NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said One nation under me.
--God

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

Yes, God will get angry at people mis-representing him. If said group claims to be Christians yet does not share the same vision of the world Christ had, God isn't going to exactly be kind with them.

Several groups in the OT claimed to be "from God" but in fact were charlatans. Of course, the Children of Israel being rather....dumb at the time pretty much fell for any and all of them. And everytime they were chastised and eventually came running back to God crying like little Children.

ETA: No, Fred Phelps and his abortion of a church do not represent God or Christ in anyway. If anything, they're setting themselves up for an abysmal dissapointment at the judgement seat of Christ when they expect to be richly "rewarded" for preaching hatred and violence against gays, military, and pretty much everyone. The true God of peace has a naaasty backhand.

I was wondering if Christians got pissed at the Republican party for making them look bad so often. I know Christians that wish political parties stayed completely out of religion because they don't want lying cheats representing them.

I was wondering if Christians got pissed at the Republican party for making them look bad so often. I know Christians that wish political parties stayed completely out of religion because they don't want lying cheats representing them.

nobody wants lying cheats representing them

nobody wants lying cheats representing them
Clinton?

Mat 7:20-23

nobody wants lying cheats representing them

The Republicans only represent their interests in maintaining an unjust status quo.

:(

Conservative Christian, please come respond, wherever you are.


--
Vote for Jon Tester in Montana and Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Yes, God will get angry at people mis-representing him. If said group claims to be Christians yet does not share the same vision of the world Christ had, God isn't going to exactly be kind with them.

Several groups in the OT claimed to be "from God" but in fact were charlatans. Of course, the Children of Israel being rather....dumb at the time pretty much fell for any and all of them. And everytime they were chastised and eventually came running back to God crying like little Children.

ETA: No, Fred Phelps and his abortion of a church do not represent God or Christ in anyway. If anything, they're setting themselves up for an abysmal dissapointment at the judgement seat of Christ when they expect to be richly "rewarded" for preaching hatred and violence against gays, military, and pretty much everyone. The true God of peace has a naaasty backhand.
Nope, never seen you "preaching hatred and violence". Nope, not ever. :rolleyes:

Clinton?


Im not a Democrat, but Im pretty much a Liberal, so I suppose I can relate to your reference.

Clinton Lied.
Yep, he sure did.

He lied under oath about a matter in his personal life, wich would have had no bearing or impact on the country until the GOP made it everyones business.

That was his mistake.

Bush however, has made several lies, and nothing but mistakes in Iraq.

Im wondering if you like being represented by him?

However much your dislike for Clinton may be, several good things came out of the Clinton administration.
We have yet to see anything good come from the Bush administration.

We have yet to see anything good come from the Bush administration.

Project Constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation)?

Matthew 28 16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

Matthew 28 16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

the Great Comission

Elwood P. Dowd: Harvey and I have things to do... we sit in the bars... have a drink or two... and play the juke box. Very soon the faces of the other people turn towards me and they smile. They say: 'We don't know your name, mister, but you're all right, all right.' Harvey and I warm ourselves in these golden moments. We came as strangers - soon we have friends. They come over. They sit with us. They drink with us. They talk to us. They tell us about the great big terrible things they've done and the great big wonderful things they're going to do. Their hopes, their regrets. Their loves, their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar. Then I introduce them to Harvey, and he's bigger and grander than anything they can offer me. When they leave, they leave impressed. The same people seldom come back.

- Harvey

Much nicer imaginary friend.

Mark 16 15-16

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I'm not sure that is the purpose of wanting "one nation, under God," but under an agreement I reached, I cannot explain otherwise.

I urge you to look up additional resources.

Project Constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation)?


Heh.

1. Get back to me when it takes off.

2. While normally a fan of space exploration even at the derision of my Liberal peers, im not sure such an enormous expenditure is remotely a good idea any time soon.

I'm not sure that is the purpose of wanting "one nation, under God," but under an agreement I reached, I cannot explain otherwise.

I urge you to look up additional resources.


You should re-read the entire OP, paying particular attention to the end of it. The point seems to me to be that he questions the Christian's confidence to feel authorized to state their religion as God's religion over any other religion, not really addressing the specifics of one country's doctrine over another.

Heh.

1. Get back to me when it takes off.

2. While normally a fan of space exploration even at the derision of my Liberal peers, im not sure such an enormous expenditure is remotely a good idea any time soon.
Compared to the development costs of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the STS, this is cheap.

The first time or two that I'd seen those billboards, I had thought it was kinda cute. But it has become way overdone. To continue to crank them out like that year after year is, for all intent and purposes, I think, claiming to know the mind of God, which of course no-one can. Still, if it does bring one to know God, then cool. I just don't see how it could possibly be very efficacious after a few dozen of these gone by the boards.

But that's just me.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said
<quote>
<snip>

If you're offended by billboards, drive with your eyes closed.

My work here is done. ;)

Compared to the development costs of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the STS, this is cheap.


By cheap, you mean only 100 bilion?

More?

At any rate, what with an awfully exspensive war going on, and another brewing a few hundred miles south of it, maybe now isnt the best time for that?

By cheap, you mean only 100 bilion?

More?

At any rate, what with an awfully exspensive war going on, and another brewing a few hundred miles south of it, maybe now isnt the best time for that?

Cheap comparatively. Space exploration isn't cheap. Heck, thats how NASA pitched the Shuttle to congress, that it would eventually pay for itself through satellite launches. lol.

If you're offended by billboards, drive with your eyes closed.

My work here is done. ;)

Nobel, you make an excellent point here, although sarcastically:

Since, you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed, that means that ad can be regulated by the government. Since the Christian god(s) is/are homophobic, that ad is intolerant and should be taken down immediately.

Nobel, you make an excellent point here, although sarcastically:

Since, you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed, that means that ad can be regulated by the government. Since the Christian god(s) is/are homophobic, that ad is intolerant and should be taken down immediately.

Who are you to speak for God? Who is anyone alive now to speak for God?

Nobel, you make an excellent point here, although sarcastically:

Since, you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed, that means that ad can be regulated by the government. Since the Christian god(s) is/are homophobic, that ad is intolerant and should be taken down immediately.

why do you have to insult someone's god like that

Yah..

Im all for a moonbase and such...just not now.
I think I'd like to see less explosions in the Middle East, before we shoot for the moon again.
I'd like to see the price of oil go down, and production of crude go up.

Things like that.

BTW....

Crunchy's has some damn good burgers....and liquor served in buckets.

You should re-read the entire OP, paying particular attention to the end of it. The point seems to me to be that he questions the Christian's confidence to feel authorized to state their religion as God's religion over any other religion, not really addressing the specifics of one country's doctrine over another.
It's not christianity over other religions, it's your version of christianity over others view of christianity. Not the 'love thy neighbor, tell 'em Jesus sent you' thing but the 'God wants you to vote against homosexuals and send me $50 bucks' specificity of the claims.

Yah..

Im all for a moonbase and such...just not now.
I think I'd like to see less explosions in the Middle East, before we shoot for the moon again.
I'd like to see the price of oil go down, and production of crude go up.

Things like that.

BTW....

Crunchy's has some damn good burgers....and liquor served in buckets.


yea, those things would be nice

It's not christianity over other religions, it's your version of christianity over others view of christianity. Not the 'love thy neighbor, tell 'em Jesus sent you' thing but the 'God wants you to vote against homosexuals and send me $50 bucks' specificity of the claims.

is this what you mean?
that God says he's present in a marriage between one man and one woman

yea, those things would be nice

Indeed it would. We could learn so much on the moon. So much to see, so much to do, so much to discover.

Nobel, you make an excellent point here, although sarcastically:

Since, you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed, that means that ad can be regulated by the government. Since the Christian god(s) is/are homophobic, that ad is intolerant and should be taken down immediately.
I think I know exactly what to say to this...wait...hang on...it's coming to me...it's the thing I always say to you because you're statements are so patently made from the point of view of a conservative trying to make liberals look bad...ah, yes. That's it:

Get stuffed.

Who are you to speak for God? Who is anyone alive now to speak for God?

That is exactly why the ad needs to be taken down. Because you CAN'T look away from it, it falls under the separation of church and state.

is this what you mean?
that God says he's present in a marriage between one man and one woman
Your going to have to unpack that a bit for me. I can't figure out what your getting at or refering to.

Indeed it would. We could learn so much on the moon. So much to see, so much to do, so much to discover.
Such as?

How's about we fix some things on Earth first? Better yet, let's maintain the things we already have in space. NASA is abandoning the Hubble telescope for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

I think I know exactly what to say to this...wait...hang on...it's coming to me...it's the thing I always say to you because you're statements are so patently made from the point of view of a conservative trying to make liberals look bad...ah, yes. That's it:

Get stuffed.

Intangelon, I am a mainstream Democrat. I am committed to this view, and even if I could make a conservative argument, I simply cannot. If you read recent Supreme Court case law, or examine the websites of mainstream organizations like People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or the American Civil Liberties Union, they will confirm that I am well within the mainstream.

That is exactly why the ad needs to be taken down. Because you CAN'T look away from it, it falls under the separation of church and state.

You're kidding, right?

These adds are on private land, posted on private billboards, and paid for by private individuals. What right does the government have to remove them?

Such as?

How's about we fix some things on Earth first? Better yet, let's maintain the things we already have in space. NASA is abandoning the Hubble telescope for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

How the Earth came to be, for example?

That is exactly why the ad needs to be taken down. Because you CAN'T look away from it, it falls under the separation of church and state.


Actually, the Separation of Church and State doesn't actually mean that the ad can't exist. It means there shall be no state religion. The ad comes under freedom of expression. No different at all than when Neo-Nazis held a rally in a predominatley black area in my city. They have every right to do it, even though their message is gay.

You're kidding, right?

These adds are on private land, posted on private billboards, and paid for by private individuals. What right does the government have to remove them?

The point was raised that you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed. If you could, they could stay, but since they can't, they are governed by hate crimes and discrimination legislation. Because they are discriminatory ads, they should be taken down.

It's a bit legalistic, but I hope you follow.

It's the Constitution that mandates it, I wish it were otherwise. :(

That is exactly why the ad needs to be taken down. Because you CAN'T look away from it, it falls under the separation of church and state.
The billboards are owned and leased by private organizations and not the government and aren't therefore really part of the state. Churches can be visible and it would be a restriction of expression if they where forced to be 'invisible' (as in non-discript, not actually invisible because I know someone was going to take it that way). It's an ad, and in that respect no more than a board insisting that Coke is better than Pepsi or that your sexual potency is in question unless you own an Xterra.

If "Jesus Saves" was painted on the asphault of an on-ramp, then that would violate the seperation.

Actually, the Separation of Church and State doesn't actually mean that the ad can't exist. It means there shall be no state religion. The ad comes under freedom of expression. No different at all than when Neo-Nazis held a rally in a predominatley black area in my city. They have every right to do it, even though their message is gay.

Freedom of speech needs to be balanced by freedom of safety. A person who is born homosexual will be threatened by these "under God" ads.

Intangelon, I am a mainstream Democrat. I am committed to this view, and even if I could make a conservative argument, I simply cannot. If you read recent Supreme Court case law, or examine the websites of mainstream organizations like People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or the American Civil Liberties Union, they will confirm that I am well within the mainstream.
No. You're. Not.

And every time you claim you are, I just laugh harder. You present your so-called "mainstream" liberal points so broadly and with such an absence of nuance or consideration, and the points are so clearly designed to be inflammatory every time you present them, that it's all but transparent. I'm willing to bet you read about or heard about this tactic from any number of conservative books, websites or radio programs.

And if -- IF -- you really DO believe what you post, exactly the way you post it, then you are left of me and anyone with a functioning brain, and I will continue to tar you as such until you disappear or admit you're a conservative.

Freedom of speech needs to be balanced by freedom of safety. A person who is born homosexual will be threatened by these "under God" ads.

Like they aren't by Neo-Nazis or other Hate groups who go around preaching about killing them? Its no different at all. You can ignore them. I do :D

You're kidding, right?

These adds are on private land, posted on private billboards, and paid for by private individuals. What right does the government have to remove them?
No right. I've driven by hundreds of billboards I've disagreed with and not one of them needed government approval to be posted.

C&T is using deliberately overblown liberal points to discredit liberals. He's a plant.

The billboards are owned and leased by private organizations and not the government and aren't therefore really part of the state. Churches can be visible and it would be a restriction of expression if they where forced to be 'invisible' (as in non-discript, not actually invisible because I know someone was going to take it that way). It's an ad, and in that respect no more than a board insisting that Coke is better than Pepsi or that your sexual potency is in question unless you own an Xterra.

If "Jesus Saves" was painted on the asphault of an on-ramp, then that would violate the seperation.

Can a private company discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

If you are British, you know that the Labour government is introducing legislation that will prevent discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for goods and services. My view is entirely consistent with this legislation.

My fellow establishment Democrats are worried if I talk about what we Democrats really believe, it will hurt their "outreach" to fundamentalists this year that Chairman Dean is putting on. I raelize this is compeltely wrong, America is a secular nation and doesn't need two Republican parties.

How the Earth came to be, for example?
Care to elaborate on that, or are you just gonna let that pipe dream float in the wind?

No. You're. Not.

And every time you claim you are, I just laugh harder. You present your so-called "mainstream" liberal points so broadly and with such an absence of nuance or consideration, and the points are so clearly designed to be inflammatory every time you present them, that it's all but transparent. I'm willing to bet you read about or heard about this tactic from any number of conservative books, websites or radio programs.

And if -- IF -- you really DO believe what you post, exactly the way you post it, then you are left of me and anyone with a functioning brain, and I will continue to tar you as such until you disappear or admit you're a conservative.

I posted conservative arguments, because I feel bad that there are no fundies on the forum (too dumb to use a computer I suppose) and people said I was trying to make conservatives look bad. I just want to make honest points.

I arealize you are working with Chairman Dean on outreach to fundies this year, but I think it's a big mistake.

Care to elaborate on that, or are you just gonna let that pipe dream float in the wind?

Everyone knows that the Earth was made in 6 days! And on the 7th Day God rested.


But what people don't know is that on the 8th Day, God made the United States Marine Corps!

Can a private company discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

If you are British, you know that the Labour government is introducing legislation that will prevent discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for goods and services. My view is entirely consistent with this legislation.

My fellow establishment Democrats are worried if I talk about what we Democrats really believe, it will hurt their "outreach" to fundamentalists this year that Chairman Dean is putting on. I raelize this is compeltely wrong, America is a secular nation and doesn't need two Republican parties.

How is the Christian God discriminatory? I would love for some modern example.

I tell you, the God i worship is not discriminatory.

The point was raised that you CAN'T drive with your eyes closed. If you could, they could stay, but since they can't, they are governed by hate crimes and discrimination legislation. Because they are discriminatory ads, they should be taken down.

It's a bit legalistic, but I hope you follow.

It's the Constitution that mandates it, I wish it were otherwise. :(
You're completely out of your head and moreso if you think anyone actually believes what your saying. Even you.

Okay, I'll bite for a nanosecond: please show me any, ANY proof of your assertion that billboards in ANY way fall under hate crimes legislation. Sources. Even one legitimate source -- in fact, since you're mentioning a specific branch of law, I'd like you to try and prove what you claimed using the laws you're talking about. Come on, find me a paragraph, and I'll apologize for EVER saying you're a NeoCon plant.

I dare you.

Freedom of speech needs to be balanced by freedom of safety. A person who is born homosexual will be threatened by these "under God" ads.
No they won't. At least not in any reasonable court-provable way. You're saying these hideously overblown things to get people riled at liberals. I can't ask you to stop, but I can tell you to (hit it, timpani):

Get stuffed.

