NationStates Jolt Archive

Cant forget the scientologists
yeah i thought of them later.

they are a quintessential american religion.

All well and good, but deists belive that which kicked of the universe was a creative deity. If this is not what you belive then I guess you would not be deist.

Well, I suppose I am religious then, but I don't think Deism should be counted as a religion.

Damn, you beat me to it...

I was going to say "No matter how hard we try..."

That too.

Well, I suppose I am religious then, but I don't think Deism should be counted as a religion.

How about if we just say that theoretically you are religious?

American Revolution and the Second World war, maybe?

American Civil War? Slavery?

That too.

Has Germany actually banned them yet?

Has Germany actually banned them yet?

Unfortunately, not that I know of.:(

Well, I suppose I am religious then, but I don't think Deism should be counted as a religion.
depends on what you do with it, doesnt it?

if you have some kind of deist organization with meetings and everything, its a religion.

...

unitarian universalists maybe?

Well, I suppose I am religious then, but I don't think Deism should be counted as a religion.

Heh and I don't think bigots should be allowed to breed, ahhh I guess that's one of my little foilbles!:D

Heh and I don't think bigots should be allowed to breed, ahhh I guess that's one of my little foilbles!:D

Ahaha, what's a foilble, by the way?

Ahaha, what's a foilble, by the way?

French term for: a minor flaw or shortcoming in character or behavior.

French term for: a minor flaw or shortcoming in character or behavior.

I wouldn't call what he said a flaw, more a noble idea.

Ahaha, what's a foilble, by the way?

Part of a sword

French term for: a minor flaw or shortcoming in character or behavior.

Wot she just sed!:D

I wouldn't cal what he said a flaw, more a noble idea.

That's because you're a modern thinker. Some people would call Peep's statement a foible, though.:p

Part of a sword

No, that's a foil.

No, that's a foil.

No, the foible of a foil is the weakest part

Probably because the nation was founded by a bunch of extremely religious people, and one of its central tenets is that of religious freedom. Any country with the ideal that people can come practice whatever belief they want will attract the people who believe strongly enough in their religion to leave their home for it.CLANG.

That was the sound of the nail being hit square on the head.

CLANG.

That was the sound of the nail being hit square on the head.

Except that the USA has never been such a nation.
Sure, the founders wanted it to be - but it never happened. The best one can say is that the USA is reasonably tolerant towards religion, as long as it happens to be a flavour of Christianity. The tolerance however is nothing special in the western world.

Because it's on the US Dollar. 'In God We Trust' not 'In Nothing We Trust'.

Or maybe it's because government isn't mixed with religion like in Britain where the Monarch is the head of the Church of England or in Thailand where the Monarch is in charge of Buddhism.

Perhaps religion in the US makes them a much freer society than most of the world since the US is a 'quilt' of so many different religions that the government doesn't want to intervene.

Or maybe when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they knew that an official state religion would lead to the persecution of religious minorities while at the same time knew that a non-religious society would lead to a breakdown of society. Britain, without religion, has become a decadent hole. They let all the sick, perverse trash to frolic freely in society. How long before public schools allow marijuana not just in bathrooms, but in the classroom itself?

So religion is good for society, but so is freedom of practicing religion. That is what makes the US a great nation.

Because it's on the US Dollar. 'In God We Trust' not 'In Nothing We Trust'.

Or maybe it's because government isn't mixed with religion like in Britain where the Monarch is the head of the Church of England or in Thailand where the Monarch is in charge of Buddhism.

Perhaps religion in the US makes them a much freer society than most of the world since the US is a 'quilt' of so many different religions that the government doesn't want to intervene.

Or maybe when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they knew that an official state religion would lead to the persecution of religious minorities while at the same time knew that a non-religious society would lead to a breakdown of society. Britain, without religion, has become a decadent hole. They let all the sick, perverse trash to frolic freely in society. How long before public schools allow marijuana not just in bathrooms, but in the classroom itself?

So religion is good for society, but so is freedom of practicing religion. That is what makes the US a great nation.
Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

Because it's on the US Dollar. 'In God We Trust' not 'In Nothing We Trust'.

Or maybe it's because government isn't mixed with religion like in Britain where the Monarch is the head of the Church of England or in Thailand where the Monarch is in charge of Buddhism.

Perhaps religion in the US makes them a much freer society than most of the world since the US is a 'quilt' of so many different religions that the government doesn't want to intervene.

Or maybe when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they knew that an official state religion would lead to the persecution of religious minorities while at the same time knew that a non-religious society would lead to a breakdown of society. Britain, without religion, has become a decadent hole. They let all the sick, perverse trash to frolic freely in society. How long before public schools allow marijuana not just in bathrooms, but in the classroom itself?

So religion is good for society, but so is freedom of practicing religion. That is what makes the US a great nation.

We allow the smoking of weed in school toilets now? That's progress.

We had to get wet behind the sport hall.

Britain, without religion, has become a decadent hole. They let all the sick, perverse trash to frolic freely in society. How long before public schools allow marijuana not just in bathrooms, but in the classroom itself?

Or not. You know that we don't actually have separation of Church and state yet over here, and none of the countries in Britain are decadent holes. Except Scotland.

We allow the smoking of weed in school toilets now? That's progress.

We had to get wet behind the sport hall.

You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds!

You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds!

Nah, the bikesheds were right outside the head's office. None of us were that daft.

Because it's on the US Dollar. 'In God We Trust' not 'In Nothing We Trust'.

Yeah - but that is new and untraditional :p I still much prefer the original "e pluribus unum".

Unless of course the text on coinage somehow brainwashes people. Then again, the Dutch seem mostly unaffected by their "God zij met ons" ("God be with us").

Yeah - but that is new and untraditional :p I still much prefer the original "e pluribus unum".

Unless of course the text on coinage somehow brainwashes people. Then again, the Dutch seem mostly unaffected by their "God zij met ons" ("God be with us").

We have a picture of the head of the national church on all our currency. We don't seem affected.

We have a picture of the head of the national church on all our currency. We don't seem affected.

We don't have a national church, and if we did have them on our money, the back of the coin would have to depict them cornholing a transexual prostitute while doing crystal meth and embezzling money from the congregation.

We don't have a national church, and if we did have them on our money, the back of the coin would have to depict them cornholing a transexual prostitute while doing crystal meth and embezzling money from the congregation.

Now that is a photo of the Queen I want to see...

And by see, I mean own so I can put it on ebay.

We don't have a national church, and if we did have them on our money, the back of the coin would have to depict them cornholing a transexual prostitute while doing crystal meth and embezzling money from the congregation.

*rolls around the office floor, laughing*

Or maybe when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they knew that an official state religion would lead to the persecution of religious minorities while at the same time knew that a non-religious society would lead to a breakdown of society. Britain, without religion, has become a decadent hole. They let all the sick, perverse trash to frolic freely in society. How long before public schools allow marijuana not just in bathrooms, but in the classroom itself?

Prove it, one-post wonder. Britain has religious freedom.

Prove it, one-post wonder. Britain has religious freedom.

*cough*history*cough*the irish*cough*

*cough*history*cough*the irish*cough*

We're persecting the Irish?

*cough*history*cough*the irish*cough*

That wasn't about religion, damn colonials didn't understand that being British was in their best interests.:p

*cough*history*cough*the irish*cough*

America has a glass ceiling in Massachusetts, named Salem, regarding history. And quite a few others right now in the South, too.

As for the Irish, back then they weren't persecuted for being Catholic. They were persecuted for being a colony, essentially. Or there is some sort of pogrom against Catholics in the UK that I am unaware of?

In short: Feel free to make whatever point you have.

As for the Irish, back then they weren't persecuted for being Catholic. They were persecuted for being a colony, essentially. Or there is some sort of pogrom against Catholics in the UK that I am unaware of?
One could argue that, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#cite_note-near-genocidal-1).

Sectarian violence is, unfortunately, a big part of British history.

One could argue that, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#cite_note-near-genocidal-1).

Sectarian violence is, unfortunately, a big part of British history.

I wrote "is" for a reason...

Yeah - but that is new and untraditional :p I still much prefer the original "e pluribus unum".
Actually, the original slogan on our first issue of coinage was "Mind your business".

I wrote "is" for a reason...
You also wrote, "As for the Irish, back then they weren't persecuted for being Catholic."

Which isn't entirely true.

You also wrote, "As for the Irish, back then they weren't persecuted for being Catholic."

Which isn't entirely true.

I meant in the more recent past. Regardless, it was more political, do you not agree?

