# Coexist    :)



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

am I the only one that laughs when I see these bumper stickers on cars?    

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"   G.K. Chesterton


----------



## Sterlo58 (Aug 23, 2011)

A man without tolerance exhibits little christian virtue.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

> A man without tolerance exhibits little christian virtue.



explain...


----------



## Sterlo58 (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> explain...



So you are saying intolerance is a christian virtue ???

Tolerance can be defined as to endure pain or hardship or the shortcommings of others.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

Wasn't Jesus chastised for his "tolerance?"


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

> Tolerance can be defined as to endure pain or hardship or the shortcommings of others.



Enduring pain and hardship is called endurance...not tolerance.

Shortcomings?  Yes. But that is called forgiveness and compassion.

Anti-biblical or un-godly beliefs?  No, that is not a "christian virtue" (whatever that means).

God is a jealous god and will not tolerate any other gods.  That is clear.  I'm sure lots of folks don't like that.  But it's the truth.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 23, 2011)

Sterlo58 said:


> So you are saying intolerance is a christian virtue ???



In some things yes.  In others, no.



And to the OP's question, yes, they crack me up as well.  It reminds me of a Utopio...or even Communism.  Great idea on paper...just doesn't work in real life.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

and the Darwin fish.        a rare comical sight...


----------



## Sterlo58 (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Enduring pain and hardship is called endurance...not tolerance.
> 
> Shortcomings?  Yes. But that is called forgiveness.
> 
> ...



You are wrong. Tolerance is a derivitive of tolerate. Didn't Jesus Tolerate much pain and hardship. Therefore he was tolerant. Look up the many definitions of Tolerance.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Aug 23, 2011)

Trust me guys...I don't care for the coexist bumper stickers either, just making a point that Tolerance can be defined as a virtue as well as a vice.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> And to the OP's question, yes, they crack me up as well.  It reminds me of a Utopio...or even Communism.  Great idea on paper...just doesn't work in real life.



.....the early church was the definition of a commune.  "From each of his ability to each of his need" was lifted from the NT (Acts 2:44-45).


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

Sterlo58 said:


> Trust me guys...I don't care for the coexist bumper stickers either, just making a point that Tolerance can be defined as a virtue as well as a vice.



I agree with that....but I do believe the Lord drew the line when it came to religious tolerance.    He may have said to tolerate someone striking you in the face for Him, but He wasn't tolerant of people selling doves and changing money in the temple.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

"I ha' seen him drive a hundred men
Wi' a bundle o' cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury."

'Ballad of the Goodly Fere'   Ezra Pound


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> .....the early church was the definition of a commune.  "From each of his ability to each of his need" was lifted from the NT (Acts 2:44-45).





Marxism might have utilized some Christian principles, but it is far from Biblical.

That is what all great heretics do...add a bit of scripture and twist it to their liking.


----------



## ranger1977 (Aug 23, 2011)

To the OP, yes I laugh out loud when I see one, as a matter of fact I think I have a pic of one. LOL


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

Homosexual, too.   lol    shocker.    

Great pic!    Would love a discourse with that driver!


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

> You are wrong. Tolerance is a derivitive of tolerate. Didn't Jesus Tolerate much pain and hardship. Therefore he was tolerant. Look up the many definitions of Tolerance.



Tolerant and tolerate have the same root...but mean very different things in the context of someone's beliefs...which is the point of that bumper sticker.

We can tolerate pain and suffering.  If that's the definition you want to use.  But we are not to tolerate other gods or idols.  That is what the bumper sticker is asking us to do...not tolerate pain.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you on that if you don't get it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> That is what all great heretics do...add a bit of scripture and twist it to their liking.



Off topic: I hear 'ya, but I do think it's an interesting thought when Christians use the Bible to back up their fiscal policies.  For me, I am a free market libertarian, but that is another forum all together.

On topic:  I do think Jesus put forth a model of tolerance.  That doesn't mean you have to go and be a muslim if you don't want to.  It just means that a positive conversation might lead to positive results.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> We can tolerate pain and suffering.  If that's the definition you want to use.  But we are not to tolerate other gods or idols.  That is what the bumper sticker is asking us to do...not tolerate pain.



In light of that, how do you intend to "not tolerate" other gods or idols?  I think religious freedom is a fantastic thing.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

Indeed it is.


Let's put it this way...you can no more legislate morality than you can religion.  Trying to do so is the lazy man's out.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Indeed it is.
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way...you can no more legislate morality than you can religion.



Hey, we finally agree on something. 

So, how do you go about "not tolerating" other gods and idols?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

Not in my home, not in my church or body of believers.  I cannot and will not force anyone to accept God.  But I will do whatever I can to influence those around me for Christ.

But I am also called to do everything in my power to spread the gospel to all nations.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Not in my home, not in my church or body of believers.  I cannot and will not force anyone to accept God.



I follow you now.   I thought you were going towards a national approach more than a "in my house" kind-of thing.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

Making this country a theocracy would be the biggest single mistake we've ever made (with the exception, of course, of the election of the guy currently occupying the White House...we'll NEVER top that one!)

What I'm saying is that in our homes we hold fast.  In our churches, especially, we are not to tolerate false doctrine and the possibility that there are "other ways".  That, JB, is why doctrine is so important.  If you don't take a stand on anything, you are likely to give way to anything.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Let's put it this way...you can no more legislate morality than you can religion.  Trying to do so is the lazy man's out.



Then why do so many religious folks try?


----------



## pnome (Aug 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> am I the only one that laughs when I see these bumper stickers on cars?



Nope, you're not the only one.

Here's one I'm thinking about getting for the truck:








post #10,000 BTW


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> Nope, you're not the only one.
> 
> Here's one I'm thinking about getting for the truck:


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

> Then why do so many religious folks try?



I have no idea.  They've been doing it for centuries.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Then why do so many religious folks try?



Because the non-religious are only too happy to legislate their morality.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> Nope, you're not the only one.
> 
> Here's one I'm thinking about getting for the truck:
> 
> ...



congrats on the 10k, Pnome!   gotta have a lot of time on your hands to reach that milestone!   

As to the 'You're all wrong' sticker....that makes more sense to me than the 'coexist' sticker.    Logically, all religions could be wrong, but no two religions can state things that are opposite and be true at the same time.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> As to the 'You're all wrong' sticker....that makes more sense to me than the 'coexist' sticker.    Logically, all religions could be wrong, but no two religions can state things that are opposite and be true at the same time.



I think it more implies to get along than agree with each other.  I think one is lame (coexist) and the other is rude (your all wrong).  But, whatever a person wishes to stick on their car is their business.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Because the non-religious are only too happy to legislate their morality.



Really? Beleivers are 1000x as guilty.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

> Really? Beleivers are 1000x as guilty.



In the great words of ESPN anchors...."COME ON MAAAAAN!"

I'm puttin' my high boots on for this because that load stinks!  Give me a break.

At the worst, all sides are equally guilty of trying to legislate morality.  One side shows its cards and the other masks it as "tolerance".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 23, 2011)

Do I have a wrong impression of that bumper sticker? Is it not more like, hey idiots, coexist and stop starting wars over this?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Do I have a wrong impression of that bumper sticker? Is it not more like, hey idiots, coexist and stop starting wars over this?



Thats what I always took it to mean.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

I've always thought of it as "all are equally as good"


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Really?



Yes.




TheBishop said:


> Beleivers are 1000x as guilty.



Debatable.  

If true, it's because that's the believers' best option.  The non-religious left owns the culture and the courts.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I've always thought of it as "all are equally as good"



All are equally as good to their own maybe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to have one on my truck...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> If true, it's because that's the believers' best option.  The non-religious left owns the culture and the courts.



Did Jesus ever use the force of government to advance his agenda?  How 'bout the early Church?  Both seem apolitical to me.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> In the great words of ESPN anchors...."COME ON MAAAAAN!"
> 
> I'm puttin' my high boots on for this because that load stinks!  Give me a break.
> 
> At the worst, all sides are equally guilty of trying to legislate morality.  One side shows its cards and the other masks it as "tolerance".



Don't be foolish, one only has to look as far as our laws in Georgia to see the religious fingerprints.  I can highlight numerous examples, many we are all familiar with, that show how the religions has tried to legislate morality. But I find it hard to find any law that would consitute an effort of the non-beleivers to do the same.  Please enlighten me as to this legislation, masked as tolerance, that is an effort to pursuade you to act in a manner you would consider immoral.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Did Jesus ever use the force of government to advance his agenda?  How 'bout the early Church?  Both seem apolitical to me.



They weren't living in a democracy.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> ... I find it hard to find any law that would consitute an effort of the non-beleivers to do the same.



That's because the non-religious left usually fails at the ballot box, which is why they turn to the courts.  I never got to vote on _Roe v. Wade_, and that's just the way the left likes it.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> They weren't living in a democracy.



Neither are we.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Neither are we.



I considered putting "or a constitutional republic" at the end of that comment, but I thought, "Surely, that's not necessary."


----------



## applejuice (Aug 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Do I have a wrong impression of that bumper sticker? Is it not more like, hey idiots, coexist and stop starting wars over this?



Thats the way I read it.

Like , lets stop killing each other over some fables.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

...universal healthcare, abortion, foodstamps, medicare, medicaid, stem cell research, etc etc.

All the left's (anti-religion's) version of what "society should do for mankind" or "civil rights" (as they interpret what that means).

All things that the anti-religious left call, and I quote "moral obligations".


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 23, 2011)

applejuice said:


> ...over some fables...



keep telling yourself that!  


Luke 3:1   Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...universal healthcare, abortion, foodstamps, medicare, medicaid, stem cell research, etc etc.
> 
> All the left's (anti-religion's) version of what "society should do for mankind" or "civil rights" (as they interpret what that means).
> 
> All things that the anti-religious left call, and I quote "moral obligations".



Yes, and what is modern environmentalism if not a leftist religion?  They put al Qaeda to shame in terms of fanaticism.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> In the great words of ESPN anchors...."COME ON MAAAAAN!"
> 
> I'm puttin' my high boots on for this because that load stinks!  Give me a break.
> 
> At the worst, all sides are equally guilty of trying to legislate morality.  One side shows its cards and the other masks it as "tolerance".



I guess that's why we can't buy likker or hunt here on Sundays....


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 23, 2011)

I admitted it comes from both sides....your boy Bishop threw out that it was 1000x's worse from our side.  I was simply proving him wrong.

Christians absolutely try to do it.  No argument there.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> Nope, you're not the only one.
> 
> Here's one I'm thinking about getting for the truck:
> 
> ...



Congrats on the 10,000 Pnome 

I am about to hit the 2,000 mark, got a ways to go to catch up with ya.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> post #10,000 BTW



Oooh....I'm only 80 away.

Now...if these threads don't keep getting deleted


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 23, 2011)

I like this coexist sticker myself.


----------



## bad0351 (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's because the non-religious left usually fails at the ballot box, which is why they turn to the courts.  I never got to vote on _Roe v. Wade_, and that's just the way the left likes it.



You don't get to vote on law..........


----------



## pnome (Aug 23, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I like this coexist sticker myself.



Awesome!  I like that one the best!


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> You don't get to vote on law..........



I realize that.  The point is this was a court decision, which is what the left prefers.  They don't trust legislators or the people who elect them.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 23, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I like this coexist sticker myself.


