or gravity exists.  Well you could, but that would not stop you from dying by a bus hitting you, falling out a window or having a million volts run through you.  It's the dangers of an objective reality, nothing more

But go ahead and free think all you want.  Your perspective is not shared nor objective.  Then again... neither is mine.  Makes it really complex, doesn't it?


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

> I am merely noting that in traditional Christianity, there is very  little in the way of thought that is considered allowable,



Yeah.  Kinda like hard science and mathematics that way, isn't it?  2+2=4.  Water is H2O.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Should there be 'free thinking' answers that differ from that?  I know that's hard for self proclaimed 'free thinkers' to accept.  But if you really want to see an example of this run amok, look here.

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > One cannot adhere to a DOGMA (any dogma, not JUST religious dogma) and be a free thinker.
> ...



Nice..Fizzy.  You don't get it but you will explain it anyway.  Atheists don't "hate" your god.  Your god does not exist.  What they hate is ignorance.  That does exist.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Nice..Fizzy.  You don't get it but you will explain it anyway.  Atheists don't "hate" your god.  Your god does not exist.  What they hate is ignorance.  That does exist.



Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.


Oh of course.  The Council of Nicaea was filled with dunderheads, fools and numbskulls who did not earnestly believe in trying to do the work of God and instead assembled a book in which to consolidate power in their hands.

Really?  If God is who He says He is, you think He didn't have any control, say or ability to make sure that outcome was ANYTHING but what He intended?  Is God so weak that imperfect men, earnestly seeking HIS heart would just play fuckaround fuckaround with His word for personal power?

And here I thought *I* was cynical to the point of goofiness.  I've got nothing on you it appears.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Nice..Fizzy.  You don't get it but you will explain it anyway.  Atheists don't "hate" your god.  Your god does not exist.  What they hate is ignorance.  That does exist.
> ...


No.  They hate the CONCEPT of ANY supreme being and anyone who disagrees with them.  Don't worry though, we know it's not a personal hatred.  It's like hating another race.  Generalized, based on emotion and inference with no grounding in fact.  So, a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Nice..Fizzy.  You don't get it but you will explain it anyway.  Atheists don't "hate" your god.  Your god does not exist.  What they hate is ignorance.  That does exist.
> ...


Of course this is a prime example of transferring a personal hatred to God for the action of a person.  Transference is quite typical in those who have 'become' self proclaimed free thinkers and gets back to the subjective concept of "If it feels good to me, it is good" which really is not that intelligent to base a prejudice on.

Ignorance it seems runs both sides of the table, doesn't it?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > I might see more value in the above arguments if I felt any confidence that the dogmas in question were the work of enlightened, intelligent people who really wanted to (and were equipped to) help others to reach awareness of the divine. The problem is that I see them as either created for the sinister purpose of preserving and upholding worldly power, or as a blind man's description of the elephant, or both.
> ...


 
He's not cynical, he's dishonest. As well as ignorant, I imagine. I don't think he has a clue about the history of the bible and its translations and compilations.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure Dragon has quite a bit of knowledge about the history of the Church, though.

Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me.  However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?

Live and let live.  Believe and let believe.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, for fairness' sake.    Most people, even regular church goers understand the Bible, or have read it in more than one translation, questioned the words used in a Concordance, or even looked at what great Biblical scholars have said and thought about many things.

So, I don't hold it against most 'free thinkers' for doing the same unless they're utter asses.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Nice..Fizzy.  You don't get it but you will explain it anyway.  Atheists don't "hate" your god.  Your god does not exist.  What they hate is ignorance.  That does exist.
> ...



Hi..I'm Sean... Glad to know ya.."Dragon"? is it?

I've never been physically abused by any member of organized religion.

Some of my close relatives have been physically abused in the name of Christ...but I was a long time hater of religion before I found out about it.  That knowledge was just icing on the cake.  My hatred was a result of free thinking at an early age..around five or so when I started reading well above my typical age .. science and history mostly.  The stupidity and obvious lies like Santa Claus and seeing people pray to non existant sky fairies.  

Reading about what the christians did in South America..the hubris of people like Colombus.  Claiming other peoples land and societies and murdering them in the name of "god".

I was offended by the whole fantasy christmas thing..easter bunnies..tooth fairies..Many parts of the bible..resurections..etc..which were easy to see as fake... yet ..adults keep tring to sell that bullshit and most children buy into it.  It was the whole proccess of propaganda in the name of something that was supposed to be good and clearly were lies that put me on the course of disgust of religion.

It is simple really.  There is an obscene imbalance of truth and what is fact against what is claimed and sold.  What has been a great dissapointment is seeing other people buy into the lies of organized religion.  I have to admit my hatred has grown over the years as I see more and more otherwise good people fall into the trap of fear and false promise.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You are almost half right.  It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress.  It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

The only zombies I see here are the zombies who get "angry" over the spiritual life of other people.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me.  However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?



We're just having a discussion, right? But I can give you Jefferson's answer: "For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

People can believe what they choose, but it would be nice if they were free to do so without threat of force.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me.  However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?
> ...


I couldn't agree more.

I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.  I know it happens around the world, but I'm pretty sure it's quite rare here.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> I've never been physically abused by any member of organized religion.



Abuse doesn't have to be physical and most abuse isn't. When I see people conflate all religion and spirituality together and tar it with the same brush as the authoritarian dogmatists, which are the people you're talking about, I also see an irrational, emotion-driven reaction, and so I look for an emotional motivation. Don't have to look very hard, either.

As Intense said above, genuine religion, or genuine spirituality as I prefer to call it, comes from within, and is a very personal thing having nothing to do with objective claims of fact, or proof or disproof of any kind. On another thread, I categorized the elements of religion as the four Ms -- morality, mysticism, myth, and make-believe. The last three are quite distinct things. Mysticism is a perception that can't be put into words, and so cannot be shared, although one can share guidance on how to achieve the informing experience. Myth is a symbolic or allegorical tale (which may or may not also be literally true, but its literal truth isn't the point even if it is) that can help to unlock the experience of mysticism; its underlying meaning is also something that can't be told. And make-believe is basically anything else in religion, or myth when it has been forgotten what myth is for.

All of the complaints that you have about religion apply only to dogmatic religion, and that's true as well of all atheists who make a point of proclaiming their atheism. That makes it obviously a rebellion against dogmatic religion.

And that of course gives you and me a common foe, but I feel it's important not to get so caught up in the fury that the baby is tossed with the bathwater.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

Si modo said:


> I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.



Sure they do. What do you think Hell is, if not a threat of force?

Now, I don't believe that this particular force is real, and that means the threat can never be carried out. But what does that matter if its victims think it's real? You can rob someone with a toy gun, if it's a well-made, realistic toy and you are never called upon to actually shoot it.


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.
> ...


Oh.    I was thinking about force in real life.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape.  The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me. However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?
> ...


 
Who has tried to force you to believe?

Wait..didn't I just ask this? Yes, I did. The answer is NOBODY.

The threat of force always lies with the anti-Christians....


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.
> ...


 
No, hell is not "threat of force". 

If we said we were going to SEND you to hell for not believing, that would be a sort of threat, I suppose..but a threat is NOT force.

But we don't say we're sending you to hell. We just let you know the way it is.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

FORCE:

"violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing "

Force - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Cripes. Words mean something, you ignorant piece of shit.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That is the absolute point of contention is it not?  The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims".  All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong.  All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way.  As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma.  We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed.  The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



See, this is one of the thoughts that I've come up with while growing up, religion is basically like a spiritual school to give us an awareness of God, but as we grow up and start to learn for ourselves, we should also question the belief systems that we start out with to see if there are other points that those systems miss.

I mean..........if you can't question God, then why did Abraham argue with Him about Sodom and Gomorrah?  If you're not supposed to compete with God, then why did He show up and wrestle with Jacob?  If you're supposed to have a blind following of God, then why did Jonah run away from his mission, finally ending up in the belly of a fish to be taken to where he was supposed to deliver a message from God?

All of those examples are in the Bible, and all of those examples show PEOPLE questioning God.

No, I think there is plenty of room for free thinkers in all religions, because that is what Martin Luther was when he challenged the dogma of the Catholic church because he saw all the corruption going on in the form of indulgences as well as other things.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


 
I'm doing fine, reading along, thinking ok this looks alright..until I hit glaring dumbshit error #1 and dismiss the rest of the post as too stupid to waste effort reading:

"All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion."

I think, reeeaaaalllly...ALL evidence, hmm...how odd that so many choose to believe in the face of such astounding and overwhelming evidence!

Which of course isn't true because there IS no such evidence. And so while your post probably has some good stuff in it, anyone with half a brain stops right there, because you have chosen to include a blatant, and stupid, lie. In the first few sentences, no less.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Atheists have their own style of dogma.  It's usually very short.

Nothing not provable by natural law can exist.  Dogma does not have to be 2000 books of church tradition and ritual wrapped around a religious tract, with enough pomp and circumstance to kill a small town in Guadalahara.

But then there's always the balance of the argument.  If I'm wrong, and there is no heaven or hell, what have I lost?

On the other hand, if you're wrong and there IS a heaven and hell, what have YOU lost?

Is that chance something your willing to risk something that is eternal for?  Maybe you don't think it's that important... but what if you're wrong and someone or something out there DOES?


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I don't waste a lot of time trying to prove or disprove that which is not known.  You(the religious) have invented one so-called possibility.  The imagination could come up with an infinite number of ideas...I won't call them theories because they are not based in any facts...Theories are at least grounded in some real evidence.  When science believes it has enough information it publishes or in some traceable manner how the latest theories were built.  I do try to follow some of the latest theories..even if it is just seeing if my mind can wrap itself around it.  

Trying to believe in a sky fairy that is completely focused on humans knowing that there are billions of potential life supporting planets out there is speculation on sterroids.  Then to take this idea way out past anything resembling proveable..I am supposed to believe that this sky fairy knows ME..and is in direct charge of what I think and do..in regards to if I am pleasing this sky fairy or not! Oh and it isn't just me..this sky fairy pays the same ammount of attention to all humans...all at the same instant..from the beginning of time and on past our time into the infinite future.  You couldn't have hatched a less likely plot if you took two thousand years to work on it.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



OK halfwit... cite one single piece of real evidense that proves there is a god.  If you cannot then all other evidense points away from an existance of a supreme being.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



You have to wonder about people who subscribe to the skewed logic that somehow their freedom is jeopardized by organized ( Christian, never Muslem) religion and at the same time they systematically trample on the freedom of Christians to practice their religion and engage in their 1st Amendment rights. The Founding Fathers knew that the Bill of Rights was intended as a limitation of the power of government but today's liberal idiots seem to have missed that class in Constitution 101.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


 
Er, wrong.

You made the statement that all evidence points away from God and all science points away. Prove your statement.

You can't because it's not true. I never said there was any evidence of God. The fact that I didn't, and can't, is not proof that your statement is true.

Logical fallacy. Dumbshit.


----------



## Jess1182 (Mar 20, 2012)

sir.... WHEN DOES THE NARWHALE BACON?!?!?!   O///O


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Of course.  Your own ego won't tolerate the competition.

Sokay, I've known that personal limitation of yours for a long time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwLX2Wyl3-o]Hitchhiker&#39;s Guide To The Galaxy (2005) Zaphod on TV - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


That's because the purpose of God is to leave us the choice to choose to believe, or not believe.  What good is the faith and love of a person who will believe because they have no choice to believe?  God already has those... they're called Angels and demons.  They believe because God to them is as plain as the sun every morning.  Man is special because He believes inspite of not being able to see an obvious truth like the sun.

A believer looks at reality and sees the hand of God everywhere.  It's unavoidable.  Scripture states that even the very rocks will cry out the existence of God.

Of course, a skeptic chooses to say those very same bits of evidence are precisely why God does not exist.  

It's a choice in the end.  Always has been.  It's as silly as "What is the Matrix?" if you want to get all pop culturey.  You choose to accept or deny, but in the end, the choice IS yours.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 20, 2012)

whitehall said:


> You have to wonder about people who subscribe to the skewed logic that somehow their freedom is jeopardized by organized ( Christian, never Muslem) religion and at the same time they systematically trample on the freedom of Christians to practice their religion and engage in their 1st Amendment rights.



I might have to wonder about such people if they existed.

The reason that Christianity is of concern while Islam is not, is because we live in the United States, where Islam is a tiny minority and has no potential to take over the government and impose a theocracy. That's not to say some Muslims wouldn't like to. If Islam becomes bigger here (a LOT bigger), I'll be concerned about them, too.

Christians are not being denied the right to practice their faith. They are, however, being denied the privilege of imposing a theocracy. They're not required to like that, but there's no need to let them get away with a false claim of persecution just because of that.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

Lie.

Christians have not proposed establishing a theocracy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

> I might have to wonder about such people if they existed.



:::Holds up a mirror:::  Didn't have to look far, did you?



> The reason that Christianity is of concern while Islam is not, is  because we live in the United States, where Islam is a tiny minority and  has no potential to take over the government and impose a theocracy.



Tell that to Great Britain and France where serious attempts are being made.



> That's not to say some Muslims wouldn't like to. If Islam becomes bigger  here (a LOT bigger), I'll be concerned about them, too.



Just wait.  I've seen areas that have become third world nations in the hearts of major US cities thanks to Islam given near free reign.



> Christians are not being denied the right to practice their faith.



Just in public or on public land by government violating the first amendment.  There is no freedom FROM religion protection.



> They are, however, being denied the privilege of imposing a theocracy.



I have not seen a single group in the US who want a "Theocracy" in this nation.  Our nation wasn't founded on that, it never has lived down to that.  Obviously you do not understand the forces that drove persecuted religious peoples like the Quakers, Shakers, Pilgrims and Jews out of England.  The ability to live and let live according to their conscience.



> They're not required to like that, but there's no need to let them get away with a false claim of  persecution just because of that.



I'd love to see an atheist group take that to heart, and the next time the phrase "under God" or a prayer at a commencement ceremony, or football game, or opening congress, or any other public event on public property took place, and they shut their fucking holes and enjoy the freedom to express their religion, including theirs, in public.

I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Lie.
> 
> Christians have not proposed establishing a theocracy.


Of course not.  It's one of the myths atheists perpetuate to keep up the pretense their hate is justified towards Christians.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Lie.
> 
> Christians have not proposed establishing a theocracy.



That statement is utterly rediculous.  Human beings have thruout history( at least the last 5,000 years ) forced religious beliefs with the threat of execution upon each other.
It is only recently ..in the last 400 years that man has started to rid his governments of manditory belief.

If you are only refering to NOW..HERE in the USA that is as a result of the Constitution of our nation which prohibits it.  The muslims still have manditory religion just as the Christians did not so very long ago.

It certainly is not due to the benevelence of the christian faith that we are not living in a theocracy.  There is still preasure to wedge christian values and beliefs into the fabric of our society in every way they can get away with..Example: on our currency.."In God We Trust".


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Lie.
> ...


When was the last time someone put a gun to your head and said "go to church or die"?

I know that happens in muslim nations.  Atheist nations flip it to "Recant your faith or die".

So when'd you have it happen to you?  Have you ever SEEN it happen in this nation?


----------



## editec (Mar 20, 2012)

What CREEPY RICKY is proposing smacks of governance by theology, that's for _DAMNED SURE._


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

editec said:


> What CREEPY RICKY is proposing smacks of governance by theology, that's for _DAMNED SURE._


Rick will never get through 99% of any social conservatism he may think he wants.  

We're being governed by Obama's theology right now and you don't have any problems with it, do you?  there's not a human alive that isn't governed by their theology in their daily lives either.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Me?..personally?  Never.  Only verbally because no one has ever been allowed any advantage to MAKE me do anything.  I can't say when it began..I've just always been a fighter rather than a flighter.  I probably got it from my mom.  But she was never physically violent.. She would just throw a fortune at someone with legal action..for almost any reason.. and beat them that way.  Me..I have been setting examples of my enemies, anyone that would threaten me with physical harm, since I was a little kid.  

My brothers were a different story.  They were both beat up by preachers and high school teachers for resisting religion up on Orcas Island.  This happened after I left the Island for city living in Seattle when I was almost fifteen.  

Jack Cadden was a big shot in the church on Orcas..he was a bully and the top guy of the Orcas Power Company.  He came by our place when I was eleven ..he was drunk and had designs on my mom. He threatened her and me on that afternoon so I went up to my bedroom and came back down with my British 303 Enfield rife and stuck the loaded and cocked barrel up his nose and walked his dumb ass backwards out of our home.  I was fully prepared to ventilate his scull.  Like I said..I made examples early on and just didn't get unreasonable demands placed on me.  Bullies only pick on the weak.  I have made it a point not to project weakness.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

I dunno why, but I don't believe you other than the statement:



> Me?..personally?  Never.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> I dunno why, but I don't believe you other than the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> > Me?..personally?  Never.



Believe what you want.  You do not know me...I do not know you.  This is the internet.. it's all true..it's all bullshit.  Most people are scared little dweebs with cartoon avatars.. Me?..  I don't care ... I come as me and have no interest in made up people.. philosophies.. religions..

You and KosherGirl and Avatar and Listening..and a host of others are just a counterpoint to the message I bring.  I don't expect YOU to believe me.  I offer my replies to anyone reading with an open mind.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 20, 2012)

Mr. President said:


> Well dragon you tried to prove a point but you lost me at the end.  Freedom can and does coincide with rules.  Freedom to break rules/sin is there however the same freedom that allowed you to break the rules/sin is the same freedom which serves as the conduit through which the consequences of said decision are arrived at.


Dragooooon is lost himself. Christians are free thinkers. That sign happens to be correct.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 20, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> Christians are free thinkers.



You are living proof to the contrary.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno why, but I don't believe you other than the statement:
> ...


 
I have an open mind.

Yours, sadly, is not.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Having a hole in your head and throughout your beliefs is not the same as "open".

"Faith" is synonmous with clinging desperately against all information and fact.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno why, but I don't believe you other than the statement:
> ...


Oh I just love the irony of it all.  Only those who agree with me are open-minded.  I don't have to respect other people's right to believe, but they must respect mine to not.

yep yep.

tasty tasty irony.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Your words...not mine.

If it was just "believing" ..but it is not is it?  What the religious fanatics believe for themselves is none of my business.  What they try to push off on society is.

Why would you care about what I call "open mindedness"?  Your "Faith" prohibits it.


----------



## Marie888 (Mar 20, 2012)

Dragon said:


> All right, Marie, yes, I guess you would fit the description. Nothing more to say except, as I noted above, God doesn't belong to you, and one does not have to subscribe to all that mind-shackling stuff in order to experience divine love.





Oh I surely believe He is mine, and I am His according to His Word : ) (Thank Him so much!!)   He IS our God, the One True God!  One verse in the Bible even says He is our LIFE! 



> Psalm 95:7 *For He is our God;* and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,





> Colossians 3:4
> When Christ, *who is our life*, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.





So, going back to His Word again.   How do we know Who Jesus Christ our Lord is?  Is it revelation by "ourselves"?  Or is it from Him directly?



> 1 Peter 1:23
> Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, *by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.*



And if it's from Him directly, how does He communicate with us?  Again, one of His Name's IS the Word of God.




> Revelation 19:13
> And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.



God's Word is not "dogma".  It is the truth.   And the truth still doesn't take away from our freedoms. 

God's Word has everything to do with how He reveals Himself to us.    The whole reason the Gospel is preached and will continue to be preached (as He told us is would) to all the nations until His perfect timing.

Thanks for talking about it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Oh the irony gets funnier!



> *is*
> 
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#618;z/  Show Spelled[iz]  Show IPA
> verb 1. 3rd person singular present indicative of be.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 20, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> Oh I surely believe He is mine, and I am His



Excuse me, I made a poor choice of words. He does not belong to you _exclusively_. And also, he/she/it is too big to fit under your hat, or to be encompassed by any human idea, or by any one human religion.

Divine love may be found in many ways.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

She didn't say exclusively.

Thanks for schooling us on how to find divine love. The person who believes in killing babies is certainly the person we want to look to for spiritual guidance.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

Actually, now that I think of it, to put chains on the mind is also to put chains on God. Freezing inquiry, damming curiosity, and shutting insight into a cage built of fear and bribery, is effectively closing the door against the divine presence and influence.

This may be the point, actually. The church fears the God-touched, the truly inspired. Mystics are either excommunicated (and burned at the stake where the power exists), or else shut into monasteries where the danger that they will upset the system is minimized.

Jesus was a religious rebel who offended the dogmatic authorities of his time. Those of today, who act in his name, do everything they can to prevent anyone from following in his footsteps.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I surely believe He is mine, and I am His
> ...


Divine love can be found only through CHRIST! All other ways are false.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> Divine love can be found only through CHRIST! All other ways are false.



So speaks the slave.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Marie888 said:
> ...



Perfect!  Make the guy that has been dead for 2000 years responsible!

Pass the buck much?


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 21, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Well I'll say this, divine creation and a savior makes more sense than creation by 'Accidental Frankenstein Gumbo' as most atheists think life spawned from.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



It makes more sense to the intellectually lazy.  The dumber people are ..the more simple an explaination they need.

God did it.  What could be easier?  Then clinching the deal with Jeebus.. Jeebus will save you from all that you do not understand.  AND if you REALLY don't get it you get to go to heaven.

Science is hard work.  Finding the clues and the answers takes time and focus.  Thankfully there are some humans that don't give up and fall for the easy answer.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Unfortunately that theory doesn't wash. Christians are not, by definition, intellectually lazy. In fact, the more education a person has, the more likely they are to attend church.

Do you think JRR Tolkein and the brothers Chudnovsky are intellectual layabouts?


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 21, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


The dumber the people are huh?

Seeing as you're no great shakes either, I'd say your existence disproves that theory.  Seems to me though the more egotistical they are the less likely they are to believe in anything but their own self deluded supremacy.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Unfortunately that theory doesn't wash. Christians are not, by definition, intellectually lazy. In fact, the more education a person has, the more likely they are to attend church.
> 
> Do you think JRR Tolkein and the brothers Chudnovsky are intellectual layabouts?


pfft.  St. Augustine, C. S. Lewis, Oswald Chambers, J.R.R. Tolkein... all a buncha slackers and know nothings.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Well...Well.. Since you are a well documented liar...   I guess what you meant to say is that HUGGY is real smart!


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately that theory doesn't wash. Christians are not, by definition, intellectually lazy. In fact, the more education a person has, the more likely they are to attend church.
> ...


 
"Ignorant" and uneducated, also probably inbred...cuz we all know smart, sophisticated, people don't believe in sky pixies.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Mother Teresa...what an ignoramus.

Benjamin Carson (John Hopkins professor and Neurosurgeon who operated on the Binder twins, twins conjoined at the head), successfully)...what a backward hick!

Robert P George...obviously, he has no grasp of history or he'd reject Christianity...George is Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, a devout Roman Catholic.

Alvin Plantinga...what an idiot. He is a philosophy prof at Notre Dame and an expert in  epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion...

I mean really. Smart people just don't believe in God. 

The 20 Most Influential Christian Scholars


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Hubble's heir, Allan Rax Sandage, who discovered quasars...anybody with a scientific mind rejects God out of hand, don't you know.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2012)

You're right.........lots of people who are educated also believe in a higher being, whether you call it the Divine Watchmaker like Einstein did, or God, or even some other higher power.

However................those intelligent people who do believe in a higher being are also smart enough to not get mired down in the dogmatic beliefs of most churches.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Gosh, that must explain why so many of them are devout Roman Catholics. 
?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

One of the signs of the dogma-slave is the confusion of human authority with divine authority, and inability to distinguish between them.

For example, consider a traditional Christian's view of the Bible. The Bible, we are told, consists of instructions provided by God. But has God Himself told the believer that this is so? No. Other human beings have told him. Thus, in accepting the Bible as reflecting the authority of God, the believer is implicitly accepting the authority of those other human beings who have told him this, to determine what is or is not the word of God. The authority of the Bible is therefore only as good as the authority of those human beings, and unless those human beings were also divinely inspired, the believer really has no good way to know this about the Bible.

In fact, there's a whole chain of human links between God and the believer by way of Scripture, with logical dependence as follows:

Statement X found in the Bible is believed because

the Bible is God's word, which is believed because

the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, and
the Jewish and Christian authorities who selected the books knew which ones were divinely inspired, and
the books were not edited or altered by these authorities, and
the translations available correctly provide the original meanings

and all of this is believed because

certain human beings (living and dead) have said so.

It's the final sentence that's the important one, the one on which all of the others logically depend. If those who SAY that the Bible is divinely inspired, etc., are THEMSELVES divine authorities, then that should be believed. And yet, few Christians, if any, will make that claim, and this makes the claim of divine inspiration of the Bible dependent on the say-so of fallible human beings.

Yet this is forgotten or glossed over. When I dispute some point or other of Christian doctrine (or Muslim, or whatever -- I don't mean to single out Christianity as unique in this way), I am sometimes accused of questioning the word of God, when in reality what I am doing is questioning the word of those fallible human beings who have claimed that the Bible is the word of God. I do not believe that those human beings were incapable of making a mistake, and indeed, I believe that they did just that.

The irrationality of the belief that the Bible is the word of God, given the very shaky foundation of evidence on which this belief rests (ultimately, the unsupported say-so of people who have no ability to make that discernment) is quite obvious, and so the only plausible conclusion is that people make this mistake and think this way for non-rational, emotional reasons. What I think is behind it, from the believer's perspective, is a desire to be told what to do, a natural submissiveness and fear of freedom, a desire for a (benevolent) master. This is wholly separate from the desire for the love of God, for God is no one's master. (Whoever has an ear, let him hear.)


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Gosh, that must explain why so many of them are devout Roman Catholics.
> ?



What percentage of well known scientists is Catholic Halal Twit (Halal is Arabic for kosher), and can you back up your bullshit with a link to a factual site?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

I didn't say anything about well known scientists. Try again. Re-read your assertion. Then re-read my statement. Do it until you understand what is being said.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I didn't say anything about well known scientists. Try again. Re-read your assertion. Then re-read my statement. Do it until you understand what is being said.



Like I said Halal Twit, got a link to back up your bullshit, or is it just more crap that you pull outta your ass (as usual)?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> One of the signs of the dogma-slave is the confusion of human authority with divine authority, and inability to distinguish between them.
> 
> For example, consider a traditional Christian's view of the Bible. The Bible, we are told, consists of instructions provided by God. But has God Himself told the believer that this is so? No. Other human beings have told him. Thus, in accepting the Bible as reflecting the authority of God, the believer is implicitly accepting the authority of those other human beings who have told him this, to determine what is or is not the word of God.
> 
> ...


 
There's nothing irrational about it at all. The irrationality exists on the side of anti-Christian bigots who present lies and fallacy as established truth and logic.

And who pretend logical people can't have faith. Which is in and of itself, a lie.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > One of the signs of the dogma-slave is the confusion of human authority with divine authority, and inability to distinguish between them.
> ...



Your attempt at logic is circular, self serving and by any measure of critical thinking..wrong.

PS...  Writing in bold red font doesn't make your argument any stronger.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.

And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.
> 
> And circular logic..that is exactly my objection to Dragon's retardisms.



They said god told them it was from god ....therefore it has to be gods words.  This is because god does not lie.

Classical circular logic.

Why would a god be obligated to tell humans the truth?   

If this "god" was as superior and all knowing as you believe then he wouldn't need some undereducated ignorant humans to scribe anything.  This so called god should have more than enough ability to deliver "his words" in a manner that would stand the test of time on it's own independant of the possible and in truth the high likeihood of error by the feeble humans.  

If I was a "god" I would turn a whole mountain into a big magnifying glass and put my words on the head of a pin safely buried inside the mountain.  The whole mountain would be shielded by 20 feet thick of titanium to prevent any vandalism.   There would be space to enter the viewing area for only one man so all could enter individually and have the word of "god" directly with no chance that some kniving human "interpreting" the words of "god" for their own benefit.  

One would think any "god" worth his salt would have thought this out at least as well as I have laid it out. 

OR...being "god" and all he would already know about mirochips and speaker systems..A human could get "the words" of god directly in any language..just like your laptop.

But no...you are stuck with a "god" that wasn't thinking ahead and supposedly left some rag tag hearsay scrolls ... and self serving notes jotted down by some guys that never actually saw this god OR jeebus.

You could not take your "evidense" into a muni court and beat a parking ticket.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about well known scientists. Try again. Re-read your assertion. Then re-read my statement. Do it until you understand what is being said.
> ...


 
Why would I link supporting documentation for a statement I never made?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I want you to be able to distinguish my writing from what I'm responding to, since I'm writing inside the quoted text.
> ...


 
God didn't leave anything behind.

God spoke directly to Moses, and traveled with him in the desert. That wasn't just one man tripping on some golden tablets in the desert and bringing them home. Everybody experienced God's presence, and saw the miracles (the parting of the red sea, the plagues, passover...)

Everybody present heard God say "this is my Son" to Christ, so we can also accept his word as infallible...and he said the OT was correct. And the OT says the Word IS GOD.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How convenient.  Why not?  A little short on miricles was he?

Everybody experienced "gods" presence?   Nigga puulleeezzz!!!    Poppycock...fiddlesticks!~ None of that shit ever happened.

Everybody heard god talk to jeebus?  Ya right!  Nonsense.

Tell ya what...I'll go on living as if there never was a god and if and when this oh so very mysterious sky fairy shows up... I'll decide then.  

I like to deal with things one on one...straight forward.  There is no human alive that is qualified to speak for something as all powerful as you believe this "god" is.  If he doesn't like it then he can at least take comfort in the fact that I do not suffer fools.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Well you're entitled to you opinion.

Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.

Josephus, a reputable non-Christian historian who worked around the time of Christ's life and death, also confirms miracles....

But whatever. If you want to call the Creator a fool, that's your business, and at some point, you'll have to come to terms with your stupidity.

Not now, though. Carry on.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Well you're entitled to you opinion.
> 
> Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.
> 
> ...



Links?  When and where exactly did they discover those things, and who discovered them?  Were photos taken?  I'd really like to see the evidence you tout.

But, as usual Halal Twit, you're never gonna provide any proof.

BTW...............Josephus was known to exaggerate the truth.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Well you're entitled to you opinion.
> 
> Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.
> 
> ...



Boats and barges sink.  Happens a lot more often than seas parting.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Well you're entitled to you opinion.
> 
> Recently discovered chariots and horse skeletons at the bottom of the red sea say you're wrong, however.
> 
> ...


Forget it.  They're determined to remain what they are.  That's why I stopped tossing pearls before these swine.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Well you're entitled to you opinion.
> ...


 
No, Josephus wasn't.

And I can always back up my statements. If I can't, I don't say it:

snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

Yes, they've found chariots and horses in the Red Sea that appear to be from the right time period and are certainly in the right place to be concurrent with Moses' lifetime.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> OK, I guess I need to clarify.
> 
> If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. *But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. *God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.



Such as?   You make very broad statements, which are complete assumptions, you should put something tangible out there to back it up.  What in our society wouldn't a christian be 'free' to do?  What's 'almost everything'?


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> "Freethinker" is sometimes used to mean an atheist, but it seems to me that the word as literally interpreted -- anyone who thinks freely, atheist or not -- allows the statement, "A freethinker is Satan's slave" to truly state traditional Christian belief. In the context of traditional Christianity, not believing certain things is an unforgivable sin, and anyone who thinks freely risks changing his mind and becoming an unbeliever. Traditional Christianity, therefore, is opposed to free thought. It's also opposed to freedom of religion.
> 
> In fact, it's opposed to freedom generally.
> 
> I use the expression "traditional Christianity" to implicitly acknowledge that there are forms and sects of Christianity for which none of this is true, and that it doesn't follow from the teachings of Jesus, either. However, in the types of Christianity believed in and followed by those who call themselves "conservative Christians" or "religious conservatives," it is certainly true.



You make so many vague statements like they are facts?  So, what denominations fall under 'traditional Christianity', define it.  What does 'traditional christian' doctrine mean in your mind?  Which of these christian 'sects' are saying they're christians but not following the teachings of Jesus?  Can you please name the churches/denominations, and what it is in their beliefs that go against the teachings of Jesus?  And what is a 'conservative christian', what denominations?  What doctrines or beliefs do they hold that are different in your mind from other 'sects' of christians?  Compare and contrast and illutstrate to us the differences between 'traditional christians', 'conservative christians', and any other 'sect' of christians that you think are out there?  Without any basis or defining of these over arching labels that you've placed out there, there is no ability to have any relevent discussion on any of it.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The church used it just fine. You are the ones who didn't know what the hell it means...and Dragon is an atheist.
> 
> So either he's the most ignorant atheist in the world, or he's being deceitful.



Regardless of what the church meant, if this saying has been used on certain church signs (I've never seen any), then they are certainly going about showing the love and salvation of Christ in a wrong way.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> amrchaos is correct. I am not an atheist. However, I do consider myself a "free thinker."
> 
> I'm well aware of the fact that "freethinker" is sometimes used as a synonym for "atheist." However, traditional Christianity is opposed to any sort of free thought, not just the kind that is a synonym of atheism. Free thought that does not venture in an atheist direction will instead become heresy and/or apostasy, either of which is considered just as bad by traditional Christianity as atheism, or even worse, since atheism isn't really a rival the way another religion or a heretical form of Christianity is.
> 
> *Traditional Christianity is opposed, not just to atheism, but to free thought itself, and indeed to freedom in general*.



Again, you make a statement, but what is that statement based on?  Free thought of what?  What does 'freedom' mean in this context?  Freedom from what?  Freedom to do what?


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

hjmick said:


> I'm going to Hell.
> 
> I can live with that. Better that than give in to group think...



So there isn't a 'group' out there that thinks just like you?  Really?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Such as?   You make very broad statements, which are complete assumptions



Oh, come on. I'm not talking about some dead religion known only through archaeological relics and speculation. "Complete assumption" my ass.

If you really want to pretend ignorance about the tenets of traditional Christianity, fine. Here are some of the things I mean:

1) Holding spiritual beliefs outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
2) Not believing in God.
3) Failing to keep the sacraments. (Depends on the denomination, of course.)
4) Feeling sexual desire for anyone who is not one's spouse.
5) Feeling desire for any property that does not belong to one.
6) Feeling anger at a personal slight or injury.

There are many more, of course. All of these are problematical, but the first is particularly odious, and the teaching that puts the mind in chains.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna know why most churches don't like free thinkers?
> 
> They challenge dogma.
> 
> ...



He chased them out of the temple because they were following/idolizing a false God, money, and not His Father as they were commanded to do.  So, actually in my opinion, the 'religious authority and the money changers were the 'free thinkers' and veering away from God's word, which is why He challenged them.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Koshergrl's argument, quoted above, is not only circular but also fails for the same reason I stated: it depends on the word of human beings, living and dead, who are themselves fallible. Christians have no other reason to believe that the Bible is God's word, except that other people have said so. And those other people were human and fallible, and given the extreme unlikelihood of what they are claiming, very likely wrong.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Such as?   You make very broad statements, which are complete assumptions
> ...



When's the last time you attended any christian service or studied the Bible through the eyes of a Christian, i.e. trying to learn from it rather than being biased against it?

And let's take your list, half of them are upheld by anyone with any moral compass, religiously based or not.  Would your spouse be okay with you holding sexual desire for anyone other than them, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof?  And you're suggesting that you're not 'free' unless you can do those things on your list?  Also, being a christian is a personal choice, you are 'free' to not be a christian if you don't believe what it is teaching.  So, you're expression that 'christians don't believe in freedom' is ridiculous.  How do you see the government as being any different than religion?  The government in today's age is a far bigger threat to your 'freedom' than any religious doctrine.  You have no chioce in obeying what laws the government puts down, you are free to practice or not practice any religion you like, at least for now.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> "Slaves to Satan" is another way of saying that they challenge dogma, and the authority by which traditional Christians would bind and chain freedom. In fact, Satan is another link in that chain, and it's traditional Christians, not free thinkers, who are slaves to Satan: they live in fear of him, and of Hell, and tremble in their cages of dogma, afraid to open the cage door.
> 
> Traditional Christianity is _about_ slavery. It's a system of slavery, and one becomes free by stepping outside its limits and boundaries.



You are off the deep end dude... seriously...


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So there are no rules to follow in Paganism?  No specific belief system?  If so, you have a lot of nerve talking about Christianity in the aspect that you have in this thread.  Can you say hypocrisy??


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> When's the last time you attended any christian service or studied the Bible through the eyes of a Christian, i.e. trying to learn from it rather than being biased against it?



Instead of asking deceptive questions like that, you jackass, if you claim that what I'm saying about traditional Christian doctrine is wrong, FUCKING SAY SO. Otherwise, you're just playing stupid games.



> And let's take your list, half of them are upheld by anyone with any moral compass, religiously based or not.  Would your spouse be okay with you holding sexual desire for anyone other than them, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof?



Yes, she would. Because she would know that everyone does, that this is normal human behavior. Depending on the terms of our relationship, she might or might not have a problem if I actually did anything about it. But feeling desire? Only tyrants find that to be wrong.



> And you're suggesting that you're not 'free' unless you can do those things on your list?



Exactly. Especially the first two.



> Also, being a christian is a personal choice, you are 'free' to not be a christian if you don't believe what it is teaching.



Of course. Every traditional Christian is a slave by choice. That doesn't make them any less a slave. And they're not entirely a slave by choice; the threat of Hell is a threat of force, after all.



> So, you're expression that 'christians don't believe in freedom' is ridiculous.



Wrong. That claim does not follow from what you pointed out above.



> How do you see the government as being any different than religion?



Sort of like asking how you see a saw being different from a handbag, and besides it has nothing to do with the subject.

Mostly what you've done here is to confirm that you, too, are an enemy of liberty, and indeed don't know what it is. But I already knew that from other threads.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

dragon said:


> koshergrl is missing the point.
> 
> First of all, as i said in the op i can't be sure that billboard isn't a hoax. If i had to guess, i'd say probably it is, and that no church actually posted those words. So the church's words and what they meant by them (if they even said them to begin with) aren't the issue here.
> 
> ...




based on what exactly????


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> based on what exactly????



If you don't know how to read, or are dishonest enough to pretend you don't, that's not my problem.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > When's the last time you attended any christian service or studied the Bible through the eyes of a Christian, i.e. trying to learn from it rather than being biased against it?
> ...



So, in a nut shell, you just want to be able to fuck anything, anytime you want and not be held accountable for it?  Like an animal?  Why didn't you just say so?  And by all means, you are FREE to not be a christian and you are FREE to fuck anytime you want, but why you have to denegrate those that have beliefs that to do so is wrong, is the question?  Is that the only way you have to validate your animalistic thoughts and behavior? 