I meant in the more recent past. Regardless, it was more political, do you not agree?
I don't think you can meaningfully seperate the religious and political reasons.

They're too entwined.

I don't think you can meaningfully seperate the religious and political reasons.

They're too entwined.

*Sigh* Okay. If I withdraw the history statement, will you admit the rest of my point stands?

*Sigh* Okay. If I withdraw the history statement, will you admit the rest of my point stands?
No, because of what I said in the post you quoted above:

I don't think you can meaningfully seperate the religious and political reasons for violence in Ireland.

As to your statement about British religious freedom, I don't think it's absolute; after all, there's a state religion which is involved in the legislature of the UK, while Catholics are still not allowed to ascend to the throne.

Actually, the original slogan on our first issue of coinage was "Mind your business".

Even better :o

As to your statement about British religious freedom, I don't think it's absolute; after all, there's a state religion which is involved in the legislature of the UK, while Catholics are still not allowed to ascend to the throne.

Second time I've pointed this out in a week, and I even made a thread on it as well, Catholics are now eligible for monarchy.

Second time I've pointed this out in a week, and I even made a thread on it as well, Catholics are now eligible for monarchy.

To be fair, are YOU eligible for monarchy? If not, it IS still unfair. :p

We don't have a national church

Church of England?

Second time I've pointed this out in a week, and I even made a thread on it as well, Catholics are now eligible for monarchy.

Which still confuses me, what with the whole "head of the Anglican Church" being part of the job description. In one post (just so we don't sidetrack this thread any further), can you explain it to me?

To be fair, are YOU eligible for monarchy? If not, it IS still unfair. :p

I am, actually. I'm a direct descendant of Lady Jane Grey, and therefore 90,000th in line to the throne or something.

Which still confuses me, what with the whole "head of the Anglican Church" being part of the job description. In one post (just so we don't sidetrack this thread any further), can you explain it to me?

They are still head of the Church of England, and do whatever they have to do with that, but are allowed to attend mass etc.

Second time I've pointed this out in a week, and I even made a thread on it as well, Catholics are now eligible for monarchy.
Although the government's pushing for it to be changed, I believe the Act of Settlement is still in force.

See here (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp).

To be fair, are YOU eligible for monarchy? If not, it IS still unfair. :p

Eventually. It'd be a bit of a blood bath to get there though. :p

Which still confuses me, what with the whole "head of the Anglican Church" being part of the job description. In one post (just so we don't sidetrack this thread any further), can you explain it to me?

The constitutional arrangements of the UK don't have to make sense.

Church of England?

Is national church of some of the UK, but not other bits.

Someone giver Archregimency a shout, he seems to understand the weirdness that surrounds the UK's church situation.

Although the government's pushing for it to be changed, I believe the Act of Settlement is still in force.

See here (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp).

No, it's been changed. I'll dig out the article.

I am, actually. I'm a direct descendant of Lady Jane Grey, and therefore 90,000th in line to the throne or something.

Unless you're a legitimate descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, you're not.

Someone giver Archregimency a shout, he seems to understand the weirdness that surrounds the UK's church situation.
Aye.

See this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14273225&postcount=33) post, and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14272443&postcount=19) one, and the rest of that thread.

I am, actually. I'm a direct descendant of Lady Jane Grey, and therefore 90,000th in line to the throne or something.

That's good too know. I'm like the 150,000th or something. I guess I'll just have to bump you off on my way up...once I get British citizenship I mean.:p

Church of England?

No, here in America, we worship Jesus, not England.

Unfortunately, our stupid government refuses to establish a national religion. One time, that Cat Tribes guy went off on a rant to me about it, claims its some kind of Prime Directive or something.

No, here in America, we worship Jesus, not England.

Are we talking about the proposed King of Poland or the janitor at my old school here ?

No, here in America, we worship Jesus, not England.

Unfortunately, our stupid government refuses to establish a national religion. One time, that Cat Tribes guy went off on a rant to me about it, claims its some kind of Prime Directive or something.

When did Cat Tribes go off on a rant?

Are we talking about the proposed King of Poland or the janitor at my old school here ?

The latter, of course.

No, here in America, we worship Jesus, not England.

Unfortunately, our stupid government refuses to establish a national religion. One time, that Cat Tribes guy went off on a rant to me about it, claims its some kind of Prime Directive or something.

Ah sorry, in the context of your post I thought you were English.

When did Cat Tribes go off on a rant?

When doesn't he?

When did Cat Tribes go off on a rant?

It was horrible, dude. All I did was point out that America has established Christianity as its religion, by Congressional law and with SCOTUS approval, and he threw an enraged fit, consisting primarily of citations, references, sources, and a throbbing vein in his head.

Don't know what his problem is.

Here's that article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html

Here's that article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html

Yeah, note the word could in the headline.

It hasn't been done yet.

Ah sorry, in the context of your post I thought you were English.

See, that's the problem with you Englanders. You always think everything is about you.

We Americans, on the other hand, understand our role as simply one in a chorus of international discourse, and we are careful to respect not only the sovereign territory of other countries, but their right to have a voice on the world stage.

That's why the U.S. is globally respected for its restraint and even-handedness in world affairs.

We don't go marching around with Martini Rifles and red velour jackets, imposing our will.

That's why we beat you in all those wars that one time.

It was horrible, dude. All I did was point out that America has established Christianity as its religion, by Congressional law and with SCOTUS approval, and he threw an enraged fit, consisting primarily of citations, references, sources, and a throbbing vein in his head.

Don't know what his problem is.

Hemorrhoids.

That throdding vein in his head isn't the only one he has to put up with.

See, that's the problem with you Englanders. You always think everything is about you.

We Americans, on the other hand, understand our role as simply one in a chorus of international discourse, and we are careful to respect not only the sovereign territory of other countries, but their right to have a voice on the world stage.

That's why the U.S. is globally respected for its restraint and even-handedness in world affairs.

We don't go marching around with Martini Rifles and red velour jackets, imposing our will.

That's why we beat you in all those wars that one time.

Well, we founded you!

Hemorrhoids.

That throdding vein in his head isn't the only one he has to put up with.

Either way, I don't like him. He responds to every legal question the same way, with a sound and thoroughly researched array of judicial theory supported by substantial case law.

It just gets old.

Well, we founded you!

So? We weren't hiding.

So? We weren't hiding.

Hilarious.

Here's that article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html
As I said, the Act of Settlement is still in force.

There's still a lot of ratifying to get done; I believe, for example, that all Commonwealth nations must accept the new settlement for it to pass.

Either way, I don't like him. He responds to every legal question the same way, with a sound and thoroughly researched array of judicial theory supported by substantial case law.

Welcome to NSG.

As I said, the Act of Settlement is still in force.

There's still a lot of ratifying to get done; I believe, for example, that all Commonwealth nations must accept the new settlement for it to pass.

Really? Even the ones that don't have the Queen as head of state?

Either way, I don't like him. He responds to every legal question the same way, with a sound and thoroughly researched array of judicial theory supported by substantial case law.

It just gets old.

It's ok. The rest of us just spout unsupported opinions and half-baked theories and then call you a troll if you disagree with us.

You'll fit right in.

Either way, I don't like him. He responds to every legal question the same way, with a sound and thoroughly researched array of judicial theory supported by substantial case law.

It just gets old.

Not to mention unfair. Surely other views have just as much right to be heard and taught in the classroom ? Evidence and quality are overrated ! Hear my stories that a man in the pub told me and are therefor 110% true !

Welcome to NSG.

Thank you. Thank. You.

You are the first person to welcome me, seriously.

As a newcomer, that means a lot to me.

Even if you are an Imperialist galleon-jockey of a Brit, using your Bren guns and monocles to enslave the world.

Really? Even the ones that don't have the Queen as head of state?
I'm not entirely sure on that one, but The Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1) seems to think so.

It's ok. The rest of us just spout unsupported opinions and half-baked theories and then call you a troll if you disagree with us.

You'll fit right in.

This. You win the thread.

You are the first person to welcome me, seriously.

When I turned up in March, everyone hated me. Katganistan said I clearly wasn't happy so maybe I should leave. You've been showered with flowers compared to me.

Even if you are an Imperialist galleon-jockey of a Brit, using your Bren guns and monocles to enslave the world.
Never call me a Brit or British, I'm English.

It's ok. The rest of us just spout unsupported opinions and half-baked theories and then call you a troll if you disagree with us.

You'll fit right in.

You're a troll.