----------



## JFS (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I realize that.  The point is this was a court decision, which is what the left prefers.  They don't trust legislators or the people who elect them.



Exactly. That's why the right is supporting Obamacare in those cases trying to overturn it.  They trust the legislators who enacted it and the people who elected them.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

JFS said:


> Exactly. That's why the right is supporting Obamacare in those cases trying to overturn it.  They trust the legislators who enacted it and the people who elected them.



It's not Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson trying to overturn it.  It's twenty-six state attorney generals trying to overturn it.  It has nothing to do with religion.  The AG's believe that it's unconstitutional, and it will crush their state budgets.  In the recent 11th Circuit decision, none of the judges cited scripture in declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I admitted it comes from both sides....your boy Bishop threw out that it was 1000x's worse from our side.  I was simply proving him wrong.
> 
> Christians absolutely try to do it.  No argument there.



You have yet to prove anything.  Though I find all that you mentioned quite distasteful, none of them force any kind of morality upon any individual. Unlike laws enacted by religious believers that directly effect personal desicions based soley on their perception of morality.  Care to take another stab? Becuase you failed miserably. 

I ask you again what law on the books forces an individual to act or not to act, soley on the basis of morality that was enacted out of non-religious beliefs?


----------



## TTom (Aug 23, 2011)

TripleX BINGO, how is it that people interpret COEXIST, to exist together as anything other than "Live and let live"

The end to religious wars, the end to religious discrimination on a legal basis, the end to governments destroying minority religions because the leader had some mold spore created micotoxin induced hallucination, and the end to politicians using religions as useful idiots to justify war and war crimes up to and including genocide.

COEXIST: to exist along side one another in peace. period full stop.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> They weren't living in a democracy.




How does that change anything?  If you vote for your morality, or use the courts to mandate it, then you are forcing it on another individual (at the point of a gun, as Boortz would say).  That is not the template given.  Jesus was particularly good at using reason, not force.  If you force it on somebody, it does nothing but cause resentment, like every time I forget to buy beer on Saturday.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> You have yet to prove anything.  Though I find all that you mentioned quite distasteful, none of them force any kind of morality upon any individual. Unlike laws enacted by religious believers that directly effect personal desicions based soley on their perception of morality.  Care to take another stab? Becuase you failed miserably.
> 
> I ask you again what law on the books forces an individual to act or not to act, soley on the basis of morality that was enacted out of non-religious beliefs?



Those examples force me to be tolerant and to coexist with a bunch of idiots.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> How does that change anything?  If you vote for your morality, or use the courts to mandate it, then you are forcing it on another individual (at the point of a gun, as Boortz would say).  That is not the template given.  Jesus was particularly good at using reason, not force.  If you force it on somebody, it does nothing but cause resentment, like every time I forget to buy beer on Saturday.



I was just making the point that they were living in an empire where voting wasn't optional.  Besides, Jesus came to redeem mankind, not the government.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I was just making the point that they were living in an empire where voting wasn't optional.  Besides, Jesus came to redeem mankind, not the government.



I agree, but he didn't use force to change mankind's heart.  He used grace.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ... he didn't use force to change mankind's heart.  He used grace.



I agree.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Homosexual, too.   lol    shocker.
> 
> Great pic!    Would love a discourse with that driver!



Uhhh...


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> You have yet to prove anything.  Though I find all that you mentioned quite distasteful, none of them force any kind of morality upon any individual. Unlike laws enacted by religious believers that directly effect personal desicions based soley on their perception of morality.  Care to take another stab? Becuase you failed miserably.
> 
> I ask you again what law on the books forces an individual to act or not to act, soley on the basis of morality that was enacted out of non-religious beliefs?




Oh...I left out gay marriage.

All things enacted in the name of "tolerance" as I stated above.  They are not laid out there as anti-religion.  That would be "offensive" and that is anti-tolerance.  So we call it tolerance or "social justice".

I was very clear that the religious are straight out about it.  When they enact laws based on religion, at least they admit it.

So, not hunting...and not buying alcohol.  Those are two that religion enacted that directly affect your actions or non-actions.  I'm curious....what else?  They don't have to affect my daily actions to affect me.  Degredation of the society that I live in affects my pocketbook on a daily basis.  Because of the world's sense of morality, I am forced to send my kids to private school.  Because of the world's sense of "social justice" I am forced to pay for abortions every single day, I am forced to pay for birth control every day, I am forced to pay for illegitmate children 10 times over every day.

Yes, Bishop...the non-religious set of morals affects me every single day.  It causes me to right a tax check to "support" many things that my Christian values do not support.

1000X's worse?  Really?  That was my point oh king of hyperbole.

I love it.  I need to go back and count how many times I've "failed miserably" according to your standards.  You've never lost an argument have you?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Those examples force me to be tolerant and to coexist with a bunch of idiots.



What would you propose we do with the idiots?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

Ship them to Mexico?  Just a thought.


----------



## pnome (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ship them to Mexico?  Just a thought.



Canada.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ship them to Mexico?  Just a thought.



How about Libya?  


Funny thing on CNN this morning in the office cafeteria when I was getting my morning joe.  Reporter in Tripoli standing in front of a mosque wearing a helmet and vest...reporting live.  In the background, gun shots and explosions.

Love that peaceful religion of islam.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

Don't be so intolerant RJ.  Coexist.



(just make sure you wear a helmet and a flack jacket)


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> How about Libya?
> 
> 
> Funny thing on CNN this morning in the office cafeteria when I was getting my morning joe.  Reporter in Tripoli standing in front of a mosque wearing a helmet and vest...reporting live.  In the background, gun shots and explosions.
> ...



Just nod your head, agree and walk away slooooowly.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool this was the quote that started the debate. 

Centerpin:


> Because the non-religious are only too happy to legislate their morality.



My response



> Really? Beleivers are 1000x as guilty.



Was it a slight exaggeration? Yes, becuase 1000 x 0 is 0. The religious own exclusivity in attempting to legislate morality.   In every example you have attempted to name, in no case was it an attempt to legislate morality. 



> Yes, Bishop...the non-religious set of morals affects me every single day. It causes me to right a tax check to "support" many things that my Christian values do not support.



This is not the same as legislating morality. They are not using the law to force you to act, or not to act, in accordance to their virtues. They might use legislation to get you to accept them, and tolerate them, but that is not forcing you to adhere to their morality.  On the contrary all you have named still enables you to adhere to your own christian moral principals.  

I find the same things you have mention quite detrimental to liberty, and therefore stand against them on those grounds.  I also find all laws rooted just in religious morality, to be an equal or greater threat to freedom.  Good laws are moral, Moral laws are not good.   Liberty must take precedent.



> I love it. I need to go back and count how many times I've "failed miserably" according to your standards.



If the shoe fits...



> You've never lost an argument have you?



Yes, but I tend to pick and choose my battles carefully.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

> This is not the same as legislating morality. They are not using the law to force you to act, or not to act, in accordance to their virtues. They might use legislation to get you to accept them, and tolerate them, but that is not forcing you to adhere to their morality. On the contrary all you have named still enables you to adhere to your own christian moral principals.



If I pay for them, then I am ACTively supporting them against my will.  If I support them, then I am being required to endorse them and I am indeed forced to adhere to them.  

I'm still curious...any other horrible examples other than liquor on Sunday and hunting on Sunday?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

Wow, these threads can really take on a life of their own!


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

My bad Bandy....another miserable failure on my part.  I resign from the thread.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.   I was just commenting on how a thread about stickers can 'evolve' into something totally different.

No offense intended to anyone.

I think I'll resign from here, as well.   Really enjoyed the COEXIST pictures, though!


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If I pay for them, then I am ACTively supporting them against my will.  If I support them, then I am being required to endorse them and I am indeed forced to adhere to them.



Twist it anyway you like, it is not the same.



> I'm still curious...any other horrible examples other than liquor on Sunday and hunting on Sunday?



There are many laws on the books, (many nolonger or unable to be enforced) not just in Georgia,  dealing with sex, alcohol, drug use, and acts that would otherwise seem petty, that the religious wish to control just based on their vision of morality.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> They are not using the law to force you to act, or not to act, in accordance to their virtues.



Au contraire.  

That is _exactly_ what they're doing.  Take Obamacare, for example.  Under it, I will be forced to buy insurance to satisfy several doctrines of leftist theology:

1)  Government is the only entity deserving of worship.

2)  Everything government does is good.

3)  Government should control as much of my life as possible.

That's practically the "holy trinity" of the left.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

> There are many laws on the books, (many nolonger or unable to be enforced) not just in Georgia, dealing with sex, alcohol, drug use, and acts that would otherwise seem petty, that the religious wish to control just based on their vision of morality.



So....what you're saying is...no...other than liquor on Sunday and not hunting on Sunday in some states...there are no laws that cause you to act or not act (that's your requirement, not mine).

You're right.  It's OVERWHELMING how religion has taken over the law books.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Au contraire.
> 
> That is _exactly_ what they're doing.  Take Obamacare, for example.  Under it, I will be forced to buy insurance to satisfy several doctrines of leftist theology:
> 
> ...




That a doctrine of rule, not morality.  And there are PLENTY of religious people that support the left wing agenda.  Your arguement was soley about non-beleivers legislating their morality on you. It does not happen.  As much as an argument you can make that the left worships government, it is not exactly a theology. Socialism is not a religion, it is a highly distasteful form of government. Obamacare is an infringement on liberty, not morality.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> The religious own exclusivity in attempting to legislate morality.   In every example you have attempted to name, in no case was it an attempt to legislate morality.



I can't believe it...but I'm going to agree with TheBishop.

The religious right has exclusivity in attempting to legislate morality.

However,


The Liberal left has exclusivity in attempting to legislate immorality.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> The Liberal left has exclusivity in attempting to legislate immorality.




Example please. As much legislation as I find disgusting, I have yet to find any that would force me to act in a manner deemed inmmoral.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Example please. As much legislation as I find disgusting, I have yet to find any that would force me to act in a manner deemed inmmoral.



Recognition of gay marriage to start.

Tax dollars paying for abortions.

Tax dollars to pay for embryonic stem cell research.

The list could go on and on.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> The Liberal left has exclusivity in attempting to legislate immorality.



Take gay marriage, legalizing it doesn't force it on anyone.  Nobody will make you have a gay marriage.  But, the prohibition of gay marriage does force a sense of morality on other people's concept of marriage.

Making something legal does not mean it is forced.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Making something legal does not mean it is forced.



Yes it does.

It means I have to recognize it.  What if I own a small biz and I don't want to hire a gay person.  They're just as qualified as the straight person, but I know that I'm going to get along with the straight person better.

Can I hire the straight person and not hire the gay person based on sexual preference?  Don't think so......


Or I'll edit to add....I don't want to have to pay for their partner's medical insurance...but since I offer it to straight couples, I have to offer it to gay couples as well. 

Yup...if it is legalized, it is forced.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> That a doctrine of rule, not morality.



Just semantics, IMO.




TheBishop said:


> ... non-beleivers legislating their morality on you. It does not happen.



I obviously disagree.  I think your distaste for religion has clouded your judgement on this matter.




TheBishop said:


> As much as an argument you can make that the left worships government, it is not exactly a theology.