How is the Christian God discriminatory? I would love for some modern example.

I tell you, the God i worship is not discriminatory.

Even if you denounce Fred Phelps, parts of the Bible are anti-gay. Also, the Gospels are anti-Semitic. There are also many parts of the Bible that treat women differently from men, in violation of anti-discrimination laws. :gundge:

I'm sorry about your religion, but you'll have to either give it up, or celebrate it at home. :(

I wish it could be otherwise, but the Constitution mandates it. :(

Care to elaborate on that, or are you just gonna let that pipe dream float in the wind?

Many scientists believe that the Moon was formed in much the same way as the Earth. Unlike the Earth, the Moon has remained much the same for hundreds of millions of years. By studying the Moon, we can gather information of how the earth was all those millions of years ago.

Can a private company discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

If you are British, you know that the Labour government is introducing legislation that will prevent discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for goods and services. My view is entirely consistent with this legislation.

My fellow establishment Democrats are worried if I talk about what we Democrats really believe, it will hurt their "outreach" to fundamentalists this year that Chairman Dean is putting on. I raelize this is compeltely wrong, America is a secular nation and doesn't need two Republican parties.
I'm not British (where did that come from?) and I think Intangelon has you pretty well pegged.

No they won't. At least not in any reasonable court-provable way. You're saying these hideously overblown things to get people riled at liberals. I can't ask you to stop, but I can tell you to (hit it, timpani):

Get stuffed.

I can only be a fundamentalist or progressive, most people feel that I was being more honest, and more mainstream, as a progressive.

I'm sorry if you are insulted by the Party Platform, and I realize we are in an election year, and you are probably trying to help Joe Lieberman beat Ned Lamont. But the fact is, until Democrats stand up for what we really believe, we will KEEP LOSING.

It's you who is causing us to lose, not me.

Even if you denounce Fred Phelps, parts of the Bible are anti-gay. Also, the Gospels are anti-Semitic. There are also many parts of the Bible that treat women differently from men, in violation of anti-discrimination laws. :gundge:

I'm sorry about your religion, but you'll have to either give it up, or celebrate it at home. :(

I wish it could be otherwise, but the Constitution mandates it. :(

Show me precedent.

is this what you mean?
that God says he's present in a marriage between one man and one woman

Just because it infers you shouldn't do something doesn't mean you have the right to hate/judge/try to prevent other people from doing it.

And if -- IF -- you really DO believe what you post, exactly the way you post it, then you are left of me and anyone with a functioning brain, and I will continue to tar you as such until you disappear or admit you're a conservative.

Just because your liberal/conservative doesn't mean you have to blindly follow that ideaology you are allowed to have your own opinion.

How is the Christian God discriminatory? I would love for some modern example.
In the bible, which is the only real way to get through to god if you believe in him (I don't) and that he is the christain God he is discrimiatory against women. If not (other religion) I haven't studied the scripture so I can't say (I argue against Christains more often) and if it's personal beliefs it doesn't matter either way.

I posted conservative arguments, because I feel bad that there are no fundies on the forum (too dumb to use a computer I suppose) and people said I was trying to make conservatives look bad. I just want to make honest points.

I arealize you are working with Chairman Dean on outreach to fundies this year, but I think it's a big mistake.
See, it's this kind of post, especially the bolded part, that convince me you're full of it. You automatically assume that I am, in any way, shape or form, a Democrat at all, let alone a fan of Howard Dean. This is the kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" bullying that conservative pundits are known for and it's why I will continue to say to you, sir:

Get stuffed.

Many scientists believe that the Moon was formed in much the same way as the Earth. Unlike the Earth, the Moon has remained much the same for hundreds of millions of years. By studying the Moon, we can gather information of how the earth was all those millions of years ago.

and that matters how? It would be nice to know but there are much more important thing we have to deal with first.

and that matters how? It would be nice to know but there are much more important thing we have to deal with first.

Because it furthers humanity.

You're completely out of your head and moreso if you think anyone actually believes what your saying. Even you.

Okay, I'll bite for a nanosecond: please show me any, ANY proof of your assertion that billboards in ANY way fall under hate crimes legislation. Sources. Even one legitimate source -- in fact, since you're mentioning a specific branch of law, I'd like you to try and prove what you claimed using the laws you're talking about. Come on, find me a paragraph, and I'll apologize for EVER saying you're a NeoCon plant.

I dare you.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482

Even if you denounce Fred Phelps, parts of the Bible are anti-gay. Also, the Gospels are anti-Semitic. There are also many parts of the Bible that treat women differently from men, in violation of anti-discrimination laws. :gundge:

I'm sorry about your religion, but you'll have to either give it up, or celebrate it at home. :(

I wish it could be otherwise, but the Constitution mandates it. :(
OH HOLY CRAP.

Okay, "anti-Semitic" wasn't even a CONCEPT, let alone a TERM when the Gospels were written! The very fact that you're posting this inflammatory dreck convinces me you're not a real liberal. No real liberal walks around denouncing religion in such an offensive manner. As an independent, I don't want to see a theocracy, but in no way to I think something as asinine as the above bolded statement, and I sure as hell wouldn't follow it with a sad-smiley.

Your impression of a far-left nuthatch isn't even that impressive! Please, go back to the Ann Coulter book you got this idea from and re-read it. You're messing it up.

Oh (almost forgot) -- get stuffed.

Many scientists believe that the Moon was formed in much the same way as the Earth. Unlike the Earth, the Moon has remained much the same for hundreds of millions of years. By studying the Moon, we can gather information of how the earth was all those millions of years ago.
Okay. I'll buy that. Just not right now.

I can only be a fundamentalist or progressive, most people feel that I was being more honest, and more mainstream, as a progressive.

I'm sorry if you are insulted by the Party Platform, and I realize we are in an election year, and you are probably trying to help Joe Lieberman beat Ned Lamont. But the fact is, until Democrats stand up for what we really believe, we will KEEP LOSING.

It's you who is causing us to lose, not me.
Wrong (again).

You expose yourself yet again by not even looking at where I'm from! Why would I give even half a shit about Connecticut or Lieberman? You reveal even more when you keep trying to say "we" as you attemnpt to tar all Democrats with the same brush. Your tactic isn't even mildly clever.

I'm not insulted by the party platform, I'm insulted by your Red-in-Blue-clothing routine.

Aaaaaaaaand get stuffed.

Show me precedent.
He can't. He's spitballing and trying to defame liberalism in the process. He's actually a conservative --

Y'know what? I don't even know that, do I? I do know that for some reason, he hates Democrats and is trying to bring them down "from the inside" on a game forum. Class-A lame.

I apologize for assuming he's a conservative. He's a misguided fool no matter who he votes for.

Wrong (again).

You expose yourself yet again by not even looking at where I'm from! Why would I give even half a shit about Connecticut or Lieberman? You reveal even more when you keep trying to say "we" as you attemnpt to tar all Democrats with the same brush. Your tactic isn't even mildly clever.

I'm not insulted by the party platform, I'm insulted by your Red-in-Blue-clothing routine.

Aaaaaaaaand get stuffed.

Tangled, I responded to you with the billboard issue, and you promised that you would reconsider me, and then you attack me anyway. :(

I'm so sorry for not being a good Democrat and pretending to say I support God this election year, when I don't. I support the common ancestor from which all natural life evolved.

I don't feel the same anger towards you. I think you are a great person.

I follow the facts in the hopes of discovering as true fact that you do well in your life and have the best of health.

*snip what doesn't matter*

In the bible, which is the only real way to get through to god if you believe in him (I don't) and that he is the christain God he is discrimiatory against women. If not (other religion) I haven't studied the scripture so I can't say (I argue against Christains more often) and if it's personal beliefs it doesn't matter either way.
Discriminatory against women. Now I'm really laughing.

Let's try one more time. "Discrimination" as we know the concept today wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye in the time of the Bible, and you should know that. Women were called, and treated like, property because that's the way society WAS then. The Bible was written for its times, and taken in that context is a fairly typical piece of recorded history: patriarchal and proud of it. Saying it's sexist is like saying slave owners were racist -- OF COURSE they were! The concept of a slave as an equal human being wouldn't pop into reality for centuries after slavery started. You can't judge an ancient behavior by modern standards and claim discrimination when none could objectively exist. We can see the old behaviors as racist or sexist because we look at them through the lens of the present.

By the way, could you at least make an effort to spell Christian correctly once in a while? It almost looks like you're deliberately spelling it christain to make some kind of juvenile point.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482
Uh...nice try. That link sent me to the Times' payment center. Care to make up another link?

EDIT: Get stuffed.

Actually, the Separation of Church and State doesn't actually mean that the ad can't exist. It means there shall be no state religion. The ad comes under freedom of expression. No different at all than when Neo-Nazis held a rally in a predominatley black area in my city. They have every right to do it, even though their message is gay.

Gay Neo-Nazis? I love free speech! :D
You're absolutely correct, of course.

Tangled, I responded to you with the billboard issue, and you promised that you would reconsider me, and then you attack me anyway. :(

I'm so sorry for not being a good Democrat and pretending to say I support God this election year, when I don't. I support the common ancestor from which all natural life evolved.

I don't feel the same anger towards you. I think you are a great person.

I follow the facts in the hopes of discovering as true fact that you do well in your life and have the best of health.
See, you've just made atheism into a Democratic platform plank. Now I have no doubts that you're not even remotely a Democrat. Everything you say from now on is completely suspect and I will continue to out you wherever I see you post.

Your false congeniality will get you nowhere, as it's as patently fake as all your other posts.

You did not respond to the billboard issue, you posted a link that went to a payment center page for the NYT, and a non-functioning one at that. You are a troll.

Get stuffed.

Uh...nice try. That link sent me to the Times' payment center. Care to make up another link?

Bible Verses on Homosexuality Are Covered Up on Billboards
Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed. The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said...


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482

See, you've just made atheism into a Democratic platform plank. Now I have no doubts that you're not even remotely a Democrat. Everything you say from now on is completely suspect and I will continue to out you wherever I see you post.

Your false congeniality will get you nowhere, as it's as patently fake as all your other posts.

Get stuffed.

Intangelon, I'm completely sorry for this. Please, stop, you just don't like me because I'm honest about our shared beliefs.

At least Democratic candidates around the country are embracing my view, and not yours.

For example, Jon Tester in Montana, Ned Lamont in Connecticut, and Jim Webb in Virginia.

Bible Verses on Homosexuality Are Covered Up on Billboards
Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed. The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said...


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482
This is as much of the story as your link allows me to read, and therefore, ONLY as much of the story as YOU read (note the bolded emphasis added):

Bible Verses on Homosexuality Are Covered Up on Billboards

*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
March 9, 2000, Thursday
By JULIAN E. BARNES (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section B, Page 4, Column 5, 399 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 399 WORDS -Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed. The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said...

To read the rest of this archive article, upgrade to TimesSelect or purchase as a single article.

You haven't seen the whole article, so you don't even know the rest of the story, do you? Try again. BTW, if that's your ONLY proof of the billboard thing, there's nothing about any laws or legislation mentioned.

Become overinflated.
(That's get stuffed...I like to mix things up on occasion.)

Intangelon, I'm completely sorry for this. Please, stop, you just don't like me because I'm honest about our shared beliefs.

At least Democratic candidates around the country are embracing my view, and not yours.

For example, Jon Tester in Montana, Ned Lamont in Connecticut, and Jim Webb in Virginia.
The bolded statement, once again, makes you a liar. You've no idea what I believe because I've studiously avoided telling you. You assume, like so many who refuse to think, that all people of one party think alike. You're a phony. A fake. A complete rip-off trying to stir up conservative ire by posting wildly misleading and trollish far-left "positions" and trying to claim it as anyone's party line. We get it, you don't like liberals.

Get stuffed.

Bible Verses on Homosexuality Are Covered Up on Billboards
Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed. The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said...


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482

There's a better way: BUGA UP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUGA_UP)

There's a better way: BUGA UP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUGA_UP)
Right on. The pic in the article is funny.

Oy. CnT has been doing this for weeks, and I still see pages of replies to him. What's with that?

sadly, BUGA UP's site isn't there at the moment.

It's illegal to deface billboards, of course. But brilliant viral marketing.
My favourite was a LongBeach ad (cheap brand, I think the first to bring out packets of fifty to minimize tax). Three swipes of white and one of black and it said "LungLeech"
Now that's the kind of imagery money can't buy ;)

Oy. CnT has been doing this for weeks, and I still see pages of replies to him. What's with that?
I know. I've sent this thread to moderation.

Even if I take Mod heat over "get stuffed", I want to make sure C&T doesn't get into any thread and deliberately misrepresent liberal thought and claim to be one. I dunno -- even though I know it's troll behavior and I should just ignore it, something about my being a fan of honesty (a), balance/moderation (b) and an antagonist of deceit designed to misrepresent or mislead without owning up to it in any kind of debate (c) sets me off.

Discriminatory against women. Now I'm really laughing.

Let's try one more time. "Discrimination" as we know the concept today wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye in the time of the Bible, and you should know that. Women were called, and treated like, property because that's the way society WAS then. The Bible was written for its times, and taken in that context is a fairly typical piece of recorded history: patriarchal and proud of it. Saying it's sexist is like saying slave owners were racist -- OF COURSE they were! The concept of a slave as an equal human being wouldn't pop into reality for centuries after slavery started. You can't judge an ancient behavior by modern standards and claim discrimination when none could objectively exist. We can see the old behaviors as racist or sexist because we look at them through the lens of the present.

By the way, could you at least make an effort to spell Christian correctly once in a while? It almost looks like you're deliberately spelling it christain to make some kind of juvenile point.


So... are you know saying that we should regard the bible as relevant only for its time, in which case the social norms it promotes are understandable and to some extend even acceptable? And should we then keep in mind that as times have changed, very few (if any) of the biblical teachings apply today?

I think most Christians would have a severe problem with that statement. After all, they regard the bible as holy scripture, as the one and only perfect guide to their lives...

ETA: No, Fred Phelps and his abortion of a church do not represent God or Christ in anyway. If anything, they're setting themselves up for an abysmal dissapointment at the judgement seat of Christ when they expect to be richly "rewarded" for preaching hatred and violence against gays, military, and pretty much everyone. The true God of peace has a naaasty backhand.
Well said. Any "Christian" preaching hatred and violence against anyone is probably going to hell.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said
Most of them will be disappointed. For these people probably agree with the Iraq war, and most other wars for that matter. They agree with the death penalty. In fact they're generally in favour of killing, except abortion.

These people tend to think that helping the poor is subsidising their laziness, and that showing compassion to sinners is somehow validating their sins.

True Christians are against killing, for helping the poor, and well, remember "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

These right-wing "Christians" are very un-Christ like indeed. It seems to me that in America, even the liberal atheists act more Christian than the outspoken "Christians".

Well said. Any "Christian" preaching hatred and violence against anyone is probably going to hell.


Most of them will be disappointed. For these people probably agree with the Iraq war, and most other wars for that matter. They agree with the death penalty. In fact they're generally in favour of killing, except abortion.

These people tend to think that helping the poor is subsidising their laziness, and that showing compassion to sinners is somehow validating their sins.

True Christians are against killing, for helping the poor, and well, remember "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

These right-wing "Christians" are very un-Christ like indeed. It seems to me that in America, even the liberal atheists act more Christian than the outspoken "Christians".

Indeed. This reminds me of a quote from Kingdom of Heaven: "There is so much done in Christendom of which Christ would be incapable."

I know. I've sent this thread to moderation.

