| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/29/2005 : 11:11:26 AM
 hey anyone watch the ress conference last night?
if there is a single soul left that actually supports him afetr watching that, you are an idiot, period.
 he stumbled over every question like a 5 year old, and avoided anything that should have been answered. it was sneaky, scripted, and eerie of whats to come.
 its funny because the people behind are true propagandists, yet bush is just a puppet and very simple minded. He could barely pull off the task of lying without it looking so blantant and obvious.
 so again, if you watched the conference and still support him, you are a bafoon with absolutely no intelligence. Go read a book...
 Also, if you want to read something interesting, go look online and news reports on september 12, 2001. Check new york times, any of them for archived news...you'll notice that the offical story is layed out, and has not changed since. hmm the day after without an investigation they had it all written out as a press release. Pretty strange if there wasn;t any prior knowledge or involvment.
 this stuff makes me sick, and sure, ive lost most hope, but seeing how much their barrier is crumbling and people ARE waking up and realizing that our government had complete control over the events that happened that day.
dont believe me...buy this video and watch it...it sums up everything and its only like $30 on dvd. I swear it will be the most important purchase of your lifetime. Better hurry, before its too late.
http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/nemalaw9riof.html
|
| 100 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 4:56:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
go to www.google.com type asshole and click "feeling lucky" button LOL
Thanks, I now have more spyware..
You have to understand that everyone from People for the American Way to the guy who invented the Sassr virus are the Bush bashes. Good luck associating with them! |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 4:44:12 PM
quote:
go to www.google.com type asshole and click "feeling lucky" button LOL
Nice! I'd never seen that picture of Bush playing Rugby in college before. They use some funny pics in that video. Good ol' Google. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 1:44:49 PM
go to www.google.com type asshole and click "feeling lucky" button LOL |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 1:21:42 PM
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!!! |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 4:18:00 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/
the sad thing about this article is that it's something we already know. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:17:56 PM
Karl Rove is a candidate since he is one hell of a scary, crazy, messed up human being. The agenda is pretty simple and I think can be summed up in one word used by Mr. Chomsky... Hegemony.
The agenda they are pushing is moving this country back to the dark ages as it bombs other countries into the stone age. When you have oil men in power that are basically doing everything possible to get the super rich richer while stripping human rights and making strides of globablization that's basically what happens. They are trying to ensure that they not only continue to dominate the globe, but increase the dominance. The general idea is to screw everyone on the other side of their line over as much as possible so that the people on their side of the line can have it better. Just check out the project for a new american century.
It's all ok though because one day space aliens will come save our souls. |
| rdj218 |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 2:09:25 PM
behind all the smokescreens (social, moral, blah-blah issues) that Bush(Puppet-Masters) uses, there are real agendas. We are supposed to spend hours talking(arguing) about God, gay rights, etc. while Bush's bunch make their real moves. I have a couple of questions for you all(out-of-the-box thinkers)-- What are Bush's main agendas now? ...And who is the REAL Sith Lord in the Bush Bunch? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 9:02:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
www.arnoldexposed.com
I wasn't completely sure that, the site wasn't going to be naked pictures of arnold. I thought maybe it was like a sister company to the people who do college girls exposed. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 3:28:23 PM
www.arnoldexposed.com |
| therippa |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 12:59:29 PM
Einstein dies and goes to heaven. At the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter tells him, "You look like Einstein, but you have NO idea the lengths that some people will go to sneak into Heaven. Can you prove who you really are?"
Einstein ponders for a few seconds and asks, "Could I have a blackboard and some chalk?"
Saint Peter snaps his fingers and a blackboard and chalk instantly appear.
Einstein proceeds to describe with arcane mathematics and symbols his theory of relativity. Saint Peter is suitably impressed. "You really ARE Einstein!" he says. "Welcome to heaven!"
The next to arrive is Picasso. Once again, Saint Peter asks for credentials. Picasso asks, "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?"
Saint Peter says,"Go ahead."
Picasso erases Einstein's equations and sketches a truly stunning mural with just a few strokes of chalk.
Saint Peter claps. "Surely you are the great artist you claim to be!" he says. Come on in!"
Then Saint Peter looks up and sees George W. Bush. Saint Peter scratches his head and says, "Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?"
George W. looks bewildered and says,"Who are Einstein and Picasso?"
Saint Peter sighs and says,"Come on in, George." |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 11:22:52 PM
history repeats itself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1487124,00.html
|
| tericee |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 2:48:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pants_happy
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
but who among us is truly innocent? surely we are all stained by adam and eve's sin and deserving of no less. we're all unworthy. or so i've been told.
and the question to that answer is: "why do un-baptised babies go to purgatory according to the catholic church?"
You got me. That's one reason I'm not Catholic. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 03:06:14 AM
and, of coarse, this story (a link from therippa's link) to go along with it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 01:08:33 AM
quote:
This guy for president?
that's what i said. |
| therippa |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 12:44:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by pants_happy
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050518/ap_on_go_co/oil_for_food
did any of you see the hearing on tv? it was simply hilarious, as coleman and company were made absolute fools of. what farces to distract from this god aweful war will the us come up with next?
Wow...you can check it out here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/17.html#a2978
This guy for president? |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 12:40:01 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050518/ap_on_go_co/oil_for_food
did any of you see the hearing on tv? it was simply hilarious, as coleman and company were made absolute fools of. what farces to distract from this god aweful war will the us come up with next? |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 11:37:53 PM
I just hope Arnold doesn't become president. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 4:54:59 PM
what a fantastic idea. |
| therippa |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 1:22:21 PM
Someone emailed this to me today and I thought of this thread...
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and the entire Northeast.
We spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm ET this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck, the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.
Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan to serve California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. (Ouch, bet that hurts!)
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we are going to want all Blue States' citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home.
Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Soon. Seriously.
With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, over 90% of our pineapple and lettuce, 92% of all fresh fruit production, 93% of the artichoke production, 95% of America's export quality wines, 90% of all cheese production, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias, and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Amherst, Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech and MIT.
We can live simply but well.
The Red States, on the other hand, now have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care cost spike), 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of all tornadoes, 90% of all hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100% of all Televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. A high price to pay for controlling the presidency.
Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually eaten by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% believe that evolution is just a theory, 53% that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and - most hard to grasp -- 61% that Bush is a person of moral conviction.
Sincerely,
California |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 11:17:57 PM
If god makes himself known to me and I like what he tells me I'll trust in him until then I'll keep placing my trust in the only real god... the one that brings me presents every dec. 25th. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 10:58:27 PM
I don't claim to have all the answers, so I can't say whether or not this war is right or not. Either way, it's a sad thing. I would not be proud of someone killing someone, exactly, but proud of their sacrifice and loyalty.