After all of my posts, most of which you haven't answered, most likely because you can't, i.e. you know nothing about christianity other than what you read in your anti-christian propaganda, you still haven't defined WHY a christian is a 'slave' and doesn't believe in 'freedom'.  So, let's hear it.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > based on what exactly????
> ...



Your lack of knowledge on the subject is painfully showing.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna know why most churches don't like free thinkers?
> ...


 
Freethinkers = those who challenge the church and refuse to accept any dogma whatever of religion. Generally they are atheists, and their focus is to draw people away from the church, and God.

He lies about what it means, and obfuscates, but that is exactly what he means when he says freethinker. It's one of those words (like fetus) meant to hide the actual meaning (militant anti-Christian).


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Pagans are enemies of freedom, they are slaves to their beliefs and dogma, they are against freedom.  

See?  Anyone can do it.  You don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

No, he doesn't. But he sure likes to listen to himself, and obviously he really believes he's saying important stuff!


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> So, in a nut shell, you just want to be able to fuck anything, anytime you want and not be held accountable for it?  Like an animal?  Why didn't you just say so?  And by all means, you are FREE to not be a christian and you are FREE to fuck anytime you want, but why you have to denegrate those that have beliefs that to do so is wrong, is the question?  Is that the only way you have to validate your animalistic thoughts and behavior?
> 
> After all of my posts, most of which you haven't answered, most likely because you can't, i.e. you know nothing about christianity other than what you read in your anti-christian propaganda, you still haven't defined WHY a christian is a 'slave' and doesn't believe in 'freedom'.  So, let's hear it.



So evidently, you DON'T know how to read. Or at least, not to read for comprehension.

This post does not deserve a reply.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please.    There are plenty of free thinkers of every religion.  When any religious person goes fundy, though, they surrender free thought.  Absolutely.
> ...



Again, what is 'traditional christianity' and how does differ from 'those other christians' that aren't like what you supposedly think?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Pagans are enemies of freedom, they are slaves to their beliefs and dogma, they are against freedom.
> 
> See?  Anyone can do it.  You don't know what the hell you're talking about.



Pagans have no dogma. We are defined by what we do, not what we believe.

Nice try, though.

BTW, I explained what I meant by "traditional Christianity" in an earlier post, in response to a question. Go look it up.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > So, in a nut shell, you just want to be able to fuck anything, anytime you want and not be held accountable for it?  Like an animal?  Why didn't you just say so?  And by all means, you are FREE to not be a christian and you are FREE to fuck anytime you want, but why you have to denegrate those that have beliefs that to do so is wrong, is the question?  Is that the only way you have to validate your animalistic thoughts and behavior?
> ...



Of course it doesn't, because you don't have an intellectual reason for saying what you're saying.  You're just parroting, hence you can't explain what's behind your words.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Pagans are enemies of freedom, they are slaves to their beliefs and dogma, they are against freedom.
> ...



Pagans are slaves, what you do is based on what you believe.  Just because it differs from christianity in doctrine, it still has a belief system.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It doesn't deserve a reply because it is ignorant, dishonest, and a statement of things you, personally, don't believe. It's also a deliberate distortion of my posts.  I don't waste time with liars.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Pagans are slaves, what you do is based on what you believe.  Just because it differs from christianity in doctrine, it still has a belief system.



"Eight words the Wiccan rede fulfill, an it harm not, do what you will."

You really can't see the difference between that, and "Believe this, or you will burn in Hell for ever"? If not, then you really DON'T have any idea what freedom is.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

and there's no point. This is what I have come to understand...anti-human, lying pieces of shit who are progressive fascists don't deserve courtesy, they don't deserve intelligent debate. They should be outed, and scorned, and shunted to the sidelines. Why afford those who lie, kill and steal (even if it is only in theory at this point) any courtesy at all? They can't learn, they refuse to be truthful..their entire being is wrapped up in promoting evil and harm.

Show the truth about them and to them. Give them the opportunity to save themselves, but don't allow care for THEM to prevent us from caring for those they would kill, destroy, subjugate, silence.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Love is 100% relevant to your topic because love is basis of choice.
> ...



I've never seen where 'christians' have made either claim, you're speaking from a false premise.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Or afterthought - perhaps I should ask - what do you mean by "traditional" Christianity?
> ...



What is this 'list' that you keep referencing?  Since you know so much about it, provide a link to where it's documented? And since it's so 'narrow', it should be small enough for you to give it to us here in the thread, so we can all know what you're referring too.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Incidentally, Neopaganism (especially the kind I practice) is NOT a  belief system. I'm not here to proselytize for Paganism (for one thing, we don't believe in doing that), but since the subject has come up, I should correct some ignorant statements.

There are no doctrines in Wicca. There are ideas, but they are recognized as metaphorical for the most part. We are defined by what we do, not what we believe. Some Wiccans believe that the Gods literally exist. Others believe that they are thought-forms, or archetypes, or creations of the human imagination that tie us into the cosmos. There are rituals in Wicca, and songs, and celebrations of the Wheel of the Year, but these are all things we do, not things we believe. There is magic (among some, not all), but again, this is something we do, not something we believe.

As for morality, I stated it above. The one commandment is to minimize harm, to maximize good. One cannot live without rules, but around that basic desideratum we are free to make whatever rules we find good, each for himself or herself.

We do not believe that our religion is "true" and all other religions wrong. We believe that the Gods are too great for us to encompass in ideas, although we can paint them as pictures or as poems.

The differences between that and traditional Christianity will be obvious to anyone who is honest. And that is all I'll say on the subject.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> What is this 'list' that you keep referencing?  Since you know so much about it, provide a link to where it's documented? And since it's so 'narrow', it should be small enough for you to give it to us here in the thread, so we can all know what you're referring too.



You are such a fucking liar.

Look, I've presented many things that I claim traditional Christians believe. Instead of playing these idiotic games, go over the things I've said and, if you think traditional Christians DON'T believe some or all of them, point that out. If you can't do that, then tacitly you agree that they do believe those things, and any bullshit like the above you present to obscure this agreement is not going to work.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I'll come to better understanding of where you are coming from if I may please ask these questions?
> ...



But 'reason and evidence' are subjective?  Who's 'reason and evidence'?  Yours?  Mine?  Who determines what's 'reasonable'?  Again, false premise.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> I've never seen where 'christians' have made either claim, you're speaking from a false premise.



Christians don't claim that theirs is the only true religion, that one comes to God only by through Jesus, and by implication as a Christian?


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What is this 'list' that you keep referencing?  Since you know so much about it, provide a link to where it's documented? And since it's so 'narrow', it should be small enough for you to give it to us here in the thread, so we can all know what you're referring too.
> ...



I'm a liar??  How ironic. 

Again, what is this list?  If it's 'narrow', it should be easy to tell us what's on it?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> But 'reason and evidence' are subjective?



No, they are not.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Again, what is this list?  If it's 'narrow', it should be easy to tell us what's on it?



Still pretending you don't know how to read, I see.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> All right, Marie, yes, I guess you would fit the description. Nothing more to say except, as I noted above, *God doesn't belong to you*, and one does not have to subscribe to all that mind-shackling stuff in order to experience divine love.



She never said He did, your assumptions make you look foolish.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > All right, Marie, yes, I guess you would fit the description. Nothing more to say except, as I noted above, *God doesn't belong to you*, and one does not have to subscribe to all that mind-shackling stuff in order to experience divine love.
> ...





			
				Dragon said:
			
		

> Christians don't claim that theirs is the only true religion, that one comes to God only by through Jesus, and by implication as a Christian?



If you're going to pretend you haven't read something, it's probably best to choose something that isn't on the SAME DAMNED PAGE.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The really simple answer to all that is that God is NOT what the Bible says he is.



Based on your reasoning perhaps.  You have a nasty habit of trying to state opinion as fact. You think Christians need to humble themselves, look in the mirror, you're not any better.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > The really simple answer to all that is that God is NOT what the Bible says he is.
> ...



Of course. I could refer you above to where I state that reasoning, but then you seem to believe all logic and evidence are "subjective" anyway, and nothing can ever be proven, so it would probably be a waste of time.

I just figured out something. You're going through this whole thread, and responding to each individual post, without reference to anything said in reply, aren't you? And making a huge number of posts when one would make more sense. I think 'll wait until you run down, identify any actual arguments you're making, and refute them then. Let me know when you're done, please.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

Stating your reasoning does not make it reasonable, nor logical.

You are the one who uses subjective logic..you don't use evidence at all. All of your arguments, if they can even be called arguments, are "this makes sense to me so it's logical and true!" That's not an argument. That's just a rant.

And what IS subjective evidence? Is there even such a thing?


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder about people who subscribe to the skewed logic that somehow their freedom is jeopardized by organized ( Christian, never Muslem) religion and at the same time they systematically trample on the freedom of Christians to practice their religion and engage in their 1st Amendment rights.
> ...



You really do live in la-la land, don't you?   Christians are not trying to turn America into a theocrasy, they could have done so if they wished when they founded the country to begin with.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to Hell.
> ...



Why do you think everyone has to belong to a group?
I doubt that there is any group out there who thinks as I do on all issues and to join a group would compromise my beliefs in some way.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

No, he's just pointing out that hjmick is as much a victim of groupthink as anyone else.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Stating your reasoning does not make it reasonable, nor logical.
> 
> You are the one who uses subjective logic..you don't use evidence at all. All of your arguments, if they can even be called arguments, are "this makes sense to me so it's logical and true!" That's not an argument. That's just a rant.
> 
> And what IS subjective evidence? Is there even such a thing?



Subjective evidence : I saw something which I cannot show to anyone else (either because it is no longer there or perhaps because I have some sort of 'special' vision) and cannot recreate.  

Subjective evidence : I felt something which I cannot cause another to feel.  To stick with the theme of this thread, I felt the presence of god.


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



I'm not the one who said you have to belong to a group, but to believe that you're entirely unique in the way that you think is a bit self centered.  The response I was replying to was infering that it's better to be an 'individual', i.e. not think like others, specifically religious people, cause we're all alike, ya know?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Stating your reasoning does not make it reasonable, nor logical.
> ...


 

"
Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it. Testimony of the parties to a contract is subjective evidence.
Subjective evidence means that testimony from the claimant, corroborated by his/her family and friends, as to whether a specific impairment actually affects the claimant to such an extent as to be disabling. [Hope v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 347 F. Supp. 1048, 1053 (D. Tex. 1972)]. "

So it's not evidence at all. It's just a statement.

Subjective Evidence Law & Legal Definition


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, he's just pointing out that hjmick is as much a victim of groupthink as anyone else.



'She'...


----------



## Newby (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon never answered any of my questions, imagine that.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

He doesn't answer questions, and he doesn't provide any substance.

He just yammers, on and on, endlessly. The frustrating thing is he obviously thinks he's making an intelligent show.

My speech teacher would have torn him several new assholes for such idiotic presumption.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon never answered any of my questions, imagine that.



Dragon works for a living and doesn't live on this board, and hasn't read your damned questions yet. Imagine that, dickweed.

Gimme a couple of minutes to read the fucking things and decide whether they deserve an answer.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Newby said:


> Christians are not trying to turn America into a theocrasy



Your sort of Christian is. Christians in general, maybe not.



> they could have done so if they wished when they founded the country to begin with.



Your sort of Christian was certainly not in the majority when the Constitution was ratified.

Here's a general reply to all of your posts, Newby. This will cover absolutely everything you've said.

The most revealing comment was your statement that all reason and evidence are "subjective." This implies that there is no such thing as truth, and reason, evidence, and the truth itself may be distorted at will, because truth doesn't really exist anyway -- a highly post-modernist perspective with which I have never agreed.

This belief, though, seems to make you think you are allowed to distort and misrepresent other people's posts, and to argue based on logical fallacies and the twisting of words, rather than actually addressing posts. Everything you have said on this thread falls into that category, from your request for a "link to a list," without ever once denying that the list I presented above (and which you actually quoted) describes the beliefs of traditional Christianity; to your assertion that I want to fuck everything in sight, when anyone reading for comprehension can see that is not even close to anything I said; to your statement just above that I had never answered your questions, when in fact I did -- perhaps not in the way you wanted me too, but that's your problem, not mine.

You might want to give some thought to what it says about your beliefs that you feel a need to lie through your teeth in order to support them. If they cannot be supported in a straightforward and logical manner, that's an indictment of them in itself.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon never answered any of my questions, imagine that.
> ...


 


*whether they deserve an answer*

How funny. And one thinks...who on earth is DRAGON to deem things worthy?

And then one remembers...Dragon is a pseudointellectual who thinks his minute understanding and self-taught vocabulary make him stand out, as anything other than the narrow minded and ignorant twit he is...

And he's wrong. He's just another example of what happens when nobody intervenes between a child and a PBS upbringing.

Though maybe it wasn't PBS...I think maybe it was Channel 13...10 hours of pro wrestling at night, but during the day, local yokels talk about things like the next dance recital and broadcast the school board meetings...


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I think it might be a different definition when used legally than in other circumstances.

It's not that it is not evidence; rather, it is evidence that cannot be shown to someone else.  To the individual(s) who experience it, it certainly is evidence, but to someone who does not experience it it may not be.  Even if someone does not experience it, it may be considered evidence if they believe it to be true.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Hey stupid..........even YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AT SNOPES SAYS THE THING IS UNCONFIRMED.

How the fuck is that "proof"?  Yeah.....you believe God exists, so you say that because you believe something that is unconfirmed, it's true?

Way to prove your ignorance.

BTW................I actually DO believe in God, I just don't like to see Him shoehorned into a narrow belief system such as the current one you tout.

I see Him in Judaic theology, SOME Christianity, a great deal in Taoist philosophy as well as in what Buddha taught and Hindu theology.

Try opening your mind sometime, you may like what you see.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yo.......twatlips........YOU also decide if a post deserves an answer or not, because otherwise you'd reply to every fucking post on the thread.

Try again Halal Twit.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


 
It's proof that a shitload of horses drowned and chariots were laid at the bottom of the red sea at the time that Moses is said to have parted it, and lead the Pharoah's army into it, where the sea closed over them.

Someone said there's no evidence. I said there were chariots and horses at the bottom of the Red Sea...there is evidence. That was my point. The rest is just you having a stroke.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



What part of "unconfirmed" do you keep missing, bitch?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Wow you need to take a pill or something, freak.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

PS..you moron, the only part that is *unconfirmed* is whether or not they belonged to the Pharoah, or died as a result of Moses' parting of the sea.

Their existence, however, is not *unconfirmed*, you loon. 

Which is all I said. That they were existed. As they do. So wipe the spittle off the screen and go back to whacking off in the corner.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

The above exchange between ABK and KG illustrates the main point of this thread: that traditional Christians have enslaved minds. KG accepts dubious evidence of dubious claims, because she MUST believe as she does. If her mind strays into forbidden territory, Hell's jaws open.

There is no way to think rationally under a threat like that. Hence the utter stupidity of creationist arguments, the desperate defensiveness against challenges (as they see it) from other religions, the anger and hostility towards unbelievers. It's anger born of fear, fear for their own souls, fear of  the contagion of freedom.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The above exchange between ABK and KG illustrates the main point of this thread: that traditional Christians have enslaved minds. KG accepts dubious evidence of dubious claims, because she MUST believe as she does. If her mind strays into forbidden territory, Hell's jaws open.
> 
> There is no way to think rationally under a threat like that. Hence the utter stupidity of creationist arguments, the desperate defensiveness against challenges (as they see it) from other religions, the anger and hostility towards unbelievers. It's anger born of fear, fear for their own souls, fear of  the contagion of freedom.


Speaking about being enslaved to a dogma...  A secular example is displayed.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The above exchange between ABK and KG illustrates the main point of this thread: that traditional Christians have enslaved minds. KG accepts dubious evidence of dubious claims, because she MUST believe as she does. If her mind strays into forbidden territory, Hell's jaws open.
> 
> There is no way to think rationally under a threat like that. Hence the utter stupidity of creationist arguments, the desperate defensiveness against challenges (as they see it) from other religions, the anger and hostility towards unbelievers. It's anger born of fear, fear for their own souls, fear of the contagion of freedom.


 
Fiddlesticks. ABS is one of the craziest certified loons this board has. I never said the Red Sea crossing had been verified beyond a shadow of a doubt. I simply stated there was evidence of biblical events, and named the discovery of horse bones and chariot wheels at the bottom of it, right where the crossing is said to have taken place.

There IS evidence that biblical events took place, there are corroborating non-Christian accounts of events. That's all I was saying.

But in typical anti-Christian fashion, those who for whatever reason think they need to challenge the faith of people, are speaking to a point I never made. In other words, lying to make a point. I haven't shown any anger or hostility. I've reacted a little to the fact that gay biker obviously is over the top freaking out angry (undoubtedly fueled by a mind altering substance) over the fact that I dared to bring up physical evidence..or something, who knows where his anger comes from...but I haven't shown anger or even anywhere near the same degree of out-of-control vitriol.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

But carry on with the lies. That's what freethinkers do. They work for evil, and they do it by lying.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon never answered any of my questions, imagine that.
> ...



You had already posted remarks to posts I had made after the posts I'm referring too.  So, I know you had no intension of answering.  Is it your paganism that makes you so vile, or do you take credit for that all on your own?


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> But carry on with the lies. That's what freethinkers do. They work for evil, and they do it by lying.



Is "evil" hiring?   At least it pays up front. 

You dummies expect to get paid after you die.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> You had already posted remarks to posts I had made after the posts I'm referring too.



Then you knew that I had already answered you, and were being disingenuous. Refusing to play your game is not refusing to respond to your arguments. It's just refusing to play your game.



> Is it your paganism that makes you so vile, or do you take credit for that all on your own?



It's being free. Slaves like yourself, taking the viewpoint of your masters, always think that free people are evil. But whether denying the master's will is evil (unlike reasoning and evidence) really does depend on perspective.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are not trying to turn America into a theocrasy
> ...



What is 'my sort' of christian?  Is this where you start to tell me what I believe?  Why don't you tell us all how it is that you know what I believe?  Define 'my sort' of christian?  What is the basis for our belief?  What scripture are we following that the 'other sort' of christian that you claim is out there is not not following?  Let's get some details here, Dragon.  After all, you know so much about it, let's hear some details instead of over arching and meaningless platitudes like 'christians are against freedom'.  You make such stupid assinine remarks and then never, ever back it up with any reasoning at all.

And here is the LIST that I was asking for.  You make reference to a list within your official 'exclusive list' that is bolded below, I even highlighted in red in the previous post what I was referring too, but yet you still act like you are unable to follow.   Perhaps it is not an act?   The list that I am asking for is bolded and highlighted in RED?  Is that easy enough for you?




Dragon said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> > Or afterthought - perhaps I should ask - what do you mean by "traditional" Christianity?
> ...



And the irony of you talking about people distorting your posts whenever you create a thread which lies and distorts an entire religion's belief system just makes you an object of pity really.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> What is 'my sort' of christian?



That has been explained at length. If you in fact don't believe in some or all of the ways that I have described, you need only say so. I'll be happy to take your word for it. Failing that, though, you are just (again) playing disingenuous and deceptive games, or, as I said, lying through your teeth.



> And here is the LIST that I was asking for.



Right, there it is, just as I said. Your question is answered. Now, if you disagree that any of those points are the beliefs of traditional Christians, say so, and we'll go from there. But otherwise, you are just (again) playing disingenuous and deceptive games, or, as I said, lying through your teeth.



> And the irony of you talking about people distorting your posts whenever you create a thread which lies and distorts an entire religion's belief system



Really? How, pray tell, have I distorted traditional Christianity? What have I said that traditional Christians believe, that they don't believe? You may use the list you just quoted, but never really answered except with a lot of bullshit.

Do traditional Christians believe that they have the only true religion, or not?

Do they believe that the Bible is God's word, and true in every passage, or not?

Is the range of acceptable thought, behavior, and emotion in traditional Christianity narrow, or is it broad? (Put another way: is the road to Heaven "straight and narrow," or is it wide and easy?)

Do traditional Christians believe that every unforgiven sinner goes to Hell, or not?

Do traditional Christians believe that only Christians can be forgiven, or not?

Let's hear it.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The above exchange between ABK and KG illustrates the main point of this thread: that traditional Christians have enslaved minds. KG accepts dubious evidence of dubious claims, because she MUST believe as she does. If her mind strays into forbidden territory, Hell's jaws open.
> 
> There is no way to think rationally under a threat like that. Hence the utter stupidity of creationist arguments, the *desperate defensiveness *against challenges (as they see it) from other religions, the anger and hostility towards unbelievers. It's anger born of fear, fear for their own souls, fear of  the contagion of freedom.



Desperate????   Okay... 

Anger and hostility?  You're the one with anger and hostility, you started the thread to get exactly that response.  Does it give you a reward to trash someone else's belief system?  Is that the reward?  I really don't get it, most people just live their lives and respect others around them, why is it that you can't seem to do that same?  If you go back through our discussion (you and me), the only one who got combative and felt the need to lash out and call names was you sweetie.  Really, get a grip on reality.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You had already posted remarks to posts I had made after the posts I'm referring too.
> ...



No, there are many of my posts that you never addressed sparky.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You had already posted remarks to posts I had made after the posts I'm referring too.
> ...



I don't think you're evil, I think you're arrogant without having the intelligence or knowledge to back it up.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Arrogance combined with ignorance is evil.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

*There is a very narrow list of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors which can be considered morally acceptable*

Let's see this list.   Is this clear enough for you?   What beliefs? What attitudes?  What behaviors?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > The above exchange between ABK and KG illustrates the main point of this thread: that traditional Christians have enslaved minds. KG accepts dubious evidence of dubious claims, because she MUST believe as she does. If her mind strays into forbidden territory, Hell's jaws open.
> ...


 
He has stated that he gets his jollies by traipsing around to Christian sites and attacking them until he gets the boot.

Obviously he's all about live and let live, and open mindedness, and all that jazz.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What is 'my sort' of christian?
> ...



None of those things logically explain why Christians are against freedom?  You have yet to say or show anything that illustrates that.  I keep asking for detail, but I get nothing.  Because you have nothing.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> None of those things logically explain why Christians are against freedom?



LOL well, not if you have no clue what the word "freedom" means, I guess.

If you believe that God insists we adopt only one religion, then you don't believe in religious freedom. (Even if you accept the First Amendment guarantees of same, you still think that God rejects religious freedom, and so at heart, you do, too.)

If you believe that the Bible is infallible in every word, then you don't believe in freedom of inquiry and freedom to question.

If you believe that the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is very narrow, then you don't believe in -- well, freedom, as that is the exact antithesis.

If you believe that every unrepentant sinner goes to Hell, then you believe in draconian punishments for disobedience, which again means you reject freedom.

And if you believe that only Christians can be forgiven, combined with the above, then again, you don't believe in religious freedom.

It's really quite obvious. And note, again, that you have implicitly admitted that I have NOT been distorting the views of traditional Christians. Everything I've said about those beliefs, of a factual nature, you agree is true. Your only disagreement lies in what those facts mean.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> *There is a very narrow list of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors which can be considered morally acceptable*
> 
> Let's see this list.   Is this clear enough for you?   What beliefs? What attitudes?  What behaviors?



Oh, please. You want me to tell you what behavior is ACCEPTABLE to conservative Christians? Why? Do you not know yourself?

Do you really think you're making a point here, or really saying anything at all?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> I don't think you're evil, I think you're arrogant without having the intelligence or knowledge to back it up.



Oh, 'm arrogant all right, but you're lying again. The truth is that you're afraid that i DO have the intelligence and knowledge to back it up. Otherwise, you wouldn't spend so much time trying to prevent the walls from crumbling.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> No, there are many of my posts that you never addressed sparky.



Sometimes you repeat yourself, and in answering one post I've responded to more than one. Sometimes you say nothing at all. Either way, I'm not going to directly respond to every post. That doesn't mean you haven't been answered.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

You don't answer. I think it's because you don't understand, or you're so wrapped up in your own mantra you just don't pay attention.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > *There is a very narrow list of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors which can be considered morally acceptable*
> ...



Yes, you apparently know what they are and since they're 'narrow' it shouldn't be that difficult for you, right?  So, let's hear it?


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you're evil, I think you're arrogant without having the intelligence or knowledge to back it up.
> ...



What walls are crumbling, pray tell?     And if you do have the knowledge and intelligence then you certainly haven't demonstrated it here.   You've only made platitudes without any substance.  Anyone can do that.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Anyone can pick up a Babble and claim Jeebus saved them also.  It takes zero intelligence.  That and 75 cents will get you on a Seattle bus.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > None of those things logically explain why Christians are against freedom?
> ...



Um, well, if there is no belief in God, then there is no religion, period.  And if there is a belief in God, you can freely choose to follow whatever religion you wish.  If you choose christianity and you disagree with with their belief system/doctrine, you can go join another religion.  There are plenty of 'former' christians out there, they didn't seem to be 'forced' to continue their 'christianity', so your point is wrong.



> *If you believe that the Bible is infallible in every word, then you don't believe in freedom of inquiry and freedom to question.*



And that's part of being a christian, but no one forces anyone to be a christian, if you don't believe that the Bible is infallible, then that kind of negates the reason for being a christian, doesn't it?  What would be the point then, without the Bible and belief in what it teaches, there is no christian religion. This point is just silly really.



> *If you believe that the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is very narrow, then you don't believe in -- well, freedom, as that is the exact antithesis.*



You have yet to demonstrate what you mean by 'narrow', it's just something that you've apparently made up in your own head because you don't understand what christianity is.  You don't understand the whole concept of salvation and why it was needed.  If you've read the Bible then you know that Jesus stated that no mortal man can be sin free, that's not the expectation at all.  The expectation is to live your life in such a way that sin is a rare occurrence.  But, if humans could live sin free, there would have been no need for Christ, would there?  And again, if you don't want to live your life in that way, you can choose to not be a christian, it's as simple as that.  See how freedom works?



> *If you believe that every unrepentant sinner goes to Hell, then you believe in draconian punishments for disobedience, which again means you reject freedom.*


If you don't believe what the Bible teaches to begin with, then you don't believe that you'll go to hell, so that's a moot point.  If you do, then you know that hell is nothing to fear or worry about because you've found salvation through Christ.  So really, hell is neither a threat to the believer or non believer.  The believer is saved, the non believer doesn't believe in hell.



> *And if you believe that only Christians can be forgiven, combined with the above, then again, you don't believe in religious freedom.*


How does that affect a Christian's freedom in any way?  I don't care what religion you practice, I completely believe that you can practice any religion you want or none.  It's your choice, not mine.  No one can be forced to accept Christ, there would be no point whatsoever to force someone to be a Christian.  



> It's really quite obvious. And note, again, that you have implicitly admitted that I have NOT been distorting the views of traditional Christians. Everything I've said about those beliefs, of a factual nature, you agree is true. Your only disagreement lies in what those facts mean.



You don't understand the concepts in Christianity, that's very clear from the remarks that you've made.


----------



## Newby (Mar 23, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Take your babble and disrespect somewhere where it might mean something to someone, it doesn't mean a damn thing here.  I'm guessing there are very few places that it would have meaning.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Oh don't take away his Raison D'Etre.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you're evil, I think you're arrogant without having the intelligence or knowledge to back it up.
> ...


 
Delusional. You forgot delusional.

And you're a liar. I have never seen you post any sort of corroborative evidence for anything. All you post are long, gaseous expulsions that illustrate how enamored you are with the sound of your own voice...there's nothing there to tear down. No substance whatever.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 23, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
Dragon is impressively illiterate on the subject that he likes to blather on about.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon, I think you are mistaking consequences for lack of freedom.  As I understand it, in Christianity everyone has the freedom to believe what they will, there are just consequences for those beliefs.

Now, you might argue that the threat of eternal punishment in hell makes the choice whether or not to believe not a true choice; however, as there is no call to prevent people from expressing differing beliefs (that I am aware of) it really isn't about limiting freedom.

If you want to argue that the idea of eternal punishment doesn't fit with a merciful, loving god, I'll be more than happy to join you.  When you say Christians don't believe in freedom, however, I think you are wrong.  *Note - I'm sure there are probably a small number of Christians who truly don't believe in freedom, but I think the majority, even many among the die-hard, fundamentalist believers, probably are not opposed to freedom.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Arrogance combined with ignorance is evil.



I guess that makes you one of the most evil motherfuckers on this board then, Halal Twit.

You've got the arrogance to claim you're right because you say that you're right, and that unconfirmed evidence is somehow "proof".

Guess what?  There's "proof" (because the signs all point to it and can be verified archaeologically) that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia, or some believe it's in eastern Canada, located in the vaults of the Vatican, or even possibly buried somewhere underneath Jerusalem in a hidden vault.

Every one of those theories has proof that they could be possible, yet all of them have also been unconfirmed.  Trying to link your "proof" to an unconfirmed source is just bullshit of the first water.

But then again, the same thing can be said about other things such as Atlantis, etc.

What makes YOUR interpretation the only "right" one?


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm a freethinker. I come to conclusions "on the basis of reason independent of authority" Thanks alliebabble. Church's are all about authority.


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 24, 2012)

Reminds me of the village in the movie Chocolat.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Arrogance combined with ignorance is evil.
> ...


 
I didn't say evidence proved my interpretation of the bible. I said there was evidence of biblical events. I contested the statement that there was NO evidence. I didn't say the evidence proved anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Try again. And try to respond to what I actually say, instead of whatever weird convo is going on in your head.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


 



Good for you?


----------



## editec (Mar 24, 2012)

The most effective chains are the chains one doesn't know one is wearing

NONE of us are entirely FREE THINKERS because we are all indoctrinated to fit into our society as children.

Most of us are basically slaves to CONVENTION.

And for those who somehow have managed to escape indoctrination that most of us accept as ours by choice?

There's always prison or the death penalty.

Free people, _my ass_


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 24, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


So reason is the god of your faith and you are your own high priest.

Good to know the basis of your dogmatic following of your interpretation of reason.  I'd love to understand why you consider how you think rational though.  No not really, it's a rhetorical statement.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

editec said:


> The most effective chains are the chains one doesn't know one is wearing
> 
> NONE of us are entirely FREE THINKERS because we are all indoctrinated to fit into our society as children.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragon (Mar 24, 2012)

Newby said:


> Um, well, if there is no belief in God, then there is no religion, period.



Incorrect; classical Buddhism is non-theistic. Also, as I pointed out above, many Pagans don't believe in the literal existence of our gods.

Even some who do believe in God don't have the idea that one can only worship him/her/it in one way. Consider the Sufis, for example. Now, nominally, they're Muslims, and Islam is often at least as bad as Christianity in this regard, but they're an exception. They see God as unknowable, and hence all human ideas about Him -- including religious doctrines -- as no more than glimpses through a fog. Hence, it's the height of arrogance for any one religion, e.g. Islam (or Christianity) to claim to have the One True Way. Someone else's glimpse through the fog may well be as god as yours -- certainly yours isn't real knowledge!

Belief in God does not, in short, imply belief that only one religion is true.



> And if there is a belief in God, you can freely choose to follow whatever religion you wish.



Of course you can, and in the belief-system of traditional Christianity, if you choose any other religion, God will torture you forever and ever.

I'm not talking about practical reality, given legally-enforced religious liberty as we have in this country. I'm talking about the beliefs of traditional Christians, which insist that there is only one true religion and that all other religions are damned -- and moreover, whenever Christians have held political power and not been restrained by something like our First Amendment, believers in other religions have tended to suffer civil penalties, too, up to and including execution. (The worst treatment was always reserved for one type of Christian against others, though.)



> You have yet to demonstrate what you mean by 'narrow



I've explained it in detail. You have no excuse for pretending not to understand.



> If you don't believe what the Bible teaches to begin with, then you don't believe that you'll go to hell, so that's a moot point.



No, I don''t, but all that means is that the attempted coercion doesn't work in my case, since there's no secular authority to back it up with. I'm like the guy who, confronted with an armed robber, says, "wait a minute, that's a toy gun!" Doesn't change the intent, though.



> How does that affect a Christian's freedom in any way?



Well, in many denominations, the definition of "Christian" is fairly narrow. I know many Christians who don't believe ANY of the things I presented above, yet still consider themselves Christian. In a discussion between that sort of Christian and the more traditional sort, one often finds the latter saying, "You're not really a Christian," or in general using the term "Christian" to refer only to those who have those coercive and anti-freedom beliefs. The coercive threat of Hell is used to prevent Christians from adopting more liberal religious ideas. I'm not saying it works one hundred percent of the time. Slaves have been known to escape.



> I don't care what religion you practice, I completely believe that you can practice any religion you want or none.  It's your choice, not mine.



You say this because you are an American, and that is our secular Holy Writ, but it conflicts sharply with your religious beliefs. As does the First Amendment. To put it simply, you believe that God demands things that you, yourself, are not allowed to.



> You don't understand the concepts in Christianity, that's very clear from the remarks that you've made.



So what of the list that I presented is not factually true? I may make different value judgments about those beliefs than you would, but if what I said is what Christians believe, the fact that you think you can make excuses for it doesn't change things.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

Lol.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 24, 2012)

Newby said:


> And if you do have the knowledge and intelligence then you certainly haven't demonstrated it here



That isn't yours to judge. I'm addressing others here, actually. They can decide.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 24, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Dragon, I think you are mistaking consequences for lack of freedom.  As I understand it, in Christianity everyone has the freedom to believe what they will, there are just consequences for those beliefs.



If a slave disobeys a master, there are "consequences" of that as well. "You can believe whatever you want, but if you believe anything different from this, I will torture you forever and ever," is as tyrannical a statement as has ever been uttered.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon, I think you are mistaking consequences for lack of freedom.  As I understand it, in Christianity everyone has the freedom to believe what they will, there are just consequences for those beliefs.
> ...



I didn't say it was a good choice! 

A slave will be forced to do things they don't want to.  A slave will not be allowed to do whatever they wish, they will be stopped from doing things the slave master doesn't want.

In Christianity, (again by my understanding) no one is stopped from doing anything.  If you disbelieve, if you sin, god doesn't levy some punishment and then you continue.  

Like I said, the idea of eternal punishment is incompatible with the idea of a loving, merciful god IMO.  I'm completely on board with that argument.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
Who is our "master"?

It's only fair to share...we already know who you work for.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


 
Think of it this way...a loving parent must exert discipline, and protect his or her children from evil people and influences. That means there are times when you have to punish a child, and it also means there are some people you must put away from you.

Add to that the fact that God is also completely righteous and can tolerate no sin and it becomes clear why there has to be punishment, and eternal punishment. Humans are sinful, and the only way to remove our sin and make us worthy of the presence of God is via Christ's blood. It's about the easiest way imaginable to make sure you will spend eternity in heaven, you just have to believe or ask to be saved (you don't even have to be convinced, conviction can come later) and you can write off the chance of spending eternity in hell.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 24, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon, I think you are mistaking consequences for lack of freedom.  As I understand it, in Christianity everyone has the freedom to believe what they will, there are just consequences for those beliefs.
> ...



But god loves you is why he will torture you forever!


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

If you expect to spend eternity in God's care, the very least you can do is show a modicom of respect.

If you don't He's not going to subject the rest of us to your idiocy.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> If you expect to spend eternity in God's care, the very least you can do is show a modicom of respect.
> 
> If you don't He's not going to subject the rest of us to your idiocy.



I do not believe in eternity.
And do not think I would want to exist forever anyway.
esp if it was with Pat Robertson and Koshergirl.
The rapture did happen last year and only 6 qualified and were never missed.

Prove me wrong


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 24, 2012)

Good for you. Enjoy eternity in Hell with ppl like Hitler, Stalin, and who knows who else. I'm sure they're preferable country to old Pat.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I understand the idea of god as a parent, and we are children who must, on occasion, be punished.  I can accept that analogy.  It is the eternal punishment that I don't understand, at least when god is supposed to be loving and merciful.  Eternal punishment is not merciful.  It is ETERNAL.  Never ends.  Ever.  A billion years, a trillion years, a google years, the punishment continues.  That is not love and mercy.  Now, if hell is more like purgatory and you can leave it and move on to heaven once you fix your problems, that's different.  If the only punishment is that you are outside the presence of god, that's different.  I have seen Christians use both explanations.  But if hell is a one way trip of burning in a lake of fire type torment, the closest I can come to the parent analogy is that a newborn cries, and the parent decides to punish them by torturing the child for the rest of it's life.

But we digress.    I'm not going to post any more in this thread about this line of discussion because I think it's a bit of a derailment from the original point.  I'd be happy to go into it elsewhere.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Good for you. Enjoy eternity in Hell with ppl like Hitler, Stalin, and who knows who else. I'm sure they're preferable country to old Pat.



Hell does not exist, except for the one we can make for ourselves on this earth while alive.

btw if it does exist I will have plenty of company from supposed christians 

Perhaps you we can continue this conversation for all eternity?


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> If you expect to spend eternity in God's care, the very least you can do is show a modicom of respect.
> 
> If you don't He's not going to subject the rest of us to your idiocy.



Who are you "gods" publicity agent?  How the fuck do YOU know what this sky fairy wants?  Your stupid bible was supposedly written two thousand years ago.  Maybe your "god" saw what a pack of scum and vermin you all turned into and how you idiots wast his time praying at football games and everything.  If "god" made EVERYTHING and has to give the say so even when a hummingbird farts ...  then your stupid god made people like me that want to see you all burned to cinders in your cult churches.

Ya maybe your god saw what a waste of time it has been to give you fools "His Words".  Maybe you aren't his favorites any more.  You know what?  If there is a god I bet he likes me more than you.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 24, 2012)

Dragon said:


> OK, I guess I need to clarify.
> 
> If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.



Not that you would "get it", but this is along the lines of that country song: "you've got to stand for something or you will fall for anything".

Either you understand or you don't, no intellectual hidden meanings, just common sense.  If you are willing to accept anything, you will stand for nothing.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > If you expect to spend eternity in God's care, the very least you can do is show a modicom of respect.
> ...


 
Wow.







*crazy rant*.

See the similarity? Yes? No?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



You said that the easiest way imaginable to spend eternity in Heaven is to be worthy via Christ's blood.

Yeah.............I guess that's okay if you're lazy and want someone else to do all the work for you, but a quick question............

What about those that already keep God's laws via the Torah and Judaic theology?

What about the Hindus?

What about the Buddhists, the Taoists and those that follow Zen?

Is your God going to consign those people to hell for eternity just because they don't follow YOUR narrow path?

Really compassionate god you have there Halal Twit............and yeah, I used the lower case "g" because your understanding is so limited.