<snip>

The Nazz's original post was refreshingly honest trollbait.

Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him?

^ That's the first question in the OP.
First responder was DesignatedMarksman. I'm here, cracking jokes. Get the drift?

I'm not saying there aren't good points being made in this thread. But if you're going to go to the mods over something as hard to prove as your accusation against CnT, please make it about a thread where a majority of the posters actually give a damn.

I think I know exactly what to say to this...wait...hang on...it's coming to me...it's the thing I always say to you because you're statements are so patently made from the point of view of a conservative trying to make liberals look bad...ah, yes. That's it:

Get stuffed.
Conscience and Truth is just one big cuddly straw man. Burns easily.

<snip>
Get stuffed.

Erm...I couldn't help but chuckle at this. You seem to be quite irate about Conscience and Truth, and you may be justified, but to what avail does it serve in telling him to visit a taxidermist? Seems to me as almost like a typical kindergarten conversation, akin to such insulting no-nos as "stupidhead" and "ding-dong."

So... are you know saying that we should regard the bible as relevant only for its time, in which case the social norms it promotes are understandable and to some extend even acceptable? And should we then keep in mind that as times have changed, very few (if any) of the biblical teachings apply today?

I think most Christians would have a severe problem with that statement. After all, they regard the bible as holy scripture, as the one and only perfect guide to their lives...
Well, that's why it's my opinion and I'd never be so arrogant as to try to make it law. Very little of the OT applies today and slightly more of the NT, but the Bible was of and for its times, and I'll stand by that. The only folks that seem to have a problem with that notion are steadfast Biblical literalists...and they tend to walk into the open manhole cover of hypocrisy enough to take care of themselves. Most Christians I know are happy with an interpretation of the Bible and how it relates to current times and issues as opposed to interested at all in following a word-for-word strict interpretation.

Well said. Any "Christian" preaching hatred and violence against anyone is probably going to hell.


Most of them will be disappointed. For these people probably agree with the Iraq war, and most other wars for that matter. They agree with the death penalty. In fact they're generally in favour of killing, except abortion.

These people tend to think that helping the poor is subsidising their laziness, and that showing compassion to sinners is somehow validating their sins.

True Christians are against killing, for helping the poor, and well, remember "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

These right-wing "Christians" are very un-Christ like indeed. It seems to me that in America, even the liberal atheists act more Christian than the outspoken "Christians".
And the bells rang out in praise. Well said.

The Nazz's original post was refreshingly honest trollbait.



^ That's the first question in the OP.
First responder was DesignatedMarksman. I'm here, cracking jokes. Get the drift?

I'm not saying there aren't good points being made in this thread. But if you're going to go to the mods over something as hard to prove as your accusation against CnT, please make it about a thread where a majority of the posters actually give a damn.
I have. More than this thread are cited, and will be cited.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

I'm thinking that conservative Christians are rather more worried about liberals of the blaspheming type annoy God so much that He'll punish the nation entire.

Otherwise, I suppose that conservative Christians consider the following:



Before the throne of God above,
I have a strong and perfect plea,
A great High Priest whose name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart;
I know that while in heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair,
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there! the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace!
One with Himself I cannot die,
My soul is purchased by His blood;
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God
With Christ my Savior and my God.


Bottomline? Better be a Christian of whatever political persuasion, than anything else.

Erm...I couldn't help but chuckle at this. You seem to be quite irate about Conscience and Truth, and you may be justified, but to what avail does it serve in telling him to visit a taxidermist? Seems to me as almost like a typical kindergarten conversation, akin to such insulting no-nos as "stupidhead" and "ding-dong."
It's just the phrase I chose to ring the same note at the end of any post in which I call him out. I think I chose it because I like the way it sounds and because it was the least offensive one I could muster, given my feeling that C&T is utterly full of it...from all the stuffing, see...I...that's a...aw, skip it.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays.
Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? ?


Off withith their heads-God

Do you have pictures of these billboards!?

It's just the phrase I chose to ring the same note at the end of any post in which I call him out. I think I chose it because I like the way it sounds and because it was the least offensive one I could muster, given my feeling that C&T is utterly full of it...from all the stuffing, see...I...that's a...aw, skip it.

Haha, okay, I was just curious. Now it makes sense. :)

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

There are many people who stray off the path 'large is the gate and narrow is the way', but 99.99% of conservative christians will ascend to Heaven.

There are many people who stray off the path 'large is the gate and narrow is the way', but 99.99% of conservative christians will ascend to Heaven.

And who told you that? ;)

The Bible.

The Bible.

Interesting. Where does the bible say anything about conservative christians? Or, indeed, give the number of 99.99%?

The Bible.
The Bible says that 99.9% of Conservative Christians will go to heaven?

As Conservative Christians are in the vast majority of cases those who believe in the Bible word for word, all of it.

As Conservative Christians are in the vast majority of cases those who believe in the Bible word for word, all of it.
Including the bits that contradict the other bits?

That must make life complicated.

The Bible says that 99.9% of Conservative Christians will go to heaven?

As Conservative Christians obey the Bible, yes it does. However there are those who get it wrong, do not realize it, do not repent.

Including the bits that contradict the other bits?

That must make life complicated.

You have to rely on faith.

As Conservative Christians obey the Bible, yes it does. However there are those who get it wrong, do not realize it, do not repent.

So... only those conservatives who happen to get it right get in? How do you know 99.99% get it right?

You have to rely on faith.
Faith to do what, know which contradiction to obey? But then you're not obeying the other bit, and so your 'word for word' clause falls down.

You have to rely on faith.

So you can't take it word for word but have faith that the bits you do take literally are the right ones?

Wow, Christian conservatives must be really good at gambling if they guess right 99.99% of the time...

So you can't take it word for word but have faith that the bits you do take literally are the right ones?

Wow, Christian conservatives must be really good at gambling if they guess right 99.99% of the time...

Which is ironic, since gambling is a sin.

There are many people who stray off the path 'large is the gate and narrow is the way', but 99.99% of conservative christians will ascend to Heaven.

I'd bring my own toilet paper if I were you. The queue's for the bathrooms up there must be murder.

I'm sure that figure overlooks all the people commiting crimes on earth (or 'sinning' as it were.)

As Conservative Christians obey the Bible, yes it does. However there are those who get it wrong, do not realize it, do not repent.
Would you consider George Bush a Conservative Christian?

I am not sure if I come under the heading of Conservative Christian, but I do take the Bible very seriously and yes, I can distictly remember a moment when I felt malrepresented by a self-annointed Christian, president Bush.

Now, I need to be careful in my criticism of the American president, because in my country it is by law prohibited to insult the head of state of a befriended nation. Nevertheless, I suppose I can say the following:

When he launched his attack against Afghanistan, he said:
"If you're not for us, you're against us."

This is a blatant contradiction of the word of Jesus:

"All those who are not against us, are for us."

In this respect, I felt that the president did not show what Christianity stands for.

You have to rely on faith.


Or rather... on the Holy Spirit. Ruach-ha-Khodesh.

I am not sure if I come under the heading of Conservative Christian, but I do take the Bible very seriously and yes, I can distictly remember a moment when I felt malrepresented by a self-annointed Christian, president Bush.

Now, I need to be careful in my criticism of the American president, because in my country it is by law prohibited to insult the head of state of a befriended nation. Nevertheless, I suppose I can say the following:

When he launched his attack against Afghanistan, he said:
"If you're not for us, you're against us."

This is a blatant contradiction of the word of Jesus:

"All those who are not against us, are for us."

In this respect, I felt that the president did not show what Christianity stands for.
I agree with what you have stated!!

In the future, historians will say that the dark-ages ended in the year 2070-something.

In the future, historians will say that the dark-ages ended in the year 2070-something.


No, they'll say that that is when the Dark Ages began.

No, they'll say that that is when the Dark Ages began.

Yes, Bush's golden age of science is upon us :rolleyes:

do I worry that I am misrepresenting God? not really. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on what I am supposed to be doing.

should others worry? other than them being inefficient and at most times hurting the cause? yeah, probably.

do I worry about other people? not a lot, I worry about the lost, but not so much about the people who claim to know better, but don't act like they do.

the OP reminds me of a passage in Phillipians
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Philippians 1:15-18

Yes, Bush's golden age of science is upon us :rolleyes:

In that case, you're 70 years off.

In that case, you're 70 years off.

My apologies, the American immunity to sarcasm slipped my mind for a moment.

My apologies, the American immunity to sarcasm slipped my mind for a moment.


Not to worry.

I'm no American - and you are no believer.

Bible Verses on Homosexuality Are Covered Up on Billboards
Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed. The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said...


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C10F7355C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482


Here's the whole thing, thanks to my university's library (so sorry, no link):
Two billboards on Staten Island that angered civic and gay leaders by using a Biblical verse to condemn homosexuality were covered up yesterday, just as the identity of the man responsible for the messages was revealed.

The man, the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy of Keyword Ministries in Staten Island, said he had paid $1,800 to post the two signs for one month. The signs, in the St. George and Port Richmond neighborhoods, cited four translations of Leviticus 18:22. One read, ''Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.''

The messages disappeared a day after they were denounced by the Staten Island borough president, Guy V. Molinari, and local gay leaders. Yesterday, the signs were covered with images of McGruff the Crime Dog and Smokey Bear.

Mr. Okwedy had remained anonymous until yesterday, when the billboard company, with his permission, released his name. He said he believed that the company had improperly censored him.

''This is the land of the free, home of the brave,'' he said. ''You are supposed to protect the rights of free speech. I paid money and did not violate any city laws.''

Donald Rosenthal, a lawyer for PNE Media of Union, N.J., which owns the billboards, said the signs were removed because the advertisements did not disclose who paid for the message.

But Mr. Okwedy said that the billboards were designed by the company and that officials never told him he had to put his name on them. Originally, he said, he chose to remain anonymous because God had inspired him to post the message. But, he added, he would have put his name on the sign if asked.

Daniel L. Master, the legal counsel for Mr. Molinari, said the company should not have printed the message even if Mr. Okwedy's name had been attached.

''A responsible member of the business community would not have printed this,'' he said.

Mr. Rosenthal said that PNE Media respected advertisers' free speech rights, but that the company's practice was to review the editorial content of the billboards.So, while the content of the billboards was denounced by politicians, the content was not removed by those politicians, as they were powerless to do anything about it. The content was removed by the company that owned the billboards, as is their right as owners.

During the 2004 political campaign, many liberal groups found it difficult to get advertising space on billboards precisely because private companies (under pressure from the Bush campaign, esp. Karl Rove) refused to sell them space. That's reprehensible, in my view, but it's completely legal.

Next time, you might try a little honesty in your argument--it's a stretch for a theocon plant such as yourself, but give it a try.

Not to worry.

I'm no American - and you are no believer.

You're right, I'm not, I don't pray to Bush nearly often enough.

You're right, I'm not, I don't pray to Bush nearly often enough.


Nor to the Father, nor the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?
Silly Nazz, you've totally misunderstood Pascal's Wager!

The way it works is, atheists and agnostics are stupid for not hedging their bets by worshipping the Christian God, because the Christian God really is real after all. But Christians aren't silly for failing to hedge their own bets, because the Christian God really is real after all, and He just so happens to believe exactly what one's own denomination of Christianity says He believes. See how that goes? :)

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

1. I'm a conservative Christian.
2. You seem to have odd ideas of what it means to be a conservative Christian.
3. I do not claim to be "the group representing Him". He seems to do fine on His own there.
4. I am not going to tell anyone that they're going to Hell. Pentacostals can't tell you that, because they don't know who is going to Hell anymore than you do.
5. Worry less about the afterlife, worry less about what other people are doing, because we're all imperfect - the idea is to work on yourself.
6. It doesn't do any good to regularly go to church, carry a Bible, and talk to the preacher every Sunday if you're not living in a way that enriches your own spiritual well being and that of the people around you.
7. Stop lumping us all together, it's offensive in the extreme. Why don't you just call us all some slur, because that's what you really mean to do.

Nor to the Father, nor the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit.
Right, and those guys. Though after this exchange of words, I vow to become a better man. Tonight I shall pray for the preservation of stem-cells, destruction of muslim children and a thinner ozone-layer. Amen brother!

5. Worry less about the afterlife, worry less about what other people are doing, because we're all imperfect - the idea is to work on yourself.
No offense intended, here, but that bolded bit seems really odd to me. My understanding is that the afterlife is supposed to be where you go FOR ALL ETERNITY after you die. Eternity is a fuck of a lot longer than one's mortal life on Earth. Plus, as I understand it, that eternity will either be spent in perfect bliss or perfect torment...both of those demand some serious attention.

By way of comparison, I already worry about my retirement (and I'm not even out of school yet) and spend a lot of time planning for my future. I consider this merely responsible behavior, because I believe I am responsible for ensuring that I will have a happy, safe, satisfying future. And I may never actually retire!

But I'm sure as hell going to die one day. I don't happen to believe in the afterlife, but if I did I would certainly worry about it more than my Earthly retirement. I would worry about it more than anything else going on, because my mortal life would just be a brief prelude before the ETERNITY of my after-living existence. Life on Earth would only be important insofar as it impacts where I spend my afterlife.

Which is not to say I wouldn't enjoy my time on Earth. It's just that, on the grand scale of Things To Worry About, I'd say an eternity in Hell is worth more attention than pretty much any Earthly concerns. If you believe in that sort of thing, that is.

Which is ironic, since gambling is a sin.

Now, I'd love to see you back that one up with the bible....

No offense intended, here, but that bolded bit seems really odd to me. My understanding is that the afterlife is supposed to be where you go FOR ALL ETERNITY after you die. Eternity is a fuck of a lot longer than one's mortal life on Earth. Plus, as I understand it, that eternity will either be spent in perfect bliss or perfect torment...both of those demand some serious attention.

By way of comparison, I already worry about my retirement (and I'm not even out of school yet) and spend a lot of time planning for my future. I consider this merely responsible behavior, because I believe I am responsible for ensuring that I will have a happy, safe, satisfying future. And I may never actually retire!

But I'm sure as hell going to die one day. I don't happen to believe in the afterlife, but if I did I would certainly worry about it more than my Earthly retirement. I would worry about it more than anything else going on, because my mortal life would just be a brief prelude before the ETERNITY of my after-living existence. Life on Earth would only be important insofar as it impacts where I spend my afterlife.

Which is not to say I wouldn't enjoy my time on Earth. It's just that, on the grand scale of Things To Worry About, I'd say an eternity in Hell is worth more attention than pretty much any Earthly concerns. If you believe in that sort of thing, that is.


I think you miss the point. Pentacostals believe that if you live a good life here, and are a good person, you get your reward in the afterlife. Additionally, as many atheists can testify, you don't need to die to go to Hell - there is plenty to go around in this life that would qualify.

We also don't believe that just because you say you love Jesus that you're going to Heaven - far from it. Which is the problem that I have with Baptists and Methodists (the people you usually associate with conservative Christians). They believe that once you say you love Jesus, you're good to go, and can sit back and give everyone else a hard time about the way they live their lives.

Pentacostals don't believe that. If you aren't living a life helping others (and that doesn't mean thumping them with a Bible until they cry Uncle), then you aren't going to Heaven. No matter how loud you say you love Jesus.

Right, and those guys. Though after this exchange of words, I vow to become a better man. Tonight I shall pray for the preservation of stem-cells, destruction of muslim children and a thinner ozone-layer. Amen brother!

*sends you an asbestos suit with climate control*


Your knowledge of Right and Wrong is as impressive as your knowledge of the politics of Denmark and Holland. ;)

I think you miss the point. Pentacostals believe that if you live a good life here, and are a good person, you get your reward in the afterlife.