Again, I don't have the answers, but I trust in the God who does.
Agree or disagree, it's your decision. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:22:37 PM
Well tell me then how we know it's ok to kill this time and not that time. How do we know when the time to kill is? It doesn't seem right, some of the things that snipers have done so far in the war. I should go find the article at ZMag about when the siege of Fallujah was on how US snipers were taking out drivers of ambulences and such. Tell me how that's right? I don't agree with killing people for no other reason than the US trying to dominate the globe. Also how can you be proud of a friend killing others? Ya maybe you might except it sometime but to be proud of it? |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:06:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
but who among us is truly innocent? surely we are all stained by adam and eve's sin and deserving of no less. we're all unworthy. or so i've been told.
and the question to that answer is: "why do un-baptised babies go to purgatory according to the catholic church?" |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 12:38:25 PM
very well. so we get to decide who we kill and why. how delightful. and, somehow, you've decided that a man in an opposing nation's army deserves death because a man has delcared him an enemy, and that a fetus does not deserve that same fate, even though a man or woman has decided it deserved death. perhaps you feel that the fetus in innocent. but who among us is truly innocent? surely we are all stained by adam and eve's sin and deserving of no less. we're all unworthy. or so i've been told. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 10:40:04 AM
Thou shalt not kill doesn't mean there is never a reason to actually kill. It's all about context.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. |
| tericee |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 05:27:41 AM
There was a sniper character in Saving Private Ryan who was religious. Maybe it's like that. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/11/2005 : 10:18:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
i would have fluffy frozen...
frozen fluffy
sounds like something from Rita's
Ya for those of you who didn't know they were determined to go to war long before they went to the UN or before they even started their propaganda campaign against Iraq.
Tericee, I agree the question for anyone in that situation would be like you said, and it's a damn tough one. I just think that the US government should stay out of that decision and that the effects making abortion ileagal would be damaging to society as a whole because it wouldn't stop abortions and it would allow more people who can't handle children to be raising them (kind of a continual cycle because their parents didn't raise them). My hypothetical was merely trying to establish the difference between a fetus and a human.
Now on Bush related rant... Today in school this girl who is like a super strict christian and wore the Bush shirts earlier in the year was talking about her really good friend over in Iraq that is a sniper and how he got to come home for a little while and how good it was to see him. I'm sitting here thinking to myself that this is the girl who can't stand it to hear a swear word yet she is friends with someone who's job it is to go around killing people. WTF kind of sense does that make? Yes I believe thou shalt not kill and one of my best friends is such a highly trained fucking murderer. I had to leave without comment before I killed her myself. |
| tericee |
Posted - 05/11/2005 : 2:17:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
Yes, but I still ask the hypothetical question. If you had the chance to save one thousand fetus' or one person, (a loved one perhaps Fluffy) would you save the fetus' or Fluffy?
I would probably pick Fluffy, too, but this is a choice that I imagine will never really happen. The real choice generally presents itself one fetus at a time. A more realistic hypothetical question (for any fertile human with an active sex life) would be:
Does my need to be unencumbered by pregnancy/children at this point in my life outweigh the needs of the human being developing inside me?
Our friend zakkwyle234 and his girlfriend grappled with this question until it was finally made moot by a pregnancy test. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 11:40:16 PM
this is...ummm...important
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/100505usmanipulated.htm |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 2:47:27 PM
i would have fluffy frozen...
frozen fluffy
sounds like something from Rita's |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 2:19:10 PM
it is the will of the force that fluffy lives. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 1:25:49 PM
Yes, but I still ask the hypothetical question. If you had the chance to save one thousand fetus' or one person, (a loved one perhaps Fluffy) would you save the fetus' or Fluffy? I don't know about you, but I'd save Fluffy. Maybe you would do it differently, but everyone I've asked this has responded the same way I would. I think that says a lot for our distinction of life.
I don't pretend to know what is morally right or perfectly ethical in this situation because there is a lot to weigh out, and I'm just kind of playing devils advocate, but it should stay legal and that's not even based from me saying it's perfectly fine or whatever I just think it's more harmful to society to have it ileagal.
There were tribes in south america too that made sure people only had 2 children to keep the population down. How would they do this? Well as soon as the third child was born they threw it in the river. It's one of those things that sounds terrible, but in reality was what kept the tribe surrviving as a whole. They knew they couldn't support greater numbers so they kept them down. Is that ethically wrong? Is it wrong for one to die so many others can live? Choosing who lives and who dies is never an easy task. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 1:04:30 PM
I like that explanation Dan. That cracked me up. I knew that was coming.  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 12:03:49 PM
intert - noun. meaning, dan's an idiot who can't spell inert. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 11:15:22 AM
www.infowars.com |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 09:04:13 AM
If you want my worthless opinion, I think shit like abortion and homosexuality are nature's not so subtle ways of trying to level out a population which grows at an incredible rate and consumes and a fucking ghastly disproportionate level.
I think if the world wants to retaliate with abortion, homosexuality, AIDS, and whatnot, then that's what's gotta happen. We don't hold ourselves accountable for what we do to the planet, so I think the planet should have free reign to fuck us up too.
We are a virus, "The Matrix" had that shit on point. |
| tericee |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 06:12:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
The first thing is that a fetus is not a human nor does it have the mental cognition to be self concious.
Of course everyone has their own opinion on whether it should be legal, but I do have a response/rebuttal to two of your assumptions:
1) You say a fetus isn't human. How do you define human?
SYLLABICATION: hu·man
NOUN: 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
The fusion of a sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and an oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a human being, albeit a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Here's what one embryologist had to say:
quote:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human)
If a zygote is a human, then a fetus is also a human. It may not be self-aware, but it's human.
2) I don't think a newborn has the mental cognition to be self aware either, but to kill one is a crime. |
| tericee |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 05:39:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) that biologically speaking it is alive, and of the species homo sapien sapien. to me, that makes it human being. and fetuses are as intert as you might think.
I got all except the last few words there. What is intert? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 12:54:46 AM
i believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) that biologically speaking it is alive, and of the species homo sapien sapien. to me, that makes it human being. and fetuses are as intert as you might think. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 8:29:05 PM
Tericee, it's definitely something that can be debated, but I have problems with people saying it should be ileagal. The first thing is that a fetus is not a human nor does it have the mental cognition to be self concious. It's a tough one and I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but I do know I'm against making it ileagal. Thanks for the other views though besides god said no |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 8:18:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
hocus pocus
abracadabra!
expelliamus! |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 7:10:10 PM
Yeah, but who gives a shit. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 5:59:10 PM
major leauge sports are all scripted. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 08:31:00 AM
the reason why bush "won" was because he was suppsosed to. Both candidates were cousins and members of skull and bones. Not to mention most of voting machines were owned by DIEBOLD, where the owner specifically said that Bush would win.
it was a sham, a staged election. And even if Kerry won, nothing would have changed. But they knew Bush had to win because of his stance on religion.
our government is more fucked up then you could ever imagine.
don't think voting will ever solve anything. |
| tericee |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 06:16:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
[So in a case of abortion you could say that abortion is wrong and feel free to voice your opinion, but I find that unless you can prvide a concrete moral arguement against it then don't try to make it illeagal. Like I was saying if someone wants to give an arguement of how abortion is morally wrong other than a religous based one fine.
