Pacquiao, "gay men should be put to death"

[Rob's House]

So by your logic the federal government should have let Jim Crow continue unchecked?

14th amendment

[dayman]

Can I answer it?

 

"Full faith and credit" does not mean that any state law must apply equally to all Americans. And it definitely doesn't mean that the federal government is required to pass legislation that supersedes state laws on matters in the states' purview just because different states differ on different legal definitions.

 

And that applies equally to any hypothetical federal law supporting gay marriage as it does the preternaturally retarded and obnoxious "Defense Of Marriage Act".

 

 

Well here's the thing. What the full faith and credit clause means is a matter of constitutional construction no? It doesn't mean every state law applies equally to all America that would be nonsensical. What it does mean is that states must respect other states rulings, records, etc...

 

So why pass a federal law attempting to interfere with this as a matter of constitutional law? For the record when push comes to shove it will fail (but it has bought a LOT of time and will continue to do so to the point where the political process may ultimately deal with it first)...the point stands though.

 

If 3rdnlng wants to say what he says...then he should be willing to say "I do not support DOMA." B/c remember we aren't talking about a hypothetical law supporting gay marriage...we're talking full faith and credit on that end. On the other end...we are very much talking DOMA.

 

14th amendment

 

Well now we're getting into if being gay is an immutable trait. If we really want to explode this topic...this is how it's done.

Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[CosmicBills]

Let's take all these gems one at a time.

 

That's incorrect. The Nazis rose to power by making the Communists the outcasts and it was earlier than 38. It wasnt until Hitler and the Nazis had firm control of Germany that they turned their attention to the Jews.

 

The reference was directly tied to Kristallnacht. If you want, I have plenty of books I can recommend on how that all played out. Then you'll understand the admittedly hyperbolic point I was making.

 

Or, you could stick to the point raised rather than making ridiculous assumptions about my knowledge of history. Up to you.

 

To folks like yourself, people who use their faith as the basis of their moral compass and think differently than you are having their "judgement clouded." But liberals and non-beleivers who get their "religion" and moral compass from academia, the New York Times, or whatever the latest trend is, according to folks like yourself, have it all right and are as clear thinking as they come.

 

Its an elitist way of thinking, in its purest form.

First off, you don't know me so don't try to tell me how I think. I have absolutely no problem with religion or people who wish to live their life based on their faiths. In fact, I consider myself to be quite spiritual and have had a long fascination and passion for religion in general. I've studied it. I've debated it. I've gone to mass after mass after mass. I've had endless conversations with Baptist Ministers, Catholic Priests, Imams and Monks. Sometimes for research for my work, other times simply for my own spiritual development. I have absolutely nothing against religion nor would I ever presume to tell someone that God doesn't exist. Because really, who the f*ck am I?

 

I've always been drawn to religion. It fascinates me. Religion, in the broadest sense of the word, has played an undeniable role in helping humanity flourish and prosper across the globe. It has elevated and shaped humanity in countless positive ways. It's provided light in times of darkness and glory in times of despair. It's a powerful and profound force that every person who has ever walked the Earth has been touched by in one way or another. But, simultaneously, history shows that this force is not always positive. In fact, there has been never been a more destructive force than organized religion. None. More people have died in the name of God than from any other cause. And again, I'm talking religion in a general term.

 

That paradox is what fascinates me.

 

It's even more fascinating today because we're living in a new age. A new enlightenment is a whisker away thanks to the fact that information is more readily accessible to more people than at anytime in history. Where religion was once held the key to knowledge, today anyone with WiFi and a credit card can read just about anything they wish. This isn't really an overnight thing, it's been a steady progression in a historical sense. Science is breaking new ground at an absolute exponential rate which, in turn, has forced our society to evolve at a breathtaking pace. And it's only going to start to go faster. Think about this: in the span of less than 100 years Man went from wagons to trains to cars to planes to the moon.

 

Science's rapid advancement is pushing progress on religion in a way unseen in history. This is a tremendous threat to religion. People are questioning their faith and the existence of God on a daily basis. And it's not just one question, it's hundreds. History is riddled with examples of how religion has traditionally responded to perceived threats to their dominion: wars, genocides, persecution, and countless atrocities are the norm.

 

That needs to change. I don't point that fact out to besmirch religion, but I point it out as an agent of change that is necessary to me as a human being. Organized religion is only dangerous because it's run by men, not Gods. And men can be evil motherf*ckers who aren't above posing as men of God to get what they want. Questioning your faith when it puts you in ethical or moral quagmires doesn't mean you lose your faith. In fact, it deepens it.

