Making Values Great Again: The Only Way America Can Survive

  
Via:  make-america-great-again  •  3 months ago  •  395 comments

Making Values Great Again: The Only Way America Can Survive
In order to truly make America great again, we must once again return to traditional family values. We must once again embrace America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. President Ronald Reagan once said, “If we ever forget we are one nation under God, we’ll be a nation gone under.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Ever since 2016, there has been a lot of talk about “making America great again.”

If you’re a conservative you probably believe that America is great and used to be even greater. You want to restore America’s greatness. But just how do we do that? How do we make America great again?

A lot of people are focused on securing our borders and cracking down on illegal immigration. Border security is extremely important and must be a top priority if we’re to make America great again. However, building a wall and securing our borders, while important, is not enough.

What about lowering taxes and cutting burdensome regulations? Perhaps we should focus more on appointing conservative judges to the courts? Yes, all of these are quite important and all are necessary to make America great again. But it’s still not enough. It still doesn’t go to the root of the problem.

In order to truly make America great again, we must once again return to traditional family values. We must once again embrace America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. President Ronald Reagan once said, “If we

Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square. The left seeks to eradicate any vestiges of the Judeo-Christian heritage that our nation relied on for over 200 years.

As God has been kicked out what has been brought in? Atheism, secularism, and moral relativism — some might even say moral depravity — have slowly replaced the church and synagogue.

Just last month New York State legislators clapped and celebrated uproariously as New York passed what truly amounts to an infanticide law that allows babies to be killed up until the moment of birth.

Young children are being told they can “transition” to a new gender if they feel like it.

The very definition of marriage itself has been radically redefined.

The left has also invented approximately 3,357 new “genders” one can choose from should he/she/they/it decide to. People don’t even know what bathroom to pee in anymore and worst of all, young children and teenagers are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with this insanity at schools all across the country.

If we are to truly make America great again we have to fight this.

We have to find a way to somehow put the proverbial brakes on this insanity and to restore traditional family values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It won’t be easy when the schools, the media and Hollywood are constantly promoting secularism and moral relativism. But we have to try. We can’t give up this fight.

This is a fight for our culture, for our heritage, for the very soul of who we are as a nation. We are one nation under God. We are a nation that says, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. We are a nation in which almost every president since George Washington has been sworn in on the Bible.

If this nation is to survive we must do more than simply secure our borders. We must secure America’s soul. We must once again boldly, loudly, and emphatically declare that in America we put God first and will always be proud of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Only then will we be able to save America. Only then will we Make America Great Again.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    3 months ago

“Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square. The left seeks to eradicate any vestiges of the Judeo-Christian heritage that our nation relied on for over 200 years.

As God has been kicked out what has been brought in? Atheism, secularism, and moral relativism — some might even say moral depravity — have slowly replaced the church and synagogue.

Just last month New York State legislators clapped and celebrated uproariously as New York passed what truly amounts to an infanticide law that allows babies to be killed up until the moment of birth.

Young children are being told they can “transition” to a new gender if they feel like it.

The very definition of marriage itself has been radically redefined.

The left has also invented approximately 3,357 new “genders” one can choose from should he/she/they/it decide to. People don’t even know what bathroom to pee in anymore and worst of all, young children and teenagers are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with this insanity at schools all across the country.

If we are to truly make America great again we have to fight this.

We have to find a way to somehow put the proverbial brakes on this insanity and to restore traditional family values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It won’t be easy when the schools, the media and Hollywood are constantly promoting secularism and moral relativism. But we have to try. We can’t give up this fight.

This is a fight for our culture, for our heritage, for the very soul of who we are as a nation. We are one nation under God. We are a nation that says, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. We are a nation in which almost every president since George Washington has been sworn in on the Bible.

RELATED: State Rep’s Prayer Shows Need for True Tolerance

If this nation is to survive we must do more than simply secure our borders. We must secure America’s soul. We must once again boldly, loudly, and emphatically declare that in America we put God first and will always be proud of our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

You know how it goes.

We have removed God from virtually every public space.

Teenage birthrates now much higher than in the 50's.

Lower school test scores now than in the 50's.

Higher rates of divorce now.

Higher unwed mother counts now.

Higher broken homes now.

Higher STD rates now.

Higher prison population now.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.1  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago
You know how it goes.

We have removed God from virtually every public space.

Teenage birthrates now much higher than in the 50's.

Lower school test scores now than in the 50's.

Higher rates of divorce now.

Higher unwed mother counts now.

Higher broken homes now.

Higher STD rates now.

Higher prison population now.

How can we drive your god away when he is both omnipotent and omniscient?

Why did Moses have to tell the Pharaohs to give his people back when god  is supposed to have created the universe, but apparently the pharaohs were his kryptonite? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.1    3 months ago
How can we drive your god away when he is both omnipotent and omniscient?

that is one of the funniest questions I have seen asked.

You can't. He is here.

And I am sorry that you couldn't dispute anything I wrote.

If you want to know, ask Moses. Or God.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.3  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    3 months ago
You can't. He is here.

Then prove it.

And I am sorry that you couldn't dispute anything I wrote.

Au contraire. 

If you want to know, ask Moses. Or God.

How can I possibly ask a question to something that has no evidence of ever existing? There is the same proof of your god as there is of Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    3 months ago
Then prove it.

I have no need to prove anything to you.

Au contraire.

Saying it and doing it are two different things. You say you did, but you posted nothing to dispute what I wrote.

How can I possibly ask a question to something that has no evidence of ever existing? There is the same proof of your god as there is of Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky.

I'm sure you'll figure it out. Your need for proof doesn't have any effect on me.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.5  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 months ago
I have no need to prove anything to you.

You made a positive claim that your God exists and I am asking you to supply for objective proof of that claim. That is how logic works. God or anything else doesn't exist simply because you claim that it does. 

Saying it and doing it are two different things. You say you did, but you posted nothing to dispute what I wrote. I'm sure you'll figure it out. Your need for proof doesn't have any effect on me.

These sentences are diversions, likely because you know that you have no empirical proof to support your previous claim. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.5    3 months ago
You made a positive claim that your God exists and I am asking you to supply for objective proof of that claim. That is how logic works. God or anything else doesn't exist simply because you claim that it does.

Not going down this road again. I have no need to ever prove a thing about God to you or anyone else. 

Something doesn't fail to exist simply because you don't believe it does.

I believe in God, and that is plenty good enough for me. If you wish not to, that is your business, just as my beliefs are my business.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 months ago

People who refuse to accept the existence of God also refuse to accept that there are also those of us who are willing to accept things on faith and they are also more than willing to denigrate those of us who do so. Pretty sad really.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.8  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.7    3 months ago

What I find truly sad are the squandered lives of twenty first century space age men and women who base their lives on bronze age superstitions because they do not understand and thus are afraid of death...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JBB @1.1.8    3 months ago
twenty first century space age men and women who base their lives on bronze age superstitions

Well, we have some who choose to believe the earth is flat or that the age of the universe is just 6,000 years old. It really doesn't matter what age serially stupid people live in, it won't change their apparently damaged brains.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.10  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @1.1.5    3 months ago

Those demanding empirical proof or as the Bible says, signs and wonders in order to believe will be unanswered just as Jesus didn’t answer his accusers challenges during his trial that happened last night and into early today some nealy 2000 years ago.  Jesus told Thomas he believed because he was there and saw him.  He said blessed are those who have not seeing, believed.  The bottom line is that faith is the only answer. 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.11  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 months ago
just as my beliefs are my business.

Exactly.  Until those beliefs are used to get into my business.  Like legislating female fertility, as one example.  There are other areas religions try to encroach on individual liberties.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.12  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @1.1.11    3 months ago

Or when the government takes your land makes it part of a state park or they take your wealth .

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 months ago
I have no need to prove anything to you.

You most certainly do

You can't. He is here. Waiting for your proof

If you want to know, ask Moses. Or God.  You say they exist

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.13    3 months ago
You most certainly do
You can't. He is here. Waiting for your proof
If you want to know, ask Moses. Or God. You say they exist

Tell me if you understand these words, and then we can discuss:

I have no need to prove anything to you.

And since it seems to be a real issue for some, your need is not my need.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.15  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.9    3 months ago

Dinosaurs were on the Ark. There is no evolution...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago

Your state advocating the DP for any woman having an ab should solve some of your perceived problems.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.17  Steve Ott  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.7    3 months ago

And those who accept on faith things not based on the existence of your God and are thus denigrated by the those who do so believe as you, does that make you sad?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.17    3 months ago

Yes it does. I firmly believe all are entitled to their own beliefs whatever they may be.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @1.1.11    3 months ago
Exactly. Until those beliefs are used to get into my business. Like legislating female fertility, as one example. There are other areas religions try to encroach on individual liberties.

I have never done so, so I believe you are barking up the wrong tree.

I have never had any religion encroach on any of my liberties.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.13    3 months ago
You most certainly do

No, Don, I don't owe you any explanation.

Waiting for your proof

You will have a very, very long wait if you are counting on me to provide it. I don't need to prove anything to you--you have a need for me to, but that's all on you.

You say they exist

Yes, yes I do.

So what?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.16    3 months ago
Your state advocating the DP for any woman having an ab should solve some of your perceived problems

Whatever "problems" you think I have is all in your head.

I don't believe I have any problems that that would solve.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.1    3 months ago
How can we drive your god away when he is both omnipotent and omniscient?

I believe the concept of free will is observed by all religions. How else would God judge us?  What would be the reason for Hell? 

You best not ask questions that destroy your argument.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.8    3 months ago
What I find truly sad

Even more sad are those who are on a mythical crusade against discrimination in all forms, yet are so intolerant of religion.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.24  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.23    3 months ago

Intolerant of religion? Not I. What I am intolerant of is fakeass small c christian fundies abusing the name of God to advocate for all sorts of ungodly bullshit like for wars and for torturing people and for legally sanctioning discrimination, again, and for state sponsored executions. The exact kind of ungodly public policy Christ would have abhorred... 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.18    3 months ago
Yes it does. I firmly believe all are entitled to their own beliefs whatever they may be.

Totally agree. I think the problem is that some people confuse "belief" with facts. Nothing wrong with beliefs. It's nearly impossible to prove the existence of something that cannot be seen or proven. 

Believing in God is fine with me, (people can worship the Legion Of Doom cartoons for all I care), no problem, but when politicians try to peddle (A)God as a FACT, and we should be basing legislation ON that belief, that's where the push back begins. 

The first Amendment is clear, there is no ambiguity there. 

Happy Easter Ed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago
We have removed God from virtually every public space.

Utter bullshit. 

Teenage birthrates now much higher than in the 50's.

The teenage birthrate peaked in 1957. FAIL. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_04.pdf

Lower school test scores now than in the 50's.

We did very little testing in the 50's and 60's. 

Higher rates of divorce now.

No fault divorce. DUH. 

Higher unwed mother counts now.

Higher population. DUH. 

Higher broken homes now.

No fault divorce. DUH.

Higher STD rates now.

Got a link for that? 

Higher prison population now.

Higher population, for profit prisons. DUH.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.24    3 months ago
What I am intolerant of is fakeass small c christian fundies abusing the name of God to advocate for all sorts of ungodly bullshit like for wars and for torturing people and for legally sanctioning discrimination, again, and for state sponsored executions

First you would have to give us some examples of that instead of generalizing. Second, you should use debate & persuasion as a response to others who do not share your view, instead of smearing them or demanding that they change their position, which is the hallmark of progressive intolerance.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    3 months ago

If the sum of your posts is simply "DUH", no need to break it up per line, just write DUH once and be done with it.

Where I come from, "DUH" isn't considered an adequate or appropriate response.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.29  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    3 months ago
I have never done so, so I believe you are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would take that to mean you are against politicians and corporate entities trying to legislate or control what women are allowed to do or purchase as healthcare.  Lets stick with this example.  Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to hinder women's health, period.  And they currently do.  Hobby Lobby shouldn't be allowed to limit women's health insurance choices, nor should politicians, from federal to state to local, be allowed to have any say in women's health choices, nor have your or any other religion usurp the woman's personal decisions.  I cover your second statement with this as well.  They and you can all follow your religion til the cows come home.  Just don't try to foist those beliefs on the rest of us, including about abortion and contraception.  Waiting for the mansplain why this isn't really encroached liberty.  Call me cynical.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @1.1.29    3 months ago
So I would take that to mean you are against politicians and corporate entities trying to legislate or control what women are allowed to do or purchase as healthcare. Lets stick with this example. Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to hinder women's health, period. And they currently do. Hobby Lobby shouldn't be allowed to limit women's health insurance choices, nor should politicians, from federal to state to local, be allowed to have any say in women's health choices, nor have your or any other religion usurp the woman's personal decisions. I cover your second statement with this as well. They and you can all follow your religion til the cows come home. Just don't try to foist those beliefs on the rest of us, including about abortion and contraception. Waiting for the mansplain why this isn't really encroached liberty. Call me cynical.

That is your opinion. Good for you. Some disagree with you. 

For the record--MY religion hasn't done a thing to you.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    3 months ago
If the sum of your posts is simply "DUH", no need to break it up per line, just write DUH once and be done with it.

Since it isn't, no worries. 

Where I come from, "DUH" isn't considered an adequate or appropriate response.

Where I come from it isn't appropriate to misrepresent another person's statement. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    3 months ago
Since it isn't, no worries.

I gave an accurate assessment of your post.

Where I come from it isn't appropriate to misrepresent another person's statement.

That is just wonderful, and since no one did that, I am quite sure you are ecstatic over it!

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.33  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.10    3 months ago

Don't ever count on me hiring you for a sensitive position. My employees operate under the scientific method.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.32    3 months ago
I gave an accurate assessment of your post.

Why start it with 'If' then? 

That is just wonderful, and since no one did that,

As I said, you did. 

I am quite sure you are ecstatic over it!

What you're sure about is so often wrong. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.34    3 months ago
Why start it with 'If' then?

Because I felt like it. Next?

As I said, you did.

Just because you say something does not make it fact.

What you're sure about is so often wrong.

Whenever I read your posts, I am reminded of Reagan and what he said.

Carry on!!!!

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.36  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @1.1.33    3 months ago

While I have a bachelor of science degree,  I work in a career dominated by liberals in many areas of the country.  

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.37  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.30    3 months ago

Lol, you never disappoint.  Can't speak to examples so don't answer anything, make inane comments and pretend to say something responsive. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  lib50 @1.1.37    3 months ago

257c6b63c49e3f0b8d4f0bd1a7905577.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.35    3 months ago
Just because you say something does not make it fact.

That goes both ways Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @1.1.37    3 months ago
Lol, you never disappoint. Can't speak to examples so don't answer anything, make inane comments and pretend to say something responsive.

Surely you aren't criticizing me for using the same "debate" techniques I have learned here, are you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    3 months ago
'We have removed God from virtually every public space.'

'Utter bullshit.' 

'Teenage birthrates now much higher than in the 50's.'

'The teenage birthrate peaked in 1957. FAIL.'

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_04.pdf

'Lower school test scores now than in the 50's.'

'We did very little testing in the 50's and 60's.' 

'Higher rates of divorce now.'

'No fault divorce. DUH.' 

'Higher unwed mother counts now.'

'Higher population. DUH.'

'Higher broken homes now.'

'No fault divorce. DUH.'

'Higher STD rates now.'

'Got a link for that?' 

'Higher prison population now.'

'Higher population, for profit prisons. DUH.'

Thanks for the truth and facts on the matter.

Some just to throw nonsense around and think no one will counter their nonsense.  

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.42  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago

seems overpopulation is a big part of the problems

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.43  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.7    3 months ago
People who refuse to accept the existence of God also refuse to accept that there are also those of us who are willing to accept things on faith and they are also more than willing to denigrate those of us who do so. Pretty sad really.

I'm tolerant of those who live their faith on their own dime and time. I once said to someone I didn't realize he was Christian because he didn't go around feeling the need to praise Jesus every time he ate lunch or had a breakthrough with a computer program he was writing.