The true incarnation of God is too big to be contained in just one religion, unless, of course, you believe as those of the Islamic faith.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


The little I know about handwriting analysis shows that that note writer suffers from:

Depression or at least a poor outlook on life from downward flow of the end of  lines,
Possible schizophrenia is common among those who write near sideways 's' (Adolf Hitler did this towards the end of his life)
Disorganized thought patterns due to the poor letter and line spacing
High pressure on the pencil indicates either anger, rage, high stress or a manic state
Bottom heavy capitals indicate an attachment to the worldly and carnal

Who was that?  Ted Kazinski?  It did say Montana.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


 
Says you.

Thanks, it's not my path, it's God's. Jews have a different relationship with God. Those who have never be exposed to Christ's salvation, i don't know. 

I'm sorry you can't wrap your tiny brain around the concept, and instead want to kibbitz with your Creator. But of course you have the freedom to do that. I'm sure hell will be full of people who think they knew the way God SHOULD have done things, and who thought they could hold the line at whatever silly arrogance compelled them to reject and ridicule. You have fun with that.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 25, 2012)

Just to be clear, what I'm doing here is to question, not God, but _people's claims about God_. When someone says, "The Ground and Being of the Universe requires that you follow this particular religion or He/She/It will torture your soul forever and ever," I am skeptical, particularly when those claiming this are followers of that religion themselves, and most of all when the claim originally came from the leaders of that religion, who obviously stood to benefit from having many obedient followers.

I am not saying that God is a tyrant and a freedom-hater. I am saying that many of the people who have the arrogance to speak in God's name are tyrants and freedom-haters, or slaves accustomed to the yoke and trained to insist that others join them in slavery. I am also saying that these claims are false, and that God is actually NOT like that at all.

I would have the same reaction to a parent who tortured his or her children with whips and hot irons as punishment for disobedience.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 25, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Like I said, the idea of eternal punishment is incompatible with the idea of a loving, merciful god IMO.  I'm completely on board with that argument.



Great, then we agree. 

Again for clarity, I'm not criticizing Christianity _per se_. All Gods are one God, all Goddesses one Goddess, and there is but one initiator. I keep in mind the story of the blind men and the elephant, and realize that all religious doctrines are metaphor and myth, ideas to stir the soul and move the heart closer to the Holy. By that measure, the central myth of Christianity is fine, stating the unity of man and God and illustrating the process of death and rebirth. Jesus is also a fine God-form and vehicle for the All.

My only problem is with the narrow-minded, punishment-heavy, anti-liberty add-ons that unfortunately often accompany the perfectly valid core of the faith. It is those add-ons that are false and malevolent, and those only. And they are equally false and malevolent in a different, non-Christian context, Islam being particularly prone to them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 25, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Really?  Incompatible you say?

Let's flip this around and see what you think.

You have two children, you love with all your heart.  You want to do everything for them, but you want them to love you back and you want them to choose to love you completely of their own choice.  So you tell them, they can have your help if they ask you to.  Your one rule to show they respect and love you?  Obey your house rules which are very basic stuff that boils down to respect their sibling and others as well as yourself.  If they won't obey the rules, they must get out.

The first child says okay, and goes off to do what they want around the house.  They obey the rules, and ask you for help when they need it.  Generally, the keep on being a good child to you and their sibling and others.

The other child though... well, they don't care so much for treating their sibling well.  They start asking you to take things from their sibling because they want it instead, and they're not nice about how they ask either, showing a lack of respect.  The more you chide them, gently for being so rude and demanding such requests from you, the more angry they get at you and start disrespecting you, calling you names, and finally denying your right to be in control of your house.  Their apex of insults is saying they demand you get out of their life and never speak to them again.  Of course, they will continue to reside in your house and accept all the privileges that come with it, without thanks.

Now, when the time comes that they become adults and you must move on.  You now have to choose whether or not you are going to allow in your new home a child that obviously hates you despite your best efforts short of directly controlling them, or not?  You know full well they cannot survive without you, but their hatred for you is so strong, they wish you dead and maybe... JUST maybe, would try it too.

Would you bring that grown child behind to their own doom, or threaten your existence or that of the child who loves you?  Is your love such that you would allow yourself to be destroyed for someone who hates you so completely and would destroy everything you created given the chance?  Or is it such that you would give them the life without you, knowing full well, while they don't, that they will perish?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



As I said to KG, I don't want to derail this discussion about religion and freedom by going into the idea of hell.  I'll just say I think your analogy is a false one, and I'd be happy to discuss it further in another thread or pm's.

If Dragon doesn't care about us taking the thread in another direction, I'll get more in depth here, I just don't want to get too far away from the original premise.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 25, 2012)

I'd say that's on-topic.

Punishment is compatible with love, but only as a means of correction, to cause a change in behavior. (Even then, it's appropriate to ask what behavior is being objected to. In traditional Christianity, merely holding a heretical opinion is condemned. That's incompatible with liberty, to say nothing of love.)

To put everything in perspective, it might help to consider what punishments would be thought of as "cruel and unusual" if administered by a government. Harsh prison conditions and the death penalty are both controversial. What would we think of a government that put a prisoner on life-support and administered electrical stimulation to the pain centers of the brain, producing a condition of acute agony that lasted for years? Would we not regard this as excessive? Do we not, even those of us who believe in capital punishment, condemn deliberately excruciating execution methods used in more barbaric times (burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, impalement, etc.)? If so, then why would we expect God to be more unjust and more inhumane than tyrants out of our own barbaric past?

Yet the beliefs of traditional Christianity include a belief that he is, that he inflicts torture lasting literally forever -- and that for "offenses" that a reasonable person would not condemn at all, such as following the lead of logic and evidence to places that may be heterodox.

It's all of a piece: unbelievably hideous punishments inflicted for trivial offenses, or for things that shouldn't be offenses, that are in fact actual virtues! Hell is the invention of a tyranny. If it is real, then God is a tyrant; if not (which is of course what I believe), then it is the church that is a tyrant, claiming to speak for God and demanding obedience to its own commands in his name.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

Besides which, since when do we ask Dragon for permission about which topics are permissable?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

And his ignorance of Christianity speaks for itself.

you aren't punished for minor offenses. When you're in hell you're being punished for forsaking God. That's it. That's the one sin that isn't forgiven.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And his ignorance of Christianity speaks for itself.
> 
> you aren't punished for minor offenses. When you're in hell you're being punished for forsaking God. That's it. That's the one sin that isn't forgiven.



I wish that you Christians would get together sometime and agree on what is and isn't a "sin".

Some Christians think that gambling, drinking and dancing are "sins", yet they really aren't, they're actually vices.

The only sins that there are, are the ones listed in either the 7 Noahide Commandments or those listed in the 10 Commandments.

But, now we've got the resident Christian fringer in Halal Twit telling us there is only one sin.

Like I said, I wish Christians would get together sometime and agree on what is and isn't.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Besides which, since when do we ask Dragon for permission about which topics are permissable?



Not a matter of permissible, I just didn't want to derail the thread he started.  I was just trying to be courteous.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



The problem with any analogy comparing hell and a human experience is that of time.  If hell is eternal punishment, there is no real parallel in human experience.  

There are different version of hell that people believe, so the argument isn't all encompassing.  If hell is considered a place of eternal torment, where damned souls suffer torture for all time, there is nothing a person can do to deserve that from a loving, merciful god.  Hell being a place of eternal suffering is, IMO, proof that god is anything but loving and merciful.  

If hell is merely separation from god, it's different.  If hell is not permanent, if one can either gain access to heaven or at least escape to oblivion, it's different.  I just don't see how anyone can possibly believe in an all-powerful god who determines the placement of human souls is loving and merciful if that same god is willing to condemn those souls to never ending torture.

Of course, I have a problem with the idea of a being so far beyond human experience being limited with human thoughts, ideas or emotions.  If there is a god who created the universe, who exists eternally, who sees everything that happens in the universe, who is not bound by the laws of reality that we are, I think it's unlikely such a being thinks of things like love, hate, good or bad anything like humanity does.  In fact, I would guess it's probably impossible for us to really understand the thought process of such a being.  So perhaps there is an eternal hell of suffering and the problem is that trying to shoe-horn god into an anthropomorphic shell doesn't work.

To go back to the original point, while I think Dragon's slave comparison was off, perhaps prisoner might work better as an analogy.  Imagine a prison in which there are no rules.  However, if someone follows a particular pattern of behavior, they will be released; those who choose to act otherwise remain trapped.  That seems closer to the idea of religion and freedom to choose, although it's not perfect.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 25, 2012)

Koshergrl is wrong in any case. Abandoning/rejecting God is not the only sin, it is merely the only unforgivable sin (in Christian doctrine), what has been called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." In fact, a sin that is forgivable may still send a person to Hell, unless it is actually forgiven, which requires repentance, which in Christian doctrine requires that one be a Christian. And since it is impossible not to sin, that means that Hell can be escaped only if one is a Christian (and even then, only if one sincerely repents).

Hence, in effect, God will torture people for all eternity for not being Christians, which is a trivial offense, or no offense at all.

EDIT: Of course, some Christians will claim that "not being a Christian" and "rejecting God" amount to the same thing. Which is an extraordinarily arrogant claim, and makes my overall point rather well.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

good grief.

Really ppl, stop feeding into his idiocy. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

PS..I meant rejection of Christ was the only sin that would land you in hell.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 25, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And his ignorance of Christianity speaks for itself.
> ...



There are sins against "man": the Ten Commandments (do you really think it matters to the Lord who is holding what, when?), and there are sins against the Lord: cursing Him, denying Him, forsaking Him.  The Laws against man can be manipulated in our minds with "IF" and "but", etc.  The sins against the Lord are written onto our hearts, and cannot be reasoned away (you can pretend, but this usually leads to mental illnesses and addictive behaviors to distract your heart from screaming at you).

If a person does not understand, or pretends not to understand "sin", the person explaining "sin" will try to make it simpler to understand.  This is where the "cult" myth of Christianity originates.  Those that are trying to communicate on basic, simple terms are mistaken for "uneducated" or "simple", when they are really speaking to a person they belive needs faith explained to them as you would to a child.  

The problem "Christians" have (as well as any other religion that is on the path to TRUTH and LIGHT) is trying to explain a spiritual subject that is beyond their personal comprehension to people that "comprehend" a little bit less.  In spiritual matters, we are very much like the tower of Babble, we cannot understand what each person is saying.  We can get close, but the spirituality is way to deep for us to comprehend, fully.  The Lord, is spirituality (comparitively speaking),  raised to a large, extremely large exponent.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 25, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Ahh the prodigal son and fatted calf thing?


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> good grief.
> 
> Really ppl, stop feeding into his idiocy. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> PS..I meant rejection of Christ was the only sin that would land you in hell.



Not according to all pentecostals I have met and gone to church with.
I was raised up being taught that dancing and going to movies would send you to hell.  This is in the same denomination as Sarah Palins church.

Somehow those things will not send you to hell now in that same church though.  so I believe nothing they say.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > good grief.
> ...


 


All I can say is you didn't fully understand, or you're a liar. Because there is no pentecostal preacher in teh world who preaches that the sin of dancing will send you to hell.

They will preach that dancing and whatever will cause you to sin, to reject Christ. 

Two different things. If you can find me a transcript of a sermon where a preacher says that the punishment for dancing is eternal hell, I'll reconsider.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You call me a liar without ever going to that church when I was a child?
How arrogant and self assured can one woman be anyway and still call herself a Christian?
You know everything and know nothing.

Glad you have listened to every sermon of every pentecostal preacher in the world.

You migh as well not preach any more your credibility is shot to hell now.

Try to understand how you appear to others.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

I know that pentecostals do not preach that dancing is a sin punishable by hell. Which is what you just said. I said you're either ignorant, or lying.

Your diversionary tactic of attacking me tells me that you know it's not true. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Not now. Cough up some evidence, you're outed.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> good grief.
> 
> Really ppl, stop feeding into his idiocy. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> PS..I meant rejection of Christ was the only sin that would land you in hell.



I reject your Christ!   OOPS!  I'm still here! 

Ha...ha....ha..  You must not think much of the human species to believe we could not make it without your sky fairy and his stupud suicidal "bastard son".

Oh nozers!!!  The gates of hell are opening up and I'm falling in!!   This otta be good.  I just told the devil that My greatest fear is cocaine , champaign and native colombian Indian 18 year old pussy.  And it all gets worser and more horrible if I am forced to take viagra every day too!  Man this devil is one stupid somebitch!~

Oh Hell!


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

Wow. Thank you for showing up and providing a caricature of a shrieking demon enraged by the very name of God.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wow. Thank you for showing up and providing a caricature of a shrieking demon enraged by the very name of God.



OK...I'm a shrieking demon..  I wanna bust into your dreams like Freddy Kruger and make you cry for your Jeebus.  Does that make me a bad man?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 25, 2012)

Probably.

Though you're probably harmless....

Gibberers always put me in mind of...


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Probably.
> 
> Though you're probably harmless....
> 
> Gibberers always put me in mind of...



Got me!~...  When I told youzzall that I flew airplanes...I didn't specify that I flew them from 

*Inside The Plane!!!!   Ha!  Ha!  Ha!*


----------



## Newby (Mar 26, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > And if you do have the knowledge and intelligence then you certainly haven't demonstrated it here
> ...



It's mine to judge if I wish to judge it.  You're making comments about me, since I'm a christian, so I have a right to judge and question those comments as I see fit.  Especialy since your comments are incorrect and completely biased based on some strange beliefs you hold about christianity.   You're certainly welcome to your opinion, which is all you have posted here, but I'm welcome to refute them if I like.  It's called being 'free' to express your thoughts.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 26, 2012)

That's Dragon's MO. When debate gets too sticky, he bails. Either by grand proclamation that his opinion can stand in lieu of fact and all discussion is moot, or by pretending to put you on ignore.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 26, 2012)

Newby said:


> It's mine to judge if I wish to judge it.



Fine, but it's mine to point out that your judgment carries no authority and can be safely ignored.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 26, 2012)

Told ya so, lol.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 26, 2012)

Wow, that arrogance Dragon put forth can be chalked up to maybe being a thread killer for me at least.  I know he's not worth debating or listening to anymore.


----------



## shalabi (Mar 26, 2012)

Yikes..... churches throwing down the gauntlet, huh? What a weird cult.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 26, 2012)

What are you talking about?

BTW, I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports uscitizen's statement that pentecostals say the punishment for sins other than rejection of Christ will land you in hell.

but all I hear are crickets.


----------



## Newby (Mar 26, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > It's mine to judge if I wish to judge it.
> ...



Ironic, exactly what I think of yours as well... /discussion


----------



## Dragon (Mar 26, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



As you wish. The difference, though, is that I'm not claiming my own judgments carry authority -- only my reasoning. Which does.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 26, 2012)

No, it really doesn't.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 26, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Wow, that arrogance Dragon put forth can be chalked up to maybe being a thread killer for me at least.  I know he's not worth debating or listening to anymore.



That's weak PUSSY!


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 26, 2012)

shalabi said:


> Yikes..... churches throwing down the gauntlet, huh? What a weird cult.



Thems some bad mofo crustians!


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> BTW, I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports uscitizen's statement that pentecostals say the punishment for sins other than rejection of Christ will land you in hell.
> 
> but all I hear are crickets.



Chirp...chirp!  

You guyz kill me.  There are at least a hundred items in your church dogma that on face value look like somebody just pulled em straight outta their ass.  

AND your big question is:  *uscitizen's statement that pentecostals say the punishment for sins other than rejection of Christ will land you in hell.*

ALL that other bullshit that couldn't be any crazier if somebody took notes in the day room of a hospital for the criminally insane doesn't bother you at all.  

There are SOOOOOOO many things about christianity that scream for an explaination or if you are a morman...they scream in four part harmony till they are bleeding from their eyes...  and you are stuck on *uscitizen's statement that pentecostals say the punishment for sins other than rejection of Christ will land you in hell.*

Astonishing!!!!

For someone that spends a lot of bytes claiming how smart you are YOU sure avoid some pretty important questions yourself Toots!

Virgin Mary??????

Resurection?????


Nigga PPUUULLLEEEZZZ!!!!!

Don't sweat the small stuff suger tits...  You still got main event stuff to figure out.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

Person A claims to speak for God, and demands obedience from Person B.

Person B dismisses person A's claim and refuses to obey.

Which one is arrogant?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 27, 2012)

A free thinker is noone's slave.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Person A claims to speak for God, and demands obedience from Person B.
> 
> Person B dismisses person A's claim and refuses to obey.
> 
> Which one is arrogant?


 
Logical fallacy, as Person A has never demanded obedience from Person B, dumbass. Christians just say "if you don't accept God you will go to Hell". We don't say we'll send you there, or expect you to obey US.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 27, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about?
> ...


 
I had an auntie Toots.

Other than that, I can't make much sense out of your post.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Person A claims to speak for God, and demands obedience from Person B.
> ...



No you just CLAIM to speak for God.
THAT is arrogance extreme.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 27, 2012)

I don't claim to speak for God, never have. So that makes you a liar.

The Bible is God's voice. I don't need to say a word.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Precisely. I've never once heard God saying anything of the kind. I've often heard Christians say that God says such things, though.

That amounts to Christians saying them on their own authority. If they claim it's the authority of God, that amounts to pretending that their authority IS the authority of God, which is, as uscitizen says, is arrogance extreme.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
Yes it is, if it had ever happened.

It hasn't. Unless you have a quote?

Of course you don't. I expect this to turn out exactly the way it turns out every single time I ask either you or uscitz to verify the latest lie you've attached yourself to.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 27, 2012)

You know.........an open mind allows you to look for truth no matter where it is, or who said it.  

Closed minds (like many in the Christian communities) are what allows you to be bigoted and allows you to think that you're somehow "better" than others.

Open minds (i.e. free thinkers) educate and teach, closed ones run away from anything contrary to their current beliefs.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 27, 2012)

Again. For the peanut gallery.

"Freethinker" =/= "open mind".

Quite the opposite. Freethinkers are those who reject, out of hand, all dogma and doctrine of religion.

Open mind means something entirely different.

And the church has always been at the forefront of scholarship. 

Educate yourself.

Still waiting for someone to provide a quote of me speaking for God, meanwhile. And as usual, when I ask Dragon or uscitz to back up one of their ridiculous lies, CRICKETS.

But here comes ABS to move the conversation away from that..what a coincidence.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 30, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.........an open mind allows you to look for truth no matter where it is, or who said it.
> 
> Closed minds (like many in the Christian communities) are what allows you to be bigoted and allows you to think that you're somehow "better" than others.
> 
> Open minds (i.e. free thinkers) educate and teach, closed ones run away from anything contrary to their current beliefs.



I thought an "open mind" allowed a logical or reasonable explanation to present a point of view, an idea, a theory or even a fact.  It seems many on this board want to condemn "Christians" because they are unwilling to take some "intellectuals" ramblings, seriously, when there is evidence that those ideas end in catastrophic results.

Who is more "open-minded": the person that continues to put failed methods in place (without even changing a thing), or those that use history to make society work?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Mar 30, 2012)

jodylee said:


> The free thinking man that discovered fire and learnt to cook food, the free thinking hunter that used his magnificent brain the create tools, the free thinker that decided to settle down and farm crops and keep  live stock, thus creating civilisation, ALL SATAN'S SLAVES,



Man has been doing such things from the beginning of man. What did God say to noah right after the flood ? What did God order for noah to put on the ark ?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 30, 2012)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.........an open mind allows you to look for truth no matter where it is, or who said it.
> ...



Well, Christians keep telling us that we have to believe as they do, because somehow they're more "moral", but when I look at things like the Inquisition and Crusades from history, I don't really think they're more "moral" than anyone else.

And........if you used history to make society work, then you'd probably want to follow the model set up by God's Chosen People, i.e. the Jews.   Christians like to use Leviticus to prove that being gay is a sin, but they also choose to ignore many of the rules (which make sense) because they aren't Jewish.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 30, 2012)

What Christian has said you *have* to believe as they do?

And who told you we're more *moral*?

Quotes and links please.

I know you're lying, so go ahead and avoid/prevaricate now...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> What Christian has said you *have* to believe as they do?
> 
> And who told you we're more *moral*?
> 
> ...



Many Christians will walk up to you and tell you you're going to hell if you don't believe in Yeshua.

Many Christians also believe they are more moral than anyone else.

Matter of fact, you've proven that in the Trayvon Martin threads Always A Babbling Bitch.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 30, 2012)

So you're lying.

Thanks.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 30, 2012)

In this column, I want to consider two distinct but closely related questions: (1) can a theist be a freethinker?; and (2) are all nontheists freethinkers? I shall argue that the answer to (1) is "yes" and the answer to (2) is "no." I shall then argue that nontheists should stop using the word "freethinker" as an umbrella term.

Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist?

Very good article on the subject of freethinkers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Mar 30, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Listen don't confuse over zealous Christians as God's people.

Mat 7:13  Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it. 
Mat 7:14  Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. 
Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
Mat 7:16  You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. 
Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 
Mat 7:19  Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 
Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. 
Mat 7:21  Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. 
Mat 7:22  Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? 
Mat 7:23  And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! 
Mat 7:24  Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock. 
Mat 7:25  And the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. And it did not fall, for it was founded on a rock. 


The Jews ? are not they the ones who put to death the prophets of God ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Mar 31, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What Christian has said you *have* to believe as they do?
> ...



If you do not believe and trust in God whether you call him Yeshua, Jesus, God,or YAHWEH your chances of eternal life are not good according to the scriptures.

When people do a thourough study on what Hell really is, it is not the kind of place that has been stereo typed because of a few verses being cherry picked by men.

How can anyone believe that a loving and just God would torment his unruly children. He put it into our hearts that torment is wrong and ordered us not to do it to our children. So why would he do it to his ?

The torment that is spoken of is separation from our God and father.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 31, 2012)

Chances at eternal life are slim to nonexistent at best regardless of what you believe.

There is absolutely no proof that eternal life exists.

And by the rules laid down in the bible to attain eternal life very very few will qualify anyway.
Perhaps the rapture did happen last year, but the world did not miss the 6 that qualified?
Who is to say for sure?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 31, 2012)

I can say for sure.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I can say for sure.



You mean, you can tell us with absolute certainty what YOU believe is going to happen.

But.........you still don't really know for sure, as you've never been there yet.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 31, 2012)

> Well, Christians keep telling us that we have to believe as they do, because somehow they're more "moral", but when I look at things like the Inquisition and Crusades from history, I don't really think they're more "moral" than anyone else.


Most free from superstition are as moral as Christians, if not more so. 



> If you do not believe and trust in God whether you call him Yeshua, Jesus, God,or YAHWEH your chances of eternal life are not good according to the scriptures.



And there we go: the authoritarianism of the Christian right, the ancient threat of damnation for failure to conform. 



> I can say for sure.



Of course you can, motivated by your Christian arrogance and conservative authoritarianism, youre quite comfortable dictating to others how they must live and what they must believe. 

The Constitutional principle of separation of church and State was clearly put into place with individuals such as you in mind; Christian fundamentalism is the bane of individual liberty.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Chances at eternal life are slim to nonexistent at best regardless of what you believe.
> 
> There is absolutely no proof that eternal life exists.
> 
> ...



There is no evidence for many things man believes but that does not stop them from believing these things.

If one were to have faith in what's contained in the bible they have a basis to believe in the promises contained in the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I can say for sure.
> ...



It's called faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Well, Christians keep telling us that we have to believe as they do, because somehow they're more "moral", but when I look at things like the Inquisition and Crusades from history, I don't really think they're more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> 
> Most free from superstition are as moral as Christians, if not more so.
> ...



Men that are moral without a relationship with God follow an unseen force called a conscience. Is it a product of evolution or did the creator instill these values in us ?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> It's called faith.



It's called dogma. Faith has nothing to do with intellectual beliefs.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Men that are moral without a relationship with God follow an unseen force called a conscience. Is it a product of evolution or did the creator instill these values in us ?



Partly a product of evolution and partly one of acculturation. The evolution part comes in from the fact that we are a social species, not a solitary species; like all social species, we have instincts of cooperation and competition that serve to enhance collective survivability in an environment for which we are evolved. Because we now live in an environment radically different from the one for which we are evolved, increasingly our moral values are derived culturally and adapted to our new circumstances, while still ultimately springing from the impulse to cooperative survival that is written in our genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > It's called faith.
> ...



It takes faith to believe  one day that the promise of eternal life will be reality.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> It takes faith to believe  one day that the promise of eternal will be reality.



It takes faith to keep going every day and not simply give up and die, as we will eventually have to do. One does not have to have any particular intellectual belief to do that, but one does have to have faith -- a willingness to go on, and the maintenance of a positive attitude.

It does not require faith to believe in "the promise of eternal life." It requires dogmatism. They are not the same thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Men that are moral without a relationship with God follow an unseen force called a conscience. Is it a product of evolution or did the creator instill these values in us ?
> ...



Why is it we know it's wrong to commit murder or to steal and lie ? Are you saying that it evolved into humanity.

Where did that little voice that speaks to our hearts come from teaching us right from wrong. Men still kill in war,why ? one can kill to defend himself why is that justified ? If all killing was wrong.

Because the conscience tells us what is right and what is wrong. The conscience is not a product of evolution,it is a product of design.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > It takes faith to believe  one day that the promise of eternal will be reality.
> ...



Disagree.

As explained.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> OK, I guess I need to clarify.
> 
> If the concept of sin or wrongdoing is reasonably narrow, and the category of acceptable behavior sufficiently wide, then freedom doesn't have to be the freedom to sin. But in traditional Christian thought. it's the other way around; the range of acceptable thought, feeling, and behavior is extremely narrow while the category of sinful behavior includes almost everything. God lays down rules for us to follow governing every aspect of our lives, right down to the activity of our brains, and there is precious little wiggle-room. It is that narrowness that is anti-liberty.



Thought, Word, Action, without consideration of Purpose, Conscience, Cause and Effect, Consequence, can br Irresponsible. Try living with that.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Why is it we know it's wrong to commit murder or to steal and lie ? Are you saying that it evolved into humanity.



Yes. These behaviors -- avoiding murder and theft and dishonesty -- are conducive to group survival. The evolution of these primate behaviors actually predates the human species, but we can think of it this way. Multiple groups try to survive in a hunting-gathering environment. Some groups tend to behave cooperatively. Others tend to behave in pure selfishness, killing each other, stealing from each other, and lacking the prerequisites for mutual support and trust. Who is more likely to survive as a group and pass on their genes to the next generation? Obviously the ones who can maintain at least a minimum standard of cooperation. We are all descended from people who did this, rather than from people who did not. As a result, we have the genes of those who did, rather than those who did not.

That's how evolution works.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Since this post was an answer to your "explanation," you have been answered. Feel free to respond if you please; this, however, was a non-response.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it we know it's wrong to commit murder or to steal and lie ? Are you saying that it evolved into humanity.
> ...



Something else you can't prove, is this dogma you are speaking of ?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I guess I need to clarify.
> ...



Can you please connect your response with what you quoted? Honestly, I don't see the connection.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It can be and has been proven; but it's also been proven (repeatedly) that you have zero objectivity on the subject of evolution and further explanations would be wasted on you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Seemed pretty clear to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



They have proved no such thing,you are now teaching dogma !


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



You can't point to any group of humans that did not possess laws to govern them. You only offer spectulation which consider your dogma.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Really no credibility, that is your argument agianst my arguments


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Because your reasoning is built on nothing but your imagination.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have no arguments. You have no idea what evolution is or how it works. All of your arguments, on this thread as on those directed towards evolution or creationism, are directed not towards the theory of evolution itself but towards a straw man of your own devising, created in ignorance and affirming that ignorance.

As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have no way to know this, because you are completely and stubbornly ignorant on what evolution is. You not only don't know, but you refuse to learn.

As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Sadly the only remedy to willfull ignorance is death.  Fortunately for the human race those that are born into the world have access to better information than those that came before.  Religion as we see it now and as it was in the past will eventually die with those that cling to myth and superstition.  The best we can offer is better knowledge.  We cannot force anyone think intelligently and make use of it.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Huggy, I agree that superstition and ignorance are on the way out, and that those who affirm it are fighting a desperate rearguard action, doomed to failure. However, I don't agree that this describes all of religion. Religion is a blend of mysticism, myth, and make-believe. While make-believe will pass away, and myth be understood AS myth, mysticism is in no danger, and that means that, while it will certainly change, religion will not disappear.


----------



## Marie888 (Apr 1, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




You and Dragon need to wake the hell up!!!! 

Please tell me how can you argue against what Jesus Christ told us this (below verses)  approximately 2000 years ago and then look at the world today and compare what He said?  If there is NO God, and if you say that Jesus is not God, how on earth could He have possibly known what the fate of mankind and the world is and especially pointedly what will happen with Christians.  

Hell YES, - many more people will fall from the faith like you are talking about.  However, Jesus TOLD us it was going to happen.  Not because of some "worldly knowledge".  But because "men" do NOT want to be accountable to God.  They don't WANT to submit.  Blinded by darkness of own sin.  We've all been there  - until we each individtually sincerely call upon His Name.  And then HE begins helping us  -  inside out.

LOOK what Christ Jesus said!!  What is wrong with mankind?  What is our largest issue? It's SIN!  We sin against God, we sin against each other.

For crying out loud, from start to finish, God's Word even tells us what will happen.  Then compare our documented history, even the populous, or how we've scattered the globe.

Jesus Christ said, because of the INCREASE of iniquity (sin), the love of most will grow cold.  If you can't see that happening, I don't know what to tell you!? Please, LOOK around you!!  

The world is NOT all bubblegum and sprinkles and Disney movies.  Love is NOT easy.  And lust is NOT love.  There will NOT be world peace.  Why?  Because we all fall short and sin. Plain and simple. We have "self" that comes sometimes in front of others, so walls go up, relationships break down we, argue, fight, war. 

So WHO will save us from these bodies of sin and death?  Only One - Our Lord Jesus Christ.



> *Matthew 24
> 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
> 
> 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
> ...



Perhaps ask yourselves this question please...

In order for world peace to happen, and for all "religions" to be knocked out somehow - someone's FREEDOM will have to go, right?.  Wouldn't you agree?  

Or how could world peace happen at all?   Not all agree with one another, so someone will dictate to say what is illegal or legal, aye?  Can you ever see 100% of the humans race all following one thing/person and obeying? Nope.  We never have, and never will.  

We sin.   We war.  We have a flesh in our bodies and we've all gotta deal with our own pride, sin, lusts every second of the live long day!  LOL  Seriously!!  We war because we have that sin nature.  God told us so and He already told us what we need to help ourselves. HIM!

We sin first against is Our Creator; the One Who made us.   Sin hurts ourselves more than anything and we sin againsts each other.  Thankfully, He made a way through Jesus Christ.

Again, LOOK at the world and history and the timeline and events.  In the last 100 years ALONE from the beginning of time as we know it we've had TWO world wars.   LOOK!!

Don't be that frog in that boiling pot of water.  Jump out and take a LOOK!  We are BOILING!  


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aszTLI4r6P8]Visible Proof Of God - YouTube[/ame]


.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



There is plenty of wiggle room, when you act on Purpose. Regardless of what you think either of what you think Traditional Christian Values are, or their limits. Acting on Conscience, in specific situation, for example, may have zero relationship with preconceived notion. When it's your energy being driven, are you focused more on the specifics of what you are doing, or on how others interpret what you are doing? Sometimes you need to make the choice between the two.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Marie888 said:


> You and Dragon need to wake the hell up!!!!
> 
> Please tell me how can you argue against what Jesus Christ told us this (below verses)  approximately 2000 years ago and then look at the world today and compare what He said?  If there is NO God, and if you say that Jesus is not God, how on earth could He have possibly known what the fate of mankind and the world is and especially pointedly what will happen with Christians.



Two answers, independent of one another but both equally valid and true.

1) The quote you present is quite vague and general and could apply to many different circumstances, most of them high-probability and hence exhibiting little in the way of predictive power.

2) It may be that Huggy is an atheist. I am not. I also do not dispute that Jesus was God. What I do dispute is that there is anything special in that status. I am God, you are God, Jesus was God, the entire universe is God. Big deal.

Well, actually it is a big deal. Merely saying those words does not mean one knows. Becoming aware of being divine is what it's all about -- and dogmatism works against that process, by freezing the mind in a cage of fear.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 1, 2012)

> Please tell me how can you argue against what Jesus Christ told us



Thats a trick question  one cant argue against something that was never said by someone who never existed.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



You don't seem to be describing traditional Christianity here at all. You seem in fact to be describing something mystical. However, I'm not entirely sure I understand you, so I am not sure how to respond.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



True Religion is about Salvation, Positive Direction, For Each of us, It's a Matter of Conscience, and the Relationship through it with Our Maker. Try understanding Organized Religion as a Tool, like the Bible Even, like the Church or Churches. They are where we start out, at least most of us. They have Positive and Negative Influences, some even by design. A positive aspect is that they are always there, to be relied on, when the need arises. On the Negative, they have Limits, even Dogma, easily misconstrued. So what? We learn to distinguish the True Virtue from the Smoke Screen, the Myth. My only point to you would be to point you to searching your own being, conscience, Soul, in matters of Right and Wrong. What you come to determination on, You are Responsible for, the same holds for me, and Everyone Else. We each face the Consequences of our actions, words, and thoughts. There is no escape, there should not be, for how else do we come into realization? It all has meaning. There is nothing on your path that does not belong there by design. The lessons for Each of us, are unique, in some ways. So We Each are here tom work on our own lessons. Those that would attempt to use Religion to Enslave, miss the point, are actually at war with Something much Greater than what we can Comprehend. We are Each, a part of Something much Greater than Something that many try to package and wrap, and sell, as if we are the only one with a clue. It's not about Brand Name, but Transformation, a Transformation that Implies Growth, not finger pointing. We Each Matter. We Each at times are on point, and at times led astray. Where I personally find Agreement with Church or Churches, there is acceptance. Where there is conflict, Conscious Choice, is based on Conscience, not Stupidity. The Blind cannot lead the blind. When you don't know where you are headed, what you are doing, seek clarity of purpose before moving on.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Oh please stop with the nonsense. I grew out of the theory of evolution after two years of being out of college. Once I entered the working world and saw it for myself the impossibility.

When I saw the true effects of mutations and the very limited number of beneficial mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Trust me to get my degree i had to learn the nonsense to graduate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



For once you are correct. Unfortunately some of you will learn the hard way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Huggy, I agree that superstition and ignorance are on the way out, and that those who affirm it are fighting a desperate rearguard action, doomed to failure. However, I don't agree that this describes all of religion. Religion is a blend of mysticism, myth, and make-believe. While make-believe will pass away, and myth be understood AS myth, mysticism is in no danger, and that means that, while it will certainly change, religion will not disappear.



When I have more time we can continue with this discussion if you wish to start another evolution thread.

I will show you the only real evolution and the one that you believe that is built on imagination.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh please stop with the nonsense. I grew out of the theory of evolution after two years of being out of college.



It's not nonsense, and you cannot "grow out of" something you have never understood in the first place.

As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> When I have more time we can continue with this discussion if you wish to start another evolution thread.



I have no wish to start another evolution thread, and even less interest in discussing the matter with you. As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Trust me to get my degree i had to learn the nonsense to graduate.



You clearly have no knowledge of it now. If you ever did, you have forgotten it since. More likely, you gained sufficient knowledge to parrot-talk, without understanding anything. In any case, your ignorance now, at this time, is painfully obvious. You have never yet presented a single argument against evolution, only against what you have mistakenly believed was evolution.

As I said, you have zero objectivity -- and zero credibility -- on the subject of evolution. I will answer anyone else who is really curious. I will not answer you, because it would be a waste of time. You will simply stick your fingers in your ears and deny, as you have always done before.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> 
> Atheists are Satan's slaves, and anyone who has read Dragon's drivel knows it.



Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out which one was the bad guy again. Jehovah or Satan... 

Jehovah murders every person in the world with a flood.  He kills a guy for jerking off, touching his box, makes a guy sacrifice his daughter because he made a foolish oath, kills every first born baby in Egypt on a bet. Makes his followers wander around in a desert for 40 years until they all die, sends two bears to maul 42 kids because they made fun of a bald guy, kills a baby to teach David that having sex with another man's wife is wrong, and so on... 

All Satan does is kill 10 people.  On a bet with Jehovah...  

But that's that "free thinking", actually reading your source material and making judgement rather than  just thinking what your church leaders tell you to think about it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


 
You know, you devote a lot of airtime to stating "it's already been proven" "it's been proven over and over again" and "there is no point discussing this, I have decreed"...

but I never actually see this proof you are constantly referencing. Not in any of the threads or in any of the discussions where you claim the proof has "previously" been provided and that particular subject is now closed.

In other words, you're a liar. You don't provide anything of substance, which is pathetic enough...but then you lie and claim you have...which is beyond pathetic, it's just smarmy and stupid.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I think given enough time, Genetic Engineering and Tampering with Our Food, we will see enough Mutation to make substantial claims in the Evolution of the Extinction Process. I so much want to thank the EPA Especially, for watching our backs here.  

Nothing like Scientists on bad Acid, playing God..... Except for the Government Bureaucrats that enable them.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > It's called faith.
> ...



If you have a dogma does that make you a son of a bitch?


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 1, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Of course the power hungry control freaks that are religious dogmatists are against free thought.
> 
> DUH!



They are not, free thought 24/7 of GOD is demanded. Plus Donations too. And if you got some young boy ass, See sign at the rectory.
PS. God you should not be focusing on killing man. Kill off your big named competition, Go for the win you big pussy. What don&#8217;t got the power? Hmmm


----------



## Dragon (Apr 1, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



LOL that belongs right up there with "my karma ran over your dogma." 

Re something said above: the evidence in favor of evolution is available on line from several different sources. Anyone who hasn't seen it hasn't looked for it; it takes only a few seconds. When I refuse to look it up myself and display it when asked by a creationist, that's not because there's any difficulty about finding it, but only because I get tired of doing so only to have people stick their fingers in their ears and go into denial. There's no point in trying to prove something to the dogmatic and closed-minded.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 1, 2012)

God...God made us, He gave us free will, and God created evil, as well. That goes without saying. If God loves us, why do THAT? That confounds me. I can't accept free will is evil. There is a certain ambivalence to everything. In science, they call that "duality". It's striking that science and faith merge together in that concept.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the power hungry control freaks that are religious dogmatists are against free thought.
> ...



You are a Jack Ass. I'm wondering if You are a Hypocrite too? What is your Position on NYC Teachers molesting Children? In Relation to staying on Payroll and also regarding Pensions?