Not exactly?  Well, how about "cult"?

_cult   /kʌlt/  Show Spelled[kuhlt]

noun 

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 

*2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers*: the physical fitness cult. 

3. the object of such devotion. 

*4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. *

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. _


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Socialism ... is a highly distasteful form of government. Obamacare is an infringement on liberty, not morality.



This is what I don't get.  The religious right, who you show such disdain for, agrees with you and votes accordingly.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes it does.
> It means I have to recognize it. .



The government does.  Why should one couple be treated any different than another?  Not all faiths believe the way you do about gay folks. 



rjcruiser said:


> What if I own a small biz and I don't want to hire a gay person.  They're just as qualified as the straight person, but I know that I'm going to get along with the straight person better..



IMHO you shouldn't have to, but we have laws forbidding discrimination.  That is your business.  I am talking about govt here.



rjcruiser said:


> Or I'll edit to add....I don't want to have to pay for their partner's medical insurance...but since I offer it to straight couples, I have to offer it to gay couples as well.
> 
> Yup...if it is legalized, it is forced.



Your getting into employment laws here which are discriminatory in their efforts to elliminate discrimination, which is a topic you and I might agree on. But, under our laws, why should one man get preferential treatment over another?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The government does.  Why should one couple be treated any different than another?  Not all faiths believe the way you do about gay folks.



Because according to my beliefs, one is moral and one is immoral.  

Again, it is my own small biz and I should get to choose how I discriminate and how I don't.  My morality shouldn't be legislated against.




			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> IMHO you shouldn't have to, but we have laws forbidding discrimination.  That is your business.  I am talking about govt here.



So....who is enforcing those laws?  Govt is.  They're legislating against my own morality....or as I put earlier, legislating immorality.




			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> Your getting into employment laws here which are discriminatory in their efforts to elliminate discrimination, which is a topic you and I might agree on. But, under our laws, why should one man get preferential treatment over another?



It should be up to the Biz owner to decide what and who he wants.  Let the public decide whether or not it will stay in biz.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

Forced to recognize it? It's there whether you want to recognize it or not.



rjcruiser said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> It means I have to recognize it.  What if I own a small biz and I don't want to hire a gay person.  They're just as qualified as the straight person, but I know that I'm going to get along with the straight person better.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Yup...if it is legalized, it is forced.



Come on man, use that brain.  If alcohol is legal on sunday do you have to buy and drink it? If homo marraige is legal do you have to marry someone of the same sex?

Your stretching, and it aint workin. You, like HF, are making something its not.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Forced to recognize it? It's there whether you want to recognize it or not.



That sounds forced to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Because according to my beliefs, one is moral and one is immoral..



According to you.  But what if some dude goes to "The Fisrts Church of Gay Folks."  They probably wouldn't agree with your position.  The govt should not take sides.



rjcruiser said:


> So....who is enforcing those laws?  Govt is.  They're legislating against my own morality....or as I put earlier, legislating immorality.



Under our constitution, it is impossible for our govt to give one man advantages it does not give another.  It happens (affirmative action) but it should not.




rjcruiser said:


> It should be up to the Biz owner to decide what and who he wants.  Let the public decide whether or not it will stay in biz.



No argument there.  My point is that the govt should not recognize one marriage and not the other.  I am just as libertarian as you about private business owner's rights.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Just semantics, IMO.
> 
> I obviously disagree.  I think your distaste for religion has clouded your judgement on this matter.



Please show me an example. You can't the facts are on my side. I think your disdain for all those not like you has clouded yours.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Come on man, use that brain.  If alcohol is legal on sunday do you have to buy and drink it? If homo marraige is legal do you have to marry someone of the same sex?
> 
> Your stretching, and it aint workin. You, like HF, are making something its not.



How am I stretching?

I gave legitimate instances of where I would be forced to recognize gay marriage and pay benefits on it.

How is having my tax dollars go to something that I view as murder making something its not?


Just because it doesn't bother you and your sense of morality is much more tolerant than mine....doesn't mean that I'm making something out of nothing.


I could say the same thing as you above....how is marriage between a man and a woman legislating morality...gay men can marry women?  How is making alcohol sales on Sunday illegal legislating morality?  If you want to drink on Sunday, go to the local restaurant...or buy it on Saturday?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> According to you.  But what if some dude goes to "The Fisrts Church of Gay Folks."  They probably wouldn't agree with your position.  The govt should not take sides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then we agree.

Govt legislates morality just like it legislates immorality.  Both should not be done.


But don't go telling people that it doesn't happen on both sides.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> This is what I don't get.  The religious right, who you show such disdain for, agrees with you and votes accordingly.



Except the religious right and I do not see eye to eye on one BIG issue. They are willing to sacrifice liberty, in the name of their morality. To me liberty trumps everything.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I gave legitimate instances of where I would be forced to recognize gay marriage and pay benefits on it.



The argument there is against employment law, not gay marriage.



rjcruiser said:


> How is having my tax dollars go to something that I view as murder making something its not?



Your mistake here is making it a morality issue, not a human rights issue.  If you changed your stance on gay marriage then you would be intellectually honest.  As of now, you are on the idealogically opposite side of the argument.  You support human rights for the unborn, just not the gays.




rjcruiser said:


> If you want to drink on Sunday, go to the local restaurant...or buy it on Saturday?



But I can't buy beer at the store when I usually go on Sunday because you won't let me.  That is the problem.  You think it is "wrong" so you pass a law saying I can't.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Then we agree.
> 
> Govt legislates morality just like it legislates immorality.  Both should not be done.
> 
> ...



It shouldn't, and I didn't.  I just think the argument against gay marriage is not intellectually honest.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Your mistake here is making it a morality issue, not a human rights issue.  If you changed your stance on gay marriage then you would be intellectually honest.  As of now, you are on the idealogically opposite side of the argument.  You support human rights for the unborn, just not the gays.



One has a choice, the other doesn't.

But that's a whole nother can of worms


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> How am I stretching?



Either your not that bright, or vision is extremely narrow focused. I have read to many of your post to believe the former, so the latter must be true. 

Again none of what mentioned forces you to change your behavior.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Please show me an example. You can't the facts are on my side.



Well, that settles it, doesn't it?  

What ... are we in third grade?  What are you gonna say next?  That I can't triple stamp a double stamp?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I think your disdain for all those not like you has clouded yours.



I have no disdain for you or anybody else.  If you disagree, please provide an example.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Either your not that bright, or vision is extremely narrow focused. I have read to many of your post to believe the former, so the latter must be true.
> 
> Again none of what mentioned forces you to change your behavior.




Yes it does.

I have to choose whether or not I'm going to pay my taxes and fund abortions, or...get a nice letter from the IRS.

If I was an employer in the state of NY, I'd have to give benefits to all "married" couples, not just those that are heterosexual.

And yes, my vision is narrowly focused compared to your mile wide vision.  Who's to say which is better?  Certainly not our govt.  So...they need to stay out of both.

Just don't say that since it allows more than less, it isn't guilty of any.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Well, that settles it, doesn't it?
> 
> What ... are we in third grade?  What are you gonna say next?  That I can't triple stamp a double stamp?



I can't view youtube at work, but I know exactly what clip this is.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> And yes, my vision is narrowly focused compared to your mile wide vision.  Who's to say which is better?  Certainly not our govt.  So...they need to stay out of both.



Should a government (not a private business, different argument all together) that recognizes any marriage also have to recognize gay marriage.  I say yes.

I also think the solution is to get the govt out of the marriage business, why they even recognize it at all is puzzling to me.  That would solve this issue anyway.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> They are willing to sacrifice liberty, in the name of their morality.



Example?




TheBishop said:


> To me liberty trumps everything.



Mark Levin wrote an excellent book on liberty, and he does not hate or fear the religious right.  I saw Ann Coulter on C-span recently.  Someone asked her, "How would you describe conservatives who are not religious?"

Her one word answer?  "Confused."


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Example?




Blue laws, and their fight against homosexual marriage. 




> Mark Levin wrote an excellent book on liberty, and he does not hate or fear the religious right.  I saw Ann Coulter on C-span recently.  Someone asked her, "How would you describe conservatives who are not religious?"
> 
> Her one word answer?  "Confused."



Read the book twice.  He would conclude that anyone that uses the police power of government to push their agenda is a statist.  They are an evil worse than satan. 

I do not care what Anne Coulter thinks. Her and I would agree on alot, but there are somethings she says that the blonde really shows.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> That sounds forced to me.



People being gay I mean.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Blue laws, and their fight against homosexual marriage.



So you are not allowed to drink alcohol because of blue laws?  

As far as gay marriage goes, I'm only aware of a couple of countries that allow it, and they're about as left wing and "statist" as they come.  Even _California_ voted down a gay marriage law. 




TheBishop said:


> Read the book twice.  He would conclude that anyone that uses the police power of government to push their agenda is a statist.  They are an evil worse than satan.



Please provide a Mark Levin quote that says the religious right is "statist" and "an evil worse than satan".


Finally, you seem to miss the irony in these two statements:



TheBishop said:


> ... homosexual marriage.





TheBishop said:


> ... anyone that uses the police power of government to push their agenda is a statist.  They are an evil worse than satan.



The left are the ones pushing the gay marriage agenda.  The right fights back, and you cheer for the left and condemn the right.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

The irony of this whole thing is that the only law you guys can point to that have got you all up in arms is alcohol on Sundays.

That's it.  The religious right is taking over the world with that one.  You got us pegged.

I see RJ continually points out the medical benefits issue for homosexual partners...and no one will address it.

JB....you mentioned a difference between a law enacted in the name of religion and the name of human rights.  I've already pointed out that religion calls a spade a spade.  The left masks it as "human rights" or "social justice"....but it's moral legislation without doubt.  The only difference is that one tries to hide it and one doesn't.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The irony of this whole thing is that the only law you guys can point to that have got you all up in arms is alcohol on Sundays.
> 
> That's it.  The religious right is taking over the world with that one.  You got us pegged..



Until recently a two guys "getting gay" together was illegal.  The laws were struck down.  Guess who fought to keep them enacted?



Huntinfool said:


> I see RJ continually points out the medical benefits issue for homosexual partners...and no one will address it.



I did. It is an employment law problem, not a gay marriage problem.  I think if a business owner wants to be a bigot he should be allowed to do so, and the public can choose whether or not to use his business, and the public can choose whether or not to work for him.




Huntinfool said:


> JB....you mentioned a difference between a law enacted in the name of religion and the name of human rights.  I've already pointed out that religion calls a spade a spade.  The left masks it as "human rights" or "social justice"....but it's moral legislation without doubt.  The only difference is that one tries to hide it and one doesn't.



Allowing people to do what they feel is morally right which does not hinder the liberty of another is not legislating morality.  It is preventing one individual from limiting the liberty of another.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

> I did. It is an employment law problem, not a gay marriage problem. I think if a business owner wants to be a bigot he should be allowed to do so, and the public can choose whether or not to use his business, and the public can choose whether or not to work for him.



It doesn't matter what you think...that's the point.  If homosexual unions are recognized, the direct result is that RJ must provide benefits.  What you and I think about it is irrelevant.  It forces him to act.

I don't think I should pay as much in taxes....but I have to.