 

The good news is that religion seems to be beginning to realize that science and knowledge aren't threats to faith. In fact, it even appears religion is beginning to embrace its former arch nemesis: Science. The Catholic Church just recently made the announcement that alien life is possible. Imagine that ... the Catholic Church is advocating something that, less than 300 years ago, would have gotten you burned at the stake for even thinking. But it's bigger than that. The Catholic Church, in essence, is admitting that much of the Judeo-Christian creation beliefs are now are subject to revision. And if something like THAT is up for debate, then certainly something as innocuous as sexual orientation should be up for reconsideration.

 

But this is a good thing! Knowledge and science aren't threats to God or faith. If anything, they make God bigger. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions we ask. The more questions we ask, the bigger God's scope becomes.

 

However, religious literalists -- key word there is literalists -- who hide behind thier religious texts as a reflex to change should be questioned. They should be subject to scrutiny. It's backwards thinking that does nothing to elevate humanity but rather divides it.

 

Mankind is not going to stop asking questions, it's not going to stop expanding its horizons. And religion shouldn't either.

 

If that makes my thinking elitist, so be it.

 

And another flaw in the thinking. This idea that religious people are "discriminating" against homosexuals. Who is the Church discriminating against by holding this view? Religious institutions dont make policy beyond its doors. And religion has firm rules up and down affecting things much smaller than marriage and guess what? have a list of "rules" a mile long for men and women to get married. Im a Catholic and had to marry a girl, also a Catholic, in a Church, had to attend 'marriage classes' before we were able to and also had to have reached other milestones in my religous journey like Confirmation, first. Not being gay is just one of MANY criteria one must meet in order to be married in the Catholic faith. Do Jews "discriminate" against pig farmers? Do Catholics "discriminate" against meal lovers during Lent?The list goes on.

 

This is a ridiculous post on many levels. Not the least of which it has nothing to do with the post it's responding to.

 

If you don't think the opposition to gay marriage is largely driven by religious objections to homosexuality you're a fool.

[RkFast]

It's disgraceful that you think it is "elitist" to use logic/reason to find the answers to difficult questions, such as "where do humans get their moral compass?" Human civilization has a proud tradition of science and rational philosophy. This tradition isn't reserved for a select few academic leftists or New York Times readers. Or at least it shouldn't be. Put down the Bible and pick up some science books. Use your brain, think really really hard, and you'll figure out - among many other things - that the Golden Rule is an optimal behavioral strategy for humans to play in the game of pursuing life/liberty/happiness. We are in the 21st century now. We no longer need ancient Middle Eastern fairy tales to guide our behavior.

 

Also, I will continue to attack and make fun of organized religion so long as the "faithful" keep defending their public policy decisions with "God says so" instead of logic/reason. If I were to tell you all that I believe in Ace and Gary as my deities, and that Ace and Gary happen to not like heterosexuals, and that Ace and Gary think heteros should not be allowed to marry, and that I am going to get government to force this idea into law....wouldn't the rest of you attack me for this ridiculous belief? And if you do, would you call yourself an intolerant bigot toward Ace and Gary believers like myself? No! You would call yourself rational.

 

Im done with you.....Get the !@#$ out of my face.

[RkFast]

The reference was directly tied to Kristallnacht. If you want, I have plenty of books I can recommend on how that all played out. Then you'll understand the admittedly hyperbolic point I was making.

 

What are you a !@#$ing librarian?

 

Or, you could stick to the point raised rather than making ridiculous assumptions about my knowledge of history. Up to you.

 

Hey, YOU are the one who made a factually incorrect statement to forward your agenda, not me.

 

First off, you don't know me. In fact, I consider myself to be quite spiritual and have had a long fascination and passion for religion in general

 

Thank God for that. You sound like a hoot at parties. And youre just a regular Joel Osteen, arent ya?

I've studied it. I've debated it.

 

Watching The Thornbirds and discussing it over a cheesburger with your one capitive friends doesnt count as "study and debate"

 

I've had endless conversations with Baptist Ministers, Catholic Priests, Imams and Monks.

 

And I spend lots and lots of times in the woods. It doesnt make me a lumberjack.

 

Sometimes for research for my work,

 

AND BINGO...THERE IT IS.

 

Admit it, sweetie....the knock on academia I made is what got you in a knot, isnt it?

 

Because really, who the f*ck am I?

 

I hate to tell you, but saying "who the !@#$ am I" really doesnt cancel out all the other stuff youve already said proving youre a total pompous ass.

I've always been drawn to religion. It fascinates me. Religion, in the broadest sense of the word, has played an undeniable role in helping humanity flourish and prosper across the globe. It has elevated and shaped humanity in countless positive ways. It's provided light in times of darkness and glory in times of despair. It's a powerful and profound force that every person who has ever walked the Earth has been touched by in one way or another. But, simultaneously, history shows that this force is not always positive. In fact, there has been never been a more destructive force than organized religion. None. More people have died in the name of God than from any other cause. And again, I'm talking religion in a general term.

 

That paradox is what fascinates me.

 

Speaking to a million priests and nuns and monks (monks??!!!??) doesnt reveal this. Two open eyes do.

 

It's even more fascinating today because we're living in a new age. A new enlightenment is a whisker away thanks to the fact that information is more readily accessible to more people than at anytime in history. Where religion was once held the key to knowledge, today anyone with WiFi and a credit card can read just about anything they wish. This isn't really an overnight thing, it's been a steady progression in a historical sense. Science is breaking new ground at an absolute exponential rate which, in turn, has forced our society to evolve at a breathtaking pace. And it's only going to start to go faster. Think about this: in the span of less than 100 years Man went from wagons to trains to cars to planes to the moon.

 

So because I can look up why Van Halen is cancelling tour dates on a computer, religious institutions should change the underpinnings of thousands of years of doctrine. Brilliant.

 

Science's rapid advancement is pushing progress on religion in a way unseen in history. This is a tremendous threat to religion. People are questioning their faith and the existence of God on a daily basis. And it's not just one question, it's hundreds. History is riddled with examples of how religion has traditionally responded to perceived threats to their dominion: wars, genocides, persecution, and countless atrocities are the norm.

 

Um...the Earth was proven to be round hundreds of years ago. Your point holds ZERO water. But I do....hold on, I gotta pee.

 

That needs to change. I don't point that fact out to besmirch religion, but I point it out as an agent of change that is necessary to me as a human being. Organized religion is only dangerous because it's run by men, not Gods. And men can be evil motherf*ckers who aren't above posing as men of God to get what they want. Questioning your faith when it puts you in ethical or moral quagmires doesn't mean you lose your faith. In fact, it deepens it.

 

But this is a good thing! Knowledge and science aren't threats to God or faith. If anything, they make God bigger. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions we ask. The more questions we ask, the bigger God's scope becomes.

 

I know what you mean...Ive been asking "God, why the !@#$ am I wasting my time with this dullard?" for fifteen minutes now.

 

However, religious literalists -- key word there is literalists -- who hide behind thier religious texts as a reflex to change should be questioned.

 

Youre right..toss those Bibles, and Torahs....who needs em!!??!!

 

They should be subject to scrutiny. It's backwards thinking that does nothing to elevate humanity but rather divides it.

 

Yeah...you have a "deep respect" for religion with statements like THIS.

 

If you don't think the opposition to gay marriage is largely driven by religious objections to homosexuality you're a fool.

 

Not what I said. For a real fart smeller...er...smart feller....you didnt get my basic point?

Edited May 18, 2012 by RkFast

[3rdnlng]

Look...you are an idiot. They aren't canards. I'm not an elitist for pointing out that you angrily spout of things that are just plain wrong.

 

That's just ignorant. Because I said that the federal government has no place in the marriage business and is constitutionally limited, I'm an idiot? Any anger that you may sense from me is actually disgust at your total lack of understanding of our government.

 

Furthermore, me being asked what I think of the DOMA is just one of those canards I don't want to address. It doesn't matter what I think. Follow the constitution.

Edited May 18, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Jim in Anchorage]

To Rkfast-That is why you are my favorite poster on here. No BS, call a spade a spade [Oh that will put me on the racist list] Mention God to a liberal here and you are a primitive cave man. It's OK to mock peoples faith [the zombie Jesus? Isn't that Easter? He rose from the dead? Oh that's just a riot-I never thought of it that way!]

Keep up the good work.

[RkFast]

To Rkfast-That is why you are my favorite poster on here. No BS, call a spade a spade [Oh that will put me on the racist list] Mention God to a liberal here and you are a primitive cave man. It's OK to mock peoples faith [the zombie Jesus? Isn't that Easter? He rose from the dead? Oh that's just a riot-I never thought of it that way!]

Keep up the good work.

 

Thank you, Jim.

 

My whole thing here is simple...I hate pretentious !@#$s and I hate hypocrisy. 95% of my posts here are based on that premise.

 

This guy probably has done a lot of work in the area but he comes off as a total look down upon others douchebag. I cant stand that.

 

When I call someone an idiot its becuase Im comfortable in my OWN idiocy, too. And when others feel the same way, it comes through even when they dont try. Most fit into that camp. But some like this guy and people like DiN....they are complete idiots but also think they know it all. I have no time for that.

[Shoutbox]

 

First off, you don't know me so don't try to tell me how I think. I have absolutely no problem with religion or people who wish to live their life based on their faiths. In fact, I consider myself to be quite spiritual and have had a long fascination and passion for religion in general. I've studied it. I've debated it. I've gone to mass after mass after mass. I've had endless conversations with Baptist Ministers, Catholic Priests, Imams and Monks. Sometimes for research for my work, other times simply for my own spiritual development. I have absolutely nothing against religion nor would I ever presume to tell someone that God doesn't exist. Because really, who the f*ck am I?

 

I've always been drawn to religion. It fascinates me. Religion, in the broadest sense of the word, has played an undeniable role in helping humanity flourish and prosper across the globe. It has elevated and shaped humanity in countless positive ways. It's provided light in times of darkness and glory in times of despair. It's a powerful and profound force that every person who has ever walked the Earth has been touched by in one way or another. But, simultaneously, history shows that this force is not always positive. In fact, there has been never been a more destructive force than organized religion. None. More people have died in the name of God than from any other cause. And again, I'm talking religion in a general term.

 

That paradox is what fascinates me.

 

It's even more fascinating today because we're living in a new age. A new enlightenment is a whisker away thanks to the fact that information is more readily accessible to more people than at anytime in history. Where religion was once held the key to knowledge, today anyone with WiFi and a credit card can read just about anything they wish. This isn't really an overnight thing, it's been a steady progression in a historical sense. Science is breaking new ground at an absolute exponential rate which, in turn, has forced our society to evolve at a breathtaking pace. And it's only going to start to go faster. Think about this: in the span of less than 100 years Man went from wagons to trains to cars to planes to the moon.

 

Science's rapid advancement is pushing progress on religion in a way unseen in history. This is a tremendous threat to religion. People are questioning their faith and the existence of God on a daily basis. And it's not just one question, it's hundreds. History is riddled with examples of how religion has traditionally responded to perceived threats to their dominion: wars, genocides, persecution, and countless atrocities are the norm.

 

That needs to change. I don't point that fact out to besmirch religion, but I point it out as an agent of change that is necessary to me as a human being. Organized religion is only dangerous because it's run by men, not Gods. And men can be evil motherf*ckers who aren't above posing as men of God to get what they want. Questioning your faith when it puts you in ethical or moral quagmires doesn't mean you lose your faith. In fact, it deepens it.

 

The good news is that religion seems to be beginning to realize that science and knowledge aren't threats to faith. In fact, it even appears religion is beginning to embrace its former arch nemesis: Science. The Catholic Church just recently made the announcement that alien life is possible. Imagine that ... the Catholic Church is advocating something that, less than 300 years ago, would have gotten you burned at the stake for even thinking. But it's bigger than that. The Catholic Church, in essence, is admitting that much of the Judeo-Christian creation beliefs are now are subject to revision. And if something like THAT is up for debate, then certainly something as innocuous as sexual orientation should be up for reconsideration.

 

But this is a good thing! Knowledge and science aren't threats to God or faith. If anything, they make God bigger. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions we ask. The more questions we ask, the bigger God's scope becomes.

 

However, religious literalists -- key word there is literalists -- who hide behind thier religious texts as a reflex to change should be questioned. They should be subject to scrutiny. It's backwards thinking that does nothing to elevate humanity but rather divides it.

 

Mankind is not going to stop asking questions, it's not going to stop expanding its horizons. And religion shouldn't either.

 

If that makes my thinking elitist, so be it.

 

 

Very thoughtful post, tgreg99, but I am unfortunately much less sanguine about religion than you are. It would be nice if more people questioned the tenets of their particular religion, especially when these tenets affect their votes on public policy. But they don't. For every one tgreg99, there are a large number of Manny Pacquiaos. And a big part of the problem is because faith, by its very definition, demands the suspension of critical thought in order to believe in something without evidence. Moreover, religion actually promotes this mindset as somehow noble. Is it?

 

I don’t think religion is – or ever was – anything more than a creative way for a few select humans to exert influence over the behavior of the masses, whether genuinely for the common good or for more selfish and nefarious reasons. Sometimes this leads to very good effects on society (though these effects could have just as easily have been reached from rational thought and not from God’s word). But sometimes this leads to bigotry and intolerance. Back in the days of the Old Testament, gay behavior was seen as wrong because it did not lead to procreation. In the Biblical “be fruitful and multiply” days when life was precarious and short, maintaining large population numbers was a good thing for the Jews’ very survival. In modern times, however, with 7+ billion people and limited resources on Earth, this is a terrible idea to promote. It’s great that religious leaders like the Pope are now embracing modern ideas like the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the Earth revolving around the Sun, or maybe even gay marriage one day. But why do they have to keep changing their minds? Why isn’t God’s message more enduring? In the case of the Pope, isn’t he supposed to be infallible?

 

A large part of religion's appeal is because it provides warm and fuzzy answers to difficult and scary questions that science is either having a hard time explaining or that may be outside the purview of the scientific method altogether (why are we here, what happens to us after we die, why do bad things happen to good people, etc...). It could be a very long wait for answers to some of these questions, assuming humans can or ever do find the answers (!@#$, it took 2,000 years from when the Greeks first postulated atoms to when physicists were able to experimentally prove their existence). As long as these types of questions don't get answered, the science vs. religion debate will continue. In this debate, I’m personaly sticking with science because they have the much better historical track record of explaining reality. But I can certainly understand why people choose to prefer religion over science. It’s much easier to answer, for example, the “why are we here?” question with “God” and move on with daily life instead of devoting a decade plus of your free time learning the physics and math to figure out what happened at the Big Bang.

[dayman]

That's just ignorant. Because I said that the federal government has no place in the marriage business and is constitutionally limited, I'm an idiot? Any anger that you may sense from me is actually disgust at your total lack of understanding of our government.

 

Furthermore, me being asked what I think of the DOMA is just one of those canards I don't want to address. It doesn't matter what I think. Follow the constitution.

 

3rdnlng...you have no !@#$ing clue. It's hilarious. The biggest foot-in-mouth poster on the board but you will never understand how retarded you are...a true political idiot.

Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[RkFast]

Very thoughtful post, tgreg99, but I am unfortunately much less sanguine about religion than you are. It would be nice if more people questioned the tenets of their particular religion, especially when these tenets affect their votes on public policy. But they don't. For every one tgreg99, there are a large number of Manny Pacquiaos. And a big part of the problem is because faith, by its very definition, demands the suspension of critical thought in order to believe in something without evidence. Moreover, religion actually promotes this mindset as somehow noble. Is it?

 

I don't think religion is or ever was anything more than a creative way for a few select humans to exert influence over the behavior of the masses, whether genuinely for the common good or for more selfish and nefarious reasons. Sometimes this leads to very good effects on society (though these effects could have just as easily have been reached from rational thought and not from God's word). But sometimes this leads to bigotry and intolerance. Back in the days of the Old Testament, gay behavior was seen as wrong because it did not lead to procreation. In the Biblical "be fruitful and multiply" days when life was precarious and short, maintaining large population numbers was a good thing for the Jews' very survival. In modern times, however, with 7+ billion people and limited resources on Earth, this is a terrible idea to promote. It's great that religious leaders like the Pope are now embracing modern ideas like the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the Earth revolving around the Sun, or maybe even gay marriage one day. But why do they have to keep changing their minds? Why isn't God's message more enduring? In the case of the Pope, isn't he supposed to be infallible?

 

A large part of religion's appeal is because it provides warm and fuzzy answers to difficult and scary questions that science is either having a hard time explaining or that may be outside the purview of the scientific method altogether (why are we here, what happens to us after we die, why do bad things happen to good people, etc...). It could be a very long wait for answers to some of these questions, assuming humans can or ever do find the answers (!@#$, it took 2,000 years from when the Greeks first postulated atoms to when physicists were able to experimentally prove their existence). As long as these types of questions don't get answered, the science vs. religion debate will continue. In this debate, I'm personaly sticking with science because they have the much better historical track record of explaining reality. But I can certainly understand why people choose to prefer religion over science. It's much easier to answer, for example, the "why are we here?" question with "God" and move on with daily life instead of devoting a decade plus of your free time learning the physics and math to figure out what happened at the Big Bang.

 

Oh yeah....the faithful have to question and change to YOUR ideals and if they dont, they are bigots and idiots in your opinion.

 

Stick to saying stupid **** like "DALLAS IS GOING DOWN GARY!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

Thats clearly the height of your intelligence.

Edited May 18, 2012 by RkFast

[DC Tom]

Furthermore, me being asked what I think of the DOMA is just one of those canards I don't want to address. It doesn't matter what I think. Follow the constitution.

 

Seriously? That's idiotic. That's not even a self-consistent set of statements.

[3rdnlng]

3rdnlng...you have no !@#$ing clue. It's hilarious. The biggest foot-in-mouth poster on the board but you will never understand how retarded you are...a true political idiot.

 

Sure, I'm retarded because I have this silly opinion that the federal government is constitutionally limited. You are so bright because you think the federal government has the right to regulate marriage and mandate purchase of certain products.

[dayman]

Sure, I'm retarded because I have this silly opinion that the federal government is constitutionally limited. You are so bright because you think the federal government has the right to regulate marriage and mandate purchase of certain products.

 

Do you or do you not support DOMA?

[RkFast]

Do you or do you not support DOMA?

 

Supporting the premise of a law, but being against which entity took it upon itself to make that law IS possible, you know. \

 

Just becuase he (and I) dont think its the Fed's job the be in the marriage business, that doesnt mean we want all gays to burn in hell.

 

Or like the debate Im in with those two nimrods on this board....just becuase a religious institution wants to limit who they marry to men and women, that shouldnt affect a gay couple from being allowed to marry through one of the many other channels to do so available to them.

 

Why cant liberals figure this out?

Edited May 18, 2012 by RkFast

[3rdnlng]

Do you or do you not support DOMA?

 

As I understand it, the DOMA states that states don't have to honor other state's laws as it relates to marriages within the same gender and that the federal government for their purpose, recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. While the federal government is perfectly within their right to define it for their purposes, they can't dictate to the states what their definition should be. I'm ok with that.

 

What I've tried to get across to you (and others) is that the federal government has been granted specific rights by the states. It has limited rights and responsibilities. Issuing marriage licenses isn't one of them.

[Shoutbox]

Oh yeah....the faithful have to question and change to YOUR ideals and if they dont, they are bigots and idiots in your opinion.

 

Stick to saying stupid **** like "DALLAS IS GOING DOWN GARY!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

Thats clearly the height of your intelligence.

 

I thought I've been very clear on my position here: I only give a **** about what the faithful believe in when they start making public policy decisions based on these beliefs.

 

Otherwise, I wouldn't care less if people choose to reject science and rationality for superstition and ancient Middle Eastern fairytales. Practice in private and celebrate in public all your stupid religions all you want.

 

I thought you said you were done with me, anyway. But if you want to keep being a vituperative douchebag, bring it on you !@#$ing !@#$.

[RkFast]

I thought I've been very clear on my position here: I only give a **** about what the faithful believe in when they start making public policy decisions based on these beliefs.

 

Otherwise, I wouldn't care less if people choose to reject science and rationality for superstition and ancient Middle Eastern fairytales. Practice in private and celebrate in public all your stupid religions all you want.

 

I thought you said you were done with me, anyway. But if you want to keep being a vituperative douchebag, bring it on you !@#$ing !@#$.

 

 

DALLAS IS GOING DOWN!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CosmicBills]

What are you a !@#$ing librarian?

 

Hey, YOU are the one who made a factually incorrect statement to forward your agenda, not me.

 

Actually, I didn't make an incorrect statement. I made a point which you completely missed. But based on the rest of the post, that's not surprising. You are so angry and so quit to dismiss something that you don't agree it's actually quite amusing.

 

Watching The Thornbirds and discussing it over a cheesburger with your one capitive friends doesnt count as "study and debate"

 

Yup. That's exactly what I meant by study and debate. Thornbirds? Of all the references you could have pulled from you choose the Thornbirds? Come on, at least try to be entertaining if you are incapable of having an honest discussion.

 

 

And I spend lots and lots of times in the woods. It doesnt make me a lumberjack.

 

I have never claimed to be an expert. But you continue to think I'm some sort of atheist. In fact I am anything but.

 

 

AND BINGO...THERE IT IS.

 

Admit it, sweetie....the knock on academia I made is what got you in a knot, isnt it?

 

Absolutely not. I don't work in academia. Do I believe in education? Absolutely. Education doesn't only exist within the walls of academia.

 

Again, you're not even engaging in the discussion now. You're just spouting nonsense like an angry man yelling at the grass for growing too loudly. Here's a tip, if you wish to engage in an honest discussion that requires you to listen and actually consider the points being raised -- even if you disagree with it. ESPECIALLY if you disagree with it. That way you can come back with a real retort, something with substance (or at the very least humor) ... both of which appear to be foreign concepts to you.

 

Shame.

 

 

I hate to tell you, but saying "who the !@#$ am I" really doesnt cancel out all the other stuff youve already said proving youre a total pompous ass.

 

 

Other stuff I've already said? Such as what? Such as my desire to learn more about religion in general? To seek out counsel from spiritual leaders in my community in an effort to expand my own horizons? Or maybe it's my assertion that I realize everything I'm saying is just one man's opinion.

 

Yes. That makes me a pompous ass?

 

No, what would make me a pompous ass would be if I recommended that you actually looking up the definition to big words like "pompous" before throwing them around in a spastic, rage-filled rant that makes you look like an ass more than hero.

 

But I didn't say that. In fact I said the exact opposite of that.

 

 

 

Speaking to a million priests and nuns and monks (monks??!!!??) doesnt reveal this. Two open eyes do.

 

I haven't spoken to millions. I haven't been around long enough ... I've barely been around long enough to catch your hip references like the Thornbirds. But it is interesting that you believe it's impossible to learn something from other people's experiences and perspectives. In fact, it sums up everything that's wrong about your responses to my thread. You are either too stubborn or to obtuse to actually engage in an honest conversation.