Do you think the only values that are acceptable are Judeo-Christian as the seed suggests? That church and synagogue are the only places to find traditional family values?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @1.1.29    3 months ago
Waiting for the mansplain

I thought you were a man? If not, I need to apologize for a comment I made a while ago

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.45  lib50  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.44    3 months ago

No worries.  Women with balls and a voice often do get that.  I've been mistaken myself more than once and though a male was a female or vice versa.  I swear like an Irishman too.  Used to be much more accommodating when I was younger,  but have to rise to meet the threats.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @1.1.45    3 months ago

We could be sisters! Are you from the North East by any chance?

I swear like an airman. Sailors think they can swear......I could teach them a thing or two!

 
 
 
Veronica
1.1.47  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.46    3 months ago

I swear like an airman. Sailors think they can swear......I could teach them a thing or two!

Now this is a conversation I can relate to.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.48  lib50  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.46    3 months ago

Born in Ohio but lived in California most of my life, except when I lived in Ireland and England.  My swearing got much worse after that!  They are masters!  I actually know many women who drop f bombs like you wouldn't believe, and some look so sweet and innocent.  We laugh about it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.49  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @1.1.48    3 months ago

I thought you had some NEastern attitude. I grew up in PA but have lived in Alaska, TX, and Arkansas for the past 35 years

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.50  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 months ago

Why do republican states have more of your list than democrat states?

Teenage birthrates now much higher than in the 50's.

Lower school test scores now than in the 50's.

Higher rates of divorce now.

Higher unwed mother counts now.

Higher broken homes now.

Higher STD rates now.

Higher prison population now

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.51  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 months ago

Then the question is why do you approve of a godless president

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.52  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.36    3 months ago

Were they the only ones that offered you a position

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.53  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.40    3 months ago

You didn't learn them here must have been some other blog that was run by republicans

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago
“Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square.

Which one? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @1.2    3 months ago
“Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square.

"Which one? "

All but "Allah" ! jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

We MUST placate those worshippers and "Their" God ! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @1.2    3 months ago

There is only one.  The rest are fake and counterfeit of the One and only God in the universe.   

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.3  Ender  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.2    3 months ago

You do realize that all three of the Abrahamic religions basically believe in the same god.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.2.4  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.2    3 months ago

You are so wrong it's sad

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @1.2.4    3 months ago

That goes without saying. It's also typical.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @1.2    3 months ago

Does it matter? It still happened.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.7  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.2    3 months ago
There is only one.

You know this how? Proof? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.2    3 months ago

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.7    3 months ago

Because he "believes," as if that is equivalent to actual proof.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.10  Drakkonis  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.7    3 months ago
You know this how? Proof?

Because logically there can only be one. Assuming a definition requiring for God to be God there can be nothing that can resist His will. There can be nothing that can supersede Him, overrule Him or be something that God is dependent on. No necessary condition for existence except Himself. 

Further, God, by definition, would be the first cause and there could only be one first cause. God could not have a beginning, but must have always existed, otherwise, whatever created God would really be God. 

If you look at something like the Greek pantheon of gods, you find none of them meet such requirements. Some of them die, all of them came from something else and so on. They could supposedly beat the crap out of humans, but all of them could be resisted, fooled, defeated and had limitations. Not what I would consider God. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.10    3 months ago

If one is in the business of defining 'God' it does make sense that God be the supreme entity.   Given we are merely making a definition (rather than expressing something that is known to be true) God could be defined as:

The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.

There you go.   A definition for God in the abstract that captures the essence of your view.   Note that this definition does not posit God is omniscient because that presumes all of reality is knowable (and thus free will is impossible).   It also does not posit that God is omnipotent because that unnecessarily introduces logical problems as well.

But we are merely speculating on what God might be.   We are doing nothing more than inventing a character that may or may not exist.   There is no basis for believing this definition is correct and that the defined God exists;  but on the flip side, there is nothing we know (logically and empirically) that prevents this God from existing.   (‘Eternal’ is a problem, but let’s skip that because the reasoning is complicated.)

Now, contrast this with the biblical God (or any other God you wish to examine).   The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc.    These additional details make it possible to show the biblical God as defined is a contradiction and thus cannot exist.

God ("eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself") might exist, but an omniscient entity that can be surprised, disappointed, persuaded, etc. by its creations is a contradiction.   The biblical definition is flawed — it defines a God that is self-refuting

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.6    3 months ago
Does it matter? It still happened.

Pretty much covered this above but.....people can believe in whatever God they want, no one cares. The problem is that politicians want to over step the 1st Amendment and interject their own religious beliefs in our legal systems, which is a HUGE no-no. 

Lets say we do allow religions to make laws. Which religions get to make laws? All of them. How long would it be before we looked like the ME, constantly fighting over religion? My guess? Less than two years, and we would be just like the ME and having been to that shithole? No thanks. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.10    3 months ago
Because logically there can only be one.

Using logic to argue that there is only one God that you cannot even prove the existence of? Biggest fail of the year. You not only missed the target, you were aiming in the wrong direction. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.14  Drakkonis  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.13    3 months ago
You not only missed the target, you were aiming in the wrong direction.

Care to explain why?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.15  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.11    3 months ago
There you go.

There I go, what? How does this explain there can be only one God?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.15    3 months ago

By definition ( note the use of the word 'singular' in the definition ).   'There you go' means 'so here is a definition of God where at most one entity can meet the criteria.'  

I do not believe it is possible to prove that there can be only one God except by defining the word 'God' as such.

Do you think otherwise?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.17  cjcold  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.10    3 months ago

Don't even consider myself a god anymore. How sad is that?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.18  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.16    3 months ago
Do you think otherwise?

Yes. There can be only one because, to my mind, to be "God" there cannot be any other entity that could oppose God. By oppose, I mean prevent God from achieving anything He desires to do. If such a being could, then God could not be the supreme entity, as you put it, because He would not be omnipotent. 

Any other definition just describes a powerful being. Speaking for myself, I would not call such a being God. A god maybe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.18    3 months ago

Did you read the definition I offered?   (TiG @1.2.11):

'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.

Your comments suggest that you would agree with it.  Do you?


When I asked if you thought otherwise I was referring to the statement that immediately preceded the question:

TiG @1.2.16 -  I do not believe it is possible to prove that there can be only one God except by defining the word 'God' as such.   Do you think otherwise?

(paraphrasing):   Do you think it is possible to prove there can be only one God except by defining the word 'God' as such?

In other words, one must define 'God' to be singular in order to prove God singular.   That is, the only proof would be 'proof by definition'.    

So do you agree with this?   


I presume you have chosen to avoid the balance (and the core) of TiG @1.2.11:

But we are merely speculating on what God might be.   We are doing nothing more than inventing a character that may or may not exist.   There is no basis for believing this definition is correct and that the defined God exists;  but on the flip side, there is nothing we know (logically and empirically) that prevents this God from existing.   (Eternal’ is a problem, but let’s skip that because the reasoning is complicated.)

Now, contrast this with the biblical God (or any other God you wish to examine).   The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc.    These additional details make it possible to show the biblical God as defined is a contradiction and thus cannot exist.

God ("eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself") might exist, but an omniscient entity that can be surprised, disappointed, persuaded, etc. by its creations is a contradiction.   The biblical definition is flawed — it defines a God that is self-refuting. 
 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.20  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.19    3 months ago
Your comments suggest that you would agree with it.  Do you?

I am assuming that you are trying to state a definition of God. There isn't anything untrue about your definition. However, it doesn't go far enough. Neither did mine, but it included the necessary requirement that not only does your definition have to be true for God to be God, God also has to be sentient, sovereign and irresistible. Your definition could simply define physical existence. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.20    3 months ago
Your definition could simply define physical existence. 

Read it again:  

'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.22  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ender @1.2.3    3 months ago

I do and that’s why I said it the way I did.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.23  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.21    3 months ago

And the sovereign and irresistible part?

Further, what is your point? That there could be more than one of these?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.23    3 months ago
And the sovereign and irresistible part?

You do not equate 'sovereign' with 'supreme'?    You will need to clarify what you mean by 'irresistible'.

Further, what is your point? That there could be more than one of these?

No!  My definition explicitly precludes 'more then one'.   See the intentional adjective of 'singular'.   

Further, what is your point?

My point (the actual point of the comment) was made in the latter part of @1.2.11 and repeated @1.2.19.   Given you have ignored my point, why ask me to yet again repeat it?


Currently I am mostly observing how a very clear and simple definition (using basic English words) can be misunderstood:  

'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.

In this case, the misunderstanding seemingly results from selectively ignoring adjectives.   If misunderstanding occurs at this most basic level, it is no wonder it occurs in more complex discussions.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.25  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.24    3 months ago
You do not equate 'sovereign' with 'supreme'? 

Supreme doesn't mean sovereign. Talking about supreme, one could be talking about who won the Super Bowl. Sovereignty means supreme power and authority. 

You will need to clarify what you mean by 'irresistible'.

Unable to resist something. 

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to play your game. If your definition excludes "more than one", which concerns the question brought on by Mr. Frost in 1.2.7, what is your point? You apparently are agreeing that there cannot be more than one God. Is there something in what I wrote about why there can be only one God that you disagree with? If so, get on with it. State your objection. If you are trying to do something else, state it plainly. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.25    3 months ago
Supreme doesn't mean sovereign. Talking about supreme, one could be talking about who won the Super Bowl. Sovereignty means supreme power and authority. 

Frankly, I am okay with sovereign, but I want to make a point.   I see you going out of your way to disagree even on points where, really, you should be in full agreement.   You object to my use of supreme in the following definition that I posited for God:

'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.

You insist that I use sovereign because 'supreme' is too vague.    Yet the definition I posited is based on what seems to be the most common core definition for God:  supreme entity (or supreme being).  For example:

  1. Oxford:   God = "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
  2. Merriam Webster:  God = "the supreme or ultimate reality: such as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe  b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
  3. Wikipedia:  God = "In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme beingcreator deity, and principal object of faith.[3]"

What, Drakk, do you think a supreme entity is?   

Further, the definition I posited explicitly shows God as singular (unique) and as the creator of everything.    Again, entirely consistent with the most common definitions (for the Christian God).    My point is that you object to an extremely common way of defining the Christian God.   

There is no wonder in my mind why you routinely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I write given you object even to a basic definition of God that I posit - one that correlates well with the most common definitions of God.    Disagreeing just to disagree is what I see.   It is as if you presume disagreement and go cherry-picking to find something on which to disagree ... and ... as in this case, engineer disagreement even when there is virtually nothing on which to disagree.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.25    3 months ago
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to play your game. 

It is not a game.   I made an argument.   For the record here is the argument again - TiG @1.2.11:

But we are merely speculating on what God might be.   We are doing nothing more than inventing a character that may or may not exist.   There is no basis for believing this definition is correct and that the defined God exists;  but on the flip side, there is nothing we know (logically and empirically) that prevents this God from existing.   (‘Eternal’ is a problem, but let’s skip that because the reasoning is complicated.)

Now, contrast this with the biblical God (or any other God you wish to examine).   The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc.    These additional details make it possible to show the biblical God as defined is a contradiction and thus cannot exist.

God ("eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself") might exist, but an omniscient entity that can be surpriseddisappointedpersuaded, etc. by its creations is a contradiction.   The biblical definition is flawed — it defines a God that is self-refuting. 

This argues that the biblical God is a contradiction - a self-refuting character as defined and thus cannot exist.   But a God by a different definition (e.g. the one I posited) might exist.

If you have no good response that is fine, but do not accuse me of playing a game as your excuse.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.28  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.26    3 months ago
Disagreeing just to disagree is what I see.

Yeah? Well here's what I see. I responded to Mr. Frost's post about how can we know there's only one God. You respond to me not about whether there can be one God or not, but about defining God. For some reason you don't identify, you felt you needed to change what I said into what you have said and insist we argue from there, else why are we still arguing about it? And, what does it have to do with the idea that there can be only one God? 

'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself. A definition for God in the abstract that captures the essence of your view.

There is nothing inaccurate in what you've said in your description, but it doesn't convey what I intended. Supreme refers to a position among a group. Supreme in comparison to something else.  You need to keep in mind what it is I was addressing. Why can there be only one God? Saying God is supreme, while true, doesn't really say anything about why He is supreme.

Because logically there can only be one. Assuming a definition requiring for God to be God there can be nothing that can resist His will. There can be nothing that can supersede Him, overrule Him or be something that God is dependent on. No necessary condition for existence except Himself.

This, although not really complete, is sovereignty. It doesn't compare God to anything else. It doesn't put Him on a scale. I was trying to create a sense of the utterly immovable rock and the utterly irresistible force that God is. The reason I am arguing against your version is not because it's wrong, but because I don't agree it conveys what I was going for.  Plus, I don't appreciate you trying to reword what I've said any more than you would if I reworded what you say. I meant what I said and I put it the way I did for a reason. 

It is not a game. I made an argument. If you have no good response that is fine, but I am not going to let you accuse me of playing a game as an excuse.

Absolutely you are playing a game. The same one you so often play. You seemingly respond to the subject, which was why there could be only one God. You spend one whole sentence on it and then try to change the subject to one of your choosing. You had no intent or interest in trying to discuss the actual question. That being so, why on Earth should I let you lead me where I don't wish to go? I already know your opinion of my God and the Bible. I already know you would reject any explanation I can give you for why you are wrong about "The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc."

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.28    3 months ago
You respond to me not about whether there can be one God or not, but about defining God.

You forgot what you wrote?:

Drakk @1.2.10 - Because logically there can only be one. Assuming a definition requiring for God to be God there can be nothing that can resist His will. There can be nothing that can supersede Him, overrule Him or be something that God is dependent on. No necessary condition for existence except Himself. 

Further, God, by definition, would be the first cause and there could only be one first cause. God could not have a beginning, but must have always existed, otherwise, whatever created God would really be God. 

If you look at something like the Greek pantheon of gods, you find none of them meet such requirements. Some of them die, all of them came from something else and so on. They could supposedly beat the crap out of humans, but all of them could be resisted, fooled, defeated and had limitations. Not what I would consider God. 

This was your proof that there is only one God - proof by definition.    My response was all about defining God.   Noting that one can indeed define 'God' and thus make God, by definition, be whatever one wishes.   Not really much of a proof.   Defining God as singular makes it so there is only one God by definition.   Your definition did it and, if you note, my definition did it too.   Proof by definition is not much of a proof.

I then noted that definitions can also define an impossible God - such as that defined by the Bible.    You brought up the Greek gods and I tossed the God of the Bible into the ring.   All under the general umbrella of defining God.

And, as usual, here I am yet again showing you what you wrote and what I wrote when this is all quite clear in the thread.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.28    3 months ago
Supreme refers to a position among a group. Supreme in comparison to something else.  You need to keep in mind what it is I was addressing. Why can there be only one God? Saying God is supreme, while true, doesn't really say anything about why He is supreme.

As noted, I have no objection with you using sovereignty or sovereign, but the word alone does not connote what you think it does:

Sovereign (Oxford) = "Possessing supreme or ultimate power."

Sovereign (Merriam Webster) = "1 asuperlative in quality  bof the most exalted kind SUPREME sovereign virtue  chaving generalized curative powers sovereign remedy  dof an unqualified nature UNMITIGATED sovereign contempt  ehaving undisputed ascendancy PARAMOUNT 2 apossessed of supreme power  sovereign ruler  bunlimited in extent ABSOLUTE  cenjoying autonomy INDEPENDENT sovereign states"

Your own words show the limited meaning of sovereignty:

Drakk @1.2.25 = Sovereignty means supreme power and authority

Using 'sovereignty' in your definition for God simply states that God has supreme or ultimate power (and thus authority).   You need to add your additional qualifications and, if you are to do that, you could use supreme or sovereign since they are synonyms in this usage.  Supreme is what most definitions seem to use.   

And, to be crystal clear, your additional qualifications in your personal extended definition of the word sovereignty:

Because logically there can only be one. Assuming a definition requiring for God to be God there can be nothing that can resist His will. There can be nothing that can supersede Him, overrule Him or be something that God is dependent on. No necessary condition for existence except Himself. This, although not really complete, is sovereignty. It doesn't compare God to anything else. It doesn't put Him on a scale. I was trying to create a sense of the utterly immovable rock and the utterly irresistible force that God is. 
 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.31  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.14    3 months ago
Care to explain why?

I already did. You cannot even prove the existence of ONE god, but you can logically determine that there can be only one God? That literally makes no sense at all. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.32  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.28    3 months ago
Yeah? Well here's what I see. I responded to Mr. Frost's post about how can we know there's only one God. You respond to me not about whether there can be one God or not, but about defining God. For some reason you don't identify, you felt you needed to change what I said into what you have said and insist we argue from there, else why are we still arguing about it? And, what does it have to do with the idea that there can be only one God? 

The problem is that you cannot prove the existence of one god, much less prove that there is only one God versus many Gods... That is where your logic falls apart. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.33  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.30    3 months ago
Noting that one can indeed define 'God' and thus make God, by definition, be whatever one wishes.

True, but think about what would happen if you did. You come up with some definition of God, and my definition subjugated yours to mine because yours had some flaw allowing it, yours would get demoted to god. We'd both keep on defining better and better Gods until we reached, logically, the greatest possible entity. All I have done is cut to the chase. The purpose of which was to make it plain there could be only one. 

I then noted that definitions can also define an impossible God - such as that defined by the Bible.

I disagree the God of the Bible is impossible. My belief is He is the only one that qualifies as God. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I won't respond to anything about this further at this time. I don't have time for it. 

As noted, I have no objection with you using sovereignty or sovereign, but the word alone does not connote what you think:

It does among Christians. That is also why I gave the description of God that I did in my original post. I was explaining some of what we mean by the word as applied to God in Christian understanding. For a more complete (but not totally complete) understanding of the word as applied by Christians to God: https://www.allaboutgod.com/sovereignty-of-god-definition-faq.htm

And, to be crystal clear, your additional qualifications in your personal extended definition of the word sovereignty:

If you read the link above you should note it isn't my personal extended definition. Most serious Christians would use the word applied to God as I do. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.34  Drakkonis  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.32    3 months ago
The problem is that you cannot prove the existence of one god, much less prove that there is only one God versus many Gods... That is where your logic falls apart. 

Your question was how do we know there is only one God, not, is there a God. It is not necessary to prove there is a God in order to logically prove that, should God exist, there could only be one. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.33    3 months ago
I disagree the God of the Bible is impossible. My belief is He is the only one that qualifies as God. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I won't respond to anything about this further at this time. I don't have time for it. 

Your definition of God is better than that of the Bible because your definition is not self-refuting (although eternal has some issues).    An omniscient entity, such as that defined by the Bible, cannot by definition learn anything because it already knows everything.   The consequences of that simple fact in the context of the biblical God (especially the stories) are staggering.   

It does among Christians. 

I have no doubt that it does to you, but as with most things religious everyone seems to have their own variant of truth.   Christian beliefs vary ... considerably.

If you read the link above you should note it isn't my personal extended definition.

It is Drakk.  You have added substantial meaning to the word and that meaning is not corroborated by dictionaries.   Your link shows others who, like you, have added their own extensions to the English word.

Look, I have no objection to people using 'sovereignty' in their description of God.   But one should recognize when one is attaching additional meaning to a word.   The dictionaries define the word.   If you wish to state deeper meaning that the word holds for you that is fine, but recognize you are adding that additional meaning.  It does not come pre-packaged in the word alone.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.36  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.35    3 months ago
If you wish to state deeper meaning that the word holds for you that is fine, but recognize you are adding that additional meaning.  It does not come pre-packaged in the word alone.

You're going to believe what you will, but it does come pre-packaged with that meaning. 

Sovereign (Oxford) = "Possessing supreme or ultimate power."

This is the sense in which we apply the word to God but what does it mean for God to have supreme or ultimate power? You have to unpack the meaning behind that description for it to actually have any meaning. When you say a particular State has National Sovereignty, we are saying they have the authority and the power to govern themselves. It is a legal and political device. It does not mean they have the ability to do whatever they please and no one can stop them as many States have discovered in war. We are not saying the same thing when we apply Sovereignty to God. We mean something else. Even atheists recognize this. So what is meant? The link is an unpacking of sovereignty as it applies to God. There isn't any special adding onto the meaning of the word. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.36    3 months ago

A singular (meaning unique) supreme (meaning top dog) entity that is eternal and who has created everything other than itself (meaning everything exists at its pleasure) is about as superior as it gets.

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

How do you beat that?

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.38  epistte  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.36    3 months ago
We are not saying the same thing when we apply Sovereignty to God. We mean something else. Even atheists recognize this. So what is meant? The link is an unpacking of sovereignty as it applies to God. There isn't any special adding onto the meaning of the word. 

Are you suggesting that your god isn't both omniscient and omnipotent, despite the fact that you believe that he created the universe and everything in it? 

Why would you worship someone who isn't omnipotent and omniscient, and why would you pray to that same deity if he didn't have the power to change things at will, if he so chose to do so?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.39  Drakkonis  replied to  epistte @1.2.38    3 months ago
Are you suggesting that your god isn't both omniscient and omnipotent, despite the fact that you believe that he created the universe and everything in it? 

I haven't included aspects that aren't necessary for the discussion. 

Why would you worship someone who isn't omnipotent and omniscient, and why would you pray to that same deity if he didn't have the power to change things at will, if he so chose to do so?

How does this question relate to the discussion? Do you even know what the discussion is about?

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.40  epistte  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.39    3 months ago
I haven't included aspects that aren't necessary for the discussion. 

You're are dancing faster than Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers combined.

You don't want to get pinned down with a definition of god because you know that your argument isn't defensible and if you  do get pinned down with a definition of god your current house of cards falls apart and even you cannot try to defend it. Do you think that we do not notice your desperate logical dance around the truth?

 You are trying to act tough, that only broadcasts that you know that your argument isn't logical, because if you had a rational argument you wouldn't have to be so defensive.

 I dare you and any other religious conservative to take this Battleground God quiz and have a result that contains less than 3 hits. This is a test of the logic of your religious beliefs.

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.41  Drakkonis  replied to  epistte @1.2.40    3 months ago
You're are dancing faster than Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers combined.

Whatever. What you are not doing is anything resembling contributing to the discussion. 

I dare you and any other religious conservative to take this Battleground God quiz and have a result that contains less than 3 hits. This is a test of the logic of your religious beliefs.

(Sigh) I took it and it was as leading as I expected it to be. I took one hit as follows. 

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith. The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

This is complete crap because it assumes that God and the Loch Ness monster, should they exist, exist in the same manner and are capable of being discovered in the same manner. In other words, the question is examined strictly from a materialist point of view. The Loch Ness monster, should it exist, would obviously be an animal of some sort. Therefore we should theoretically be able to discover it using standard methods, more or less. However, it is claimed that God is not a material creature but is in fact a supernatural Spirit. To my knowledge, science has yet to develop a capability to detect such a being. Since discovery of God would then entail a different method, it is not a contradiction in positions. 

I also bit one bullet, whatever that means. I suspect it means they know how weak their objection to my choice was.

You answered "False" to questions 7 and 8, which generated the following response: You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected Darwinian evolution when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet of supposing that that scientists have got it wrong; or (b) take a direct hit, accepting that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.

First, that the vast majority of scientists think evolution through natural selection doesn't make them right. Believing on that basis is an ad populum fallacy. The vast majority believed the universe had no beginning until Edwin Hubble proved them wrong. 

Second, the question was too limited as it does not allow for a third option of intelligent design. That is, that evolution is guided by God and not natural selection. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.41    3 months ago
Second, the question was too limited as it does not allow for a third option of intelligent design. That is, that evolution is guided by God and not natural selection. 

An entity that created our universe might have the power to direct every aspect of change.   Guiding evolution would involve directing mutations (among other things) to occur.   Some mutations will be harmless replications of genes that either do nothing or produce features in the creature that are largely irrelevant.   Others actually cause harm.   And then there are the helpful mutations that add features beneficial to survival.   This last part is what enables the formation of new species.

These mutations work in conjunction with the changing environment (which would also have to be directed by the creator for this to work).   Features that enable the creature to survive conditions of its environment enable the creature to reproduce and pass those helpful genetic features onto its progeny.

If the creator (God) is directing evolution, not only is He coordinating life at an extraordinarily detailed level, but He is failing most of the time.   Further, He is directing features to emerge that are ridiculous - features that make sense if they resulted from undirected processes but not from an intelligent designer (e.g.:  "The Poor Design of the Human Eye"):

One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the “hot” end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little “microphones” are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!

This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It’s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone. It can still work, provided that you turn the sensitivity of the microphone way up and you speak loudly.

Furthermore, light must travel through a thin layer of tissue and blood supply before reaching the photoreceptors.

So sure evolution might be guided by an incredibly powerful and knowledgeable entity (God) but if so, God is purposely trashing things around to produce results that appear to be a result of unintelligent trial & error.   Seems like a stretch to think evolution is directed by God when there are vastly superior explanations for what we have observed.


The aspect of this that strikes me most, however, is that you jump to God-directed evolution for (clearly) religious reasons.   You posit God as the biochemical micro-manager directing all the details of biochemical evolution and, necessarily, the changing conditions of the environment.

All this control of the details of life and environment by God yet you also insist that this same God provides free will.    The contortions one must go through to try to preserve a biblical view of God should be a hint that maybe the Bible is not the best definition for God.   It would save logic a ton of torture.

Why not hold to the abstract definition you posited for God and recognize the Bible as simply an ancient book written by men and thus replete with fiction (imagination of the authors) and errors resulting from human mistakes, poor logic and ignorance?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.43  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.39    3 months ago
I haven't included aspects that aren't necessary for the discussion. 

You're deflecting since the link you posted included those aspects.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.44  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.42    3 months ago
Why not hold to the abstract definition you posited for God and recognize the Bible as simply an ancient book written by men and thus replete with fiction (imagination of the authors) and errors resulting from human mistakes, poor logic and ignorance?

No, thanks. I'd rather be counted among the foolish. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.45  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.44    3 months ago

Me too.  I stand with the literal Bible being written by men and women inspired in their writings by God.  

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.46  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @1.2    3 months ago

Which one? 

I miss Zeus. He was always so flashy. Monotheism is boring.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.47  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @1.2.46    3 months ago
I miss Zeus. He was always so flashy.

Hermes was the original speedster. Move over Flash! lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.48  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.47    3 months ago

Apollo was the good looking one

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.49  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.45    3 months ago
Me too.  I stand with the literal Bible being written by men and women inspired in their writings by God.  

The bible states that mortal man is fallible so when will your god confirm those inspirations to be true, instead of them being the projected opinions of ancient men with the claimed backing of god to give them religious and secular authority? 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
1.2.50  Phoenyx13  replied to  epistte @1.2.49    3 months ago
The bible states that mortal man is fallible

isn't that interesting... the bible states mortal man is fallible.. capable of mistakes and being erroneous... yet somehow when they wrote the bible they were suddenly infallible for that particular time period, right ? ... seems to be what the religious believe... it's almost as if the answer is right in there face... mortal men are fallible... yet they refuse to believe it when it comes to the bible being written by.. mortal men... 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.51  epistte  replied to  Phoenyx13 @1.2.50    3 months ago
isn't that interesting... the bible states mortal man is fallible.. capable of mistakes and being erroneous... yet somehow when they wrote the bible they were suddenly infallible for that particular time period, right ? ... seems to be what the religious believe... it's almost as if the answer is right in there face... mortal men are fallible... yet they refuse to believe it when it comes to the bible being written by.. mortal men... 

God is omniscient and omnipotent but somehow he can't be bothered to write down his own beliefs or edit those beliefs that were written by others so people know that they are correct.

I'm not sure why people would worship a deity such as that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.2.51    3 months ago
I'm not sure why people would worship a deity such as that?

Not too sure you need to know why others worship God.

We worship Him because we love Him.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.53  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.52    3 months ago
Not too sure you need to know why others worship God. We worship Him because we love Him.

Why do you love him when he has done nothing for you other than to threaten you with eternal torture for being fallible, that he permitted to happen? Your god both created the concept of sin and then created you not to be perfect so that you sinned. That is the epitome of gaslighting. He is blaming you for a critical design failure that he could have corrected but he didn't.

 He told you not to worship other gods, but if he is truly omnipotent then why do those other gods exist when he could have eliminated them?

Why did he allow pain and hell to be created if he truly loves you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.54  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.2.53    3 months ago
Why do you love him when he has done nothing for you other than to threaten you with eternal torture for being fallible, that he permitted to happen?

My God has never threatened me. Why is what I think about God so interesting to you?

Your god both created the concept of sin and then created you not to be perfect so that you sinned.

Do you know any perfect humans? Do you know even one? I sure would love to meet them, too.

He is blaming you for a critical design failure that he could have corrected but he didn't.

My God hasn't blamed fme for anything, and He gave me free will, just as you have free will.

He told you not to worship other gods, but if he is truly omnipotent then why do those other gods exist when he could have eliminated them?

Prove they exist. Or ask God.

Why did he allow pain and hell to be created if he truly loves you?

Without pain to compare it to, how would you ever know happiness? And I know God loves me, He even loves you.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.55  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @1.2.53    3 months ago

God did not create the concept of sin nor did he make us imperfect. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.55    3 months ago
God did not create the concept of sin nor did he make us imperfect. 

Who or what, then, created sin?

Did God make human beings perfect?

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.57  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.55    3 months ago
God did not create the concept of sin nor did he make us imperfect. 

According to Genesis, god created everything.

Your god cannot be both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent, (all powerful) if he did not also create sin.

The bible says that man is fallible so you are imperfect. How can the bible be the literal word of god, as you ave said that it is, if this isn't true? Why were Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden of Eden if they weren't fallible enough to eat the forbidden fruit? if god made perfect creatures they would not have been tempted.

Jeremiah 17:9

"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

You have argued yourself into a logical corner, so how do you plan to get out of it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.58  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.2.57    3 months ago

(By pretending the corner does not exist?)

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.59  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.58    3 months ago
(By pretending the corner does not exist?)

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.60  Drakkonis  replied to  epistte @1.2.57    3 months ago
Your god cannot be both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent, (all powerful) if he did not also create sin.

You are trying to argue concepts you don't understand. Sin wasn't created any more than dark was created. Neither good nor evil were created. God is good and He is eternal. Therefore, good has always existed. Evil did not. Evil didn't appear until Satan rebelled. It is not a thing you can hold in your hand. You can't scoop up a cup of evil or put it under a microscope. Evil is simply what isn't God's will. It is a potential, not a thing. 

When it is said God made us perfect, it is not in the sense that He is perfect. It means when He created man, He got exactly what He wanted for His purposes. People who could have a relationship with Him of their own free will. It doesn't mean we were incapable of choosing not to have a relationship with Him. To choose our own way rather than His. We chose not to. He forced us out of the Garden because that is the result of living outside of His will. Most of the horrible things we do to each other isn't the result of God punishing us. It is the result of us choosing to do it on our own. The result of us thinking we can do it better ourselves than listening to and obeying God. 

We are not in a corner. You only think we are because you do not know God. You do not understand the concepts in the Bible because you read it not to understand what it says but to find some way to make it fit your argument. You do not believe God exists, let alone believe in Him. What makes you think you can tell us what it is we believe, then? You don't even know what it means that God made us perfect. You create an argument from non-understanding and then challenge us on the logic as if it were our own? And you can't even see that you're doing it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.60    3 months ago
Sin wasn't created any more than dark was created.

Presuming God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator, darkness could not exist if the creator did not wish it to exist.   Similarly, if the creator produces conditions where evil emerges then the creator indirectly created evil.   For an omniscient and omnipotent creator there is no difference between things that happen directly and those that emerge later.   Everything is known to God and God is in full control over that which He creates.    Everything, good or bad, is what God knew would happen and what God allows.   Thus God created Satan fully knowing Satan would rebel.

To make epistte's quoted comment wrong you would need to equivocate on the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence.   

It means when He created man, He got exactly what He wanted for His purposes. People who could have a relationship with Him of their own free will.

God gets what God wants.   ( Disregarding, for the moment, the logical contradiction of a knowable future and free will. )

We are not in a corner. You only think we are because you do not know God. You do not understand the concepts in the Bible because you read it not to understand what it says but to find some way to make it fit your argument. 

One could also claim (with rather decent supporting evidence) that believers interpret the Bible in a way that fits their desires.   Claiming to 'know God' is an arrogant argument that probably will not persuade many people.   'I know God and you do not therefore I am right and you are wrong' is an appeal to emotion.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.62  epistte  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.60    3 months ago
You are trying to argue concepts you don't understand. Sin wasn't created any more than dark was created. Neither good nor evil were created. God is good and He is eternal. Therefore, good has always existed. Evil did not. Evil didn't appear until Satan rebelled. It is not a thing you can hold in your hand. You can't scoop up a cup of evil or put it under a microscope. Evil is simply what isn't God's will. It is a potential, not a thing. 

If it exists then it had to be created.   If your god is truly omnipotent then either he created or he didn't stop it from being created.  Dark was also created when your god created the universe, if you believe Genesis.

Other religions do not have a concept of sin, such as Buddhism.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2.63  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.1    3 months ago

So much bs so little time

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2.64  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.45    3 months ago

If there is only one God then explain:

81 entries are listed here. It is simply impossible to list all varieties of religion1 as we as a species have created an almost infinite variety of religious and transcendental ideas. Items in lower case italics are classes of religion and not actual religions. For example, "theism" is any religion that contains god(s), and "polytheism" is a form of theism.

What data do you want in the table?

Options
 Icons
 Compact Layout

 Origins & Background
 Heritage
 Area of Origin
 Founded
 Founder

 Description
 Description
 God(s)?
 Afterlife
 Holy Texts

Description God(s)? Afterlife? Holy Texts?
agnosticism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief that (1) God, if it exists, is by nature unknowable and will always be unknowable, or, (2) that the individual being asked cannot conclude if god exists or not for lack of evidence one way or the other Atheist/monotheist Not defined None
Amish Christianity.pngPeaceful Christian fundamentalist group famous for its rejection of technology and strict adherence to OT and NT laws Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
ancestor worship A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief that good relations need to be kept with tribal ancestor spirits. Often a form of Shamanism Not defined Yes None
animism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. The belief that all objects contain spirits. More a traditional form of belief than a "religion" in the Western sense Not defined Not defined None
Asatrú A modern uptake of Nordic religion Polytheist Other None
atheism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Either (1) the active and extrinsic disbelief that God exists, or (2) an intrinsic lack of belief due to lack of knowledge about god(s) in local culture Atheist Not defined None
Aum Shinrikyo Dangerous and violent religious community responsible for the 1995 Sarin gas attack on Tokyo's subway and other crimes. Eventually they apologized, stopped using the Bible, and formed the more prosaic group called Aleph Theist Yes The Bibleand other
Bahá'í Faith Bahai.pngA world religion2,3. Belief that a series of prophets have come from God, and that Bahá'í is the latest religion founded by God. A liberal offshoot of Islam, but persecuted in Iran Monotheist Yes Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha
Brahma Kumari This group are preparing to rule the world after a coming apocalypse, and embrace many practices which are now called New Age Monotheist Writings of founder and leaders
Branch Davidians Christianity.pngApocalyptic suicide cult famed for its dramatic armed fight against authorities in the town of Waco, USA, in 1993 Theist Heaven or hell The Bible
Buddhism Buddhism.pngA world religion2,3,5. The belief that meditation and good living can break the cycle of reincarnation and result in enlightenment Atheist Reincarnation until escape Multifaceted
Celtic Paganism Modern reconstructions of Celtic paganism form part of the neo-pagan range of religions Not known None
Chen Tao A series of civilisations on Earth have arisen but destroyed themselves in nuclear war. Each time, some faithful believers were rescued by flying saucers and put back on Earth Theist Yes
Chinese Religion A varied cultural religion practiced traditionally on a town-by-town and region-by-region basis Atheist Reincarnation until escape None
Christadelphians Christianity.pngBible-based Christianity Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
Christian Apostolic Church In Zion Christianity.pngFundamentalist Anti-science flat-earth Christian cult, who also predicted the End of the World would occur 4 different times Theist Heaven or hell The Bible
Christianity Christianity.pngA world religion6,3. Belief that a single creator god had a son, Jesus Christ, born to a human mother, and that Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans brings salvation Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
Concerned Christians Christianity.pngFundamentalist Christians active in USA, Israel and Greece who expected the end of the world in year 2000, starting with a nuclear attack on the USA, which they appeared to be trying to instigate themselves Theist Heaven or hell The Bible
Confucianism Confucianism.pngA world religion9,10. A collection of ethical and moral teachings Atheist None
Dami Xuanjiao A millenarian cult based on the belief that Jesus would return to judge survivors in 1999. Suspected of being on the verge of mass suicide after predictions of the end of the world failed in year 2000 Theist Yes
deism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief in a single creator god who is not "personal" and does not have human emotions, and which many believers say does not interact with the world Monotheist Not defined None
Divine Lightmission A self-help religious group involving meditation, with few fixed beliefs Hard to tell None
Druidism Celtic religion in prehistoric England. Modern reconstructed Druidism is part of the neo-pagan range of religions Not known/polytheist Reincarnation None
Druze A semi-secretive esoteric religion with features of a Mystery Religion Monotheist Qur'an, Rasa'il al-hikma (Epistles of Wisdom)
dualism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief that either (1) There is a good and evil god of equal, or almost-equal power, or (2) there are two gods, such as a male and female one Dualist Not defined Multifaceted
Ebionites 1st century Jewish Christians, possibly the earliest form of Christianity to exist Monotheist Early version of the Gospel of Matthew
Eckankar Eckankar.pngNew Age religion, a mix of Sant Mat, Theosophy and Scientology Monotheist Reincarnation until escape Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad11
Gnosticism The belief that we must escape from this world, which was created and is ruled by an inferior and unworthy god, and reunite with the true god Polytheist Multifaceted
Hare Krishna The embracing of Krishna through correct living, honesty, spiritual life and austerity Polytheist Reincarnation until escape Various Indianscriptures
Heathenism Modern uptake of Nordic religion. Part of the neo-pagan range of religions Polytheist None
Heaven's Gate Christianity.pngApocalyptic suicide cult who combined Biblical eschatology with New Age and ideas about UFOs. All 39 members committed suicide in San Diego, USA in 1997 Theist Yes
Hinduism Hinduism.pngA world religion2,10. Cultural religion of India which was historically decentralized and disparate and not a single belief system. Western influence made it into a single religion, an identity which Hindus now accept Polytheist Reincarnation until escape Multifaceted
Hookers For Jesus / The Family Of God Christianity.pngSexually promiscuous group who fell foul of police suspicion. As is often the case, increasing pressure from outside resulted in the group retreating even further into insanity, and they became The Family, predicting the end of the world Theist Heaven or hell The Bible
Humanism An organized form of atheism where moral and ethical goodness is emphasized Atheist None None
Islam Islam.pngA world religion2,3. Strict monotheism taught by Muhammad, the world's 2nd largest religion Monotheist Heaven or hell Qur'an and Hadiths
Jainism  Jainism.pngA world religion2,10. Beliefs include non-violence and equality of all living things Atheist Reincarnation until escape Jain Agamas
Jedi Knights A campaign saw many put this down as their religion on the UK census in 2001. Midichlorians exist in all living beings, which create a 'living force' that can be interacted with Animist Select few None
Jehovah's Witnesses Christianity.pngA 140-year-old Christian fundamentalist/literalist organisation famous for preaching that the world is about to end (nowadays - because of the existence of the United Nations) Monotheist Other The Bible
Judaism Judaism.pngA world religion2,3. Organized Judaism emerged from Babylonian writings. Belief that God has a special contract with a Hebrew tribe, involving many specific rules of behaviour Monotheist Yes Tanakh and Talmud
Mennonite Christianity.pngA Protestant Christian denomination Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
Mithraism Roman mystery religion that believed that the Son of the Sun was a saviour who was sacrificed for the good of all Monotheist Yes Not known
monotheism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief in a single creator god Theist Not defined Multifaceted
Mysticism The belief that God is unknowable but accessible, and that doctrinal religion hampers spiritual growth Not defined Not defined Multifaceted
Native American Church Beliefs vary from tribe to tribe and are sometimes noticeably Christian Monotheist None
New Age A disparate and diverse collection of popular beliefs and practices Not defined Other None
no religion A form of belief, rather than a specific system. The rise secularisation has seen public and private religion decline throughout the developed world Not defined Not defined None
occultism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Normally existing within other belief systems, occult systems concentrate on esoteric meanings in texts, often with magical undertones Not defined Not defined Multifaceted
Order Of The Solar Temple Apocalyptic suicide cult, with mass suicides in Switzerland, France and Quebec, in preparation for Jesus' second coming Theist Yes The Bibleand other
Paganism pu_pentacle.gifPart of the neo-pagan range of religions Polytheist Yes None
pantheism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. God is everywhere, and everything, but is not transcendent and may have no distinct consciousness Monotheist None
Pastafarianism A parody religion based on worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Monotheist Heaven or hell Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
People's Temple Christianity.pngApocalyptic suicide cult that imploded, resulting in the deaths of over 600 adults and 276 children Theist Heaven or hell The Bible
polytheism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief in multiple gods, often in some form of hierarchy Theist Not defined Multifaceted
Raja Yoga An astika school of Hindu philosophy based around mastering and quieting the mind, involving meditation Polytheist The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali
Rastafarian Christianity.pngGod (called Jah) fathered a black Jesus; marijuana use in rituals Monotheist The Bible(generally)
Ravidassia Souls are part of the divine and proper living allows us to realize God Monotheist Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji
Salvation Army Christianity.pngChristian organisation of evangelists organised along military lines, famous for charity work Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
Santería A combination of West African, Caribbean beliefs with some elements of Roman Catholicism Monotheist None
Satanism public_baphomet.gifAn atheist religion that uses dark and evil symbology for self-development and anti-religious purposes - Satan itself is not a real being, just a symbol Atheist None Writings of founder and leaders
Scientology Derived from the writings of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, a series of practices called Dianetics is used to clear minds of alien influences and attain a state of mental perfection Atheist Reincarnation Writings of founder and leaders
Shamanism Belief that Shamans need to keep good relations with tribal ancestor spirits for the good fortune of the whole tribe Not defined Yes None
Shinto Shintoism.pngA world religion2,10. Official collection of practices in Japan, more cultural than religious Atheist Various
Sikhism Sikhism.pngA world religion2,10. Prayer, meditation and self control to become a soldier of God Monotheist Reincarnation until escape Sri Guru Granth Sahib and others
Spiritualism The belief that the souls of the dead communicate with the living, mostly through Mediums, but, suffered serious credibility problems with the original founders admitted to fraudulently inventing the 'rappings' that formed the communications Not defined Yes None
sun worship sun.pngA form of belief, rather than a specific system. The basis of much symbology used in many subsequent religions Not defined Not defined None
Taoism yy.gifA world religion2,3. A relaxed and peaceful religion based on following and accepting the flow of life Atheist None Tao Te Ching
theism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. The belief in god(s) Multifaceted
Thelema A magical system of discerning True Will with inspiration from a host of Egyptian gods Polytheist Book of the Law
Theosophy Mired in fraud arrests and exposés, the Spiritualism scene had soured, so Madame Blavatsky reinvented her routine as a new religion, using an Indian theme Yes
Traditional African Church A range of Churches ranging from mostly Christian, to those mostly encapsulating native African spirituality Monotheist The Bible
Unification Church Sun Myung Moon embodied the Second Coming of Christ, and his commercialist church runs a media empire Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bibleand The Exposition of the Divine Principle
Unitarianism A liberal and non-Trinitarian Christian church Monotheist Heaven The Bible
Unitarian-universalism UU.pngA liberal and diverse pluralist religion accepting of believers without needing them to leave their current religions Not defined Heaven Multifaceted
Unitas Fratrum Christianity.pngA Protestant Christian denomination Monotheist Heaven or hell The Bible
universalism A form of belief, rather than a specific system. Belief that all people go to heaven Theist Heaven Multifaceted
Voodoo A traditional religion from Haiti with an ethical focus on combating greed and promoting honour Deist None
Wicca pu_pentacle.gifNeo-pagan organisation based around reconstructed elements of folklore Dualist Not defined None
Witchcraft A description of various cultural practices, which are often part of a parent belief system Not defined Not defined Multifaceted
Yezidism RE0191.pngAn ancient religion. Malek Taus looks after the world with 6 other angels. Heavily persecuted by Muslims and accused of Devil Worship Monotheist Reincarnation Yezidi Book of Revelation & Black Book
Zhu Shen Jiao As this group got more and more excited about establishing a Kingdom of God, in the approach to year 2000, its leaders were arrested amid fears that it would turn into a suicide cult Theist Yes
Zoroastrianism  RE0131.pngA world religion10. An ancient dualistic religion from Iran with one good god (Ahura Mazda) and one evil one (Ahriman) Dualist Avesta
 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.65  arkpdx  replied to  Don Overton @1.2.63    3 months ago
So much bs so little time

Don't worry Don. You will get it spread around soon enough. It is what you do

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.66  arkpdx  replied to  Don Overton @1.2.63    3 months ago
So much bs so little time

Don't worry Don. You will get it spread around soon enough. It is what you do

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.67  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.55    3 months ago
God did not create the concept of sin nor did he make us imperfect. 

Then how does sin supposedly exist and how can perfect beings such as we (according to you) commit sin or clearly be imperfect as we are now?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.68  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @1.2.57    3 months ago
You have argued yourself into a logical corner, so how do you plan to get out of it?

By completely ignoring it, as usual.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.69  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.68    3 months ago
By completely ignoring it, as usual.

He has abandoned this question and started another hair-on-fire shriek thread. 

 I have warned him if he doesn't stop lighting his hair on fire every day I will be forced to create a GoFundMe page to pay for hair plugs to restore what little hair he has not immolated.  

 
 
 
epistte
2  epistte    3 months ago

It's sad when people have imaginary friends. It's even sadder when they have imaginary enemies. 

 We should tax the churches as Patrick Henry and others suggested. 

While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all. Jefferson and Madison's viewpoint also carried the day when the Constitution, and later, the Bill of Rights, were written. Had an officially Christian nation been the goal of the founders, that concept would appear in the Constitution. It does not. Instead, our nation's governing document ensures religious freedom for everyone.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2    3 months ago

Good that we have religious freedom for all.

Bad idea taxing churches--breaking the separation line between church and state.

That is one reason why we don't do it.

Even the majority of Democrats wouldn't support that proposal because there is no way in hell Democrats can afford to lose the black vote.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 months ago
Good that we have religious freedom for all.

Bad idea taxing churches--breaking the separation line between church and state.

That is one reason why we don't do it.

Even the majority of Democrats wouldn't support that proposal because there is no way in hell Democrats can afford to lose the black vote.

How is taxing churches a violation of the separation of church and state if all religions are taxed equally?  I'm not aware that the government has ever said that having a church to pray is part of your religious rights, or that they have to provide you a church if one does not exist. paying taxes is not a violation of your religious rights. 

 The Amish do not have churches, so do they have fewer rights than other Christian sects?

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 months ago

And the Hispanic vote.  There are a great many things the founders allowed with regard to what churches, people, and government could do and were allowed under the constitution they wrote as they intended and initially enforced that secular progressives are trying to steal from us and our traditions because they think that they know better than the founders did as to their intent.  There is a lot of room to keep and bring back God into the public square without violating separation of church and state as they the founding fathers envisioned it.  

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    3 months ago
And the Hispanic vote.  There are a great many things the founders allowed with regard to what churches, people, and government could do and were allowed under the constitution they wrote as they intended and initially enforced that secular progressives are trying to steal from us and our traditions because they think that they know better than the founders did as to their intent.  There is a lot of room to keep and bring back God into the public square without violating separation of church and state as they the founding fathers envisioned it.  

Those Hispanics are Christians.  You should want them to earn their citizenship, so they can vote.

 You love to quote Leviticus about LGBT equality, but why this passage a is 3-mile wide blind spot for you? 

Leviticus 19:33-34 New International Version (NIV)

33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago
How is taxing churches a violation of the separation of church and state if all religions are taxed equally?

Wow, I am really surprised that someone who purports to be as well-read as you haven't read WHY we don't tax churches.

Are you also going to want to tax all other non-profits, too?

And how will you tax all churches equally? What are you going to tax, and how are you going to tax them?

I'm not aware that the government has ever said that having a church to pray is part of your religious rights, or that they have to provide you a church if one does not exist. paying taxes is not a violation of your religious rights.

Who claimed it was a violation of religious rights to tax a church?

The Amish do not have churches, so do they have fewer rights than other Christian sects?

What fewer rights are you saying they currently have? Does the federal govt. tax their homes where they hold services?

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.5  charger 383  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago

churches get many things paid for by taxpayers like police protection, fire and emergency services, streets & sidewalks, access to municipal water and sewer ect ect. My taxes are higher because they don't pay their fair share  , 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    3 months ago

How about real estate taxes, the Catholics are loaded with prime real estate and pay no taxes but rely on city services like fire & police protection.

I wouldn't have a problem taxing the Clinton Foundation, would you?

Does the federal govt. tax their homes where they hold services?

No, not the Feds, but the "House Amish" pay their county real estate and school taxes like everyone else. They also pay state & federal income taxes but were allowed to opt out of Social Security and medicare by Congress in 1965

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.7  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.5    3 months ago
churches get many things paid for by taxpayers like police protection, fire and emergency services, streets & sidewalks, access to municipal water and sewer ect ect. My taxes are higher because they don't pay their fair share  , 

They need to pay property taxes. Id likes to see a progressive income tax on churches, from 1% on small; churches to 10% on Megachurches.  We could fund healthcare and the social safety net, that Jesus obviously supported. 

 Why are people and the government of France paying to rebuild Notre Dame cathedral when it is owned by the Roman Catholic Church? Macron needs to tell the Pope to write the check to pay for his own fire, unless the rebuilding process will allow the French people to assume ownership of it.   If the Catholics could stop using the parishioner's donations to pay off the victims of their priest's pedophilia they could pay taxes and fix their churches.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.8  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    3 months ago
Who claimed it was a violation of religious rights to tax a church?

You did. 2.1 

What fewer rights are you saying they currently have? Does the federal govt. tax their homes where they hold services?

 The Amish pay the same federal, state, and local taxes that everyone else does.  They hold their services in the barns of their congregation on a rotating basis of every other weekend.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.8    3 months ago
You did. 2.1

False, again. Sigh*

Here is my entire post you claim to be looking at:

Good that we have religious freedom for all.
Bad idea taxing churches--breaking the separation line between church and state.
That is one reason why we don't do it.
Even the majority of Democrats wouldn't support that proposal because there is no way in hell Democrats can afford to lose the black vote.

Please note that nowhere in that post did I say it was a violation of religious rights, [deleted]
Please stop putting your words into my posts, that is a very dishonest thing to do.

The Amish pay the same federal, state, and local taxes that everyone else does. They hold their services in the barns of their congregation on a rotating basis of every other weekend.

So the Amish pay the very same taxes the rest of us do. I already knew that. So what? Shouldn't they?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    3 months ago

I wondered if they were insured, or self insured.  Interesting.

Two of the contractors had AXA insurance for such an event if it can be proven that they were negligent.

France's AXA also covers the art works.

Unlike North America, where Catholic Mutual basically self insures Catholic churches & schools,

France, having declared Notre Dame a national monument is the self insured insurer for Notre Dame.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/france-s-axa-insured-notre-dame-artwork-two-construction-firms

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    3 months ago

How about every person pays income tax not just 40 percent of the citizens.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    3 months ago
How about real estate taxes, the Catholics are loaded with prime real estate and pay no taxes but rely on city services like fire & police protection.
I wouldn't have a problem taxing the Clinton Foundation, would you?

I know of no federal law banning states from making churches pay property taxes. Maybe y'all should take this up with your individual state. Good luck!

Yes, I have a problem taxing any non-profit.

No, not the Feds, but the "House Amish" pay their county real estate and school taxes like everyone else. They also pay state & federal income taxes but were allowed to opt out of Social Security and medicare by Congress in 1965

As do we all. Do you think the Amish should be different?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.13  epistte  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    3 months ago
France, having declared Notre Dame a national monument is the self insured insurer for Notre Dame.

If the country owns it then it should be insured.

If the contractors were negligent then obviously they pay, but AXA will have herds of lawyers trying to limit their liability. 

Paris -- After a fire that raged for at least 12 hours, Notre Dame Cathedral stood damaged but defiant Wednesday and the cross on the church's altar, though buried in debris, was almost shining, reports CBS News' Roxana Saberi.

Almost $1 billion has been raised to rebuild the iconic monument, the Associated Press reported, and French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced an international competition for architects to rebuild the spire, according to the French news agency AFP.

Local newspaper Le Parisian reported that a fire alarm went off late Monday, but that a computer glitch indicated the flames were in a different location. The paper said the fire may have begun at the bottom of the spire and been caused by an electrical problem in the elevator.  

Construction workers brought in a delivery of wooden planks and a large crane Wednesday morning as crews inspected the damage and worked to make sure that what had survived the fire was structurally sound.

I was unaware of a fire starting in the elevator.

Why would they want to redesign the spire instead of recreating what had been there for 200+ years.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.14  epistte  replied to  MUVA @2.1.11    3 months ago
How about every person pays income tax not just 40 percent of the citizens.

How do you plan to tax people living below the poverty line, the sick, and the homeless while corporations pay no taxes on billions of income?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    3 months ago
Why are people and the government of France paying to rebuild Notre Dame cathedral when it is owned by the Roman Catholic Church?

Okay, lets get the facts straight before we go off the rails.

Notre Dame is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is owned by France, who self-insures, which means, yes, TAXPAYER dollars are going to rebuild it because it is a national monument.

Id likes to see a progressive income tax on churches, from 1% on small; churches to 10% on Megachurches.

What exactly are you proposing to tax? Can you give some details? It is awfully easy to just say "Tax the churches" when you don't specify what you are taxing and how you are taxing, and how will you verify that the taxes are right.

Macron needs to tell the Pope to write the check to pay for his own fire, unless the rebuilding process will allow the French people to assume ownership of it. If the Catholics could stop using the parishioner's donations to pay off the victims of their priest's pedophilia they could pay taxes and fix their churches.

I already established that France owns Notre Dame, so need to address anything else in that part of the post.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @2.1.11    3 months ago

See your Congressman and Senators to hash that out with Mr Trump,

the new tax cuts actually increased that number from 43.2% to 44.4% adding 3.8 million more people who won't have a tax liability and will receive a 100% or larger refund of their withheld federal income taxes.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16

Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018. The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations' annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this year to report their 2018 results.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

I'm all for the AMT for everyone, corporations and non profits too.

I'm an equal opportunity tax collector.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.13    3 months ago
If the country owns it then it should be insured.

There is no "if". France owns it. France self-insures.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.18  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    3 months ago
I already established that France owns Notre Dame, so need to address anything else in that part of the post.

I was replying to Split Personality and not you.

What exactly are you proposing to tax? Can you give some details? It is awfully easy to just say "Tax the churches" when you don't specify what you are taxing and how you are taxing, and how will you verify that the taxes are right.

Their income, minus the ministers salary and what they use to directly benefit others in the US with food, clothing, rent/bills, and other direct assistance. Missionary work is not direct assistance because they are trying to create new members. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  epistte @2.1.13    3 months ago
Why would they want to redesign the spire instead of recreating what had been there for 200+ years.

Well I'm sure that cutting down trees that are already hundred of years old is not going to be one of the winning ideas.

In the end I expect it to look the same but be constructed of steel aluminum and concrete products.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.18    3 months ago
I was replying to Split Personality and not you

So what? This is an open forum, like it or not.

Their income, minus the ministers salary and what they use to directly benefit others in the US with food, clothing, rent/bills, and other direct assistance. Missionary work is not direct assistance because they are trying to create new members.

Churches are non-profits.

Good luck with that fantasy of taxing them.

Will you start with your own state first? Does your state tax churches?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.21  epistte  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.19    3 months ago
Well I'm sure that cutting down trees that are already hundred of years old is not going to be one of the winning ideas. In the end I expect it to look the same but be constructed of steel aluminum and concrete products.

I  doubt that they would let them cut old growth trees for a spire where the grain of the wood cannot be seen.  They can now use glulam' lumber that is easy to make from 20-50-year-old trees and +40% stronger than dimensional wood. I suspect that will also be used to reframe the ceiling. 

https://csengineermag.com/archived_assets/userfiles/image/SE0410_37figure1.pdf

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.22  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    3 months ago
Churches are non-profits.

Good luck with that fantasy of taxing them.

Will you start with your own state first? Does your state tax churches?

The tax code can be changed with sufficient votes in Congress. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.23  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.17    3 months ago

No American dollars should be spent of the reconstruction since France did not see fit to have an adequate fire sprinkler system in place.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.24  epistte  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.23    3 months ago

No American dollars should be spent of the reconstruction since France did not see fit to have an adequate fire sprinkler system in place.

 

An effective sprinkler system is almost impossible to retrofit in a medieval stone church without ruining the aesthetics of it because the piping and heads would be visual. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.22    3 months ago
he tax code can be changed with sufficient votes in Congress.

Way to state the obvious. Most people already know that. Good luck with that!

Why not start with your state first?

No votes in Congress needed that way, right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.23    3 months ago
No American dollars should be spent of the reconstruction since France did not see fit to have an adequate fire sprinkler system in place.

I am sure that France would happily take any donations US citizens wish to make. 

What is wrong with Americans spending their own money how they choose?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.27  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.25    3 months ago
Way to state the obvious. Most people already know that. Good luck with that!

Why not start with your state first?

No votes in Congress needed that way, right?

[deleted but LOL!]

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.27    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    3 months ago

During the French Revolution the jacobins took a lot of property away from the church and many properties. were never returned to their ownership even though they were allowed to use them.  Notre Dame may well be owned as much by the state as the church.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.30  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.5    3 months ago

And the same applies to private schools, hospitals, museums, universities, and all other non profit groups, agencies, etc. singling our churches among all non profits for taxation would be unconstitutional.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.31  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @2.1.22    3 months ago

As if that’s going to happen any time soon.   Trump would veto it anyway.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.31    3 months ago
As if that’s going to happen any time soon.

It isn't going to happen--at least in any of our lifetimes.

There simply isn't enough politically-suicidal Democrats to vote for that and lose the one demographic they can never lose if they want to win any national elections.

Just ain't going to happen.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.33  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.16    3 months ago

I’m glad that we got rid of the AMT. good riddance! jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.34  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @2.1.27    3 months ago

jrSmiley_11_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gif Resist the temptation.  Choose comity and civility.   😊 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.23    3 months ago

Brilliant!

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.36  Split Personality  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.29    3 months ago

  Notre Dame may well be owned as much by the state as the church.  

It has been established several times in the prior comments that as a French National Monument, the property and building belongs to and is the responsibility of the state.

 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.37  Split Personality  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.34    3 months ago
Choose comity and civility.   😊

Oh, the irony...

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
2.1.38  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago
The Amish do not have churches

The Amish worship in the home and do not build separate church structures. The Amish feel the basis of a church is its people, rather than a building.

So do you want to do tax each individual Amish person's home since they feel the church is its people?

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
2.1.39  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    3 months ago
We could fund healthcare and the social safety net, that Jesus obviously supported. 

What Jesus? you said he never existed many times. How can the Jesus that never existed support anything?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @2.1.39    3 months ago
What Jesus? you said he never existed many times. How can the Jesus that never existed support anything?

Do you find that tactic as annoying and silly as I do?

Some like to claim that they don't believe in God or Jesus but then want to quote stuff they don't believe in to us.

Or that they don't believe but then want to use Christian principles to bolster their otherwise weak arguments.

It is pretty darn weird if you ask me.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
2.1.41  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.40    3 months ago
Do you find that tactic as annoying and silly as I do?

Sure do.

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.1.42  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago
I'm not aware that the government has ever said that having a church to pray is part of your religious rights,

I believe you will find that in the free exercise clause of the first amendment

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.43  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 months ago
Bad idea taxing churches--breaking the separation line between church and state.

So churches shouldn't pay their fair share for the up keep of the infrastructure, protection and the like.

So churches should just freeload off you

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.44  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    3 months ago

Hummm render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.  How forgetful you've become

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.43    3 months ago
Bad idea taxing churches--breaking the separation line between church and state.
So churches shouldn't pay their fair share for the up keep of the infrastructure, protection and the like.
So churches should just freeload off you

I suggest that if you have a personal problem with a church being tax-exempt, you take it up with your state legislature.

Does your state tax churches? If not, WHY NOT? Do you know? Have you ever once inquired of your reps why?

How will you tax them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.44    3 months ago
Hummm render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. How forgetful you've become

You know, if you could simply show me where some church has not met its duty as far as tax liabilities are concerned, you might have some credibility on this,.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.47  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.40    3 months ago

I agree 100%.  On the other hand Satan quoted scripture to Jesus during the three temptations so it shouldn’t be a surprise that atheists follow that example in quoting it to us.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.48  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.47    3 months ago

So now you're trying to equate atheists with Satan?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.49  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.23    3 months ago

Get over it.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.50  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.46    3 months ago

It sees that they are intent on creating a separate standard for churches to have follow than for all other tax exempt organizations and charities.  

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.51  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.40    3 months ago
Some like to claim that they don't believe in God or Jesus but then want to quote stuff they don't believe in to us.

now if you think very carefully... and logically... there could be a reason that the particular poster does quote religious quotes from the bible to those who claim to be religious and believe in that particular god.... hmmmmm... let's think... maybe the poster is showing the religious believers how they aren't really following the religion they profess to love and believe in ? .... think carefully.. you might just get it after a few years if you are lucky...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @2.1.51    3 months ago
now if you think very carefully... and logically... there could be a reason that the particular poster does quote religious quotes from the bible to those who claim to be religious and believe in that particular god.... hmmmmm... let's think... maybe the poster is showing the religious believers how they aren't really following the religion they profess to love and believe in ? .... think carefully.. you might just get it after a few years if you are lucky...

Yeah,  that ain't what is happening here, but if it makes you feel good to indulge in fantaisies, have fun!

It is always amusing to hear people demand proof of God. It really never gets old!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.53  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.52    3 months ago
It is always amusing to hear people demand proof of God.

god exists in the hearts of mankind, therefore, gods deeds are seen thru the hands of mankind.

same is true with the devil... but I digress

anyone who has actually read the bible knows god is not hanging around here like a puff of smoke while taking notes and judging every minute.... he has left the building so to speak. but, he will be back with reinforcements to judge mankind "collectively"   just like any other farmer would.  hows the crop this harvest?  throw out the bad apples... yadda yadda.

cheers :)   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.1.54  Drakkonis  replied to  epistte @2.1.22    3 months ago
The tax code can be changed with sufficient votes in Congress. 

Yes, it can. So, you're for erasing the separation between church and state? Because that is what you would be doing. No taxation without representation, right? We sort of fought a war with England on that principle in case that escapes you. If you think churches stick their noses in politics now, what do you think will happen after state and federal governments start taxing them? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.55  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.53    3 months ago

The second coming is often referred to as a harvest.  The wheat and the Tares growing together, the wheat being harvested up to heaven and the tares consumed.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.56  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.55    3 months ago
The second coming is often referred to as a harvest.

that's what I said... gods a farmer, yadda yadda.

and most of the crop will run towards the tractors.. LOL

a very smooth and efficient operation indeed.

it would be nice if my tomatoes just jumped in the basket on their own as I walk by.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.57  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    3 months ago

“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other people’s money, except when it comes to questions of national survival, when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security.”


The church was built by donations from the faithful not with tax money


 
 
 
JBB
2.1.58  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.57    3 months ago

Tax free tax deductible donations...

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.59  Split Personality  replied to  JBB @2.1.58    3 months ago

on properties free of real estate taxes, which was my original statement.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.60  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.58    3 months ago
Tax free tax deductible donations...

Why not?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.61  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.59    3 months ago
on properties free of real estate taxes

And that's the way it should be

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.57    3 months ago
The church was built by donations from the faithful not with tax money

The federal government distributes millions of tax money to churches every year. Catholic Charities' budget is 50% taxpayer funded. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.63  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @2.1.58    3 months ago

Taxation is Theft.

 
 
 
TTGA
2.1.64  TTGA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    3 months ago
Wow, I am really surprised that someone who purports to be as well-read as you haven't read WHY we don't tax churches.

Are you also going to want to tax all other non-profits, too?

And how will you tax all churches equally? What are you going to tax, and how are you going to tax them?

Well put Tex, but it doesn't quite reach the heart of the matter and the reason why religion is protected under the First Amendment.  This does:

The power to tax is the power to destroy. ATTRIBUTION: This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

If we give government the ability to tax religious bodies, we have given it the ability to destroy those religious bodies.  If we give government the ability to destroy those bodies, it WILL do so.  Government, as an institution, always overreaches.  Since government is nothing more than an instrument for the application of armed force, it is in the nature of government to expand its power to the maximum in order to perform that function more reliably.  In this country, the First Amendment is the mechanism which keeps government from irresponsibly destroying a useful institution like religion.

By the way, for those of you who think that I must be a religious fanatic, I am a non believer.  I did the math and found that there is no reliable evidence supporting the existence of a god and no reliable evidence disproving such existence.  Therefore, the odds are 50/50 that there is or is not such a creature.  Those odds are not enough to cause me to believe.  That means that I am non religious.  It does not mean that I am anti religious, as so many here seem to be.  There are many useful functions that churches fulfill, almost as many as performed by the Red Cross or United Way.  You don't have to listen to what they say, just look at what they do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  TTGA @2.1.64    3 months ago

I agree with you.

Govt. always over-reaches and fouls things up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.62    3 months ago
The federal government distributes millions of tax money to churches every year. Catholic Charities' budget is 50% taxpayer funded.

Isn't that great?!!!

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.67  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.1.62    3 months ago

But that money has to be used to carry out the charitable work the government intended be done with those funds.  It’s not like those dollars go to pastors salary or the church building fund.  Faith based charities do a lot of great work helping others with those funds.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.68  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.67    3 months ago
But that money has to be used to carry out the charitable work the government intended be done with those funds. It’s not like those dollars go to pastors salary or the church building fund. Faith based charities do a lot of great work helping others with those funds.

You know, I am not sure what pisses them off more--the fact that church charities do good works, or that the govt. (GASP! Oh, NO!!!) gives them money!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.69  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.66    3 months ago
Isn't that great?!!!

No. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.70  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.67    3 months ago
But that money has to be used to carry out the charitable work the government intended be done with those funds.

Nope. The majority of that money is for funding secular services that could easily be performed by secular counselors and other professionals. 

It’s not like those dollars go to pastors salary or the church building fund. Faith based charities do a lot of great work helping others with those funds.

Non faith based charities do so without discriminating. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.69    3 months ago
No.

Well, of course it is. I know many who agree with me.

What have you got against charity anyways?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.71    3 months ago
What have you got against charity anyways?

We're not talking about charity, we're talking about taxpayer funds being given to the Church. Try to keep up. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.72    3 months ago
We're not talking about charity, we're talking about taxpayer funds being given to the Church. Try to keep up.

Oh, cool, we are going to "pretend" again!! YAY!!!!

Okay, I'll go along with your little charade and simply pretend you never wrote this little gem:

The federal government distributes millions of tax money to churches every year. Catholic Charities' budget is 50% taxpayer funded.

Do you need us all to pretend that you didn't specifically reference Catholic Charities?

What else are we supposed to pretend to humor you?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.74  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.44    3 months ago
render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

in this country "the people" are caesar.

which would explain why we have representatives and not leaders.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.75  epistte  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @2.1.38    3 months ago
So do you want to do tax each individual Amish person's home since they feel the church is its people?

Their homes are already taxed, just as those of everyone else as property taxes.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.76  epistte  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @2.1.39    3 months ago
What Jesus? you said he never existed many times. How can the Jesus that never existed support anything?

I do not believe Jesus ever existed as the son of god, but if you do believe that he existed and is the Savior and the son of your god then you are commanded to believe and obey t his teachings in the Bible.  The fact that I am not a Christian doesn't mean that I do not understand the teachings of the Bible and the fact that believers are required to obey the teachings of that book.

 The fact that an atheist has to remind you to obey Jesus is quite amusing because you are supposed to know your own religious text. I should not have to be reminding you, if you are truly a devout Christian.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.77  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.74    3 months ago
in this country "the people" are caesar. which would explain why we have representatives and not leaders.

Rome also had an representative government.

You might have heard the Roman republic mentioned in history class.

Plebeian Assembly) was the principal assembly of the ancient Roman Republic. It functioned as a legislative assembly, through which the plebeians (commoners) could pass laws, elect magistrates, and try judicial cases. The Plebeian Council was originally organized on the basis of the Curia. Thus, it was originally a "Plebeian Curiate Assembly". The Plebeian Council usually met in the well of the comitium and could only be convoked by the Tribune of the Plebs. The assembly elected the Tribunes of the Plebs and the plebeian aediles, and only the plebeians were allowed to vote.
 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.78  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.68    3 months ago

They are likely upset by both.  The government money likely more so.  Some secular progressives it seems would prefer that the charitable work not be done at all if the choice was getting it done via a faith based charity or not helping at all. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.79  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.1.69    3 months ago

Yes, it is! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.80  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @2.1.77    3 months ago

That Republic was history by the time of Jesus and his render unto comment.  The Republic had been replaced with the empire and Emperor. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.81  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.80    3 months ago
That Republic was history by the time of Jesus and his render unto comment.  The Republic had been replaced with the empire and Emperor. 

The Roman republic had just fallen at the time claim Jesus is claimed to have lived. Tiberius Augustus was the Roman Leader at that time. The Roman Senate still existed.

Throughout most of its existence, the Roman Senate remained the domain of the wealthy. And, while its ability to influence leadership decreased over time, especially under the reign of the emperors, membership in this hallowed institution varied. During the age of the kings when it served as a council or patres et conscripti, its number was firmly established at 100; however, later, under Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi during the 2nd century BCE, the number was increased to 300. A century later, Sulla, who hoped to enact serious land reforms, would triple this sum when he enlarged the Senate to 900. While Julius Caesar would add another hundred, bringing the total to 1,000, Emperor Augustus set its membership at 600.
 
 
 
epistte
2.1.82  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.78    3 months ago
They are likely upset by both.  The government money likely more so.  Some secular progressives it seems would prefer that the charitable work not be done at all if the choice was getting it done via a faith based charity or not helping at all. 

Faith based work should be done with money raised only from inside of the church instead of allowing churches to use taxpayer money for their own goals. The Bush43 office of faith based initiatives needs to be eliminated as a separation of church and state.

The Catholic church needs to be removed as a administrator for adoptions because of their bias against LGBT people as adoptive parents.

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.1.83  nightwalker  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    3 months ago

Why is it that while discussing religion, somebody from the right side will start talking about voting blocks? Strange ways of religion, that they worry about such earthly matters so much.

I was under the impression that your god's kingdom was much more spiritual and a lot less physical then this one and it's your soul and spirit you should be working on full time before you open your trap at anybody else.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.84  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @2.1.77    3 months ago
Rome also had an representative government.

so what, this is not rome... this is sparta.

um, I mean, the USA 

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.85  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  nightwalker @2.1.83    3 months ago
it's your soul and spirit you should be working on full time

full time? that sounds kind of selfish to me.

like a muddy spring, are those who give way to the wicked.

(useless)

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.86  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.79    3 months ago
Yes, it is!

Glad you think so. Now, let's audit their expenditures. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.87  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.86    3 months ago
Glad you think so. Now, let's audit their expenditures.

The head of the IRS Tax Exempt Division can do that now if he or she has reason to believe that a church is in violation.

Next thing you wish for that is already a thing?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.88  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.87    3 months ago
The head of the IRS Tax Exempt Division can do that now if he or she has reason to believe that a church is in violation.

Catholic charities isn't a church. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.89  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.88    3 months ago
Catholic charities isn't a church.

Hmmmm..how to put this exactly…..ah!.....DUH!

I didn't claim they were. And the IRS is totally free to audit them at any time it chooses under law.

Not because someone decided they don't like them and whines to the IRS. It doesn't work that way.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.90  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.89    3 months ago

I didn't claim they were.

I didn't claim you did. 

And the IRS is totally free to audit them at any time it chooses under law.

Duh. 

Not because someone decided they don't like them and whines to the IRS. It doesn't work that way.

See above. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.91  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.90    3 months ago

Why? It doesn't seem to me you are following too closely anyways.

Moving on now.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.92  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.78    3 months ago
Some secular progressives

You do realize we live in a secular society, yes? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.93  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.91    3 months ago
Why?

Why what? 

It doesn't seem to me you are following too closely anyways.

Another unfounded opinion. 

Moving on now.

Why? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.93    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.1.95  nightwalker  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.85    3 months ago

Most religions say souls require extensive work and maintenance, so many of the rest of us would allow people to be selfish in keeping their religion all to themselves and spent all their time working on their own souls.

Honest.

Really.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.96  Trout Giggles  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @2.1.41    3 months ago

It's done to keep you people honest

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.97  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  nightwalker @2.1.95    3 months ago
so many of the rest of us would allow people to be selfish in keeping their religion all to themselves and spent all their time working on their own souls.

some do. and some wear their religions on their sleeves. 

I get that some people do not want to be exposed to religion. im also betting some religious people do not want to be exposed to atheists or satanists.    and nothing can be done about that either as some people wear their lack of religion on their sleeves also.

freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.98  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.97    3 months ago
freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

and in the same token - freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom from religion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.99  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.97    3 months ago
freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

Some people confuse the two different things quite often.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.100  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Phoenyx13 @2.1.98    3 months ago
freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom from religion.

only in that one can choose to not believe anything. but when we are out in public there is no way to remove another's religious expression from our sight or our ears.  and I ignore atheists and satanists all the time.  it is not difficult.

btw, I am actually looking forward to christmas this year. you?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.101  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.99    3 months ago
Some people confuse the two different things quite often

people also think freedom of speech means freedom from speech that offends.

it's like they do not know what country this is.  

ones "feelings are their personal problem.

cheers :)

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.102  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.100    3 months ago
only in that one can choose to not believe anything. but when we are out in public there is no way to remove another's religious expression from our sight or our ears.  and I ignore atheists and satanists all the time.  it is not difficult.

Who is trying to remove all religion from public view or hearing?

btw, I am actually looking forward to christmas this year. you?

Happy Holidays.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.103  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.101    3 months ago

Some think that freedom from religion means the ability to suppress others free expression of religious speech in order to avoid any exposure to any pro religious thought.  Some think it to be free speech rights to prevent others from their own free  speech or to keep an audience from hearing a speaker.  

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.104  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.103    3 months ago
Some think that freedom from religion means the ability to suppress others free expression of religious speech in order to avoid any exposure to any pro religious thought. 

What religious speech by a private person on public or private property has ever been suppressed? Politicians and other civil servants are not to be using their position as a platform for their religious views because of the separation of church and state while they are at work.

Some think it to be free speech rights to prevent others from their own free  speech or to keep an audience from hearing a speaker.

They have equal free speech rights to disagree, but it would hope that both messages can be heard and debated in a reasonable manner.

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.1.105  nightwalker  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.97    3 months ago

I think everyone can safely say they've heard about religion, and what the religious want.

Sin and beauty. Both are in the eyes of the beholder, but some people waste a lot of their time looking for things they don't like to see.

Atheists don't wear it on their arms until somebody starts beating them over the head with religion which is strange because it's the fastest way to drive people away from religion I can think of. I don't care until they want religion taught in public schools or someone makes laws based on religion.

I think most Satanists are atheists that don't want to argue with any religion anymore.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.106  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  nightwalker @2.1.105    3 months ago
Atheists don't wear it on their arms

some do, to claim all don't is straight up bs.

  being selfish, intolerant, and self-absorbed is not confined to religious people.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.107  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.100    3 months ago
only in that one can choose to not believe anything. but when we are out in public there is no way to remove another's religious expression from our sight or our ears.  and I ignore atheists and satanists all the time.  it is not difficult.

i agree, as much as you have the right to choose a religion - you have the right to choose to not have a religion and that's the point.

btw, I am actually looking forward to christmas this year. you?

yes, why do you ask ? Christmas happens every year, doesn't it ? did it get canceled ? why would you ask such an odd question ?

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1.108  evilgenius  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    3 months ago
Why are people and the government of France paying to rebuild Notre Dame cathedral when it is owned by the Roman Catholic Church?

I recently asked this same question and found that Our Lady of Paris became French State property in 1905. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.109  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.108    3 months ago

Indeed it is. 

 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    3 months ago

Another faux christian persecution complex article

Is anyone stopping you from going to church

Are you free to worship the God you choose to worship

Are you free to pray

 

 
 
 
epistte
3.1  epistte  replied to  lady in black @3    3 months ago
Another faux christian persecution complex article

Is anyone stopping you from going to church

Are you free to worship the God of you choose to worship

Are you free to pray

In their minds, they are being persecuted if they are forbidden from trammpling on the the the religious and secular rights of others.

They haven't understood this idea yet. 

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
3.1.1  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  epistte @3.1    3 months ago
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

So going to church, praying and worshipping God is a privilege in your way of thinking?  Unbelievable

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.2  lib50  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @3.1.1    3 months ago

I think you need to reread that.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lib50 @3.1.2    3 months ago

It was read correctly.  Secular progressives believe Christianity must accept crumbs of limited so called liberty granted by the state which to them is their god.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.3    3 months ago
Secular progressives believe Christianity must accept crumbs of limited so called liberty granted by the state which to them is their god.  

Factually incorrect, nothing but rhetoric. 

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.5  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.3    3 months ago
It was read correctly.  Secular progressives believe Christianity must accept crumbs of limited so called liberty granted by the state which to them is their god.  

I dare you to name even once when Christians would have any fewer religious rights than anyone else? What supposed secular progressive has ever sought to deny religious consecutive or anyone else your equal religious  right to believe and worship as you desire?

 You now have the same rights as everyone else but your goal is not equality, but instead is the desire to force others to obey your beliefs, both secular and religious via legislation,, which tramples on their secular and religious rights.

You are commanded to tell the truth in the 10 Commandments or is that also a violation of your religious beliefs? if you are such a devout Christian then why do you have to be reminded to obey your Savior and the book that you claim to be the literal word of your god?

“Thou shalt not bear false witness” forbids: “1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both).

The goal that you are seeking is not Christian because Jesus told you not to treat others as unequal. You are trying to cherry pick the Bible for passages as a way to support discrimination against minorities such as LGBT and other religions, despite the obvious passages of the 4 Gospels where Jesus told his followers to treat others as equals.  Your goal of denying equal service to LGBT and others cannot possibly be a religious rights when your savior tells you not to do it.

Luke 6:31 New International Version (NIV)

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @3    3 months ago

That’s not enough.  What is required is the religious liberty to be able to engage in the full free exercise of religious belief in every aspect of our daily lives. We have the right to freedom of religion and all its practices and beliefs all the time everywhere not just the right to believe and pray between the four walls of a mosque, temple, or church at meeting time and at home.  The free exercise clause is every bit as important as the establishment clause is.  

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago

Too bad, you will NEVER turn this country into a theocracy, if you want a theocracy, move to the middle east.  This country will NEVER accept your faux christian sharia

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @3.2.1    3 months ago

"in god we trust"

everyone else? not so much.

and, an individual's religious liberty does not equal a theocracy/form of govt.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  lady in black @3.2.1    3 months ago
Too bad, you will NEVER turn this country into a theocracy, if you want a theocracy, move to the middle east.  This country will NEVER accept your faux christian sharia

that does seem to be the goal, to have the country be a "perfect Christian utopia" of everyone worshipping the same God and the "perfect" family of 2 opposite gender parents who raise children and everyone goes to Church every Sunday to get their marching orders from their local religious leader, every law being based upon Christianity (which version ? meh, we'll battle that out later, right ? we'll make everyone lockstep with one person's interpretations and beliefs in their God) and everyone will hold hands singing happy songs because God will stop all shootings, and stop all pedophiles and stop all fighting etc. -- or at least in their utopia dream it'll happen that way ... they don't seem to like reality much... jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.4  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.2    3 months ago
religious liberty does not equal a theocracy... 

you would have to define very carefully "religious liberty" and it's limits (if any) - or yes, you'll end up with a theocracy... they have "religious liberty" in the Middle East don't they ?

cheers jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.4    3 months ago

we have had religious liberty here in the USA since the day our constitution was signed.

have ya read the first amendment?

I think the left is afraid of their own imaginations.

cheers to you too :)

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.6  lady in black  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.4    3 months ago

They want the 1950s back.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @3.2.6    3 months ago

actually, I think we would settle for the 80's

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.8  Ender  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.7    3 months ago

Don't tell me it was the hair styles.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ender @3.2.8    3 months ago

LOL... no, but that's funny.

actually, it was a peaceful time, fewer tensions in the world,  the only military conflict I even remember from the 80's was grenada and that took like 15mins.  maybe I slept thru some other conflict... who knows... LOL

back then everyone on both sides of the aisle loved our country or at least still pretended to. unlike the past decade, no riots, no cities burning, and some decent tunes.

I mean, we still have some good tunes now, but overall, the 80's were good fun.  

 

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.2.10  pat wilson  replied to  lady in black @3.2.6    3 months ago

There are a number of members who want the 50's back. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.11  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.5    3 months ago
we have had religious liberty here in the USA since the day our constitution was signed.

then i suppose the religious have nothing to complain about and aren't being "persecuted", huh ? 

have ya read the first amendment?

i sure have, but i don't remember anywhere in that amendment where it states you can use your "religious" beliefs to legally discriminate against others... could you point out where that idea was born from ? (or did you forget about the "battle" for same sex marriage ? a secular legal right and not religious at all - just one example for you ... and they didn't gain that right until well after your "utopia" time frame of the 1980s... i guess equal rights for all citizens is bad ??)

I think the left is afraid of their own imaginations.

good possibility - just like the "right" ... i wouldn't personally know, i'm not apart of either of those sides, i don't play those silly little games - i graduated high school quite awhile ago.

cheers to you too

cheers ! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.12  lady in black  replied to  pat wilson @3.2.10    3 months ago

The only way for them to get to the 50s is build a time machine, otherwise they are SOL

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.11    3 months ago
then i suppose the religious have nothing to complain about and aren't being "persecuted", huh ? 

oh, I wouldn't go that far, a segment of our society is actively trying to suppress religious liberty by forcing people to act against their faith.  this can not be denied.

but, have no fear, the courts will sort it all out.  that is how the system works.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.13    3 months ago
oh, I wouldn't go that far, a segment of our society is actively trying to suppress religious liberty by forcing people to act against their faith.  this can not be denied. but, have no fear, the courts will sort it all out.  that is how the system works.

we saw that debate with same sex marriage. Do you think the religious need exemptions from secular laws and are above secular laws ?

cheers jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.14    3 months ago
we saw that debate with same sex marriage

which debate?  rhetorical

people debate all the time, and say lots of stupid shit. that means nothing.

the religious are subject to the same court system as everyone else.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.16  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.15    3 months ago
the religious are subject to the same court system as everyone else.

that wasn't the question - and i suspect you know that.

i'll ask again - maybe this time you'll answer ?

Do you think the religious need exemptions from secular laws and are above secular laws ?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.16    3 months ago
that wasn't the question

but it was the answer, regardless of how you feel about it.

I think the courts will work it out.  regardless of what we think.

and by saying "everyone is subject to the same court system" well, that kind of implies we all follow the same laws, as it should be.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Steve Ott
3.2.18  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago
What is required is the religious liberty to be able to engage in the full free exercise of religious belief in every aspect of our daily lives. We have the right to freedom of religion and all its practices and beliefs all the time everywhere not just the right to believe and pray between the four walls of a mosque, temple, or church at meeting time and at home.  The free exercise clause is every bit as important as the establishment clause is.  

What if my religion requires daily human sacrifice? What if my religion requires that non-believers be beheaded? What of Mormons who are denied the right to more than one wife? Is it only one religious group that should have liberty, or is it all religious groups?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Steve Ott @3.2.18    3 months ago
What if my religion requires daily human sacrifice? What if my religion requires that non-believers be beheaded? What of Mormons who are denied the right to more than one wife? Is it only one religious group that should have liberty, or is it all religious groups?

All religious groups have total liberty to exercise their own brand of religion as long as it doesn't break current laws.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2.20  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.5    3 months ago
we have had religious liberty here in the USA since the day our constitution was signed.

Nope that isn't true in the least...Better spend more time reviewing the history of the US...

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.21  Phoenyx13  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.17    3 months ago
and by saying "everyone is subject to the same court system" well, that kind of implies we all follow the same laws, as it should be. cheers

ah, finally an answer - thanks :)

cheers ! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.22  1stwarrior  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.5    3 months ago

Know you're gonna get some feedback on that statement, but this "country" has had religious freedom for a couple thousands of years - way before dominant society decided to stop it, smash it, kill the worshippers, force them to stop their religious practices, kidnapping their kids and sending them to RELIGIOUS schools to take the "Indian" out of them and to massacre entire tribes/nations to ensure ONLY the dominant society way of life.

Ya know where they got the idea for the 1st Amendment????  The Iroquois Confederacy in the mid-1754 by Ben Franklin in the Albany Plan of Union.

When the colonists were setting up their meetings to discuss the formation/organization of the new government, they met with the leaders of the Iroquois Confederacy, a Native American government comprised of five powerful tribes of the Northeast.  The Iroquois Confederation had been formed in about the 1100 to 1300 timeframe and had been governed under the Great Law of Peace since about 1300.  The Great Law of Peace was a centralized government format that was based on input from all members of the Confederacy, not just the leaders and Clan Mothers.

Benjamin Franklin, who had studied the foundation and framework of the Great Law of Peace, addressing the Albany Congress in 1754, said he didn’t see how the colonies couldn’t develop a government based on the example of the Confederacy whose government had lasted and been sustained for hundreds of years.

The colonials employed some of the concepts of the Great Law of Peace in the development of the Constitution, such as participation in the governmental by all, bicameral legislature of the House and Senate, one government, common territory and common defense, freedom of religious expression, passage of laws by consensus, election by the people of one leader and removal from office by impeachment for non-performance of assigned duties.

            The development of the Constitution and framework of the U. S. government was not a quick process.  The colonists worked and researched for well over 40 years, to develop the document that we have as our guidance and pattern for individual, state and governmental rights, liberties and processes of laws – the U. S. Constitution.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.22    3 months ago
The colonists worked and researched for well over 40 years, to develop the document that we have as our guidance and pattern for individual, state and governmental rights, liberties and processes of laws – the U. S. Constitution.

and with some updates along the way things have been working out just fine.

as I said,  the courts will work it out. whatever it is. courts take time also. and of course, new lines will have to be drawn from time to time as well.

the only thing anyone can promise from minute to minute is no matter what happens next someone will be pissed off about it.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.25  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.23    3 months ago
new lines will have to be drawn from time to time as well.

I think the supreme court will eventually uphold an atheist bakers right to not be forced by a christian to "custom" decorate a cake with a cross if that goes against the atheists beliefs.

I also do not think lesbian wedding planners should be forced to do straight weddings against their will.

but I'm weird like that :)

 

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2.26  Split Personality  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.23    3 months ago

The only thing Ronald Reagan ever regretted

after having been a Hollywood hero

and a WWII Hollywood hero

and married & divorced from an a  Hollywood superstar and remarrying another Hollywood superstar

was signing the Ca Senate Bills and CA House Bills separately that legally established no fault divorce in this country.

He signed both in 1969, effective in 1970.

By 1975, CA divorces had doubled.

Within a few more years with 9 more states adopting similar laws by 1988 the national average of divorces had doubled.

In Reagan's memoirs and recorded conversation's with his son, he stated that signing the California bills was his greatest regret of his life in public office.

He ( further ) shredded the sanctity of marriage (ironic ) with a signature ( or two) .

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.27  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago
What is required is the religious liberty to be able to engage in the full free exercise of religious belief in every aspect of our daily lives

That will never happen, the 1st Amendment is quite clear about this. And even if it did, would you be comfortable with prayer rugs and the Muslim call to prayer in the same places you want to push YOUR religion? My guess is no. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.28  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.13    3 months ago
actively trying to suppress religious liberty by forcing people to act against their faith. 

Where? Examples please.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @3.2.1    3 months ago

No one is talking about a theocracy.  We are talking about allowing believers to live, breathe, work, operate a business,  think, act, and express as they believe within the free exercise there of of that belief without infringement from others as in individuals or government.  That’s not forcing ones beliefs upon others but preventing others from trampling upon ours.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.30  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.9    3 months ago

The 80’s were awesome.  Most of us weren’t even born in the 1950’s and we don’t want it’s recessions and tax rates or it’s huge war.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.30    3 months ago
The 80’s were awesome.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Most of us weren’t even born in the 1950’s and we don’t want it’s recessions and tax rates or it’s huge war.

Most of us that WERE don't want to go back to the discrimination or segregation. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.31    3 months ago
Most of us that WERE don't want to go back to the discrimination or segregation.

Not to worry.

We won't ever let America return to Democratic Jim Crow laws and the like.

Don't you worry about THAT!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.33  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @3.2.31    3 months ago
to go back to the discrimination or segregation. 

thanks to the left, we now have more violence, riots, discrimination and segregation today than we ever did in the 80"S  - job well done.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.34  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.32    3 months ago
We won't ever let America return to Democratic Jim Crow laws and the like.

Fast forward to present day? Those protesters shouting "blood and soil" and chanting, "the Jews will not replace us!", were REPUBLICAN trump supporters. David Duke was there, once again singing the praises of trump. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.35  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.34    3 months ago

The people that said those things are responsible for them.Using your logic OR LACK OF since blacks in south side Chicago vote democrat 90% of the time with all the shootings that means all democrats are [delete] murders see how ridiculous that is. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.34    3 months ago
Fast forward to present day? Those protesters shouting "blood and soil" and chanting, "the Jews will not replace us!", were REPUBLICAN trump supporters. David Duke was there, once again singing the praises of trump.

You can gloss over the racist Democrats of the past if you choose, but I certainly won't be participating in that whitewash of actual history.

Funny how DEMOCRATS were the ones who fought for slavery, who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act, who passed Jim Crow laws, etc.

 
 
 
IceMan
3.2.37  IceMan  replied to  pat wilson @3.2.10    3 months ago
There are a number of members who want the 50's back.

Include me, we had a great president unlike the last three. I would be young again when my only responsibilities were going to school, taking out the trash and taking care of my dog. The only set back would be I wasn't old enough to have sex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @3.2.35    3 months ago
The people that said those things are responsible for them.Using your logic OR LACK OF since blacks in south side Chicago vote democrat 90% of the time with all the shootings that means all democrats are gang banging murders see how ridiculous that is.

I fear your logic is falling on deaf ears.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.39  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.32    3 months ago

Oh do tell me all about your vast experience fighting for equality. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.39    3 months ago
Oh do tell me all about your vast experience fighting for equality.

Why? You are not really interested, and I have no need or desire to impress you.

Carry on!!!!

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.41  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.29    3 months ago

You want businesses to the right to discriminate all based on your religious beliefs, that is the start of a theocracy. Open a business and follow the law. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.42  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.36    3 months ago

You are glossing over the reality of TODAY. Today its the right wing that holds the majority of racists. And no I'm not saying everyone on the right is a racist but most racists are right wing.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.43  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.2.35    3 months ago
[delete]
 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.44  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.43    3 months ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
nightwalker
3.2.45  nightwalker  replied to  lady in black @3.2.6    3 months ago

No, I think the ideal time is a bit further back then that, back to Royalty.

That Nobel and romantic time when power was held by one man and his royal court and nobles, everybody worshiped the same god the same way and same time (by royal decree as all laws were) and the selected religion stated the king was selected and blessed by god, and supported the king and all his actions or the king will pick another religion or make his own, by god.

The peasants produced for all that and accepted the king's scraps themselves and took care of each other and were a self renewing resource and cycled at a good rate at a easy to control level. 

Women better be beautiful, entertaining, well-born, quiet and wiling in the hopes of getting a noble's attention for as long as possible because the alternative was a life of drudgery and likely a early death.

If any peasant didn't like any part of it or were disloyal or disrespectful of the king, the guards came in the night and they were never seen...intact or alive.. again.

I think that's the latest version.

Might be just the impression I get.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.46  lady in black  replied to  nightwalker @3.2.45    3 months ago

Sounds nice if you are a man, but women were property and you know what you can do with that, just as an example look what Henry VIII did to Queen Anne Boylen because "she" couldn't give him a male heir.  

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.47  katrix  replied to  lady in black @3.2.46    3 months ago

The interesting thing is that because so many of Henry VIII's wives seemed to be able to have one child, and then had problems after that, it is apparently likely that he had a disease which caused that (kind of like my having an Rh factor which means I could have one pregnancy, but any after that would be rejected by my body if I didn't get a gamma globulin shot, but apparently not the same thing).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.48  Trout Giggles  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago
What is required is the religious liberty to be able to engage in the full free exercise of religious belief in every aspect of our daily lives. We have the right to freedom of religion and all its practices and beliefs all the time everywhere not just the right to believe and pray between the four walls of a mosque, temple, or church at meeting time and at home.

Who says you can't? Do you pray over your food when you're in a restaurant? Does anybody stop you? Do you have a cross or Jesus fish on your car? Do you wear religious paraphernalia?

And just what do you mean by "bringing God back into the public square?" Isn't God with you at all times? Why do I need to see God in the public square?

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.49  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.48    3 months ago
And just what do you mean by "bringing God back into the public square?" Isn't God with you at all times? Why do I need to see God in the public square?

I wish conservative Christians would read their own Bible because Jesus teaches how followers not to do that. 

Matthew 6.6

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Piggie Park BBQ also tried to cite his religious beliefs, but instead of LGBT people he was trying to deny equal service to black people.  Where does Jesus tell his followers to do that?  Jesus wasn't a racist and he isn't a homophobe.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant, Bessinger, denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as it did not involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] Simons held the Act did not apply to drive-in restaurants but applied to Bessinger's sandwich shop.
 
 
 
nightwalker
3.2.50  nightwalker  replied to  lady in black @3.2.46    3 months ago

"Sounds nice if you are a man, but women were property and you know what you can do with that, just as an example look what Henry VIII did to Queen Anne Boylen because "she" couldn't give him a male heir". 

LOL

Not the least surprised you have that view.. you modern women just don't have any respect for tradition. I never thought much of that system of rule either, unless I could be the king and I don't have any offers.

Royal fashion included those much-tighter-than-skin corsets, I don't know how any of them ever became pregnant or managed to stay pregnant more then a couple of months. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    3 months ago

What values?  Especially anything 'value based' in correlation to the Trump?

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    3 months ago

A serial adulterer and liar in the white house and you talk about values....give me a fucking break

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @5    3 months ago
A serial adulter and liar in the white house and you talk about values....give me a fucking break

Trump isn't the first to match that description, and I bet he won't be the last either.

 
 
 
lady in black
5.1.1  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 months ago

Never said he wasn't but don't whine about values when you cheerlead for the POS adulterer in the white house

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  lady in black @5.1.1    3 months ago

"Grab em' by the puffy."  DJT.  And the small 'c' christians love it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @5.1.1    3 months ago
Never said he wasn't but don't whine about values when you cheerlead for the POS adulterer in the white house

You might want to check who you are replying to. I haven't said a word about values here.

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.4  epistte  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.2    3 months ago
"Grab em' by the puffy."  DJT.  And the small 'c' christians love it. 

That is the idea of the 3rd Corinthian.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 months ago
Trump isn't the first to match that description, and I bet he won't be the last either.

True, but he is likely the first to scream about morals and being a 'moral Christian' while literally exhibiting no moral fiber at all. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    3 months ago

Not only that but we recognize his shortcomings during his private life.  God uses imperfect people to do good things if they can be moved by Him to do them. He is doing good things now and is taking steps to protect religious liberty and act on other good issues that others have not.  He has made changes and we can forgive past shortcomings.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    3 months ago
I haven't said a word about values here.

Because to defend trump, one must abandon any reference to values. Feel free to simultaneously ignore the well documented delinquencies while championing his MAGA platform. But in so doing, don't expect the majority of others to whom character still matters to accept your premise and remain silent in calling out the hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.7    3 months ago
Because to defend trump, one must abandon any reference to values. Feel free to simultaneously ignore the well documented delinquencies while championing his MAGA platform. But in so doing, don't expect the majority of others to whom character still matters to accept your premise and remain silent.

Do tell what my "premise" is.

Or what you assume it is/

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    3 months ago
But in so doing, don't expect the majority of others to whom character still matters to accept your premise and remain silent.

Be vewy, vewy, vewy careful when that "Majority" word pops up from the "Left". jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    3 months ago
Do tell what my "premise" is.

...charter member of the

Trump

Defense

Squad

?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.10    3 months ago

That's very clever!

I'm astute that way - to recognize when someone says something clever.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.10    3 months ago
.charter member of the
Trump
Defense
Squad
?

Maybe you don't know what "premise" means:

prem·ise
[ˈpreməs]

NOUN
logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
synonyms:
proposition · assumption · hypothesis · thesis · presupposition · [more]
VERB
(premise something on/upon)
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
"the reforms were premised on our findings"

Now maybe you can write an answer to my question.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    3 months ago
...base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.

Now maybe you can write an answer to my question.

                 The answer you seek is found in your English lesson. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.14  r.t..b...  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    3 months ago
I'm astute that way - to recognize when someone says something clever.

cheers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.14    3 months ago

It was a private joke.  The one it was intended for will figure it out

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.16  r.t..b...  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.15    3 months ago
It was a private joke.

Did not intend to butt in...I remember the premise...

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.16    3 months ago

Heh heh heh - good one!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.13    3 months ago
Now maybe you can write an answer to my question.
The answer you seek is found in your English lesson.

Or perhaps not...………………….

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.19  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.18    3 months ago

We will have to settle for not in this case.  

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
5.1.20  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.5    3 months ago
True, but he is likely the first to scream about morals and being a 'moral Christian'

Every time Bill Clinton got in trouble he made sure the camera's were filming him on his way to church clutching a Bible. 

 
 
 
JBB
5.2  JBB  replied to  lady in black @5    3 months ago

I started to compare Trump's morals with those of feral alley cats but then i reconsidered. What did alley cats ever do to deserve that comparison?

He lies. He cheats. He steals. Is there even one moral quality he exemplifies?

Greed, gluttony, hubris, envy, lust. Hell! Trump is a human compendium of sin.

That supposed Christians defend him should surely cause Jesus to cringe...

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5.2    3 months ago

The 7 deadlies

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @5.2    3 months ago

You realize that Jesus spent a lot of time when here on earth with those whom the then establishment swamp called sinners?  

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.3  JBB  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.2    3 months ago

Jesus also said false prophets would abuse his name for their own ungodly political aims  [delete]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.2.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @5.2.3    3 months ago
Jesus also said false prophets would abuse his name for their own ungodly political aims just as you are doing

sort of. but I don't think anyone on the right today is advocating for or supports the notion of one ruler over all men as the story goes.

in fact, we just rejected globalism a few yrs ago when we elected trump

 

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.5  JBB  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.2.4    3 months ago

Well then, I guess that means that you have outsmarted Jesus /S...

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @5.2.5    3 months ago

I was referring to one mans/govt reign over men.

eventually, globalism will stick.  just not yet.  tis way too early for that.

and nothing will stop christ.  when the gods return, they will bring laser guns.. LOL

 
 
 
MUVA
5.3  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @5    3 months ago

Bill Clinton has been out of the white house for years.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    3 months ago

512

 
 
 
Veronica
7  Veronica    3 months ago

Nice to know you want to push your beliefs on everyone.  Traditional family - is that where dad can beat on mom & the kids with no repercussions?  Where dad can fuck around on mom, but she will be stoned for doing so?  Is that where mom & daughters are property (until daughter is sold to the old fuck down the street)?  

Funny how you think only your morals are acceptable.  

Persecution of Christians my ass....

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  Veronica @7    3 months ago

And yet he'd be screeching like a banshee if Muslims tried to put their religion into our public spaces and laws.

Fucking hypocritical Christian dominionism bullshit.

Thank goodness most Christians aren't like that.  They know that the separation of church and state protects them as it does everyone else. 

 
 
 
Veronica
7.1.1  Veronica  replied to  katrix @7.1    3 months ago

I just get tired of Christians like him that think they hold the moral high ground.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Veronica @7.1.1    3 months ago

Maybe christians are being persecuted because they deserve it?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Veronica @7.1.1    3 months ago
I just get tired of Christians like him that think they hold the moral high ground.  

The only way the Christians can at least regain SOME of the moral high ground is to publicly denounce trump and vote him out of office. As long as they support a POTUS that has no morals at all, they don't get to claim the moral high ground. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Veronica @7    3 months ago
Traditional family

In my family alone, just counting my parents and two siblings; there are ten marriages, six divorces, affairs too many to count, and three children left estranged. And we were raised in a 'Christian' home. Thankfully, mrs. r.t..b and my two sons avoided the carnage, but we have become the family pariah for abandoning the faith. That is a persecution accepted, though sadly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @7    3 months ago

Eternal victimhood must be exhausting

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @7.3    3 months ago

You all speaking from direct experience?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @7.3.1    3 months ago

No and neither are you 

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.3.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.2    3 months ago

Correct!  I have no experience at all with eternal victim hood. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
we must once again return to traditional family values.

yepp.

But just how do we do that?

god helps those who help themselves.

strengthen the legal backstop.   trumps judicial picks have been sailing thru the senate and will stop any bs from the left for decades to come.

I actually thought id never see the day when...  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-trump-liberal-ninth-circuit-is-no-longer-liberal/?noredirect=on

on any given day...

384

 

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    3 months ago

I Remember that article.  I must have read it at Real Clear Politics because it costs money to read it from your link!  

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    3 months ago
we must once again return to traditional family values.

So you want someone like Obama. One marriage, no infidelity. Trump.....wow, not even sure where to start with that one. Gingrich? Rudy? 

512

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago

I find it interesting how every women's right issue the left supports invariably has to do with the destruction of the family unit.  abortion and free contraception are prime examples.

  • where was the left on women getting the right to vote?   the wrong side of course. a republican governor gave women the vote 50yrs before the rest of the country and had to veto the lefts attempt to kill it. and another republican brought an amendment to the constitution which the left fought tooth and nail for yrs.

  • nothing in our history has liberated women from abusive marriages like no-fault divorce. where was the left here?  late to the party again.    republican governor was first to sign no-fault divorce legislation into law. his name was "reagan" 
 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9    3 months ago

Very good points well made.  

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
9.1.1  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Heartland American @9.1    3 months ago

In order to truly make America great again, we must once again return to traditional family values. 

Democrats are fond of saying the reason the south turned red was because the racist conservatives/Republicans left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. The more likely reason is because the Democrats started to trash traditional family values by taking prayer out off schools, started to support many of the sexual perversion known to man in addition to supporting abortion. None of those things flew with even Dixiecrat's. The leaders of today's Democratic party are the misfits of society.

Ronald Reagan was right: “If we ever forget we are one nation under God, we’ll be a nation gone under.”

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
9.1.2  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @9.1.1    3 months ago
None of those things flew with even Dixiecrat's

P.S. They don't fly with people from the south either, except for maybe some immoral people.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.3  JBB  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @9.1.1    3 months ago

Yeah, except for actual History which plainly explains that in 1972 Dick Nixon explicitly invited all the disaffected racist Dixiecrats into the damn gop's Big Tent as part of his and the gop's "Southern Strategy" for reelection. Remember The Committee To Reelect The President? I do. And so, that is how it happened and so the gop is where that deplorable contingency still abides today. In the damn gop...

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    3 months ago

And yet the democrats held the south at the local, state, us house and us senate levels until close to the year 2000 and won it at the presidential level in 1976, 1992, 1996 right up until it turned on one of its own, rejecting the son of a segregationist in favor of the son of a carpetbagger.  So no, it is not true that segregationist democrats all converted to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower after the civil rights act was passed with GOP support to break a southern democrat filibuster 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @9.1.4    3 months ago
And yet the democrats held the south at the local, state, us house and us senate levels until close to the year 2000 and won it at the presidential level in 1976, 1992, 1996 right up until it turned on one of its own, rejecting the son of a segregationist in favor of the son of a carpetbagger. So no, it is not true that segregationist democrats all converted to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower after the civil rights act was passed with GOP support to break a southern democrat filibuster

Isn't it amazing they are STILL trying to sell that load of manure?

Cracks me up that those "highly intelligent, well educated, extremely 'logical' people" still buy it!!

LMAO!

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.6  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.5    3 months ago

That revisionist history bullshit line or lousy lying fakeass propaganda you are still trying, and still failing, to sell would make Joseph Goebbels blush...

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.6    3 months ago
That revisionist history bullshit line or lousy lying fakeass propaganda you are still trying, and still failing, to sell would make Joseph Goebbels blush...

You can peddle that nonsense elsewhere--I am not in the market for bullshit.

But it is rather interesting that you expect folks to believe that voters fled TO a party DIRECTLY opposed to what they stood for. Talk about trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes!

Sorry, you Dems just have to own your racist Southern Democrats, like it or not. Of course, the Democratic Party had NO problem with them as long as they controlled Congress.

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @9.1.6    3 months ago

Actually everything I said in my post is historically and factually accurate. We can dig up the partisan make up of each southern state and see how democrat things were at all levels for how long for each. We are both old enough to know that World Book Encyclopedias can prove me right. Also, the long term migration of northerners from the rust belt to the sun belt had more to do with the demographic change in the south than any other factor.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    3 months ago
But it is rather interesting that you expect folks to believe that voters fled TO a party DIRECTLY opposed to what they stood for.

that is one hell of a stretch huh?  LOL give em time... and in 30 or 40yrs they will try to convince everyone the tea party knocked down the twin towers also.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9.1.9    3 months ago
/that is one hell of a stretch huh? LOL give em time... and in 30 or 40yrs they will try to convince , "everyone the tea party knocked down the twin towers also.

Now that wouldn't surprise me a bit.

You know, what with a certain Democrat claiming that on 9/11, "someone did something". And that is how and why CAIR formed!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    3 months ago
you Dems just have to own your racist Southern Democrats

Why? They were an entirely different party than the Democrats and had their own candidate for President when they ran against Lincoln in 1860. The conservative "Southern Democrat" party supported continuing slavery with John C. Breckinridge as their Presidential candidate. Stephen A. Douglas was the candidate for the "Democrat" party who supported the right of the Norther States to ban slavery and refuse to return escaped slaves, but was in favor of allowing the States themselves to decide whether or not to allow slavery. He was basically the middle ground between Lincoln and Breckinridge.

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1860

So the liberal progressive Democrat party in the North is the party that the current Democrat party truly grew from. The conservative Southern Democrats maintained power in their Southern States for a long time but eventually they were angered by Northern Democrats voting for the 1964 civil rights act and a Democrat President from Texas signing it into law. Over the next 30 years the Souths population didn't move, the old Southern Dixiecrat's were simply attracted to the GOP anti-immigrant messaging and their choice to stick with virtually all white male candidates while the Democrat party in the south appealed to black Americans and those who supported racial equality. Eventually, the South turned bright red as their ex-Dixiecrat population shifted parties. They come up with just about every excuse in the book to obfuscate this transition but you cannot look at their current populations chock full of white conservative Republicans who have been living and voting in the same towns and counties for decades that show who they were voting for just 60 years ago. All the blatant open racists didn't get up and move, they just swept their bigotry under the GOP's seemingly clean rug. Peel that rug back and you see all the disgusting hate, bigotry and racism it barely hides that attracts the KKK, Nazi's and white supremacists like we saw in Charlottseville to their party.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.11    3 months ago

Nice spin, but you won't convince anyone with that.

Southern Democrats were fine members of the Democratic Party and your spin doesn't change the facts.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9.1.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.10    3 months ago
Now that wouldn't surprise me a bit. You know, what with a certain Democrat claiming that on 9/11, "someone did something". And that is how and why CAIR formed!

 how long ya think it will take until the left accuses obama of being conservative and that's why the coup attempt? because we all suddenly switched sides again...   LOL

political musical chairs.... because voters change ideology as often as their underwear.

 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.12    3 months ago
Southern Democrats were fine members of the Democratic Party

Who each had their own candidates for President? What the hell are you smoking? The only thing they had in common was the word "Democrat" which is far older that our nation. Is the current Democrat party supposed to accept blame for everything any group with Democrat in its name commits?

The 1964 civil rights act shows the clear division between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats.

1964 Civil Rights Act Vote By party and region:

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Looks like the only thing the bigots who voted against the civil rights act had in common was they were Southern conservatives, party didn't really matter that much. And today all those Southern conservatives are still there, or their descendants, many of whom likely inherited their parents and peers bitter hate for minorities, gays, liberals and progressives, which is basically the Trump platform which is why they have all come to his sirens call.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.14    3 months ago
Looks like the only thing the bigots who voted against the civil rights act had in common was they were Southern conservatives, party didn't really matter that much. And today all those Southern conservatives are still there, or their descendants, many of whom likely inherited their parents and peers bitter hate for minorities, gays, liberals and progressives, which is basically the Trump platform which is why they have all come to his sirens call.

Hilarious!

 
 
 
lib50
9.2  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9    3 months ago

Wow.  Just wow.  Women deciding when to start a family on their own timetable is part of the destruction of the family unit?  WTF?  In other words, the 'Again' in maga is going back to women's subjugation?  Back to the days when blacks weren't allowed to be uppity?  Back to the days when the white males dominated and controlled the world without the interference of the lower beings?  And you, a Trump supporter and defender, who looks the other way at all his moral failing, want to define the good old days of family values?  Those values can go right back where they belong, up Trump's ass.  Forget your moral high ground.  Its gone.  Its laughable to think anybody takes that seriously today. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.3  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9    3 months ago

Both parties have "switched" ideologies over the years. Lincoln, by his policies, would be a far left wing liberal by today's standards. You are using slight of hand to try to spin the right as being in favor of women rights which is disingenuous at best. Example? 

Which side supports a woman's right to make her own choices regarding her own healthcare? It's not the republicans, that's for damn sure. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9.3.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @9.3