Yes, but why should I assume the Pentacostals are right? Why should ANYBODY who sincerely believes in the afterlife be willing to simply accept that Pentacostals have it right? I'm not saying you don't have it right, mind you, I'm just saying that this is an ETERNITY of an afterlife we're talking about...I'd think anybody who believes in such an afterlife would spend a lot more time worrying about it than anything else, and would be very very very concerned about whether or not they're following the right system when it comes to ensuring a good afterlife.

In other words, if you really believe there is a Heaven and a Hell, it seems very odd to me that you'd simply say, "Well, I'm just going to assume that the Pentacostal instructions are right, and all I've got to do is be a good person on Earth. Of course, there's always the chance that the Catholics are actually right about it, or maybe the Baptists, but that's nothing to worry about."



Additionally, as many atheists can testify, you don't need to die to go to Hell - there is plenty to go around in this life that would qualify.

No Hell on Earth could possibly rival the one described for the afterlife, for the single reason that Earthly Hell is constrained by natural law; in other words, one's experience of Hell on Earth is finite in both duration and quality, since there is only so much the mortal body can endure.

Now, for somebody who doesn't believe in an afterlife, Hell on Earth is as bad as it gets. And it's plenty bad, let me tell you. But if you believe that there is an afterlife full of ETERNAL perfect torment, then that's going to obviously trump any pain that could be experienced in the physical world as we know it.


We also don't believe that just because you say you love Jesus that you're going to Heaven - far from it. Which is the problem that I have with Baptists and Methodists (the people you usually associate with conservative Christians). They believe that once you say you love Jesus, you're good to go, and can sit back and give everyone else a hard time about the way they live their lives.

And that's my point. If I really believed in Heaven and Hell, I wouldn't be able to simply say, "Well, this is what I believe about the afterlife, and that's good enough for me." I'd probably spend most of my time trying to study up and figure out which denomination was right about Heaven and Hell, and how to get to Heaven while avoiding Hell. This issue would be my paramount concern, in fact.


Pentacostals don't believe that. If you aren't living a life helping others (and that doesn't mean thumping them with a Bible until they cry Uncle), then you aren't going to Heaven. No matter how loud you say you love Jesus.
As somebody who doesn't believe in Heaven, Hell, God, or any of that other associated stuff, I certainly find the Pentacostal version a lot nicer than many others I've heard. However, that's mostly because I assign value to such beliefs based on how likely they are to keep people from acting like jackasses here on Earth; if I believed in the afterlife as spelled out by Christian mythology, my priorities would be quite different.

The Bible.
Does the American Protestant version say something about Jesus voting Republican?

As Conservative Christians are in the vast majority of cases those who believe in the Bible word for word, all of it.
Even the parts that are not at all conducive to conservatism? I think not.

Does the American Protestant version say something about Jesus voting Republican?


Even the parts that are not at all conducive to conservatism? I think not.


*seconds the questions*

I mean, anyone who thinks the Bible has 'good vibes' towards the theory of private ownership probably hasn't read it very well...

Yes, but why should I assume the Pentacostals are right? Why should ANYBODY who sincerely believes in the afterlife be willing to simply accept that Pentacostals have it right?

Let's look at it this way.

In addition to eating, breathing, sleeping, drinking, and having sex, I have spiritual needs.

You may not, but that's you.

I am more concerned about the here and now, because it's what I can see right now - we can all guess about the afterlife all we want.

I wanted a spiritual source that worked for me - and that's a religion that leads me to help people around me. Works very nicely, and if I happen to be right, maybe I'll go to Heaven.

Don't know how you manage to live without spiritual rejuvenation from time to time, but that's you. Sure, I could help people without being in a particular religion, and I might even feel good about it. But I feel even better this way.

*seconds the questions*

I mean, anyone who thinks the Bible has 'good vibes' towards the theory of private ownership probably hasn't read it very well...
I think the Conservative Bible is a bit different than the version most of us have come across. For instance, they've taken out all those silly bits about helping the poor, and replaced them with, "Welfare queens are a product of the nanny-state! Social services are handouts for the unworthy! Thou shalt not suffer a moocher to live!"

Let's look at it this way.

In addition to eating, breathing, sleeping, drinking, and having sex, I have spiritual needs.

You may not, but that's you.

I am more concerned about the here and now, because it's what I can see right now - we can all guess about the afterlife all we want.

That's quite logical. And one of the many reasons I don't believe in any particular vision of the afterlife.

Do you believe in the literal existence of Heaven and/or Hell?


I wanted a spiritual source that worked for me - and that's a religion that leads me to help people around me. Works very nicely, and if I happen to be right, maybe I'll go to Heaven.

Do you believe that you will go to Hell if you are wrong?


Don't know how you manage to live without spiritual rejuvenation from time to time, but that's you. Sure, I could help people without being in a particular religion, and I might even feel good about it. But I feel even better this way.
It's all well and good to say that you believe because it makes you feel nice. I have no problem with that.

What I'm confused about is, do you believe that Heaven and Hell really exist? Do you believe that your actions will in any way impact which afterlife you will receive? If the answer to these is "yes," then how could anything on Earth be more important than determining how to receive Heaven and avoid Hell?

I think the Conservative Bible is a bit different than the version most of us have come across. For instance, they've taken out all those silly bits about helping the poor, and replaced them with, "Welfare queens are a product of the nanny-state! Social services are handouts for the unworthy! Thou shalt not suffer a moocher to live!"
I think you're conflating all conservative Christians. Which is rather ignorant.

I think the Conservative Bible is a bit different than the version most of us have come across. For instance, they've taken out all those silly bits about helping the poor, and replaced them with, "Welfare queens are a product of the nanny-state! Social services are handouts for the unworthy! Thou shalt not suffer a moocher to live!"


*mouth looks like a fish breathing out of water*

Abeee abaaaa bbbut fyeefooo... come again?

*perplexed*

( OOC: *giggle* )

I think you're conflating all conservative Christians. Which is rather ignorant.
I'm using "conservative" in the manner that the original poster (quoted by Bogs, I think) used it. If you don't like how he used it, feel free to chew him out. I've often thought that conservatives--as a general group--don't yell at their more radical brethren as often as they should. (While liberals tend to yell a lot and accomplish as little as the conservatives do...odd...)

That's quite logical. And one of the many reasons I don't believe in any particular vision of the afterlife.

1. Do you believe in the literal existence of Heaven and/or Hell?


2. Do you believe that you will go to Hell if you are wrong?


It's all well and good to say that you believe because it makes you feel nice. I have no problem with that.

What I'm confused about is, do you believe that Heaven and Hell really exist? Do you believe that your actions will in any way impact which afterlife you will receive? If the answer to these is "yes," then 3. how could anything on Earth be more important than determining how to receive Heaven and avoid Hell?


1. Definetely in the existence of Heaven.
Hell is the absence, the not-Heaven or !Heaven.

2. Nope. That's what you get for being unforgiven/unshriven.

3. Unless you get it right ( in this life, and get it right as in getting the right attitude ) you'll find Heaven as much a reward as a hypothetical gay muslim terrorist would find 70 virgins.

What I'm confused about is, do you believe that Heaven and Hell really exist? Do you believe that your actions will in any way impact which afterlife you will receive? If the answer to these is "yes," then how could anything on Earth be more important than determining how to receive Heaven and avoid Hell?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Exactly.

What you're missing in my case is that God isn't telling me to start roasting other people over a fire. The only way I get into Heaven is if I am good. I also don't believe that God is an ass, who will say, "well, that was nice, but fuck you".

Yes, I hand out food, money, and clothing to what you call "moochers". Our church runs a food kitchen, and no, you don't have to sit through any religious stuff before you can eat. I shelter homeless abused women and children in my home.

I do a lot where I can, and am looking to find ways to do more. I believe that the entrance to Heaven is based on your scorecard here and now.

I drove a truck full of bottled water that our church purchased down to Mississippi, and we GAVE it away.

We're all "conservatives". Not a Democrat in the congregation. But you don't hear us saying all the crap that the OP and you seem to think would come out of our mouths. Listening to you, you would think that we went down there with baseball bats and Bibles, and were thumping people who didn't accept Jesus.

Nice strawman - the whole thread.

I'm using "conservative" in the manner that the original poster (quoted by Bogs, I think) used it. If you don't like how he used it, feel free to chew him out. I've often thought that conservatives--as a general group--don't yell at their more radical brethren as often as they should. (While liberals tend to yell a lot and accomplish as little as the conservatives do...odd...)

Translation of the final part:

'saying nuffin at all is every bit as effective as shouting raucously.'

You are not really surprised, are you?

1. Definetely in the existence of Heaven.
Hell is the absence, the not-Heaven or !Heaven.

Oooh, interesting! Is Hell a place? Or do people who fail to get into Heaven simply stop existing?


2. Nope. That's what you get for being unforgiven/unshriven.

But what if you are wrong about that? I know this is getting annoying (like a kid who keeps asking, "Why?"), it's just that I can't imagine believing in something as important as the afterlife and then simply taking it on faith that everything will work out okay. I would worry a lot more about it.


3. Unless you get it right ( in this life, and get it right as in getting the right attitude ) you'll find Heaven as much a reward as a hypothetical gay muslim terrorist would find 70 virgins.
But what if you're wrong about that? That's my whole point...how can you be content in your assumptions about how Heaven and Hell work?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Indeed, your way sounds relatively nice, in the grand scheme of things. I'm simply saying that IF I embraced belief in an afterlife, then that would require at least an entire lifetime's worth of study, questioning, and attempts to figure out The Truth on the subject. The original statement that got me on this track was, "Worry less about the afterlife," and my point is that nobody has yet explained why I should worry LESS about the afterlife than about my current life. My current life would only be important insofar as it gets me what I want in the afterlife, so why on Earth should I worry LESS about the afterlife? My entire life should be about figuring out how to best acheive the "right" afterlife.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Exactly.

Oooh.


What you're missing in my case is that God isn't telling me to start roasting other people over a fire. The only way I get into Heaven is if I am good. I also don't believe that God is an ass, who will say, "well, that was nice, but fuck you".

So the problem is solved by your faith in God, and your faith that He wouldn't let the afterlife be designed in a jackass way?

(And, just for the record, I never assumed things like that about you.)


We're all "conservatives". Not a Democrat in the congregation. But you don't hear us saying all the crap that the OP and you seem to think would come out of our mouths. Listening to you, you would think that we went down there with baseball bats and Bibles, and were thumping people who didn't accept Jesus.

I'm sorry if my humor was ill received. I've tried to make it clear many times that I don't actually equate "conservative" with "batshit insane reactionary." Particularly since I, myself, allign with classic (American) conservatives on many issues.

However, whether we like it or not, "conservative" is a term that has been largely hijacked by radical elements. Much the same has happened to "liberal." These words no longer mean what they originally meant, and they now carry connotations that are pretty unfriendly. When I make off-the-cuff remarks about "conservative Christians," or silly statements about "the Conservative Bible," this should not be taken any more or less seriously than my comments about "the Hippie Bible" or "the Liberal Handbook."

I was wondering if Christians got pissed at the Republican party for making them look bad so often. I know Christians that wish political parties stayed completely out of religion because they don't want lying cheats representing them.

They're slowly getting the idea that they've been hoodwinked.

Oooh, interesting! Is Hell a place? Or do people who fail to get into Heaven simply stop existing?


But what if you are wrong about that? I know this is getting annoying (like a kid who keeps asking, "Why?"), it's just that I can't imagine believing in something as important as the afterlife and then simply taking it on faith that everything will work out okay. I would worry a lot more about it.


But what if you're wrong about that? That's my whole point...how can you be content in your assumptions about how Heaven and Hell work?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Indeed, your way sounds relatively nice, in the grand scheme of things. I'm simply saying that IF I embraced belief in an afterlife, then that would require at least an entire lifetime's worth of study, questioning, and attempts to figure out The Truth on the subject. The original statement that got me on this track was, "Worry less about the afterlife," and my point is that nobody has yet explained why I should worry LESS about the afterlife than about my current life. My current life would only be important insofar as it gets me what I want in the afterlife, so why on Earth should I worry LESS about the afterlife? My entire life should be about figuring out how to best acheive the "right" afterlife.

Bottle, when I started my road towards Christianity, my interest was not in getting rewards or avoiding punishment.
I wasn't bothered, it was about doing the right thing.
Some 15 years later, it still feels just like that.
Not bothered, I just happen to believe in doing the Right Thing.

If I get rewarded for that, well, Great!
But that isn't what I'm doing it for.
And neither is DK, you know?

Yes, I'm utterly content about my choices.
And so is he, I'm sure.

So the problem is solved by your faith in God, and your faith that He wouldn't let the afterlife be designed in a jackass way?

Exactly.

If I get there, and He says, "you should have flown more airliners into infidel buildings" I'll be pretty disappointed. But then again, so will you in that case.

They're slowly getting the idea that they've been hoodwinked.
I should hope so, particularly after we've seen some of the communications between some conservative leaders regarding their religious constitutents...they talk about their own supporters as rubes, dupes, and chumps who are to be manipulated at will! While I may not personally have a very high opinion of organized superstition, I still think it's cowardly and disgusting to play on people's most deeply-held beliefs in order to trick them into voting for you.

Exactly.

Ahhhh. That makes a lot more sense, then. Believing in an afterlife ALONE would be much more potentially problematic than believing in an afterlife along with an all-good regulatory body (i.e. God).

Whoa, that's gotta be a first for me...I have identified a situation in which I would have to admit that believing in God would be a good choice for me to make!


If I get there, and He says, "you should have flown more airliners into infidel buildings" I'll be pretty disappointed. But then again, so will you in that case.
It's a good thing I'll already be dead when I meet Him, because I'd die of shock. :D

Clinton?

Nixon? LBJ? Carter? Reagan?

Nixon? LBJ? Carter? Reagan?
It baffles me how there is still so much hatred for The Clenis. Yes, he lied about having consentual sexual relations. He's a dickhead for that. But really, if we were making a big list of Presidents Who Fucked Up, would Clinton be anywhere near the top of the list? Remember, about three out of four Americans thought Clinton was a good president while the impeachment stuff was going down. So why this retroactive hatred?

Ahhhh. That makes a lot more sense, then. Believing in an afterlife ALONE would be much more potentially problematic than believing in an afterlife along with an all-good regulatory body (i.e. God).

[b]Whoa, that's gotta be a first for me...I have identified a situation in which I would have to admit that believing in God would be a good choice for me to make![]/b]


It's a good thing I'll already be dead when I meet Him, because I'd die of shock. :D


:fluffle: Get used to finding those ;)
If afterlife were a free-for-all, it would not be all that nice.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?
They're never wrong. Just ask them. :rolleyes:

They're never wrong. Just ask them. :rolleyes:
Despite your :rolleyes:, that actually is kind of the answer to his original question.

I mean, the answer seems to be, "Faith." The reason these individuals do not "hedge their bets" or worry about whether or not they're right about God's wishes is because they have faith. Their faith tells them that God is a certain way, and therefore the topic becomes circular. Why should they worry about "hedging their bets" about God's will, when the same faith that tells them God exists is also telling them what KIND of God exists?

I guess it's not so much "They're never wrong," as it is, "Within the context of God as they define Him, they cannot be wrong on this subject."

Despite your :rolleyes:, that actually is kind of the answer to his original question.

I mean, the answer seems to be, "Faith." The reason these individuals do not "hedge their bets" or worry about whether or not they're right about God's wishes is because they have faith. Their faith tells them that God is a certain way, and therefore the topic becomes circular. Why should they worry about "hedging their bets" about God's will, when the same faith that tells them God exists is also telling them what KIND of God exists?