> Allowing people to do what they feel is morally right which does not hinder the liberty of another is not legislating morality. It is preventing one individual from limiting the liberty of another.



"Social Justice"


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The left masks it as "human rights" or "social justice."



Human rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) are, under our government, universal.  One religion's morality is not.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It doesn't matter what you think...that's the point.  If homosexual unions are recognized, the direct result is that RJ must provide benefits.  What you and I think about it is irrelevant.  It forces him to act.



Then he should fight the employment laws on religious freedom grounds and leave the gay folks alone. 



Huntinfool said:


> "Social Justice"



....and.....


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Human rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) are, under our government, universal.  One religion's morality is not.



gay marriage...tax funded abortion....are not human rights.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

We're speaking of legislating morality in general.  Not just religious morality.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2011)

> gay marriage...abortion....are not human rights.



...in fact....abortion....we have a right to life?  Man, it's right there in the founding documents.

BTW JB....Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are in no way promised by our constitution.  It's in the Declaration of Independence...which holds no legal status whatsoever.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> gay marriage...abortion....are not human rights.



Pursuit of happiness is relevant to the individual, gay marriage would certainly fall under this category.

An abortion violates a human's rights.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I did. It is an employment law problem, not a gay marriage problem.  I think if a business owner wants to be a bigot he should be allowed to do so, and the public can choose whether or not to use his business, and the public can choose whether or not to work for him.



I guess I've never though of it like that. Not a bad idea.

For WHATEVER reason a man chooses or wants to have a relationship with another man like a lot or most other people have with a woman.... does that mean he loses complete right to benefits reserved for his life partner? However much you don't like the fact that they've chosen to find life long intimite companionship with someone of the same sex, it's really the same kind of relationship as a hetero couple..

Of course you can get people claiming to be homosexual to get more benefits, but I know of people who have neglected to get divorced to keep them too.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...in fact....abortion....we have a right to life?  Man, it's right there in the founding documents.
> 
> BTW JB....Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are in no way promised by our constitution.  It's in the Declaration of Independence...which holds no legal status whatsoever.



Ok. Do you think our constitution, under current configuration, allows the government to discriminate?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Pursuit of happiness is relevant to the individual, gay marriage would certainly fall under this category.
> 
> An abortion violates a human's rights.



edited to add tax funded abortion.


So then why is the liberal left legislating that abortion is alright?



Abortion is a becoming more and more of an issue as our medical profession can prove how early on the baby is formed etc etc.

When we have a trial about a pregnant mother that is killed, no problem...two people were killed by the perp.  But...somehow...row v wade trumps it when the mother wants to kill the child.  See Scott & Lacy Peterson trial for an example.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> For WHATEVER reason a man chooses or wants to have a relationship with another man like a lot or most other people have with a woman.... does that mean he loses complete right to benefits reserved for his life partner? However much you don't like the fact that they've chosen to find life long intimite companionship with someone of the same sex, it's really the same kind of relationship as a hetero couple.



Benefits guaranteed by the government, sure?  I think all should be treated equal because the government should not choose whose morality is "correct."

But, a private business owner should not have to violate his religious beliefs either.  Everybody (the market) can choose whose side they agree with.  That way, the government does not take sides, and nobody has to accept something they don't want to. Benefits are a contract between the employer and the employee.


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

I'll address RJ' issue of "forced" insurance.

RJ who forces you to offer insurance to the hetero married couples currently?

Legal recognition will not force you to cover gay couples with insurance, you will have the choice to not offer anybody insurance or to offer everybody insurance. The only thing forced is that you treat the employees equally with regards to insurance.

Don't want to cover the gay couple's insurance, fine cancel insurance for everyone and pay them all what you would have paid for insurance as salary.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So then why is the liberal left legislating that abortion is alright?



I am just as opposed to abortion as you are.  I don't frame it in morality terms because you shouldn't have to.  Figure out when a human deserves "rights" (conception being the least arbitrary, according to me) and then protect them.  It really is a libertarian position.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> Don't want to cover the gay couple's insurance, fine cancel insurance for everyone and pay them all what you would have paid for insurance as salary.



Thats actually a lot easier solution then the one I proposed, and more fair.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

That argument makes sense but it still seems to me to be human rights....

Plus, I can figure out some other reason not to hire someone that will fly


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> I'll address RJ' issue of "forced" insurance.
> 
> RJ who forces you to offer insurance to the hetero married couples currently?
> 
> ...



There we go..


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So you are not allowed to drink alcohol because of blue laws?



I can't sell it if I want to can I?




> As far as gay marriage goes, I'm only aware of a couple of countries that allow it, and they're about as left wing and "statist" as they come.  Even _California_ voted down a gay marriage law.



That is no concern of mine.  I grew up believing this country was a free country, were individuals could live and do as the pleased as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I will continue to fight for this ideal.



> Please provide a Mark Levin quote that says the religious right is "statist" and "an evil worse than satan".



Read my response agian, I never said he did. 



> Finally, you seem to miss the irony in these two statements:
> 
> 
> The left are the ones pushing the gay marriage agenda.  The right fights back, and you cheer for the left and condemn the right.



This is an area that does not affect my "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I do not care who marries who, I do not beleive the government should either.   I want government to do only the things it was designed for, to protect me and my rights from threats both foriegn or domestic.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> I'll address RJ' issue of "forced" insurance.
> 
> RJ who forces you to offer insurance to the hetero married couples currently?
> 
> ...



There have been plenty of homo threads to go around...not trying to change anyone's position on it as I know I'm not going to.

What I'm pointing out is that the liberal left is pushing their immoral agenda just like the religious right is pushing their moral agenda. 

And as a biz owner, I should be able to choose who I want to offer benefits to and who I don't want to.  If the employee doesn't like it, they can go work somewhere else.

Having a job isn't a right...its a privilege...and working for me is an even greater privilege


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> This is an area that does not affect my "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I do not care who marries who, I do not beleive the government should either.   I want government to do only the things it was designed for, to protect me and my rights from threats both foriegn or domestic.



If you truly believed this, you would be fighting against the govt recognizing hetero marriage....not fighting for the govt to recognize homo marriage.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am just as opposed to abortion as you are.  I don't frame it in morality terms because you shouldn't have to.  Figure out when a human deserves "rights" (conception being the least arbitrary, according to me) and then protect them.  It really is a libertarian position.



Great post. I agree.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> There have been plenty of homo threads to go around...not trying to change anyone's position on it as I know I'm not going to.
> 
> What I'm pointing out is that the liberal left is pushing their immoral agenda just like the religious right is pushing their moral agenda.
> 
> ...



100% agree


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> If you truly believed this, you would be fighting against the govt recognizing hetero marriage....not fighting for the govt to recognize homo marriage.



The fight is much bigger than even that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I can't sell it if I want to can I?



Is that the best you can do?  As HF said:



Huntinfool said:


> The irony of this whole thing is that the only law you guys can point to that have got you all up in arms is alcohol on Sundays.
> 
> That's it.  The religious right is taking over the world with that one.  You got us pegged.






TheBishop said:


> That is no concern of mine.  I grew up believing this country was a free country, were individuals could live and do as the pleased as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I will continue to fight for this ideal.



So you're OK with polygamy?  How about if a 30-year old man wants to marry a 14-year old girl?  Or the reverse situation, like Mary Kay LeTourneau?




TheBishop said:


> Read my response agian, I never said he did.



You implied it.




TheBishop said:


> ... "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ...



Do you think the Founding Fathers had gay marriage in mind when they wrote that?


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

RJ you selected the point I merely came along and batted it around a bit to show that the selection was a poor one.

You cited that recognizing gay marriage would "Force you" to pay insurance, I showed that it did not force you to do any such thing. You have the option not to pay them insurance, so long as you give your employees equal treatment under the law, you have options too. Far better options for how to handle it than the 

"If you want to drink on Sunday, go to the local restaurant...or buy it on Saturday? " 

option you offer for those of us protesting against being forced to show special deference to your religion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 24, 2011)

That reminds me of something funny I saw once long ago...


I was in a convenience store, and the guy ahead of me had his 2 year old son with him.   He apparently had some familiarity with the cashier lady as he had his son shoot her a bird.   lol    The cashier lady reacted with astonishment, and asked why he would have his son do that.    His response?

"Well, he's gonna learn to do it someday!"    The cashier agreed....and we all went about our business.   I, though, was left thinking..."Your son is going to learn what heroine is....and cocaine....and homosexuality.   Will it be okay for him to do those things?"   I"m sure the dad would have felt differently.   I'm sure those things didn't line up with what he thought was okay, morally.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

TTom said:


> RJ you selected the point I merely came along and batted it around a bit to show that the selection was a poor one.
> 
> You cited that recognizing gay marriage would "Force you" to pay insurance, I showed that it did not force you to do any such thing. You have the option not to pay them insurance, so long as you give your employees equal treatment under the law, you have options too. Far better options for how to handle it than the
> 
> ...



Every homo man can marry a woman just like me.

Equal rights, right?



TTom...you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'm merely pointing out that legislation of morality/immorality happens on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## TTom (Aug 24, 2011)

I'm sure we will not find agreement on the marriage issue RJ we've batted that around often enough  that to even imagine such an agreement would require divine intervention  on a level not seen in recent history.


----------



## bad0351 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Recognition of gay marriage to start.
> 
> Tax dollars paying for abortions.
> 
> ...



Are you saying all these things listed are immoral??


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> > Is that the best you can do?  As HF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 24, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Are you saying all these things listed are immoral??



Yes.

As my 6 yo daughter would say, that question was "easy peasy."


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Do I really have to go through the Ga penal code to point out others.



The point is, nobody ever does.  They just toss out “blue laws” like not being able to buy beer on Sunday is equivalent to the Hebrews’ 400 years in slavery.




TheBishop said:


> As for the fourteen year old, she is not yet of age of consent.



_So what?_

If some guy in Utah wants a 14-year old bride and she’s OK with it, how does that affect you in the least?

And how about NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association?  Will you fight for the right of adult men to have sex with consenting young boys?  Based on this:



TheBishop said:


> I grew up believing this country was a free country, were individuals could live and do as the pleased as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I will continue to fight for this ideal.



… I’d say you definitely would.




TheBishop said:


> No go read it again. ANYONE using the police powers of government to push an agenda would qualify as a STATIST, beleiver or non-believer.



But you obviously believe the religious right is doing exactly that.  I never said you believed that _only_ the RR does it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> And how about NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association?  Will you fight for the right of adult men to have sex with consenting young boys?



NAMBLA are child molesters.  There is no comparison between two adult gay folks wanting to get hitched and those people.


----------



## bad0351 (Aug 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes.
> 
> As my 6 yo daughter would say, that question was "easy peasy."



Well, if you feel these things are immoral, and your god tells you that they are why do you continue to support them with your tax dollars?
Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and hold fast to your absolute beliefs and  withhold any more payments on your "religeous beliefs"?

I'll tell you why....you hold fast to your beliefs only until they could harm you or your family.
You say you will never compromise your faith......except when it may harm you or yours.

Not a REAL commitment there.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 24, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> NAMBLA are child molesters.  There is no comparison between two adult gay folks wanting to get hitched and those people.



I was not comparing them to two adult gay folks.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> What would you propose we do with the idiots?



