NationStates Jolt Archive

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!
Nahaw! Shiva kicks his ass.

Sweet, using the Bible to argue for the 1st Amendment

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/pa_jesusmetal.jpg

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/pa_jesusmetal.jpg

"Jesus threw up the horns?"

"What can I say? Jesus is F*cking metal."

Gods above, I love Penny Arcade.

I look around at this world you're so eager to be a part of,
and all I see is six billion lunatics looking for the fastest
ride out. Who's not crazy? Look around... everyone's drinkin',
smokin', shootin'up, shootin' each other or just plain screwing
their brains out because they don't want 'em anymore. I'm crazy?
Honey, I am the original one-eyed monster in the kingdom of the
blind 'cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts. Name one
person who can take it here. That's all I'm asking. Name one? :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad:


Didn't I see you post the exact same thing in another thread? Oh yeah, in Is 'libertarian socialist' an oxymoron? and twice in Rants about the opposite sex You must really have a chip on your shoulder. Why don't you start a thread about it?

Jesus was a thirty year old virgin with no job. The Romans did him a favor.

The Romans pwned too.

No, dude. The Mongols pwned all.

They lacked the adminstrative capabilities that the Romans possessed, sorry.

No, dude. The Mongols pwned all.


FOR DA HORDE!!!

I look around at this world you're so eager to be a part of,
and all I see is six billion lunatics looking for the fastest
ride out. Who's not crazy? Look around... everyone's drinkin',
smokin', shootin'up, shootin' each other or just plain screwing
their brains out because they don't want 'em anymore. I'm crazy?
Honey, I am the original one-eyed monster in the kingdom of the
blind 'cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts. Name one
person who can take it here. That's all I'm asking. Name one? :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad:

I'll put money its a bored post whore thats just boosting his/her number of posts, they have copied it into most threads

They lacked the adminstrative capabilities that the Romans possessed, sorry.
They also got stopped by the poland lol.

(well by the people living in the land which would eventually become poland.)

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!

First of all, who the hell says pwns anymore? :confused:

Second of all - JESUS 15 7H3 1337! Or however those leet people do it.

On a random leet sidenote, someone should translate the Bible into leet. You know, spread the message of Christ to the cyberpunk generation... Its outside the box thinking like that that won me the prestigious "Golden Doorbell" Jehovah's Witnesses award :D .

I say PWN!

They also got stopped by the poland lol.

(well by the people living in the land which would eventually become poland.)
Tell me, where were the Vandals from?

Tell me, where were the Vandals from?
Vandalistania?

Vandalistania?
close, but no cigar

I was looking for something along the lines of "the land which would eventually become Poland"

They lacked the adminstrative capabilities that the Romans possessed, sorry.

And the wine :)

H3LO PEOPL3 JESUS WOKS ON FUKNG W8R COM3 ON!!! - Jesus Pwns

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!

I think that's more of a pro-taxes message. Granted it could be metaphoricly used to argue for seperation of church and state, but wasn't it explicitly pro-secular taxation in the story in which the quote appears?

They lacked the adminstrative capabilities that the Romans possessed, sorry.

Yes, but the possessed the administrative capabilities of the Chinese, which were pretty damn capable.

I but wasn't it explicitly pro-secular taxation in the story in which the quote appears?

no, it was explixitly pro-jesusbeingatrickybastard in the story.

luke 20:

19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

25 "Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

(it's also in matthew 22 and mark 12)

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!
Too bad the US government only believes in "separation of church and state" when it's convenient for them to do so. They sure as hell don't separate themselves when they legislate when and where we can worship. They also don't separate themselves when they decided to tax religious institutions (churches).

Nice bit of separation there.

Since when are churches taxed?!

Since when are churches taxed?!
Over 10 years now. My mother was treasurer of our previous church when they instituted the church tax. I was appalled when she told me about it.