Wait, the thread is about America being so religious.

You're a godless commie.

When I turned up in March, everyone hated me. Katganistan said I clearly wasn't happy so maybe I should leave. You've been showered with flowers compared to me.


Never call me a Brit or British, I'm English.

I thought English people came from the Island of Great Britain. Or are you one of those Orangemen from that other Island? Or are you an English man who was born and raised in Hong Kong, and now makes a reasonable living getting hard to find parts for Rolls Royce vintage models?

Who cares, I'm American, I don't have to know where you're from. I can call you Welsh, or Serbian.

You, you're a Serbian.

the Island of Great Britain.

Thankyou. So many Americans don't realise Britain's an island. I just prefer English, because British isn't a nationality. The Welsh and Scots really hate being called British as well. In fact the only nationality that like to be called British are protestant Northern Irish, and they're not.

Good, because it's the truth.:tongue:Oh, you have the truth? You should start a religion.

Oh, you have the truth? You should start a religion.

She has. See Santiago I's sig.

Thankyou. So many Americans don't realise Britain's an island. However, many Americans think Africa is an island. :tongue:

Oh, you have the truth? You should start a religion.

For that, you need guilt, not truth.

For that, you need guilt, not truth.Damit...

However, many Americans think Africa is an island. :tongue:

Whereas we English know that it's a country, seemingly populated by nice men who just need our credit details to transfer £50 million into.

For that, you need guilt, not truth.

Shame on you! Turning your back on your followers.

Damit...

If you have enough of it, of course you can start a religion.

In my case, I didn't start my religion, Santiago I did.:tongue:

Shame on you! Turning your back on your followers.

Me?!, I never claimed to be a goddess. I am awesome, but I'm not a goddess.:tongue:

Never call me a Brit or British, I'm English.

I seem to be one of the relatively few who identifies as British. I never found a conflict between being Welsh and British, any more than being Gwent-ish and Welsh etc.

But then I am part English and live near the English Welsh border, so it's perhaps not surprising.

But then I am part English and live near the English Welsh border, so it's perhaps not surprising.

And? Why does that affect the previous part of your sentence?

And? Why does that affect the previous part of your sentence?

Perhaps not surprising that I identify with Britishness and the unity of the constituent countries of the UK.

Unless you're going all grammar-y on me:mad:

I seem to be one of the relatively few who identifies as British. I never found a conflict between being Welsh and British, any more than being Gwent-ish and Welsh etc.

But then I am part English and live near the English Welsh border, so it's perhaps not surprising.

You're a Croation. Get over it.

Perhaps not surprising that I identify with Britishness and the unity of the constituent countries of the UK.

Unless you're going all grammar-y on me:mad:

I want to know if it's correct to refer to people from the UK as British. The isles are called British Isles after all. That confuses me a bit.

I want to know if it's correct to refer to people from the UK as British. The isles are called British Isles after all. That confuses me a bit.

Ish. It's a matter of personal preference.

Geographically anyone from Scotland, Wales, England, N.Ireland or EIRE (and the other parts of the archipelago) can be called British (don't try it on the Irish though).
Politically it's just residents of the UK.

In practice many people (often more in Scotland and Wales) don't like it and prefer to be called Welsh/Scottish/etc.

Personally I self-identify as British (usually quicker and easier then having to explain where Wales is) and have no problem with the description, but it's a minefield really.

Ish. It's a matter of personal preference.

Geographically anyone from Scotland, Wales, England, N.Ireland or EIRE (and the other parts of the archipelago) can be called British (don't try it on the Irish though).

Politically it's just residents of the UK.

In practice many people (often more in Scotland and Wales) don't like it and prefer to be called Welsh/Scottish/etc.

Personally I self-identify as British (usually quicker and easier then having to explain where Wales is) and have no problem with the description, but it's a minefield really.

Yeah, my same thought. Although I can understand if some people in the UK have a certain nationalistic pride. It happens here in Spain. I was just wondering if it was offensive or what.

Thanks for the clarification.

I want to know if it's correct to refer to people from the UK as British. The isles are called British Isles after all. That confuses me a bit.

You heartless witch, how dare you!

Do you know how many British Subjects shed their blood and gave their lives on Spanish Soil to resist Nationalist Fascism? The international brigade trenches smelled a lot like boiled beef and cabbage, and your lack of gratitude is appalling.

What I just said made no sense.

However, many Americans think Africa is an island. :tongue:

Africa is an island. It's just a really big one.

You heartless witch, how dare you!

Do you know how many British Subjects shed their blood and gave their lives on Spanish Soil to resist Nationalist Fascism? The international brigade trenches smelled a lot like boiled beef and cabbage, and your lack of gratitude is appalling.

What I just said made no sense.

You seldom do, sir.:D

You're a troll.

Wait, the thread is about America being so religious.

You're a godless commie.

See, you're doing great.

Now you just need to prove your claim by posting a cherry picked quote from a document that says the exact opposite when read in full.

Africa is an island. It's just a really big one.You ask Sarah Palin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

You ask Sarah Palin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

We could ask Caroline Kennedy. We would get "um... you know... um..."

We could ask Caroline Kennedy. We would get "um... you know... um..."
That does not lessen Palin's stupidity.

That does not lessen Palin's stupidity.

No, but it does mean the Democrats finally found someone dumber.

No, but it does mean the Democrats finally found someone dumber.
How is saying, "um... you know..." dumber than believing Africa is a country, and the other idiocies that spewed forth from Palin's maw?

How is saying, "um... you know..." dumber than believing Africa is a country, and the other idiocies that spewed forth from Palin's maw?

I don't think that Caroline can form a complete sentence. That obviously puts here on a lower peg.

Snip insinuating a woman's dumb because she uses fillers before her sentences.

Wow. You really know JACK SQUAT about Linguistics.

Wow. You really know JACK SQUAT about Linguistics.

That is Kimchi for you.

That is Kimchi for you.

Sorry, but around the DC area, people who can't speak in complete sentences are regarded as stupid.

Sorry, but around the DC area, people who can't speak in complete sentences are regarded as stupid.

Which is a silly notion because some people may not have full dominion of your language to communicate. Not using full sentences does not mean that they're stupid.

Sorry, but around the DC area, people who can't speak in complete sentences are regarded as stupid.

Kimchi, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

First of all, you have to fully define a "complete sentence". I'm pretty sure it's not as easy as you think. Second of all, pauses and fillers in a sentence don't mean anything regarding someone's cognitive abilities. You REALLY want to do this? Couldn't you have found some OTHER way to make remarks on the woman because she's a Democrat, one that WOULDN'T go down the drain with a Linguist around?

Which is a silly notion because some people may not have full dominion of your language to communicate. Not using full sentences does not mean that they're stupid.

More specifically, one can have full domain of a language and have to stop to think of what to say mid-sentence. Picking a word, and so on.

I don't think that Caroline can form a complete sentence. That obviously puts here on a lower peg.
The newspaper article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/27/2008-12-27_caroline_kennedy_tells_daily_news_i_woul.html) you yourself linked to shows this to be false:

I'm not as shy as everybody makes me out to be," she said.
Dearie me Hotwife, try a little harder, won't you?

The newspaper article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/27/2008-12-27_caroline_kennedy_tells_daily_news_i_woul.html) you yourself linked to shows this to be false:


Dearie me Hotwife, try a little harder, won't you?

Splendid! So the incident Kimchi is picking on to call the woman stupid isn't only linguistically inaccurate, it's also false as well!

Laugh with me! Hahahahaha!

Kimchi, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

First of all, you have to fully define a "complete sentence". I'm pretty sure it's not as easy as you think. Second of all, pauses and fillers in a sentence don't mean anything regarding someone's cognitive abilities. You REALLY want to do this? Couldn't you have found some OTHER way to make remarks on the woman because she's a Democrat, one that WOULDN'T go down the drain with a Linguist around?

I already asked for her brilliant political career - a high powered executive job - papers and research - and we have a big fat ZERO.

Palin, by any comparison, is far more experienced, and you consider her dumb.

If Caroline didn't have the name, she would be an out of work hooker in NYC.

More specifically, one can have full domain of a language and have to stop to think of what to say mid-sentence. Picking a word, and so on.

Indeed. I often resort to doing that when I'm speaking English.

I already asked for her brilliant political career - a high powered executive job - papers and research - and we have a big fat ZERO.

Palin, by any comparison, is far more experienced, and you consider her dumb.

If Caroline didn't have the name, she would be an out of work hooker in NYC.

