Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

you'll be awfully lonely on your death bed. must be a real bummer.

 

The bummer would be to have one's last moments clouded by fear and hope.

 

 

enjoy your nothingness.

 

Try emptying your own cup sometime. When it's full there is no room for anything new. :yoda:

 

Posted
Don't forget the chapel where spiritual decisions are made.

Like, wether or not to support pro-life policies or, wether or not to lie about weapons of mass destruction and send thousands of US soldiers to their deaths.

 

yeah, join the Christian-haters, Bug. :rolleyes:

God forbid the president believes he should pray for guidance and act accordingly to those beliefs.

I beleive he prays.

I just don't beleive he listens to the answers as much as he listens to Cheney and the corporate lackies.

I think he is lazy and is trying to do what "smart" people tell him.

Problem is, those "smart" people are corporate fascists. In other words, they are willing to sell soldiers lives for the billions of dollars they are raking in on unsupervised defense contracts. Look at Haliburton, Blackwater etc......

And don't try to turn this into a Democrat Republican thing. The Democrats in Washinton state, especially King County are just as corrupt.

I'm just saying......

 

Posted
Ever heard of separation of church and state?

 

the president praying has nothing to do w/ the separation of church and state...

 

but it does have everything to do w/ his freedom of religion. ever heard of that?

 

If he prays, then gets a message from God and acts on it, that is not a separation of church and state.

 

He better not be praying the oval office. At least not on our time.

 

You're such a stupid ass, boner, really. You want to bet that Clinton did not pray while in office? On YOUR time? And Carter? Kennedy? Johnson? FDR? Truman? You think they were atheists?

 

All of them religious. All of them corrupt fuckheads toeing the same corrupt political line. Hmmmmm.

 

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that Christians "should" be more pure?

Would that it were true.

Alas, I am as impure as you. I just keep trying to tap into that connection and get back on track.

Meanwhile, lets look at the self proclaimed atheists who have governed large countries.... Stalin, Lennon?

Oh take me back to Nirvanna! :crazy:

 

Posted
The Bush Library will be a glorious collection of pretty, shiny objects and a few pieces of driftwood.

It will have a list of tankers that were named after cabinet members too.

Posted

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that Christians "should" be more pure?

Would that it were true.

Alas, I am as impure as you. I just keep trying to tap into that connection and get back on track.

Meanwhile, lets look at the self proclaimed atheists who have governed large countries.... Stalin, Lennon?

Oh take me back to Nirvanna! :crazy:

 

Once again, the equation that Stalin was atheist (which has been debatable, but let's assume he was), therefore indicates that his atheism was the source of his immorality. As much as you erroneously assume that I was suggesting Carter, Truman, Kennedy etc. were douchebags because they were Christians, this Stalin example is pure hyperbole. My point was that Christianity doesn't anymore, or less, guarantee morals in one's heart than atheism would suggest inherent "lack of morals".

 

The common wisdom is that lacking religion, one cannot possibly have a shred of moral foundation. Are you saying then, that without religion you personally would kill, steal, lie, and cheat? If your answer is no, of course you would not, then on what basis would you have constructed the moral fiber to reject these actions? Apparently it would come from somewhere, then, but without religion and faith, where?- perhaps it's a combination of one's upbringing and culture combined with a genetic predisposition to goodness or mischief? We clearly have in human society people who are, for no apparent reason, just not good natured, and people who are.

 

My view is that if one needs a system of morals written down for them to follow, that's their prerogative and that should not be interfered with by any state or individual.

 

But if you want to talk about it... name one of the 10 commandments which any group of decent individuals, regardless of culture or upbringing, couldn't agree upon- atheists included. All the rest of the ritual and circumstance and pageantry of religion, beyond a set of exceedingly obvious morals, is a matter of culture, opinion, and in the end, a means to control other people. Certain religions or branches of them, such as radical Islam, have added on more strict "morals" that we in the west see as immoral, yet we fail to grasp that these people truly believe this stuff they preach, but we're not willing to address it on the level of belief because faith and belief are simply not open to discussion in any culture.

 

People should be able to believe whatever they want, including not to "believe" in anything, yet the most vitriolic hatred seems reserved not for religious extremists such as Al Qaida, but the "godless". You can be anything you want in the world, but no matter where you go, don't even think of expressing atheist views. That much is universal, and it has infinitely less to do with specious, circumstantial comparisons of Stalin as the shining example of "atheism in action", than it does to the absolute threat to someone's faith that the mere existence of a being who has no faith, regardless of whether that person otherwise demonstrates "moral" behavior. Faith is the base level expectation that most people have for one another; those lacking it are looked upon as filth.