The Libertarian Case Against Abortion
To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
For details, please read LFL's literature.
NOTE: The founder of L4L, Doris Gordon, is an avowed Athiest. As libertarians, LFL's interest in the abortion debate is in everyone's unalienable rights. LFL's reasoning is philosophical, not religious. Some LFL associates are religious; others, such as Gordon, are atheists.
|
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/08/2005 : 8:25:50 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1479556,00.html |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/08/2005 : 6:14:31 PM
Thanks Dan, I had to let loose. Lot of anguish; came out in nastily written prose. I just can't take it much longer. And I didn't call them "ignorant" per se. It was more implicitly that they are fucking assholes. That's all.
P.S. Dan, as soon as I get the Brooklyn show on DVD, I'll get you a copy, I'm sorry you couldn't make it there, I'd have liked to meet you. It was fucking outstanding. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/08/2005 : 11:19:54 AM
Well I'm no like Political Scientist, but I've studied some things pretty well. All I know is I definitely have been let in on more things then most people who rely on TV for their news and shape their opinions based off of that. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 5:21:36 PM
i suppose your music analogy works, if you claim to have knowledge of world affairs and politics equal to the knowledge someone who studies music has of music. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 10:38:59 PM
Then dan I change my opinion to if you voted for Bush you are either ignorant, or complete machiavelian asshole who thinks america should rule the world, and probably has ties to the energy business.
Look I'm not saying everyone has to think like I do. If you support Bush though you either don't know what the fuck he is doing in office and what he's been up to for the last 4 years or you support killing innocent people, and you support the stripping of human rights.
I do agree that ignorance tends to lead to indecision in most cases. However the problem tends to be that these people do not realize their ignorance. They are mostly undereducated (or miseducated I should say) people that work for a living and come home and depend on the media and government officials to inform them on the state of affairs in the world. However since this is done so terribly and with so much propaganda and control factors people don't get a real idea of what's going on. My sister for example would not believe me that we cluster bombed Iraqi cities. According to her we only went after military targets because some retired general who now makes a bunch of dough for being a consultant goes on TV and tells her we have smart bombs and we only attack strictly military targets and we would never shoot at a clearly marked press building of foreign journilists who were reporting what the US was doing there.
I don't know everything even if I sometimes pretend too, but I really think people are being fucked over and they don't know it. They don't spend the time to research into shit, but I have done quite a bit of that myself because I'm a college student who after I take care of the normal daily tasks has no responsibilites. It's the same as anything else dan. Imagine some kid watching MTV and VH1 all day everyday and now thinking he knows a lot about music and then he makes some dumbass statement and someone who has really studied music corrects him. That could be percieved as arrogance too, but I don't think you do it from arrogance. So I don't see why I can't call them ignorant as they most of them obviously are and the rest of them are assholes, because I see no other way around it. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 10:21:17 PM
hrw, honestly. that's the most brutal post i've read in a good deal of time. excelsior!
however, i think it's arrogant to call people who voted for bush "ignorant" because the way i read it is "people who don't think and vote as i do must be ignorant, because anyone who knows anything must think as i do. there is no other way." as far as anything that isn't music or videogames goes, i'm about as ignorant as possible. being well versed in ignorance, it would seem like ignorance leads to indecision more than anything else. indecision and apathy. i think that supporting bush is more an application of the same information into different view points. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 8:42:17 PM
The reason why Bush wasn't beat is exactly what you just said is that it includes all the green party, democrats, etc. and they weren't one group because like I've said before Kerry was a douche and no one was really behind him just mostly against Bush. What's sad is that there was enough people in this country with enough ignorance to support the guy.
Change will not be voted in... It will be taken in the streets through education, cultural change, and resistance to the US government and their corporate masters always looking for their economic gain. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 7:00:53 PM
The funniest thing of all, you guys (Democractic party/Green Party/any group against Bush), still couldn't beat him in an election. Don't take this as me throwing my support behind Bush, I just find it to be hilarious.
Run a better horse in '08. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 6:18:51 PM
Just cause I can on here...FUCK YOU MR. PRESIDENT!
So many Christians have such a warped and selfish view of how they should live their lives, and the fear and loathing culminated by this administration and today's frenzied media just helps to further brainfuck them into thinking that everyone who doesn't love America's "democracy" is out to get them. There is no love in politics. According to them, there can't be.
Here's a Bush favorite: Palestine vs. Israel: Hey, Isreal? How 'bout we wall off some people and kill them cause they wanna live in our holy sandbox? Geoge'll go along with that, he loves his GOD. Go fuck yourselves. This is where FAITH plays a negative role in humanity. These people are so sure that that strip of fucking sand is theirs, they're killing, and have killed, for it mercilessly. Does this make sense logically? Surely we know where G-Dub stands on this one, so let's ask the American government during the 1800's! Hey, these natives are in the way of our "Manifest Destiny"...let's kill 75% of them, and show them who's boss! Fuck US! Same shit different century.
And does the goverment even address environmental or societal problems anymore? Is there any push to stop drilling into mountains to dispose of toxic waste? Has there been a mandate telling all these horribly obese Americans to stop pushing their faces full of refined sugar and fucking McDonalds because it's killing them faster than anything in the history of the planet? Does the government warn these people they are breeding into their children predispositions for diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and heart disease?
Then you've got 'ol lady George glad-handing with the tower-crashing fucking Saudis while they hold hands with the oil conglomerates while they lube up our asses with crude and fuck the pennies out of our pockets? Does anyone in this country even know what the Kyoto Protocol is? We turned our backs on Jimmy Carter's energy ideas in favor of a fucking B-movie actor who commited some of the worst atrocities Central and South America have ever seen. FUCK US!
Fucking pharm corps and insurance companies fucking the sick and the elderly out of every retirement fund and social security check. TV feeding you ads for every type of drug to make you feel less sad, be less fat, or give you a fucking 4-hour hard-on. Where's regulation for this shit? Why is this not offensive to "middle America?" Why aren't people saying "Stick your fucking pills up your ass." Always trying to exert the least amount of effort to get the greatest possible effect.