Close the borders, and stop paying their way, it oughta work itself out. Don't get me wrong, I believe in charity and social responsibility, but I think we are way past that now. Some people have babies just to get a bigger welfare check, or to "anchor" themselves in our beloved USA.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

It might stop the dramatic increase in their population, but we'll always have idiots


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 24, 2011)

I just caught up on the posts, and now we are on to NAMBLA.  Goodnight.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 24, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Well, if you feel these things are immoral, and your god tells you that they are why do you continue to support them with your tax dollars?
> Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and hold fast to your absolute beliefs and  withhold any more payments on your "religeous beliefs"?
> 
> I'll tell you why....you hold fast to your beliefs only until they could harm you or your family.
> ...



At first I thought... dang.... God is supposed to come before your wife and children, you're right...dang...


Then I thought - Hold god first (or whatever else you choose to put in the place of this - ready to hear them); obey the law of the land.. whichever works best.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I just caught up on the posts, and now we are on to NAMBLA.  Goodnight.



I didn't bring it up, just responded to what looked like an unreasonable comparison.  I apologize if I was dragging it away from the OP....coexist bumper stickers......

....took my last comment about it down.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2011)

ted_bsr said:


> close the borders, and stop paying their way, it oughta work itself out. Don't get me wrong, i believe in charity and social responsibility, but i think we are way past that now. Some people have babies just to get a bigger welfare check, or to "anchor" themselves in our beloved usa.



b-r-a-v-o


----------



## bzb (Aug 24, 2011)

Back to the OP: they do crack me up, because they obviously know nothing about the religions.  Commanding tolerance is another laughable one.  "YOU MUST TOLERATE." Wait, but you don't have to?

The one with the Christian fish eating the Darwin fish is worse, though.  Surely that was a joke started by the Darwin fish folks... that the poor saps that bought em just don't get.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The point is, nobody ever does.  They just toss out “blue laws” like not being able to buy beer on Sunday is equivalent to the Hebrews’ 400 years in slavery.



Why not go directly to blue laws?  It easily the most recognizable example. One many religous  folks have hard time admiting that its only foundation stands on religious beleifs, not logic or liberty.  

It is not the only example.  There are many laws on the books dealing with sexual behaviour, drug abuse, alcohol, and other vices that do not belong. 





> If some guy in Utah wants a 14-year old bride and she’s OK with it, how does that affect you in the least?
> 
> And how about NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association?  Will you fight for the right of adult men to have sex with consenting young boys?  Based on this:
> 
> ...



You would be correct, not becuase I condone it, but becuase of what you seem unable to comprehend.  
Take all your emotional blindness and set it to the side, and step back and look at it from a logical point of view. 


Has government ever used its powers to stop anything?  Nambla from occuring? War on Drugs? Poverty? What do laws really do? Do they prevent crime? Do they stop deivant behaviour from occurring?  The answer is a resounding NO.   

Lets take your NAMBLA issue you seem so fond of.. and use it as an example of what I think governments role in such dasterly moral issue.  


We could not stop it if we tried! How do I know? We have been trying for centuries to control men through law and all we have done is grown government. But we have to try right? Morally Right? 

What happens when we use the police powers of government? The activity goes underground, growing the dangers and problems exponentially.  If the people want it they will seek and government cannot stop it. If a boy wants to have sex with a man, he will, and vice versa.  

Its sick and we all should condone it, The best weapon against such an afront is NOT government.  It is society.  The more we riducule, the more its frowned apon, the more you hold those in great disdain the more unlikely that activity is to happen.   

So what does government really do? It punishes that is all. So if we enacted a law, what are really doing? We are giving the government more power to punish.   The more we give, the more they take. Thats how we arrived at our current destination.


Why were our fore fathers so afraid of government?  Becuase they knew the government is nothing but a tool of tyranny.  They understood its necessity to ward off anarchy but believed that only the most minimal form of government was prefferable over the alternative.They beleived, in the goodness of men, I believe in the goodness of men.  I understand that bad people will always do bad things no matter what the government says.  I beleive bad people will always be a very small minority, becuase society will always dictate so.    

I admantly believe everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The government primary role is to punish those who cross this line.  




> But you obviously believe the religious right is doing exactly that.  I never said you believed that _only_ the RR does it.[/



100% yes.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

I think you should be able to buy beer on Sunday.  Actually I think I should be able to buy beer on Sunday too!

Does that help?



Try all you want to reason around it.  All groups prefer legislation fit their particular set of morals.  


Epic Fail again?


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

So, why is the phrase "under God" in the pledge again?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

Because the founding fathers put it there....

...and they were fans of the guy.




From my perspective, there is no question that Christians try to enforce their morals on others via legislation.  There is no argument to be made there.  It's just a fact.

The debate is why "others" are trying so hard to deny that they do the same.  That is dumbfounding to me.



What's kind of funny is that nobody seems to have an issue with this list of laws that see eye to eye with "religion".  

Thou shall not murder
Thou shall not steal
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

But from the same list....we have Thou shall keep the Sabbath day holy.  I suppose as long as we can buy beer we're happy to follow the rest, right?
etc....


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Why not go directly to blue laws?  It easily the most recognizable example.



... and the lamest.  You can't buy beer on Sunday.  Boo hoo. 




TheBishop said:


> You would be correct, not becuase I condone it, but becuase of what you seem unable to comprehend.
> Take all your emotional blindness and set it to the side, and step back and look at it from a logical point of view.
> 
> 
> ...



That's a very verbose way of agreeing that you would "fight for the right of adult men to have sex with consenting young boys".

And I "comprende" just fine.  I just can't believe you'd actually put it in writing on an internet bulletin board.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Because the founding fathers put it there....
> 
> ...and they were fans of the guy.



Incorrect. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22

The founding fathers were fans of a separation between church and state.




Huntinfool said:


> From my perspective, there is no question that Christians try to enforce their morals on others via legislation.  There is no argument to be made there.  It's just a fact.
> 
> The debate is why "others" are trying so hard to deny that they do the same.  That is dumbfounding to me.



I would agree that almost everyone votes for people who share their morals and would like to enforce at least some part of their morals on others through the force of government.

But we're not talking about morals so much as religion.  That most immoral of institutions.

What a large number of Christians try to do is to force their RELIGION on others via the government.  That's different.

Forcing school children to pay homage to their deity via the Pledge of Allegiance is a good example.  School prayer is another good example.  Christians arn't worried about their kids getting to pray in school.  They want other people's kids to pray.  And are happy to leverage peer pressure to do it.  It's despicable.

No booze on Sunday isn't about morals.  It's about forcing everyone else to pay respect to a Christian holy day.  



Huntinfool said:


> What's kind of funny is that nobody seems to have an issue with this list of laws that see eye to eye with "religion".
> 
> Thou shall not murder
> Thou shall not steal
> ...



Isn't the 10 commandments old testament?  I thought none of that applied anymore.  

Thou shalt not murder!  Unless it's a unbeliever or a heretic.  Those guys can be burned at the steak, slaughtered indiscriminately, their wives and daughters raped and enslaved, their possessions looted.   Not only will God not be angry, he'll reward you!  Or so says the Old Testament anyway.

So, tell me now then, who else is it that is forcing their _religion_ on people via the government?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Because the founding fathers put it there....
> 
> ...and they were fans of the guy.



The founding fathers had nothing to do with the pledge, and "under God" wasn't added until the 1950's.  

CP, NAMBLA involves minors.  Minor are limited by law, in part, because they are not completely developed psychologically.  They cannot grasp, as an adult can, the consequences of consent.  A victim is created by an adult taking advantage of a child's limited capabilities.  The government should protect victims.  This is a different category all together.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> an adult taking advantage of a child's limited capabilities.



Time honored religious tradition that.   

Gotta indoctrinate those kids early on!  Look no further than the practice of baptizing babies.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Christians arn't worried about their kids getting to pray in school.  They want other people's kids to pray.  And are happy to leverage peer pressure to do it.  It's despicable.



That is just plain false.

Christians don't care if you pray or don't pray in school.  Just don't say it can't be done.  If students want to gather to pray, why can't they?  If they want to have a Christian Bible Club on campus why can't they?  

Oh...because it is a violation of church & state?  get real.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Thou shalt not murder!  Unless it's a unbeliever or a heretic.  Those guys can be burned at the steak, slaughtered indiscriminately, their wives and daughters raped and enslaved, their possessions looted.   Not only will God not be angry, he'll reward you!  Or so says the Old Testament anyway.
> 
> So, tell me now then, who else is it that is forcing their _religion_ on people via the government?



Pnome, you been reading the Quran again haven't you?

If you want a great illustration on how the government forces religion on people look no further than your local Islamic nation.


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

HuntingFool a little history about the Pledge for you.

1. It was written in the 1892's over a century after the founding fathers. By a Socialist Baptist Minister

2. the original version didn't have the words "Under God" in it; the original version was:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' 

3. The words "Under God" were put in the Pledge over 50 years later by Congress in 1954.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

> Incorrect.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_...22under_God.22
> 
> The founding fathers were fans of a separation between church and state.



I stand corrected....but it was kind of tongue in cheek anyway.  

I don't think adding "under God" is a government declaration of a religion...do you?






> That most immoral of institutions.



Nice dig...very nice.





> So, tell me now then, who else is it that is forcing their religion on people via the government?



All of them are trying.  Shiria law comes to mind.  

Can you name a Christian moral law that has been enacted in the last 50 years?  In fact, I would argue that there is so much revulsion against Christian morals that most of the ones that were on the books have been taken off.  School prayer, though it wasn't a law, has been banned.  Christians haven't been able to move anything forward in recent years.

I don't know what you're so worried about.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Pnome, you been reading the Quran again haven't you?
> 
> If you want a great illustration on how the government forces religion on people look no further than your local Islamic nation.



Maybe where we're headed? Maybe what they think of us also?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

> HuntingFool a little history about the Pledge for you.
> 
> 1. It was written in the 1892's over a century after the founding fathers. By a Socialist Baptist Minister
> 
> ...



I am grateful that we have such founts of knowledge here.  I'm sure your collective lives have been greatly diminished by being forced to say the words "under God" over your lifetime.

Please forgive me...and my Christian brothers.  I know it has been such a heavy burden to bear.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I stand corrected....but it was kind of tongue in cheek anyway.
> 
> I don't think adding "under God" is a government declaration of a religion...do you?



Maybe not? Then what is it?


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't think adding "under God" is a government declaration of a religion...do you?



Yes I do.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and the lamest.  You can't buy beer on Sunday.  Boo hoo.



When was the last time anybody said "Wow, I can't buy beer on Sunday, I think I will accept Jesus as my Lord and personal savior instead."  Most likely never.  The law only serves to advance a religious agenda and to force your "morality" on others.  It accomplishes nothing of value, and much of resentment.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I stand corrected....but it was kind of tongue in cheek anyway.
> 
> I don't think adding "under God" is a government declaration of a religion...do you?
> 
> ...



Not sure where that last part came from? Anyway - You stood corrected respectfully....



Huntinfool said:


> I am grateful that we have such founts of knowledge here.  I'm sure your collective lives have been greatly diminished by being forced to say the words "under God" over your lifetime.
> 
> Please forgive me...and my Christian brothers.  I know it has been such a heavy burden to bear.



Then went waa waa waa all the way home...