Experience is not equal to intelligence. Look at our president.

Indeed. I often resort to doing that when I'm speaking English.

Not if you're a brilliant public speaker. First requirement of a politician.

Obama, for instance, is a brilliant public speaker.

Not if you're a brilliant public speaker. First requirement of a politician.

Obama, for instance, is a brilliant public speaker.

Right, Kimchi. I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Experience is not equal to intelligence. Look at our president.

Experience is a prerequisite. Obama has more experience than Caroline.

He's worked most of his life in politics, and some of it in office. She hasn't really done anything of consequence.

I already asked for her brilliant political career - a high powered executive job - papers and research - and we have a big fat ZERO.

Palin, by any comparison, is far more experienced, and you consider her dumb.

If Caroline didn't have the name, she would be an out of work hooker in NYC.

So the woman with a law degree from Columbia would be an out of work hooker?

Right.

Right, Kimchi. I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

You're saying she's a brilliant speaker?

I already asked for her brilliant political career - a high powered executive job - papers and research - and we have a big fat ZERO.

Then stick to that line instead of having someone that ACTUALLY knows Linguistics teach you about its most basic concepts.

Palin, by any comparison, is far more experienced, and you consider her dumb.

That's because of WHAT Palin says, not how many pauses she makes when she says it or how she phrases her sentences.

If Caroline didn't have the name, she would be an out of work hooker in NYC.

Must I remind you of what GWB, whom you supported, would be if he didn't have the name?

Not if you're a brilliant public speaker. First requirement of a politician.
It really isn't (http://www.enjoyfrance.com/images/stories/world/political/gordon-brown.jpg).

You're saying she's a brilliant speaker?

No, Kimchi. I do not know nor care wether Caroline Kennedy is a brilliant speaker or not nor am I calling her one.

But I do care when you go on about something of which, plainly, you don't know about.

Must I remind you of what GWB, whom you supported, would be if he didn't have the name?

I already mentioned that - I'm surprised that Democrats are falling for it.

Do keep up.

Experience is a prerequisite. Obama has more experience than Caroline.

He's worked most of his life in politics, and some of it in office. She hasn't really done anything of consequence.

Experience is a prerequisite to political office, but not to intelligence. I don't support Caroline Kennedy, but I'm not going to contest that she's dumb because she's never had a political career.

So the woman with a law degree from Columbia would be an out of work hooker?

Right.

Well, if its between doc review work, and servicing sailors...

But I do care when you go on about something of which, plainly, you don't know about.

Especially when there's someone around that KNOWS it. :p

I already mentioned that - I'm surprised that Democrats are falling for it.

Do keep up.

Clarify.

Well, if its between doc review work, and servicing sailors...

I know which I'd prefer.

Office work is so ghay.

Especially when there's someone around that KNOWS it. :p

Exactly, and of course, when he as already started another thread on the same subject.

I know which I'd prefer.

Office work is so ghay.

Well, I talketh much smack, but when the Staffords are due, I'll probably take anything that pays...

Well, I talketh much smack, but when the Staffords are due, I'll probably take anything that pays...

When in recession....

Not so. The clergy did not keep knowledge that was not somehow related to the teachings of the church. Knowledge was simply lost in the Middle Ages (hence Dark Age). Math died, the arts died, hygiene died, and not only among the common people.

There is a LOT of literature from the middle ages considering the lack of printing press. Also, with my limited reading from that time I know of people like Machiavelli, Thomas More who weren't only concerned with Religion. There were neopythagoreans who pursued math. Hell, in the universities there you had to study everything, all of the seven liberal arts: arithmetic, astronomy, debate, geometry, logic, music and something else I can't remember, probably writing.
A lot of old knowledge from the ancients was lost. When this knowledge came back in the Renaissance we abandoned much of what we got from the middle ages but that doesn't mean that there wasn't thought.
There was also art in the middle ages, a lot of it was in their architecture and a lot of it was religious. But religion helped push art in this time forward.
Now obviously there were a lot of things wrong with their education but look at some of the Sic ou Non techniques used in the universities at the time. That type of thinking is even rarer now than it was than. And that was probably one of the best things in the middle ages. The Dark Ages weren't just dark there was a lot of light there that was lost and we could retrieve it if we stopped looked at the Middle Ages as the epitome of corrupt and unjust civilization.

Where did you get that figure from?
The percentage of atheists vs. non-atheists.

The percentage of atheists vs. non-atheists.

What is your source for the figures?

When I turned up in March, everyone hated me. Katganistan said I clearly wasn't happy so maybe I should leave. You've been showered with flowers compared to me.


Never call me a Brit or British, I'm English.

My you're a touchy Brit...
:p

Since 1954. :rolleyes:
when the world ended because the railroads started killing the passenger train and the governments started worshiping the automobile.

we could still resurrect it though, if we ever get our heads out of that dark wet stinky place.

unlike the cake, america's religion is a lie.

When I turned up in March, everyone hated me. Katganistan said I clearly wasn't happy so maybe I should leave. You've been showered with flowers compared to me.


Hey, I told u b4, u have the coolest nick ever lol.

You can be religious about anything. However Christanity isn't about being religious, it is about first believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of the one true god and is the only way to God the Father. Secondly it is about denying self for the good of Christ's Kingdom, when you can honesty say that your will be done lord not mine you are a SERIOUS Christian.

You can be religious about anything. However Christanity isn't about being religious,

K....

it is about first believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of the one true god and is the only way to God the Father. Secondly it is about denying self for the good of Christ's Kingdom, when you can honesty say that your will be done lord not mine you are a SERIOUS Christian.

So...religious.

K....



So...religious.


Not Religious .... TRUTH :)

Not Religious .... TRUTH :)

LIE
.
.
.
.
.
what are we playing?

Not Religious .... TRUTH :)

Right....


Normally...the truth has...you know...facts based in reality to support it.

So...religious.

You can be religious about anything. However Christanity isn't about being religious, it is about first believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of the one true god and is the only way to God the Father. Secondly it is about denying self for the good of Christ's Kingdom, when you can honesty say that your will be done lord not mine you are a SERIOUS Christian.

You forgot the most important step: actually and truly believe the Christian God, who is described by the Bible and reflected in nature surrounding us, is in fact the summum of Good, Worthyness and so on instead of something that is merely immensely powerful and quite possibly evil and sadistic.

It is quite a feat.

You forgot the most important step: actually and truly believe the Christian God, who is described by the Bible and reflected in nature surrounding us, is in fact the summum of Good, Worthyness and so on instead of something that is merely immensely powerful and quite possibly evil and sadistic.

It is quite a feat.

You need to check your facts, Satan is in fact the evil and sadistic one ...
not God.

You need to check your facts, Satan is in fact the evil and sadistic one ...
not God.

Then whats with all the smiting?

You need to check your facts, Satan is in fact the evil and sadistic one ...
not God.

Yet all the fire and brimstone, condemnation and the like in the Old Testament is from God. The only singular true mention of any kind of evil in OT is in Job, where something resembling Satan/Lucifer is notable. The creation of Satan and thus Hell is a Christian concept. Judaism has Sheol, which isn't actually hell, but a place where one simply atones for their sins for an amount of time based on the severity (or at least that's how I understood it when my in-laws explained the Judaic concept of "Hell" (used loosely) to me).

Then whats with all the smiting?

It's the begatting I was always interested in. :p

You need to check your facts, Satan is in fact the evil and sadistic one ...
not God.

And you base this on... ?
Are you claiming Satan created everything ? No ? Than sorry, I will look at nature and see God.
Are you claiming that it was Satan who impregnated another mans wife so she would have his son, to be hunted and executed in a gruesome way to satisfy some pathetic rule about "sin" daddy himself made up ?
Are you saying that whenever the Bible states that God commands things, like a woman marrying her rapist, telling a man to sacrifice his child to mess with his head, the death of thousands of firstborn and so on - it actually means Satan ?

Thought not. Actions speak louder than words. God may claim He is Good, but his actions say otherwise.

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle;

And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

Exodus 12:29-30

The death of every firstborn was by the hand of God. Just one example I found. I could find more. He even murdered the firstborn of the cattle. Not the embodiment of good; the true heart of evil. Why the innocent who have yet to comprehend the sins of their fathers and forefathers?

In all fairness that was after repeated warnings. First Nile turns to blood, next frogs and we are talking alot of frog here, gnats and again we are talking about a ton of stinging flies/insects, plague on cattle, boils, hail, locust, darkness 3 days long, and lastly death of first born. Even that was not enough. I mean what do you have to get people attention? See we have only one purpose with regard to the Bible to Glorify God. It is said so many times in the Bible that we are nothing more than vapor.

In all fairness that was after repeated warnings. First Nile turns to blood, next frogs and we are talking alot of frog here, gnats and again we are talking about a ton of stinging flies/insects, plague on cattle, boils, hail, locust, darkness 3 days long, and lastly death of first born. Even that was not enough. I mean what do you have to get people attention? See we have only one purpose with regard to the Bible to Glorify God. It is said so many times in the Bible that we are nothing more than vapor.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/exodus/index.html

The ten plagues.

In user-friendly LEGO format.

God is not evil in fact he is incapable of sin. We however very much are capable.

Job was a test. I have long considered this. He had to know in advance that Job was not going to fail. He also gave back several times what he allowed to be taken away.

Job was a very rich man by his day's standards he was even more wealth after the test. Of all the ordinary humans in the bible the ones without divine powers he was the coolest!

In all fairness that was after repeated warnings. First Nile turns to blood, next frogs and we are talking alot of frog here, gnats and again we are talking about a ton of stinging flies/insects, plague on cattle, boils, hail, locust, darkness 3 days long, and lastly death of first born. Even that was not enough. I mean what do you have to get people attention? See we have only one purpose with regard to the Bible to Glorify God. It is said so many times in the Bible that we are nothing more than vapor.

What does that say about God if he created all life soley for the purpose of self-glorification?

Job was a test. I have long considered this. He had to know in advance that Job was not going to fail.

But are those tests themselves not.. evil ?
The "sacrifice your child" test is a nice example. Even though God does not allow the life to be taken, is it really nice for the kid to know that daddy would in fact have sacrificed him ?
Is being grateful that God stopped the execution of his own order really a reason to love him ?

That he divine benevolent ruler. Why does he allow bad things to happen - Free Will. Why did he create us? He had some spare part lying around. I suppose you ask him if you meet him. The bible say he create us in his own image it doesn't say why. Why are there more than one religion? It was the sowing of the Tares. It was to confuse people to allow them to turn away from what was, right and true and good.

In turn he became one of the fathers of our religion. Think of the sacrifice he Abraham was prepared to make. Abraham was not able to have children. The child he did have was given by God. Sarah had the child well after her prime she was in her 80's as I recall. Again it was another test, worked out pretty well for him.

In all fairness that was after repeated warnings.

Which were not allowed to be followed. God 'hardened the heart' of Pharaoh such that the full progression could take place. So - those weren't 'warnings', they were part of an escalation.

God is not evil


A matter of opinion. He is the alpha and the omega. He is all things. That makes him good... and evil.


He also gave back several times what he allowed to be taken away.


Which is a poor service, if you think about it. If someone kills my wife and children, and then offers me two wives, and twice as many children, I'll call him an asshole.

Which were not allowed to be followed. God 'hardened the heart' of Pharaoh such that the full progression could take place. So - those weren't 'warnings', they were part of an escalation.

God destroyed a lot of places Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed the entire earth with a flood. Which brings us nicely back to Abraham. They could not find 10 righteous people in the entire city. For lack of better phase where God commands we must obey.

In fairness also it was not God that "took away" from Job. He allowed it to be taken. Satan was the taker.

For lack of better phase where God commands we must obey.

The problems with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart are several, and each problem has contentious implications:

1) If God hardens the heart of Pharaoh such that he cannot repent of his actions and forestall the oncoming storm - he has effectively removed free-will.

2) God punishes others than just Pharaoh. Hardening Pharaoh's heart removes free-will and fair judgement for innocents.

3) If God will not allow Pharaoh to be repentant, salvation by grace is a joke.

In fairness also it was not God that "took away" from Job. He allowed it to be taken. Satan was the taker.

Bold claim, considering the OT rarely mentions Satan, if at all. Want to show me the passage you are talking about?

In fairness also it was not God that "took away" from Job. He allowed it to be taken. Satan was the taker.

And Job was an innocent in this gambling game between the gods.

If you read the book of Job carefully, Jehovah instigates the game by bragging on Job. And each escalation of suffering against Job comes from Jehovah.

Satan - in the book of Job - is a tool that God uses. The reason Job's family are butchered, is a capricious god.

Putting myself in Job place I would have crumbled. I would have seriously hit the bottle or done something else equally destructive. I think that was the point he did not buckle or break he was able to stand strong and in the end he was rewarded.

Putting myself in Job place I would have crumbled. I would have seriously hit the bottle or done something else equally destructive. I think that was the point he did not buckle or break he was able to stand strong and in the end he was rewarded.

If, by 'rewarded' you mean everything was taken from him, and his family were murdered... but in the end he was made wealthier and given more family members... sure. I don't see that as a reward, personally. Having twice as many children will never erase the pain of the earlier children you saw broken like dolls.

God can see the future so it wasn't much of a bet. He was bragging about Job and rightly so as determined by the outcome. Job was extraordinary by human standards.

The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning and he lived 140 years (Job 42:10,17).

God can see the future so it wasn't much of a bet.


You're right. There was no bet.

That makes it worse, not better. He knew Job would succeed in overcoming adversity, which makes the brutality he saw inflicted upon him nothing more than an unnecessary torment.


He was bragging about Job and rightly so as determined by the outcome. Job was extraordinary by human standards.


Job was fictional. The story is a metaphor, and a guide to how one should be thankful to God even when life is shit, not just when it's all good.


The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning and he lived 140 years (Job 42:10,17).

Exactly. He gave him more stuff to make up for what he took away. The problem, of course, is that NOTHING can ever 'make up' for what was taken.

Job is guilty of the same theological error as his friends. He assumes that God should always reward faithfulness and always punish wickedness in a uniform way. Like his friends, he believes God is in complete control of the affairs of the world. Despite his friends' insistence upon his guilt, Job believes himself to be righteous. Therefore, he questions God's fairness in allowing this calamity. Interestingly, he claims that if there were a mediator between him and God, he would be declared innocent. Despite Job's doubts and declarations, the author maintains that in all this, Job did not sin.


I stole this from wiki as I am too lazy to look it up.

After several rounds of debate between Job and his friends, in a divine voice, described as coming from a "cloud" or "whirlwind", God describes, in evocative and lyrical language, what the experience of being the creator of the world is like, and asks if Job has ever had the experiences or the authority that God has had.

God's answer underscores that Job shares the world with numerous powerful and remarkable creatures, creatures with lives and needs of their own, for whom God must provide, and the young of some hunger in a way that can only be satisfied by taking the lives of others.

God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but also that God is King over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. The point of these speeches, and ultimately the entire book of Job, is to defend the absolute freedom of God over his creation. God is not in need of the approval of his creation. He is free. Furthermore, Job's lack of knowledge and the ability to see the world as God does prevents him from fully understanding God's reasons for allowing Job's suffering.

God can see the future so it wasn't much of a bet. He was bragging about Job and rightly so as determined by the outcome. Job was extraordinary by human standards.

The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning and he lived 140 years (Job 42:10,17).

If god can see the future then how do you have free will.

The future must be set for god to see it.

God can see the future so it wasn't much of a bet. He was bragging about Job and rightly so as determined by the outcome. Job was extraordinary by human standards.

The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning and he lived 140 years (Job 42:10,17).

So... god cheated on a bet?
And then in order to win it he fucked around with someone who aparently loved him?

I can't say it often enough, god isn't exactly a good role model.

Bold claim, considering the OT rarely mentions Satan, if at all. Want to show me the passage you are talking about?

The actual term is "The Adversary" scholars have been arguing for centruies on who that was. Satan has had many name Lucifer, Satan, old nick, Davy Jones

Pick one we know what he stands for.

God allowed the Israelis to suffer 400 years before he led them out of Egypt.


God is not held to the same standards that we are. I guess he can do whatever he wants with his creation.

If god can see the future then how do you have free will.

The future must be set for god to see it.

God can see the choices you are going to make before you make them. How about them apples. It is good to be the king. Allowing you to make decisions is Free Will.

As with everything he gets rewarded in the afterlife and on earth. His wife lived after checking. His kids died after the roof fell in on them.

God can see the choices you are going to make before you make them. How about them apples. It is good to be the king. Allowing you to make decisions is Free Will.

But if he can see your choices then your choices are set. Free will goes out the window.

Ahmm, applesauce.

God can see the choices you are going to make before you make them. How about them apples. It is good to be the king. Allowing you to make decisions is Free Will.

So, essentially free will is an illusion, as god has already determined which way the story will go.

God can see the choices you are going to make before you make them. How about them apples. It is good to be the king. Allowing you to make decisions is Free Will.

Not allowing you to make your decisions is not free will.

So - free will is something he can chose to allow or disallow, arbitrarily?

That doesn't add up - either you have it... or you don't. There's no such thing as partially-free will.

So... god cheated on a bet?
And then in order to win it he fucked around with someone who aparently loved him?

I can't say it often enough, god isn't exactly a good role model.

he can't really be judged by human standards is the key I believe. Job did an extremely good job. Sorry I couldn't resist.

As with everything he gets rewarded in the afterlife and on earth. His wife lived after checking. His kids died after the roof fell in on them.

So it's a god for masochists you're following, then, is it?

As with everything he gets rewarded in the afterlife and on earth. His wife lived after checking. His kids died after the roof fell in on them.

Important point - his kids died. That manages to slip by you every time?

The actual term is "The Adversary" scholars have been arguing for centruies on who that was. Satan has had many name Lucifer, Satan, old nick, Davy Jones

Pick one we know what he stands for.

God allowed the Israelis to suffer 400 years before he led them out of Egypt.

God is not held to the same standards that we are. I guess he can do whatever he wants with his creation.

The book of Job makes it pretty clear that HaSatan is the adversary of man, not of God. Indeed, read that opening exchange between Jehovah God and The Adversary... they're good mates, just messing around.

he can't really be judged by human standards is the key I believe. Job did an extremely good job. Sorry I couldn't resist.

So basically the whole reason you've got to follow is that he told you that if you hold nice and still and take it up the backside whenever he fancies it - you know, for bets and the like - you maybe, possibly, get a reward after you die. If he feels like it.
And you're not allowed to question what he does, because ... well, just because, really. Do as I say, don't do as I do, kind of thing?

Not allowing you to make your decisions is not free will.

So - free will is something he can chose to allow or disallow, arbitrarily?

That doesn't add up - either you have it... or you don't. There's no such thing as partially-free will.

Free will is allowing you to make the wrong decisions without interfering. So you decide to hold up a bank. Do you hear a voice from the clouds saying " You, yes you there put that money back and go to church?"

Free will is allowing you to make the wrong decisions without interfering. So you decide to hold up a bank. Do you hear a voice from the clouds saying " You, yes you there put that money back and go to church?"

Nope. Well, rarely.
Yet you believe in sombody who not only created the world in the way it is, but also created people exactly the way they are. He then - knowing how they would react - puts them in situations like the above, and when they do react the way he knows they will, he gets to punish them for eternity.
Nice.

Free will is allowing you to make the wrong decisions without interfering. So you decide to hold up a bank. Do you hear a voice from the clouds saying " You, yes you there put that money back and go to church?"

Pharaoh did, didn't he?

Where was the free will in that story? Where was the free will of the firstborn of Egypt, punished for someone else's sins before they had even a chance to commit their own?

Come to that - where was Jesus' free-will? He begged to have the cup removed from his lips... and still ended up nailed to a post.

The Biblical pretence at Free-will is a sop, to make the whole 'you're a slave' schtick easier to swallow.

So basically the whole reason you've got to follow is that he told you that if you hold nice and still and take it up the backside whenever he fancies it - you know, for bets and the like - you maybe, possibly, get a reward after you die. If he feels like it.
And you're not allowed to question what he does, because ... well, just because, really. Do as I say, don't do as I do, kind of thing?

He doesn't like when you mess around with angels. Few things brought more damnation than having sex with an angels and having kids.

You are in fact not allowed to question what he does. His religion / his creation / his rules. When you make your own world I guess you can make the rules.

Really I have not got the religious skills to fend all of you off or to defend him. It really goes back to the central theme I was speaking of before.



Our sole purpose on this planet is to glorify God to make him happy, proud etc. We exist because it makes him happy. If you are not making him happy your life may be long and unpleasent but you afterlife will be even less pleasant.

He doesn't like when you mess around with angels. Few things brought more damnation than having sex with an angels and having kids.


An interesting claim - not strictly supported by the canonical texts. Have you been reading the Book of Enoch?


You are in fact not allowed to question what he does.


Sure I am. Free-will, remember?


His religion / his creation / his rules.


You probably think that's original. Unfortunately for Abrahamic religion, those same claims were being made before there WAS Abrahamic religion.


Our sole purpose on this planet is to glorify God to make him happy, proud etc. We exist because it makes him happy. If you are not making him happy your life may be long and unpleasent but you afterlife will be even less pleasant.

Or not. Because - just like every religion before Judeo-christian ones, and every religion after - it's not real.

Pharaoh did, didn't he?

Where was the free will in that story? Where was the free will of the firstborn of Egypt, punished for someone else's sins before they had even a chance to commit their own?

Come to that - where was Jesus' free-will? He begged to have the cup removed from his lips... and still ended up nailed to a post.

The Biblical pretence at Free-will is a sop, to make the whole 'you're a slave' schtick easier to swallow.

Pharaoh didn't even believe in him so he is easily explained. He was made an example of. Don't mess with his people or else. People die every day.

Jesus was scared he was not going to be able to go through with it. He was afraid that maybe for lack of a better word and Of course these are my words not his or the Bible's that he would chicken out?

God so love the world he gave his only begotten son... You guys know the rest. So if he is prepared to give his own son. Think how much less he think about your sacrifice.

Jesus said don't think twice that if he had asked that his Father would provide a Legion of Angels. Think of the amount of whoop ass you could create with that?

My sole purpose on this planet is to glorify God to make him happy, proud etc. We exist because it makes him happy. If you are not making him happy your life may be long and unpleasent but you afterlife will be even less pleasant.

Fixed

An interesting claim - not strictly supported by the canonical texts. Have you been reading the Book of Enoch?



Sure I am. Free-will, remember?



You probably think that's original. Unfortunately for Abrahamic religion, those same claims were being made before there WAS Abrahamic religion.



Or not. Because - just like every religion before Judeo-christian ones, and every religion after - it's not real.



Are you kidding it is in there.

Gen 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Verse 2-That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Verse 3-And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Verse 4-There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.





Damn I love this topic

It was a revolution for lack of a better word. The all got together before hand and said let's do this. They made a pact. They taught us how to make weapons and cosmetics and how to read the stars etc.

God so love the world he gave his only begotten son... You guys know the rest. So if he is prepared to give his own son. Think how much less he think about your sacrifice.

It never ceases to amaze me how some who call themselves Christians can simultaneously act so smugly superior to others and still feel completely inadquate.

It is the whole reason Hell was created. It was not suppose to be for us. Remember 1/3 of the stars fell from the sky....

Pharaoh didn't even believe in him so he is easily explained.


So - free-will only applies to believers?

Then how can one become a believer, or stop being a believer - only by God's express intervention? Then there is no free-will in being Christian or not - you are either made to be christian, or you're made not to be?

As an after-thought... Pharaoh's belief (or lack of it) is laid expressly at the feet of Jehovah, in the Old Testament. Repeatedly, when his magicians tell him that 'this is the work of their God', the text says that Pharaoh's heart is hardened and he does not hearken.

God won't let him believe, and removes his free-will to choose.


He was made an example of. Don't mess with his people or else. People die every day.


So, free-will is optional? You only get it if you're not important to teaching someone a lesson?


Jesus was scared he was not going to be able to go through with it.


That's not what the text says.


Jesus said don't think twice that if he had asked that his Father would provide a Legion of Angels. Think of the amount of whoop ass you could create with that?

I can see you think it's all really cool... but, what has that to do with anything?

It is the whole reason Hell was created. It was not suppose to be for us. Remember 1/3 of the stars fell from the sky....

That would have made a real mess of the place. :(

Are you kidding it is in there.

Gen 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Verse 2-That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Verse 3-And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Verse 4-There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Damn I love this topic

Where does that say angels?

It was a revolution for lack of a better word. The all got together before hand and said let's do this. They made a pact. They taught us how to make weapons and cosmetics and how to read the stars etc.

Apocryphal - you're citing Enoch, now.

Our sole purpose on this planet is to glorify God to make him happy, proud etc. We exist because it makes him happy. If you are not making him happy your life may be long and unpleasent but you afterlife will be even less pleasant.

This is so absolutely true. Bringing something into existence for the purpose of worshipping you, under penalty of eternal torture, is the true mark of higher intelligence.