I guess it's not so much "They're never wrong," as it is, "Within the context of God as they define Him, they cannot be wrong on this subject."


I think you're missing one part of the equation: within the context of faith within the Christian religion, errors of judgement are of minor import, since your fate depends on your faith, and not on your judgement.

I think Dubya is dumb. I don't think he's damned.

Ahhhh. That makes a lot more sense, then. Believing in an afterlife ALONE would be much more potentially problematic than believing in an afterlife along with an all-good regulatory body (i.e. God).

Whoa, that's gotta be a first for me...I have identified a situation in which I would have to admit that believing in God would be a good choice for me to make!

And that's why I named my other person Sedation Ministry.

*sends you an asbestos suit with climate control*


Your knowledge of Right and Wrong is as impressive as your knowledge of the politics of Denmark and Holland. ;)

Thanks, that'll come in handy next time I'm in Denmark or Holland now that I'm a bushevic.

Thanks, that'll come in handy next time I'm in Denmark or Holland now that I'm a bushevic.


*grins, knowing that the Dutch do jail folks for bringing in asbestos...*

*grins, knowing that the Dutch do jail folks for bringing in asbestos...*

Damn dutch conservatives, asbestos is my constitutional right by god!

I think you're missing one part of the equation: within the context of faith within the Christian religion, errors of judgement are of minor import, since your fate depends on your faith, and not on your judgement.

It's not that I'm missing that, it's that I view the subject from outside Christianity.

From the point of view of a non-believer, the issue of faith IS the belief that "errors of judgement are of minor import, since your fate depends on your faith, and not on your judgement." In other words, it is only your faith which tells you that the quoted statement is true (or even relevant). Or, to put it yet another way, the original question was sort of about how you get within the context of the Christian religion in the first place.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is "faith." To a person who has not assumed belief in Christianity, it doesn't matter if the Christian religion tells you one thing or another about the impact of your own judgment. The only reason such information would be important is if you have already adopted the belief that Christianity is right (for you, at least). You've already made your "leap of faith" at this point. That's the piece that was missing, I think.

Bottle, when I started my road towards Christianity, my interest was not in getting rewards or avoiding punishment.
You are a Christian? I don't believe it?

You seem to be all about ruthless self interest, even if millions must die for you to get it.

I think you're missing one part of the equation: within the context of faith within the Christian religion, errors of judgement are of minor import, since your fate depends on your faith, and not on your judgement.
Within the Protestant religion.

We're all "conservatives".
So you all vote for governments that act in a way diametrically opposed to the values you act upon?

Bottle, when I started my road towards Christianity, my interest was not in getting rewards or avoiding punishment.
I wasn't bothered, it was about doing the right thing.
Some 15 years later, it still feels just like that.
Not bothered, I just happen to believe in doing the Right Thing.

If I get rewarded for that, well, Great!
But that isn't what I'm doing it for.
And neither is DK, you know?

Yes, I'm utterly content about my choices.
And so is he, I'm sure.
I'm not trying to imply that your goodness would be about simply attaining reward or avoiding punishment. I'm not really saying anything one way or the other about why you would be a good person, per se.

I'm not a good person because I think I'll get payoffs from it during my retirement, I'm a good person because it makes me feel good (much as is true for the two of you, I gather). However, that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about my retirement. I am! Just as I would assume that anybody who believes in an afterlife would be concerned about their afterlife. As concerned as I am about my mortal retirement, I would assume any sane person would be concerned-times-eternity about their afterlife.

Yes, there is some overlap. For instance, I don't want to have a criminal record. There are some laws in my country which I feel are unreasonable or inappropriate, but I choose to observe many of them because I do not wish to break the law and go to prison or have a blot on my record. [Example: I believe that it is stupid to have a law against smoking in a private establishment. If the owner is okay with it, I think I should be allowed to smoke there. However, in a town I used to live in, you can actually be ARRESTED for doing so. So I refrained from smoking in the pub, even though I think the law is stupid. In this case, my desire to secure a better future for myself did dictate how I behaved.] Thus, if you're still with me after that huge tangent, I will sometimes tailor my behavior based on future "rewards or punishments" that I can expect to receive. I think that's pretty sane.

Psalms 45: 4-10

So you all vote for governments that act in a way diametrically opposed to the values you act upon?

Really? Is that what you believe?

I don't vote for a party that treats my religion as some kind of joke that they can placate by suddenly showing up at church, or that constantly refers to me as an idiot for believing that I, and not the state, can help the poor.

Really? Is that what you believe?

I don't vote for a party that treats my religion as some kind of joke that they can placate by suddenly showing up at church,
So you don't vote Republican, then? ;)

Seriously, though, if you want to vote for a party that doesn't include people who use religion as a shallow prop for their own agendas, then you pretty much can't vote for any political party in the US.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?

Conservative Christians think they ARE God, or some type of disciple to Him. That's mainly why I turned away from Protestantism and to agnosticism (Catholicism didn't appeal to me). Some things in the Bible are true, some things have been mis-translated and twisted around. I really can't see why Christians would want to have Republicans representing them, either. If you were the one group who claimed to be right, would you want to have a bunch of cheats representing you? If you were God, you you want a bunch of over-zealous morons representing you? Don't think so.

So you don't vote Republican, then? ;)

Seriously, though, if you want to vote for a party that doesn't include people who use religion as a shallow prop for their own agendas, then you pretty much can't vote for any political party in the US.

I found the use of religion as a prop by Democrats to be about as shallow as an exposed concrete sidewalk.

In general, Republicans DO manipulate people on that basis, but I've met quite a few very genuinely religious Republicans - I can't say that I've ever met a Democratic candidate in my area that would remotely take religion seriously. Now, it's one thing not to take it seriously, but it's another to go out of your way to ridicule religion.

That's been my experience with local candidates, and with listening to the "voice" of the Democratic Party (Air America).

And watching Kerry show up to church all of a sudden, or hear Dean seriously misquote the Bible - I mean, if you're not religious, that's actually OK - just don't fall on your face pandering like a jackass.

I found the use of religion as a prop by Democrats to be about as shallow as an exposed concrete sidewalk.

In general, Republicans DO manipulate people on that basis, but I've met quite a few very genuinely religious Republicans - I can't say that I've ever met a Democratic candidate in my area that would remotely take religion seriously. Now, it's one thing not to take it seriously, but it's another to go out of your way to ridicule religion.

See, and I find the opposite to be the problem. I would desperately love to have one candidate, just ONE, who wasn't religious. I would love to have the option of voting for an opennly, honestly, sincerely non-religious person. And even among Democrats who I like, I still cannot find this option. Even among the Dems who share a lot of my views, still there is nobody who is willing to be "out" about being non-religious. I find that frightening, considering the (at least nominal) separation of religion and government in my country.


And watching Kerry show up to church all of a sudden, or hear Dean seriously misquote the Bible - I mean, if you're not religious, that's actually OK - just don't fall on your face pandering like a jackass.
I guess I just feel I've seen as much of that from Republicans as from Democrats. The majority of people I know, be they GOoPer or Donkey, are amazingly uninformed about their own religious beliefs. Politicians are no exception.

Despite your :rolleyes:, that actually is kind of the answer to his original question.

I mean, the answer seems to be, "Faith." The reason these individuals do not "hedge their bets" or worry about whether or not they're right about God's wishes is because they have faith. Their faith tells them that God is a certain way, and therefore the topic becomes circular. Why should they worry about "hedging their bets" about God's will, when the same faith that tells them God exists is also telling them what KIND of God exists?

I guess it's not so much "They're never wrong," as it is, "Within the context of God as they define Him, they cannot be wrong on this subject."
Yup. When you've got a direct line to God, you're never wrong. Sigh.

I guess I just feel I've seen as much of that from Republicans as from Democrats. The majority of people I know, be they GOoPer or Donkey, are amazingly uninformed about their own religious beliefs. Politicians are no exception.

I'll put it this way. Find me a Republican candidate, pundit, or blogger that ridicules Christianity (especially Protestants).

Now see how often that happens in Democratic speeches from candidates, on Democratic talk shows, and on places like Democratic Underground.

It's a common theme there. Ridicule. Sorry, won't listen to anyone who ridicules my beliefs.

I'll put it this way. Find me a Republican candidate, pundit, or blogger that ridicules Christianity (especially Protestants).

Now see how often that happens in Democratic speeches from candidates, on Democratic talk shows, and on places like Democratic Underground.

It's a common theme there. Ridicule. Sorry, won't listen to anyone who ridicules my beliefs.

Whoa, sorry DK but this post is ridiculous.

I may not be able to find a Republican who ridicules Christianity, but I can certainly find Republicans that ridicule every other belief system.

Sorry, wont listen to anyone who ridicules my beliefs.

Whoa, sorry DK but this post is ridiculous.

I may not be able to find a Republican who ridicules Christianity, but I can certainly find Republicans that ridicule every other belief system.

Sorry, wont listen to anyone who ridicules my beliefs.

Nothing ridiculous at all - it's human nature when people go out of their way to offend you.

I am a Conservative catholic Republicans and I will tell you this: I am able to make the claim that my church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus' teachings and the old testament which he preached during his lifetime form the foundation of my church's beliefs. Homosexual "marriage", abortions, and destroying human embreyos on the bloody alter of science are not welcome in Christianity. Just crack open a bible and you will see. It seems to me though, that Pope Benedict XVI was right when he said ....

"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking... - thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching", looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.

However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth."

So you don't vote Republican, then? ;)

Seriously, though, if you want to vote for a party that doesn't include people who use religion as a shallow prop for their own agendas, then you pretty much can't vote for any political party in the US.


Well, inasmuch as Protestants and Catholics are some 70+ percent of the electorate, having a serious non-Christian candidate in any serious American party ( and not some niche-party ) makes as much electoral sense as having chap with a canadian accent as a candidate for the majoralty of Mexico City.

'Ain't one of us', or its spanish counterpart is how the electorate would respond.

It isn't about a prop, it is about being considered eligible by Joe Sixpack.

It isn't about a prop, it is about being considered eligible by Joe Sixpack.

It's also about not voting for a candidate who on every possible occasion, ridicules your religion. It would be one thing if they weren't religious, and kept their mouth shut.

Being an asswipe doesn't help their cause.

Matthew 28 16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

The honest book of Truth vers 23 chapter 32:

Coocoo Katchu, I am the walrus . . . either that or I ate some bad mushrooms . . .

Quoting holy books is fun but why not actualy say something of your own instead of something someone else wrote?

Luke 11:42-48

Woe to you Pharisees, for you tithe...and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the market places. ......for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed.



The Neo-pharisees of the religious? right continue to tithe and kill the word of the Jesus that they profess to worship. There is no way to read the words of Jesus and be a conservative "christian?". Jesus looked after the powerless and poor. Just the opposite of what the old pharisees did and just the opposite of what the neo-pharisees do. The old pharisees thought they were the most religious of Jesus time, the neopharisees now say they are the most religious. As with the old pharisees they have no clue as to what their God actually taught.

Mark 16 15-16

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Great: a chance to help me understand! The Buddhist farmers in North Korea who have never heard about Christ, do their souls get purged in an afterlife of eternal torture?

Let's try one more time. "Discrimination" as we know the concept today wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye in the time of the Bible, and you should know that.
I realise that at the time of the bible there was wide spread unreconised discrimination. They just didn't care. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just because people aren't screaming "Racism!" doesn't mean it wasn't present. At the time it wasn't reconised but in hindsight we can see that it was. And we shouldn't be taking advice from a book (or from many books) that advocates this.
Women were called, and treated like, property because that's the way society WAS then.
Society was discriminatory. The bible reflects this. I'm glad we agree.
The Bible was written for its times,
So why do we still care about it?
Saying it's sexist is like saying slave owners were racist -- OF COURSE they were!
Exactly. I'm glad we agree. To the best of my recollection (I will check) I was answering the question: "How is the Christian God discriminatory? " He was. Not unusual at the time but if "God" is all knowing wouldn't he see what an assface he was promoting that?
You can't judge an ancient behavior by modern standards and claim discrimination when none could objectively exist. We can see the old behaviors as racist or sexist because we look at them through the lens of the present.
The term "discrimination" means: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice. I did exist they didn't reconise it. It wasn't there fault, they were raised to not think of this as wrong but ignorance does not make it right. Everytime we try to make forward progress a group of Christians cuts in with a discrimintory piece of literature trying to hold them back. It was discrimintory then it's discrimintory now. It doesn't matter if it is reconised or not.

By the way, could you at least make an effort to spell Christian correctly once in a while? It almost looks like you're deliberately spelling it christain to make some kind of juvenile point.

I can't spell. I'll be the first to admit to that. I'll try but I have issues with spelling. I apologise.

We're all "conservatives". Not a Democrat in the congregation. But you don't hear us saying all the crap that the OP and you seem to think would come out of our mouths. Listening to you, you would think that we went down there with baseball bats and Bibles, and were thumping people who didn't accept Jesus.

Nice strawman - the whole thread.
If you're accurately describing your congregation--and given your past propensity for seeing things in a way that only benefits yourself, I have reason to doubt that--then good on you and your congregation. But are you really going to argue that what I described in the opening post doesn't exist and isn't loud and proud about it and isn't the face of modern conservative Christianity in the public and political arenas today? There's no straw man here. I didn't make up D. James Kennedy or Tim LaHaye or Pat Robertson or James Dobson or Rick Warren or any of the other various and sundry assholes who are the faces of modern conservative Christianity. Those guys are out there and are powerful and I don't give a fuck if you say they don't represent you--if they don't, then more conservative Christians like you ought to be out there repudiating them, just like you demand of moderate Muslims when some jackoff radical bombs a city square.

I was wondering if Christians got pissed at the Republican party for making them look bad so often.

You have no idea... half the time, when I mention to someone that I'm a Christian, it takes me the next fifteen minutes to convince them that:
> I'm not Republican
> My parents aren't Republican either
> I'm not a member of any other ultraconservative party
> I'm not about to start frothing at the mouth and preaching fire and brimstone at them
> I've never bombed an abortion clinic

The honest book of Truth vers 23 chapter 32:

Coocoo Katchu, I am the walrus . . . either that or I ate some bad mushrooms . . .

Quoting holy books is fun but why not actualy say something of your own instead of something someone else wrote?

Actually, my sect interpretes verse 23 differently. You'll burn! Burn in hell!

You have no idea... half the time, when I mention to someone that I'm a Christian, it takes me the next fifteen minutes to convince them that:
> I'm not Republican
> My parents aren't Republican either
> I'm not a member of any other ultraconservative party
> I'm not about to start frothing at the mouth and preaching fire and brimstone at them
> I've never bombed an abortion clinic


Then I do have an idea because when someone finds out that I am a vegetarian I have to spend the next half hour trying to convince them that:
> I don't belong to PETA
> I don't want to change their diet
> I actually liked the taste of meat (when I did eat it) so saying "I'm going to go eat two burgers right now" or "mmm juicy bloody rare steak", doesn't offend me or gross me out, it just makes me think you are an asshole
> I've never thrown blood on someones fur coat, nor do I approve of it

so PETA is to me what the Republicans are to you

Great: a chance to help me understand! The Buddhist farmers in North Korea who have never heard about Christ, do their souls get purged in an afterlife of eternal torture?
The conservative christians? won't tell you this but the Bible says that anyone can look at nature and see that there was a creator and honor that creator. Of course the creator as recognized by Christians is that which was to become Jesus. But conservative christians? , while saying Jesus was the creator only recognize the man that lived for 30 years. They demand a recognition of that man. That is not Biblical. All of the prophets for thousands of years before Jesus became a man recognized the creator.