That passage has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. It's solely about Jesus saying that you should do what the law requires (paying taxes in this case) and also what the Bible requires. The pharisees were testing Him to see if He would denounce the laws of taxation, because Christians are told to give at least 10% to the church, if not more. Some people gave all their income to the church (an old widow in one parable gave all she had, while everyone else just gave what was required) and had none to give to the government. Jesus was saying not to disobey the laws of the land, but not to go solely by the laws of the country.

My personal outlook on jesus is that he was a man of good teachings and that

A) He used god as a buffer so that people would not question why they should be good
B) Truely believed there was a god for whatever reason and just was a good person

either way, paul twisted it and made it a cult of followers, which we all know as christians.

Since when are churches taxed?!
If I'm not mistaken, aren't churches only taxed when they are found to be associated with a particular political party? I'm talking about GOP or Democratic Party, not special interest groups. I know that what I give to the church each year can actually be deducted from the taxes that I have to pay.

My personal outlook on jesus is that he was a man of good teachings and that

A) He used god as a buffer so that people would not question why they should be good
B) Truely believed there was a god for whatever reason and just was a good person

either way, paul twisted it and made it a cult of followers, which we all know as christians.
1 post...flamer possibly?

Too bad the US government only believes in "separation of church and state" when it's convenient for them to do so. They sure as hell don't separate themselves when they legislate when and where we can worship. They also don't separate themselves when they decided to tax religious institutions (churches).

Nice bit of separation there.
Ill ssecond that...

for one, in court you have to swear on the bible, of all things...

two, all money has god on it

its always "god bless america" in presidential elections

The "pledge of alegiance" notes we are united under god


Apparently they arent respecting beliefs there...

you also have banning of gay marriage, and abortion/stem cell research repression from those crazy funde[b]mental[b/]ists

1 post...flamer possibly?
dont make assumptions...its not nice.

Ill ssecond that...

for one, in court you have to swear on the bible, of all things...

two, all money has god on it

its always "god bless america" in presidential elections

The "pledge of alegiance" notes we are united under god


Apparently they arent respecting beliefs there...

you also have banning of gay marriage, and abortion/stem cell research repression from those crazy funde[b]mental[b/]ists
I think a lot of people here have a problem understanding that nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence are the words "separation of church and state" written. It may be a good idea to some, but it's no law.

Jesus was saying not to disobey the laws of the land, but not to go solely by the laws of the country.

i'd argue that its actually jesus' backhanded way of saying "fuck you" to rome. sort of a "we neither need nor want your wothless coins"

the priests expected jesus to say that you shouldn't pay taxes to the romans, and jesus knew that that was what they expected and wanted him to say, and (in the matthew and mark versions) asks why they are trying to trap him. he then answers in an ambiguous way - he doesn't say "of course you should pay taxes", he says "these coins are not of god, give them back to the person whose picture is on them". makes me think its more of a tricky anti-roman statement than anything else.

I think a lot of people here have a problem understanding that nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence are the words "separation of church and state" written. It may be a good idea to some, but it's no law.
No, its so that law is based on logic rather than some belief which will never be proven true. you cant impose your beliefs of christianity on others, its just plain disrespect. I dont care if your silly god says that abortion is illegal, its your belief. not mine, take it elsewhere and keep your beliefs out of the peoples law. Its common respect to not impose on others.

i'd argue that its actually jesus' backhanded way of saying "fuck you" to rome. sort of a "we neither need nor want your wothless coins"

the priests expected jesus to say that you shouldn't pay taxes to the romans, and jesus knew that that was what they expected and wanted him to say, and (in the matthew and mark versions) asks why they are trying to trap him. he then answers in an ambiguous way - he doesn't say "of course you should pay taxes", he says "these coins are not of god, give them back to the person whose picture is on them". makes me think its more of a tricky anti-roman statement than anything else.
I see how you could draw that arguement from that text.

No, its so that law is based on logic rather than some belief which will never be proven true. you cant impose your beliefs of christianity on others, its just plain disrespect. I dont care if your silly god says that abortion is illegal, its your belief. not mine, take it elsewhere and keep your beliefs out of the peoples law. Its common respect to not impose on others.
Take that up with the founding fathers and those who came up with the placement of God onto our government documents, buildings, tender, and protocol. I guarantee those traditions go back at least 150-200 years.