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

> CP, NAMBLA involves minors. Minor are limited by law, in part, because they are not completely developed psychologically. They cannot grasp, as an adult can, the consequences of consent.



Don't tell Bishop that....his kids are fully capable of making rational decisions.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> That is just plain false.
> 
> Christians don't care if you pray or don't pray in school.  Just don't say it can't be done.  If students want to gather to pray, why can't they?  If they want to have a Christian Bible Club on campus why can't they?
> 
> Oh...because it is a violation of church & state?  get real.



I've got no problem with kids saying prayers while in a public school.  It's only when the school endorses or supports the activity that it crosses the line into taxpayer funded religious indoctrination. 

Are you sure Christians don't care if I pray or not?  Seems like the whole evangelical movement might disagree with you there.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

> Not sure where that last part came from? Anyway - You stood corrected respectfully....




Not so much.  The quote that was directed at is in there.

It went like this:



> Religion...the most immoral of institutions.




My point about the wa wa wa thing was that you guys are all up in arms about the pledge.  I'm sure it's terribly burdensome.  I bet it pains you to pay with money that says "In God we Trust" too, huh?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Are you sure Christians don't care if I pray or not?  Seems like the whole evangelical movement might disagree with you there.



Of course we all care whether or not you pray.  

But caring doens't mean that we force you to do something you don't want to.  Last time I checked, you weren't forced to bow your head and pray.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't tell Bishop that....his kids are fully capable of making rational decisions.



I was talking about the false equivalence between gay marriage laws and nambla's practices.  One creates victims (nambla), the other prevents liberty (banning gay marriage).


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

As for that NAMBLA strawman I wish Bishop had not run at it, and instead had called it out for what it is, a strawman.

Consent is the watchword and the law does not allow for a minor to consent based on their developmental levels. The law already exists and with the inclusion of the Romeo and Juliet exemption included, it is just fine as it stands.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe not? Then what is it?



Apparently when the socialist minister wrote it....


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I was talking about the false equivalence between gay marriage laws and nambla's practices.  One creates victims (nambla), the other prevents liberty (banning gay marriage).



You had to be there for that thread to get what I was saying.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe where we're headed? Maybe what they think of us also?



Not even close on either accounts. Not being able to buy a 40 on Sunday is not even close to sharia law and what the Islamic religion forces on anyone born within it's confines.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't tell Bishop that....his kids are fully capable of making rational decisions.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> But caring doens't mean that we force you to do something you don't want to.  Last time I checked, you weren't forced to bow your head and pray.



Ever seen a kid do something for no other reason but that everyone else was doing it?

You should see my son make an attempt at the sign of the cross whenever we eat dinner with my extended family.  He has no idea what it is, but since his cousins are doing it, he thinks he has to as well.

That's the intention.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I bet it pains you to pay with money that says "In God we Trust" too, huh?



It does.  Would it pain you if it said "In the Gods we Trust"?

Or if the pledge said "One nation, under Allah"?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Ever seen a kid do something for no other reason but that everyone else was doing it?
> 
> You should see my son make an attempt at the sign of the cross whenever we eat dinner with my extended family.  He has no idea what it is, but since his cousins are doing it, he thinks he has to as well.
> 
> That's the intention.



sign of the cross?


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

HuntinFool, you are correct that most of the latest results have run against Christianity being given special treatment under the law. 

Noteable exception Marital Aids laws. Can't buy them in Alabama, can't posses more than 5 of them in TX without being considered a Distributor

Still have a few more Christian morality laws on the books though.

North Carolina because "any man and woman found occupying the same bedroom in any hotel, public inn, or boardinghouse for any immoral purpose...shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”

“If any man and woman not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”

Idaho Adultery can get you $1,000 fine and 3 years in the state prison. 

These relics of laws are still out there, My personal combined sentences for these acts, would be the rest of my natural life and then some, but then again I'm a heathen.


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> sign of the cross?



Roman Catholics who genuflect in the sign of the cross at the close of a prayer.

In the name of the Father (touch forehead)  the Son (touch the solar plexus) and the Holy ( touch left side of chest) Spirit *ghost* (touch right side of chest).

Greek and some other orthodox churches genuflect right side first then left.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2011)

On the books and enforced don't always jive....


pnome...it wouldn't pain me to have In Allah We Trust on U.S. money...I wouldn't live here if it did.  I hear it's nice in the British Virgin Isles these days.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Ever seen a kid do something for no other reason but that everyone else was doing it?
> 
> You should see my son make an attempt at the sign of the cross whenever we eat dinner with my extended family.  He has no idea what it is, but since his cousins are doing it, he thinks he has to as well.
> 
> That's the intention.





Guess he's going to start having gay sex when we pass the marriage ammendment too.

C'mon....really...you guys need to work on sticking together a bit better when it comes to debating these things.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 25, 2011)

TTom said:


> Roman Catholics who genuflect in the sign of the cross at the close of a prayer.
> 
> In the name of the Father (touch forehead)  the Son (touch the solar plexus) and the Holy ( touch left side of chest) Spirit *ghost* (touch right side of chest).
> 
> Greek and some other orthodox churches genuflect right side first then left.



Oh.   Catholicism.

 I'm only familiar with their belief in Mary being a virgin her whole life, and sinless, and that they believe Jesus had no other siblings.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

Who's morality where they using when these GA laws where written?

1)Members of the state assembly cannot be ticketed for speeding while the state assembly is in session

2)Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.

3)No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.

4)Persons under the age of 16 may not play pinball after 11:00 PM.

5)Crosses may be burned on someone else’s property, so long as you have their permission.

TTom, I see the laws that you posted and I would have to equate them with these silly laws posted above.
The only law that carry's any wieght is the no buying of achohal on Sunday's.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 25, 2011)

and how about the Turner County Sheriff keeping deputies radarin' from patrol cars out on the interstate 24/7 just to fill the county coffers?

I know...I know....it's unrelated....but I feel better saying it!


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

Except that they are there just waiting for the opportunity for some over zelous cop to abuse or some prosecutor who needs to shore up support from the church crowd for the next election.
Proof that they're still an issue One Year ago.

http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_3299f0e6-940a-11df-9fa2-001cc4c03286.html

Last July a Man and his mistress were arrested by the police in Mississippi and had to post a $500 bond. The charges were, Adultery for the man and fornication for the woman.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

TTom said:


> Except that they are there just waiting for the opportunity for some over zelous cop to abuse or some prosecutor who needs to shore up support from the church crowd for the next election.
> Proof that they're still an issue One Year ago.
> 
> http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_3299f0e6-940a-11df-9fa2-001cc4c03286.html
> ...



I agree, the laws are lame and rediculous. I might be wrong, but I would think it would be hard to come up with alot of the stories like the one linked above though.


I am in agreement with HF, there are crazy laws inacted with major support from the religious right, and there are crazy laws inacted with major support from the secular world as well, the former just admit to using their morals grounds to do so.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 25, 2011)

What if an over zealous cop want to act on one of the silly laws I posted, who then do we turn the stern eye to?


----------



## TTom (Aug 25, 2011)

Stringmusic seriously, you think the hue and cry that politicians hear when they repeal laws against ice cream cones in pockets would come anywhere near the hue and cry for repealing laws against adultery and fornication?

I'm all for repealing stupid relics from the law books, I think there should be a sunset provision on every law passed. 10 years and they gotta vote on it again as an individual act.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The law only serves to advance a religious agenda and to force your "morality" on others.



It's not my morality.  It wouldn't bother me in the least if that law went away.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and the lamest.  You can't buy beer on Sunday.  Boo hoo.



Intelligent response.



> That's a very verbose way of agreeing that you would "fight for the right of adult men to have sex with consenting young boys".
> 
> And I "comprende" just fine.  I just can't believe you'd actually put it in writing on an internet bulletin board.



Only Jay Carney, David Axlerod, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Shultz could have spun it better.  No wonder you pay such homage to such an anti-american film by such liberal director. And you obviously comprehend nothing.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't tell Bishop that....his kids are fully capable of making rational decisions.



Better that than just trained response like an obedient dog.


----------



## CAL (Aug 25, 2011)

gosh,You all make me think of my school years right off.Just for remembrance sake.
First thing every morning we had a scripture read.The Bible was passed around the room and a different student read a verse evry morning.We stood,prayed the lords prayer and said the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

During break we could peal an apple to eat with our knives if we so desired.Most everyone with a car or truck had some type of firearm in the vehicle.In shop we sharpened our ax,machete,and or our pocket knives.

Now lets fast forward to today.No prayers,no Bible reading.Heaven forbid a knife seen or a firearm in a vehicle on campus.I think I have the answer.It just must have been the Bible reading and the praying that caused all the problems we have with school children in 2011.Yep,was the reminder of God's word and Jesus teaching causing all the problems.Funny in those days nobody ever thought about killing we did have a fight or two and maybe a bloody nose now and then but that was about it.

Just makes me plum proud of the advancement our country has made in the last 50 years.Had to have been all that Bible reading and praying that was stopped plus the cramming of religion down children's throats what never would heard about the Lord otherwise.We have just come so far,it is unbelievable.Now we have police and police dogs in school,drug raids,and searches just to name a few.They getting an education though even if some of the 7th.graders are 21 years old and can't read a word,much less speak the kings English correctly.

Lets not forget private school that some of us have paid for dearly after paying our share of school tax every year.Never have thought about it before but after reading some of the comments on the forum and here,I see now it was that Bible and the praying what was the problem.I know most will surely agree!

Ain't this just off topic at it's best.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

CAL said:


> gosh,You all make me think of my school years right off.Just for remembrance sake.
> First thing every morning we had a scripture read.The Bible was passed around the room and a different student read a verse evry morning.We stood,prayed the lords prayer and said the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
> 
> During break we could peal an apple to eat with our knives if we so desired.Most everyone with a car or truck had some type of firearm in the vehicle.In shop we sharpened our ax,machete,and or our pocket knives.
> ...



No Cal it hasn nothing to do with the bible, but everything to do with government.


----------



## pnome (Aug 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Nice dig...very nice.



You're right it was an unnecessary dig.  You'll have to excuse me I was in a bad mood earlier.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Only Jay Carney, David Axlerod, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Shultz could have spun it better.



You think I agree with those guys?    That's a swing and a miss!  I'm a Limbaugh, Levin, Buckley and Reagan fan.  I've got Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell on my bookshelf, not Michael Moore.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> No wonder you pay such homage to such an anti-american film by such liberal director.



I honestly did not know what you were talking about.  I had to go back through the thread before it hit me.

Are you actually talking about "Dumb and Dumber"?  Please tell me you're not.  Please tell me I referred to "Reds" in a previous post, and that's what you're talking about.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I honestly did not know what you were talking about.  I had to go back through the thread before it hit me.
> 
> Are you actually talking about "Dumb and Dumber"?  Please tell me you're not.  Please tell me I referred to "Reds" in a previous post, and that's what you're talking about.



I think he's talking about Avatar, though I might be wrong.  That movie was a condemnation of "American Imperialism."  Go back and watch it.  It was ridiculous.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

CAL said:


> Lets not forget private school that some of us have paid for dearly after paying our share of school tax every year.Never have thought about it before but after reading some of the comments on the forum and here,I see now it was that Bible and the praying what was the problem.I know most will surely agree!
> 
> Ain't this just off topic at it's best.



