Unconnected To Common Decency

[Flanders]

The earliest priesthoods invented images to portray their gods. Teaching that Jesus Christ was created in God’s image is one of the most destructive beliefs priests ever invented. It is far more destructive than is teaching a false God.

Those of us who believe in God believe that God’s essence is in us without envisioning God in human form.

NOTE: Essence not an acronym for soul. The soul separates man from the God in everyone of us.

Prior to the Enlightenment, Western intellectuals for hundreds of years assumed that the animating force of human beings was a “soul” that melded elements of Christian teaching and Aristotelian philosophy. This consensus allowed priests and other religious figures to wield influence over political authorities whose legitimacy depended, in no small part, on them. Such metaphysical beliefs undergirding Christendom decayed, however, with the confessional wars of the sixteenth century. They then crumbled altogether under the pressure of an international band of skeptics whose activities led to what we’ve since dubbed the Age of Enlightenment.

From Soul to Mind
BY: Rebecca Burgess
March 27, 2016 5:00 am

From Soul to Mind​

My God does not require a physical image, nor does common decency require all of the ‘shall nots’, while a human form is necessary for Christians et al. to think of their own physical image going to the next life. They even check in speaking the language they spoke before they died. It is impossible for them to believe in God without a physical image to prop them up.

Basically, God’s essence is the answer they seek but never find. Ergo, heaven and hell could not exist in their belief system without a vision of their body showing up for their reward —— equally certain the Devil is kept busy meting out punishment to evildoers. A human form is obviously more comforting to the flock, and more profitable to priests.

Bottom line: If there is any truth in this:

Virtue is its own reward, and brings with it the truest and highest pleasure; but if we cultivate it only for pleasure's sake, we are selfish, not religious, and will never gain the pleasure, because we can never have the virtue. John Henry Newman​

it follows that the fires of hell cannot possibly be more painful than the never-ending pain of an individual’s essence living throughout eternity after living a shameful life. Maybe that is why God in every religion except Islam loves children:

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-03/196299_5_.png

Notice the obvious: that it’s wet, possibly snowing, and the coats, hoods, and hands in pockets convey that it’s uncomfortably cold as well. Then notice the less evident fact that the woman is shoeless, unlike any of the seven males. Also, distinct from any of those males, she is carrying two small children, with the toil of her burden shown in the distressed expression on her face. Notably, hers is the only face showing any strain within the group. Seven healthy future American males, but not one will share the weight of the small children with this woman, much less see to it that she has proper footwear.

March 28, 2016
So is this is an authentic view of Islam?
By Russ Vaughn

Blog: So is this is an authentic view of Islam?​

That brings me to misdirection and the ethics judges practice. Everything judges do to the people in every country begins with the same misdirect priests invented thousands of years ago.

As I used to understand it, the Supreme Court could only say a law was unconstitutional. I think Roe v. Wade (1973) changed the High Court’s constitutional role more effectively than all of the previous Supreme Court decisions combined —— including Civil Rights cases.

Seven lawyers never saying laws against abortion were unconstitutional rejects God’s love of children. Instead, judges decriminalized infanticide by implying abortion on demand is constitutional. That is misdirection working to perfection.

Since 1973 lawyers ordering behavior has been expanding in leaps and bounds. The Affordable Care Act took the Supreme Court’s authority much further than Roe v. Wade when judges forced Americans to work for strangers. The same unconstitutional authority is in play when judges tell bakers, photographers, and bakers who they must work for.

And don’t you just love the word “unconnected.” If a case is unconnected why in hell is it in a federal court to begin with? Note that federal courts also order the behavior of elected state official.

For supporters of “same-sex marriage,” an unsettling reality is dawning on North Dakota state lawmakers in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage decision, which dissenting justices described as unconnected to the Constitution.​

And why in hell do state legislators rollover for anything that supercedes their constitutional authority?

Nothing in the Constitution allows the five-lawyer majority to overturn or modify state, county and city laws, regulations and policies.

Any changes depend upon compliant elected officials deciding to meet the demands of the high court in Washington.

It may not happen, and it may not even be possible.​

Hole emerges in Supreme Court edict on marriage
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/27/2016 @ 4:12 pm

Hole emerges in Supreme Court edict on marriage​

Finally, a lifetime of observing humankind in general told me that very few priests and judges will enjoy eternity.

 

[Flanders]

Virtue is its own reward, and brings with it the truest and highest pleasure; but if we cultivate it only for pleasure's sake, we are selfish, not religious, and will never gain the pleasure, because we can never have the virtue. John Henry Newman

There is no revelation in this:

In September 1981, the Times reported on comments then-Burlington Mayor Sanders made at a charity event:

“For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont,” reported the Times.

“But the charity workers heard the sort of things they wanted to hear from only one of their guests.

“‘I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The mayor, who is a socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs,'” the article stated.​

I do not know who Joe Loconte is, but he got it right:

“It’s no surprise that Bernie Sanders then, and I think even now, really has no real respect or regard for civil society,” Loconte told WND and Radio America. “This is the problem with socialism. It sees such an overwhelming, intrusive role for the state at all levels, there’s no room left for the voluntary society.”​

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities'
Posted By Greg Corombos On 04/04/2016 @ 8:36 pm

Bernie Sanders: ‘I don’t believe in charities’​

Charity is either voluntary or involuntary. Parasites believe in coerced charity. That exact believe system is the foundation for every organized religion. So if the First Amendment is enforced it follows that coerced charity is unconstitutional. It is as simple as that.

I hope reporters ask Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, how they would rule on the Little Sisters since they are engaging in voluntary charity:

​

The Little Sisters’ Case Isn’t Just About Providing Birth Control
Kelsey Harkness
March 25, 2016 / 56 comments

The Little Sisters’ Case Isn’t Just About Providing Birth Control​

The SCOTUS should rule in such a way that says involuntary charity is unconstitutional, while voluntary is settled law. My point. If the First Amendment continues to protect freedom-loving Americans from the evils of theocracy, it must also protect them from coerced charity.

Finally, let me repeat that I use the upper case when writing Socialism and Communism for the same reason I capitalize Catholic, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, and every other religion.

 

[Mudda]

The earliest priesthoods invented images to portray their gods. Teaching that Jesus Christ was created in God’s image is one of the most destructive beliefs priests ever invented. It is far more destructive than is teaching a false God.

Those of us who believe in God believe that God’s essence is in us without envisioning God in human form.

NOTE: Essence not an acronym for soul. The soul separates man from the God in everyone of us.

Prior to the Enlightenment, Western intellectuals for hundreds of years assumed that the animating force of human beings was a “soul” that melded elements of Christian teaching and Aristotelian philosophy. This consensus allowed priests and other religious figures to wield influence over political authorities whose legitimacy depended, in no small part, on them. Such metaphysical beliefs undergirding Christendom decayed, however, with the confessional wars of the sixteenth century. They then crumbled altogether under the pressure of an international band of skeptics whose activities led to what we’ve since dubbed the Age of Enlightenment.

From Soul to Mind
BY: Rebecca Burgess
March 27, 2016 5:00 am

From Soul to Mind​

My God does not require a physical image, nor does common decency require all of the ‘shall nots’, while a human form is necessary for Christians et al. to think of their own physical image going to the next life. They even check in speaking the language they spoke before they died. It is impossible for them to believe in God without a physical image to prop them up.

Basically, God’s essence is the answer they seek but never find. Ergo, heaven and hell could not exist in their belief system without a vision of their body showing up for their reward —— equally certain the Devil is kept busy meting out punishment to evildoers. A human form is obviously more comforting to the flock, and more profitable to priests.

Bottom line: If there is any truth in this:

Virtue is its own reward, and brings with it the truest and highest pleasure; but if we cultivate it only for pleasure's sake, we are selfish, not religious, and will never gain the pleasure, because we can never have the virtue. John Henry Newman​

it follows that the fires of hell cannot possibly be more painful than the never-ending pain of an individual’s essence living throughout eternity after living a shameful life. Maybe that is why God in every religion except Islam loves children:

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-03/196299_5_.png

Notice the obvious: that it’s wet, possibly snowing, and the coats, hoods, and hands in pockets convey that it’s uncomfortably cold as well. Then notice the less evident fact that the woman is shoeless, unlike any of the seven males. Also, distinct from any of those males, she is carrying two small children, with the toil of her burden shown in the distressed expression on her face. Notably, hers is the only face showing any strain within the group. Seven healthy future American males, but not one will share the weight of the small children with this woman, much less see to it that she has proper footwear.

March 28, 2016
So is this is an authentic view of Islam?
By Russ Vaughn

Blog: So is this is an authentic view of Islam?​

That brings me to misdirection and the ethics judges practice. Everything judges do to the people in every country begins with the same misdirect priests invented thousands of years ago.

As I used to understand it, the Supreme Court could only say a law was unconstitutional. I think Roe v. Wade (1973) changed the High Court’s constitutional role more effectively than all of the previous Supreme Court decisions combined —— including Civil Rights cases.

Seven lawyers never saying laws against abortion were unconstitutional rejects God’s love of children. Instead, judges decriminalized infanticide by implying abortion on demand is constitutional. That is misdirection working to perfection.

Since 1973 lawyers ordering behavior has been expanding in leaps and bounds. The Affordable Care Act took the Supreme Court’s authority much further than Roe v. Wade when judges forced Americans to work for strangers. The same unconstitutional authority is in play when judges tell bakers, photographers, and bakers who they must work for.

And don’t you just love the word “unconnected.” If a case is unconnected why in hell is it in a federal court to begin with? Note that federal courts also order the behavior of elected state official.

For supporters of “same-sex marriage,” an unsettling reality is dawning on North Dakota state lawmakers in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage decision, which dissenting justices described as unconnected to the Constitution.​

And why in hell do state legislators rollover for anything that supercedes their constitutional authority?

Nothing in the Constitution allows the five-lawyer majority to overturn or modify state, county and city laws, regulations and policies.

Any changes depend upon compliant elected officials deciding to meet the demands of the high court in Washington.

It may not happen, and it may not even be possible.​

Hole emerges in Supreme Court edict on marriage
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/27/2016 @ 4:12 pm

Hole emerges in Supreme Court edict on marriage​

Finally, a lifetime of observing humankind in general told me that very few priests and judges will enjoy eternity.

You better hope that imbeciles don't get sent to hell out of principle. And you're also a hater, so yup, you're going to hell.

 

[Flanders]

You better hope that imbeciles don't get sent to hell out of principle. And you're also a hater, so yup, you're going to hell.

To Mudda: Alas, another halfwit, short on reading comprehension skills, condemns me to his hell because I sinned against organized religion. You better watch out in the hereafter. My God will smite you mightily in my heaven.

it follows that the fires of hell cannot possibly be more painful than the never-ending pain of an individual’s essence living throughout eternity after living a shameful life.

 

[Mudda]

You better hope that imbeciles don't get sent to hell out of principle. And you're also a hater, so yup, you're going to hell.

To Mudda: Alas, another halfwit, short on reading comprehension skills, condemns me to his hell because I sinned against organized religion. You better watch out in the hereafter. My God will smite you mightily in my heaven.

it follows that the fires of hell cannot possibly be more painful than the never-ending pain of an individual’s essence living throughout eternity after living a shameful life.

No, I don't believe in hell, I'm condemning you to the hell you believe in.

 

[Flanders]

No, I don't believe in hell,

To Mudda: Get in touch with Madalyn Murray (1919 - 1995). You need a lot of help if you insist on playing a word game that is clearly over your head. You condemned me to a place you do not believe in!

you're going to hell.

 

[Mudda]

No, I don't believe in hell,

To Mudda: Get in touch with Madalyn Murray (1919 - 1995). You need a lot of help if you insist on playing a word game that is clearly over your head. You condemned me to a place you do not believe in!

you're going to hell.

I condemned you to a place YOU believe in. And by your criteria, that's where you're going.

 

[Flanders]

I condemned you to a place YOU believe in. And by your criteria, that's where you're going.

To Mudda: You are too dumb for words. Do us both a favor and put me in your filter.

 

[Mudda]

I condemned you to a place YOU believe in. And by your criteria, that's where you're going.

To Mudda: You are too dumb for words. Do us both a favor and put me in your filter.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of religion.

 

[Flanders]

Charity is either voluntary or involuntary. Parasites believe in coerced charity. That exact believe system is the foundation for every organized religion. So if the First Amendment is enforced it follows that coerced charity is unconstitutional. It is as simple as that.

The SCOTUS should rule in such a way that says involuntary charity is unconstitutional, while voluntary is settled law. My point. If the First Amendment continues to protect freedom-loving Americans from the evils of theocracy, it must also protect them from coerced charity.

Preventing coerced charity from dictating behavior is almost impossible because so many parasites feed on the Democrat party’s governing philosophy that created government-dictated behavior. It might be easier enforce the First Amendment by starting with preventing the government from dictating behavior that is unconnected to tax dollars:

Since 1973 lawyers ordering behavior has been expanding in leaps and bounds.

North Carolina Senate fails to repeal 'bathroom bill'
By Anna Giaritelli, Kelly Cohen • 12/21/16 5:37 PM •Updated: 12/21/16 8:14 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/north-carolina-senate-fails-to-repeal-bathroom-bill/article/261020​

Bottom line: No law that dictates behavior of any kind should ever be passed. Should such a law sneak in it should immediately be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.