God never said abortion was illegal anyway. He said that murder was wrong, and abortion is murder. Let's not get this thread started on the matter of age of a baby and all that though. That's not the main point of the thread.

I think murder is wrong, but your right, youd get into age and such, I think it should just be illegal after 2nd trimester. Other than that, Its no ones right but the mothers, because its her body housing the development, and she shouldnt carry an unwanted burden. suppressing that is just going to ruin their lives, its really not needed.

Then again, on the hypocritical side its really their fault, and they sorta deserve it...but we have the choice now. And you cant prove whether it was accidental, or just out of stupidity.

Im totally anti-american, but what am I going to do, I cant move away... maybe california will be its own country someday. :)

I think it should just be illegal after 2nd trimester.
Not to hijack the thread, but I believe that it should be illegal the moment the baby/fetus' heart starts beating.

Not to hijack the thread, but I believe that it should be illegal the moment the baby/fetus' heart starts beating.
that works better, because then the fetus's brain is functioning, it has a concious, it just hasnt absorbed anything, namely its right to live and such...but has potential. I think 2nd trimester is when that happens though...or is it? correct me if im wrong.

EDIT: since on the subject, if the church is complaining about killing babies who arent technically alive, why arent they complaining as much about the death penalty....in fact, they have priests around carrying a bible during the death.......wtfzorz? I dont hear christians complaining about that...and find a passage that allows murder to murderers.

I think a lot of people here have a problem understanding that nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence are the words "separation of church and state" written. It may be a good idea to some, but it's no law.

Small detail : nor does it say anywhere that the laws of the country should be based on flavour X of Religion Y. In fact, declaring a religion to be a statereligion *is* explictedly forbidden.

Unless you do not think that consistintly basing your laws and legislation on one specific religious flavour is the same as having a state religion of course.

Not to hijack the thread, but I believe that it should be illegal the moment the baby/fetus' heart starts beating.

That is acceptable; and well passed first trimester.

that works better, because then the fetus's brain is functioning, it has a concious, it just hasnt absorbed anything, namely its right to live and such...but has potential. I think 2nd trimester is when that happens though...or is it? correct me if im wrong.
please stop...

Small detail : nor does it say anywhere that the laws of the country should be based on flavour X of Religion Y. In fact, declaring a religion to be a statereligion *is* explictedly forbidden.

Unless you do not think that consistintly basing your laws and legislation on one specific religious flavour is the same as having a state religion of course.



That is acceptable; and well passed first trimester.
thats what I was aiming for...except I get a bit hot headed about religeon just because I hate it so much...I apologize for that. Its hard for me to debate religeon without getting really rude.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Seperation of Church and State baby; Jesus pwns all!
You have no right to tell me to stop, this really doesnt constitute as a topic, so we can kinda talk about something on a related subject. note its in the anything and everything section, dont be so hardheaded kay?

EDIT: since on the subject, if the church is complaining about killing babies who arent technically alive, why arent they complaining as much about the death penalty....in fact, they have priests around carrying a bible during the death.......wtfzorz? I dont hear christians complaining about that...and find a passage that allows murder to murderers.
Actually, the OT contains many laws like the one you mentioned here. As a Christian, I don't believe in the death penalty as a good form of punishment. After Jesus was born, most of the laws of the OT that had to do with punishment and all were replaced by what Jesus said that went against those laws (the classic "eye for an eye"/"vengance is mine" example). I think prisoners should be made to work to better the country while in jail.

The priests are there to read Catholics their last rights (sp?) and to offer comfort to the prisoner if needed.

You have no right to tell me to stop, this really doesnt constitute as a topic, so we can kinda talk about something on a related subject. note its in the anything and everything section, dont be so hardheaded kay?
Me asking you to stop was about the abortion thing. There are thousands of other abortion threads. Please debate your feelings about the matter in one of those to keep this thread on track.