I put my kids in private school and pay public taxes too.  But i think if a family of any faith is going to public school , they should not have to worry about contradictory faiths (such as Islam, Judaism, Hinudism, etc.) rammed down their throat.  So I believe the school should not recognize any faith.  It's a public school, and it has to be fair to every family who pays and attends. 

Consider this, there are segments of Michigan which have heavily Islamic districts.  Should they teach Islam at those schools?  Should the principle lead them all to pray to the East 5 times a day?  Just thinking......


----------



## CAL (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I put my kids in private school and pay public taxes too.  But i think if a family of any faith is going to public school , they should not have to worry about contradictory faiths (such as Islam, Judaism, Hinudism, etc.) rammed down their throat.  So I believe the school should not recognize any faith.  It's a public school, and it has to be fair to every family who pays and attends.
> 
> Consider this, there are segments of Michigan which have heavily Islamic districts.  Should they teach Islam at those schools?  Should the principle lead them all to pray to the East 5 times a day?  Just thinking......



Fact is,I never really thought about it in such a way.i do see your point though.Where I live and went to school there were no foreigners nor foreign religion.Just Christian people with Christian beliefs.My children went to a Christian private school and now there children go to a Christian private school.Except they do have prayer and read the Bible.Even prayers are offered to God before every ball game,over the loud speaker to several hundred people.It is just our way of life.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2011)

CAL said:


> Fact is,I never really thought about it in such a way.i do see your point though.Where I live and went to school there were no foreigners nor foreign religion.Just Christian people with Christian beliefs.My children went to a Christian private school and now there children go to a Christian private school.Except they do have prayer and read the Bible.Even prayers are offered to God before every ball game,over the loud speaker to several hundred people.It is just our way of life.



And my kid goes to Chapel on Wednesdays, and prays, etc.  I put him in the school because the public school we are district for was way too rough, too many drugs, guns, etc.  I wanted him safe.  I do not agree with all of the school doctrines, but he is safe and getting a far superior education than what the public schools offer.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think he's talking about Avatar, though I might be wrong.  That movie was a condemnation of "American Imperialism."  Go back and watch it.  It was ridiculous.



Whew!!!  I feel better!  I certainly hope that's what he was referring to.  I've never even seen the movie and am not paying homage to it.  I've just always wanted an Avatar avatar.

I did hear the plot was as you say.  What do you expect, though?  James Cameron is a left wing loon like the rest of Hollywood.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think he's talking about Avatar, though I might be wrong.  That movie was a condemnation of "American Imperialism."  Go back and watch it.  It was ridiculous.



Bingo.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You think I agree with those guys?    That's a swing and a miss!  I'm a Limbaugh, Levin, Buckley and Reagan fan.  I've got Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell on my bookshelf, not Michael Moore.



If you are a true follower Friedman then you would understand my position.  He was very big on using natural forces for control instead of government.  He is definetly anti-state. He knew that the state makes worse any undertaking it sets out to do, no matter how noble the cuase.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Bingo.



Then we actually agree on something. 

I am so glad you weren't dissing a cinematic masterpiece like "Dumb and Dumber".


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> He is definetly anti-state. He knew that the state makes worse any undertaking it sets out to do, no matter how noble the cuase.



We agree again.  That's two in a row! 

P.S.  In addition to being a centerpin fan, I'm also a Hayek fan.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 25, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Then we actually agree on something.
> 
> I am so glad you weren't dissing a cinematic masterpiece like "Dumb and Dumber".



There are some lines I won't even cross.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 26, 2011)

TTom said:


> Stringmusic seriously, you think the hue and cry that politicians hear when they repeal laws against ice cream cones in pockets would come anywhere near the hue and cry for repealing laws against adultery and fornication?


Yes, I can see what you are saying, makes sense.


----------



## pnome (Aug 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm also a Hayek fan.



x2!!!


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 26, 2011)

pnome said:


> x2!!!




That Hayek, too!

She's in her early forties and still makes most of the Hollywood women look like Ernest Borgnine, in comparison.

Unfortunately, she settled for a French billionaire instead of this American thousandaire.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 26, 2011)

She's ugly....

compared to my daughter


----------



## G5BONECRUSHER (Sep 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Tolerant and tolerate have the same root...but mean very different things in the context of someone's beliefs...which is the point of that bumper sticker.
> 
> We can tolerate pain and suffering.  If that's the definition you want to use.  But we are not to tolerate other gods or idols.  That is what the bumper sticker is asking us to do...not tolerate pain.
> 
> I'm not going to bother arguing with you on that if you don't get it.



I understand what your saying...but I have to disagree. Jesus is tolerant at times and intolerant at times. He was tolerant of those who recognized their sinfulness, he had compassion on those who were trapped by their sin, I believe he is tolerant of my sin when I fail to do whats right.  He was very intolerant and even confrontational of hypocrisy self righteousness, and lack of need for forgiveness.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 2, 2011)

I definitely DO NOT see that as tolerant of other gods and idols. To me, that is conquest. I see it as tolerant of OTHER PEOPLE. They aren't like you, get over it. DO NOT TOLERATE OTHER GODS OR IDOLS in the sense you say HF, is just short of being a kamikaze and flying a plane in to a building. 

G5 if god is intolerant of hypocrisy and self righteousness what does he do about it? Anything before he sends them to he11?


----------



## G5BONECRUSHER (Sep 3, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I definitely DO NOT see that as tolerant of other gods and idols. To me, that is conquest. I see it as tolerant of OTHER PEOPLE. They aren't like you, get over it. DO NOT TOLERATE OTHER GODS OR IDOLS in the sense you say HF, is just short of being a kamikaze and flying a plane in to a building.
> 
> G5 if god is intolerant of hypocrisy and self righteousness what does he do about it? Anything before he sends them to he11?



triplex ...It  agree I think it's a bit presumptive of me to think someone means tolerance of idols and other gods without actually speaking to that person about their beliefs. I also it see  as  being tolerant of other people and their beliefs.  I don't intolerance always means that you attack someone else you may just choose to not be around them. 

I was speaking to the life of Jesus on this earth when I said he was intolerant of self righteousness and hypocrisy. Jesus the GOD-man lived the perfect life and therefore is the perfect example of how we should live our life. Jesus used his harshest words for the pharisees who claimed to be righteous, but spent their time judging the actions of others while denying their own faults.

God the Father is intolerant of all sin. Therefore any sin separates us from God. We are all guilty. I am very guilty, however because God Loves us he sent his son Jesus to make the final atonement for all who will accept him.  Jesus is alive today and sits at the right hand of the father interceding on behalf of those who believe, he also sends word of the forgiveness and grace that is available in accepting him through his children.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> x2!!!



Watching her snake dance in "From Dusk to Dawn" is a religious experience we can all agree on.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2011)

NCHillbilly said:


> Watching her snake dance in "From Dusk to Dawn" is a religious experience we can all agree on.



You ain't nevah told no lies brutha!


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 5, 2011)

G5BONECRUSHER said:


> triplex ...It  agree I think it's a bit presumptive of me to think someone means tolerance of idols and other gods without actually speaking to that person about their beliefs. I also it see  as  being tolerant of other people and their beliefs.  I don't intolerance always means that you attack someone else you may just choose to not be around them.
> 
> I was speaking to the life of Jesus on this earth when I said he was intolerant of self righteousness and hypocrisy. Jesus the GOD-man lived the perfect life and therefore is the perfect example of how we should live our life. Jesus used his harshest words for the pharisees who claimed to be righteous, but spent their time judging the actions of others while denying their own faults.
> 
> God the Father is intolerant of all sin. Therefore any sin separates us from God. We are all guilty. I am very guilty, however because God Loves us he sent his son Jesus to make the final atonement for all who will accept him.  Jesus is alive today and sits at the right hand of the father interceding on behalf of those who believe, he also sends word of the forgiveness and grace that is available in accepting him through his children.



"Jesus used his harshest words for the pharisees who claimed to be righteous, but spent their time judging the actions of others while denying their own faults"

Sounds like jesus should get some harsh words too then....


----------



## G5BONECRUSHER (Sep 5, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Sounds like jesus should get some harsh words too then....


please elaborate...


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 6, 2011)

Seems he does the same things he has no tolerence for in others.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 6, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Seems he does the same things he has no tolerence for in others.



Like what?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 6, 2011)

pnome said:


> You're right it was an unnecessary dig.  You'll have to excuse me I was in a bad mood earlier.



No worries buddy...


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 6, 2011)

> DO NOT TOLERATE OTHER GODS OR IDOLS in the sense you say HF, is just short of being a kamikaze and flying a plane in to a building.




I'm rarely at a loss for words....

....y'all enjoy it while it lasts!


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Like what?



Claims to be righteous....
Spends his time judging the actions of others....
Denys any faults of his own....


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 6, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Claims to be righteous....
> Spends his time judging the actions of others....
> Denys any faults of his own....



How do you know He did these things?


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> How do you know He did these things?



I don't "know"....it's what I have read and heard from folks.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 7, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I don't "know"....*it's what I have read* and heard from folks.



Did you read it in the Bible?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Did you read it in the Bible?



I detect....'baiting'    lol     

Legal in south Georgia


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 7, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I detect....'baiting'    lol
> 
> Legal in south Georgia



YEP 

Tough going though, there aint much bitin'.


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Did you read it in the Bible?



I have read it alot right here from you believers....

Am I wrong about this??


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 8, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I have read it alot right here from you believers....
> 
> Am I wrong about this??





bad0351 said:


> Claims to be righteous....
> Spends his time judging the actions of others....
> Denys any faults of his own....



The point in this whole excercise was for you to say you read it in the Bible. Do you believe some things you read in the Bible and not other things?

Jesus claims to be righteous...... why do you believe that he claimed that? Because you read it on GON? Why do you think he was not righteous?

Spends His time judging the actions of others....... Not in the sense you think. Jesus did not come to this earth to tell people about their sin, He came here to tell people about Gods grace because of that sin and be the perfect sacrifice for that sin.

Deyns any faults of His own...... why do you think He has faults? If you think He had faults, can you name some of them?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 8, 2011)

It's kind of hard to tell someone about grace of sin without pointing out their sins. Otherwise, what is grace worth? Grace CAN'T BE GRACE without sin. and grace can't be understood without understanding sin. So, yeah, he came to tell us about it...


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> It's kind of hard to tell someone about grace of sin without pointing out their sins. Otherwise, what is grace worth? Grace CAN'T BE GRACE without sin. and grace can't be understood without understanding sin. So, yeah, he came to tell us about it...



But, he repeats many times that his purpose is not to condemn anybody.

Whether you believe in God or not, I would venture to say you do have a "moral code" which categorizes actions as right and wrong.  It's the same thing as "sin," just by a different name.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> *It's kind of hard to tell someone about grace of sin without pointing out their sins*. Otherwise, what is grace worth? Grace CAN'T BE GRACE without sin. and grace can't be understood without understanding sin. So, yeah, he came to tell us about it...



People know their sins.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 8, 2011)

I thought this thread was about Selma Hayek.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 8, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought this thread was about Selma Hayek.



It started out about bumper stickers, moved to morality in the law, then gay marriage, touched on abortion briefly, then Selma Hayek.