That's why I spread the message of Christ at Steven Baldwin's Extreme RollerBlading Abstinence Rally and Home-Based Fat Rendering Business Expo.

It never ceases to amaze me how some who call themselves Christians can simultaneously act so smugly superior to others and still feel completely inadquate.

These are my words I do not speak for the church. I am sure the church has much better definitions of all this stuff than I do.

Probably because religion gained a chokehold on the US with the "godless commies" propaganda of the red scare; people associated atheism with communism and you'd bet your ass you'd rather force yourself to conform to belief than be perceived as a "godless commie" during the 50s.

sons of God saw the daughters of men. Again just like before it doesn't spell out Satan

Who are the Sons of God? You could argue that that we are the sons of God in weird way

Who are the daughters of man? See above if it is not us in the first line, this must be us.

Probably because religion gained a chokehold on the US with the "godless commies" propaganda of the red scare; people associated atheism with communism and you'd bet your ass you'd rather force yourself to conform to belief than be perceived as a "godless commie" during the 50s.

That's simply not true. Communists were treated with tremendous patience and respect, despite their refusal to unilaterally embrace Jesus.

Their problem was they kept antagonizing the heating and air-conditioning industry, resulting in several hearings with HVAC.

sons of God saw the daughters of men. Again just like before it doesn't spell out Satan

Who are the Sons of God? You could argue that that we are the sons of God in weird way

Who are the daughters of man? See above if it is not us in the first line, this must be us.

You're mistranlating. It originally said "Sons of God saw the daughters of The Man", referring to white women. They were forbidden to angels, who are mostly black, from when they moved the sun into place.

Probably because religion gained a chokehold on the US with the "godless commies" propaganda of the red scare; people associated atheism with communism and you'd bet your ass you'd rather force yourself to conform to belief than be perceived as a "godless commie" during the 50s.

I don't even know where to begin with this....

This country was founded on Religious Freedom. We were all in Europe until they had the good sense to kick us out. So we setup shop over here.

sons of God saw the daughters of men. Again just like before it doesn't spell out Satan

Who are the Sons of God? You could argue that that we are the sons of God in weird way

Who are the daughters of man? See above if it is not us in the first line, this must be us.

Adam was the son of god. Jesus was the son of god. Which of them was an angel?

Again - you're confusing your apocryphal texts with your canonical ones. The Book of Enoch is not accepted as scripture, by the church.

I believe your confusion stems from the fact that 'sons' are described as 'of god', while 'daughters' are described as 'of men'.

That's not really a difficult contradiction to explain WITHIN the context of the scripture - Eve is born 'of man', and Adam is born 'of god'.

Damn you guys are awesome! I have to catch a train up North again. Sorry to break this up but we can continue this tomorrow if you like or wait an hour or so until I get home.

I don't even know where to begin with this....

This country was founded on Religious Freedom. We were all in Europe until they had the good sense to kick us out. So we setup shop over here.

This country WAS founded on religious freedom... except the freedom to NOT be religious...

God is not evil in fact he is incapable of sin. We however very much are capable.

One is incapable of sin when one makes the rules.

Now then, here's one, if humans were allegedly created in the image of God, wouldn't we therefore be incapable of sin, since image implies an exact copy? Or is God so imperfect that he couldn't create a perfect being to embody the so-called "good" and "light" he stands for?

Job was a test. I have long considered this. He had to know in advance that Job was not going to fail. He also gave back several times what he allowed to be taken away.

Job was a very rich man by his day's standards he was even more wealth after the test. Of all the ordinary humans in the bible the ones without divine powers he was the coolest!

Job was tested by God. That much is true from the story. His faith is tested but in such a brutal way. The reward for his faith were paltry in comparison to the grim torture God subjected Job to. Whether or not he foresaw the outcome is not relevant, since as a mere mortal, Job would have no way of knowing if it would be all right. Some story; a man foolishly devoted himself for his own reasons instead of thinking of those around him. God's personal endorsement for selfishness.

God destroyed a lot of places Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed the entire earth with a flood. Which brings us nicely back to Abraham. They could not find 10 righteous people in the entire city. For lack of better phase where God commands we must obey.

Not even 10 young children who couldn't speak? Not even 10 newborn children or toddlers who wouldn't have had sin or corruption touch their souls? Someone can be righteous until they do wrong, and the children would have done no wrong except simply exist. It's almost as if God doesn't care about children....

Adam was the son of god. Jesus was the son of god. Which of them was an angel?

Again - you're confusing your apocryphal texts with your canonical ones. The Book of Enoch is not accepted as scripture, by the church.

I believe your confusion stems from the fact that 'sons' are described as 'of god', while 'daughters' are described as 'of men'.

That's not really a difficult contradiction to explain WITHIN the context of the scripture - Eve is born 'of man', and Adam is born 'of god'.

You are right but then who are the other ones mentioned obviously one is not the same somehow as the other.

I don't even know where to begin with this....

This country was founded on Religious Freedom. We were all in Europe until they had the good sense to kick us out. So we setup shop over here.
:rolleyes:

That was centuries ago. The USA isn't the only country in the world with freedom of religion. (Which, by the way, includes freedom FROM religion.)

So why exactly would a founding aspect that happened centures ago have more to do with it than a pressure-towards-religion-situation that happened about a half a century ago?

Not even 10 young children who couldn't speak? Not even 10 newborn children or toddlers who wouldn't have had sin or corruption touch their souls? Someone can be righteous until they do wrong, and the children would have done no wrong except simply exist. It's almost as if God doesn't care about children....

Seriously, a few years ago, somebody on nationstates argued that babies are sinful because they are selfish, only concerned with their own needs and wants.

Thus, they deserved the various deaths appointed to them scripturally.

You are right but then who are the other ones mentioned obviously one is not the same somehow as the other.

Which 'other ones'? The daughters and sons... of men and god... doesn't eman there have to be angels involved. Daughters and sons would refer to the two different genders, 'of man' and 'of god' would refer to the fact that sons are all sons of Adam, and daughters are all daughters of Eve...

no?

Seriously, a few years ago, somebody on nationstates argued that babies are sinful because they are selfish, only concerned with their own needs and wants.

Thus, they deserved the various deaths appointed to them scripturally.

Yes and I believe that person was also a Calvinist.

That aside; babies and toddlers are unable to understand the world around them, unable to address their most basic survival needs. It is selfish when you feel hungry and decide you need to eat? Is it selfish when you know you need to answer the call of nature? Is it selfish to ask for help when you're most vulnerable?

That's simply not true. Communists were treated with tremendous patience and respect, despite their refusal to unilaterally embrace Jesus.
This has to be an act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccarthyism

One is incapable of sin when one makes the rules.

Now then, here's one, if humans were allegedly created in the image of God, wouldn't we therefore be incapable of sin, since image implies an exact copy? Or is God so imperfect that he couldn't create a perfect being to embody the so-called "good" and "light" he stands for?



Job was tested by God. That much is true from the story. His faith is tested but in such a brutal way. The reward for his faith were paltry in comparison to the grim torture God subjected Job to. Whether or not he foresaw the outcome is not relevant, since as a mere mortal, Job would have no way of knowing if it would be all right. Some story; a man foolishly devoted himself for his own reasons instead of thinking of those around him. God's personal endorsement for selfishness.



Not even 10 young children who couldn't speak? Not even 10 newborn children or toddlers who wouldn't have had sin or corruption touch their souls? Someone can be righteous until they do wrong, and the children would have done no wrong except simply exist. It's almost as if God doesn't care about children....



Too many to respond to all at once. Quickly...maybe Abraham just couldn't find them...okay I don't know.

Job was the man, what can I say. He was awesome like nobody before him or after him. Except maybe Jesus I will discuss later.

The first part yes. But free will trips us up. We ate the symbolic fruit in the Garden of Eden thus dooming us too...well this, short life, women get child birth, snakes loose their legs, I guess it must have been a lizard before.

Thank you all! I gotta go. God Bless!

Pharaoh didn't even believe in him so he is easily explained.

Just had another thought on this matter...

Abimelech DID believe, but Jehovah God also hardened his heart...

Yes and I believe that person was also a Calvinist.

That aside; babies and toddlers are unable to understand the world around them, unable to address their most basic survival needs. It is selfish when you feel hungry and decide you need to eat? Is it selfish when you know you need to answer the call of nature? Is it selfish to ask for help when you're most vulnerable?

Yes, that's horribly, wretchedy selfish.

If babies were truly living Christ-like lives, they would go out and do volunteer work and trust in God to provide mashed nanas.

Yes, that's horribly, wretchedy selfish.

If babies were truly living Christ-like lives, they would go out and do volunteer work and trust in God to provide mashed nanas.
Christ was doing volunteer work when he was a baby? :p

Granted, BfC's probably just acting like this for the lulz, but it wouldn't hurt to take it as an opportunity to jump in with a point.

...God to provide mashed nanas.

By 'nana', I assume you mean our own resident Nanatsu... and by 'mashed' I assume you mean she'll be turning up pretty damn drunk...

Tell me more of this 'Christ'.

Christ was doing volunteer work when he was a baby? :p


Story is, he was teaching the Rabbi's when he was a kid... so... yeah, maybe.

This has to be an act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccarthyism

Wiki-articles are not evidence.

They were placed here, by God, to test our faith.

Like dinosaur fossils and transexual hookers with meth.

... and transexual hookers with meth.

That's a test?






Uh... is it graded on a curve....

By 'nana', I assume you mean our own resident Nanatsu... and by 'mashed' I assume you mean she'll be turning up pretty damn drunk...

Tell me more of this 'Christ'.

Read your bible.

For God so loved the world, that He sent Nanatsu no Tsuki, pickled to the gills on that sweet, thick Spanish wine, to nationstates general,

And yea verily, she gets a bit flirty whilst intoxicated, and did post many pictures from past halloweens

Genesis 9:22

Story is, he was teaching the Rabbi's when he was a kid... so... yeah, maybe.

The important thing is, he wasn't a selfish kid.

I know this one baby, won't shut the hell up. Wants to be fed, like, every day.

Kid deserves the same spiritual fate as Himmler.

Read your bible.

For God so loved the world, that He sent Nanatsu no Tsuki, pickled to the gills on that sweet, thick Spanish wine, to nationstates general,

And yea verily, she gets a bit flirty whilst intoxicated, and did post many pictures from past halloweens

Genesis 9:22

The scary thing is... that IS in my bible, but it's scrawled in red crayon.

You're good. :o

The important thing is, he wasn't a selfish kid.

I know this one baby, won't shut the hell up. Wants to be fed, like, every day.

Kid deserves the same spiritual fate as Himmler.

Probably wears mixed fabrics, too. Hell's too good for them.

Probably wears mixed fabrics, too. Hell's too good for them.

You laugh, but totally. Elmo diapers, cotton spiderman one-sy, and a denim dinosaur hat.

This child must burn.

You laugh, but totally. Elmo diapers, cotton spiderman one-sy, and a denim dinosaur hat.

This child must burn.
poor babykins!

what did you name him?

poor babykins!

what did you name him?

I refuse to give the little bastard a name. Names are to distinguish things from other things, and since he's the sole damn object of attention these days, he doesn't need one.

I'm too buy washing his bottles to think of one, anyway.

"And it came to pass that the Lord attended a wedding in the village of Cana; and they had run out of wine. The Lord said unto the servants "bring me two jugs filled with water", and they did so. And when the host tasted of the water, it had become wine, and he knew not whence it had come.

But the servants did know, and applauded loudly in the kitchen. And said they unto the Lord, "Come on, give us another!" And the Lord spake unto them saying "Behold, I hold in my hand a carrot." and all about him knew it was so, for it was orange, and had a green top. And the Lord passed a kerchief over the carrot, and when he removed the kerchief, the carrot had disappeared, and they were sore amazed.

Then they brought unto the Lord a man on a stretcher, and said "Lord, this man is sick of the palsy." and the Lord said "Well, if I had to spend my life on a stretcher, I'd be pretty sick of the palsy, too." and they said unto Him "Lord, thy one-liners are as good as thy tricks!"

Then there came unto the Lord a woman named Mary Magdelene, who had seen the Lord, and believed. And the Lord said to her "Put on a tutu, and get into this box." And she did so, and then the Lord took a saw, and cleft her in twain. And the was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But the Lord said to them "Oh, ye of little faith!", and Behold! When he put the box back togehter, she had been made whole. And there was such jubilation as had not been seen since Nazareth won the Superbowl.



---This has been the Gospel according to Rowan Atkinson.:D

I refuse to give the little bastard a name. Names are to distinguish things from other things, and since he's the sole damn object of attention these days, he doesn't need one.

I'm too buy washing his bottles to think of one, anyway.
oh well he doesnt need a name until he goes to school.

until then you can just call him "your majesty"

oh well he doesnt need a name until he goes to school.

until then you can just call him "your majesty"

Seriously, he's the little prince of the house now. Acts like he owns the joint.

Seriously, he's the little prince of the house now. Acts like he owns the joint.
and he does.

it is amazing how this little.....person.... who didnt even exist a year ago, who cant do a single thing on his own but eat and poop, now completely owns you.

and he does.

it is amazing how this little.....person.... who didnt even exist a year ago, who cant do a single thing on his own but eat and poop, now completely owns you.

Yeah. Yeah, that's amazing.


You want 'im?

Yeah. Yeah, that's amazing.


You want 'im?
oh good god no!

i cant deal with that kind of obsession now.

Just had another thought on this matter...

Abimelech DID believe, but Jehovah God also hardened his heart...

I had to look this one up i must admit

Abimelech was an unprincipled, ambitious ruler, often engaged in war with his own subjects. When engaged in reducing the town of Thebez, which had revolted, he was struck on the head by a mill-stone, thrown by the hand of a woman from the wall above. Realizing that the wound was mortal, he ordered his armor-bearer to thrust him through with his sword, so that it might not be said he had perished by the hand of a woman (Judges 9:50-57)


I am not really sure how this ties in.

In considering this further. I think the reason we can not judge God is that less advanced beings can not understand more advanced beings.

Maybe an example would help.

Would you feel any remorse for killing a spider in your bathroom? How about hive of wasps that make a nest in your basement? What if I could guarantee that you and none of your family would be stung?

Read your bible.

For God so loved the world, that He sent Nanatsu no Tsuki, pickled to the gills on that sweet, thick Spanish wine, to nationstates general,

And yea verily, she gets a bit flirty whilst intoxicated, and did post many pictures from past halloweens

Genesis 9:22



Since when does our favorite little Spanish cutie need to be drunk to flirt with NSGers?

:rolleyes:

That was centuries ago. The USA isn't the only country in the world with freedom of religion. (Which, by the way, includes freedom FROM religion.)

So why exactly would a founding aspect that happened centures ago have more to do with it than a pressure-towards-religion-situation that happened about a half a century ago?

It's just as much true today as it was then. The freedom to believe or not as you choose and the freedom to worship as you please without fear of prosecution.


We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,



that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance
on the protection

of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

It's just as much true today as it was then. The freedom to believe or not as you choose and the freedom to worship as you please without fear of prosecution.


We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,



that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance
on the protection

of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.



Every single one of those is a vague deist reference and it was meant to be used as a propaganda tool. The common man was religious. The founding fathers were usually deists or atheists.

I had to look this one up i must admit

Abimelech was an unprincipled, ambitious ruler, often engaged in war with his own subjects. When engaged in reducing the town of Thebez, which had revolted, he was struck on the head by a mill-stone, thrown by the hand of a woman from the wall above. Realizing that the wound was mortal, he ordered his armor-bearer to thrust him through with his sword, so that it might not be said he had perished by the hand of a woman (Judges 9:50-57)


I am not really sure how this ties in.

Genesis 20:6 "And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her."

Believer or not, when he feels like it, free will is a plaything.

*snip because this is the Declaration*The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the laws of the US. (Very little, in any case.) :p

Adam was the son of god. Jesus was the son of god. Which of them was an angel?

Again - you're confusing your apocryphal texts with your canonical ones. The Book of Enoch is not accepted as scripture, by the church.

I believe your confusion stems from the fact that 'sons' are described as 'of god', while 'daughters' are described as 'of men'.

That's not really a difficult contradiction to explain WITHIN the context of the scripture - Eve is born 'of man', and Adam is born 'of god'.

Okay I suppose... that is a stretch interpreting it in that way. Why did he need to mention the Daughters of man. In that case we are all from Daughters of man. Sons of God. Jesus in the Son of God. I have rarely heard of us described as Sons of God. Children of God perhaps



Apocryphal texts decided by whom. This always confused me. Let me get this straight. You guys are okay with the Revelations of John but you are not okay with Enoch? Apocryphal means really they can not confirm the author by whatever means they do that.

The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Still doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the justification for the Great Flood.

Enoch was the only human to become an angel...