Don't get so touchy.

Actually, the OT contains many laws like the one you mentioned here. As a Christian, I don't believe in the death penalty as a good form of punishment. After Jesus was born, most of the laws of the OT that had to do with punishment and all were replaced by what Jesus said that went against those laws (the classic "eye for an eye"/"vengance is mine" example). I think prisoners should be made to work to better the country while in jail.

The priests are there to read Catholics their last rights (sp?) and to offer comfort to the prisoner if needed.

yes... which is why thats so wrong, they are complaining about fetuses which arent really "alive" when we are constantly killing a great number of convicts, some of which are possibly innocent, which is the worst crime of all... Its sort of a hypocracy(sp?)...

so you got a priest there reading their last rights while they are going against the bible in front of their eyes...that pretty wrong, I mean, to the priest that must be wrong.

Small detail : nor does it say anywhere that the laws of the country should be based on flavour X of Religion Y. In fact, declaring a religion to be a statereligion *is* explictedly forbidden.

Unless you do not think that consistintly basing your laws and legislation on one specific religious flavour is the same as having a state religion of course.
If you want the laws changed to a certain viewpoint, lobby your rep. I said nowhere that the laws should be based on a religious viewpoint, but some of them may be. I would like to direct your attention to various religions who agree on some of the laws in this country. It's not all based on Religion Y (Christianity as you're implying).

yes... which is why thats so wrong, they are complaining about fetuses which arent really "alive" when we are constantly killing a great number of convicts, some of which are possibly innocent, which is the worst crime of all... Its sort of a hypocracy(sp?)...

so you got a priest there reading their last rights while they are going against the bible in front of their eyes...that pretty wrong, I mean, to the priest that must be wrong.
The preists don't pull the switch, they're there to do their spiritual duty.

If you want the laws changed to a certain viewpoint, lobby your rep. I said nowhere that the laws should be based on a religious viewpoint, but some of them may be. I would like to direct your attention to various religions who agree on some of the laws in this country. It's not all based on Religion Y (Christianity as you're implying).

Yep - this is where the principles of democracy and lawmaking conflict. Most religions per definition provide an "inferior" set of morals and ethics, since they are based on "the transcribed will of a supreme being". A will which is often inconsistent in human eyes - meaning humans cannot base consistent laws on them.
However, if it is the will of the people, democracy demands that it is implemented. And there is indeed nothing in the constitution that forbids this non-seperation of church and state - unless the laws of a single religion are implemented over and over again.

Aside: that some religions agree with laws does not mean those laws are based on religion. Forbidding murder makes sense without religion for instance.

Yep - this is where the principles of democracy and lawmaking conflict. Most religions per definition provide an "inferior" set of morals and ethics, since they are based on "the transcribed will of a supreme being". A will which is often inconsistent in human eyes - meaning humans cannot base consistent laws on them.
However, if it is the will of the people, democracy demands that it is implemented. And there is indeed nothing in the constitution that forbids this non-seperation of church and state - unless the laws of a single religion are implemented over and over again.

Aside: that some religions agree with laws does not mean those laws are based on religion. Forbidding murder makes sense without religion for instance.
In these laws, I was talking about various religions opposing homosexuality and abortion. I wasn't referring to laws about murder and all. Due to the fact that these are not consistent with one specific religion, they shouldn't be deemed unconstitutional because of that if they ever become enacted. They may be found to be unconstitutional for other reasons, but that shouldn't be one.

And yes, you have found the contradictions of democracy and law-making. Direct democracy is no longer possible in the US because of the sheer size of the country and population. No legislation would get passed, because it would take a month to count all the votes, and people would stop voting after awhile. Meanwhile, our country does allow us a view of representative democracy, in which the citizens elect someone to do the legislating. However, you can only control your representative, and then it's on a timeline of a few years. We can only hope that what's best for the country will happen.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to sleep. You will possibly be spared a few days of me arguing my beliefs that are usually contradicting yours. However, I hope that things don't get too crazy without me, and I hope that you guys don't miss me too much. :cool: