wmw999 2,447 #51 January 4, 2011 The evidence that the earth wasn't formed somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years ago is pretty overwhelming. After all, we can't demonstrate personally that the earth existed in 1850, either. We rely on records. They, too, could have been falsified. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 4, 2011 QuoteOne of many examples, all of which are easily Googlable should you care to investigate further. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa Hearsay for the win! I must've missed where "Because God wills it" was put in the Authorization for Use of Force - can you point that out for me? You know, actual proof instead of the usual vague generalities? Then, of course, there's this... Quote He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day. As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity. In his speech Thursday in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer. At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.” And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.” Conservative religion BAAAAAD, Liberal religion GOOOODMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #53 January 4, 2011 And it wasn't simply the President, but was systemic. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2003/11/general-on-relig.html "Holy Wars" are anything but.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
david3 0 #54 January 4, 2011 Quote You're the one that equated 'war memorial' with 'cross', not I. Nice attempt, though. What was he attempting? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #55 January 4, 2011 >Maybe that is what they meant when they equate Obama to the great savior. The only people doing that are the right. (Which makes sense; they have a thing about keeping religion in government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #56 January 4, 2011 QuoteAs an agnostic I do believe in "Freedom of Religion" where people are allowed to practice their religious beliefs free from being persecuted by others. But I also believe in "Freedom from Religion" where people keep their religious beliefs to themselves. I see the two "Freedoms", as being in direct conflict with one another. Some peoples religion requires they attempt to share their faith with others. How can one do that and keep their beliefs to themselves? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #57 January 4, 2011 QuoteAnd it wasn't simply the President, but was systemic. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2003/11/general-on-relig.html "Holy Wars" are anything but. So, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #58 January 4, 2011 QuoteSo, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok. I see. You wanna call Rumsfeld's war briefings "vaporware" I guess I can't disagree with you.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #59 January 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteBeing limp wristed (as well as their transgendered cousins) is NOT a life choice, it is something people are born with. Trite and simplistic, just as much as Rider's comment. I suspect that for some it's a choice, and for some it's a born trait. I also suspect that for some it's a healthy thing and for others it's not. I also suspect that for anyone about anything, it's never as simple as just one thing. YET...(as much as you are trying to blow everyone else's opinion off) When you join the "Military" you agree to a code of ethics,and Conductm, Why should that change?, just so johny can blow joe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 220 #60 January 4, 2011 Quote>Maybe that is what they meant when they equate Obama to the great savior. The only people doing that are the right. (Which makes sense; they have a thing about keeping religion in government.) Really? You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #61 January 4, 2011 >You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing? Nope. But I do consider you a right winger. And you bring it up far more often than any of the more liberal posters here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 220 #62 January 4, 2011 Quote >You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing? Nope. But I do consider you a right winger. And you bring it up far more often than any of the more liberal posters here. Well I can't help that you are ashamed.I didn't vote for him. I didn't make him Bow Down to leaders of other countries. I didn't help him not keep his promises I say again, I can't help it if you are ashamed.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #63 January 4, 2011 >Well I can't help that you are ashamed . . . At least you admit that you bring up "Obama the Savior" far more often than the people you accuse of doing the same thing. ODS in action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #64 January 4, 2011 Quote>Well I can't help that you are ashamed . . . At least you admit that you bring up "Obama the Savior" far more often than the people you accuse of doing the same thing. ODS in action. Could be because the morons that vored him in, and see him as "The Savior" are totally computer illeterate! Some, are the exception! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 January 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok. I see. You wanna call Rumsfeld's war briefings "vaporware" I guess I can't disagree with you. If you were to come up with that "God wills it" quote in a bill or something, the claim of "God telling them how to run the government" might have some credence. As it is, 'vaporware' seems a fair summation. If it's not, I notice you didn't have anything to say about Obama mentioning religion more than Bush, Paul - why is that? Bush's Faith-Based and Communitive Intiatives office was SO terrible, but Obama's.... Like I said - conservative religion, BAAAAD....liberal religion GOOOOD.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #66 January 5, 2011 QuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #67 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuote>Have you notified Congress that what they really meant was the Mt. >Soledad cross and not the Veteran's Memorial? I'll let you play your word games with yourself. You're the one that equated 'war memorial' with 'cross', not I. What would you call it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #68 January 5, 2011 Quote Quote I don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! You seem to know me better than I do!How many gay friends do I have? Mr. Know It All! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #69 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #70 January 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! As for the idiots that say, "My tax dollars paying for it"! Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses....find a new snivel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #71 January 5, 2011 >Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of >yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses... You'll have to take it up with MNealTX; he's the one claiming there is no such funding. But in any case, that's fair enough. Of course, the next time you complain about your taxes funding public art, or Islamic mosques, or stem cell research, you will also have to find a new snivel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #72 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! Like I said, your constant stream of bitching and moaning and blatant double standards around DADT are available for anyone to see. You care.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 220 #73 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! Like I said, your constant stream of bitching and moaning and blatant double standards around DADT are available for anyone to see. You care. I have seen hiom comment on incongruities and a possible violation of others rights - but I never read a post of his where he said he cared. there is a difference between caring if the guy is gay and caring where he flaunts his gayness.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #74 January 5, 2011 Quote >Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of >yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses... You'll have to take it up with MNealTX; he's the one claiming there is no such funding. But in any case, that's fair enough. Of course, the next time you complain about your taxes funding public art, or Islamic mosques, or stem cell research, you will also have to find a new snivel. Nice attempt, But fine me ever complaining about any of those subjects! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #75 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave you not read any posts here where people are called idiots, or degraded in some fasion because of their faith? Can you not see the difference between criticizing faith as a general concept and criticizing a specific faith in something that's demonstrably inaccurate? Which "Specific Faith" is demostrably inaccurate? The easiest are those whose tracts are subject to independent verification (or refutation). The Book of Mormon fails miserably on each and every specific subject to cross-checking, and Joseph Smith's performance when "translating" hieroglyphics was shown to be pure bluff when checked against the Rosetta Stone. Scientology is such a work of fantasy that taking it seriously enough to refute is difficult. Superman comic books are easily as technically sound. The Koran is such a vague and garbled ("poetic") set of writings that any literal analysis falls apart at the outset. The Christian Scriptures are a compilation of writings prepared by various sources with differing agenda, and redacted later to achieve further agenda. The Tanakh is a compendium of Bronze-Age writings of varying reliability and intent. Many of the writings may be checked against independent sources, and some correlate badly. The Book of Esther, for example, is the account of events that were purported to have occurred during the Babylonian Exile; rather detailed records on the part of the Persians make no note of what would have been rather significant events from their standpoint. Is there any merit to any of these writings? From an historical standpoint, sort of. Bereshit through Bamidbar (Genesis to Numbers), as compiled by Ezra the Scribe, constitute a sort of prequel to Devarim (Deuteronomy - "the book"). Understanding the mythology of the people is important, but taking it literally on a word-for-word basis is patently absurd. There is something to be learned from the Christian Scriptures, as well - so long as one is careful to consider the source(s) and take the accounts with a large grain of salt. The Koran, and to a more blatant extent the Book of Mormon, are shameless works of fantasy claiming follow-up status with the existing popular works (Hebrew and Christian Scriptures). Dianetics is such a dog's breakfast of plagiarism and fantasy that its appeal is only to those to whom reality has no sway. Faith is only required of falsehood. The truth will withstand any scrutiny, and is not threatened by skepticism. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #57 January 4, 2011 QuoteAnd it wasn't simply the President, but was systemic. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2003/11/general-on-relig.html "Holy Wars" are anything but. So, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 January 4, 2011 QuoteSo, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok. I see. You wanna call Rumsfeld's war briefings "vaporware" I guess I can't disagree with you.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #59 January 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteBeing limp wristed (as well as their transgendered cousins) is NOT a life choice, it is something people are born with. Trite and simplistic, just as much as Rider's comment. I suspect that for some it's a choice, and for some it's a born trait. I also suspect that for some it's a healthy thing and for others it's not. I also suspect that for anyone about anything, it's never as simple as just one thing. YET...(as much as you are trying to blow everyone else's opinion off) When you join the "Military" you agree to a code of ethics,and Conductm, Why should that change?, just so johny can blow joe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #60 January 4, 2011 Quote>Maybe that is what they meant when they equate Obama to the great savior. The only people doing that are the right. (Which makes sense; they have a thing about keeping religion in government.) Really? You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #61 January 4, 2011 >You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing? Nope. But I do consider you a right winger. And you bring it up far more often than any of the more liberal posters here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #62 January 4, 2011 Quote >You freally consider Farrakhan a conservative republican on the right wing? Nope. But I do consider you a right winger. And you bring it up far more often than any of the more liberal posters here. Well I can't help that you are ashamed.I didn't vote for him. I didn't make him Bow Down to leaders of other countries. I didn't help him not keep his promises I say again, I can't help it if you are ashamed.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #63 January 4, 2011 >Well I can't help that you are ashamed . . . At least you admit that you bring up "Obama the Savior" far more often than the people you accuse of doing the same thing. ODS in action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #64 January 4, 2011 Quote>Well I can't help that you are ashamed . . . At least you admit that you bring up "Obama the Savior" far more often than the people you accuse of doing the same thing. ODS in action. Could be because the morons that vored him in, and see him as "The Savior" are totally computer illeterate! Some, are the exception! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 January 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, nothing but the usual vaporware to back up your claim? S'ok. I see. You wanna call Rumsfeld's war briefings "vaporware" I guess I can't disagree with you. If you were to come up with that "God wills it" quote in a bill or something, the claim of "God telling them how to run the government" might have some credence. As it is, 'vaporware' seems a fair summation. If it's not, I notice you didn't have anything to say about Obama mentioning religion more than Bush, Paul - why is that? Bush's Faith-Based and Communitive Intiatives office was SO terrible, but Obama's.... Like I said - conservative religion, BAAAAD....liberal religion GOOOOD.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #66 January 5, 2011 QuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #67 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuote>Have you notified Congress that what they really meant was the Mt. >Soledad cross and not the Veteran's Memorial? I'll let you play your word games with yourself. You're the one that equated 'war memorial' with 'cross', not I. What would you call it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #68 January 5, 2011 Quote Quote I don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! You seem to know me better than I do!How many gay friends do I have? Mr. Know It All! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #69 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #70 January 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! As for the idiots that say, "My tax dollars paying for it"! Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses....find a new snivel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #71 January 5, 2011 >Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of >yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses... You'll have to take it up with MNealTX; he's the one claiming there is no such funding. But in any case, that's fair enough. Of course, the next time you complain about your taxes funding public art, or Islamic mosques, or stem cell research, you will also have to find a new snivel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #72 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! Like I said, your constant stream of bitching and moaning and blatant double standards around DADT are available for anyone to see. You care.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #73 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don;t care about Faggots either, Yeah, you do. Really? Do tell! What's to tell? Anyone can go and read your posts on the subject. No, You ran your mouth, Back it up! Like I said, your constant stream of bitching and moaning and blatant double standards around DADT are available for anyone to see. You care. I have seen hiom comment on incongruities and a possible violation of others rights - but I never read a post of his where he said he cared. there is a difference between caring if the guy is gay and caring where he flaunts his gayness.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #74 January 5, 2011 Quote >Give me a fucking break, less than one tenth on one penny of >yoru preciious tax dollars to to mantaining public crosses... You'll have to take it up with MNealTX; he's the one claiming there is no such funding. But in any case, that's fair enough. Of course, the next time you complain about your taxes funding public art, or Islamic mosques, or stem cell research, you will also have to find a new snivel. Nice attempt, But fine me ever complaining about any of those subjects! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #75 January 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave you not read any posts here where people are called idiots, or degraded in some fasion because of their faith? Can you not see the difference between criticizing faith as a general concept and criticizing a specific faith in something that's demonstrably inaccurate? Which "Specific Faith" is demostrably inaccurate? The easiest are those whose tracts are subject to independent verification (or refutation). The Book of Mormon fails miserably on each and every specific subject to cross-checking, and Joseph Smith's performance when "translating" hieroglyphics was shown to be pure bluff when checked against the Rosetta Stone. Scientology is such a work of fantasy that taking it seriously enough to refute is difficult. Superman comic books are easily as technically sound. The Koran is such a vague and garbled ("poetic") set of writings that any literal analysis falls apart at the outset. The Christian Scriptures are a compilation of writings prepared by various sources with differing agenda, and redacted later to achieve further agenda. The Tanakh is a compendium of Bronze-Age writings of varying reliability and intent. Many of the writings may be checked against independent sources, and some correlate badly. The Book of Esther, for example, is the account of events that were purported to have occurred during the Babylonian Exile; rather detailed records on the part of the Persians make no note of what would have been rather significant events from their standpoint. Is there any merit to any of these writings? From an historical standpoint, sort of. Bereshit through Bamidbar (Genesis to Numbers), as compiled by Ezra the Scribe, constitute a sort of prequel to Devarim (Deuteronomy - "the book"). Understanding the mythology of the people is important, but taking it literally on a word-for-word basis is patently absurd. There is something to be learned from the Christian Scriptures, as well - so long as one is careful to consider the source(s) and take the accounts with a large grain of salt. The Koran, and to a more blatant extent the Book of Mormon, are shameless works of fantasy claiming follow-up status with the existing popular works (Hebrew and Christian Scriptures). Dianetics is such a dog's breakfast of plagiarism and fantasy that its appeal is only to those to whom reality has no sway. Faith is only required of falsehood. The truth will withstand any scrutiny, and is not threatened by skepticism. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