All while the poverty gap grows at a sickening rate; athletes, lawyers, executive bankers, stock brokers, and hip-hop moguls and rock stars make the lion's share of money while we sell advertising space back to them by watching shows about their stupid lives, the excessive homes and expensive cars. We watch the "ugly" let doctors break their noses, pull at their flesh, and suck out their fat while taking Trim-Spa and Xenadrine and eating the same fucking slop we have since we were born and depressing over our pathetically-shaped, atrophied bodies.
Man, I feel great, I am gonna go make myself a cup of chamomile and relax. I love you guys. Peace. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 2:39:57 PM
I'm the antichrist! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 10:51:24 AM
bush is the antichrist |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 10:48:43 AM
Dan, I agree partially with you here. I’m willing to say works are apart of true faith also. I think it comes along with faith but I don’t believe you have to have works to inherit eternal life. I also agree that if one believed in God he would follow his teachings and good deeds or works would come due to their commitment to him. If you have to have works to inherit eternal life then how many works must one have? 10? 20? 100? What’s the magic number?
Obviously, I believe the bible is the word of God. I believe in God and believe his words are true so I believe him when he says it is by grace you are saved through Jesus Christ and not by works so that no one may boast by saying hey, look at what I’ve done. It's a gift and we've done nothing to earn it, all we can do is accept it; or not. So in a sense you're not really saved by faith or works; you're saved by "grace" from God. But you have faith in Christ and trust him that you are saved through him. And then works will come by trusting in Christ and seeking to do his will. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 08:01:49 AM
Very simple. He's a liar who does not practice what he preaches.
Since when did killing thousands of innocent Iraqis become "good Christian values?" All his talk of unseen enemies, evil, and all this other shit. The guy thinks he's really some kind of weird righteous avenger; only it's really hard to stay righteous when you've got your filthy little fingers in who knows how many fucking pockets. He ("they") has(have) mastered controlling the media; there has never been a administration who has had such a firm grasp around the American medias neck.
I wish I could sit heer and type for a couple of hours, but unlike our President, I have to work now. I'll be back. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 03:12:38 AM
just taking a break from a final project that's due today, just about done...seems like i've been working on it forever.
anyway, i really gotta say that i've never seen a message board be so deep, thoughtful, and objective. i mean really, if all conversations could go like this. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 8:24:01 PM
ok, i guess this is where we disagree then. i'd be willing to say that works are a part of true faith. saying the "sinner prayer" and believing that jesus is god and stuff is a part of the faith, too. but it seems to me that if one believed jesus to be god, he would follow the teaching enough to perform deeds. faith without deeds seems incomplete to me. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 3:51:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
hocus pocus
abracadabra! |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 2:59:03 PM
Well wait a minute, maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. I do believe faith separate from works will get you to heaven. But your works will come as a result of your faith.
Believing Christ is the son of God, he lived as man (human form) without sin, died as the sacrifice for our sin, and was raised on the third day is the essence of the gospel. In my opinion, if you believe that and pray “the sinner’s prayer” then you are saved. You don’t “have” to have works with faith to get to heaven. First and foremost must be faith in Jesus Christ. That alone gives you eternal life. Now, if you are sincere in this then you will want to live for Him and your works will come. And God knows every motive and every sincere heart. One thing you can’t do is fool God. So no, I don’t believe works and faith together get you to heaven. I believe faith in Christ gets you to heaven. You will be rewarded for your works in heaven just like you will be rewarded for your faith in Christ by being allowed to enter into His kingdom.
I’m going to paste something I found online that explains this better. I really don’t have the time to type all this up. I read this carefully and completely agree with this. Take this however you like. And I feel the need to keep on repeating this: this is my belief and in no way am I trying to push this on anyone. I’m only trying to explain why I believe the way I do. If no one wants to read it then thats fine but it's there if anyone would like to.
http://www.sbc.net/knowjesus/theplan.asp
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 2:30:47 PM
hocus pocus |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 1:47:49 PM
alright, i was just trying to clarify that. it seems like when someone says that faith in christ gets you to heaven, it seems like it's generally taken as faith seperate from works, and not faith that entails works. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 1:26:55 PM
As long as we're talking about faith and works, I thought I'd ask some of the faith based peoples on the board a few questions. I don't know exactly what any of you believe so if I make some examples I'm not trying to talk about you or insult you I'm just stating things I've found to be true with the many religous people I've known.
The first thing that bugs me is that there is no church set up on the face of the earth that is anything like the church christ organized on the earth. I mean christ was basically a hippie in my view that walked around and taught people, and performed miracles etc. (if you believe all that). No one does that it's turned into a huge organization that I think is corrupt and has been because it offers people heaven in exchange for money and power.
Secondly I've never heard any church speak out strongly about the real evils of the world. Sure I know the pope spoke out against the war and all that, but really I don't believe that they are confronting the things in this world that makes life so damn hard. Then on top of that like I've stated before there is a huge sect of religous people out supporting wars and presidents who clearly are out to make sure american business intrests are #1 and control the globe. Sure they are ignorant and don't do anything but believe what TV tells them, but it's sickening. All this family values mumbo jumbo, but they don't do anything about the two parents working 40+ hours a week so they can't spend family time and do all that stuff.
I don't know I just wonder what people think about what organized religion is, and what it's doing for people here on earth, because I don't really get the thought of everything will be fine when we make it to that great spaceship in the sky called heaven and everyone will be high. I would rather work for a heaven on earth, and I don't see any religions shooting for that. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 10:26:40 AM
Dan, yes, I agree with that. You said it better than I could when you said, "not so much that the works are a proof of faith, but rather a result of faith"
Exactly!!!
Once you believe wholly in something and have faith in that then the rest all kind of falls into place; such as works and trying to be who you say you are and live up to the expectations people may have of you because of your faith.
And yes I do believe thats what the verse in James is driving at. Thats why I disagreed with PantsHappy when he stated that that verse contradicted everything regarding Christianity. It doesn't. It actually goes along quite well with my beliefs. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 07:54:21 AM
i don't believe in magic. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 01:10:30 AM
we agree, weird. hahaha.
kenneth, would you not agree that works and faith are but part of one whole? and that for a christian, one doesn't truly exist without the other? not so much that the works are a proof of faith, but rather a result of faith. that seems to be what that verse in james is driving at.
and to bring back up the idea of santity of life in the abortion issue, i think there's a point everyone's missed. or maybe someone did and i wasn't reading carefully enough. anyway, when you illegalize abortion, women will still have them. that's already been mentioned. the difference is, they're no longer safe. there's a danger, and we've seen it before, of reverting to far more unsafe means of aborting a fetus. means that put both the mother and child at risk. putting mothers at risk as well as the fetuses seems to me to run counter to the idea of the sanctity of life. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 11:59:07 PM
Well if it's a good moral code I don't care who said it. The thing is judging the good moral code. For the most part I think the bible and most religions tend to in the majority teach good morals and sound pricipals on ways to live a happy life (although most leave out one of the most spiritual aspects for me, but that's another topic). I mean the Dali Lama has had some graet things to say about happiness and ways to live.