Thought so. Have fun with your Profiling and false assumptions regarding Clergy.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Hey... What did I do. And it most be painful for you.
PS. God you should not be focusing on killing man. Kill off your big named competition, Go for the win you big pussy. What dont got the power? Hmmm


----------



## sparky (Apr 1, 2012)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=roGcPxEvYAw[/youtube]

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might be a rock'n' roll adict prancing on the stage
Might have money and drugs at your commands, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be an young turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes 
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord you might even own banks.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes 
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes 
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Jimmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say.

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 1, 2012)

Quick question.....................why is it that God doesn't like free thinkers?

Many holy texts in many different religions prize new knowledge second only to God.  It's reflected in the way things are written in Judaic theology, "ilm" the Arabic word for knowledge is the second most used word in the Koran, second only to Allah.

Oh wait..........that's right.............free thinkers are respected by all religions EXCEPT Christianity.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 1, 2012)

Maybe the reason that Christians hate free thinkers is that the last time someone challenged the dogma of the Catholic Church, they became Protestants, which is the genesis of Christianity as it currently is.

Guess they're afraid of splinter groups.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Impressive response....


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > CausingPAIN said:
> ...



So how many drugs are in your cocktail??? How do you take it again, Anally? I thought so. Don't stand so close, huh.  No offense.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question.....................why is it that God doesn't like free thinkers?
> 
> Many holy texts in many different religions prize new knowledge second only to God.  It's reflected in the way things are written in Judaic theology, "ilm" the Arabic word for knowledge is the second most used word in the Koran, second only to Allah.
> 
> Oh wait..........that's right.............free thinkers are respected by all religions EXCEPT Christianity.



Your Bias is showing.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 1, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Maybe the reason that Christians hate free thinkers is that the last time someone challenged the dogma of the Catholic Church, they became Protestants, which is the genesis of Christianity as it currently is.
> 
> Guess they're afraid of splinter groups.



Christians have hundreds of splinter groups now.  Assembly of God, Methodists, Presebyterians, church of god, moremoans, mennoites, amish, etc..  And god only knows how many varieties of Baptists.

And every single group is absolutely sure that their splinter is the only correct one.


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the reason that Christians hate free thinkers is that the last time someone challenged the dogma of the Catholic Church, they became Protestants, which is the genesis of Christianity as it currently is.
> ...



I so wish I knew as much about the Study of Christianity as You, oh Great One.  You are too much. Thanks for the comedy.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Where was I incorrect in that post?

Ever been to a Primitive Baptist service?  Hard Shell baptist?  Southern Baptist?  I have.

Also methodist, presbyterian, Assembly Of God( was raised up in that one), Unitarian, and several I forget right now.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Well, Christians keep telling us that we have to believe as they do, because somehow they're more "moral", but when I look at things like the Inquisition and Crusades from history, I don't really think they're more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> 
> Most free from superstition are as moral as Christians, if not more so.
> ...



Where are Christians "dictating" how you live your life?  I have not met them.  I do not know them.

I have many people come to me and tell me how I should live my life; they are M A N I P U L A T O R S.  What they call themselves does not matter.

I speak regularly with "Christians" (of many different faiths), most of the time we talk about Biblical things we think we understand.  A few will be open to hear my interpretation, and like-wise, I will listen to theirs.  Very rarely, do I not learn something.

I speak to people occasionally of different faiths.  They are very guarded about their "faith", but more open about their culture.

The "faithful" do not tell me how to live my life.  It seems the miserable (those that practice sinful ways) think it is their duty in life to tell everyone else how to live their lives (maybe they work for evil, or maybe they just want everyone to be miserable)?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 1, 2012)

I see most here are not seeing the difference between those who are real Christians and thos who just use religion for their own purposes.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Is that you, Charles Manson?  Are you still looking for disciples to sit at your feet and worship you?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I hope that people are capable of learning because socialists, communists, leftists, radical islamists, homosexual activists, environmentalists, progressives (choose one they all use the same methods and try to re-write history) are all using ideas that have failed every single time it was tried for a society.  Hopefully, those willfully ignorant will open their eyes and see that society based on Christian/Judeo morals are the societies that prosper, have a higher standard of living for ALL their citizens (there are still poor in every society, but comparitively speaking...), and live more peacefully than any society based on the above ideals.   Just sayin' ......


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> I see most here are not seeing the difference between those who are real Christians and thos who just use religion for their own purposes.



With You to guide us, how could we possibly fail to see, Oh Great One. Thank You again for pointing out who is genuine.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Intense  
Supporting Member
Member #20285
    Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elmhurst, NY
Posts: 26,889 
Thanks: 1,859
Thanked 6,657 Times in 5,084 Posts 
Rep Power: 1845 



New reputation! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, you have received 1845 reputation points from Intense.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
oop\'s!

Regards,
Intense

Note: This is an automated message. 

Thanks Buddy!


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question.....................why is it that God doesn't like free thinkers?
> 
> Many holy texts in many different religions prize new knowledge second only to God.  It's reflected in the way things are written in Judaic theology, "ilm" the Arabic word for knowledge is the second most used word in the Koran, second only to Allah.
> 
> Oh wait..........that's right.............free thinkers are respected by all religions EXCEPT Christianity.



Where in the quran did anyone question Allah for his decision to destroy a city?  How many times did Abraham question the Lord?  The Lord agreed if there were JUST ten (10) good people in the city, that he would not destroy it.  Where did Allah tolerate being questioned?  Where did Allah demonstrate "his" power to destroy evil (we know he encouraged sinful ways in Mohammed)?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 1, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the reason that Christians hate free thinkers is that the last time someone challenged the dogma of the Catholic Church, they became Protestants, which is the genesis of Christianity as it currently is.
> ...



Everyone learns differently, maybe the Lord is using the different ways to reach more people?


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > CausingPAIN said:
> ...



Sorry that I can't help you work towards those Big Negative Reps you want so badly. I will do everything I can to keep you close to Zero, though. Let me know if you need help packing. Don't be late for your convention. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ObycvN3DA]Village Idiot&#39;s Convention - YouTube[/ame]
Village Idiot's Convention


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 1, 2012)

Hey? Under this thread I saw a banner for
Christian Schools, College Degrees - Christian Education
Is USMB a PIMPING for the Christian God? 
Holy shit god got thru my banner ignore setting? WOW!


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



That is not a Tea Party gathering???


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm a free thinker and a christian. I do believe in sin and certain behaviors are bad. Doesnt mean humans dont do bad things or good things, it's up to the person, it's free will. If you're saying that those who believe in monogamy and are opposed to homosexuality are not free thinkers, than I disagree with that. Free thinkers dont have to be absent morality or standards of conduct. Humans are smarter than animals and we should act like it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Quick question.....................why is it that God doesn't like free thinkers?
> ...



You DO realize that Islam accepts (and writes of) the stories of both Abraham and Jesus, right?


----------



## CausingPAIN (Apr 2, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > CausingPAIN said:
> ...



I drink INDia ICEtea all day long...


----------



## Dragon (Apr 2, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> I'm a free thinker and a christian. I do believe in sin and certain behaviors are bad. Doesnt mean humans dont do bad things or good things, it's up to the person, it's free will. If you're saying that those who believe in monogamy and are opposed to homosexuality are not free thinkers, than I disagree with that. Free thinkers dont have to be absent morality or standards of conduct. Humans are smarter than animals and we should act like it.



Free thinkers are NEVER "absent morality or without standards of conduct." However, they arrive at their morality and standards of conduct themselves, based on their own moral sense, in stead of accepting them from an authority without question.

The antithesis of free thought is not religion in general nor Christianity in specific, but dogmatism -- authoritarian thinking -- the binding of the mind. As for the specific beliefs you referred to, I suppose it's not completely IMPOSSIBLE that someone could arrive at the whole array through a process of free thought, but given the fact that traditional Christianity includes a whopping big gun pointed at your head with a banner that says, "BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" I am highly skeptical.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

What garbage you spout.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 2, 2012)

I implied above that Christianity is not _necessarily_ opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.

Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.

Step 2: toss all _a priori_ notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question.

Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world.

Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source.

Anyone who does all of these things, and continues to revere Jesus as primary form of the God and to follow his teachings as they understand them, is a free-thinking Christian.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

I love it.

You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

dragon said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > i'm a free thinker and a christian. I do believe in sin and certain behaviors are bad. Doesnt mean humans dont do bad things or good things, it's up to the person, it's free will. If you're saying that those who believe in monogamy and are opposed to homosexuality are not free thinkers, than i disagree with that. Free thinkers dont have to be absent morality or standards of conduct. Humans are smarter than animals and we should act like it.
> ...



qft.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I love it.
> 
> You must adhere to the freethinker's dogma and reject all Christian dogma to be a free thinker.



Free thinking has no "dogma," hence the term "Free." You're going to have to change screen-names again pretty so0n, you're over your quota for stupid comments on this new one already retread.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> I implied above that Christianity is not _necessarily_ opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.
> 
> Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.
> 
> ...


 

This is dogma. Dragon is setting forth the *conditions* for being considered a *freethinker*.

Funny.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 2, 2012)

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I love it.
> ...



The interesting thing here is that what she refers to as "free thinker's dogma" amounts, in every particular, to "think for yourself." Which is, of course, the antithesis of dogma.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I especially <3 when the more obvious idiots incessantly have to tell everyone else how teh smawt they are. Koshergirl is a narcissist, and it's clear as day.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
No, you idiot. You've numbered and listed the *requirements* (which include a way of thinking) that a person must meet to be considered a freethinker.

The very definition of dogma.

Which is exactly what better minds than yours have been saying all along...freethinking is nothing more than subversive atheism, and it follows a very rigid standard...

The definition of dogma, which certainly applies to Dragon's idiotic "freethinker outline":

"*Dogma* is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.["

From wiki no less, so Dragon will be able to understand it and most certainly will agree with it, since all his information comes straight from that source.

Dogma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

lol proof^


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 


I think you took too many paxil again, bud...


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

Yea? Ask your God, maybe heshe will tell you what I take. You do talk to heshe, right?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

It doesn't matter, whatever it is, you need to take more. Or less.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

Oh, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 2, 2012)

"Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.

"Step 2: toss all a priori notions of Biblical infallibility. The Bible may still be used as a guide, but everything in it is open to question."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't adhere slavishly to what's written in a book. Subject everything to scrutiny and test.

"Step 3: do the same with all church teachings or religious traditions. All become open to question based on the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels, as well as other evidence, such as that of science or social understandings in the real world."

In other words: think for yourself. Don't obey the teachings of the church reflexively, but subject all such ideas to test.

"Step 4: be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."

In other words, think for yourself. Don't reject ideas automatically just because they aren't from an approved source.

These four points are not dogma. They are the antithesis of dogma.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> "Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."
> 
> In other words: think for yourself. Don't believe something out of fear of punishment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Apr 2, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > "Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers."
> ...



Glad that someone sees his logic, because I sure don't.  How do you place rules and parameters or definitions on 'free thinking'?  That's exactly what he's done in the post you are applauding.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 2, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



No, he hasn't. He's released/removed/reduced "rules and parameters." Try again.


----------



## Newby (Apr 2, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



He defined what he THINKS a 'free thinking christian' would be, what they would have to do to fall into HIS definition of it.  Why should his definition be used by anyone else if they are truly a 'free thinker'?  It seems to me that you wouldn't follow anyone else's guidelines/definitions at all, only your own.  He's placing parameters around what a 'free thinking christian' is, but it's not for him to place parameters on what something means to me.  He's no better than he claims the christians following a Bible are, it's very obvious.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 2, 2012)

Newby said:


> He defined what he THINKS a 'free thinking christian' would be, what they would have to do to fall into HIS definition of it.  Why should his definition be used by anyone else if they are truly a 'free thinker'?



Because it is not just "my" definition, it is THE definition. If you are using the word to mean something substantially different, then you are talking about something else, not free thought.

Free thought is incompatible with belief driven by fear of punishment; it is incompatible with rigid adherence to a single authoritarian source, be it scripture or church tradition; and it is incompatible with a blanket rejection of ideas arising from outside the parameters of orthodox doctrine. The four rules I presented are, therefore, a _sine qua non_ of free thought.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

No, it's your definition. Unless you have a link that lists the same freethinking characteristics.

Which you can't. So it is, by *definition*, your definition.

Unless you also have a unique *definition* for *definition*.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 2, 2012)

It's frustrating because it's impossible.

It comes down to innate dishonesty and misrepresentation. You can't expect to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion with a person who is committed to lying, to themselves and others, about their ideology.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 3, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yes, I do, but they are not represented correctly: The Israelites are the chosen people.... , islam claims that "honor" went with Ismael's seed, incorrectly, because Jacob was renamed "Israel", when Ismael was his "great" uncle.  If islam "accepts" Jesus as a prophet, why do they ignore His teaching (against deceiving, and hating those that are different from you)?  Now, if you want to get back to the questions I asked, please.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 3, 2012)

Dragon said:


> I implied above that Christianity is not _necessarily_ opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.
> 
> Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.
> 
> ...



Do all the above, and you are not a "Christian".

"Divine punishment" will be at the will of the Lord, not man (strike number one)

The Bible is a book of learning, treat it as such (strike number two)

Study the reasons for the church "teachings or religious traditions", most of them come from many deep thinkers of the past.  Curiousity is the basis for Christianity (we are searching for the "Truth" and the "Light" .  We can see where science and social understandings are misleading (deceptive) to those that are not searching for the "Truth". (strike number three)

"be open to consideration of religious ideas regardless of the source."  This is the most dangerous thing you have said.  Are you saying we should leave ourselves open to the teachings of SATAN... (evil)?  Are you saying when it is obvious that a religion is misleading their followers, we should stick around and listen to ALL their deceptions? (strike number four)

I don't know who comes to Christianity from childhood without striking out on their own (not acknowledging the Lord).  I don't know many Christians that have not considered other ways of life, even studied some of them, possibly practiced some of them, before deciding that Christianity held something none of those other faiths do (maybe it is the special relationship that is possible for every person, just by a sincere request that Yeshua becomes your "Lord", with that, the Father, becomes your Father, and the Holy Spirit can bestow the seven gifts.  All people belong to the Lord, and many that do not practice "Christianity" know Him in other ways and are blessed.  To ignore what was learned over centuries of pride and vanities is foolish.  To pretend there is a "better" way, is willful ignorance of history.  Your heart appears to have been hardened against the Lord, and for that, I pity you.  If you do not accept that the Lord loves you, and wants the best for you, and will forgive you, how can you, you love, forgive, and want the best for others?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 4, 2012)

First, I've noticed that self-proclaimed "free-thinkers" usually are free from any rational thoughts. Just an observation though.

Second, Liberty is essential to Christianity, traditional or otherwise. Without the freedom to choose faith, there is no power behind it. It's not a coincidence that the scriptures have been clear from the beginning that we need to "Choose this day whom we will serve". Nor is it a coincidence that the Lord counseled Israel against Kings. Nor is it a coincidence that the scriptures teach us that we become free through the Truth.

The Founders understood this. They were seeking liberty so that they could fulfill their responsibilities to God and their families, not so that they could do whatever they want with no thought of the consequences. Sin does not produce freedom or liberty. It produces death and captivity.

We need to voluntarily accept our responsibilities and seek God's help in doing so. Otherwise, our children will not have the same liberty we were blessed with from our fathers.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Second, Liberty is essential to Christianity, traditional or otherwise.



I noted you capitalized the word "liberty," which is not properly capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, and it's good that you did, because you are giving it an idiosyncratic definition, making it identical in meaning to free will.

Liberty and free will are not the same thing. Even a slave has free will: he cannot be literally FORCED to obey his master's commands. When we speak of denial of liberty, we mean that someone has been threatened with punishment for disobedience, and compelled to obey by threat of force; or, more subtly, we may mean someone has been brainwashed (usually with a threat of force in the background) to believe what his captors want him to believe.

Traditional Christianity includes the mother of all threats of force: a threat that, if you lapse in your beliefs, you will be horribly tortured forever and ever without end, screaming uncontrollably in hideous agony forever and ever and ever. As long as that threat remains in force within Christian belief, Christians will never be free in their beliefs. They will never have liberty.

Free will, yes. Liberty, no.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Second, Liberty is essential to Christianity, traditional or otherwise.
> ...



What I bolded is not true, and that's where your entire argument falls apart.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> What I bolded is not true, and that's where your entire argument falls apart.



Sorry, but traditional Christians do believe in Hell.

Now, if you want to nit-pick that they think you can temporarily lapse in your belief as long as you come back to the fold before you die, I'll allow that. But it doesn't invalidate what I was saying.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What I bolded is not true, and that's where your entire argument falls apart.
> ...



Guess it depends on how you define 'lapse' doesn't it?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No more Clinton's philandering depended on the meaning of "is." The fact remains that traditional Christians believe that non-Christians go to Hell and are tortured forever. That means they believe what they believe under threat of force. And that means in turn that they are not free.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


 
No, it doesn't. There are natural consequences to all behavior. Just because I know if I jump off a cliff I will be splattered on the rocks doesn't mean I'm not free to do it if I so please.

According to you there's no freedom to act if there is a negative consequence...and that's a sign of anti-intellectualism (or straight up stupidity). You don't know how to think, and you don't understand what you do ponder.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



How did non-christians get into the picture?   What is a 'lapse' to you?  What can't a christian do or he is forever damned no matter what?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> How did non-christians get into the picture?



What will you be if you question your beliefs to the point of no longer being a Christian?

As for the rest of your post, it's just another invitation to an endless round of nit-picking and hair-splitting, and I won't play. Sorry. You're not stupid enough to honestly not know what I mean, and I don't play with liars.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

There's the dragon we all know and love...

"I'm a lying piece of shit, and I'm not answering this question. Stand by for latest excuse."


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

"I can't answer this question or I will have to admit I'm a lying piece of shit, so I shall pretend the question is irrelevant."


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

"I have been exposed as a lying piece of shit so I will declare the subject closed."


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > How did non-christians get into the picture?
> ...



No, I really don't know what you mean?  What lapse are you referring too?  And if I am too stupid to know what you mean, then I guess you better spell it out because you're not being very clear here.  So, to what are you referring?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon excuse for being lame #99:

"This is not worth of my time".


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> No, I really don't know what you mean?  What lapse are you referring too?  And if I am too stupid to know what you mean, then I guess you better spell it out because you're not being very clear here.  So, to what are you referring?



Non-Christians go to Hell. Christians who cease to be Christians are non-Christians and therefore go to Hell. That's all I'm talking about.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

And people who don't learn to swim will drown if they fall in the water.

Is that the fault of those who observe they are at risk of drowning?

If one observes that drowning occurs when one doesn't know how to swim and falls in the water, does that mean the people who make that observation are *forcing* swimming lessons on the non-swimmers?

Nope.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And people who don't learn to swim will drown if they fall in the water.
> 
> Is that the fault of those who observe they are at risk of drowning?
> 
> ...



Fear of drowning is how I learned to swim. My grandfather grabbed me by my arm-pit, and tossed me into the deep end. 

Fear of going to hell is how I gather many people dip their toes into Christianity. What if: Hell   --- is a hefty proposition. That's not deniable.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes but fear of a consequence is not indicative of a lack of freedom, nor is it evidence that you are being *forced* to take action to avoid the negative consequence.

PS..people don't fear hell if they don't believe in God. So really, you have to believe in the existence of God before you can fear hell.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > No, I really don't know what you mean?  What lapse are you referring too?  And if I am too stupid to know what you mean, then I guess you better spell it out because you're not being very clear here.  So, to what are you referring?
> ...



But your logic makes no sense... if I was a christian, but 'think freely' and decide that it's a bunch of hogwash, I therefore do not believe in a place called 'hell' anymore, therefore it is not an impediment from me quitting Christianity.   So, there is no consequence if I no longer believe and I am therefore 'free' to leave.  So your point that we can't freely make the choice or we'll go to hell is just stupid.  The only way that happens is if you quit Christianity but still believe in it's doctrine?  What sense would that make?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes but fear of a consequence is not indicative of a lack of freedom, nor is it evidence that you are being *forced* to take action to avoid the negative consequence.
> 
> PS..people don't fear hell if they don't believe in God. So really, you have to believe in the existence of God before you can fear hell.



Your p.s. is irrelevant in regards to believing in other Religions, though, and also irrelevant to those who don't know if they believe or not. The fear can easily and I'm sure does easily coax people into the Religion.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes but fear of a consequence is not indicative of a lack of freedom, nor is it evidence that you are being *forced* to take action to avoid the negative consequence.
> 
> *PS..people don't fear hell if they don't believe in God. So really, you have to believe in the existence of God before you can fear hell*.



  Exactly, they seem to miss that point...


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Wrong - because people who have not accepted "Christ" are not Christians, but those unsure still have an inclination of "maybe maybe not" thus have same said inclination of hell's existence.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but fear of a consequence is not indicative of a lack of freedom, nor is it evidence that you are being *forced* to take action to avoid the negative consequence.
> ...



Seems like a personal problem to me, and has nothing to do with Christians in general.  People can fear many things, every person has to deal with them on their own, in their own way.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That's a cop out to the actual point.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Personal choice, everyone makes their own minds up on what they believe or don't believe and acts accordingly, whether it's religious doctrine or something else in their lives.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



How so?  What's your resolution for those people?  For christians to give up their belief that there is a hell?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Umm, yea, and the threat of eternal hell if you're accidentally wrong isn't a factor


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



So, you've just decided that you're going to hell because you're not a christian?  That's the outcome of your train of thought.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, to submit to the point that Hell is a threat, and threats are used as an axiom for controlling behavior. The fact that you two skirt that and act as if it isn't so is disengenuous.


----------



## Si modo (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but fear of a consequence is not indicative of a lack of freedom, nor is it evidence that you are being *forced* to take action to avoid the negative consequence.
> ...


I understand, thus my acceptance of the fact that I don't need religion to be faithful or spiritual.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No. 

Let me walk you through it really slow.

you're a "maybe christianity is true, maybe it isn't" person. 

you read text and learn if you dont accept Christ, you go to hell for eternity. 

you fear that hell MIGHT BE.

thus, you accept christ.

that is a means of behavior control, and works very well on the gullible.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



But if you kill women and children becuase god told you to you will enter into heaven?


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



If anyone is 'controled' by that then they are mindless idiots.  I make the assumption that most mature intelligent adults can study something, decide if they agree with it or not, and on that basis, accept it or reject it.   I'm not skirting anything, if you're a Christian and you believe the christian doctrine, then you are saved.  If you're not, and you don't believe, then it doesn't matter to you one way or the other.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yea, and if you don't know either way then you're threatened with "believe or go to hell." Fact.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


 
I don't speak for God, bigot.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



careful there Newby those are Free Thinker traits


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You obviously don't give people much credit, my opinion dffers.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Why doesn't it matter one way or the other if you're not a Christian?

Buddhists believe in some version of hell, so do Hindus.  They also believe in a version of God and Heaven, as well as believe that what we do here will determine what happens to you when you leave this plane of existence.

So, according to Christians, are the Hindus and the Buddhists going to hell if they don't accept Christ?

Incidentally, Judaic theology has a VERY strong belief in God, as well as a version of Heaven, but not so much when it comes to hell.  Are God's Chosen People going to hell as well if they don't accept Christ?


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No one is 'threatened' with anything, you're being irrational.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
Yet another of the crowd who spends a lot of time focusing on what they think other people THINK, rather than listening to what they say and do.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Don't tell me, tell your buddy Dragon... I can't think freely according to him...


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Hell is a sure fire threat. Pun intended.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

No, it's not.

It's a consequence. Consequences are not threats....unless they are being used by someone as a threat.

Saying "you will go to hell if you aren't saved" is no more a threat than "you will die if you are decapitated."

Now if I said "I will send you to hell if you aren't saved" that would be a threat.
If I said "I will decapitate you and you will die" that would be a threat.

But stating the reality isn't a threat. It's just an observance.

You need to return to school and study the English language some more.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> It's a consequence. Consequences are not threats....unless they are being used by someone as a threat.
> 
> ...



"if you dont accept christ you will go to hell" is a threat. You're obfuscating because you're a dishonest alliebaba


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'd like to hear Newby and Kosher Twit answer the questions I posed to them in the above post.


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why would Buddists or practitioners of any other religion care about what Christians thought about where they go once life ends?


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Have you ever been a Christian?  If not, why aren't you intimidated by the 'threat'?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Dodging the question I see..............

But, according to Christians, what is going to happen to the Buddhists, Hindus and Jews?


----------



## Newby (Apr 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



It's not up to me to decide what happens to them.  I really don't see your point either since it shouldn't matter to them what Christians think one way or the other.  Hindus could believe I won't be reincarnated because I don't share their beliefs, how does that hurt me?  It doesn't.  I don't care if they believe that or not, it has no affect on me.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
They're nonsense questions.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> But your logic makes no sense... if I was a christian, but 'think freely' and decide that it's a bunch of hogwash, I therefore do not believe in a place called 'hell' anymore, therefore it is not an impediment from me quitting Christianity.



It's an impediment to reaching that point. I know, as I've been there. And compared to many, I had it easy, because of my background.

I was raised in an agnostic home. When I was twelve years old, I had my first spiritual experience and decided that my parents were wrong and had a limited view of reality. I became a Christian because that was the most readily-available model or religious metaphor around where I lived. For several years, I participated in Christianity, studying the Bible, praying, and so on.

When I began to question things, it was quite traumatic -- and that was exactly because of the fear of Hell, in which I had been taught to believe. It acted as a restraint, as a way of blocking out certain directions of thought.

I eventually did overcome it, of course. But I am certain that it would be much stronger for someone who was actually raised a traditional Christian and indoctrinated into the fear of Hell from as soon as he or she learned to talk.

In any case, the fact that some people are able to overcome the threat doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. And that is a serious indictment of traditional Christian doctrine, just as the fact that some people have overcome armed robbers doesn't make the would-be robber guiltless.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2012)

Notice how Kaiser Twit refused to answer my question?

Guess she's afraid of her bias showing.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Which question?

Phrase it in English, we'll see if it makes sense. I doubt at this point if you even know what you're asking.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 4, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I wonder where an agnostic falls on the chart.....


He falls into the catogory of "without knowledge".


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 4, 2012)

"In any case, the fact that some people are able to overcome the threat doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. And that is a serious indictment of traditional Christian doctrine,........."

  Believing you have overcome a threat does not remove the threat.
You can overcome your fear of fire, but  does that mean you should embrace putting your hand on a hot burner?  For anyone that sees Hell as a threat, overcome your fear of hell by accepting the gift of life from Christ, not by pretending that it doesn't exist because you "overcame" it.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > But your logic makes no sense... if I was a christian, but 'think freely' and decide that it's a bunch of hogwash, I therefore do not believe in a place called 'hell' anymore, therefore it is not an impediment from me quitting Christianity.
> ...



How is that an indictment?  If it's true, it's true.  Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself.  I could be reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying the idea of hell is evidence of Christianity being wrong or bad, because you don't like the concept.

Don't take this the wrong way, I consider the idea incompatible with that of a loving, merciful god, as I've stated before.  I just tend to get annoyed when people judge the 'truth' of religious beliefs based on how 'nice' those beliefs are.  I think it's just as likely, if a god exists, that we would consider that being to be a cruel, merciless bastard as that god would be loving and merciful.  Whether or not I like or am comforted by the tenets of a religion has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Let me stop here before I go into a rant about unrelated things!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
What he is saying is that the idea of hell is evidence of Christians trying to force others to believe.

He also claims that the concept of hell means that people aren't *free* to choose, which is just bad logic (and in fact is logical fallacy), as has been pointed out ad nauseum.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I believe that some Christians DO use the threat of hell as a way to try and get others to believe.  I've seen it before, someone says, 'You need to accept Jesus as your lord and savior or you're going to burn in hell!' or something along those lines.

On the other hand, I think there's rarely any real attempt to 'force' anyone into belief; you have to be pretty foolish to think you can force a person to believe anything.  At best you might 'force' someone to CLAIM belief, but you cannot make them truly believe.  

There is also, of course, the argument that the truly devout are trying to save people they believe are on a path to eternal suffering.  Of course, if one is trying to be compassionate, to feel empathy for your fellow man, etc. and you believe many people are going to suffer, you would expend at least a little effort to try and save them from it.  It may annoy those of us who don't believe, but that doesn't negate the moral responsibility to try under those circumstances.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Which question?
> 
> Phrase it in English, we'll see if it makes sense. I doubt at this point if you even know what you're asking.



Okay.........I'll make it simple for you....................

Is it true that Christians consider anyone who follows a different religion than themselves such as Judaic, Buddhist or Hindu beliefs as someone who is going to be put in the pits of hell?

If so, why is it that Christians can consign people of different belief systems, who ALSO believe in Heaven and some version of hell, to be placed in the lake of fire?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

We don't consign people anywhere.

See, there's no point in answering questions that are based upon FALSE PREMISE. You're asking me to defend a stance that I've never taken.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> How is that an indictment?  If it's true, it's true.  Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself.



The "truth" of Christianity is not under discussion, at least not directly. What I'm saying on this thread is that traditional Christianity is _anti-liberty_. It is opposed to people using their brains freely and drawing logical conclusions. It attempts to put the mind in shackles.

Indirectly, one might argue, and I do, that putting the mind in shackles is hardly the way to find the truth. And one might argue that a religion which paints God as an abominable tyrant is very, very unlikely to be true.

Be that as it may, though, traditional Christianity is a religion that has no use for freedom, and that is the point I'm making here.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Being opposed to people using their brains, even if it were true, is not the same as being ANTI-LIBERTY, you fuckwit.
Again, it comes down to not understanding the language you choose to use.

Believing that people will go to hell if they choose to reject Christ is not anti-liberty. Because there's a CHOICE.

You claim that a choice you don't like is the same as no choice at all. Nope, wrong. 

You insist on discussing matters when you don't even have the most basic understanding of what it is you're talking about. Why do you do that? Talk about something you know and understand. Do you have a hobby, perhaps? Besides wasting everybody's time with your vapid lunacy here?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 4, 2012)

A couple of quick responses. 

First, I don't see any reason to expect that a god like that in Christianity would even have recognizable motives, let alone reason to expect those motives would be 'good' by human standards.  

Second, while it is true there is a choice to believe or not, I think the point Dragon is making would be analogous to our laws.  You have a choice to commit a crime or not, but the more actions you make criminal, the less liberty you have.  For example, were the government to ban all gun ownership, that would be considered anti-liberty by most.  However, people would still have the choice to own a gun.  They would simply be punished if found with one.  With Christianity (or other religions with a hell-like belief) you have the choice not to accept Jesus as your savior, but if you don't, you will be punished.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.

Which is about as insane as you can get.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.
> 
> Which is about as insane as you can get.



That is only true if you consider consignment to hell to be justice.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Second, Liberty is essential to Christianity, traditional or otherwise.
> ...



I disagree.  No one has ever returned from "hell" to tell us how bad it will be if we do not tow the line.  There are promises of "justice" for those that sin against the Lord (and to a lesser degree against man, remember the thief on the cross was promised heaven just for "believing").  That is, way different, than if you make your mom mad, you will burn in hell 'for all eternity'.  
Christianity is the "belief" that we will receive the greatest prize: eternal life in the presence of the the Lord, being able to see His Father, and the Holy Spirit.  To do that there are instructions for those that choose to ignore their "heart", the 10 Commandments.  For those that choose to listen to their "heart", and try to follow the ways of Christ is a possibility to spend eternity in absolute ecstasy that will be given to those that do not "deserve" it, but believe it is possible.
Your attempts to align Christianity with slavery are... again, pitiful.  I would say it is more like wanting to be the best at something (your life), and you have an opportunity to train under the best "coach" that ever lived; would you follow every tip, every pointer, every suggestion to be the "best"?  Many choose to do that.

The majority choose to live life the easiest way possible, without considering the rewards they are missing by setting the highest goals: to be the best human, you can possibly be, and to encourage others to do their best also....  I find it amusing that those that resent Christianity, seem to be the most miserable, the saddest, the lonliest people that I meet.  Those that accept Christ seem to be happier, roll with the punches, and promote well-being and happiness around them.  Just my observations of living 5 or 6 different life experiences in my time here.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 4, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



IMHO, there are going to be a LOT of non-Christians that make it to heaven.  When they see the Lord, they will know that He IS the TRUTH and the LIGHT that they have always searched for and accept Him as such.  At that moment, they will be eligible for life eternal with Him, the Messiah.  Each of us will be judged (especially Christians, because we "know" how we are supposed to act), and justice will be done (He is a JUST LORD).  "Hell" is reserved for those that refuse to give the Lord, proper "honor".  Think of it as going to court where the judge has to sentence you (and he can sentence you, as he pleases), you curse him and insult him; how do you think your sentence will be?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 4, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It won't be eternal!


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Which question?
> ...



Their different systems leave Christ out of the equation.  Christians believe that you go to the Father through the Son.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 4, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You would not be a "Christian".  You would be "lukewarm" (no passion), and would be rejected (spit out) by the Lord.  

What happened to free thinking?  Why would anyone believe they would be punished for not believing according to a religion (except islam were the "believers kill you)?  

Christians do not believe to avoid punishment, they believe because the reward is beyond anything we can comprehend (Satan tempted the Savior with wealth, power, and other earthly things, He rejected them.  He had been in his Father's presence and did not want those things Satan offered if it meant NOT being with His Father for all eternity).  Just a thought....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.
> ...


 
Precisely.

If you don't believe, the point is moot because you can't be punished.

Which is exactly why dragon is such a lame ass debater.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 4, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.
> 
> Which is about as insane as you can get.



It's not only insane. It's completely backwards, because if there is no justice there can be no liberty.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 4, 2012)

Bingo.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Hell is not Justice.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Hell is not Justice.



Precisely. Sentencing someone to eternal torture for -- well, anything, really -- but certainly for using his mind as designed, is the antithesis of justice.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hell is not Justice.
> ...



Then you should take that up with God.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Hell is justice for rejecting Christ, who was tortured and died on the cross to make us worthy of the presence of God.

"A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why? I have only your word that God is like that -- certainly God has not told me this -- so I'm taking it up with you.

You're wrong. God isn't like that. And if the Bible says He is, then the Bible is wrong. And if a Church says He is, then the Church is wrong. It's all human authority in the end, the word of other people.

And they're wrong, all of them.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I haven't 'told' you anything of the sort sweetie, and I think if you go back and read thru any of my posts, you would never be able to prove that I did.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

If you don't believe in God, then it shouldn't matter to you.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 5, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.
> ...



Depends what you consider justice.  Is it just to give someone eternity in hell for actions done in a 20-100 year lifespan?

Thousands, millions, billions, trillions, etc of years in hell for actions done in 20-100 years?  Sometimes they're not even actions, just inactions.  I don't know how in any moral compass that can be viewed as justice.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Why would those who laugh at Christ on the cross, who spit on God, enjoy his company in the hereafter?

You reject him here, he rejects you there. That's the way it works. You make the choice. You can't reject him and then expect to elbow your way up to the buffet.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> I haven't 'told' you anything of the sort sweetie





> Then you should take that up with God.



Yes, you did.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Perhaps someday you'll get to have your questions answered.. but, I don't think there's anyone alive who can answer them now.

From Romans:

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes &#8211; his eternal power and divine nature &#8211; have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So *people are without excuse*. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore *God gave them over *in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and *served the creation rather than the Creator*, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason* God gave them over *to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, *God gave them over* to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know God&#8217;s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't 'told' you anything of the sort sweetie
> ...



Okay, what did I say that God is like?  Please show my quote where I described to you what God was like?  Or do you just like being dishonest?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Why would those who laugh at Christ on the cross, who spit on God, enjoy his company in the hereafter?
> 
> You reject him here, he rejects you there. That's the way it works. You make the choice. You can't reject him and then expect to elbow your way up to the buffet.



I could use the same comparison to Satan. I believe in Satan every bit as much as I believe in Christ, none, but for some reason i belong in eternity with the evil guy i don't believe in rather than the great guy i don't believe in.

If I'm wrong I'll feel more sorry for the billions of people who never heard of Christ while on earth yet were still sentenced to eternity in hell, regardless of their character or morals.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Okay, what did I say that God is like?



This is not a court of law. You know what you said, you know what you meant, I know what you meant, too, and any attempt to make me prove it is dinsingenuous lawyerly crap.

Now, if you want to deny that you believe God sentences people to Hell for not being Christians at their death, do so, but don't mealy-mouth around it by demanding that I prove you do believe that. If you do, then you've been answered. If you don't, then I see no reason why we're even having this discussion.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Provide your quote and link the statement you claim Newby made.

I don't care who you feel sorry for. You are claiming that Christians *force* belief using terror tactics, but admit that if you don't believe in God, then the threat you say we're using has no meaning.

You further claim that liberty cannot exist if there is punishment, and that the concept of what you claim is a pretend hell stifles liberty. This is complete and utter nonsense, and such juvenile rantings would get you laughed out of any college level history, philosophy or lit class.

You can't have it both ways. And you can't discuss your way out of a paper bag.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, what did I say that God is like?
> ...


 
Translated: I'M LYING THROUGH MY TEETH.

What a pathetic loser.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, what did I say that God is like?
> ...




  You're very amusing, I'll give you that.   What does it matter to you what I believe?  How does that affect your life at all?


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Provide your quote and link the statement you claim Newby made.
> 
> I don't care who you feel sorry for. You are claiming that Christians *force* belief using terror tactics, but admit that if you don't believe in God, then the threat you say we're using has no meaning.
> 
> ...



I get the feeling that Dragon is very young, and very confused.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> What does it matter to you what I believe?



Only the fact that you're trying to make a point of it.

Are you going to answer the question or retract your demand that I prove you believe it? You really should do one or the other.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> I get the feeling that Dragon is very young, and very confused.



No, you don't.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:
			
		

> Why would those who laugh at Christ on the cross, who spit on God, enjoy his company in the hereafter?
> 
> You reject him here, he rejects you there.



But I do not reject God. I reject traditional Christianity, and I reject what traditional Christians SAY about God. There is a difference, and when traditional Christians confuse the two, they are exhibiting an insufferable degree of arrogance.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Provide your quote and link the statement you claim Newby made.
> 
> I don't care who you feel sorry for. You are claiming that Christians *force* belief using terror tactics, but admit that if you don't believe in God, then the threat you say we're using has no meaning.
> 
> ...



Sorry kg, but you don't get to have it both ways, either.  I'd like to see a quote of Dragon saying liberty cannot exist with punishment.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Sorry kg, but you don't get to have it both ways, either.  I'd like to see a quote of Dragon saying liberty cannot exist without punishment.