 

I for one believe that I'm not smart enough to know everything intuitively. You might feel differently. But it's silly to shut yourself off to opinions that differ from your own. How else can you test the validity of your own beliefs and views if you're never presented with options?

 

Free will is a gift given to our species. But it's not free. There's an intellectual cost to free will. To say there isn't is to live your life in the darkness.

 

 

So because I can look up why Van Halen is cancelling tour dates on a computer, religious institutions should change the underpinnings of thousands of years of doctrine. Brilliant.

 

You are missing the overriding point (again). The point was that throughout history, Religion (general term) was the only source of knowledge for most of the world's population. They were the keepers of knowledge, spiritual and intellectual. They controlled the access to knowledge and, often times, used that power to thwart the growth of progress. The Catholic Church is the most vivid example of this, but it happened across the globe with nearly every religion in one form or another.

 

Knowledge is power. And now that power is available to everyone who cares to take the plunge. That has never been the case before in the history of mankind. Now you may use the new fangled data machines to look up Van Halen tickets (Thornbirds and Van Halen ... quite the picture you're painting of yourself) -- but even you have to admit that other people who may be interested in learning stuff are using the fancy computers to educate themselves.

 

This is both a blessing and a curse for religion as a whole. And, as I pointed out, even your Catholic Church has begun to adopt views its held for a millenia due to the undeniable progress of general knowledge.

 

 

 

Um...the Earth was proven to be round hundreds of years ago. Your point holds ZERO water. But I do....hold on, I gotta pee.

 

Actually my point more than holds water. It's not even a debatable fact. Religion has often responded to new ways of thinking, and science in general, with intimidation and violence. Admitting that something happened historically doesn't diminish the positive impact religion has had in the world. But turning a blind eye to it dishonors not only yourself, but the millions of people who gave their lives on both sides of that battle.

 

And, point in fact, the Earth was actually believed to be round thousands of years ago, not hundreds. And that's just in Europe. Other cultures figured it out even earlier than the Greeks. Despite this, the Catholic Church not only denied this fact as false, they used violence and intimidation to keep the truth a "myth" for hundreds of years.

 

Now? I think most Catholics would agree that the Church was wrong on that count. So how do you justify that as a Catholic man yourself? Does this mean that the Church is evil? No. Does it mean the Church is failable? Absolutely -- the priests I've talked to would agree.

 

Youre right..toss those Bibles, and Torahs....who needs em!!??!!

 

Again, you're not even bothering to try to understand the point. The point isn't that I am saying the Bible is worthless, it's that the Church itself is openly revising it's own creation beliefs. This is monumental in a historical sense.

 

Much like your example above with the Earth being round -- the Church said that was wrong, then changed their mind when presented with facts. And now, the Church is saying it's not only possible, but likely, that there is other life in the universe. It's an evolution of faith. And it's a positive thing.

 

That does not mean I find the core religious texts worthless. Not at all. There is power in the words and lessons held within. But believing in a literal translation is something that the Church itself no longer does ... which was the point.

 

 

Yeah...you have a "deep respect" for religion with statements like THIS.

 

 

Do you believe the Earth is only 4,000 years old?

 

Anyone who takes the Bible, or any religious text, literally when it flies in the face of fact is indeed backwards thinking. Which by itself is fine so long as those people do not try to use those texts to restrict someone's freedom.

 

Not what I said. For a real fart smeller...er...smart feller....you didnt get my basic point?

 

You haven't made one single point in any of your ramblings. At least not any points that have any bearing on my posts. But I do appreciate a good fart joke ...

 

...too bad yours wasn't good.

[RkFast]

Actually, I didn't make an incorrect statement. I made a point which you completely missed. But based on the rest of the post, that's not surprising. You are so angry and so quit to dismiss something that you don't agree it's actually quite amusing.

 

 

 

Yup. That's exactly what I meant by study and debate. Thornbirds? Of all the references you could have pulled from you choose the Thornbirds? Come on, at least try to be entertaining if you are incapable of having an honest discussion.

 

 

 

 

I have never claimed to be an expert. But you continue to think I'm some sort of atheist. In fact I am anything but.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. I don't work in academia. Do I believe in education? Absolutely. Education doesn't only exist within the walls of academia.

 

Again, you're not even engaging in the discussion now. You're just spouting nonsense like an angry man yelling at the grass for growing too loudly. Here's a tip, if you wish to engage in an honest discussion that requires you to listen and actually consider the points being raised -- even if you disagree with it. ESPECIALLY if you disagree with it. That way you can come back with a real retort, something with substance (or at the very least humor) ... both of which appear to be foreign concepts to you.

 

Shame.