Now the tricky part is that I have people tell me that certain things are wrong. Like for example homosexuality, and abortion etc. Then when I ask them why they are wrong what it comes down to is god said no or it's unatural (the natural comment never makes any sense to me cause then I usually spend a half hour or so telling them how we aren't living a "natural" way in the first place, and then they tell me I'm satan). However I find it really ridiculous that many people have no other answer then god said no.
If someone wants to think that then that's fine by me, but I don't think we as a society should make moral judgements or laws based off of religous doctrines. Now like I said if someone wants to have a discussion on abortion citing to me why they think that it should be wrong without just telling me that god said no then I'm all up for that.
With ethics it all comes down to the fact that we can agree that murder is wrong. Not because god said so, but because we both can reason out that we would not like to be murdered and it's not fair that we should be able to kill others. We also can agree that theft is wrong because it really hurts the person being stolen from and we wouldn't want to be stolen from.
Abortion and topics like that though get really tricky. I mean sure we can all say well I wouldn't have want to have been aborted (I won't even get in to topics of the self that relates to a much more buddhist thought train with an impermanant self), but at the same time I think it was damn hard growing up and I don't know if I would have wanted to make that journey without two parents who love me and wanted me. That's why I think it's such a complex issue with no clear right or wrong that I think it should be how it is with individuals making the choice.
I think though that's one of the biggest things I've noticed people relying on religion for is giving them morals instead of seeking their own. Like the hard ones like abortion it's much easier to just say hey abortion is wrong because god said so and I believe in god. The problem lies in what I think is false revelation. In that we say god told this guy this and he told us, but at that point it is now hearsay. I think if people were honest with themselves they would realize that god has revealed nothing to them, but they follow others that god has chosen. Anyway I just think that anything that is going to be used as a moral for society or a law of some sort should be arrived at by ethical, logical, rational thought between people in which everyone (or close to it) can agree that something is wrong. Otherwise we have societies that turn to shit. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 9:51:46 PM
Because basically what you're saying is, that "If it's a man-made moral code (assuming it's a good one, try to understand me) and it's openly a man-made one, it's ok. But if it's God's moral code (or a God created by man) it's pointless.
In your opinion, both types of moral code originate from man. Therefore, it shouldn't matter if it came from a religion or not, as long as it's a "good" moral code.
Am I in error? |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 9:48:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
Zach, our ethics or moral code, wherever we get them from, make us who we are. My reason for taking them from my faith is every bit as valid as your reason from taking them from a lack thereof.
But we've had this conversation before.
Yes, but my point is that you have no call to even begin to say that someone else should follow your code of ethics or morals when the only thing you have to base them off of is religion... Like I was saying if someone wants to give an arguement of how abortion is morally wrong other than a religous based one fine. Just don't push a religous based moral on someone else because you damn well wouldn't want someone elses pushed on you.
What if I don't want a non-religious based moral pushed on me? Not saying you're the one pushing, either.
Dan P. I actually agreed with that entire post... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 3:46:41 PM
it makes sense that faith and works go hand in hand for someone who claims to have faith in jesus's teachings. the teachings of jesus imply works. compassion for the downtrodden, the homeless, and the hungry, for example. i contend that a man of true faith in jesus would do deeds that embody his teachings. after all, if you have faith in jesus, you have faith in his teachings, and he has teachings regarding works of charity and caring. to say "i believe in jesus christ" and yet behave as though you don't is hollow. for instance, someone who believes in christ wouldn't beat a homeless man. why, i could say i believe in jesus and never help anyone but myself. does this, then mean i'm saved? if so, then anyone can just say the magic words.
of course, there are those who perform deeds that embody the teachings of christ, and yet do so not out of belief in him. but that's a whole other can of worms. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 3:29:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
Zach, our ethics or moral code, wherever we get them from, make us who we are. My reason for taking them from my faith is every bit as valid as your reason from taking them from a lack thereof.
But we've had this conversation before.
Yes, but my point is that you have no call to even begin to say that someone else should follow your code of ethics or morals when the only thing you have to base them off of is religion. So in a case of abortion you could say that abortion is wrong and feel free to voice your opinion, but I find that unless you can prvide a concrete moral arguement against it then don't try to make it illeagal. Like I was saying if someone wants to give an arguement of how abortion is morally wrong other than a religous based one fine. Just don't push a religous based moral on someone else because you damn well wouldn't want someone elses pushed on you. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 11:09:38 AM
I just found that link and posted it because I really didn't feel like trying to explain it. I've grown weary of this and that seemed like it compared the differences of the two verses good enough for me. I've stated why I believe the way I do and now... I'm spent. Anyone can read anything they want and interpret it anyway they want. This could go on for days and days so we're all really just banging our heads against the wall.
The good news is we all love TR's music. So while we can all disagree on politics, religion, and yada, yada, yada. We all can come back to the fact that TR is awesome and thats really why we come to this site in the first place.
Btw... speaking of yada, yada, yada: Seinfeld is the greatest sitcom of all time but I guess thats for another time and another thread. So I digress... |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 10:45:45 AM
Which, if it wasn't readily apparent, means I disagree with the web page in Kenneth's link. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 10:37:56 AM
That verse in James is easier to understand when read in context:
"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
Our faith is shown through our works. But we may be justified by His works (namely, His sacrifice on the cross for us), not ours.
|
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 09:27:56 AM
I'm not sure how James 2:24 contradicts everything about Christianity. It stats you are "justified" by works. It doesn't say you are saved by works. Being jusftified by works and being saved by works are not the same thing.
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
http://www.housetohouse.com/hth/biblequestions/archive/question0066.htm
|
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 10:38:12 PM
this quote from the bible seems to contridict everything about christianity:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 10:18:52 PM
The Trinity thing was much easier to understand the first time around when the egyptians did it.
Anyway I am away from the boards a few days and then it takes me a day of reading to just catch up. I think people would be a lot better off in discussing anything from abortion to war with religous beliefs left out. If you're sole moral obstacle against something is that it conflicts with a system of beliefs you hold then there is no point in offering that up as an arguement. In fact it's the most illogical, irrational thing I've ever heard of.