----------



## pnome (Sep 8, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought this thread was about Selma Hayek.



I guess my highjack attempt failed.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 8, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> It started out about bumper stickers, moved to morality in the law, then gay marriage, touched on abortion briefly, then Selma Hayek.



WOW...... I love the A/A/A forum!!


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 8, 2011)

For what it's worth, Selma Hayek was my favorite part of the thread.


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 8, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The point in this whole excercise was for you to say you read it in the Bible. Do you believe some things you read in the Bible and not other things?
> 
> Jesus claims to be righteous...... why do you believe that he claimed that? Because you read it on GON? Why do you think he was not righteous?
> 
> ...



I believe it for the same reason you do....someone told you or you read it .

I believe it is absolutly in the sense that I think.....he was just another Jim Jones character 2000 yrs ago that wanted people to think he was the messiah.
Because everyone on earth has faults.....this guy was no different from anyone else.

If you could just face the reality that it's just us man.....no one is gonna save you from yourself....your only hear until you die then your not here anymore.
why do you believe someone is gonna save you from yourself?
Just like you want me to believe this god is all good and forgiving I would like to convince you otherwise.

So really, the point of this exercise was to try and get you to see the truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 8, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I believe it for the same reason you do....someone told you or you read it .


I don't understand, you don't believe it, so no, you don't believe it for the same reasons I do.



> I believe it is absolutly in the sense that I think.....he was just another Jim Jones character 2000 yrs ago that wanted people to think he was the messiah.
> Because everyone on earth has faults.....this guy was no different from anyone else.


Who is Jim Jones? Why do you think Jesus made such a huge impact on this world 2,000 years ago without TV or internet? Don't you think he is at least different than Jim Jones?



> If you could just face the reality that it's just us man.....


If I did, where exactly does that lead someone like me? Free time Sunday morning? 



> your only hear until you die then your not here anymore.






> why do you believe someone is gonna save you from yourself?


I think Jesus came here to die on a cross for my sins by the grace of the One and only God so that I may spend eternity with Him instead of seperated from Him.



> Just like you want me to believe this god is all good and forgiving I would like to convince you otherwise.


Why do you want to convince me? What good will it do me if I choose not to believe?(which is impossible)


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 8, 2011)

I think Jesus came here to die on a cross for my sins by the grace of the One and only God so that I may spend eternity with Him instead of seperated from Him.




And I don't believe that.....never have, never will.

by the way......you "think"?? he came here for that?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 8, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> …he was just another Jim Jones character …



You’re comparing Jesus Christ to Jim Jones?  Even people who don’t believe He is Divine at least admire Jesus.  That goes for the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and many secular people.

Do you know any sane person who admires Jim Jones?  Jones had his men kill a U.S. congressman and his companions and then ordered his 1,000 member flock to drink cyanide-laced Kool-aid.


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 8, 2011)

yes......I'm comparing the REAL jesus christ to jim jones.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 8, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> yes......I'm comparing the REAL jesus christ to jim jones.



Be serious.   

The comparison is simply beyond ridiculous.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Be serious.
> 
> The comparison is simply beyond ridiculous.



X2, Jesus never hurt anybody.  A lot of bad stuff has been done in his name, but he (Jesus) had nothing to do with it.  He didn't ask for it, he didn't order it, he never preached towards it.  He told the world to love one another, turn the other cheek, feed the poor.  He spent time with "sinners," as opposed to Jim Jones' seperatist commune. 

I usually disagree with the Christians on here, but in this case, I think CP is correct.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> People know their sins.



Do they? I've heard from several believers here that people wouldn't know right from wrong without god and Jesus.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If I did, where exactly does that lead someone like me? Free time Sunday morning?
> 
> Why do you want to convince me? What good will it do me if I choose not to believe?(which is impossible)



If free time on Sunday morning is all you'd "gain" by not believing, then I'd venture to say you don't really know god. At least based on how it's been told to me.

You'd get a LOT more free time. You'd have enough money for couple new rifles and shotguns a year, an extra fishing trip. And you could spend that good time with your family.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 9, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Do they? I've heard from several believers here that people wouldn't know right from wrong without *god and Jesus*.



Those are the reasons they know their sins.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 9, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> If free time on Sunday morning is all you'd "gain" by not believing, then I'd venture to say you don't really know god. At least based on how it's been told to me.


I was asking a question, not stating what I thought. I wouldn't gain anything by not believing, that is not possible for me. I would lose life.



> You'd get a LOT more free time. You'd have enough money for couple new rifles and shotguns a year, an extra fishing trip.


That's all I get..... I lose life for a shotgun and a fishing trip?


> And you could spend that good time with your family.


I already do.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Those are the reasons they know their sins.



Are you distinguishing knowing "sin" from knowing right from wrong?  I would say everybody knows right from wrong according to their own moral code, its just the believers that label it "sin."


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 9, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Are you distinguishing knowing "sin" from knowing right from wrong?  I would say everybody knows right from wrong according to their own moral code, its just the believers that label it "sin."



No, I believe sin and right from wrong are the same thing. However, I believe that moral code comes for God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 9, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> If free time on Sunday morning is all you'd "gain" by not believing, then I'd venture to say you don't really know god. At least based on how it's been told to me.
> 
> You'd get a LOT more free time. You'd have enough money for couple new rifles and shotguns a year, an extra fishing trip. And you could spend that good time with your family.



   When I put God first, He favors me on my hunting and fishing trips!  (note...avatar  lol)    When it comes to giving, there's no rule that we have to give.    Some may argue that tithing is a rule, but the NT states that we are to give "as we purpose in our heart" "not of necessity"...and giving is meant to be a source of God's blessing.    

A general rule for Christians..."God blesses what we sow"   

Also, I'm not 'religious' when it comes to going to church on Sundays.   Matter of fact, this Sunday will find me in a Georgia pine tree, along with my son!   Now that's a church service to him and me!!   

"Some men go to church and think about hunting.   Some men go hunting and think about God".     author unknown

Wish us luck!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> When it comes to giving, there's no rule that we have to give.


 
I am so glad I am not the only one that sees that.....



BANDERSNATCH said:


> Matter of fact, this Sunday will find me in a Georgia pine tree, along with my son!   Now that's a church service to him and me!!



X2!!  I just posted in a thread in the SD&S forum Romans 1:20, good stuff when your hunting.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 9, 2011)

> I am so glad I am not the only one that sees that.....



Giving is a clear mandate...even in the NT.  I hope the intent of the post was not to imply that we are not expected to give.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Giving is a clear mandate...even in the NT.  I hope the intent of the post was not to imply that we are not expected to give.



....oh good grief.....

Giving does not have to be to the Church.  It does not have to be 10%.  It just has to be with a giving spirit.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 9, 2011)

Did you read that I said you have to give 10% to the church somewhere?

Tithe is not a mandate.  Giving is.  That is all I said.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

The good grief was in reference to this thread taking another turn....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 9, 2011)

sounds like a thread for the SD&S forum in the making.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> sounds like a thread for the SD&S forum in the making.



....start it up, that would be a fun one.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 9, 2011)




----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 9, 2011)

IMO, it would just be another thread that pits Christian against Christian.    Were I to start the thread, though, I'd titled it something like...

"What happens to a Christian's salvation when they don't give money somewhere?"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I was asking a question, not stating what I thought. I wouldn't gain anything by not believing, that is not possible for me. I would lose life.
> 
> 
> That's all I get..... I lose life for a shotgun and a fishing trip?
> ...



Obviously the point in not believing would be that it's not real. When you don't believe in something it's because you feel it's not true. IF that was true (that there is no god or at least no reason to do what you do), you would only gain.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No, I believe sin and right from wrong are the same thing. However, I believe that moral code comes for God.



This is what I meant. So he did come to tell us what we're doing wrong. You said he didn't come to do that. He had to do that before he go on to grace. There's no incredible grace without incredible wrong/sin.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> When I put God first, He favors me on my hunting and fishing trips!  (note...avatar  lol)    When it comes to giving, there's no rule that we have to give.    Some may argue that tithing is a rule, but the NT states that we are to give "as we purpose in our heart" "not of necessity"...and giving is meant to be a source of God's blessing.
> 
> A general rule for Christians..."God blesses what we sow"
> 
> ...



Good luck!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 9, 2011)

> "What happens to a Christian's salvation when they don't give money somewhere?"



The question would be "What's the motivation behind holding the money back?"


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 9, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Giving is a clear mandate...even in the NT.  I hope the intent of the post was not to imply that we are not expected to give.



I think 'mandate' infers negative consequences (punishment?) to those who don't participate.    Mandatory has implications....


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 9, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> X2, Jesus never hurt anybody.  A lot of bad stuff has been done in his name, but he (Jesus) had nothing to do with it.  He didn't ask for it, he didn't order it, he never preached towards it.  He told the world to love one another, turn the other cheek, feed the poor.  He spent time with "sinners," as opposed to Jim Jones' seperatist commune.
> 
> I usually disagree with the Christians on here, but in this case, I think CP is correct.



How do you know that to be true??
Were you there??


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 9, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> How do you know that to be true??
> Were you there??



No, I wasn't.  Were at the battle of Thermopylae?  I would venture to say you might believe that 300 Spartans and about 1500 other guys held off the Persian army for 3 days.  What evidence is there?  Just word of mouth from two sources, a carved stone, and some arrowheads on a hill top.  

Even if the story is fake, the attributes I listed are correct of the character.  I am not certain what point you were hoping to make.

We go with the information we have and make the best decisions we can.  I don't begrudge your non-belief, I am certain you have found peace there.  So have I.


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 10, 2011)

Just trying to point out that jesus could have been just a shyster or could have been genuine..........nobody knows for sure


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 10, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Just trying to point out that jesus could have been just a shyster or could have been genuine..........nobody knows for sure



I am not trying to debate the historical accuracy of it, because all I have is the four gospels and the resulting movement.  I might be wrong, but I am at peace with my belief system.  

We could say horrible things about Abe Lincoln's character, and nobody could absolutely contradict it because nobody was there.  However, the historical narrative of the man paints a different picture.  That is kind-of what I am saying about Jesus.  The information available on the man indicates he was nothing like Jim Jones.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 10, 2011)

Who hates Washington? He is an icon for the US... He liked slavery... At this point in time (history) we (most of us - me too) hate it. What's the next big thang?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Who hates Washington? He is an icon for the US... He liked slavery... At this point in time (history) we (most of us - me too) hate it. What's the next big thang?



......that's why I used Abe Lincoln in my example, I knew it was too easy to discredit on the founding fathers.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 12, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Just trying to point out that jesus could have been just a shyster or could have been genuine..........nobody knows for sure



what if He is genuine?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> what if He is genuine?



True!   Just as valid as 'shyster' or 'genius'.

Jesus Christ....

Lord, Liar or Lunatic?


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> what if He is genuine?



we will never know


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> we will never know



but, there's a chance He could have been the real deal?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 12, 2011)

> Mandatory has implications....




Yes....it does.  You are right.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 13, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> we will never know



Who's "we", you got a mouse in ya pocket?


----------



## G5BONECRUSHER (Sep 13, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> we will never know


How can you assume we will never know? There will come a day when all will know.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

Or we will all be gone and won't have any sense of knowing anything... So how can you know we will all know?

Because the bible tells you so? I know the words to that song too.


----------