 

Now, you tell me who should be afraid.

Posted
I say we take a pass on the bush library. Store the "evidence" in an appropriate place for the trials and convictions...

 

Then burn em.

 

d

I'm pretty sure it's all been shredded already.

Posted

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that Christians "should" be more pure?

Would that it were true.

Alas, I am as impure as you. I just keep trying to tap into that connection and get back on track.

Meanwhile, lets look at the self proclaimed atheists who have governed large countries.... Stalin, Lennon?

Oh take me back to Nirvanna! :crazy:

 

Once again, the equation that Stalin was atheist (which has been debatable, but let's assume he was), therefore indicates that his atheism was the source of his immorality. As much as you erroneously assume that I was suggesting Carter, Truman, Kennedy etc. were douchebags because they were Christians, this Stalin example is pure hyperbole. My point was that Christianity doesn't anymore, or less, guarantee morals in one's heart than atheism would suggest inherent "lack of morals".

 

The common wisdom is that lacking religion, one cannot possibly have a shred of moral foundation. Are you saying then, that without religion you personally would kill, steal, lie, and cheat? If your answer is no, of course you would not, then on what basis would you have constructed the moral fiber to reject these actions? Apparently it would come from somewhere, then, but without religion and faith, where?- perhaps it's a combination of one's upbringing and culture combined with a genetic predisposition to goodness or mischief? We clearly have in human society people who are, for no apparent reason, just not good natured, and people who are.

 

My view is that if one needs a system of morals written down for them to follow, that's their prerogative and that should not be interfered with by any state or individual.

 

But if you want to talk about it... name one of the 10 commandments which any group of decent individuals, regardless of culture or upbringing, couldn't agree upon- atheists included. All the rest of the ritual and circumstance and pageantry of religion, beyond a set of exceedingly obvious morals, is a matter of culture, opinion, and in the end, a means to control other people. Certain religions or branches of them, such as radical Islam, have added on more strict "morals" that we in the west see as immoral, yet we fail to grasp that these people truly believe this stuff they preach, but we're not willing to address it on the level of belief because faith and belief are simply not open to discussion in any culture.

 

People should be able to believe whatever they want, including not to "believe" in anything, yet the most vitriolic hatred seems reserved not for religious extremists such as Al Qaida, but the "godless". You can be anything you want in the world, but no matter where you go, don't even think of expressing atheist views. That much is universal, and it has infinitely less to do with specious, circumstantial comparisons of Stalin as the shining example of "atheism in action", than it does to the absolute threat to someone's faith that the mere existence of a being who has no faith, regardless of whether that person otherwise demonstrates "moral" behavior. Faith is the base level expectation that most people have for one another; those lacking it are looked upon as filth.

 

Now, you tell me who should be afraid.

 

We agree then.

Except for the following which does not apply to me.

"Faith is the base level expectation that most people have for one another; those lacking it are looked upon as filth."

What most people don't understand about Christianity, and this includes many Christians, is that no one is in a position to think they are better than anyone else.

The only thing that makes true (imo) Christians a sepatarate group is that we know that only by Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins can we spend eternity in the presence of God.

Now that is not God excluding you non beleivers. What you choose freely is up to you. It is not up to God. He gave you the full ability to make that choice. And the whole concept of Hell is an example of social controls. While there may be evil spirits of various sorts, you are not necessarily "aligned" with them just by choosing not to beleive in God or religion.

The distinction is significant and very under stated in most doctrines.

So go your way with great happiness. May it work well for you now and for all of eternity.

 

Posted
Ever heard of separation of church and state?

 

the president praying has nothing to do w/ the separation of church and state...

 

but it does have everything to do w/ his freedom of religion. ever heard of that?

 

If he prays, then gets a message from God and acts on it, that is not a separation of church and state.

 

He better not be praying the oval office. At least not on our time.

 

You're such a stupid ass, boner, really. You want to bet that Clinton did not pray while in office? On YOUR time? And Carter? Kennedy? Johnson? FDR? Truman? You think they were atheists?

 

All of them religious. All of them corrupt fuckheads toeing the same corrupt political line. Hmmmmm.

 

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that Christians "should" be more pure?

Would that it were true.

Alas, I am as impure as you. I just keep trying to tap into that connection and get back on track.

Meanwhile, lets look at the self proclaimed atheists who have governed large countries.... Stalin, Lennon?

Oh take me back to Nirvanna! :crazy:

 

Lennon ran a large country? Holy shit!

Just imagine! ;)

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...