In my Father's house are many mansions.

The conservative christians? won't tell you this but the Bible says that anyone can look at nature and see that there was a creator and honor that creator. Of course the creator as recognized by Christians is that which was to become Jesus. But conservative christians? , while saying Jesus was the creator only recognize the man that lived for 30 years. They demand a recognition of that man. That is not Biblical. All of the prophets for thousands of years before Jesus became a man recognized the creator.

In my Father's house are many mansions.


So the bible lays claim to every religion? :rolleyes:


Man go to sleep with itchy ass, wake up with smelly finger.

The conservative christians? won't tell you this but the Bible says that anyone can look at nature and see that there was a creator and honor that creator. Of course the creator as recognized by Christians is that which was to become Jesus. But conservative christians? , while saying Jesus was the creator only recognize the man that lived for 30 years. They demand a recognition of that man. That is not Biblical. All of the prophets for thousands of years before Jesus became a man recognized the creator.

In my Father's house are many mansions.That's because, quite frankly, a lot of those conservative christians (led by the people I mentioned on the last page, among others) don't actually read the Bible very much, and when they do, they do so very selectively. They also have this problem with conflating the Old Testament vengeful and bloody Jehovah with the Rabbi who preached peace, love and understanding in Jesus. Tim LaHaye has pretty much turned Jesus into a Hummer-driving, AK-47 wielding, heathen-ass-kicking SOB. Not exactly the "blessed are the merciful" fella I respect and honor (even while I deny his divine nature).

So the bible lays claim to every religion? :rolleyes:


Man go to sleep with itchy ass, wake up with smelly finger.
Not every religion. The Bible reconizes that everyone has a chance to honor the God of creation. According to Christians, that part of God which became Jesus was, in the begining, the creator portion of God. Therefore, anyone (even if they never heard the name Jesus, actually Joshua, well more acurately Yeshua) can look at creation and understand there is a creator. But then there is an obligation to honor and learn as best they can of the creator. For instance those of Babylon and the Canaanites did not honor creation, as they did acts that harmed creation such as human sacrifice. Biblically, there is an internal knowledge of right and wrong. (eating of the tree of good and evil) And those that do what is instinctively wrong are given up. Rom 1:19-32

The problem with the neo-pharisees is they burden everyone with their rules and regulations. Actually Christianity only has two rules; Love God...Love everyone. There is no one on earth that cannot do these two rules regardless of where they live or the knowlege of Christianity that has been given to them. Mat 23:13-39

In that case, you're 70 years off.
Out of curiosity, the last quote in your sig, is that from Conscience and Truth? If it is, it's disingenuous and he's pretending to be a progressive in order to distort their positions and misrepresent them.

Just thought you should know -- that "intellectual honesty" doesn't come from the "progressive camp", but from someone hell-bent on discrediting it. I'm no longer claiming he's a conservative, because that's inflammatory to them, but he's no progressive.

Here's the whole thing, thanks to my university's library (so sorry, no link):
So, while the content of the billboards was denounced by politicians, the content was not removed by those politicians, as they were powerless to do anything about it. The content was removed by the company that owned the billboards, as is their right as owners.

During the 2004 political campaign, many liberal groups found it difficult to get advertising space on billboards precisely because private companies (under pressure from the Bush campaign, esp. Karl Rove) refused to sell them space. That's reprehensible, in my view, but it's completely legal.

Next time, you might try a little honesty in your argument--it's a stretch for a theocon plant such as yourself, but give it a try.
I knew it. Thanks for posting the whole article. This cements C&T's status as a faker.

As a conservative Catholic I can see no place in Christianity for abortion, homsexuality, bestiality, lying, cheating, or other evils. They are condemned by both the teachings of the bible and the pope. It is not arrogance that makes me believe I am right, it is nearly 2000 years of teaching by the church founded by Christ. Christ is forgiving and kind but a strict moral code is just as much part of the word of God. The problem is that we are facing a dictatorship of moral relativism that demands nuetral value judgements on every system of thought....and I find that dictatorship repulsive.

I think you miss the point. Pentacostals believe that if you live a good life here, and are a good person, you get your reward in the afterlife. Additionally, as many atheists can testify, you don't need to die to go to Hell - there is plenty to go around in this life that would qualify.

We also don't believe that just because you say you love Jesus that you're going to Heaven - far from it. Which is the problem that I have with Baptists and Methodists (the people you usually associate with conservative Christians). They believe that once you say you love Jesus, you're good to go, and can sit back and give everyone else a hard time about the way they live their lives.

Pentacostals don't believe that. If you aren't living a life helping others (and that doesn't mean thumping them with a Bible until they cry Uncle), then you aren't going to Heaven. No matter how loud you say you love Jesus.
Spot on.

The bible tells us that salvation finds its origins in both faith and works. Without one of them the other is very much pointless.

I should hope so, particularly after we've seen some of the communications between some conservative leaders regarding their religious constitutents...they talk about their own supporters as rubes, dupes, and chumps who are to be manipulated at will! While I may not personally have a very high opinion of organized superstition, I still think it's cowardly and disgusting to play on people's most deeply-held beliefs in order to trick them into voting for you.
Agreed, with the added point that it doesn't matter whose doing the playing or on whose beliefs. Democrats do it too by paying lip service to environmental issues, gay issues and other traditionally "liberal" (and thank you for mentioning the hijack of liberal and conservatives as defining terms) causes. Thing is, I think it's worse to play on religious beliefs to make political hay because hippies are supposed to by cynics -- they should know better.

As a traditional conservative Catholic I have some liberal tendancies too when it comes to social welfare. I believe, though, that such needed programs are best carried out by private organizations and by local churches. Would you trust a government hospital? After katrina I would not even trust a person getting a welfare check on time. Incompitance and poor judgement are part of any large organization. The poor need uplift and not handouts. Social issues outweight other issues for me though. I believe that human life begins at conception ( scientificly and spiritualy...a living organism with human DNA and a soul) and so I believe that abortion is murder. It denies a person their entire future. This is the most important idea that I take with me into the voting booth on election day.

It's a good thing I'll already be dead when I meet Him, because I'd die of shock. :D
No kidding. I've played that through in my tiny little mind a few times. I die, I get the tunnel of light, and it turns out the Mormons were right (like in the South Park episode where the group of angels says "let's go make things out of egg catons, whee!"), or the batshit Muslims were right.

In the end, I don't think it can ever go down in any way that we can even imagine as human beings. If the Divine (as I call what I experience to be God -- I dislike thinking of Divinity as a personage because it presumes a LOT) is, as most agree, on a plane an order of magnitude higher than Earthly existence, there's no way any afterlife is going to be describable to Earthly senses.

I think the Bearded Guy in the Sky, or 72 Virgins, or Happy Hunting Grounds, or Valhalla are all stories we tell ourselves to make the seeming oblivion of death more palatable. I'm not saying that's wrong -- we're human, we need that kind of help. But Earthly speculation about not what awaits us in the abstract, but about what awaits us in form or structure, is kinda pointless. Fun, but pointless.

I hope my observation didn't offend. I just came over all metaphysical there for a minute. Continue.

The thing is....every civilization believes in the higher plane of existance so I make the base assumption that it exists. The rest is faith....and my faith is in the God of Abramham and Christ, and , indeed...Mohammed. I find that religion does more than transcend science in explaining the unknown...it alos serves as a moral anchor for society and a wall to protect us from a raging sea of moral relativism that allows massive amounts of evil to seep into both history, the present, and the future.

It baffles me how there is still so much hatred for The Clenis. Yes, he lied about having consentual sexual relations. He's a dickhead for that. But really, if we were making a big list of Presidents Who Fucked Up, would Clinton be anywhere near the top of the list? Remember, about three out of four Americans thought Clinton was a good president while the impeachment stuff was going down. So why this retroactive hatred?
Because a Republican's in office. When a Democrat's back in, don't worry, he'll be next. I just wonder if the endless investigations will top K. Starr's $40M pricetag.

Less cynically, I wonder when partisanship will really ever stop. I'm not getting all Pollyanna, but at some point, doesn't the leadership of both parties look around at what politics and elections have actually become and say -- "whoa, we've all fucked this up beyond recognition."

I know it won't happen, but I really don't think I can take another round of Swift Boat character assassins, Presidential Pretzel choking jokes, impeachments for stuff half of Congress is already guilty of, and calling a Commander In Chief a moron just for being who he is.

Because a Republican's in office. When a Democrat's back in, don't worry, he'll be next. I just wonder if the endless investigations will top K. Starr's $40M pricetag.

Less cynically, I wonder when partisanship will really ever stop. I'm not getting all Pollyanna, but at some point, doesn't the leadership of both parties look around at what politics and elections have actually become and say -- "whoa, we've all fucked this up beyond recognition."

I know it won't happen, but I really don't think I can take another round of Swift Boat character assassins, Presidential Pretzel choking jokes, impeachments for stuff half of Congress is already guilty of, and calling a Commander In Chief a moron just for being who he is.

Take this from me, a person who lives and breathes American history. The political system is really doing great right now. Campaigns today sling a lot less mud then they did in the past. I will not bore you with four thousand examples but go back and read the stuff. Lincoln was called an "ignorant ape" in the NY times, Johnson was impeached for nothing, Andrew Jackson's wife was called a harlot, IN 1884 both candidates were accused of having illegit kids, my namesake was accused of wanting Nuclear war in a national tv ad, and they wanted to impeach Truman, FDR was a "dictator" and a "filthy liar",etc. BTW, Congress was guilty of perjury? How did all 535 pull that off?

I'm not trying to imply that your goodness would be about simply attaining reward or avoiding punishment. I'm not really saying anything one way or the other about why you would be a good person, per se.

I'm not a good person because I think I'll get payoffs from it during my retirement, I'm a good person because it makes me feel good (much as is true for the two of you, I gather). However, that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about my retirement. I am! Just as I would assume that anybody who believes in an afterlife would be concerned about their afterlife. As concerned as I am about my mortal retirement, I would assume any sane person would be concerned-times-eternity about their afterlife.

Yes, there is some overlap. For instance, I don't want to have a criminal record. There are some laws in my country which I feel are unreasonable or inappropriate, but I choose to observe many of them because I do not wish to break the law and go to prison or have a blot on my record. [Example: I believe that it is stupid to have a law against smoking in a private establishment. If the owner is okay with it, I think I should be allowed to smoke there. However, in a town I used to live in, you can actually be ARRESTED for doing so. So I refrained from smoking in the pub, even though I think the law is stupid. In this case, my desire to secure a better future for myself did dictate how I behaved.] Thus, if you're still with me after that huge tangent, I will sometimes tailor my behavior based on future "rewards or punishments" that I can expect to receive. I think that's pretty sane.
I can't remember chapter and verse, but those Bible scholars I've conversed with have told me that there's a passage in which Jesus addresses the Law of Man and the Law of God. I'm not even gonna try to butcher the quote, but it's something along the lines of good Christians will follow the Law of Man. Someone with better knowledge on the subject (there can hardly be someone with worse), help me out?

I can't remember chapter and verse, but those Bible scholars I've conversed with have told me that there's a passage in which Jesus addresses the Law of Man and the Law of God. I'm not even gonna try to butcher the quote, but it's something along the lines of good Christians will follow the Law of Man. Someone with better knowledge on the subject (there can hardly be someone with worse), help me out?

Galatians 2:16

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

I am a Conservative catholic Republican and I will tell you this: I am able to make the claim that my church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus' teachings and the old testament which he preached during his lifetime form the foundation of my church's beliefs. Homosexual "marriage", abortions, and destroying human embreyos on the bloody alter of science are not welcome in Christianity. Just crack open a bible and you will see.
*snip*
What else isn't welcome in Christianity?

Divorce. Oh wait, the Catholics reversed on that one.
No meat on Friday. Whoops, another reversal.
Latin ONLY. Another reversal.

The OT: Burning a bull, selling children, handling the skin of a pig, shellfish, wearing clothes of two different fabrics, getting raped if you don't scream loud enough to attract attention ("can't" is not addressed)...

What is welcome?

Slavery (and by association, racism). Silent for a long, long time on that one.
The Holocaust. Silent on that one for juuuust long enough.
Giving up your daughters to a mob in order to keep them from "knowing" your houseguests. That crazy Lot.

Just crack open a Bible and you will see, indeed.

Look, I don't mean to mock any more than gently, but come on -- the Catholics have made many adjustments and made just as much stuff up as Canonical law that the Muslims have in Shariya.

The book was written for it's time, and the Catholic church attempts to combine necessary modernization with adherence to tradition. I have no problem with that. But to sit there and tell us that it's ALL 100% true and accurate is a maudlin farce, and you know it. Worse still, to pick and choose from the Bible in order to castigate people you don't like or things with which you don't agree is intellectually dishonest.

Wait wait wait...you mean we arn't supposed to sell children into slavery?

Damn.

Great: a chance to help me understand! The Buddhist farmers in North Korea who have never heard about Christ, do their souls get purged in an afterlife of eternal torture?
Are they Buddhists? I thought they worshiped that bespectacled fruitcake and serial adulterer in Pyongyang.

I can't remember chapter and verse, but those Bible scholars I've conversed with have told me that there's a passage in which Jesus addresses the Law of Man and the Law of God. I'm not even gonna try to butcher the quote, but it's something along the lines of good Christians will follow the Law of Man. Someone with better knowledge on the subject (there can hardly be someone with worse), help me out?

Galations 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


Galations goes on and on about the law, particularly the 3rd chapter. If these verses do not answer your question for you, start there.

What else isn't welcome in Christianity?

Divorce. Oh wait, the Catholics reversed on that one. divorce is ban and should be limited to annulments, I see no reversal
No meat on Friday. Whoops, another reversal. we still do that, some of the radilibs don't
Latin ONLY. Another reversal.has nothing to do with scripture

The OT: Burning a bull, selling children, handling the skin of a pig, shellfish, wearing clothes of two different fabrics, getting raped if you don't scream loud enough to attract attention ("can't" is not addressed)...
ah, you misunderstand leviticus...that was a code for Abraham's people as they surivived in the desert, all of my sources are new testament buddy
What is welcome?

Slavery (and by association, racism). Silent for a long, long time on that one.slavery was condemned by the first few Popes in the first century ( who the F do you think the Roman slaves were...?
The Holocaust. Silent on that one for juuuust long enough. nobody knew the situation you fool. Are you gonna blame President Roosevelt for the holocaust too, he was mighty silent
Giving up your daughters to a mob in order to keep them from "knowing" your houseguests. That crazy Lot.say what?

Just crack open a Bible and you will see, indeed.
I am a eucharistic minister and have read the bible cover to cover twice. I know it inside and out. You obviously either never have or have and did not comprehend very well. You also never took many history classes or did not comprehend fully.

Look, I don't mean to mock any more than gently, but come on -- the Catholics have made many adjustments and made just as much stuff up as Canonical law that the Muslims have in Shariya.
Jesus told Peter to found that Catholic church and that whatever it binds on earth is what is bound in heaven. Canonical law is valididated by the word of Christ and you would know that if you had cracked open a bible.
The book was written for it's time, and the Catholic church attempts to combine necessary modernization with adherence to tradition. I have no problem with that. But to sit there and tell us that it's ALL 100% true and accurate is a maudlin farce, and you know it. now you call me a liar. I did not lie, and I have faith that is is all 100% true. Worse still, to pick and choose from the Bible in order to castigate people you don't like or things with which you don't agree is intellectually dishonest.
against you call me dishonest. I am not. The leviticus things that you mentioned do not apply to us, but the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, tradition, and those of the church do. I have neither picked nor chose anything. I am the real article. What are you? All I see you doing is some unfair criticizing, use of bad history, non-relavent examples, and repeated accusations that my goal is decieving you in some way. Please quit while you are behind.