The founding principal of pretty much all ethical thought is that if it hurts other people then it's probably not a good thing to do. As humans that's pretty much all we've been able to come up with as a guide for morals. So when you're faced with a tough moral decision such a abortion it can be hard to know what to do. The question of when does life start and all that. I think though you should all ask yourself a simple question. If you were in a room with thousands fertilized eggs or fetus' and there was a fire and you had the choice between saving all the eggs or one of your loved ones like a child or whatever what would you choose?
Then comes the question of what will inflict more harm on concious beings having an unwanted child or not? Sure we have thousands of people daily having babies that they can't take care of. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here the world is overpopulated. Just consider that it does less harm for both the parents and the potential child for them to not continue the fetus' development. I mean having a child can be a great strain and if fact it has "ruined" peoples life.
Now as to the comments people made about if you are against abortion you better be against the war... Ya you better damn well not be voting for Bush if you are all about keeping the sanctity of life. People dying can not be stopped, because well were all mortal. However people killing other human beings could be drastically reduced. It's absolutely illogical to say that life is sacred and then turn to say that war is ok. I'm sorry killing thousands of innocent people makes someone far more evil then say killing a fetus. It makes no fucking sense that anyone would say that they are pro-bush because they are pro life. Because he wants to save some fetus' you let him kill innocent people. You bastard! That applies to anyone who does that and no one else so don't think it was directed at you.
The biggest thing though is that I don't believe that someone can provide proving moral or ethical judgement to institute a law against abortion without religous beliefs being used as the gospel law they are. If based off of the specific principals that uphold ethical thought anyone thinks they can show that without a doubt that abortion is ethically wrong I would love to hear the arguement. That is why I agree with the courts standing ruling that the decision should be left to the hands of those people making the decision and not the state. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 8:16:21 PM
the trinity always confused me. so if jesus was god in human form, present on earth, and he was praying to good, and called out to god on the cross, who exactly was he praying and calling out to? himself? it would make more sense if jesus was an archangel of some kind, michael, for example, in human form. then "son of god" takes on a new meaning. not son literally. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 5:04:32 PM
i know you don't, which is why your posts are so interesting to read.
anyway, i really do have to go to work. later. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 5:02:21 PM
PantsHappy, I do believe Jesus is God. He is also man. He is the God/man. But Jesus also prayed to God. But they are all the same in a sense also. This one is kind of hard to explain. I believe God is a spirit but Jesus is God in human form. He came to bring us to God or Himself so that we may know Him. But someone had to take away our sins and Jesus, the God/man, did this so that we may stand before God the father without sin. So if someone doesn't believe in what Jesus did then that is like calling God a liar. And it dimishes the pain and suffering He went through for us.
I clearly state that these our my views and my beliefs only. I do not impose these on others here. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:53:34 PM
rubylith, i have to go to work soon, but i'll read your article later.
otherwise, Kenneth, keep on posting. i really do love reading different views. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:50:38 PM
Muskrat, i was indeed lacking any tact/wasn't very clear, i'm sorry about that. i understand completely about emotional subjects, as my most post was much the same: pent up anger at politicians and how they affect the us.
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
He gave them the riches that they have, if that's what you meant.
that is what i meant.
Kenneth, my thought was that since other religions serve god, and since jesus IS god according to catholics, you both serve and believe in jesus if you believe in and serve the father, even if it is not apparent to you because the three are all one in god. however, the conflicting part was that if you don't "actually" believe in jesus, your way is barred, hence the arrogance that only christians can go to heaven. and if we (different religions) all believe in the same thing, why persecute each other? why the crusades? as for the holiest person on earth, doesn't that in itself mean that he/she is the one that does god's will more completely than anyone else, loves more than anyone else, get's the message across better than anyone else, and knows (although they haven't heard of him) god better than anyone else? aka his greatest servant? and if they have never even heard of jesus, by no fault of their own, how is that a fault of theirs that they can be punished for?
and if the dogma of the church is such that when the pope concentrates in prayer and lets the holy spirit enter his body, he is infallible, thus the church is certainly infallible. i've never heard the argument said that when one reads the bible, their intrepretation is infallibe, as we are all humans. if that were true, then either ALL religions based on the bible are infallible (which doesn't make sence, since they all think they're the "right" religion), or none are. since humans are themselves fallible, doesn't that mean that they can interpret the bible wrong, make mistakes in aspects of it's understanding, have the wrong books in the bible, translate wrong, or just simply not understand the message properly? if so, can the church be wrong with its sale of indulgences? could it have been right in its schism?
as for your questions to dan:
one Can pick and choose which parts they believe; simply because one part is true or "true" to you, that do Not imply that all statements are true. that's where logic becomes the most hated enemy of the church. and about making up the religion, there was religion long before jesus came into the world, during, and there are and will be many after.
my thought is that religion is an invention of man as a control over himself, to keep all of the chaos in check, much as another system of laws, and to benefit mankind as a whole, which, for example is what loving one another does and achieves. we don't go around killing each other because our religion says we'd burn in hell, and that just wouldn't benefit mankind or its growth.
what is faith anyway? believing in something that you don't know exists or is real, something that has no physical proof, something untestable? you're supposed to believe in god because it says so in the bible, but wait, who wrote the bible? god did. circular logic is circular logic.
saying that if you don't believe in something that we -cannot- test or you go to hell is not only the ultimate scare tactic (something the church is very intimate with), it's the greatest scam. if i say to someone "show me that god exists and i will believe you" means that they'll reply citing faith, but faith is founded on that which cannot be proved, thus it is unfounded.
the bible is full of contridictions, wheter you believe so or not. one simple search reveals much:
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm
also, one of my favourites:
>Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who
>dispenses advice
>to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she
>said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an
>abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under
any
>circumstance.
>The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by
>a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well
>as informative:
>
>
>Dear Dr. Laura:
>
>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
>God's Law. I
>have learned a great deal from your show, and try to
>share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone
>tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
>them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
>End of debate.
>
>I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
>of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
>
>1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
>know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem
is
>my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
>smite them?
>
>2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
>Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
>price for her?
>
>3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
>her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
>how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
>offence.
>
>4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
>female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
>friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
>Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
>
>5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
>35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
>to kill him myself?
>
>6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
>abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
>homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
>
>7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
>have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
>glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
>room here?
>
>8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
>around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
>19:27. How should they die?
>
>9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
>me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
>10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
>different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
>garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester
>blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
>necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
>together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
>death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
>with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
>
>I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
>you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
>eternal and unchanging.
>Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
>Jack
i'll just end this by saying i'm not trying to change anyone's mind, i'm just stating my thoughts since i was asked. i mean no offense, however offending my thoughts may be. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:48:58 PM
Dan P, I completely understand what you're talking about in regards to faith and experience this all the time. Some may even say that people who believe a certain way are a narrow-minded asshole. I have tried not to be arrogant or come across as my belief is the only way. I've only put out there what I believe and why. And I've openly asked for others to post theirs.
I like getting in to debates with Dan P which is who I was responding to in my other post. While we are obviously very different we also have some common ground as well. While I try to see your view it seems you also try to see mine and for that you have nothing but my respect. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:39:37 PM
well, it's really a judgement call, and the two statements have nothing to do with each other. his advice on how to treat people and how to conduct yourself seems like a really great idea. love, honesty, compassion, understanding. these are things that sound about right for any type of relationship with another person. and i say yes to that. i don't really see what it has to do with his claims to be the son of an almighty god. i think that claim sounds a little out there, honestly. and i don't think i at all believe that. but, regardless of who the man claims to be, his teachings on life are wise. it really doesn't even matter whether he is the son of god or just some dude. he had some good points about things.
the tough thing about being a man of faith is that it seems like when you give people your opinion, it comes off as overly righteous and arrogant, and people start arguing. but the second you waver under other people's arguments, you get blasted for not being strong in your faith. it seems really unfair. as frustrated as i get sometimes arguing this sort of thing with people of faith, i have to remind myself that there's something to be said for steadfast belief under pressure. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:34:52 PM
I thought it was directed at me because it came right after my post and you didn't specify who it was to. And I wanted to respond to someone who I felt had called me a narrow-minded asshole. I think that deserves a respone.
And yes, this thread started off about Bush. I was responding to something someone else said. |
| therippa |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:27:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kenneth
If you post something saying I'm an asshole then I really could care less. Your opinion of me means nothing. But I'm not narrow-minded for choosing to believe in something. I openly asked for other ways and other beliefs. I wouldn't call that being narrow-minded. Nor have I said that everyone here is an asshole if they believe something other than what I beleive.
What makes you think that was directed to you? It wasn't directed to anyone on this board, it was something I came across and it comically expresses one of my issues with Bush (this is still a thread about Bush, right?)
But, I must say, if you get to quote the bible, then I get to quote Dr. Seuss. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:24:19 PM
If you post something saying I'm an asshole then I really could care less. Your opinion of me means nothing. But I'm not narrow-minded for choosing to believe in something. I openly asked for other ways and other beliefs. I wouldn't call that being narrow-minded. Nor have I said that everyone here is an asshole if they believe something other than what I beleive.
But I'm glad you posted that. That just reiterates my point. |
| therippa |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 4:16:19 PM
 |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 2:20:01 PM
In response to Dan P, I don't see how someone can hold all of Jesus' teachings to be true but not believe in who he says he is? Sure, he taught a lot about how you should live and what things you should or shouldn't do but he also taught that you are to follow him and that he is the way, the truth, and the life. How can someone pick and choose which part to believe? If you can believe part of it then why isn't the rest true as well? It's like if he says you are to love one another then you may believe that. But if he says he is the Messiah and he is laying his life down for the sins of man and that if you believe in him you'll have eternal life then why is that part hard to believe? In my opinion, "the only way to the father is through the son" means just that. I believe that in it's literal sense. I also agree with you and believe Jesus is love. But he doesn't say that is how you get to heaven. He says believe in him and follow him and you'll have eternal life.
Please, someone, tell me their idea on how we get to heaven. Seems like people are more worried about refuting what the bible says instead of giving their belief and stating their belief on how we will ever acheive such a goal. If I can give my reasons then surely someone else can give theirs. And surely there is more to life than just this. What's next?
It's obvious where I stand on this. I haven't waffled and I've given reasons for why I believe certain things. I want to see someone put up a valid reason why this is all bogus. No one has came out and said no, this is the way and here is were it is written. I'm not interested in hearing someone say they don't believe in the bible. I want to know why and what it is that they do believe in and why they believe it.
But this is way off the initial Bush post.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 2:12:48 PM
well well well...it is about time...
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw235341.htm
(PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 1:53:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jiyra
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
MOSES (yeah, deliverer of the Israelites, Ten Commandments Moses) had a speech impediment for crying out loud.
how in the world could you possibly know that? did someone write Moses' biography? Bush doesn't have an impediment, he's inarticulate, there is a difference. also, guitarispimp, please don't tell me you actually believe IQ has anything to do with political beliefs-or religious beliefs, just to get that one out of the way.
Jiyra, I never said anything relating IQ to religious beliefs. However, I DO believe that IQ is an extremely good indicator of the very thing it attempts to measure: intelligence. I also believe that the population with the higher IQ average can make a better decision on who should run the country. This is because (this is a generalization, so take it as one) the smarter person tends to be more educated, and the better educated tend to make better choices, simply because they know more about the world. It's scientific fact that the brain gets more developed by using it. Don't use it, don't develop it and get smarter. I don't know about you, but I'd trust someone who uses their brain more than someone who doesn't. Barring statistical anomalies such as corrupt individuals/whack-jobs, you cannot coherently argue against the fact that the smarter population is more capable of picking a leader than the less gifted individuals.
On a side note, I was reading something about the American population and intelligence, and they had surveyed people from all over the U.S. on questions about their world. Some people gave remarkably ignorant answers, like people thinking the world population is 1 million. Also in Super Size Me, the Mc Donald's documentary, an overwhelming number of kids knew who Ronald McDonald was and did not know who Bush was. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 12:45:37 PM
i have always wondered at the church's interpretation of what "the only way to the father is through the son" means. i guess, in it's most literal sense, it means "believe in jesus or go to hell." but let's say that someon doesn't hold jesus of nazareth to be the savior, but holds all he teaches to be true. jesus was big on love. in fact, when you consider his sacrifice (both of being crucified and being born of flesh) you might go so far as to say that jesus was love. now that passage can be interpreted that the only way to heaven is through love. that makes a lot more sense to me, and that's the way i interpreted it when i first read it.
of course, if it is true that the only way to heaven is believing in jesus, then that, in a way, relieves me greatly, because now i can do as i please, since i'm going to hell anyway. if there is no absolution for someone who doesn't believe in christ, there is nothing holding me back from stealing, lying, and killing. it's good to know that i can kill whoever displeases me, because i'm going to hell anyway. obviously, i won't do any of those things, because it sort of goes against the way i think i should behave. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 11:17:00 AM
This is in regards to Pantshappys last post, obviously if you're listening to a Christian speak on their faith and what they believe then they'll believe that the only way to get to Heaven is through Jesus because that is the basis of their belief which comes from the bible. If you're a Christian then you are a follower of Christ; hence the word, Christian. And if you're a Christian you believe in the bible.