She actually said I said that liberty can't exist WITH punishment, not without.

Of course, I didn't say that. I said something much more specific: that when a governing authority (whether it be an actual government, or a church or religious tradition) threatens people with punishment for not believing certain things, that is antithetical to liberty.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What does it matter to you what I believe?
> ...



I've never 'made a point' of what I believe at all, I've only questioned the assumptions that you make about Christians being able to think freely.  You're the one that has inferred all kinds of things on my part, without any proof whatsoever I might add.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What does it matter to you what I believe?
> ...



I also didn't ask you to prove that I believe anything.  I asked you to show where I had made any statement about what God is like.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I get the feeling that Dragon is very young, and very confused.
> ...



Now I don't know what I feel either... too funny...


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But 'traditional Christians', whatever that means, don't 'say' anything about God, the Bible, which is the basis of belief for every Christian, is what tells you about God and the nature of God.  You can believe it or not, no one can force you to believe anything.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Of course you know. You're just lying. You've already made it clear that you consider all truth to be "subjective," and that you feel perfectly justified in saying anything to make a point without any respect for honesty whatsoever. The claim that you actually believe I am either young or confused is without credibility, as are you, and therefore the most likely conclusion is that this is NOT what you believe.

And it's not.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry kg, but you don't get to have it both ways, either. I'd like to see a quote of Dragon saying liberty cannot exist without punishment.
> ...


 
Dragon said liberty cannot exist in a Christian world because we believe in Hell.

I never said he said liberty can't exist without punishment. Liberty can't exist without punishment. Montrovant is mistaken.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> But 'traditional Christians', whatever that means, don't 'say' anything about God



If you pretend not to know what traditional Christians are, you cannot at the same time pretend to know what they do or do not say about God. If you're going to lie, you need to work at being consistent in your stories.



> the Bible, which is the basis of belief for every Christian



Not every Christian believes in Biblical infallibility.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How is that an indictment? If it's true, it's true. Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself.
> ...


 
He also explains that the concept of Hell means there can be no liberty.

I know, it sounds crazy..because of course, it is. He thinks his craziness is evidence of his superior intellect, but it's all muddy and unsupported nonsense thinking.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> I've never 'made a point' of what I believe at all, I've only questioned the assumptions that you make about Christians being able to think freely.



I have expressed no assumptions about Christians being able to think freely. I have expressed logical conclusions (not assumptions) about dogmatists -- which includes a certain subset of Christians that I have called "traditional" -- and whether they are able (and more important, willing) to think freely.

Either you are yourself a dogmatist or you are not. If you are, you have been answered. If not, your own views are irrelevant, and your bringing the subject up is only a diversion.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



   Now I definitely know you're confused.  First you tell me I don't know, and then you tell me that of course I know.  Make up your mind already. 

When did I 'make it clear' that all truth is subjective?

My claim that you are young and confused is based off of the lack of maturity in your posts and the fact that you make erroneous comments about what people have said, when they haven't said anything of the sort.  If you're not young, then you have my sympathies.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

He never varies from his MO.

"If I say it, it stands on its own.
My assumptions are "logic" and therefore unassailable.
I cannot be bothered to post links, quotes, or facts to support what I say...I say it, it must therefore be accepted as TRUTH.
If you question me, I will not answer.
If you show me to be lying, your point of view is irrelevant."

Fifth grade crap. If that.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > But 'traditional Christians', whatever that means, don't 'say' anything about God
> ...



Who knows what your definition of 'traditional' christian is, I've tried to get it out of you once, but you won't commit to how you define it. 

And if you don't believe what the Bible says, then there's no point to being a Christian, it's a pretty simple concept.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Now I definitely know you're confused.  First you tell me I don't know, and then you tell me that of course I know.



I never told you that you don't know. I'd think you were confused, except that I know you're lying instead.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

He's lying.

And I don't think he's young, I think he's just ignorant, and too stubborn and lazy to learn.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Who knows what your definition of 'traditional' christian is, I've tried to get it out of you once, but you won't commit to how you define it.



Most people here have no difficulty with the concept, and you're only pretending to. In any case, it's irrelevant to the point. IF you are going to pretend not to know what a traditional Christian is, THEN you must (for consistency) also pretend not to know what they do or do not say about God. To claim that they don't say anything about God, while also claiming that you don't know what I mean by the term, is to contradict yourself.



> And if you don't believe what the Bible says, then there's no point to being a Christian, it's a pretty simple concept.



Many people who call themselves Christians disagree with you.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I've never 'made a point' of what I believe at all, I've only questioned the assumptions that you make about Christians being able to think freely.
> ...



So now it's only a certain 'subset' of Christians that can't think freely?  Can you tell us what differentiates the christians who can think freely from those who can't?  And your 'logical conclusions' are assumptions to me.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You def. just lied.

When you quoted his "no you dont" he was clearly in that post referring to where you said that you feel he's young and confused, it wasn't about the same thing. Nice try though.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby doesn't lie.

Dragon does. And when he's caught, he declares the topic closed.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> So now it's only a certain 'subset' of Christians that can't think freely?



No, FROM THE BEGINNING that's what I said. Nothing has changed, except the lies you happen to be using at the moment.



> Can you tell us what differentiates the christians who can think freely from those who can't?



I already did, repeatedly. I'd repeat myself again, except that I know you're only pretending not to understand.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Newby doesn't lie.
> 
> Dragon does. And when he's caught, he declares the topic closed.



Your posts are irrelevant, you're a retreading hack.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I get the feeling that Dragon is very young, and very confused.
> ...



What does the 'no you don't' refer too in this post?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

His FAVORITE lie is to lie about what other posters say...and when he's asked to quote it, to claim "you know you said it and there's no point in discussing it further". He's done it in this thread more than once, he's done it in every single thread he's ever participated in. It isn't an accident, it's the way he works.

Imagine how much fun that crap must be to people who have to live with him, if anyone does. Or people who work with him, though I don't think he works.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Newby doesn't lie.
> ...


 
And you're a lying troll.

I must have put a serious butt hurt on you. I'm sorry you're an idiot.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



What are talking about??   I said that I had a feeling that he was very young and very confused, and he replied 'no, you don't'.  No, I don't what?  I don't feel that he's very young and very confused??  Glad someone is on the same wavelengh with him, because I'd say the average rational thinking person certainly wouldn't be.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



"I get the feeling that Dragon is very young, and very confused."

No, you don't get that feeling. When you say that you do, you lie.

EDIT: And the further lie that GT referenced is your pretense that you thought I was saying you DIDN'T KNOW what your feelings were. I very clearly said you were LYING, which of course implies obviously that you DO know -- and are being deliberately untruthful.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Here's the two different do's and dont's he was referring to:

he's claiming you DO KNOW what a traditional christian is, and are lying saying you dont know.

he's also claiming you DONT get the feeling he's young and confused, and you're lying about that also.

c'mon, it really wasnt that hard.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



never lied once, dirtbag.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Since you seem to understand what he's saying, why don't you try to translate for me then?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

newby said:


> g.t. said:
> 
> 
> > newby said:
> ...



#607


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Since I already did, and since the meaning was actually clear from the get-go, you're lying again in pretending not to understand.

It seems to be habitual.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I know what my definition of a 'traditional' christian is, I DON'T know what his is.  I asked him earlier in the thread and never got an answer.

Exactly, and I responded that now he knows what I feel and don't feel to which he made some other stupid response saying that I do know.  The guy is fairly close to a whackjob.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > So now it's only a certain 'subset' of Christians that can't think freely?
> ...



Give me a post number where you stated the differences.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> I know what my definition of a 'traditional' christian is, I DON'T know what his is.  I asked him earlier in the thread and never got an answer.



Changing the subject with a non-sequitur is another form of lie.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You used his "you do know you dont know" statements to make him look like he was contradicting himself, when he was using them referring to two different things. You're either ignorant of the fact that you did that, or lying.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



As to what's in red: 

And GT, shame on you for encouraging his lunacy, I thought you were a rational person, guess I was wrong.  You actually agree with him that I don't feel a certain way, that I'm lying about how I feel?  Seriously dude?


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Your accusations of lying are what's habitual.  You would think it would be easier to just answer my question.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I know what my definition of a 'traditional' christian is, I DON'T know what his is.  I asked him earlier in the thread and never got an answer.
> ...



GT, want to explain to me how 'I'm changing the subject'?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I am rational. 

I know that #1 --> stating that you "feel" he's young and confused is an attempt to publicly demean him simply because you disagree with him. It's a defense mechanism. You didn't say it out of the goodness of your heart, and I highly highly doubt that you "really" feel that way, same as he said that you're "lying" to embellish the fact that you disagree with him. I don't play little games like that, and they're a lot easier to spot than you thought. 

If you deny all of that, than I can't even really take you seriously to begin with. A child in a political discussion forum discussing eternity and philosophy? Get real. His points have been no less valid than yours so to pretend they're childish is the height of arrogance.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, because I dont know what he means by your changing the subject.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



This is the exact post GT, want to explain what he meant to me?  If he meant his 'of course you know' then he quoted the wrong post?  I was supposed to assume this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5073523-post586.html


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



He quoted the wrong post, is correct, but in the context of the discussion and the surrounding posts it was very easy to pick up on.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

coffee run girls and guys : )   love ya all, cept koshergrl


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Your accusations of lying are what's habitual.



I make those accusations only towards liars, and on this thread, only towards you.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Glad it was easy for you to pick up on, but then again, you seem to be on the same wavelength that he is, so kudos to you.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



How refreshing, some honesty.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



0% dishonesty comes from this G.T. userhandle.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> coffee run girls and guys : ) love ya all, cept koshergrl


 
Thanks, have fun molesting your dog, see ya later tater..


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Give me a post number where you stated the differences.



Most directly and succinctly in post #82, repeated in post #88. By implication, also in posts no. 1, 29, 60, 73, 77, 80, 118, 121, 142, 145, 181, 183, 185, and no doubt many others that I didn't list because I stopped going back through the thread from the beginning.

As you have been following along the whole time, and frequently thanked posters I responded to in the above, your claim not to have seen these posts is -- another lie.


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Well, here's a clue for you, I don't play games when I post, I say what I mean, and mean what I say.  I do think/feel that he's young and confused, I stated it as an observation, not to 'demean' him, how is it demeaning to be young?  Everyone is confused about one thing or another throughout their life, so I don't see that as demeaning either, especially if one is young.   So, you have completely misread my intensions.  

I didn't say he was a 'child', I said he was young, do you know what context I place 'young' in?  Do you know me that well?  How old am I?  What would I think of as 'young'?


----------



## Newby (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a post number where you stated the differences.
> ...



I will go back and read them, but I remember seeing no posts that defined the difference as I am asking.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Well, here's a clue for you, I don't play games when I post, I say what I mean, and mean what I say.



This is, of course, another lie.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Your accusations of lying are what's habitual.
> ...


 
You're the liar, dragon, you've been shown as a liar repeatedly in this thread and others so often people won't even talk to you anymore. It's a waste of time and energy.

I do it because it's easy to reduce you to sputtering incoherency and I find that amusing. Plus you always play to the same script..no matter what thread you're in, you do the same things over and over. I enjoy being able to accurately predict exactly what a particularly rabid and ignorant bigot will do. It's easy gratification. Particularly when the poster I set up and knock down over and over and over never learns and never varies in his stupidity, and doesn't seem to register how incredibly stupid he looks.

It's fun.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
He doesn't quote or link them for a reason.

He counts on people not bothering to look. Every time I've been able to twist a reference from him, and I check it, it turns out he's lying about what it contains. Every single time. This is why so many people have him on ignore.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yeah, I edited my post when I saw Dragon's reply to it.  I meant to just put with but for some reason put without.  Oops!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hell is justice for rejecting Christ, who was tortured and died on the cross to make us worthy of the presence of God.
> 
> "A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
> Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.



Hey Kaiser Twit...........does that mean that the Jews (who don't recognize Christ as the Messiah) are going to hell also?

They knew God better and longer than Christians have.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

I don't know. I'll let God sort it out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 5, 2012)

Yes, those free thinkers are horrible compared to those relgious people who just accept disease as "God's Will".  I mean, those free thinkers were actually screwing with God's plan.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 5, 2012)

Free thinkers, idiots that they are, are included in God's plan.

Though they like to think otherwise, they really aren't screwing with anything. they're following the script they were given, doing exactly what God knew they would do.

They're tools.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ask people what is in the Declaration of Independence.  Get back to me on how accurate they are.  They will tell you according to their understanding.  A few will come close to what was really written.  Now expand that by thousands of years and an invisible Creator (think about how people argue over the founding fathers of this nation, and what they were really like, AND THEY WERE JUST MEN).

Unless the "Word" is being read to you, each person will add their own spin.  They are not trying to tell you what the Lord is like, they are trying to tell you 'as they understand the "Word"'. 

You cannot clearly criticize organized religion in a logical, reasonable manner.  Your opinions are full of personal spin and attitude, why do you expect 'Christians' to do better than you do?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



Did I miss where it said a subset of Christians don't think "freely"?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> I implied above that Christianity is not _necessarily_ opposed to free thought. Here's a little more elaboration on that concept.
> 
> Step 1 in the development of a free-thinking version of Christianity: drop all idea of divine punishment for unbelievers.
> 
> ...



Nothing here about a "subset" of Christians, either....


----------



## nitroz (Apr 5, 2012)




----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 5, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Free thinkers, idiots that they are, are included in God's plan.
> 
> Though they like to think otherwise, they really aren't screwing with anything. they're following the script they were given, doing exactly what God knew they would do.
> 
> They're tools.



I'm guessing you supported the arrest and inquisition of Copernicus and Galileo as well?

They were free thinkers who went against the Church.

So did DaVinci, especially in his pursuit of anatomy.  He knew that if he was caught dissecting cadavers, he faced jail or execution.  Interestingly enough, it wasn't until the late 1990's that Gray's Anatomy finally caught up with what DaVinci had written many years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 5, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hell is justice for rejecting Christ, who was tortured and died on the cross to make us worthy of the presence of God.
> ...



Instead of insult people why don't you read the NT if you want to know what happens to the Jews who deny him. I guess you missed it that many Jews accepted him.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 5, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, those free thinkers are horrible compared to those relgious people who just accept disease as "God's Will".  I mean, those free thinkers were actually screwing with God's plan.



Believers are against knowledge to help fight disease


----------



## nitroz (Apr 5, 2012)




----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 6, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Hey...........You Were Excreted..............got a link to back up your stuff?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

nitroz said:


>



No one, not even the most devout Christian has more faith than atheists.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

nitroz said:


>



Silence anyone that disagrees with imorality?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 6, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I need a link to back up my claim that many Jews then and now have accepted him ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Yes i believe in small scale evolution or in other words micro-adaptations,not the grand scale of macro-evolution.

If you want to be enlightened just look at the past threads on evolution and or design. You will see me reduce your beliefs to an Ideology not real science.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Atheists are immoral just cuz they're atheist.

What a good little bigot you are, I'm e-patting you on the head right now.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > nitroz said:
> ...



I've seen hundreds of your posts about evolution, the only thing you've enlightened me on is that it is humanly possible for someone to consistently say something dumber and dumber hundreds of times in a row. 

Tell me again how you came to the conclusion that T-Rex ate cactuses and pine cones.  I'd love to see your brilliant scientific mind on display again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 6, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Once again you show your ignorance of your own scriptures.

Psa 71:6  On You I have rested from the womb; You are He who took me out of my mother's bowels; my praise always shall be of You.

Isa 44:2  So says Jehovah who made you, and formed you from the womb, who will help you; Fear not, O Jacob My servant, and you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. 

But not surprising.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I never said that,but i do believe until man fell from grace dinosaurs were vegetarian.

Let's see if you are any smarter then the others.

What came first the chicken or the egg ?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I was being a little sarcastic bc I know you call T-Rex's vegetarians, despite the evidence showing the exact opposite.  I'll give you credit for even saying T-Rex existed, some fundies take the other route and say Satan is just tricking us with his magic bone burying.

The egg came first, again as the scientific evidence already shows.  Chickens evolved from another species of bird.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



There is absolutely zero evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

So are you suggesting the chicken was hatched from the egg of a dinosaur ? That is a major fast change don't you think ?

To have an egg the chicken had to exist first one more problem comes from that,there had to be both sexes in existence for that egg to be fertilized.

Sounds like the hen and rooster came before the egg and that supports creation.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Per usual, educated scholars disagree with you, as does every basic form of science.

Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

No, I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm saying chickens evolved from another species of bird.

When you respond with a link to a bible blog, keep in mind I'm not going to click on the link to the bible blog.  Just a heads up and trying to be polite to keep you from wasting your time.  If you take that as a personal victory, by all means grab a sheet of paper from your printer, tear it up and throw the confetti in the air.  I just want to remind you that I only take scientists and science departments views on science seriously.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 6, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You must love that Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.

I think that dinos were long gone before man showed up.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 6, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> I think that dinos were long gone before man showed up.



Yep. Unless you count birds as dinos, dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, while _H. sapiens_ emerged less than one million years ago. Humans and non-avian dinosaurs never shared a planet.

EDIT: Actually, though, youwerecreated's views on evolution are a perfect example of the conflict between Biblical inerrancy and freedom of thought. Because YWC believes the Bible is inerrant, and because he believes that evolution means certain parts of the Bible are wrong, therefore he MUST believe that evolution is not true. He is simply not PERMITTED to entertain the possibility that it is accurate, or to evaluate the evidence with any intellectual integrity. To do so would mean to entertain the possibility that the Bible is not inerrant, which would entertain the possibility that Christianity as he understands it is wrong, which would risk Hell.

Anyone who believes in these things has a gun pointed at his head and shackles of fear on his mind. The fact that I personally believe the gun isn't real makes no difference. Between a real gun and a fake one, or between a loaded gun and an unloaded gun, the difference remains unimportant until the trigger is pulled, and if the threat works to shape behavior that never happens.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > nitroz said:
> ...



Please explain to me what is moral about: Abortion, Homosexual marriage, Against 10 commandments visible in public places, Obscene art.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Not a thing.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...




The cartoon says put god in public places.  There's nothing moral about wanting gov't forced religion.

I'm not surprised you're in favor of gov't forcing your religious views on others.  The last thing I'd want is gov't promoting my lack of belief in a god, I don't want gov't teaching ANY religious views, I prefer people have the freedom to do that themselves.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Having God in public places isn't *force*.

So you fail. Again. Fail must be comfortable like an old pair of sweat pants by now.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Having God in public places isn't *force*.
> 
> So you fail. Again. Fail must be comfortable like an old pair of sweat pants by now.



Exactly and again I'm sure you aren't hypocritical on this view.

If our gov't buildings had "there is no god" on them, your view would be exactly the same and you'd be on here voicing approval of it and saying it isn't forcing atheists views on christians.

For that I'm certain!

Now proceed on with your , "we're a christian nation" rant.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

That's right, when you can't make an argument, just make shit up about what I WOULD do if things were different.

That's a really effective way to make your point.

I propose that if you ever return to school, you write your papers that way. That way you can be assured of a straight F run...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> That's right, when you can't make an argument, just make shit up about what I WOULD do if things were different.
> 
> That's a really effective way to make your point.
> 
> I propose that if you ever return to school, you write your papers that way. That way you can be assured of a straight F run...



By all means tell me I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong.

Tell me your view isn't hypocritical and you'd be saying the same things if gov't buildings and schools had "there is no god" carved into walls.

I can't wait


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm not going to argue with you about what you say I would do in an imaginary situation in the future. That's idiotic.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

In fact, calling it idiotic is an insult to idiots.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm not going to argue with you about what you say I would do in an imaginary situation in the future. That's idiotic.



Being afraid to answer a hypothetical scenario on an anonymous message board, sad.


Best thing to do is insult the question, then resort to childish name-calling, looks like you're already ahead of me .


Have a great weekend!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm not afraid. I just don't do hypotheticals. They are always used, and this instance is no difference, to divert attention away from the fact that someone cannot intelligently discuss a current topic.

You don't want to talk about the real topic, so you introduce fantasy.

That's the way ignorant 14 year olds who think they're REALLY smart based on one high test score back in grade school argue. 

In other words, it's lazy. And dishonest. And without any value.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm not afraid. I just don't do hypotheticals. They are always used, and this instance is no difference, to divert attention away from the fact that someone cannot intelligently discuss a current topic.
> 
> You don't want to talk about the real topic, so you introduce fantasy.
> 
> ...



You've gotten a lot better at hiding your hypocrises.  In the past under your other profile names, you weren't so diligent.

So kudos at keeping this particular hypocritical stance of yours, that we all know you have, under wraps.  I think I've helped you learned the error in your ways, you're welcome!


----------



## Dragon (Apr 6, 2012)

Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:

1) There is no God.
2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
3) We all come from the Goddess, and to Her we shall return.

Those willing to endorse all three of these being presented to the public as Official Government Endorsements will gain some measure of credibility (although in fact all of them would violate the First Amendment, so they'd still be on shaky legal ground).


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not afraid. I just don't do hypotheticals. They are always used, and this instance is no difference, to divert attention away from the fact that someone cannot intelligently discuss a current topic.
> ...


 
You go right ahead and think that, lol.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
> 
> 1) There is no God.
> 2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
> ...



Hopefully you have better luck at getting honest responses out of that than I did lol.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

The answer is the same as it has been every single time (at least once a day) this idiotic hypothetical comes up...

Neither I, nor any other, Christian or conservative would care if those things were displayed on government buildings provided they reflect the community in which they reside.

I don't care if I go to a Muslim community, say a tiny little town that they've established a training camp in, and I go to the courthouse and there's a quotation from the Koran somewhere on the building.

I could care less if I go to a town in the sticks where there's a cell of pagans and there's something about the Mother (or whatever) on City Hall.

Makes no nevermind to me. So long as I have the same freedom in my community.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The answer is the same as it has been every single time (at least once a day) this idiotic hypothetical comes up...
> 
> Neither I, nor any other, Christian or conservative would care if those things were displayed on government buildings provided they reflect the community in which they reside.
> 
> ...



If fairness to you we shouldn't ask that question, because I didn't expect an honest answer out of you.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 6, 2012)

There are very few, if any, communities in this country where 100% of the residents follow a single religion. The fact that so much concern is raised by conservatives (however unrealistic it is) about Sharia law shows that when the shoe is on the other foot, they're able to understand the concept. The First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion is intended to protect the rights of _minorities within a community_. The government MAY NOT, in any way, endorse any religion -- that includes the one that is followed by the majority of its citizens -- because such endorsement implicitly and inevitably puts other faiths not so endorsed into a second-class status.

If a town with a majority-Muslim population were to conform its laws to Sharia, or even to display quotations from the Quran on public buildings in a manner seeming to provide official endorsement of Islam, Christians and other non-Muslims would have grounds to complain. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion in any society is to keep church and state completely separate.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is the same as it has been every single time (at least once a day) this idiotic hypothetical comes up...
> ...


 
Which is why hypotheticals are a waste of time, dumbfuck. It's all pretend.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Dragon said:


> There are very few, if any, communities in this country where 100% of the residents follow a single religion. The fact that so much concern is raised by conservatives (however unrealistic it is) about Sharia law shows that when the shoe is on the other foot, they're able to understand the concept. The First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion is intended to protect the rights of _minorities within a community_. The government MAY NOT, in any way, endorse any religion -- that includes the one that is followed by the majority of its citizens -- because such endorsement implicitly and inevitably puts other faiths not so endorsed into a second-class status.
> 
> If a town with a majority-Muslim population were to conform its laws to Sharia, or even to display quotations from the Quran on public buildings in a manner seeming to provide official endorsement of Islam, Christians and other non-Muslims would have grounds to complain. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion in any society is to keep church and state completely separate.


 
Yes, the difference between you and me...

I don't think the minority should be able to oppress the majority. So if you are in a community of Muslims, and they have funded a brand new Public Library, and they want to paper the walls with the koran, I could give a shit.

Because our constitution grants us the right to publicly proclaim our beliefs and not be punished for them. In any situation.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 6, 2012)

I'll add to the above, that I was once confronted with precisely this issue in regard to my own religion. There was a town in Georgia, I forget which one, that had a lot of Pagans living in it, and the town enacted an ordinance proclaiming an "Earth Religion Day." Christians living there protested.

Although I was a non-resident, I entered into the discussion because I felt an important principle was involved. I pointed out that for a local government to endorse Pagan religion was just as unconstitutional and just as wrong as if it were to endorse any other faith. The Christians protesting the action were absolutely in the right.

Religion and government must be kept separate. That doesn't just mean your religion, and it doesn't just mean their religion, it means my religion, too.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

No, religion and government must not be kept separate.

Government cannot be allowed to dictate religion.

That's a totally different thing, and what you promote. You want the government to tell us when, where and how we may worship.

So fuck off.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Thanks for your honesty, sweetheart.

And again, try to put aside the hate and have a great weekend, I really hope you do .


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 6, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, religion and government must not be kept separate.
> 
> Government cannot be allowed to dictate religion.
> 
> ...



Actually, if government cannot be allowed to dictate religion, then they MUST be kept separate to keep one religion or the other from turning this country into a theocracy.

Way to prove your ignorance yet again Kaiser Twit.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2012)

Wrong, but then you always are.

You use *keeping them separate* as code for eliminating freedom of religion.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You avoided the question: what is moral about Abortion, Homosexual marriage, Against 10 commandments visible in public places, Obscene art?

I am not against wisdom being in public places.  The 10 Commandments are wisdom.  I am not offended at wise Jewish/Hindu/Buddahist/Confucius/ or other religious sayings.  That is not "forcing" beliefs on others (otherwise that obscene art would be illegal for "forcing" views on others).  Wisdom is not immoral.  Do atheist have something against wisdom, now (it is claimed as part of the Lord in the Bible)?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Having God in public places isn't *force*.
> ...



Why don't you experiment?  Get a community of athiest to use signs saying that you don't believe the Lord exists.  Put it on your buildings (by the way, that is something you "don't" believe in, compared to something you do believe), along with other sayings you think are important.  See how the community does.  If the Lord does not exist, there should be no reason for crime to be higher, or your community to be less prosperous (blessed) than a Christian community.  Atheists are into science, experiment.  I dare you.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
> 
> 1) There is no God.
> 2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
> ...



Experiment!  Do all four communities: athiest/Christian (Judeo)/muslim(we know how those turn out)/goddess.  Give them some time and check to see how they are doing.
How is the crime rate, comparatively speaking?
How prosperous is the community?
How many visitors return?
How many improvements are made on the community (parks, museums, etc)?

Just do it, quit telling Christians to stop being Christians and form your own communities, see how that works out for you.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 6, 2012)

Dragon said:


> There are very few, if any, communities in this country where 100% of the residents follow a single religion. The fact that so much concern is raised by conservatives (however unrealistic it is) about Sharia law shows that when the shoe is on the other foot, they're able to understand the concept. The First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion is intended to protect the rights of _minorities within a community_. The government MAY NOT, in any way, endorse any religion -- that includes the one that is followed by the majority of its citizens -- because such endorsement implicitly and inevitably puts other faiths not so endorsed into a second-class status.
> 
> If a town with a majority-Muslim population were to conform its laws to Sharia, or even to display quotations from the Quran on public buildings in a manner seeming to provide official endorsement of Islam, Christians and other non-Muslims would have grounds to complain. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion in any society is to keep church and state completely separate.



Would that be because the murder rate would increase?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 7, 2012)

The great errors in Christianity arose and became dominant precisely because the separation of church and state was violated (as was routine in the ancient world). Prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, no Christian subgroup had any power over any of the others, none could enforce orthodoxy or punish heresy, and those who pretended such authority had no state power at their disposal to make it stick. The potential, the attitudes, existed within the Christian community before this occurred, as they do in all religious groups, a kind of power-hungry poison that arises from something very primal in human nature, but without actual power behind it those elements could not prevail.

By creating a fusion between the Church and the Imperium, Constantine corrupted Christianity beyond recovery. Over the years after this lamentable event occurred, the power-hungry elements within the Church became dominant, religious dissidents were expelled (or even executed), and this tendency solidified into Christian doctrine as it exists today.

Now that the Church has been deprived of political power, the healing has begun, and many Christians have begun to free themselves from the authoritarian yoke. The flowering that occurred while Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman Empire has to an extent recommenced. And so we can see that keeping political power out of the hands of religion is for religion's own good, not just government's. Power corrupts, and worldly power is not properly the concern of the spirit.


----------



## Widdekind (Apr 7, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, no Christian subgroup had any power over any of the others, none could enforce orthodoxy or punish heresy...


"Orthodox Christianity" emerged, from a varied milieu, of myriad "interpretations" of Christianity, _e.g._ "Gnostics", specifically by declaring all of those "others" as "heretics", and expelling them from the "Orthodox" main-stream.  _Cp_. Simon Magus, expelled by Simon Peter (Acts 8).  "Orthodox" writers penned volumes "against heretics" from the first Apostles, _e.g. Epistles of James, Jude_.  With more political power, came more flagrant Denunciations.

But those "Orthodox" who amazed the Romans, by their Willingness, to be made Martyrs, have been Animated by "Zeal for the Lord (in heaven)" the entire time.  And, _prima facie_, "God (in heaven)" brooks no compromises, with mere mortals (on earth), save at the "sword point", of _legions _of plate-armor-clad _centurions_.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 9, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
> ...



Look we get it, you think christians are superior to every other type of human solely because of their religious beliefs.

You don't have to repeat your bigotry over and over for people to get it.  You've already made it blatantly obvious.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 9, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



You are wrong.  I laid out a scenario that you could use to prove that Christians do not have a better way to live life; a way to prove all the beliefs that you try to convince Christians are the "correct" way to view life.  I hear it all the time about how superstitious, how backwards, how narrow-minded Christians are.  Here is you opportunity to "scientifically" (because I also hear that Christians can't tolerate science) prove that living without the Bible as a guide will produce a community that is as pleasant as a Christian community.  Personally, I don't see you or anyone else doing it, because if truth be told, the leftists/liberals/progressives/homosexual activists/islam extremists/environmentalists (choose one, they all act in a similar manner) need the Christians who are among the most industrious, to continue to pay taxes and donate their resources to those that mock them.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 9, 2012)

Dragon said:


> The great errors in Christianity arose and became dominant precisely because the separation of church and state was violated (as was routine in the ancient world). Prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, no Christian subgroup had any power over any of the others, none could enforce orthodoxy or punish heresy, and those who pretended such authority had no state power at their disposal to make it stick. The potential, the attitudes, existed within the Christian community before this occurred, as they do in all religious groups, a kind of power-hungry poison that arises from something very primal in human nature, but without actual power behind it those elements could not prevail.
> 
> By creating a fusion between the Church and the Imperium, Constantine corrupted Christianity beyond recovery. Over the years after this lamentable event occurred, the power-hungry elements within the Church became dominant, religious dissidents were expelled (or even executed), and this tendency solidified into Christian doctrine as it exists today.
> 
> Now that the Church has been deprived of political power, the healing has begun, and many Christians have begun to free themselves from the authoritarian yoke. The flowering that occurred while Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman Empire has to an extent recommenced. And so we can see that keeping political power out of the hands of religion is for religion's own good, not just government's. Power corrupts, and worldly power is not properly the concern of the spirit.



It's precisely the early Church's loss of authority to speak on behalf of God that required a Restoration of said authority. Which authority is exercised without the use of force.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 9, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



How exactly is it bigotry to propose an experiment? And how is he or anyone else saying that a certain person is superior to anyone else?

The scriptures invite us to experiment on the Word. That is the only way we can know for ourselves whether the Word is good and leads to life or not.

You learn whether prayer is a correct principle by praying. You learn whether being kind is a correct principle by being kind. You learn whether tithing is a correct principle by paying tithes and offerings. You learn whether the scriptures are true through studying and applying their principles.

I can guarantee that anyone who has the faith to experiment on the Word will find out by the power of the Spirit, whether Life is in the Word or not.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can  all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".

That's the devil at work, pure and simple.


----------



## nitroz (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can  all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".
> 
> That's the devil at work, pure and simple.



No.

If god loves all, then you guys would leave us alone.
If we wanted to become religious, we would. But we don't and want to be left alone.

I don't see how it's "devil's work" when we have no intention to get involved or disrupt.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

Thank you for proving my point so promptly.

I never have to wait long.


----------



## nitroz (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Thank you for proving my point so promptly.
> 
> I never have to wait long.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> It's precisely the early Church's loss of authority to speak on behalf of God that required a Restoration of said authority. Which authority is exercised without the use of force.



It was precisely the loss of the ability to use force that caused the loss of that authority. May it NEVER be restored!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Quite obviously, he's implying christians live more wholesome lives than everyone else solely because of their religion.  He's implying you're more likely to be a criminal if you aren't a christian, you're less likely to be prosperous and the community is less likely to have nice stuff in it.

There was already a thread made about less religious countries and how happy the people in the countries are, what could be more important than people being happy? 

Logical4u is a loud, proud and outspoken bigot and has shown it in multiple posts on this thread.  If I said a christian community was going to have a higher crime rate because it was christian (which i'd never stoop to), you'd call me a bigot and appropriately so.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

nitroz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for proving my point so promptly.
> ...



Shhh don't oust us, Satan is going to be mad at us if we go back for our nightly report and you inform him that you let some judgemental fundie get the best of you.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > It's precisely the early Church's loss of authority to speak on behalf of God that required a Restoration of said authority. Which authority is exercised without the use of force.
> ...



You're incorrect. God's authority doesn't compel people. They have a choice. They are invited. They are enticed. Without the freedom to choose we cannot recieve the blessings.

There is a reason Christ taught to turn the other cheek. Because true power is obtained without force. That's why we are taught to use persuasion, long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge, etc

Unfortunately, few people truly understand this, even among Christians:



> "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen." (D&C 121:39-40)


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Let him be mad. He wont be happy anyway.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> You're incorrect. God's authority doesn't compel people.



I'm speaking of the Church's authority, not that of God.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Quite obviously, he's implying christians live more wholesome lives than everyone else solely because of their religion.  He's implying you're more likely to be a criminal if you aren't a christian, you're less likely to be prosperous and the community is less likely to have nice stuff in it.
> 
> There was already a thread made about less religious countries and how happy the people in the countries are, what could be more important than people being happy?
> 
> Logical4u is a loud, proud and outspoken bigot and has shown it in multiple posts on this thread.  If I said a christian community was going to have a higher crime rate because it was christian (which i'd never stoop to), you'd call me a bigot and appropriately so.



Considering he realizes that no one is perfect, I doubt he is implying that at all. I would say that if A Christian lived his faith, He would be living a more wholesome life than a Christian who didn't or a non-Christian who rejected those same principles. But if you dont live the principles, whether Christian or not, how can they possibly benefit your life? What's the point?

You don't have to be Christian to live the principles of the Gospel and thus benefit from the wholesome nature of them. You can be honest without being Christian. You can seek to better yourself. You can love your neighbor as yourself. 

But living the principles or not, we are still all flawed human beings. 

If you compare someone who lives the Gospel to someone who believes in say, regular human sacrifice, wouldn't one belief make, if lived, make them more wholesome then the other? I am not sure how you can ignore the fact that holding certain believes can make a person better than someone who doesnt hold those beliefs. If you believe in educating yourself whenever possible and learning and studying and someone things learning is stupid and a waste of time, isn't there a clear contrast between the two? Isnt one better in some regards than the other?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > You're incorrect. God's authority doesn't compel people.
> ...



Church has no authority outside God.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Not anymore. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

What a loon you are.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Quite obviously, he's implying christians live more wholesome lives than everyone else solely because of their religion.  He's implying you're more likely to be a criminal if you aren't a christian, you're less likely to be prosperous and the community is less likely to have nice stuff in it.
> ...



That'd be fine if he was being specific, like comparing christianity to some cannibalistic cult, but he was comparing christianity to groups which total billions of non-believers and implying how much better a christian community would be.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

So are you saying atheist communities are better?

What's the diff?

Other than the fact that if you said that you'd be lying?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So are you saying atheist communities are better?
> 
> What's the diff?
> 
> Other than the fact that if you said that you'd be lying?



No I'm not saying that, not sure how you came to that conclusion.

It's impossible to judge which community would be better.  The only way to compare it is if you put together 2 communities of equal numbers with equal level of health, equal level of resources, same constitution or kind of gov't, etc etc.  Obviously that's impossible, so we'll never know which belief or lack of belief system is best for a community.

My guess is they'd turn out the same.  In the end we're still humans.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

I believe there is evidence that you're wrong.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 10, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



so they have no authority at all then?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I believe there is evidence that you're wrong.



Not humanly possible.  You have to have 2 communities with equal resources to be able to compare, that's impossible.


But if you have to believe a christian community is superior to every other type of community, have at it .


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I suppose that would depend which Church.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I believe there is evidence that you're wrong.
> ...



I suppose that depends on the Christian community and the other wouldnt it?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I believe there is evidence that you're wrong.
> ...


 
No, there's evidence and it's conclusive. Christian society is more likely to support education, liberty, and justice.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Again, there is no even comparison.  Not humanly possible to make one.  You're comparing communities with different aspects to them to other communities.

Money and resources are the most important factors imo.  You make anyone desperate enough and they'll kill and steal to feed their family.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm making the comparison, so it's humanly possible, as I'm a human.

And it's true. Christian communities are the breeding ground of liberty, scholarship, and justice. 

Atheist communities aren't. 

Because they oppress those things.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 10, 2012)

Majority-Christian communities have pulled ahead in these ways only in modern times (which happens also to coincide with the weakening of the power of the Church). In the Middle Ages, the same test would have favored Islam as the best religion.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

No, it wouldn't have. Islam only gained a reputation of *enlightenment* because they conquered Christian communities and assumed the community store of knowledge as their own.

It only took them a few years to shut all that progress down, though.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm making the comparison, so it's humanly possible, as I'm a human.
> 
> And it's true. Christian communities are the breeding ground of liberty, scholarship, and justice.
> 
> ...




Well I'm sad, but not surprised to see your bigotry is still alive and well.  But yes you can make as many false comparisons as you like.

Any community can be oppressive, and every version of religion and non-religion has had oppressive communities throughout history.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



More so than a Buddhist society?  More than a Hindu society?  More than a Jewish society?

What makes Christians so much better than Buddhists, Hindus or Jews?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making the comparison, so it's humanly possible, as I'm a human.
> ...


 
Anti-intellectual oppressive types always attach negative names to facts they don't like.

You don't like the fact that Christian communities historically foster scholarship, liberty, and freedom, so you label that observation as "bigotry".

It's just another example of progressives using propaganda to shut down intellectual discussion.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
I didn't know they were. Since you seem to think so, why don't you tell us why you think they're better?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 10, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You're the one that made the assertion that Christian society is more likely to support education liberty and justice.

