"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[Dr.Drock]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a concilatory missive to Muslims.

And incidentally, I do believe there's some question about it's validity.

 

[logical4u]

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.

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).

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?

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]

"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.

How DID that work out in the Soviet Union?

 

[logical4u]

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

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

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).

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?

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.

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]

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

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Maybe. But I comprehend enough to know a 3rd grade history whitewash when I see it. Carry on.

 

[logical4u]

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?

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.

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.

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]

From the Founding Fathers themselves



Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Maybe. But I comprehend enough to know a 3rd grade history whitewash when I see it. Carry on.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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?

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]

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.

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?

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?

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]

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

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.