Are they Buddhists? I thought they worshiped that bespectacled fruitcake and serial adulterer in Pyongyang.
hehe:p

I realise that at the time of the bible there was wide spread unreconised discrimination. They just didn't care. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just because people aren't screaming "Racism!" doesn't mean it wasn't present. At the time it wasn't reconised but in hindsight we can see that it was. And we shouldn't be taking advice from a book (or from many books) that advocates this.
It wasn't that they didn't care -- it wasn't a concept. It's as though we "discovered" one day that, say, ants were just as intelligent and capable of communication as humanity. Prior to that point, nobody would have called you a racist (speciesist?) for killing ants in your yard. Hell in fire ant territory, you earn high praise. Dismantling the assumption that someone designated "slave" was actually, really less than human and therefore able to be sold, beaten, what-have-you, took an awfully long time. As I said, saying we shouldn't take any advice from the Bible at all because of its at least passive acceptance of slavery is like saying we shouldn't read Shakespeare because he was a misogynist (something I fought bitterly in college, to the point of getting removed from a class for arguing that Shakespeare couldn't be considered sexist and winning in front of the class -- that suspension cost me about $250, but it was worth it).

Society was discriminatory. The bible reflects this. I'm glad we agree.

That's a reason to look at the spirit of the book as opposed to the very letter of the book, and not to dismiss it altogether.

So why do we still care about it?

Because hundreds of millions derive great comfort and support from it. I'm not advocating we ignore the Bible, rather, I'd appreciate some acknowledgement that it was written by men for its time and is now an allegorical document laced with ironclad truths and words to live by, but also historical accounts of some pretty outlandish behavior and at least a few dozen outright superstitions. I'd also like publilc policy not to be made with it as an exclusive justification. I won't get either, but it's nice to dream.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. To the best of my recollection (I will check) I was answering the question: "How is the Christian God discriminatory? " He was. Not unusual at the time but if "God" is all knowing wouldn't he see what an assface he was promoting that?

Well, that's the difference between OT and NT. OT God = jealous, petty, manipulative, hands-on, angry, seemingly capricious. NT God = generous, forgiving, hands-off, delegatory (through Christ), gracious, righteous, etc. -- all the things most Christian churches believe now. I'm not sure the relationship between CREATOR and created can be fairly described with the term "assface".

The term "discrimination" means: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice. I did exist they didn't reconise it. It wasn't there fault, they were raised to not think of this as wrong but ignorance does not make it right. Everytime we try to make forward progress a group of Christians cuts in with a discrimintory piece of literature trying to hold them back. It was discrimintory then it's discrimintory now. It doesn't matter if it is reconised or not.

I'd like you to provide an example, if you will, of how you think "holding back" is happening. Not so much for proof as to understand where you're coming from.

I can't spell. I'll be the first to admit to that. I'll try but I have issues with spelling. I apologise.
My apologies to you. I'm no religionist, but I've encountered the outright mocking of religion in what's supposed to be polite conversation, and one of the ways I've seen it is that particular deliberate misspelling (Christain). I should not have assumed you were being insulting. That's my fault.

I don't get impolite until someone else drops that bomb, and I try to leave religion out of crass mockery from a sense of respect for others' beliefs. That's why I get upset and defend religious posters when someone else pulls a base mockery like a deliberate bad-pun misspelling.

Hi Barrygoldwater. Remember saying this?

Giving up your daughters to a mob in order to keep them from "knowing" your houseguests. That crazy Lot.say what?

Genesis 19:5-8
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

It sure sounds like Intangelon might have had at least that part right.

If you're accurately describing your congregation--and given your past propensity for seeing things in a way that only benefits yourself, I have reason to doubt that--then good on you and your congregation. But are you really going to argue that what I described in the opening post doesn't exist and isn't loud and proud about it and isn't the face of modern conservative Christianity in the public and political arenas today? There's no straw man here. I didn't make up D. James Kennedy or Tim LaHaye or Pat Robertson or James Dobson or Rick Warren or any of the other various and sundry assholes who are the faces of modern conservative Christianity. Those guys are out there and are powerful and I don't give a fuck if you say they don't represent you--if they don't, then more conservative Christians like you ought to be out there repudiating them, just like you demand of moderate Muslims when some jackoff radical bombs a city square.
Then there are those in control of congregations who unveiledly threatened their flock to vote a certain way or risk God's wrath. That's reprehensible even if it's legal. The whole excommunication of Kerry voters (I wanna say it was North Carolina, but I honestly can't remember) or denial of communion for those voting Democrat/pro-choice was really low.

*snip*
For instance those of Babylon and the Canaanites did not honor creation, as they did acts that harmed creation such as human sacrifice.
*snip*
And did the Canaanites ever pay for that. The "chosen people", the Jews, came along and wiped them completely out. Probably not the first deliberate genocide, but one that has had karmic repercussions, at least.

Just for the sake of clarity, I do not mean that the Jews deserved their later persecutions, but I think some of them might me a kind of atonement.

Hi Barrygoldwater. Remember saying this?

Giving up your daughters to a mob in order to keep them from "knowing" your houseguests. That crazy Lot.say what?

Genesis 19:5-8
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

It sure sounds like Intangelon might have had at least that part right.

nope, you are describing what Lot said to a bunch of gays. he was in Sodom when he was visited by two angels (this sort of thing happens to Abraham's brother) to warn him to leave the city for it was to be destroyed for its since. After the angels left the sodomites came to ask to have sex with them. Abraham said he would rather see them defile his virgin daughter than have gay sex under his roof. He did not reveal the fact that none of this mattered because the "men" had been angels. Intangelon had no idea what he was referring to and obviously had not even read the entire chapter before.:p

Then there are those in control of congregations who unveiledly threatened their flock to vote a certain way or risk God's wrath. That's reprehensible even if it's legal. The whole excommunication of Kerry voters (I wanna say it was North Carolina, but I honestly can't remember) or denial of communion for those voting Democrat/pro-choice was really low.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with stopping people in their tracks who intend to vote for a candidate who betrays the very roots of the faith.
A good example is when Cardinal Ratzinger ( ever heard of him?hehe) warned American voters not to elect John kerry as President. The reason is that he is a politician who supports abortion. Catholic doctrine and biblical revelation tells us that abortion is homicide. It robs an individual who is alive and human of the rest of his/her life. John Kerry's view on abortion is an abomination in the eyes of the Catholic church, and many other churches. I see nothing wrong with warning people not to vote for such a candidate.

Just for the sake of clarity, I do not mean that the Jews deserved their later persecutions, but I think some of them might me a kind of atonement.

sick.

Take this from me, a person who lives and breathes American history. The political system is really doing great right now. Campaigns today sling a lot less mud then they did in the past. I will not bore you with four thousand examples but go back and read the stuff. Lincoln was called an "ignorant ape" in the NY times, Johnson was impeached for nothing, Andrew Jackson's wife was called a harlot, IN 1884 both candidates were accused of having illegit kids, my namesake was accused of wanting Nuclear war in a national tv ad, and they wanted to impeach Truman, FDR was a "dictator" and a "filthy liar",etc. BTW, Congress was guilty of perjury? How did all 535 pull that off?
The difference being that the entire nation seldom, if ever, heard all the accusations, and taxpayer money was seldom used to finance those 19th Century smear campaigns. Widespread access to all citizens via the airwaves has not made it better, it's made it far worse. National punditry hasn't helped, either.

I'll have to disagree with you on how well the political system is doing, then.

Galatians 2:16

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
Nope. Not it. It's a verse or two about how being a law-abiding citizen is basically a good and righteous thing to be. It may make an exception for laws that breach Christ's law, but I honestly don't remember. My concordance-texted Bible isn't with me here in Seattle, it's back in Bismarck.

Galations 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


Galations goes on and on about the law, particularly the 3rd chapter. If these verses do not answer your question for you, start there.
Thanks!

The difference being that the entire nation seldom, if ever, heard all the accusations, and taxpayer money was seldom used to finance those 19th Century smear campaigns. Widespread access to all citizens via the airwaves has not made it better, it's made it far worse. National punditry hasn't helped, either.

I'll have to disagree with you on how well the political system is doing, then.

Everyone heard many of the worst of the allegations, no premium was put on accuracy in the news, voter fruad was unimaginably bad ( ever heard of Tammany Hall?) , public money was used all the time for such inside jobs. Money laundering, graft, and all kinds of evils were political norms of the 19th century, and early 20 century. Ulysses Grant made Nixon look like a saint. The rest about pundits is all just your opinion, but I am using historical fact. If you look at actual problems and quirks in the operation of the system we have grown more accountable, more honest, and more active as time has gone on.

Nope. Not it. It's a verse or two about how being a law-abiding citizen is basically a good and righteous thing to be. It may make an exception for laws that breach Christ's law, but I honestly don't remember. My concordance-texted Bible isn't with me here in Seattle, it's back in Bismarck.

hmmm, I am not sure about this. Sounds familiar but I do not know it off hand. Maybe I can run an internet search.

I'm sorry but I just found this and have to post it

http://www.willisms.com/archives/barrygoldwater.gif


:D

nope, you are describing what Lot said to a bunch of gays. he was in Sodom when he was visited by two angels (this sort of thing happens to Abraham's brother) to warn him to leave the city for it was to be destroyed for its since. After the angels left the sodomites came to ask to have sex with them. Abraham said he would rather see them defile his virgin daughter than have gay sex under his roof. He did not reveal the fact that none of this mattered because the "men" had been angels. Intangelon had no idea what he was referring to and obviously had not even read the entire chapter before.:p

I don't think Lot was talking about the gay men, although they almost certainly were among the people he spoke to, being in Sodom and all like he was in Genesis vs. 5-8. I think that rather the men he was talking to were referring to the two angels that were his houseguests.


1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

against you call me dishonest. I am not. The leviticus things that you mentioned do not apply to us, but the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, tradition, and those of the church do. I have neither picked nor chose anything. I am the real article. What are you? All I see you doing is some unfair criticizing, use of bad history, non-relavent examples, and repeated accusations that my goal is decieving you in some way. Please quit while you are behind.
Divorce is banned? Well, you're not excommunicated for it, and the whole annullment process seems very non-scruptural to me. 24 MONTHS?!? And "poof", it never happened. All a remarried person is banned from is Eucharist.

The Latin language thing may not have to do with scripture, but it shows the Church changes things that were once law. Even the no meat on Fridays thing can be waived by "special dispensation".

ah, you misunderstand leviticus...that was a code for Abraham's people as they surivived in the desert, all of my sources are new testament buddy
I don't even know what this sentence means. If all of your sources are NT, then why even have the OT anymore?

You just tell me that Leviticus doesn't count anymore and then say the whole book is applicable -- which is it? If you continue to assume both, I'll stand by my charge of intellectual dishonesty. It's not that bad a charge, really, we're all guilty of it in some way. And you telling me what I did or did not read or comprehend is laughable, and would be insulting if I didn't think that, coming from you, it was worthless as an insult.

As far as "what am I", I'm not someone who has to brag about his Eucharistic resume or claim he is "the real article". Online claims like that are cheap, and even if you're what you claim to be, bragging about it is plain unseemly, and you should know that.

I also assert again that Barry Goldwater was in no way, shape or form anything like you. He railed against the religious establishment co-opting the Republican party.

And what you're calling "bad history" -- the Catholic Church's non-position on the Holocaust -- is ludicrous. Calling me names doesn't help your position, either. And YES, I blame Roosevelt for ignoring the Final Solution as well. It wasn't the closely-guarded secret you seem to think it was, but hey, I can't help what conclusions you draw.

I don't think Lot was talking about the gay men,they were men who came to the house seeking to have sex with men, they were homosexuals... although they almost certainly were among the people he spoke to, being in Sodom and all like he was in Genesis vs. 5-8. I think that rather the men he was talking to were referring to the two angels that were his houseguests.


1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
right, then right after that is where the men who come to the house ask to have sex with the male angels. That is when lot brings up his daughter. His point is that robbing an unwed virgin of her virginity is outdone in evil by random homosexual sex motivated by...lust. You have to read the entire chaper to follow the series of events, instead of picking out a paragraph.

nope, you are describing what Lot said to a bunch of gays. he was in Sodom when he was visited by two angels (this sort of thing happens to Abraham's brother) to warn him to leave the city for it was to be destroyed for its since. After the angels left the sodomites came to ask to have sex with them. Abraham said he would rather see them defile his virgin daughter than have gay sex under his roof. He did not reveal the fact that none of this mattered because the "men" had been angels. Intangelon had no idea what he was referring to and obviously had not even read the entire chapter before.:p
You're...missing...the...point.

Those were his DAUGHTERS, okay? Flesh and blood. Rather than have "gay sex" happen under his roof (a roof destined for a sulphuric rainstorm anyway), he offered them up to the mob. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it seems to me you're deliberately avoiding it. I'd allow men to fuck a herd of OKAPIS in my home before I'd let them lay a finger on my children. I think I'd be forgiven for the stains on the carpet and the breach of whatever of God's laws doesn't allow for a man to be overpowered by a mob of people.

Divorce is banned? Well, you're not excommunicated for it, and the whole annullment process seems very non-scruptural to me. 24 MONTHS?!? And "poof", it never happened. All a remarried person is banned from is Eucharist.
Jesus told Peter to found his church ( the catholic church) and what it bound was what was bound in heaven
The Latin language thing may not have to do with scripture, but it shows the Church changes things that were once law. Even the no meat on Fridays thing can be waived by "special dispensation".
refer to previous

I don't even know what this sentence means. If all of your sources are NT, then why even have the OT anymore?my sources happened to be NT. The entire Bible is very valuable. Even Leviticus.

You just tell me that Leviticus doesn't count anymore and then say the whole book is applicable -- which is it? Leviticus counts to show us the torment the Israelites went through. It is not a guide as to how to live in the modern world, and it never claimed to be. All this crap about fabrics and what not.If you continue to assume both, I'll stand by my charge of intellectual dishonesty. you cannot comprehend so you accuse me of misleading...:rolleyes: It's not that bad a charge, really, we're all guilty of it in some way. And you telling me what I did or did not read or comprehend is laughable, and would be insulting if I didn't think that, coming from you, it was worthless as an insult.translation: he never read it

As far as "what am I", I'm not someone who has to brag about his Eucharistic resume or claim he is "the real article"I did not brag, I pointed it out when you were acting as though I needed to be lectured on the Bible, and Christianity's history. I am the real article. I have a faith and I practice it. . Online claims like that are cheap, and even if you're what you claim to be,again the accusation of dishonestly, how many times have I called you a liar? Oh, wait, I don't do that sort of nonsense... bragging about it is plain unseemly, and you should know that.I just stated a fact once, for crying out loud. Did it scare you? hehe.

And what you're calling "bad history" -- the Catholic Church's non-position on the Holocaust -- is ludicrous. Calling me names doesn't help your position, either. And YES, I blame Roosevelt for ignoring the Final Solution as well. It wasn't the closely-guarded secret you seem to think it was, but hey, I can't help what conclusions you draw.yet somehow the soldiers were shocked by what they found...and you can add the NY times onto your complicit list.
bedtime for me. God bless and for next time...instead of just saying LIAR LIAR LIAR........bring relavent facts.

right, then right after that is where the men who come to the house ask to have sex with the male angels. That is when lot brings up his daughter. His point is that robbing an unwed virgin of her virginity is outdone in evil by random homosexual sex motivated by...lust. You have to read the entire chaper to follow the series of events, instead of picking out a paragraph.