 

 

I hate to tell you, but saying "who the !@#$ am I" really doesnt cancel out all the other stuff youve already said proving youre a total pompous ass.

 

 

Other stuff I've already said? Such as what? Such as my desire to learn more about religion in general? To seek out counsel from spiritual leaders in my community in an effort to expand my own horizons? Or maybe it's my assertion that I realize everything I'm saying is just one man's opinion.

 

Yes. That makes me a pompous ass?

 

No, what would make me a pompous ass would be if I recommended that you actually looking up the definition to big words like "pompous" before throwing them around in a spastic, rage-filled rant that makes you look like an ass more than hero.

 

But I didn't say that. In fact I said the exact opposite of that.

 

 

 

Speaking to a million priests and nuns and monks (monks??!!!??) doesnt reveal this. Two open eyes do.

 

I haven't spoken to millions. I haven't been around long enough ... I've barely been around long enough to catch your hip references like the Thornbirds. But it is interesting that you believe it's impossible to learn something from other people's experiences and perspectives. In fact, it sums up everything that's wrong about your responses to my thread. You are either too stubborn or to obtuse to actually engage in an honest conversation.

 

I for one believe that I'm not smart enough to know everything intuitively. You might feel differently. But it's silly to shut yourself off to opinions that differ from your own. How else can you test the validity of your own beliefs and views if you're never presented with options?

 

Free will is a gift given to our species. But it's not free. There's an intellectual cost to free will. To say there isn't is to live your life in the darkness.

 

 

So because I can look up why Van Halen is cancelling tour dates on a computer, religious institutions should change the underpinnings of thousands of years of doctrine. Brilliant.

 

You are missing the overriding point (again). The point was that throughout history, Religion (general term) was the only source of knowledge for most of the world's population. They were the keepers of knowledge, spiritual and intellectual. They controlled the access to knowledge and, often times, used that power to thwart the growth of progress. The Catholic Church is the most vivid example of this, but it happened across the globe with nearly every religion in one form or another.

 

Knowledge is power. And now that power is available to everyone who cares to take the plunge. That has never been the case before in the history of mankind. Now you may use the new fangled data machines to look up Van Halen tickets (Thornbirds and Van Halen ... quite the picture you're painting of yourself) -- but even you have to admit that other people who may be interested in learning stuff are using the fancy computers to educate themselves.

 

This is both a blessing and a curse for religion as a whole. And, as I pointed out, even your Catholic Church has begun to adopt views its held for a millenia due to the undeniable progress of general knowledge.

 

 

 

Um...the Earth was proven to be round hundreds of years ago. Your point holds ZERO water. But I do....hold on, I gotta pee.

 

Actually my point more than holds water. It's not even a debatable fact. Religion has often responded to new ways of thinking, and science in general, with intimidation and violence. Admitting that something happened historically doesn't diminish the positive impact religion has had in the world. But turning a blind eye to it dishonors not only yourself, but the millions of people who gave their lives on both sides of that battle.

 

And, point in fact, the Earth was actually believed to be round thousands of years ago, not hundreds. And that's just in Europe. Other cultures figured it out even earlier than the Greeks. Despite this, the Catholic Church not only denied this fact as false, they used violence and intimidation to keep the truth a "myth" for hundreds of years.

 

Now? I think most Catholics would agree that the Church was wrong on that count. So how do you justify that as a Catholic man yourself? Does this mean that the Church is evil? No. Does it mean the Church is failable? Absolutely -- the priests I've talked to would agree.

 

Youre right..toss those Bibles, and Torahs....who needs em!!??!!

 

Again, you're not even bothering to try to understand the point. The point isn't that I am saying the Bible is worthless, it's that the Church itself is openly revising it's own creation beliefs. This is monumental in a historical sense.

 

Much like your example above with the Earth being round -- the Church said that was wrong, then changed their mind when presented with facts. And now, the Church is saying it's not only possible, but likely, that there is other life in the universe. It's an evolution of faith. And it's a positive thing.

 

That does not mean I find the core religious texts worthless. Not at all. There is power in the words and lessons held within. But believing in a literal translation is something that the Church itself no longer does ... which was the point.

 

 

Yeah...you have a "deep respect" for religion with statements like THIS.

 

 

Do you believe the Earth is only 4,000 years old?

 

Anyone who takes the Bible, or any religious text, literally when it flies in the face of fact is indeed backwards thinking. Which by itself is fine so long as those people do not try to use those texts to restrict someone's freedom.

 

Not what I said. For a real fart smeller...er...smart feller....you didnt get my basic point?

 

You haven't made one single point in any of your ramblings. At least not any points that have any bearing on my posts. But I do appreciate a good fart joke ...

 

...too bad yours wasn't good.

 

Im sorry......did you say something?