So I'm not at all surprised for anyone to say:
"only christians could go by touting the "the only way is through jesus" line like a broken record, even if the hypothetical person was the holiest person on earth who hadn't even heard of jesus OR was from a different religion. unless they believed in jesus, they burned in hell with everyone else"
John 14:6 says "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
Obviously if someone doesn't believe the bible then they won't believe what this says. But again, it makes sense for Christians to believe this is the way.
If it's not the way then I would like to hear other ways. I always hear of how Christians say you have to get to heaven but I never hear anyone else say no, this is the way. Surely our "good deeds" won't get us there. Just because we have good deeds doesn't mean we don't have sin. If heaven is completely without sin then how do we enter because we are all filled with sin. If Christ hasn't paid the price for all sin then who has? I would love to hear someone else’s take on it. Even the so called rightesnous of the "holiest person on earth" is still like filthy rags in the eyes of the Lord. Our best second here isn't good enough. And if you don't believe Christ died a horrific death for everyone, not just the elect few which some people believe, but for all men then who has?
Probably the most famous or most recognized verse in the bible states that "For God so loved the WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
He didn't offer his Son for the elect few or the predestined. He was offered up for the whole WORLD. If you believe at all in the bible then that’s tough to argue. And obviously if someone doesn't believe in what the bible says then this doesn't mean much to them.
And Muskrat, you're refering to Matthew 19:24, "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 09:38:27 AM
well well well...it is about time...
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw235341.htm
(PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 12:32:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
Pants Happy, you asshole, don't mention Calvinists unless you can spell it right. And if your beliefs, religion, morality, ethics, or whatever you call it gives you the right to say that ANYONE else in History is wrong, then tell me why anyone who is a Christian is never allowed to voice their opinion that others are wrong in their thinking, without being attacked and called bigots etc? I'm sick and tired of being one of an extreme minority on this board who everyone else feels free to insult. Do I insult, attack and nag, making sarcastic comments and references about liberal-minded people on this board? NO.
And Dan P.: "if you're against abortion, you're against death penalty and this war. even if you say you aren't, and even if you think you aren't, you are. by virtue of the fact that you believe life is sacred, you are. anti-abortion = anti-war."
Don't you FUCKING tell me what I believe.
resulting to name calling? not turning the other cheek, are we? jesus would disagree with you there! nothing says reaching like attacking the spelling. oh, wait, you spelled my name wrong, therefore, you must also be wrong. hypocrite.
first of all, i never said any of that, let alone call any religious group or person on this board bigoted. that's just what you perceived because of your insecurity in your belief in god. i actually said of anthony that i don't disagree completely...meaning there is at least some common ground. if you actually look at what i said, there were only 3 rare cases that i viewed as exceptions. the other part was aimed at ->ultra conservatives<-, and my last post at people who's life goal is to bring up abortion at every turn, applicable or not. not their religion. i may have attacked how every shit an ultra conservative politician takes is a prophecy from heaven, but not how every religion is shit.
if you would like to talk about attacking people's opinions, anthony's post effectively attacked almost every post/person on this thread by implying that anyone who doesn't support bush is a baby killer, no voicing an opinion there. you disagreed with what my opinion was, and how dare you disagree with me? how dare you attack me? no hypocricy there. you should have your free will taken away so you can't disagree. hey Muskrat, i disagree with what you said, you christian.
so you like to play some kind of religion card, vs a race one? just so you know Muskrat, I AM (or was) A CONFIRMED CHRISTIAN. and from that i learned that christians ALWAYS voice their opinions on EVERY topic, right or wrong, whether you like it or not, to every end of the earth. they don't have opinions. they just have "facts" in the form of evangelizing.
and talk about making a blanket statement that whole peoples are wrong. during one of my classes we had a (very rare) Q & A with one of our priests (my favorite one, father anthony, who i had a very real connection to), and when asked about other religions and going to heaven, he implied that only christians could go by touting the "the only way is through jesus" line like a broken record, even if the hypothetical person was the holiest person on earth who hadn't even heard of jesus OR was from a different religion. unless they believed in jesus, they burned in hell with everyone else. but then again, that not opinion, that's fact.
if you want to keep arguing on non-existent points, go ahead, go nuts. this board has been through schisms before, and people have left because of them. however, just to warn you, people will jump in and say "can't everybody just get along?". but believe it or not (and judging by your post, you probably don't), i actually like your posts above many others, as they are shorter, to the point, and coherent (which is lacking on the internet), minus the last one. this board becomes extremely stagnant with fewer people here, and even more so when we all have one opinion. implying that anyone who supported kerry supports abortion as anthony did sure is a different opinion, one that i'll openly disagree with. another that i'll disagree with (and welcome disagreement on) is politics. it affects everything in all of our lives, and even though i hate political discussion with a passion, we need it. we absolutely need it.
you're free to take from this what you want, but know this: this board is like a family, and no matter if your opinion is disagreed with or not, IT IS VALUED, by someone or by all. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 12:07:48 AM
Personally, im not a big bible fan, i am more along the lines of the wiccan rede "An it harm none, do what ye will." with the exception of people who have obviously broken this belief. Which is my own personal spin-off of that law. I personally try to live by that law, and thats why i would never join the military, be an executioner, or support a girlfriend/spouses abortion. You make a good point when u say, abortions will happen regardless if it is legal or not. I think what needs to change is not the laws, but the maturity of the general public. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/02/2005 : 11:55:00 PM
that makes a certain amount of sense, i suppose. but wouldn't you say that it's wrong to judge whether someone deserves to live or not? i mean, assuming you take the bible as truth. "judge not lest ye be judged." surely if all humans are sinful and unworthy of god's grace, we aren't in any place to judge anyone else, are we? what was that quote about removing the beam from your own eye before helping your brother remove the splinter from his?
if course, you don't take the bible as undeniable truth, that's a different story. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 05/02/2005 : 11:50:09 PM
Dan, you do make some good points, but i would have to disagree with this "if you're against abortion, you're against death penalty and this war. even if you say you aren't, and even if you think you aren't, you are. by virtue of the fact that you believe life is sacred, you are. anti-abortion = anti-war." There is a big difference between a fetice and someone who has raped and killed 5 people. And most soldiers in a war are there voluntarily, and accept the possible consequences. I wouldnt say all people who are against abortion believe "life is sacred." personally I believe innocent lives are sacred. I do realized innocent lives are lost in wars, but it has been that way forever, and unfortunatly sometimes it can't be avoided. Abortion can easily be avoided. Unless it was rape, incest or possible loss of the mothers life, it should be avoided. Also, I hate when people say restricting abortion rights is restricting rights for woman. Nobody should have the right to kill, woman or man. |
|
|