You know, you probably shouldn't do that, the whole thing you seem to like to do about posting YOUR quote in bold lettering inside someone else's post. It's disingenuous. It's putting your words in someone elses' mouth. Particularly when you don't make it clear that the comments in boldface are your own. And it sort of lessens whatever point you might have had by doing so.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with stopping people in their tracks who intend to vote for a candidate who betrays the very roots of the faith.
A good example is when Cardinal Ratzinger ( ever heard of him?hehe) warned American voters not to elect John kerry as President. The reason is that he is a politician who supports abortion. Catholic doctrine and biblical revelation tells us that abortion is homicide. It robs an individual who is alive and human of the rest of his/her life. John Kerry's view on abortion is an abomination in the eyes of the Catholic church, and many other churches. I see nothing wrong with warning people not to vote for such a candidate.
Advocating your faith's position and threatening people with church censure when Kerry's position was not even close to the most permissive on abortion is coercion at best. South Dakota's new law, for example, doesn't even allow...y'know what, skip it. We're not gonna convince each other of anything on this tack but that you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you.

sick.
In the words of Jesus, "thou sayest."

I was making a hypothetical point. I'll be sure to make that even clearer than I already did the next time I do that. Sorry to trample on your sensitivity, but you just can't leave it lying all over the place.

Everyone heard many of the worst of the allegations, no premium was put on accuracy in the news, voter fruad was unimaginably bad ( ever heard of Tammany Hall?) , public money was used all the time for such inside jobs. Money laundering, graft, and all kinds of evils were political norms of the 19th century, and early 20 century. Ulysses Grant made Nixon look like a saint. The rest about pundits is all just your opinion, but I am using historical fact. If you look at actual problems and quirks in the operation of the system we have grown more accountable, more honest, and more active as time has gone on.
Save for Ohioans not getting to vote in 2004 and eligible Floridians not getting to vote in 2000, but hey, who's counting? Not Katherine Harris, that's who!

Hahahahaaaa!

I am killing me!

Nothing ridiculous at all - it's human nature when people go out of their way to offend you.
Interesting POV.
It brings to mind what James Dobson had to say about the whole "Spongebob Squarepants" affair, and how people were going to be able to look forward to many more curiously bizarre statements by Dobson even if they weren't already overly impressed with his sexual cartoon-character assassination.

Hmmm ... it went something like this :

This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me look ridiculous - April, 2005

You know, you probably shouldn't do that, the whole thing you seem to like to do about posting YOUR quote in bold lettering inside someone else's post. It's disingenuous. It's putting your words in someone elses' mouth. Particularly when you don't make it clear that the comments in boldface are your own. And it sort of lessens whatever point you might have had by doing so.
I don't think he cares. What else would you expect from someone who would usurp Barry Goldwater's name and exhibit none of his characteristics?

Wait -- misrepresentation is dishonest...wait for it...


LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!


:D

bedtime for me. God bless and for next time...instead of just saying LIAR LIAR LIAR........bring relavent facts.
You're telling me the "soldiers were shocked by what they found"?!? Gasp!

You mean that Roosevelt and the Pope didn't send communiques to the soldiers on the ground at Dachau or Bergen-Belsen saying "hey, GI, there's this whole Jew thing we've been ignoring -- look out for that, wouldja?"

Holy yipe, you're far too naive to be as smug as you are.

But hey, if walking off believing you're the bigger man makes you feel good, I'm all for it.

Interesting POV.
It brings to mind what James Dobson had to say about the whole "Spongebob Squarepants" affair, and how people were going to be able to look forward to many more curiously bizarre statements by Dobson even if they weren't already overly impressed with his sexual cartoon-character assassination.

Hmmm ... it went something like this :

- April, 2005

Thread hijack alert!!!!!!!!

Straughn, old boy. I thought you'd died!

I guess while i'm on this topic, and i archive-dove for the last post, i might as well give a little more background for it, hopefully appreciated in context.
*ahem*

BACK CONSERVATIVE AGENDA OR LOSE COURT, EVANGELICAL LEADERS HINT
Peter Wallsten, L.A. Times (Week of April 23, 2005)

WASHINGTON – Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working
closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges
in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting
jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of
the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private
conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges,
such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder
their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month
that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas,
and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who discussed efforts
to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
…
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one
way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president
of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape
of a March 17 session. The tapes was provided to the L.A. Times by the
advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
…
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of
the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with
reporters.
The leaders present at the March conference, including Perkins and
James Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family,
have been working with Frist to eliminate the filibuster for judicial
nominations, a legislative tool that has allowed Senate Democrats to
stall 10 of President Bush's nominations.
Frist is scheduled to appear, via a taped statement, during a
satellite broadcast to churches nationwide Sunday the Family Research
Council has organized to build support for the Bush nominees.
…
"What they're thinking of is not only the fact of just making these
courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding
them," Perkins said.
He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to
impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to
"just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out
there with nothing to do."
These curbs on courts are "on the radar screen, especially of
conservatives here in Congress," he said.
Dobson, who emerged last year as one of the evangelical movement's
most important political leaders, named one potential target: the
California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply
disenfranchise a court," Dobson said. "They don't have to fire
anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to
do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone."
…
A spokesman for DeLay declined to comment.
…
Claiming a role by the movement in the GOP gains, Dobson concluded:
"We've got a right to hold them accountable for what happens here."
…
Dobson chided Frist, a likely 2008 presidential contender, for not
acting sooner on the filibuster issue, urging "conservatives all over
the country" to tell Frist "that he needs to get on with it."
Dobson also said Republicans risk inflicting long-term damage on their
party if they fail to seize the moment - a time when Bush still has
the momentum of his re-election victory – to transform the courts. He
said they had just 18 months to act before Bush becomes a "lame-duck
president."
…
As part of the discussion, Perkins and Dobson referred to remarks by
Dobson earlier this year at a congressional dinner in which he singled
out the use by one group of the cartoon character SpongeBob
Squarepants in a video that Dobson said promoted a homosexual agenda.
Dobson was ridiculed for his comments, which some critics interpreted
to mean the evangelist had determined the cartoon character was gay.
Dobson said the beating he took in the media, coming after his
appearance on the cover of newsmagazines hailing his prominence in
Bush's reelection, proved that press will only seek to tear him down.
"This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me
look ridiculous," he said.
--

Thread hijack alert!!!!!!!!
Actually, funnily enough, i thought of that, and then posted my next one! :D


Straughn, old boy? I thought you'd died!To some, perhaps. Myself, a little every day. ;)
Jolt didn't like anyone from my region for about a week! And i had some IRL issues again.
Gotta get brushed up on my dossier!

But hey, if walking off believing you're the bigger man makes you feel good, I'm all for it.
Well, if you want a quicker end, type "hahahaha" for a few lines and the result is similar.

Well, if you want a quicker end, type "hahahaha" for a few lines and the result is similar.
Good point.

And righteous (pun intended) post about the 2005 God Squad meeting.

In any case, glad to see you back. :fluffle: Nearly all of my other protagonists can't seem to make it through one f*cking sentence without dropping a f*cking f-bomb every second f*cking word or so.

Yew have panache. Ayup.

Good point.
Admittedly, i find myself laughing more than arguing with BaAuH2O on many occasion, but i don't think that's really what they want. *shrug*

And righteous (pun intended) post about the 2005 God Squad meeting.
Thanks. *bows*
I've got more but i'm sure that'll suffice for now.
Other than, in summation, i would invite anyone to punch up what Dobson's ultimate reply was on his Focus homepage about that issue ... at the bottom of the page, of course. Representin'! :D

In any case, glad to see you back. :fluffle: Nearly all of my other protagonists can't seem to make it through one f*cking sentence without dropping a f*cking f-bomb every second f*cking word or so.
Thank you. *bows*
Good to see you too.
A little while back, Whereyouthinkyougoing had a thread about "what should i make a thread about" or something along those lines, and i thought you had a good suggestion for it.

Yew have panache. Ayup.Even if i inundate y'all with smilies every couple of sentences?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/blush_tweetz.gif

A little while back, Whereyouthinkyougoing had a thread about "what should i make a thread about" or something along those lines, and i thought you had a good suggestion for it.

I remember. That went nowhere fast. Like shouting into a vacuum.

I remember. That went nowhere fast. Like shouting into a vacuum.
Well, she was running it, so the result was somewhat predictable ... gotta be that mothlike spammer mentality :D

I think it involved porn at some point too - which was refreshed in a later thread of hers as well.

Everyone heard many of the worst of the allegations, no premium was put on accuracy in the news, voter fruad was unimaginably bad ( ever heard of Tammany Hall?) , public money was used all the time for such inside jobs. Money laundering, graft, and all kinds of evils were political norms of the 19th century, and early 20 century. Ulysses Grant made Nixon look like a saint. The rest about pundits is all just your opinion, but I am using historical fact. If you look at actual problems and quirks in the operation of the system we have grown more accountable, more honest, and more active as time has gone on.
I find it interesting that someone who claims to be as steeped in US history as you are is still pushing around the long-discredited lie that Grant was corrupt. Grant had some corruption in his cabinet--about as much as most administrations do--but was never considered personally corrupt, not even by his contemporary political enemies, and left office extraordinarily popular. What really pissed people off about Grant--especially in the south--was the fact that he pushed for very strong civil rights legislation for freed slaves and used the power of the federal government to enforce it, until his Supreme Court cut his knees out from under him under the mantra of "states rights." It would be almost another hundred years before the Supreme Court would correct that egregious error.

And you call yourself a history major. :rolleyes:

Not every religion. The Bible reconizes that everyone has a chance to honor the God of creation. According to Christians, that part of God which became Jesus was, in the begining, the creator portion of God. Therefore, anyone (even if they never heard the name Jesus, actually Joshua, well more acurately Yeshua) can look at creation and understand there is a creator. But then there is an obligation to honor and learn as best they can of the creator. For instance those of Babylon and the Canaanites did not honor creation, as they did acts that harmed creation such as human sacrifice. Biblically, there is an internal knowledge of right and wrong. (eating of the tree of good and evil) And those that do what is instinctively wrong are given up. Rom 1:19-32

The problem with the neo-pharisees is they burden everyone with their rules and regulations. Actually Christianity only has two rules; Love God...Love everyone. There is no one on earth that cannot do these two rules regardless of where they live or the knowlege of Christianity that has been given to them. Mat 23:13-39

Wait? The bible is anti-pollution? That's crazy...Next you'll be telling me it's anti-war and anti-killing.

Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes. Creating a society with more war, more killing and less equality is unChristian. That's all there is to it.

I don't vote for a party that treats my religion as some kind of joke
So you don't vote Republican?

I'm not saying that voting Democrat is the way to go. They're nearly the same as the Republicans anyway.

It's a common theme there. Ridicule. Sorry, won't listen to anyone who ridicules my beliefs.
But you'll not only listen to, but vote for people whose policies humiliate and destroy your beliefs.

I am a Conservative catholic Republicans and I will tell you this: I am able to make the claim that my church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus' teachings and the old testament which he preached during his lifetime form the foundation of my church's beliefs. Homosexual "marriage", abortions, and destroying human embreyos on the bloody alter of science are not welcome in Christianity. Just crack open a bible and you will see. It seems to me though, that Pope Benedict XVI was right when he said
Hello, fellow Catholic. Maybe someday you will educate yourself about the religion you claim to adhere to, and discover the sins an evil that are poverty, greed, murder and war.

I can't remember chapter and verse, but those Bible scholars I've conversed with have told me that there's a passage in which Jesus addresses the Law of Man and the Law of God. I'm not even gonna try to butcher the quote, but it's something along the lines of good Christians will follow the Law of Man. Someone with better knowledge on the subject (there can hardly be someone with worse), help me out?
Maybe Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............
-------------------------------
Kind of makes one wonder about the morality of taking out Saddam or the election of Bush doesn't it?

Elwood P. Dowd: Harvey and I have things to do... we sit in the bars... have a drink or two... and play the juke box. Very soon the faces of the other people turn towards me and they smile. They say: 'We don't know your name, mister, but you're all right, all right.' Harvey and I warm ourselves in these golden moments. We came as strangers - soon we have friends. They come over. They sit with us. They drink with us. They talk to us. They tell us about the great big terrible things they've done and the great big wonderful things they're going to do. Their hopes, their regrets. Their loves, their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar. Then I introduce them to Harvey, and he's bigger and grander than anything they can offer me. When they leave, they leave impressed. The same people seldom come back.

- Harvey

Much nicer imaginary friend.

I want a pooka! :(

I find it interesting that someone who claims to be as steeped in US history as you are is still pushing around the long-discredited lie that Grant was corrupt. Grant had some corruption in his cabinet--about as much as most administrations do--but was never considered personally corrupt, not even by his contemporary political enemies, and left office extraordinarily popular. What really pissed people off about Grant--especially in the south--was the fact that he pushed for very strong civil rights legislation for freed slaves and used the power of the federal government to enforce it, until his Supreme Court cut his knees out from under him under the mantra of "states rights." It would be almost another hundred years before the Supreme Court would correct that egregious error.

And you call yourself a history major. :rolleyes:

Even Grant himself admited his fault was that he ran things like an army command. You gave an order and expected it carried out. He didn't think to have to watch his staff and trusted people he shouldn't have.

The true definetion and values and morals of Christianity has changed so many times over the years, that it doesnt really matter anymore. It's gotten to be that Christianity and America are both quite comparable, that is, jilted cesspools of corruption and lies.

Maybe Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............
-------------------------------
Kind of makes one wonder about the morality of taking out Saddam or the election of Bush doesn't it?Except that those weren't Jesus's words. That was Paul or one of his followers, and Intangelon said Jesus specifically.

I thought about this on my recent road trip when I saw tons of billboards sponsored by conservative Christian groups making ridiculous claims about abortion or the need to protect marriage from the threat of gays or, my favorite, the one that said

Which brings me to my question--Do you conservative Christians ever worry that God's going to get pissed at you for claiming to be the one group truly representing Him? I mean, it's no sweat off my ass either way, since I don't really believe in the kind of God that you guys claim to follow, but it seems to me that conservative groups claiming to be the only ones who have it right are taking an awful risk by making that claim, especially since there are so many other groups out there who make the same claim.

Believers are always telling atheists that they ought to hedge their bets against going to hell when they die. Well, what are you folks doing to hedge your bets against the possibility that you've got it wrong as well?
Stop streo-typing. I'm a Conservative Christian and I act nothing like that. Radicals, both sides of the fence have 'em. As for them acting like that they are the only God-fearing people, that's because almost all Atheists are Liberals. But they're acting like all Liberal's are Atheists. I once saw a bumper stick that read "don't pray in my schools, and I won't talk in your churches." That tics us CC's off.

I once saw a bumper stick that read "don't pray in my schools, and I won't talk in your churches." That tics us CC's off.Why?

Stop streo-typing. I'm a Conservative Christian and I act nothing like that. Radicals, both sides of the fence have 'em. As for them acting like that they are the only God-fearing people, that's because almost all Atheists are Liberals. But they're acting like all Liberal's are Atheists. I once saw a bumper stick that read "don't pray in my schools, and I won't talk in your churches." That tics us CC's off.
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm accurately portraying the public faces of the conservative christian movement--James Dobson, Rick Warren, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, etc. Don't like it? Challenge their authority and leadership of conservative Christianity. Denounce them. Defy them. Challenge media outlets to allow other voices from the contemporary conservative christian movement. But like it or not, until that happens, you are represented by the likes of those people above, and it's your job to change the situation, not mine.