What makes a Christian society more likely to promote those values over Buddhists, Hindus or Jews?  Or, are those societies just as likely to promote liberty education and justice as well as Christian society?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 10, 2012)

As I pointed out above, during the Middle Ages Muslim societies were more likely to promote education, liberty and justice than Christian ones. In modern times, Christian societies have pulled ahead of Muslim ones in these areas, as they have become LESS Christian, while Muslim societies, which have remained more devout, have fallen behind.

There's a lesson there for those willing to heed it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2012)

As I pointed out, you are wrong. They promoted education, liberty and justice only after they conquered Christian societies that valued those things. 

And then they went about dismantling those things. The golden age only lasted as long as it took Islamic oppression to squash it.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 10, 2012)

This entire post is most interesting.  I sympathize with dragon, i used to feel the same way.  It all changed for me though when I began to focus specifically to the red letters of the bible.  Christianity should be based upon Jesus, not the actions of so-called christians or corrupted churches.  I couldn't be a christian until i looked past the hypocrisies of the church and began to focus on the words of Jesus.

I see so-called christians get it wrong all the time.  Instead of banging non-believers over the head and swearing at them, remember the words of Jesus on the cross, "forgive them father for they know not what they do".  All this contempt for non-believers by so-called christians is a poison against the words and teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 10, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Because who they worship.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 10, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And, who would that be exactly, You Were Excreted?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

nitroz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can  all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".
> ...



Nitroz, we see you struggling.  We see you miserable.  We see you making the exact same mistakes that we have made.  We suggest that you try something that worked for us.  If you want to be left alone, stop asking us to support those that live in sin.  If you agree with them, you support them.  If you want us to leave you alone, don't try chasing us down for our "blessings" (resources), use your own.

Funny how you guys that despise Christianity want to be "left alone", but feel it is perfectly acceptable to mock and harrass the very people that you are claiming are "forcing" you to see their point of view.  It is a falsehood.  Go, be at peace, I will not chase you into your home.  If you want a conversation, or you want to whine about how miserable your life is, I will explain what worked to help my life.  I will not "force" you to follow my advice.  I will not "force" you to pay for my decisions.  I will wish for you the very best that you can be.  Let your light shine, baby!


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > It's precisely the early Church's loss of authority to speak on behalf of God that required a Restoration of said authority. Which authority is exercised without the use of force.
> ...



I don't usually say stuff like this: you, sir, are an idiot.  People do not have authority to force people to do things.  A few, blessed by the Lord, and supported by the Holy Spirit have the authority to speak, heal, bless, and yes curse, given to them by the Lord.  They are very rare, and usually you feel their presence before you notice them (they tend to be humble).  When they do speak, it is with "power" of truth.
The rest of us trying Christians do not have the Lord's "authority", and very few of us would want it, if truth be told (I am convinced that I could not even control the weather as well as the Lord, and that must be minor compared to the control of "souls").  The "authority" of the Lord is His, and He uses it for His Glory.  He doesn't need to impress us, or force us.  He welcomes us to His table, His generosity is beyond compare.  All He asks is that we are properly mannered, as His guests.  Apparently, that is just too much to ask for many people.  They would rather stumble, and know hunger than behave and join a feast.  They pretend the people at the table think they are better than them, but truth be known, the people at the table, pity them and wish they would join in the celebration.   That is just how "it is".


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Another coward on the experiment?  What's the matter, don't think your "groups" can pull it off?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > You're incorrect. God's authority doesn't compel people.
> ...



Which "church", specifically?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...




This is my point: the "atheists", the "homosexuals" (or any other group that regularly slams Christians) will not start a community of their own.  Why do you think that is?  There are places where towns are for sale.  There are large tracts of land where a group could start their own community (gated or otherwise).  Why don't they?  Why do they choose to live in family oriented communities (usually largely Christian)?  Why do they then feel insulted when a neighbor invites them to "fellowship"?  They chose to live in a place where the beliefs of the majority of the people are Christian?

How many of those same people would choose to live in a "muslim community" and then mock and ridicule the muslim faith?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Majority-Christian communities have pulled ahead in these ways only in modern times (which happens also to coincide with the weakening of the power of the Church). In the Middle Ages, the same test would have favored Islam as the best religion.



The same world was available to both religions.  Ask yourself why one was used to improve the world, and the other seeks to destroy the world.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making the comparison, so it's humanly possible, as I'm a human.
> ...



So you are a bigot if you point out the truth?  Please list the places that benefited the world in the last two hundred years that were not Christian.  List the accomplishments of muslim countries, African tribes, oriental countries, communist countries.  According to your words, those countries should dwarf the USA, because so many bigoted Christians that don't believe in science live here.  Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story...


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Jews are persecuted by many other faiths, but have still managed to do great things, compare their accomplishments to the muslims that want to destroy them.  Christianity is very close to Hebrew beliefs.

As for the other two: are you suggesting we adopt a caste system (the Hindus use it)?  Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to slavery and pedophilia (Buddhists do)?
Keep in mind that I AM NOT claiming Christians are perfect.  I am stating the obvious: people that try to follow Christian (Judeo) morals tend to have better communities, states and countries than those that do not.

Another question: if Hindus and Buddhists have countries that are so good, why are a whole bunch of them trying to become Americans?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 10, 2012)

Dragon said:


> As I pointed out above, during the Middle Ages Muslim societies were more likely to promote education, liberty and justice than Christian ones. In modern times, Christian societies have pulled ahead of Muslim ones in these areas, as they have become LESS Christian, while Muslim societies, which have remained more devout, have fallen behind.
> 
> There's a lesson there for those willing to heed it.



You are right, "Christian communities" did pull ahead.  In modern times, I beg to differ.  Those that are using a "common purse" (read Proverbs), what you would call socialism/communism/liberalism/progressivism/statism are on the brink of collapse.  They have rejected the Lord's ways and have turned to man for security (listened to a black preacher talking about how the hebrews, Joseph's family turned to the Egyptians for security, instead of the Lord.  After a few trips, they were Egypt's slaves... if you are interested in a comparable lesson).  Funny though, those that reject the Lord, keep making the same mistakes, again, and again, and again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 10, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yahweh,Jesus,Hashem,Jehovah.

You were hatched.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 10, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Your point is why don't atheists or homosexuals or whatever other groups you don't like here start communities of their own?  Why should they?  Just because someone shares a lack of belief, or sexual orientation, doesn't mean you want to live around them.  This is obviously true of Christians as well.  Why don't they buy a town or start a community?  Perhaps most are either happy enough where they are, or not part of any large groups that could do such a thing, etc.  You make it out as though atheists generally segregate themselves from the rest of the population, or homosexuals do, or the other groups you consider Christian bashers.  I think that's a misrepresentation of reality.  While certainly atheist and homosexual groups do exist, I question whether the majority of people who fit those categories are part of said groups, and I question whether they consider isolating themselves from people outside those groups a good thing.

As far as people from these groups you dislike living in largely Christian areas, aren't MOST parts of the country largely Christian?  If somewhere from 70-80% of Americans self-identify as Christian (I've seen multiple polls that put the number somewhere in that area), wouldn't it, in fact, be hard to find places that are not made up of mostly Christians?  So, the idea that these Christian bashers are specifically going to Christian neighborhoods seems ridiculous.

There are probably few people who would argue that there are admirable traits to Christianity.  It may even be that Christians are better able to get along in a society than any others.  It is a very difficult hypothesis to prove, if it isn't impossible to do so.  There are simply too many variables involved in what makes a good nation, even a good community.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



All bigots can justify their bigotry, normally usually broad generic reasoning, your posts are a good example.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Lol you're doing a good job.  Challenge me to do an impossible experiment, then call me a coward for not pulling off the impossible experiment.  You're covered on all grounds!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 11, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I wonder where an agnostic falls on the chart.....



The agnostic falls on the chart only when drinking too much. AND it's better than falling on the stairs...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Another trademark of nazi propaganda....accuse those who oppose you of the tactics you employ.

That's why the Nazis called the Jews killers and criminals, and insisted that they had to die in order to promote life elsewhere.

Of course, they started by shutting down their freedoms...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Lol my favorite tactic of yours, when you compare anyone who disagrees with you to nazis or Hitler.  In this case you're comparing Nazis to atheists and still pretending you aren't a bigot.

Like I've said to you dozens of other times, please never change your posting style.  You truly are my favorite poster on this board.  

No one else brings the entertainment like you do.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

No, I don't compare everyone who disagrees with me to nazis.

I compare progressive, eugenics-driven nutbags who seek a shut down of our protected liberties to Nazis. When you target a religious group and seek to prevent them from participating in politics or other professions and propose they not be allowed to openly adhere to their religion, then I compare you to a Nazi because hey, that's what Nazis did.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I don't compare everyone who disagrees with me to nazis.
> 
> I compare progressive, eugenics-driven nutbags who seek a shut down of our protected liberties to Nazis. When you target a religious group and seek to prevent them from participating in politics or other professions and propose they not be allowed to openly adhere to their religion, then I compare you to a Nazi because hey, that's what Nazis did.



Just the type of wild exaggerating I would expect from any good victim, trying to portray her reasons for being a bigot are because she's a victim by those who she holds a bigotry against.

You've perfectly rationalized your bigotry, I commend you for it.  You really think you have rational reasons to be a bigot.  You also still think you aren't judgemental, what a mind yours would be to study .


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

I think it would be good to go back and look at the original post.





Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, *that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here*.



Dragon is making a point that any reasonable christian would agree with, many christians do not think freely.  But lack of freethinking is not a monopoly held by christians.  Correlation does not prove causation.  If you are an ignorant christian who can't think for yourself is it christianity's fault? NO. It is the fault of the person for not being a freethinker. 



Dragon said:


> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. *Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching*.



You make an excellent point here, by pointing out the differences between Jesus and the fallible nature of the church and christians.  Many christians do not fully understand how radical Jesus was.  He was persecuted by the church for crying out loud, for not following their dogma.


Dragon said:


> To a traditional Christian, there is a very, very narrow range of thought, feeling, and action that are permissible. To think freely is to be a heretic or an unbeliever. To feel freely is to lust, to desire, almost certainly to be an adulterer or fornicator in one's imagination, and in some cases to be a homosexual; it's to be angry at times, to long for what traditional morality says should not be yours, to envy and resent.



God (or for the atheists, Nature) most certainly created us to be free and to think freely.  But freethinking is a neutral term.  I could think freely about helping out at the local food bank, or I could think freely about killing somebody.  Therefore, I do not see why a christian would believe that the neutral act of thinking freely would qualify someone as a heretic. 


Dragon said:


> Freedom means nothing if it is not freedom to sin. Traditional Christianity is opposed to sin. Therefore, traditional Christianity is opposed to freedom.



It is raining outside means it is cloudy.  It is cloudy outside. Therefore, it must be raining. 

One final note...Freedom means nothing if it is not freedom to sin* or not sin*.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't compare everyone who disagrees with me to nazis.
> ...


 
No exaggeration.
Nazis used the same playbook as all progressive eugenecist anti-Christian freaks.

The only diff is that you focus your hatred on Christians, rather than Jews. Though Nazis also had a problem with Catholics....

Though truth be told, you probably  hate Jews as well.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> I think it would be good to go back and look at the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Jesus wasn't radical at all. He fulfilled the law. The pharisees didn't believe he was the Messiah. It wasn't about him being radical, it was about them not recognizing him. He was a rabbi...a teacher, and he was recognized as such by the church. They had him killed because they resented the fact that he took THEM to task, and because his existence and fulfillment of the law challenged their authority. It wasn't because he acted radically. Radicalism implies departure from the law...which he never did.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be good to go back and look at the original post.
> ...



au contraire...He broke the sabbath.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The moment you find anything i've said that shows hate towards christians is the moment a unicorn horn will grow out of forehead.

Comparing atheists to Nazis is being anti-atheist, which you proudly are, now take your best shot at finding me saying something even in the same ballpark as your bigotted remarks.

Should be entertaining!


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

My whole argument might be summed up as this....There are old testament christians (the ones that dragon calls traditional or fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it, I think we all know what it is), and there are new testament christians, who follow the new way that was established by Jesus (grace).  The Old testament is there as a historical reference to give context to the coming of Jesus, but Jesus broke the sabbath, so that we could get over our dogmatic ways.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> My whole argument might be summed up as this....There are old testament christians (the ones that dragon calls traditional or fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it, I think we all know what it is), and there are new testament christians, who follow the new way that was established by Jesus (grace).  The Old testament is there as a historical reference to give context to the coming of Jesus, but Jesus broke the sabbath, so that we could get over our dogmatic ways.



Ummmm...........hate to tell you, but the first 5 books of the Bible are what the Jews referred to as the Torah, and the rest of the OT is simply a history of the Jewish people.

Your "OT Christians" would actually be Jews.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
No, wrong again, as you always are.

I compare you to Nazis because you follow the same playbook. It's not because you're atheist. It's because you want to shut down freedom of religion, specifically Christianity, and because you promote eugenic practices..and because you use the same methods as the Nazis did.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Btw it's also adorable that you call me an anti-semite while you sit there and downplay the terrible things Nazis did on a daily basis.  I know you desperately want to get under my skin with all your middle school insults, but rest assured it very much entertains me that a seemingly grown adult would stoop to such tactics on a daily basis, so plz keep it up .  

I'll repeat again for you.  I don't care if every building on private land is a church, if at every corner one of you pseudo-fundies is screaming Bible verses at the top of his or her lungs, by all means, have at it.  The only politician I vote for is probably an even bigger fundamentalist than you pretend to be.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > My whole argument might be summed up as this....There are old testament christians (the ones that dragon calls traditional or fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it, I think we all know what it is), and there are new testament christians, who follow the new way that was established by Jesus (grace).  The Old testament is there as a historical reference to give context to the coming of Jesus, but Jesus broke the sabbath, so that we could get over our dogmatic ways.
> ...



You are right the "OT Christians" are essentially following Judaism (maybe that is why so many of them associate themselves with the jews so much).  But any christian that doesn't follow the teaching of Jesus first and foremost is fooled and is essentially spreading OT ideas, the same OT ideas that Jesus came to brake down.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Wow. 

You really don't have much of an understanding of fundamentalists or OT Christians.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Wow.
> 
> You really don't have much of an understanding of fundamentalists or OT Christians.



Maybe you should share with me which part you disagree with.  It seems to me that pagan dragon understands the difference better than you do, based upon the fact that in the OP he distinguishes Jesus from OT fundamentalists.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

I disagree with all of it.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I disagree with all of it.



I'm sure you do, but do you care to share with me why you disagree with what i'm saying.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > ThinkCritically said:
> ...



So, because the Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, that means they're all going to hell?

Really?

Because I seem to remember a story about a guy named Abraham who was blessed by God, and all his lineage as well, which is why the Jews are God's Chosen.

And, I don't think God is going to break His covenant with the Jews.  Besides, Jesus didn't come to replace the law, but rather to EXPAND on it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with all of it.
> ...



Aside from the fact that they believe that Christ is the risen Lord?

Sort of puts the kabosh to the concept of following Judaism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be good to go back and look at the original post.
> ...



They also did it to prophets of God because they wanted their beliefs and not God's.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> So, because the Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, that means they're all going to hell? Really?
> 
> Because I seem to remember a story about a guy named Abraham who was blessed by God, and all his lineage as well, which is why the Jews are God's Chosen. And, I don't think God is going to break His covenant with the Jews.  Besides, Jesus didn't come to replace the law, but rather to EXPAND on it.



I never made any claims about who is going to hell or not.  It really isn't for me to decide. 
As for Abraham and God that is between Abraham and God. And I partially agree with what you are saying about Jesus regarding the law, he did not come to replace the law, but rather to point out that dogmatic laws should not be enforced in such a ridged manner.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Jesus wasn't radical at all. He fulfilled the law. The pharisees didn't believe he was the Messiah. It wasn't about him being radical, it was about them not recognizing him. He was a rabbi...a teacher, and he was recognized as such by the church. They had him killed because they resented the fact that he took THEM to task, and because his existence and fulfillment of the law challenged their authority. It wasn't because he acted radically. Radicalism implies departure from the law...which he never did.



I see where you are going with this, and I agree.  My point is that Jesus's fulfillment of the law was radical in terms of how the pharisees interpreted the law.  The fundamentalist christians of today(which is a loaded term, I hate to use it, but I must in order to stay with the point) are much like the pharisees of jesus's time.  They squabble about this and that, but forget GRACE. If grace is not the foundation for your type of christianity then I feel that you have been led astray.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 11, 2012)

Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.

However, insofar as it occurs among Christians and with respect to Christian dogma, it IS Christianity's fault. Or rather, it's the fault of dogmatic belief in a Christian context.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > My whole argument might be summed up as this....There are old testament christians (the ones that dragon calls traditional or fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it, I think we all know what it is), and there are new testament christians, who follow the new way that was established by Jesus (grace).  The Old testament is there as a historical reference to give context to the coming of Jesus, but Jesus broke the sabbath, so that we could get over our dogmatic ways.
> ...



Jews were Christians in the NT as well.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Well that's true enough...

I thought you were saying the religion they practice was essentially Judaism and that just isn't true.

What I see a lot with conservative Christian churches is this fad that people who continue to sin, people who do this, people who do that, even if they claim they are saved...weren't *really* saved in the first place.

I think that's a dangerous place to go, and it distresses me to see church leaders embracing this...I think it scares people away from moving forward in their Christian walk because they start to doubt their salvation....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.
> 
> However, insofar as it occurs among Christians and with respect to Christian dogma, it IS Christianity's fault. Or rather, it's the fault of dogmatic belief in a Christian context.


 
Do you ever add anything of note to any conversation?

We all know what your opinion is. You don't have to keep harping on it. At this point, feel free to move forward with scholarly argument, or sit in the corner and jabber at yourself. You're the only one interested anymore in what you're saying.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.
> 
> However, insofar as it occurs among Christians and with respect to Christian dogma, it IS Christianity's fault. Or rather, it's the fault of dogmatic belief in a Christian context.



You yourself distinguish the difference between dogmatic christianity and jesus in the OP. I call myself a christian, but I don't like the fundamentalist any more than you do. But lumping it all together and saying "its christianity's fault" is pigeon holing non dogmatic christians.  You seem to know the difference between the two but then lump them all together at the same time.

If you want to make a point about fundamentalist then call it that, but don't stereotype christian into one group, you are farrrr to liberal for that.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.
> ...



Sorry, but there are Christians on here who say that all Christians are the same.

According to them, all that's required is to be "saved".


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

He can't, he runs on stereotypes. To move forward with it would require actual research and a little knowledge. He might have to read something. Besides wiki.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


 
Well that is technically all that's required to be a Christian.

That doesn't make all Christians *the same* though, and I don't think anyone has claimed it does. There are different denominations.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.
> ...



Thank you for speaking for the rest of us!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Any time, lol...


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry, but there are Christians on here who say that all Christians are the same.
> 
> According to them, all that's required is to be "saved".



I would agree with them that salvation is everything, but how that is done requires a lot of soul searching.  One man's interpretation of salvation is different than the next and unless you actively pursue that answer, you are at risk.  

The bible puts it quite clearly, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

This verse is meant for everyone, but I find it especially true for fire and brimstone christians.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Maybe...

Or the Catholic Church.

It is fairly ambiguous.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but there are Christians on here who say that all Christians are the same.
> ...



Actually, I think it's true for the large majority of Christians, because according to what Yeshua taught, they sure don't follow His teachings much.

Wanna talk about the bigotry of Christians?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

I find it fairly amazing that someone who claims to be a Taoist, who calls Christ by the name of Yeshua, and portrays himself as some sort of sophisticated biblical scholar (albeit laughably) is the same person who sends female usmb posters vile and disgusting pms and admits to hitting women...

You sure you are up to a discussion about hypocrisy?


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, I think it's true for the large majority of Christians, because according to what Yeshua taught, they sure don't follow His teachings much.
> 
> Wanna talk about the bigotry of Christians?



No doubt, and it hurts to think about because so many build up walls agains Yeshua, because of the bigotry of so many "Christians".

It is easy to stereotype, especially since the stereotype holds so true, but remember if you know the difference between Yeshua following christians and hypocritical christians, and you continue to lump them together in your speech and thoughts.... then you are only fooling yourself and everyone else around you.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I find it fairly amazing that someone who claims to be a Taoist, who calls Christ by the name of Yeshua, and portrays himself as some sort of sophisticated biblical scholar (albeit laughably) is the same person who sends female usmb posters vile and disgusting pms and admits to hitting women...
> 
> You sure you are up to a discussion about hypocrisy?



Why do I call Christ Yeshua?  Simple, because that's His name as He was born with it (remember, He's Jewish).  Whenever I went overseas, I told people to call me "Rob", not "Roberto", not "Rober" or any other pronunciation of my name in their language, as my name was given to me in English, and I prefer people to pronounce it properly.

As far as the vile and disgusting pm's?  Well, the vileness starts when you neg rep me, so I start by saying the nastiest things I can about you in the neg rep, after telling you the neg rep is being returned.

The vile pm's come from me replying to something vile you said to me about the neg rep I sent you.

As far as never hitting women?  Never have except once, and that was when I was attacked by my foster sister (who outweighed me by 30 lbs and was 7 inches taller, as well as several years older than me).

What else ya got Kaiser Twit?


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I find it fairly amazing that someone who claims to be a Taoist, who calls Christ by the name of Yeshua, and portrays himself as some sort of sophisticated biblical scholar (albeit laughably) is the same person who sends female usmb posters vile and disgusting pms and admits to hitting women...
> 
> You sure you are up to a discussion about hypocrisy?



WHY do you do this koshergrl?  "Judge not least ye be judged"

Where do you get off telling these people that they are bad....pick the plank out of your eye...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Because I know this guy, and he's a puke who sends disgusting pms to women and has admitted on this board to hitting women...in addition to being woefully ignorant of the bible that he's always dragging into his weird discussions....

I hope he goes to heaven. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out exactly who and what he is.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, with every reason in the world to curse everyone to hell what did he say...."forgive them father for they know not what they do"

This is the part christians forget when they get attacked.  All of the sudden they start kicking back, but if you think Jesus dying on the cross means anything at all to you then you will stop judging and start forgiving.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

And a person who sends scary pms to women and hits them is bad. I'm sorry you think that's judgemental. I think you don't understand the scripture if you think it means we aren't allowed to pass judgement on the actions of other people. He can be forgiven and attain heaven next to me and I'm fine with that...but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore his bad behavior.

Christ didn't remove the man being crucified next to him from his cross and set him free. He allowed the earthly judgement to be carried out....


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I think you don't understand the scripture if you think it means we aren't allowed to pass judgement on the actions of other people.



Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge other, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck fro your brother's eye."

The other one is John 7:53-8:11  which I won't post here cause its to long, but I'm sure we are all familiar with it...Its about Jesus forgiving the woman found guilty of adultery. 

Where is the confusion it is right there.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Oh I forgive him.

That doesn't mean I ignore his depravity, or pretend it's not there. 

Nor does it mean I'm not aware of my own shortcomings. 

And I'm not proposing he be stoned to death for it.

Jesus also told the woman to sin no more, you know....

And if you read the judge not scripture further...

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 
*12*What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? *13*God will judge those outside. &#8220;Expel the wicked man from among you.&#8221;b"

Just saying.

1 Corinthians 5


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I was responding to a person claiming that Christians were too pushy for them.  They seem to think the Christians should just be quiet and accept that other people should make their decisions for them.  I was pointing out that if these other ways were soooo great, why didn't they start a community on their own.

It figures that instead of trying to understand the point (that these people find Christians necessary to their way of life), you want to tell me how I feel about them.  Please, stay focused: if the Christian way of life is sooo offensive to people that do not agree with those beliefs, settle in a place where Christians are not the largest part of the population.

Your last paragraph demonstrated that somewhere down inside that you (like most people that bash and mock Christians?) understand that there are a huge amount of benefits to be gained from living in a Christian community.  I was hoping that those that want Christians to be silent would see that on their own.  Maybe, it will help that you pointed it out to us.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



No, it is not an impossible experiment.  You could advertise to start a "non-Christian" (or what ever group you wanted to use) neighborhood or subdivision.  You could put up signs asking Christians not to share their beliefs there or solicit.  You could do monuments with sayings that you believe.  Have a common area, and welcome the neighborhood to spend time together.  See how it works out, will it grow and expand, or will people sell out and move?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> My whole argument might be summed up as this....There are old testament christians (the ones that dragon calls traditional or fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it, I think we all know what it is), and there are new testament christians, who follow the new way that was established by Jesus (grace).  The Old testament is there as a historical reference to give context to the coming of Jesus, but Jesus broke the sabbath, so that we could get over our dogmatic ways.



Yeshua "broke" with the laws of men, what He said were motions rather than understanding the reason and doing it to honor the Father.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



The Bible does not say that those we know don't believe in Yeshua are going to hell.  Yeshua tells His followers that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.  He does not specify when one is "required" to believe.  There are other sources that specifically mention waiting times (Jerimiah has a reference to cowards about this too), before people see the Lord.  There is one place that was extremely beautiful and peaceful where Enoch was told that it was a place that people went to be prepared to meet the Lord. 

 You usually ignore my posts, so I will probably have to re-post something similar for you in the future.

If you do not know of Yeshua and are searching for the truth, when you die, there is a VERY good possibility that you will recognize Him, as your Lord, and you will have the same reward, that His believers receive.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Lack of thinking freely is indeed not a Christian monopoly. There are dogmas and dogmatists in other religions as well. Muslims are especially bad about this.
> 
> However, insofar as it occurs among Christians and with respect to Christian dogma, it IS Christianity's fault. Or rather, it's the fault of dogmatic belief in a Christian context.



It is an "idea's" fault?  An idea has no power to force anyone to do anything.  It sounds like you do not want to hold people responsible for their actions.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I gave you reasons why groups of non-Christians might not start more communities.  Do you think buying a town or starting a community of all like-minded people is a simple thing to do?

I didn't tell you how you feel about anyone.  As far as Christians being necessary to anyone's way of life, that is true inasmuch as the US is a large majority Christian, and I don't think you have been talking to any of our foreign-located posters here.  If you think those who are offended should settle in a place Christians aren't the majority, fine, but understand that those places are going to be few and far between in a country with as many Christians as we have in the US.

I didn't say or imply anything about benefits of Christian communities.  What I said was that there are admirable traits in Christianity.  I could say the same of just about any religion, probably.  That doesn't mean a community made up of people that follow a particular religion is necessarily better than any other.  This is especially true considering the many varied denominations of Christianity; you could have multiple Christian communities that are run differently based on the form of the religion the people there follow.

The important point to understand is that the success or safety or enjoyability of a community is based on many things.  To assume that a Christian community is going to be better than a non-Christian community, without taking the many other factors into account, is foolish.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
> *12*What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? *13*God will judge those outside. &#8220;Expel the wicked man from among you.&#8221;b"
> 
> Just saying.
> ...



This is the whole point that I am making. Paul tells the church to rebuke false christians.  He says, "who calls himself a brother".  These people who call themselves brothers but are not, is what he is saying.  In no way is he telling the church to go counter to the actions of Jesus when he hung out with the drunks, slanderers and swindlers.  What he is warning against is hanging out with hypocritical christians.  Why do you think that he warned against this so vehamently, because it would be the poison of the church.  Non believers would see true believers hanging out with the hypocritical believers, and say to themselves what a bunch of hypocritical nut jobs.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 11, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yep, got get them qualifiers in place.  Can't look around and see that this country, founded on Christian beliefs (mixed with some republic modeled gov't), has prospered beyond any civilization to date.  It was not until the mid 1900s that people started deserting the Lord in droves.  The Christians were the ones that worked hard, formed communities, built churches, schools, hospitals, and staffed them.
The johnny come latelies show up and try to tell us that "Christianity" was only a small factor (you guys are so willfully blind).  What do you think bound the country together?  Why would people that had so many different goals work together state that the gov't would not form a state religion and that people had a right to worship as they saw fit?  And now, if Christians are open about their opinions, the lefties try to silence them, maybe the lefties don't want to be reminded how far they are walking away from the Lord?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



WTF are you talking about?  When did this become about the founding of the country?

Whether this country has prospered beyond any civilization to date is open to argument.  There have been nations that lasted longer, covered more area, etc. in the past.  While this is my personal favorite, it could easily be argued that many of the great empires were more prosperous.

Also, it seems you are saying that non-Christians in this country's past did not work hard, form communities, build churches, schools, hospitals, and staff them.  That's right, the history of this country is one of Christians working hard and everyone else doing nothing!

The more I talk with you, the more you seem to be saying that Christians are good and everyone else is bad.  If that is the way you look at the world, there's really no point talking to you.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 11, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


 
Then you aren't listening past your own bigoted filters. The conversation he's referencing is specifically about Christian vs. non Christian society.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 11, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Which has what, exactly, to do with my post?  I've already been discussing with logical4u why non-Christians might not often form their own communities, the difficulties in attributing the success of a community or nation to the religious belief of it's members, etc.  Which part of my post do you consider to be wrong because of my bigotry, or to not take into account logical4u having a conversation about Christian vs non-Christian society?


----------



## nitroz (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can  all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".
> 
> That's the devil at work, pure and simple.



Hey, Lets play a game.

The game is to let the bible be the referee on who is right on topics that we disagree with. sound fun?

If you win, you will get positive rep.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

I have little faith in those sorts of games. In my experience, people lie about the words in front of their faces, and stick to the lie.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

For example, montrovant pretending that logical's statement has nothing to do with the discussion.

I can't do much with the subject if people can't see the truth when it's naked in front of them.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 12, 2012)

nitroz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can  all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".
> ...



I should be way ahead on this one then


----------



## Widdekind (Apr 12, 2012)

(i want a Christian perspective, on the following questions)

First, i understand, that in *1095 AD*, acting in the Name of "God in heaven", Pope Urban II called for a "Crusade" against the Middle East, calling the Turks an "execrable" & "accursed" race; and that, ultimately, the "Crusades" have motivated Middle Easterners, _e.g._ Turks, ever since, to wage _Jihad_ against Europe, _e.g._ to conquer Constantinople.

Second, i understand, that *c.30 AD*, Jesus, the "_Messiah_" of "God in heaven", Ordered Christians to Evangelize all humans on earth (Matthew 24:14); and that European Christian "Missionaries" obeyed that Order, Evangelizing the Americas, Asia, & Africa, during the *16th-19th centuries AD*; and that, ultimately, those "Missions" have motivated non-whites, world-wide, to Hate whites, for "shoving the Gospel down their throats".

Has obeying "God in heaven", influenced "race relations", betweens whites & non-whites, on earth ?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

Sigh.

See, there's no argument with people who cling to false premises.


----------



## Artevelde (Apr 12, 2012)

Widdekind said:


> (i want a Christian perspective, on the following questions)
> 
> First, i understand, that in *1095 AD*, acting in the Name of "God in heaven", Pope Urban II called for a "Crusade" against the Middle East, calling the Turks an "execrable" & "accursed" race; and that, ultimately, the "Crusades" have motivated Middle Easterners, _e.g._ Turks, ever since, to wage _Jihad_ against Europe, _e.g._ to conquer Constantinople.
> 
> ...



Well, clearly, you have u!nderstood very little or nothing.

The crusades were a response to muslim jihad against Christians, not the other way round.

And missionaries have been so succesful in spreading the gospel that a very large percentage of christians nowadays are what you call "non-whites".


----------



## nitroz (Apr 12, 2012)

aw


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Yep perfectly possible, now if you could let me borrow a few million dollars to get this off the ground, I'd appreciate it.  

You know it's impossible, just walk off with your invisible winner's crown and be happy with it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

We do have examples of long standing atheist communities to compare to.

Russia, Revolutionary France, China, Camodia under Khmer Rouge, Cuba.

Wonderful examples of enlightened atheism.

"
*State atheism* is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1] In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[2] Atheism is either the lack of belief in a deity or the belief that none exist,[3] and forms a binary pair with theism,[4] which is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6] Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity, but there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7] Furthermore, atheism figures in to certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[8] such as Wicca.[9]
State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[10] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[11] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[12][13][14] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[15] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.[16"

State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> We do have examples of long standing atheist communities to compare to.
> 
> Russia, Revolutionary France, China, Camodia under Khmer Rouge, Cuba.
> 
> ...



and I could provide a list of the horrors done by christianity-endorsed gov'ts and we'd end up at the same conclusion I already said, that every version of religion or lack of religion has committed atrocities.  So we'll avoid going through this pointless exercise again.  If that makes you feel like you won, by all means grab a sheet of paper from your printer, tear it up and throw the confetti into the air.

The last thing I want are my religious views endorsed by gov't, it's too bad you don't share that view.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

No, you couldn't. 

And we aren't just talking about horrors, though those are damning enough. We're also talking about the fostering of scholarship, liberty, freedom.

I think it's fairly obvious that atheists in this thread lie when they say there is no way to compare atheist community with religious/christian community, that there are no examples of atheist communities to draw information from.

Of course there are, and they put the lie to you. Atheist communities seemingly without exception are oppressive, brutal, murderous and tyrannical.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, you couldn't.
> 
> And we aren't just talking about horrors, though those are damning enough. We're also talking about the fostering of scholarship, liberty, freedom.
> 
> ...



Let the hate flow.  It's just what Jesus wants you to do.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

It's hateful to point out that you're lying when you claim we have no examples of atheist community to compare Christian community to?







Or are you referencing the hatred the atheist community has for those of faith, as well as a definite antipathy towards scholarship and truth?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It's hateful to point out that you're lying when you claim we have no examples of atheist community to compare Christian community to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's impossible to compare communities because there are no communities with the same measureables.  I could pick and choose a terrible christian community from the past and compare it to Denmark of today, and use that selective information to promote how atheist communities are better.  But that'd be stupid, as it's not an even comparison because no even comparison exists.  You can keep pretending their is, being the science denier you are, I don't expect rational thought to be of much importance to you.  

Obvously your bigotry is vitally important to you, let the hate flow.  Don't let me stand in your way .


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

Yeah. Bullshit, liar.

Continue lying, it's the only way you can make your ridiculous case for state-sponsored atheism.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)




----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)




----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

Lol you're absolutely adorable.  Like a little kitten playing with yarn!  Same level of intellect too.

I don't want any religious beliefs sponsored by gov't, yours, mine, or Scooby Doo's.  If you want to build a million churches across America who spread your loving ideas of bigotry, evolution is a tool of Satan, and how everyone who disagrees with you is a disciple of Hitler, I want you to have that freedom.

However your hero Fred Phelps seems to have beat you to it.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah. Bullshit, liar.
> 
> Continue lying, it's the only way you can make your ridiculous case for state-sponsored atheism.



So now it's trying to make a case for state-sponsored atheism?  I'm sorry, but I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. Bullshit, liar.
> ...



One of the voices in her head said that.  Sadly I guess I'm responsible for one of them.  If I had more control I'd say "go grab a cookie, that'll make you happy for a little bit!"


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.

This is what atheists (particularly atheists who hide themselves behind the term *free thinkers*) do...they lie when the subject matter becomes too intense and truthful.

Like pretending we have no atheist communities to compare to Christian communities. What a crock. We have immense atheist communities to compare to our Christian ones. They live in China, in Cambodia, in North Korea, in Cuba, in Russia, in Czechoslavakia, in Albania. They had brief but spectacular bursts in revolutionary France and Mexico.

But of course you will pretend those don't count.

When you propose the state shut down the free practice of religion, when you propose that religious people be barred from participating in politics, you are promoting state-sponsored atheism. 

When you lie about how much more advanced imaginary atheist communities are than Christian ones, you invite the comparison...which you then say doesn't exist...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.
> 
> This is what atheists (particularly atheists who hide themselves behind the term *free thinkers*) do...they lie when the subject matter becomes too intense and truthful.
> 
> ...



There have been atheist communities, there have been communities of every belief and non belief, all have instances of going well and going badly.  

The only person I vote for, Ron Paul, is even more fundamentalist than you are. The greatest american in the history of this country imo, MLK Jr, was even more fundamentalist than you are.  

I've never said atheist communities are more advanced than christian ones, if you can support that particular lie (which you've never been able to support your ever-growing list of lies in the past) than I'll concede.

Ready...............set....................GO!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 12, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> WTF are you talking about?  When did this become about the founding of the country?
> 
> Whether this country has prospered beyond any civilization to date is open to argument.  There have been nations that lasted longer, covered more area, etc. in the past.  While this is my personal favorite, it could easily be argued that many of the great empires were more prosperous.



Not with integrity, it couldn't.

Look, I realize that there is a great rewrite of history to diminish America and the concepts of liberty, underway.

I realize that history is being fabricated so that the Cherokee had a written language and democratic government, despite there being no physical, fossil, or eye witness evidence to support this, in fact the evidence proves the opposite.

No, we take a desired result, and fabricate a new history to support it. Thus your claim of "more prosperous" nations. Also cute how you lump the USA as an Empire. Fair enough, you have a result of a diminished America and the irrelevance of liberty to support, history will be fabricated to support the result.



> Also, it seems you are saying that non-Christians in this country's past did not work hard, form communities, build churches, schools, hospitals, and staff them.  That's right, the history of this country is one of Christians working hard and everyone else doing nothing!



Which non-Christian communities do you most admire in 19th century America?



> The more I talk with you, the more you seem to be saying that Christians are good and everyone else is bad.  If that is the way you look at the world, there's really no point talking to you.



Is your fabrication of history based on your anti-Christian prejudice?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 12, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Yep perfectly possible, now if you could let me borrow a few million dollars to get this off the ground, I'd appreciate it.



Hey, Obama funded Solyndra, no reason he wouldn't funnel a few hundred million to this. Just donate to his election fund and it can all be yours.



> You know it's impossible, just walk off with your invisible winner's crown and be happy with it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 12, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Yep perfectly possible, now if you could let me borrow a few million dollars to get this off the ground, I'd appreciate it.
> ...



I dunno, Gore seems to have the scamming business mastered a little better, I'll get ahold of him first .


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.
> 
> This is what atheists (particularly atheists who hide themselves behind the term *free thinkers*) do...they lie when the subject matter becomes too intense and truthful.
> 
> ...



Actually, during the time of Copernicus and Galileo (2 free thinkers who said that the Earth revolves around the Sun), they were persecuted for their study by the Christian community of the Church because what they said was heresey against what the Church taught, which was that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

So, exactly how tolerant was the Church then?  Did they uphold the values of liberty?  How about knowledge?  Freedom?  Because what the church did was to keep them under house arrest.

Oh yeah............during that time, a group of free thinkers formed a group called the Illuminati which was a group of scientists and astrologers who met in secret to compare notes, because if they did it in public, they'd be persecuted by the Church.

And then...........we can talk about Torquemada and the Inquisition if you like.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

Hmmm....2 guys (were they executed?) vs. the millions killed in anti-religious regimes.

Well done, retard.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

And how many years ago?

And did they not develop their theories under Christian rule?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

In fact, Copernicus was educated in the church, and a good thing, too:

"Through his uncle, Lukas Watzenrode (1447-1512), who later became the bishop of Varmia (Ermland), he was elected a canon of the cathedral chapter of Frombork (Frauenburg). As part of his requirement as a canon, he matriculated in 1496 in the University of Bologna to study both canon and civil law. There, he lodged with and worked as an assistant to Domenico Maria the Ferrarese of Novara (1454-1504), professor of mathematics and astrology and also the official compiler of prognostications for the university. 
After briefly returning to Frombork, Copernicus studied medicine at the University of Padua (1501-3) and then moved on to the University of Ferrara where he obtained a doctorate in Canon Law (1503). He then returned to Varmia, where he was based for the rest of his life. He acted as medical advisor and secretary to his uncle at Heilsberg, and was later heavily involved with the administrative tasks in the diocese of Frombork. "

I'm trying to figure out where, exactly, copernicus was "persecuted". In fact, the Church seems to have been responsible for his fame:

"By the 1530s, Copernicus's reputation as a skilled mathematician had even reached the ears of the Pope. A professor of mathematics at the University of Wittenberg, Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) who was on a tour of visiting distinguished scholars, visited Copernicus in 1539. Copernicus shared his ideas with him, and Rheticus published the Narratio Prima (First Report on the Books of Revolution) in 1540 at Gdansk, in which he reported Copernicus' heliostatic theory in an astrological framework: the changing fortunes of the kingdom of the world, according to Rheticus, depended on the changing eccentricity of the sun. Following the favourable reception of the Narratio Prima, Rheticus persuaded Copernicus to publish a full account. This, of course, became the De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), published in March 1543 at Nuremberg. Copernicus died two months later. "

In this, as in all things, gaybiker, you appear to know nothing. I think the less you know, the more likely you are to opine about things.

Starry Messenger: Copernicus: Biography


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 12, 2012)

Let's see how Galileo was "persecuted" by the church..

Though I think you have confused "persecution" with "elevation". Could happen to anyone:

Oh look, another brilliant mind who probably wouldn't have been so *brilliant* if it weren't for the *persecution* (also know as *support*) of the Church:

"Once he was old enough to be educated in a monastery, his parents sent him to the Camaldolese Monastery at Vallombrosa which is situated on a magnificent forested hillside 33 km southeast of Florence. The Camaldolese Order was independent of the Benedictine Order, splitting from it in about 1012. The Order combined the solitary life of the hermit with the strict life of the monk and soon the young Galileo found this life an attractive one. He became a novice, intending to join the Order, but this did not please his father who had already decided that his eldest son should become a medical doctor. 
Vincenzo had Galileo return from Vallombrosa to Florence and give up the idea of joining the Camaldolese order. He did continue his schooling in Florence, however, in a school run by the Camaldolese monks. In 1581 Vincenzo sent Galileo back to Pisa to live again with Muzio Tedaldi and now to enrol for a medical degree at the University of Pisa."

He seems to have enjoyed a close relationship with the Pope and dedicated one of his books to him:

"Galileo was forbidden to hold Copernican views but later events made him less concerned about this decision of the Inquisition. Most importantly Maffeo Barberini, who was an admirer of Galileo, was elected as Pope Urban VIII. This happened just as Galileo's book _Il saggiatore_ (The Assayer) was about to be published by the Accademia dei Lincei in 1623 and Galileo was quick to dedicate this work to the new Pope."

"Pope Urban VIII invited Galileo to papal audiences on six occasions and led Galileo to believe that the Catholic Church would not make an issue of the Copernican theory. Galileo, therefore, decided to publish his views believing that he could do so without serious consequences from the Church. "

Wow, some serious persecution going on there. Perhaps when you say "persecution" you really mean "favoritism"?

Omg, he was persecuted by being allowed to live at home and continue writing! Horrors!

"

Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition. In 1634 he suffered a severe blow when his daughter Virginia, Sister Maria Celeste, died. She had been a great support to her father through his illnesses and Galileo was shattered and could not work for many months. When he did manage to restart work, he began to write _Discourses and mathematical demonstrations concerning the two new sciences._ After Galileo had completed work on the _Discourses_ it was smuggled out of Italy, and taken to Leyden in Holland where it was published. It was his most rigorous mathematical work which treated problems on impetus, moments, and centres of gravity. Much of this work went back to the unpublished ideas in _De Motu_ from around 1590 and the improvements which he had worked out during 1602-1604."

Galileo biography


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> *And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.*
> 
> This is what atheists (particularly atheists who hide themselves behind the term *free thinkers*) do...they lie when the subject matter becomes too intense and truthful.
> 
> ...



Is this directed at me?  Because I was having a short back and forth discussion with logical, and that's the only thing I questioned the relevance of his founding of the US comment to, not the thread in general.

If this wasn't directed at me, just ignore this post!


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 12, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > WTF are you talking about?  When did this become about the founding of the country?
> ...



The argument about what nation in history has been most prosperous is dependent upon the criteria you use.  If area of land controlled or % of population are part of the nation are involved, the US is certainly not at the top of the list.  If it is a matter of who controls the most wealth, I don't know how we would rank...especially considering the differences in economies over time.  If personal liberty is the criteria, certainly, the US goes at the top.  I don't know how it requires a lack of integrity to wonder what criteria one uses to determine what makes a nation prosperous.

I also did not lump the US as an empire, I merely stated that some of the empires of the past might be considered to have been more prosperous than the US.

Your comments about fabricated history have nothing to do with my post.  I said nothing about the Cherokee, or that the US has not been a great example of nation of liberty.

I was using logical4u's own words in the quote about people working in the past.  You asked about non-Christian communities in the 19th century, but skipped the part about only Christians working hard, building schools, etc.  My point was simply that he seemed to be saying only Christians did any work in this country, I couldn't name any non-Christian communities to hold up as admirable.

Feel free to show the fabrications of history I've stated, rather than the ones you've created and assigned to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 12, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> I dunno, Gore seems to have the scamming business mastered a little better, I'll get ahold of him first .



It won't work.

Al doesn't share!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 12, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> The argument about what nation in history has been most prosperous is dependent upon the criteria you use.  If area of land controlled or % of population are part of the nation are involved, the US is certainly not at the top of the list.



Those are not measures of prosperity. Some might argue that they are measures of success, but prosperity? Hardly.



> If it is a matter of who controls the most wealth, I don't know how we would rank...especially considering the differences in economies over time.  If personal liberty is the criteria, certainly, the US goes at the top.  I don't know how it requires a lack of integrity to wonder what criteria one uses to determine what makes a nation prosperous.



"The measure of the prosperity of a nation is the fortunes of the least among them." - Lord Byron.

Name society in history where commoners have enjoyed more comforts and freedom for starvation or disease than the USA? You can't, as none exists. 

I understand, people will not agree to transform a society which is arguably successful. The only means of ending the free republic and returning to the authoritarian norms that dominate human history is to convince the foolish masses that their personal fortunes will rise if the cede liberty to a willing ruling class. Ergo the impetus to rewrite history, casting the Americans as villains.



> I also did not lump the US as an empire, I merely stated that some of the empires of the past might be considered to have been more prosperous than the US.



Successful is not a synonym of prosperous.



> Your comments about fabricated history have nothing to do with my post.  I said nothing about the Cherokee, or that the US has not been a great example of nation of liberty.



The claim that other nations have a more prosperous history is a fabrication.



> I was using logical4u's own words in the quote about people working in the past.  You asked about non-Christian communities in the 19th century, but skipped the part about only Christians working hard, building schools, etc.  My point was simply that he seemed to be saying only Christians did any work in this country, I couldn't name any non-Christian communities to hold up as admirable.



Like it or not, the United States was a Christian country. Regardless of a smattering of Deists, the nation was built by Christians.

This is important, too. It is the concepts of Christian liberty which the nation is founded on. The ideas of Jesuits, Luther, Wesley, et al, that man is sovereign and answerable to his God rather than to kings or dictators are the libertine foundation that this experiment in freedom was built on. America could not have arisen without the overwhelming Christian presence of the 18th century.



> Feel free to show the fabrications of history I've stated, rather than the ones you've created and assigned to me.



The fabrication of a more prosperous nation.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And how many years ago?
> 
> And did they not develop their theories under Christian rule?



They may have developed those theories with the help of the church, but they also had to keep their findings secret or they'd be branded as heretics.  Yeah, someone can help you out at the beginning, but they can still screw you at the end, which is what the Church did to Copernicus and Galileo.

DaVinci also had to hide a lot of his research, most notably his studies on anatomy as the Church said it was illegal to cut up the dead.  Sadly, if DaVinci had been able to publish his findings back then, we'd probably all be living to around 150, because it wasn't until the LATE 1990's that Gray's Anatomy (recognized world wide by doctors as the most complete source of anatomy since it started to be published) finally caught up with where DaVinci was back in the 1400's.

Try again Krusty Twit.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 12, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The argument about what nation in history has been most prosperous is dependent upon the criteria you use.  If area of land controlled or % of population are part of the nation are involved, the US is certainly not at the top of the list.
> ...



I'll skip most of this as it's not anything I disagree with strongly.  I will stick to the idea that the criteria for what makes a prosperous nation is your Byron quote.  If, when saying the US is the most prosperous nation in history, one were to use that quote as your definition for criteria, that would be fine.  However, in the discussion I was having with logical4u, he did not make such a distinction.  The definition of prosperous generally involves wealth and/or success.  How one determines that is open to argument, as I said.  You are using your own (or at least Byron's) definition of prosperity of nations and assuming everyone else must be using the same.

So, offhand, I don't know of another nation that would be more prosperous than the US by the Byron definition.  To say that I am creating historical fabrications, based on my statements about the US as the most prosperous nation in history, where the definition of what makes a nation prosperous isn't clearly defined, is ludicrous.  You seem to be projecting what you imagine my thoughts on the subject are onto me, rather than reading what I actually say about it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I see. So Luther was an athiest by your definition. So a Diest is an athiest by your definition. In fact, all the religious people of today are athiest by your defintion since they left the worship of older Gods for the present Dieties. Really, Aphroditie was a lot more fun.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 16, 2012)

The Dragon Talking: The Devil and Dualism: or, Having One's Cake and Eating It, Too


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 16, 2012)

All religions are based on faith.  Faith requires an open-mind.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 16, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> All religions are based on faith.  Faith requires an open-mind.



In some instances, in some instances if you're going to take everything from a holy book as 100% fact, you have to have a closed mind.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 16, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > All religions are based on faith.  Faith requires an open-mind.
> ...



This illustrates the difference between faith and dogma. Faith is not belief, or perhaps one could say that it's belief in, not belief that. It's trust, willingness to go to sleep at night in confidence of  waking in the morning, to put one's foot forward into uncertainty, to trust in the universe to allow one's survival and happiness.

Dogma is not faith. It is merely a crutch for faith, which some need and others do not.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 16, 2012)

Wow. 

Dropping acid today? That's a variance from the norm, isn't it?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 18, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Good one (you are speaking with reason, and I am on an "emo" rant)!  I will pretend that I am not talking to you (chicken neck and snap).

Christianity is a HUGE part of our history.  Pretending it isn't shows that logic and reason are foreign to you.

I did not say that others did not work (hard or otherwise).  I pointed out that during the first two hundred years (and parts of it for a hundred years before that), this nation was predominantly Christian, with Christian (Judeo) values.

Today, way too many people ignore/reduce/replace those values and embrace corruption (our current senate and administration) to take/steal/tax the wealth that the predominantly Christian society built.  They claim the care about the working man and then ridicule Christians that are selected time and time again for their work ethic (it shows in the resume), and their productivity (kind of ironic, don't you think?).

I suggested that some other groups show up the Christian communities to make SOME people think (that God given ability to reason).  Theoretically, those communities would be "just as good", as Christian communities... yet, time and time again, that is not the case.  Homosexual neighborhoods are no place to take little children after dark (Why, if they are just the same?).  Neighborhoods where the churches have closed down are not safe to walk (many during the day, Why?)  Predominantly muslim communities may harrass women for wearing "unacceptable" clothing (why, are their values the same?)

I cannot tell you how many places that I have been to where a Christian couple could not have children (and some cases where they did), that made great fortunes and invested it in their property (later donated or opened the property to the public) and their community (Hershey, PA) to improve a small part of the world where they lived (BTW, none of those properties were developed and landscaped by the "poor").  Can you list the "non-Christians" that do things like that?

And, yes, I realize that there are exceptional people from all faiths (and a few, very few that have NO faith).  I am just pointing out that living with Christian values tends to improve the lives of everyone they touch.  The Lord promised blessings for those that followed Him.  If you ask a devout Christian if they are blessed, they can usually give you a list, and tell you that there are other blessings that they miss, everyday!  Those that live near Christians, tend to have those blessings shared in small ways, if not directly.  Salutations to the Lord, and hoping He will continue to bless this nation, and its people!


----------



## logical4u (Apr 18, 2012)

Widdekind said:


> (i want a Christian perspective, on the following questions)
> 
> First, i understand, that in *1095 AD*, acting in the Name of "God in heaven", Pope Urban II called for a "Crusade" against the Middle East, calling the Turks an "execrable" & "accursed" race; and that, ultimately, the "Crusades" have motivated Middle Easterners, _e.g._ Turks, ever since, to wage _Jihad_ against Europe, _e.g._ to conquer Constantinople.
> 
> ...




First, you need to understand that the "turks" invaded the ME, the area surrounding the Mediterranean, and northern Africa.  They were not "peacefully" spreading the will of Mohammed.  They were murdering, looting, and subjugating the populations as they moved.  The pope was asked for help, and he chose to give it (otherwise you would be speaking Arab and bowing to the east a bunch of times a day).  I know when it comes to religion, self-preservation/defense is considered irrational.

Second: no one has had " the Gospel shoved down their throat", long ago, that was considered a horrible waste of the written Word, and today, there really is no need.  Speaking to some one about what works for you is not "forcing" them to do anything (verses the muslims that bring food to a starving family and demand "fealty").  I understand that it is "convenient" to blame Christians while ignoring the Arab and Black slavers that sold to whites (one was the non-Christian man that wrote Amazing Grace if you want an interesting story).  You are also ignoring that "gov'ts" used "faith" as an excuse (because the population was illiterate about what was actually in the Bible, a situation that is being repeated today) to do terrible deeds.


You are also ignoring the "missions" that have existed since our Savior, Yeshua, rose from the dead and invited the Holy Spirit to bless His apostles.  How many of them have saved people from starvation, improved lives, and communities, and given people with no chance, hope?  Just do an internet search of Christian charities, and compare to any other group you choose.  What is the ratio?  A thousand to one, ten thousand to one?

I have never claimed that I met a perfect Christian.  I am stating that "overall", the people that live according to Christian values (recognize there is a "Lord" that is the alpha and the omega, honor you parents, do not take what is not yours, do not bear false witness/deceive, do not murder) are more prosperous, and happier than people that live according to other beliefs.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Believing I said that Christianity was not a huge part of our country's history shows reading comprehension is foreign to you.  I have not and will not deny that the US has been a majority-Christian country throughout it's history.  As such, it is only reasonable to assume a majority of our leaders have held Christian values of one stripe or another (no need to get into my opinion of politicians here ).

I bolded what you actually posted, but here it is again, "The Christians were the ones that worked hard, formed communities, built churches, schools, hospitals, and staffed them."  Perhaps you meant something else, but it certainly seems like you are saying Christians worked while others did not.

I don't think the current administration is so much more inimical to Christianity than any others in recent times.  I think that is more of a wedge issue, more of one of the talking points that politicians and political parties like to make a big deal about, but that isn't a good reflection of reality.  That doesn't mean there might not be a little bit of anti-Christian sentiment in the current administration, just that it isn't some huge difference.

Again, as far as non-Christian communities go, just the extreme prevalence of Christianity in this country makes finding such a community a difficult proposition.  And, as previously stated, simply looking at the religious beliefs of a community is disingenuous at best when comparing it to another community.  One would need to look at size, population, resources, political leanings, age, and any number of other variables to be able to say confidently that religious belief alone is the reason for success.

I don't know anyone that has made a 'great fortune'.  However, I doubt that only Christians, among the wealthy, are charitable or invest in their community.  But you know what, I'll just accept your anecdotal evidence here.

I liked your little dig that only a very few people without faith are exceptional.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 18, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lol you're absolutely adorable.  Like a little kitten playing with yarn!  Same level of intellect too.
> 
> I don't want any religious beliefs sponsored by gov't, yours, mine, or Scooby Doo's.  If you want to build a million churches across America who spread your loving ideas of bigotry, evolution is a tool of Satan, and how everyone who disagrees with you is a disciple of Hitler, I want you to have that freedom.
> 
> However your hero Fred Phelps seems to have beat you to it.



Why is it, when it is pointed out, how turning away from the Lord causes many problems and turning to the Lord reduces problems, that a small percentage of "believers" (not sure what they believe, but they are against Christianity) want to declare that it is the same as "gov't sponsored religion"?  Where did I or anyone else suggest that?  Is this just a dodge technique because the Truth (and the Light) scares you soo much?

Please don't make things up and give some evidence on these utopia-like places that do not practice Christian values.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 18, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > All religions are based on faith.  Faith requires an open-mind.
> ...



If you do so without pondering and applying the principles, you are correct.

But when said book or books tell you exactly how you can learn whether the principles they are teachings are true. And you have to choose whether to try them out or not, then you have to have an open mind if you are going to learn, arent you?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 18, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.
> ...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lol you're absolutely adorable.  Like a little kitten playing with yarn!  Same level of intellect too.
> ...



Honestly, I can't really blame him for thinking that any time we suggest doing better, we want the government to enforce it. The fact that the progressives have polluted our culture with the idea that the only way ideas can be implimented is through government is hard to ignore, even when we realize that isnt true.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 18, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And you claimed Logical had deviated from the topic, too.
> ...



How are their cases any different from George Zimmerman ?  You have a small group that disagrees with decisions made, that are demanding a sacrifice.  Those in power recognize to keep order, the beast (mob, a small percentage of the population) must be fed, in order to keep relative order in other areas.  

Yes there were instances where the church's leaders did terrible things (and some even claimed that they were doing it for the Lord).  Overall, the evils that these people did were rejected by the church and its members.  The church is soo different that socialists/communists/liberals/progressives/leftists/homosexual activists/muslim extremists/environmentalist activists (choose one, they all act the same) in that they have actually learned from their mistakes and work towards correcting those mistakes so that they do not happen again.  Unlike the above lists, that waits until a new generation is vulnerable and pulls out the same lame methods of coercion to deceive people into bowing to their "chosen" (dictator or gov't).


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The church has had some bad leaders, but the church and it's members have mostly been good.  Further, the church is constantly changing to become better.  But your list of 8 different groups, some of which are diametrically opposed, are all exactly the same and never change?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 19, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I'm arguing the exact opposite of what you just said.  I don't want gov't sponsored religion in gov't, fundies do, as long as it's their beliefs.

If you think the country would be better if everyone was a christian and/or a mormon and want society to become that, that's fine.  I wouldn't agree, but rest assured the last thing i want is gov't sponsored religious views.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2012)

No, you're not.

You want the government to control religion. And that is unconstitutional.

But don't let a little thing like the Constitution stop you.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2012)

"State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[10] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[11] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[12][13][14] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[15] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion."

State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, you're not.
> 
> You want the government to control religion. And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> But don't let a little thing like the Constitution stop you.



I understand me repeatedly stating the exact opposite does you no good, as the voices in your head tell you I'm saying somethign else.

I repeat, I want you to have the freedom to build as many churches as you want and they can even spread as many of your hateful messages as you want.  Build one on every piece of private property, builld them in a circle around my property.  Have every citizen standing outside shouting Bible verses at the top of their voices 24/7/365.  Have our gov't only filled with christians, well that already happens but you get the point.  

And I repeat again, I'm just as against the gov't endorsing my beliefs as I am yours.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2012)

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

Don't feel bad, there isn't a progressive in the world who understands that.


----------



## Wolverine1984 (Apr 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[10] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[11] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[12][13][14] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[15] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion."
> 
> State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



State atheism - the best possible outcome for any modern country that wants to advance values of mutual respect ,tolerance and freedom.

In my opinion, separation between state and religion will do wonders for any country.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2012)

Yes, let's consider the examples of state atheism in terms of mutual respect, tolerance, and freedom....

China, Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Czechoslavakia, Cuba...

all examples of state atheism.

You're a lying pig, in other words.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 19, 2012)

From the Founding Fathers themselves



> As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...
> 
> US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797



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


----------



## Vidi (Apr 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



To the OP:

Youre equating Christians with the power structure of the church. Its a false equiviliency.

Christians are not oppsed to freedom, religious or otherwise. Its a small very vocal segment that opposes such things. 

Youre statement is overly generalized and damning of an entire faith as opposed to directed at those actually responsible.

By doing so, you force those who would agree with you to spend time defending the Faith rather than attacking the actual culprits.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2012)

Vidi said:


> From the Founding Fathers themselves
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That was a concilatory missive to Muslims.

And incidentally, I do believe there's some question about it's validity.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Those groups use the same methods (some to different degrees) to "deceive" others into "serving" their personal greed.  They all believe that the world should be run according to "their" chosen leader, and that everyone else must submit to their way of thinking.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Wolverine1984 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[10] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[11] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[12][13][14] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[15] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion."
> ...



How DID that work out in the Soviet Union?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Vidi said:


> From the Founding Fathers themselves
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm!  This country is not founded on "the" Christian religion.  It is founded on Judeo/Christian values and beliefs (the Christian religions all have different forms of "governance": the pope, the king of England, collections of bishops, etc).  Please understand that treaty gave no opening for the muslims to RE-START a "jihad" against the USA based on "religion".  Maybe comprehension isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Do Christians not think the world should be run according to their chosen leader (if you consider Jesus a leader)?  Do all of the groups listed think everyone else *must* submit to their way of thinking, or would they just like to get people to think as they do?  I'd imagine most Christians believe others *should* think as they do, at least in some respects.

I think you may be looking at (basically) the same things in a different light when it pertains to your religion and when it pertains to groups you disagree with.  I also think you are trying to find similarities in groups that have little in common in order to lump them together when you demonize them, while ignoring anything in Christianity that might be similar as well.

I'm not promoting any of the groups you've mentioned, nor am I denying that each of them has members that are crazy and/or evil bastards.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > From the Founding Fathers themselves
> ...




Maybe. But I comprehend enough to know a 3rd grade history whitewash when I see it. Carry on.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The difference "should be": Christianity is a choice (those that do not choose to follow the Lord or only go thru the motions will not have the peace of those that feel passionately).  In our society Judeo/Christian values are "enforced" to keep the peace (murder, theft, kidnapping, etc).  The faith is not enforced.  The worship is not enforced (most Christians will tell you that it is impossible to force someone to love the Lord).  Yeshua is not our leader.  He will be the King and He will be the Judge, but now, He sits at the right hand of His Father waiting for when He comes as the Enforcer.  

We try to follow His example.  Most people read self-help books or follow the example of someone they admire.  That does not make that person their "leader".

The other "groups" require the resources of others to fund their ideals:
liberals/progressives/socialists/communists/islamic extremists/environmentalists all require that those with wealth (or property) have that wealth taken from them (by force if necessary).
Homosexual activists require access to the most vulnerable: your children.  They are not interested in spreading their 'beliefs' among adults (the nursing homes are full of captive audiences).  They want "your children" to be their sexual play toys with no responsibility to the parents, no responsibility for the destruction of the family, just open access.

In those groups, a relatively large percentage are willing to "sacrifice" (murder) those that will not oblige them (one of Bill Ayers associated groups was okay with eliminating 10% of the population to convince the survivors they should serve, "willingly".  Muslim extremists, do I really need to state what they do to keep the "faithful"?

You are right.  I do look at these things in a different "Light".  I am reading parts of the Bible.  I am amazed at how many of the above are described in detail with their plans, and their methods for tricking/deceiving people to turn away from the Lord.  If you are interested, start with Proverbs.  The "common purse" is socialists/liberals/progressives/communists/etc form of "governence" (subjugation).

At this time in history, with so many Bibles available, I am amazed at how many people choose not to read what is written.  They take the word of one of the deceivers for what is written in the Bible without question, without research.  The Bible is the original "self-help" Book.  It is ridiculous how many people "choose" to ignore the lessons there.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Vidi said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Will you name me the leader of the Christian religion?
Is that the same leader for Protestants, Puritains, Quakers, Menonites, Omish, Baptists, 7th Day Adventists, Presbyterians, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, Methodists, etc, etc, etc?
We are not playing dodgeball.  There is a huge difference in being a predominantly Christian nation and modeling the gov't after the Christian religion.  I guess you choose to ignore facts.

BTW, understand that treaty was made because of muslim aggression in those times (they were the reason Jefferson developed a NAVY).  Think about it, how do you deal with people that teach it is okay to deceive those that do not believe as you do?  How do you make a treaty with people that do not respect the same God that you do?  Do you bring religion into it, or do you do everything you can to "neutralize" the situation?  Maybe you will explain to me how the muslim ships pirating our ships were really misunderstood poor people that really did not mean to enslave the ships' crews.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Let's just ignore Islamic extremists; being extremists, of course they are going to have all sorts of issues.  I won't argue with you about them in particular.

As far as homosexuals going after the young, Christianity certainly does the same thing.  So does any other group that wants their ideas to be spread as far as possible and last as long as possible.  It's only common sense that the younger you get someone to agree with an idea, the longer they will be able to be on your side, possibly helping to spread whatever your message is, especially to any children they end up having.  When you say homosexuals want children to be sexual playthings, you are just full of shit.  I may as well say Christians want your children to be brainwashed slaves.  It's an extremist, reactionary statement designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than a reasoned statement backed by evidence.  If you are opposed to homosexuality that's fine.  Don't pretend that homosexuals are all out to rape your children or anything like that just because you don't like their lifestyle.

To the point of groups requiring others to fund their ideals, I think you mistake being able to have others do so with needing them to.  There are enough people who fit into at least some of the groups in this country that they could fund organizations through donations or fees from members if they had to; that doesn't mean they won't get money however they can in other ways, though.  A minor point perhaps.

The extremists of many groups would be willing to kill or sacrifice lives to further their cause.  That's part of what makes them extremists!  There are Christian extremists who are willing to kill.  I'll happily admit that, in today's world, they are far, far less frequent than many other groups.  That doesn't change the fact that you are basically calling anyone who is a liberal or progressive or socialist or communist or homosexual activist an extremist.  That's painting with an awfully broad brush.

I would guess that, to some extent at least, you are not finding the bible accurately depicting some of the groups you mention, but rather you are ascribing qualities to groups that don't exist in order for them to more closely resemble biblical descriptions.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 19, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



How is teaching children in elementary school that having sex ANY way you choose and with whomever you want, not indoctrinating?  (BTW, I did differentiate that this is being done by homosexual activists, not all homosexuals)  How is teaching children that sex is okay for at any age, and if you don't want your parents to know, we can arrange free birth control?

Christians teach their children to be productive members of society, please tell me again how that compares to the pedophilia mentioned above?  Does it bother you that Christians teach their children that there is right and wrong?  In the next election will you be voting for someone to control your tax dollars that was convicted of embezzlement?

Why is it when some one points out the differences between Christian morals and other ways that always end up in total corruption, the Christian ways are ridiculed?  Don't you ever get sick of the fraud, the abuse, the deceit (the GSA type scandals) that surface where ever morals are ignored and suppressed?

What is being able to versus needing them to?  Is one a less obvious type of coercion (it is still force)?  If you are against idividual rights, then you are for coercion, period.  If people are not "allowed" to keep what they have made, and it is "re-distributed" against their will, how does that benefit society?  Did anyone pay attention to what happens when the wealth is handed out freely?  Hint, it is wasted and destroyed, and then when people need it, there is nothing.  I can understand that you think I am harsh for thinking this way, but if a whole bunch of us don't start thinking about what we will be "forced" to give to the gov't to pay its debts, the gov't will continue to make that bill larger and larger.  Do you really want to see what happened in Rome: once they could not collect the burdensome taxes, they started selling the citizens that didn't have the money into slavery?  What do you think those in DC are willing to do to us?  They are already looking to the UN to rule over us.  The President is disregarding congress for Constitutionally defined duties, usurping their power and making the Presidency more of a dictatorship.  Just when do you want to stop the corruption?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



As to the question on your first paragraph?  Having sex with who you choose isn't indoctrination.  Telling people that they can have sex only with those who are of the opposite sex is.

Does it bother me that Christians teach their children about right and wrong?  Not really, but it depends on how they do it.  If you teach an open mind and to love God above all else and to love one another as you love God (as Jesus taught), then yeah, I have no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is those that teach homosexuals are to be persecuted, that you have to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (which leaves out a LOT of others, such as the Jews (God's Chosen), the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindus, etc), as well as saying that you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe as they do.

I've got news for you..............if you were born, you can't be eternal, because that means that you're damned even before you're born, because if you're in someplace for eternity, that means you've always been and always will be.  If you can't live and choose, why should you be damned for eternity?

As far as "Christian morals"?  How are they any more "moral" than the Native Americans?

As far as the last part?  Didn't Christ Himself take care of the poor?


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Did Christ help those that were capable of helping themselves?  I believe there are many things said about that in the Bible as well.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 20, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Teaching "children" that it is okay for "children" to participate in sex is wrong (I don't care what kind of sex, but it seems where this IS taught, that homosexual and beastiality is included as acceptable).  This is far different than facts: if you have multiple sexual partners you are more likely: to have STDs, have an unwanted pregnancey, be a victim of sexual (violent) crime, have mental problems, etc.  Discipline in your life, should include all aspects, just because you WANT to eat a half gallon of Moose Tracks ice cream does not mean that you should/ just because you don't want to exercise, doesn't mean you shouldn't/ just because you think sex is great, doesn't mean that you should not CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES/ just because you want to steal something does mean that you should.


We have talked about judgement and facing the Lord.  I know that I have specifically addressed you on this matter, so please cut the "you will burn in hell crap", you never got that from me.  I did say that living in a sinful manner is unhealthy, and can cause those around you to suffer.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  Just in case you didn't get it the other multiple times: I believe (from Revelations) that at the last judgement, all sinners will kneel before the Lord.  If you believe/accept that He is the Lord, you will be punished for your sins (that means those that are not homosexual will be punished as well, for He IS a "just" Lord).  Once your punishment is served, you will be with the Lord.  If you curse Him, and deny Him and His authority, you will be "removed".  If that is throw into a firey pit for destruction, if it is living eternally in hell, I do not know.  Maybe we can talk about that after we receive our punishment.

Again, with the other religions (Native Americans)?  Some of them practiced human sacrifice or sent the old out to die.  Need I go on, or do you just look at the good parts and ignore the evils?

We get to "definitions".  Liberals ignore the abusers (people that take advantage of the system: they work under the table and collect gov't handouts at the same time).  Conservatives have no problem assisting people that are "helpless".  The widows, the orphans (different than children/women choosing to birth children from unsupportive fathers), the mentally handicapped (not the purposefully drugged children to collect more gov't handouts), the elderly, the physically handicapped (not the people that choose to be "too fat to work").
Liberals choose to "accept" the abuse and allow corruption to grow (all in the name of the needy).  Conservatives refuse to "accept" abuse, and protest the increase in gov't handouts (the percentage of population that is needy, stays about the same, why does the number "needing" help increase?).  One embraces CORRUPTION (decay, destruction, deceit, death), the other strives towards honor, justice, and personal integrity.  All of us have a choice, which will you embrace?  Which will demand in your elected officials?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Vidi said:


> From the Founding Fathers themselves
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's always fun to watch the desperate flailings of fundies as they try to "explain" away this document written and signed by founding fathers.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.



Not anti-christian, anti-hateful fundies of all religions.  Hence why we don't get long .

But you'll have to pick your strategy toots, either the Treaty of Tripoli is a great gov't conspiracy or our founders were a bunch of liars who were so cowardly they had to kowtow to muslims.  

Can't be both, pick one crazed fanatical view and stick to it.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 20, 2012)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Where is it that underage children are taught sex is good and they should do it?  I'd appreciate evidence rather than you making a baseless claim.  I'd also like evidence that these places accept bestiality.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 20, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I think I've brought this up multiple times before.  Your narrow definition of eternal is not the only one.  Something can have a beginning and still be eternal.  Something that goes on without end one way still goes on without end.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.
> ...



Have you ever read the founders letters, Drock?  I think you'd be in for a big surprise.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Sure have.  Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't.  I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is.  But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Most did and it's very evident in their writings.   I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington.  Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear.  So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Again. More slowly.

There is question about what the original document actually said, as it no longer exists. If it ever did.

It is generally understood and accepted, except for the particularly ignorant, that the clause was added because the MUSLIM PIRATES refused to recognize countries, or statesmen from countries, founded upon Christianity.

THE MUSLIMS RECOGNIZED US AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

So the statesmen lied to them, in order to facilitate continued dealings with them.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

And, incidentally, 8 years after the treaty was signed...that article was dropped.

Go figure.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Again. More slowly.
> 
> There is question about what the original document actually said, as it no longer exists. If it ever did.
> 
> ...



You still haven't narrowed down your choice.  You're simultaneously sticking with the gov't conspiracy theory and that our founders were a bunch of lying wussies who kowtowed to muslims.  Pick one and run with it.  

If you think the muslims recognized us as a christian gov't, then you must also recognize that gov't wanted to correct that view, and agreed to do so unanimously.

There's a reason you're so sensitive about it, it's a truth you don't like.  People get a lot angrier about those than they do lies.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



That means we weren't a theocrasy, I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp?  The Bill of Rights detailed it long before this treaty, it expresses religious freedom.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, it means "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



That's your opinion Drock, they 'said' the very same thing, that this country was not a theocrasy when they set up the Bill of Rights.  Government has no influence on religion, and religion has no influence on government/laws.  It doesn't mean that the values and virtues that were found in christianity weren't used to derive that very concept of religious freedom that we have to this day.  There is no force in christianity to conform that is not of your own free will.

P.S. If you read the founders writings, you would know/understand this.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, it's not opinion.  It's fact.  You're trying to replace the fact with your opinion because you don't like the fact.  

If it gives you comfort to believe this country was founded on christian principles, have at it.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



How is that 'fact'?    Sorry honey, but it's your opinion.    I don't have to 'believe', I can read their very own words, which you obviously have not.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

There's no point to discussing this anymore. Drock is lying, and we all know it. All the scholars know it. The founding fathers said ad nauseum that they structured our government using Christian tenets. They stated that our government wouldn't work unless applied to a Christian citizenry. 

We know what that article, which was removed a few years later (because it was inaccurate and simply put in to facilitate dealings with criminals who otherwise would continue to attack and steal from us, as a Christian country) does not negate the reality, and in fact no longer exists.

Next. Let Drock lie and whine about this all he wants. Our country foundation was not laid upon one article in a now-revised treaty meant to bring Muslim pirates to heel.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

*John Adams*

*Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States *

_t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.) 

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.) 

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)_


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



How is it a fact?  Cuz it's what the document says.  You're not just reading the words, you're reading the words, and changing them to mean what you want them to mean.

Again that harms no one, so by all means believe it if you like.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted: 

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . *On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington&#8217;s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain*. By whom was this plan made? *Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. *Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . *But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests.* Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment&#8212;without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> *John Adams*
> 
> *Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States *
> 
> ...


_

I've already agreed that some founders believe it was founded on christian principles, some didn't.

If you and kosher prefer to pretend it's a black and white, all or nothing thing, like I said go ahead.  It isn't accurate, but it harms no one._


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

No, it's not what the document says.

That article was removed 8 years later. The document doesn't say that.

You lie. And you fail.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Fisher Ames 

Framer of the First Amendment 

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > *John Adams*
> ...


_

It's not 'some', it's most._


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton 

Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


_

Except the president and unanimous congress who signed the treaty.

Have a great weekend guys ._


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Benjamin Franklin 

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence 

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. ) 

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth,* that God governs in the affairs of men*. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that *"except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel*: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

*I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.*


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You have your head in the sand, hope you don't sufficate.


----------



## Newby (Apr 20, 2012)

Benjamin Rush 

Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

*The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.*

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.) 

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.) 

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.) 

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
He knows what he's doing, he's just lying.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 20, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



....."Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex.

The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices.
..."  Mandatory Sex Ed Details May Be Too Racy for Parents: Report | NBC New York

".....
Michael Sudlow, a parent of a 16-year-old student there, called the play semi-pornographic and too torrid to describe in print for a family newspaper.

"Except for one passing reference to abstinence, they centered on 'safe sex' and included dildos, male and female condoms and how to use them, explanations about oral sex and a Saran Wrap condom alternative," Sudlow said. "We were really shocked at the audacity of the school to show that kind of stuff."

Sudlow said his son saw one girl try to leave the assembly but was detained until she called her mother. The son was too embarrassed to even tell his mother about the program, said Sudlow, who works in the admissions office at Brigham Young University-Hawai'i.
...." Sex education play upsets Kahuku parents, students | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper

...."When she picked up her 12-year-old son at Hardy Middle School last Tuesday afternoon, "Susan" knew something was wrong. Her son looked "disturbed," his father said later. Susan asked her son what had happened at school. A test had been given in a health/physical education class filled with 7th-grade boys and girls.

One classmate called it a "sex test."

"What is your gender?" was the first question. The choice of answers:

a) Male
b) Female
c) Transgender (M to F)
d) Transgender (F to M)

The 12-year-old was slightly bewildered. He noticed other children seemed confused.

The questions became more graphic:

"How sure are you that you....

...Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV.
...Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex.
...Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner.
...Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex.
...Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex."

The 12-year-old, even more confused, asked an instructor about some of the terms. "What is this? I don't know what this is," he told the facilitator. Children ventured guesses as the instructor -- brought in on a DCPS contract -- started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex."

Susan (not her real name) called her husband at the office. She was practically in tears. He was outraged.

Other parents heard about the "sex test" from their kids. "The school is making us take a sex survey," one child told his mother.   ...."
Parents upset by "sex test" at Hardy Middle School | The Georgetown Dish

"...A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old.  ...............The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes. ..................."

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents | Fox News

"........SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against) after a Republican-sponsored amendment to require parental permission failed 26-48. The bill was sponsored by lesbian activist state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a former actress who is the driving force behind the legislative homosexual agenda. Earlier this month, in the face of a promised veto by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Kuehl removed a portion of the bill that would have forced all California public schools to teach the "history and achievements" of homosexuals in America. ........."
Concerned Women for America - California Law Makers Approve K-12 Pro-Homosexual School Bills

You can do your own research if that isn't enough examples.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 20, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Which Christian religion?   They cannot say that it is founded on "the" Christian religion.  That is a disputed title, that has not been settled to this day.  This country was founded on Christian principals and Christian values, and Christian morals.  It was not modeled after the leadership of the Catholic church, the Presbyterian church, the church of Latter Day Saints or any other Christian religion.

They were dealing with muslims..... their religion is their gov't.  It is "founded" on islam.  They cannot associate/deal/treaty with other "religions".  Its okay, I know you won't "get it".


----------



## logical4u (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted:
> 
> There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . *On the 1st day of May [1789], Washingtons first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain*. By whom was this plan made? *Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. *Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . *But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests.* Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentimentwithout a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.






They have eyes, but they do not see.... they have ears, but they do not hear....


----------



## logical4u (Apr 20, 2012)

Newby said:


> Benjamin Rush
> 
> Signer of the Declaration of Independence
> 
> ...



Wonder why so many in gov't are trying to make a nation of Biblical illiterate subjects (versus citizens)?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 20, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Not surprisingly, none of your links showed that kids are being taught to have sex.  Also not surprisingly, none of your links had a single thing to do with bestiality that I saw.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Look, another progressive who doesn't know what constitutes "teaching" and "learning".

That explains so much.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Look, another progressive who doesn't know what constitutes "teaching" and "learning".
> 
> That explains so much.



logical4u specifically said teaching.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## sublime (Apr 20, 2012)

People who pass judgement on others and condemn them to hell are guilty of sin. They are not good Christians, they do not follow God's commandments and they should learn to hate the sin but love the sinner. 

I always love b!tch slapping a so called religious person who is on their high horse of condemnation. 

Sin is sin.....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Again. More slowly.
> ...


 
Not at all.

You make assumptions that have no feet. I don't think the founders were lying wussies. I think they stuck that clause in because otherwise the Muslim pirates wouldn't sign the treaty. And eight years later, the article was removed.

I don't recognize that the government wanted to "correct" the view that we were a Christian country. Yet another leap of fancy that has nothing to do with anything. 

And I'm not sensitive about it at all. Pointing out your half-assed logical fallacies is amusing.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

sublime said:


> People who pass judgement on others and condemn them to hell are guilty of sin. They are not good Christians, they do not follow God's commandments and they should learn to hate the sin but love the sinner.
> 
> I always love b!tch slapping a so called religious person who is on their high horse of condemnation.
> 
> Sin is sin.....


 
Thank you for that irrlevant tidbit.

I like macaroni.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Look, another progressive who doesn't know what constitutes "teaching" and "learning".
> ...


 
Whoosh.

I know what he said.

My point is that you don't know what constitutes teaching.

I'm pretty sure I said that.


----------



## sublime (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> > People who pass judgement on others and condemn them to hell are guilty of sin. They are not good Christians, they do not follow God's commandments and they should learn to hate the sin but love the sinner.
> ...



You are one of the worst kinds of sinners.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Liking macaroni is a sin?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 21, 2012)

No, - well. He might be wrong. You may very well be mentally ill, in which case, no sin is involved.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

I don't recall condemning anyone to hell.

Could you link that? I think you're affording me a little more power than I have, but if you think I did, well, just show me where and I'll play along.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Sorry, since there was clearly no teaching children to have sex, I assumed you were saying that they were learning it anyway.  That at least would have made some sense.  Apparently, instead, you think that somewhere in those links there was actually examples of children being taught they should have sex.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

No, not clearly. And you shouldn't assume. I said what I said, it's written right there. You are free to change my words, but lying about what I was saying doesn't mean I really said anything like that.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, not clearly. And you shouldn't assume. I said what I said, it's written right there. You are free to change my words, but lying about what I was saying doesn't mean I really said anything like that.



Sucks when they turn your game around on you, dunnit.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 21, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





If you are telling a child how to make pancakes, don't you think the child is going to try to make pancakes?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 21, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If you are "explaining" what sexual positions are used, the different types of sex, and the differents partnering in sex, what do you call that????  And please be specific.
If someone brought a handgun into a class room and proceeded to "explain" how to load, clean and shoot it, would you say the students were being taught how to handle a gun?  What is the difference?  Corruption never "starts" large.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 22, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, not clearly. And you shouldn't assume. I said what I said, it's written right there. You are free to change my words, but lying about what I was saying doesn't mean I really said anything like that.
> ...


 
When that happens, I'll let you know.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No you won't. You're in denial.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 22, 2012)

Not at all.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 24, 2012)

Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days for a funeral, wasn't around to reply.

I'm just going to make a quick post here.

Teaching someone how to do something is not the same as teaching them they should do it.  That seemed to be your argument logical....kids are being taught to have sex, not being taught how.  So, my counter is that they are not being taught to do it.  That doesn't mean I approve of any of the things being taught, but it does draw a line between saying something like, "It's better for you not to have sex, but if you do, here's how to be safe" and saying, "Go have sex!  Here's how!".

kg, the same point applies to you.  I'm not commenting on what the kids may be learning but what the teaching is specifically.  You used both terms in your original comment to me.  I won't deny that kids will, after being taught about sex, decide to go have sex.  I'm denying any evidence that schools are teaching them they should go out and do it.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

Kids are being taught to have sex...not being taught how?

WTF?

The schools dont' teach them they SHOULD go out and do it. The schools teach them that they're EXPECTED to go out and do it.


----------



## kawserahmed (Apr 25, 2012)

jodylee said:


> The free thinking man that discovered fire and learnt to cook food, the free thinking hunter that used his magnificent brain the create tools, the free thinker that decided to settle down and farm crops and keep  live stock, thus creating civilisation, ALL SATAN'S SLAVES,



Who has said you that a free thinker ,.... .? If you are right then there is no one in the earth who is not free thinker.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days for a funeral, wasn't around to reply.
> 
> I'm just going to make a quick post here.
> 
> ...



Good perspective, like when someone tells their college age kid "if you're going to drink, don't drive", I wouldn't take that as an endorsement to drink.

Besides when you tell a kid explicitly not to do something, that often encourages them to do it.  I'll bet that's half the excitement for kids who grow up in fundamentalist households.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 25, 2012)

I do have a problem with the you shouldnt do, but if you do....because you are setting the expectation that if they do it there is no consequence. If there isnt a consequence, why not do it? you have to take time to explain stuff to your kids. For example, when I have kids, I'll teach them sex ed, I dont want the schools doing it. it's my job as a parent, not theirs. Same with drinking, drugs, ect.

you can teach them about sex and still say if you do this, then x might or might not happen, but if you do it, dont expect sympathy from me.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days for a funeral, wasn't around to reply.
> ...


 
YOU wouldn't...but most teens do. They think "so long as I have a driver, I can drink!"

I know because that's what all my friends did when they were growing up...when the push was first being made to focus on the driving aspect of drinking, instead of the drinking aspect. The kids whose parents said "IF you're going to drink, don't drive" were the ones who had big blow out parties at their house, whose parents bought the booze. It was going home from their parties that other kids died, in car wrecks, or from alcohol poisoning.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



There are loser parents who host those things yes I agree.  But I'm only 26, high school wasn't that far back for me.  Half the people who attended those parties were the kids of naive parents (like mine) who were so out of touch that a kid being out all night was never going to drink.  Half the kids who weren't allowed to drink or do anything cuz they had the hardcore moralist type parents were the ones who partied the hardest as a release.  

If an 18 year goes out and drinks 8 beers and gets drunk and falls asleep, no big deal.  If an 18 year old goes out, drinks and drives, that's a big deal.  IMO at least.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Only hardcore moralist parents forbid their underage children alcohol?

Interesting take.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Only hardcore moralist parents forbid their underage children alcohol?
> 
> Interesting take.



That's not what I said.

I'm talking about the ones who shelter their kids and ignore reality.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Short term memory loss sucks, I know.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



LOOK BELOW

*or do anything*

LOOK ABOVE

I see you still have your lie quota you have to fill per day.  

Since I just pointed out your blatant lie, it should be time to neg me and provide me with a childish insult you just heard in a 5th grade chat room.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Do you know what OR means?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Do you know what OR means?



or/ôr/Conjunction: Used to link alternatives: "a cup of tea or coffee"; "are you coming or not?". 

Take notice of the word ALTERNATIVE in the definition.  

So no, I wasn't just saying parents who forbid their children from underage drinking are hardcore moralist parents.

You knew that, lied, and hoped it wouldn't get pointed out.  SOP for AllieBaba/Koshergirl and whatever other names you've had on here.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

So you don't know what or means. 

Thanks for responding.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 25, 2012)

So you don't know how to read a definition when it doesn't fit your pre-determined parameters.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

"Conjunctions are simple words that allow you to connect two sentences without having to change any of the words in the original sentences:

and, but, nor, or, so, yet, for"

So when you use OR you are combining two complete sentences.

"Half the kids weren't allowed to drink cuz they had hardcore parents"
"Half the kids weren't allowed to do anything cuz they had hardcore parents"

combined:

Half the kids weren't allowed to drink OR do anything....

Get it? Hello?

What is wrong with people that they can look right at the definition of something and still not understand it?

PS..I tutored college English...at the request of the English department head.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/index.php?category_id=3&sub_category_id=4&article_id=76


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "Conjunctions are simple words that allow you to connect two sentences without having to change any of the words in the original sentences:
> 
> and, but, nor, or, so, yet, for"
> 
> ...



Rest assured I'm not going to believe a science denying, history revising liar when she starts blathering about her academic credentials.

Conjunctions

To suggest that only one possibility can be realized, excluding one or the other: "You can study hard for this exam or you can fail." 
To suggest the inclusive combination of alternatives: "We can broil chicken on the grill tonight, or we can just eat leftovers. 
To suggest a refinement of the first clause: "Smith College is the premier all-women's college in the country, or so it seems to most Smith College alumnae." 
To suggest a restatement or "correction" of the first part of the sentence: "There are no rattlesnakes in this canyon, or so our guide tells us." 


There's many uses of the word or, including how I used it.  Because you lied and tried to get the word to fit your predetermined assumption isn't my problem.

Now by all means, google search more word meanings and come on here and pretend to be an english tutor again if you must.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Yes? You're agreeing with me, you idiot.

Really. This is why you guys can't make an argument.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes? You're agreeing with me, you idiot.
> 
> Really. This is why you guys can't make an argument.



No I'm not, and I'm glad for your sake that you finally waved the white flag.

Turning into the grammar police, despite my very obvious explanation of my position, in an attempt to divert from the debate is what you did.


Your goal in every thread is to move as far away from rational discussion and as close to 6th grade name-calling and childish tantrum throwing as possible.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Not only are you stupidly arguing in the face of the evidence that you're wrong...

You're also describing yourself.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

And you have a poop dingleberry attached to every one of your posts. Take a brief sojourn to the WC and take care of that, would you? It's embarassing and smells bad.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And you have a poop dingleberry attached to every one of your posts. Take a brief sojourn to the WC and take care of that, would you? It's embarassing and smells bad.



This is Exhibit A of *"Your goal in every thread is to move as far away from rational discussion and as close to 6th grade name-calling and childish tantrum throwing as possible. "*




But nonetheless, have a great day .  If not for your own sake for the sake of those around you.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

The poop ball is distracting. Sue me. Besides, I made my point. I can't help it if you can't learn.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "Conjunctions are simple words that allow you to connect two sentences without having to change any of the words in the original sentences:
> 
> and, but, nor, or, so, yet, for"
> 
> ...



Your link seems to be about combining sentences rather than defining conjunctions or giving proper uses of the word 'or'.  The fact that you CAN combine two complete sentences with the word or obviously doesn't mean that's ALL you can do with it.  

As Drock also went on to try and clarify his point, your attempt to catch him in some sort of grammatical or defining error is fairly ridiculous.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Oh. My. God.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And you have a poop dingleberry attached to every one of your posts. Take a brief sojourn to the WC and take care of that, would you? It's embarassing and smells bad.



My goodness, that is some excellent and intellectual rebuttal type stuff right there.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 25, 2012)

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And you have a poop dingleberry attached to every one of your posts. Take a brief sojourn to the WC and take care of that, would you? It's embarassing and smells bad.
> ...



Logic would dictate that if she can smell it, she's the owner of said dingleberry. I'm guessing she has that 'not so fresh' feeling.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

The rebuttal is over. They're too stupid to recognize that they lost, so there's really no point in going anywhere except to potty humor.

Ultimately, it's all they understand.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Kids are being taught to have sex...not being taught how?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> The schools dont' teach them they SHOULD go out and do it. The schools teach them that they're EXPECTED to go out and do it.



No.   No they are not.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 25, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > PS, you ignoramus..."Freethinker" is a term for "atheist".
> ...



I think that everyone that doesn't agree with koshergrl is an atheist to her.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 25, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The rebuttal is over. They're too stupid to recognize that they lost, so there's really no point in going anywhere except to potty humor.
> 
> Ultimately, it's all they understand.



Really? And who bought up the potty humor. Yup. That'd be you.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 25, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The rebuttal is over. They're too stupid to recognize that they lost, so there's really no point in going anywhere except to potty humor.
> ...




Isn't it interesting how she admits it's all she understands?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 25, 2012)

bodecea said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Pretty damn precious, I have to admit!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 25, 2012)

Well that's a blatant lie.

I said it's all you understand. You don't understand the grammar, that's certain.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 26, 2012)

Banned now aye?  

Any guesses as to what her new name will be?

God_Loves_Me_Best

If_You_Disagree_With_Me_You're_Hitler

Female_Version_Of_Jesus


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Banned now aye?
> 
> Any guesses as to what her new name will be?
> 
> ...



Or maybe 
Poop_Dingleberries_U_Got_Em


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 26, 2012)

House rules state no discussing the bannees however - I'm sure it's temporary. After all, TM still lives here, and she's been in a revolving door of bannedness ever since my arrival last year.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 26, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Benjamin Rush
> ...


 It should be fine if religious education is optional, Christianity is not the only religion covered, and so long as students/teachers aren't forced to pray, or suffer discrimination if they don't.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 28, 2012)

No god.

No devil.

Deal with it.


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 28, 2012)

God is watching us, and not from such a distance as the song would have us believe, Mr. Huggy. 

But I won't be the one ask someone who can't deal with it to.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 28, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days for a funeral, wasn't around to reply.
> 
> I'm just going to make a quick post here.
> 
> ...




Why else would you teach someone "how to do something" if you did not intend for them to do it?  Is there any teaching that sex between children is WRONG?  Is there any teaching that CHILDREN should not have sex?  You are playing with words while ignoring the reality.  Children are "encouraged" by schools (we will get you birth control or even an abortion without your parents knowledge), hollywood (PG13 often has more sex than R movies), social shakers (lets have a depravity parade), the music industry (where girls and women are referred to as animals (not even individuals with minds), or derogatory body parts.  While you are concentrating on being "politically correct" the children of this country are being led to believe the way to achieve human "best" is to be other people's sex toy.  It is a sad state, and many good people are focused on the immediate future while the near future is disintegrating in front of us.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 28, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Only hardcore moralist parents forbid their underage children alcohol?
> ...



And these "reality" parents.... the ones that say "if" you are going to have sex, you should use protection (girl: put her on the pill).  Why not tell them that they do not have to have sex to be an awesome person?  Why not tell them that if they have sex, the consequences can be STDs, pregnancy (are you ready to be a parent, no, then don't have sex), or even death?  Why not explain to them that they can wait until "they" are ready with the appropriate person, the appropriate place, and the appropriate time?  Sex can be a very beautiful gift to someone you love or it can be an ugly act of subjugation.  Why not teach children that they "can" wait?  Why not teach them that they are not missing anything by enjoying childhood until they are ready to take on the responsibilities of adulthood?


----------



## logical4u (Apr 28, 2012)

hipeter924 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I understand your reluctance about religious teaching.  That was not what I said.  
The Bible is a great Book of learning.  There is story after story with history, ethics, personal developement and independent thinking.  It should be required reading (say Literature, you decide how to interpret what you read).  My reasoning is the history of the USA is tied to Biblical teaching, and if people (citizens) are going to discuss the Bible, they should know what books there are and how to find information.  Also, there are way too many political leaders that are quoting the Bible to MANIPULATE the public instead of spread "wisdom" (a gift of the Holy Spirit).  It would save trying to explain Biblical stories to those that are taking someone else's word for what is actually in the Bible.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 28, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days for a funeral, wasn't around to reply.
> ...



We were discussing schools, not entertainment.  Those are two completely different discussions.  Sex sells, so advertising and entertainment use that.

The reason to teach children about how to safely have sex is because the entirety of human history shows that some of them WILL have sex.  There is nothing that prevents teaching children about safety in sex while at the same time teaching them about the dangers and encouraging them NOT to have sex until they are adults.  I have not in any way said that I think children should be encouraged to have sex.  However, I realize the reality of the situation is that many of them will before they reach the age our society considers adulthood.  I think teaching the dangers involved in sex is great and should be a part of any sex ed class.  Pregnancy, STD's, these should play prominent roles.  I don't mind graphic descriptions or pictures of some of the worse possible outcomes (age appropriately) and I don't mind telling children they should wait until they are adults to make the decision to have sex.  

Just because I don't believe children are being taught that having sex is the best choice doesn't mean I'm against teaching them to wait.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 29, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> God is watching us, and not from such a distance as the song would have us believe, Mr. Huggy.
> 
> But I won't be the one ask someone who can't deal with it to.



So .... You are saying that your god is a stalker?

If I believed that the god you support is a stalker, I as any freedom loving American should take action to remove the existance of such an infringement and invasion of my privacy.

How does that song go again?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7P1i2HpwNI]Elton John -Burn down the mission (1970) Tumbleweed Connecti - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Marie888 (Apr 29, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > God is watching us, and not from such a distance as the song would have us believe, Mr. Huggy.
> ...




God a stalker?  hehe.  I'll give you one better....  He knows our _thoughts_.  Not just what we do on the outside; but knows the intentions of our heart.   God IS God and He is good. 


The Psalmist here is asking God to help him, to search his heart and find any wicked way in himself and lead him out of it.   Blatant honesty there.



> Psalm 139
> 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
> 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.




He knows everything we do and why we do it, even when we don't understand.



> Job 34
> 21 For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.
> 22There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.




Right, I know..you don't believe in Him?  You think of Him as something people made up to feel better at night?

For some, believing in God is probably more terrifying for them; as they will have to face Him one day and they don't like how He works, or that He knows us better than we know our own selves.   So therefore: Denial....one of the defenses we try to come up with to try to hide something.

However, when fully reading God's Word, and calling upon His Name, His Grace and love outweigh any of the things we fear from this "world", even ourselves.  Because we realize then our broken state; that we cannot help ourselves sometimes, and we need His loving help.

.


----------



## Marie888 (Apr 29, 2012)

I'll add to that:



> Exodus 34:14
> For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:




His Name is even "Jealous".    Not the "envy or coveting" as some would like to try to call it.
But He is ZEALOUS for us; His creation.  He LOVES us.  ALOT.  ALOT, alot, alot. 
We cannot even fathom, for we only see partially.  And we cannot even fathom what He has in store for those who love Him:



> 1 Corinthians 2:9
> But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.




.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



1.)  Never heard anyone, especially teachers in health class or parents talking to their teenage child, say having sex makes you an awesome person.  More hysterical diatribe.

2.)  Those conseqeuences are already said, repeatedly.  

3.)  Children are already taught they can and should wait.  

What do hardcore social conservatives think takes place in sex ed classes?  All out orgies?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Handing out or recommending condoms or some sort of birth control is like placing milk out in front of a cat and expecting him not to drink it.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Handing out or recommending condoms or some sort of birth control is like placing milk out in front of a cat and expecting him not to drink it.



I can't even believe you just said that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Handing out or recommending condoms or some sort of birth control is like placing milk out in front of a cat and expecting him not to drink it.
> ...



Really,that is what's going on. They say you shouldn't do this but if you are gonna do it use this.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

I know what's going on, I just can't believe you are faulting being prepared, rather than human nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I know what's going on, I just can't believe you are faulting being prepared, rather than human nature.



That should be taught in the home not at school. How is that being prepared ? Having sex is a choice you can choose to not do it or to do it, But by teaching protection is only encouraging sex.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



False, it's like putting a seatbelt in a car.

People are going to have sex, people are going to ride in cars, safety first.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I know what's going on, I just can't believe you are faulting being prepared, rather than human nature.
> ...



But it's NOT being taught in the home. Not if you were raised by fundamentalists. "Don't do it, or you'll go to hell" does nothing to protect someone whose brain just shut down on behalf of their hormones.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Doing right is about ethics not the threat of Hell and any Christian or anyone who studies the bible know what hell really is. Those who die all go to the grave which is hell.

I don't have a problem with schools teaching the negative effects from sex but don't condone it by offering protection tips if you decide to do it.

It is taught in our home. My daughter went to prom with a friend and she made it clear to her friend. First slow song he tried kissing her three times on the third time she told him no. She cut the prom early and came home.

Oh the first two times she ducked away from him making it obvious it was not gonna happen.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Yeah. I give up. The flashbacks are en route, I can see it now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



If young people listen to their conscience they won't do it. If they ignore their conscience they will do it. It comes down to ethics.

Having sex without having children does not save your life bad analogy.

If there was not sexual promiscuity we would not have such sexual diseases adults and kids would need protection from either.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Having sex does not equal promiscuity. How could you not know that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Having sex does not equal promiscuity. How could you not know that.



Having sex does lead to it. If that was not the case how did we get so many sexually transmitted diseases ? It is rare for young people to only have sex with one person once they have it.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Oh, now sex is a gateway to debauchery.

You know what causes promiscuity? Being molested as a child.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



False, because not everyone views premarital sex as wrong or immoral.  Actually almost no one does, and most the people who pretend to are hypocrites.  

Exactly, and I've never heard a sex ed teacher encourage sex.  Never once, that's another nightmare fairy tale social conservatives play in their heads that has nothing to do with reality.  They encourage protection for the inevitable which is why my seat belt analogy was a good one if i can pat myself on the back.  99.999999999% of kids will eventually have sex without the intention of having a child or getting an STD, whether that's at age 15, 20, 25 or 50 they should be educated on how to protect themselves. For the naive parents who think their kids are part of the .0000000001%, they should enroll their kids in a fundamentalist school.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yup! That way, when they are sexually active, they can be stood up in front of the entire congregation and made to apologize and repent.

Ask me how I know about that one.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Oh, now sex is a gateway to debauchery.
> 
> You know what causes promiscuity? Being molested as a child.



That can too,proving my point.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How do you know about that one ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Ok Doc i'll give you an example I am right. If it was not ethically and or morally wrong to have under age sex then why do most sneak around and or hide it ?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't tell people at work that I drink every weekend, and I don't think it's wrong (since i dont' drive).  

There's no point in telling people something like that.  If the wrong person finds out, let's say if the sexually active teens have fundamentalist parents or if I have a judgemental boss somewhere on the ladder, things could work out wrong.  Doesn't mean it's immoral.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, now sex is a gateway to debauchery.
> ...



How does that prove your point.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because it's supposed to be a personal, private thing?

Until we see married people boot knocking at their wedding reception, your point is invalid.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It happened to two friends of mine, in my home church. 35 years later, the humiliation remains strong.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That's sad, did they have to be re-baptized ?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



No. One left the church, the other carried on the crazy to the next generation.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



50/50 not bad, could've been worse.


----------



## logical4u (May 1, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



According to my nephew.... that it is really hard to get a girl pregnant (????)...  Read about some of the things being "forced" on children in schools, just the ones in the news where parents are trying to stop it.  Imagine how many other schools have stuff like that where the parents are unaware....  How many teachers now are being busted for pedophilia (teachers having sex with their students)?  Keep pretending there isn't anything wrong, and then expect different results....typical....


----------



## logical4u (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Having sex does not equal promiscuity. How could you not know that.



Do you have any statistics of how many sexual partners people have when they start having sex as children or are you just voicing your opinion?


----------



## logical4u (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Oh, now sex is a gateway to debauchery.
> 
> You know what causes promiscuity? Being molested as a child.



Yes, and in many cases the molesters are the ones "teaching" sex ed...


----------



## logical4u (May 1, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex 
See also: Fistgate Scandal In A Nutshell 

This is a reprint of a story which broke the Fistgate scandal in the May issue of Massachusetts News. We advise caution. Even though this is what the state is teaching to children as young as 12-years of age, it is extremely offensive. Over 1,000,000 citizens have now seen this story which was written by two of the outraged parents. 

By Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman 

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode." 

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000. 

On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.  

Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "professional development credits."  

Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were also there. 

To say that the descriptions below of workshops and presentations of this state-sponsored event for educators and children are "every parent's nightmare," does not do them justice. It is beyond belief that this could be happening at all. One music teacher who attended out of curiosity said that she could not sleep for several nights afterwards and had nightmares about it.  

"Queer sex for youth, 14-21" 
In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were: 

Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education 
Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education 
Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health 
The workshop syllabus included: 
"What's it like to be young, queer and beginning to date?  
"Are lesbians at risk for HIV? 
"We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met." 
The workshop opened with the three public employees asking the children "how they knew, as gay people, whether or not they've had sex." Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was "sex," to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, "If that's not sex, then the number of times I've had sex has dramatically decreased, from a mountain to a valley, baby." Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old: 

Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?" 
Student: [hesitation] 
Michael Gaucher: "Don't be shy, honey; you can do it." 
Student: "Your mouth." 
Michael Gaucher: "Okay." 
Student: "Your ass." 
Michael Gaucher: "There you go." 
Student: "Your pussy. That kind of place." 

But since sex occurred "when an orifice was filled," the next question was how lesbians could "have sex." Margot Abels discussed whether a dildo had to be involved; when it was too big or too small; and what homosexual resources students could consult to get similar questions answered. 

Role playing and "carpet munching" 
Then the children were asked to role-play. One student was to act the part of "a young lesbian who's really enraptured with another woman, and it's really coming down to the wire and you're thinking about having sex." The other student played the "hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to." The "counseling" included discussions of lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or "carpet munching," as one student put it. The student asked whether it would smell like fish. At that point the session turned to another subject. 

"A lesson in fisting?" 
There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What's fisting?" 

A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the ass or pussy" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don't make a fist like this. It's like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier. 

Margot Abels told the students that "fisting" is not about forcing your hand into somebody's "hole, opening or orifice" if they don't want it there. She said that "usually" the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience. 

At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn't sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting "often gets a really bad rap," it usually isn't about the pain, "not that we're putting that down." Margot Abels informed him and the class that "fisting" was "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." When a child asked the question, "Why would someone do this?" Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to "put them into an exploratory mode." 

"Rubbing each others' clits..." 
Michael Gaucher presented the next question, "Do lesbians rub their clits together?" 

Michael Gaucher and Margot Abels asked the kids if they thought it was possible and whether someone would do a "hand-diagram" for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who looked about 15 or 16 then stepped up to the board and drew a three foot high vagina and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and "put up inside the 'G'-spot." While drawing, Michael Gaucher told her to use the "pink" chalk, to which Margot Abels responded, "Not everyone is pink, honey." All of the children laughed. 

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked on the size of the "clit," and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then Margot Abels informed all of the young girls that, indeed, you can rub your "clitori" together, either with or without clothes and "you can definitely orgasm from it." Michael Gaucher told the kids that "there is a name for this: tribadism," which he wrote on the board and told one girl who looked about 14 to "bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford." Julie Netherland informed the children that it wasn't too difficult because, "When you are sexually aroused, your clit gets bigger." 

"Should you spit after you suck another boy (or a man)?" 
Michael Gaucher read the following from a card: "Cum and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns." Gaucher informed the children that although he didn't know the calorie count of male ejaculation, he has "heard that it's sweeter if people eat celery." He then asked the boys, "Is it rude not to swallow?" Many of the high school boys mumbled "No," but one about the age of 16 said emphatically, "Oh no!" One boy, again about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex by not brushing your teeth or eating course food for four hours before you "go down on a guy," "because then you probably don't want to be swallowing cum." 

Another question asked was whether oral sex was better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, "Yes," to which all of the children laughed. Michael Gaucher said, "There you have it" and stated something to the effect that the debate has ended.  

Use a condom? It's your decision, really. 

One often hears that there is an aggressive HIV/AIDS prevention campaign, but the session ran 55 minutes before the first mention of "protection" and safer sex came. In the context of the "safer sex" discussion, however, it was pointed out that these children could make an "informed decision" not to use a condom. Outside in the conference hall, the children could easily obtain as many condoms, vaginal condoms and other contraceptive devices as they wished from various organizations which distribute such.  

Well, yes...it really is about sex! 
Another popular session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was called, "Putting the 'Sex' Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators." 
The workshop included: 

What does it mean to say "being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn't about sex?...How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth?...This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA's....additional strategies will be discussed." 

The three presenters now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about "queer sex" with their students. 

Tired of denying it 
Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex... We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth." 

Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few "campaigns" that have been used to demonstrate to queer youth how to best "be safe" while still enjoying homosexual sex. 

The campaign, "Respect yourself, protect yourself," was thought to be good in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn't protect themselves feel bad, it ultimately was a poor message. Michael Gaucher pointed out that children "with an older partner that they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don't respect themselves?"  

The campaign, "No sex, no problem," was ridiculed, as the campaign assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, the campaign made those children who had already had sex feel bad or think they had a problem, since they had had sex. 

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Margot Abels described the project she works on. The "Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project" goes to five different schools each year conducting up to eight "HIV prevention sessions" in that school's gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for "fisting" were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct the same workshops for their students. 

An enormous amount of very disturbing material was distributed at the conference. Much of it encourages young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. The Sidney Borum Community Health Center table was giving out a cassette sized "pocket sex" kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic "moist" towelettes, and six bandages, which were for "when the sex got really rough," according to the high school volunteer behind the desk. There was a supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which were for the taking. Children as young as 12 or 13 participating and receiving "information" and materials. 

But most shocking of all was that there was an eerie sense of solidarity in the air, against "those bigots who would stop our progress." 
Fistgate Scandal In A Nutshell
Since most citizens still do not understand the significance of the Fistgate scandal, here it is in a nutshell.  

Should the schools be encouraging teenagers to be sexually active as they did at Fistgate? 
Has the homosexual community violated our trust? Do they take money that is supposed to be for violence and HIV prevention and use it instead to promote sexual activity by teenagers? 
Is the teacher, Margot E. Abels (who was terminated by the state as a result of the scandal) correct when she told the Boston Globe that she was only a scapegoat? She said that what was done at Fistgate (by her and other homosexual activists) is "absolutely sanctioned by the department [of education]." She said, "It's standard....The department has always given us its full support - until now." 


Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex


----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Having sex does not equal promiscuity. How could you not know that.
> ...



Your statement is not reflective of mine. I said Having sex does not equal promiscuity. That is a true thing.


----------



## logical4u (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I agree this is wrong, shouldn't receive federal funds and anyone who goes to it as school sponsored sex ed class (and not a voluntary class) could be being subjected to something they shouldn't be.  

But as we all know, this is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



It's public education, it's far from perfect believe me.  There's going to be mistakes made in sex education, no argument here.  

But to cancel 100% of sex ed classes cuz there's mistakes made in .1% of them is stupid.  Kinda just sounds like the hysterical demands of those who want biology classes cancelled cuz they dont' like the fact of evolution.


----------



## Newby (May 2, 2012)

Yet evolution between species is far from 'fact', Drock.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2012)

Newby said:


> Yet evolution between species is far from 'fact', Drock.



That's false.  Speciation has been observed many times, it is an indisputable fact.  Speciation is as easy for the eye to see as looking up and seeing a blue sky.  

If there were a religious text that could be interpretted as to the sky not being blue, people would be stabbing out their Satan-cursed eyes.  Doesn't change the fact of evolution, or the color of the sky.


----------



## Newby (May 2, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Yet evolution between species is far from 'fact', Drock.
> ...



If that were true, you'd have headlines about it my friend.  Can you provide links showing where it's shown that one species 'evolved' into another with irrefutable proof? I've never seen any.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Just google speciation observed and take your pick.  

Headlines or not that wouldn't stop the evolution denying crowd, no other facts have.


----------



## Newby (May 2, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Google, huh?  Okay...


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



She can't hear you. See the thought of educating herself make her brain shift so far that one eye becomes larger than the other?


----------



## Newby (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Ah, how nice of the kindergartner to drop in and offer her words of 'great wisdom'...


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2012)

Newby said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes, google.  Then you can choose the source instead of me picking one that you'll attack without reading.  

There's unlimited amounts of evidence for you, I have no problem letting you choose which you find to be the best.


----------



## BadJesus (May 4, 2012)

For the Christians I have to ask... If the truth shall set ye free, then why are ye still down on thy knees?


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

Freedom has nothing to do with body position. 

Yes, I know you're a troll and probably a sock but I thought I'd humor you.


----------



## BadJesus (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Freedom has nothing to do with body position.
> 
> Yes, I know you're a troll and probably a sock but I thought I'd humor you.




But wouldn't a free man rather die on their feet than on their knees? 

I'm not a troll lol lol, I speak only truths.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

BadJesus said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom has nothing to do with body position.
> ...



But you are a sock. 

And in a strange twist, I never, ever-ever pray on my knees. I'm either sitting, or lying down. Other than that, it just doesn't happen.


----------



## BadJesus (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...





What's a sock? If you're implying that I'm some other poster you know, I assure you that last night was the first time I've ever been to this forum.


----------



## BDBoop (May 4, 2012)

What's a sock, followed by you've never been here before, indicates that you already know what a sock is.


----------



## BadJesus (May 4, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> What's a sock, followed by you've never been here before, indicates that you already know what a sock is.



Well I do wear socks almost everyday.


----------



## logical4u (May 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Evil only happens when good men do nothing....


the fact that this even took place should be sending alarms and whistles that these people are not only in our schools, but feel they have the "authority" to corrupt children with this filth.  You can continue to stick your head in the sand or you can "try" to stop this.  You do have a choice (BTW), this is a method of dictators: corrupt the young, break the family, replace the "faith"....


----------



## logical4u (May 6, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Where did I say cancel sex ed classes?  I said provide facts.  Not a politically correct class, provide children with the facts of birth control, including the long term health effects / the facts of having sex before being mature (your emotional development stops when you have sex as a child, you are more prone to emotional problems, you are more likely to be abused physically and emotionally, you are more likely to acquire STDs, etc) /sex as an adult (show the studies that demonstrate families are more likely to stay together, be more prosperous, and emotionally stronger when two adults of the opposite sex decide to marry and make a family than any other type of parenting).  I know this is against everything the "politically correct" want to have taught to children.  Facts are not important, only their agenda is important, and it certainly is not "for the children".


----------



## logical4u (May 6, 2012)

BadJesus said:


> For the Christians I have to ask... If the truth shall set ye free, then why are ye still down on thy knees?



Please be specific.  What are you asking?


----------



## BadJesus (May 6, 2012)

logical4u said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> > For the Christians I have to ask... If the truth shall set ye free, then why are ye still down on thy knees?
> ...



It's a rather simple question isn't it, how could one get much more specific than that?


For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
*To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.*
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way!


----------



## Iridescence (May 6, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.
> 
> In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.
> 
> ...



Though I do not agree, it is a very interesting topic and seems provocative. I will contribute, as well, but in a bit.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 7, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Not sure how advocating straight marriage and building a family is a part of sex ed.  

Most of the stuff you're advocating for already happens, your desire to have a backhanded way of teaching homophobia won't ever happen, thank goodness.


----------



## koshergrl (May 7, 2012)

Yeah, cuz it's "homophobic" to teach the truth.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 7, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, cuz it's "homophobic" to teach the truth.



The "truth" according to bigots, something everyone should live by .

Glad you're back!  (referring to you being away on a weekend vacation of course)


----------



## koshergrl (May 7, 2012)

So do you maintain that the fact that children do better in two (opposite sex) parent homes is "homophobic" and therefore a lie?


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 7, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So do you maintain that the fact that children do better in two (opposite sex) parent homes is "homophobic" and therefore a lie?



Depends, you have to factor in divorce.  

And most homosexual couples don't have children, maybe the minority of them who have children are the ones who are better able to provide a good home for them.

If your point is that children need a positive significant male and female influence in order to BEST grow and develop from an emotional standpoint, I would agree.


----------



## logical4u (May 7, 2012)

BadJesus said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BadJesus said:
> ...




Freedom means "responsibility".  That other thing where you run around and do what you want on someone else's dime, that is "fun island" (from Pinoccio), where you end up being an ass for the rest of your life without the ability to change your circumstances.
The people praying are giving thanks to the One that blessed them and theirs.  He, the Almighty that made all things, should be given credit, DAILY, for what He has given us.  Because you choose to sup at His table without offering thanks is your choice.  Some of us have learned that being "polite" is the right thing to do.


----------



## logical4u (May 7, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



What did I say that was "not factual"?


----------



## logical4u (May 7, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So do you maintain that the fact that children do better in two (opposite sex) parent homes is "homophobic" and therefore a lie?
> ...



I understand you like to pick and choose, let's try again.... (If children wait to have)".....sex as an adult (show the studies that demonstrate families are more likely to stay together, be more prosperous, and emotionally stronger when two adults of the opposite sex decide to marry and make a family than any other type of parenting). ......."  Children are more likely not to be abused if they are in a stable home with their biological parents.  Children are more likely to achieve a higher level of education than their parents (if the parents are together, there is "usually" more education).  Children are less likely to live in poverty if they live with their biological parents.

Are there exections.....YES, but they should not be taught, encouraged as the norm.  
Will divorce still happen? YES.  But if the two people that decide to make a family after waiting to have sex as adults, they are more mature and capable of a comitted relationship.  And YES, a heterosexual mature couple will be more likely to keep a family together than a homosexual couple.
Do homosexual couples keep families together?  YES (it is just much harder to do, as their focus is not on what they produce together).
Do heterosexual couples not have children?  YES (but if you look at the children born today, I will guess and say that over 95%, probably more than that are born to heterosexual couples, even if one splits after conception)

The breakdown of the family makes children more vulnerable to abuse, molestation, hunger, poverty, lack of education, involvement in crime, etc.  What is wrong with saying that out loud.  There are studies to back it up, and if you want a productive society, you start with a productive family (not a fractured one).


----------

