I'm new here. Read this and see if you agree. If you don't please explain why.

Heathensrule
Superfan
Heathensrule's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-10-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm new here. Read this and see if you agree. If you don't please explain why.

 

Usually I like to keep Politics and Religion out of most conversations. I have a military like stance, don't ask don't tell. I know I am not going to change anyone’s mind, even though I would like to, so talking about it or arguing about it is pointless. However, in light of the current campaigns and the magnitude of this election I would like to put my two cents in. After watching the Vice Presidential Debates I hope it has become appallingly clear that Sarah Palin has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. She has, so far, been unable to answer a question directly regardless of the interview or forum. She skates around the issue and regurgitates what she thinks her contingents want to hear. Joe Biden answered every question directly and concisely. The clear winner of that debate was Biden. Regardless of your opinion on the issues that were discussed Biden won that debate.I am a recovering Republican, not really though, my parents were Republicans but that was because they were well off and liked the tax breaks. They understood Reaganomics and were in a tax bracket that voting Republican would benefit them. Yes, they are conservative on most issues but not the ones you might think or for the reasons you might think. I would call them fiscally Republican and socially Democrat. I was a Republican because they were. This brings me to my next point.   If you are a Republican because of your religion then you are not thinking critically. Unless your church pays taxes (NONE of them do) then they should NOT be preaching politics. If you are voting the Republican ticket because someone else told you to or tried to sway you, you are not thinking critically. Try thinking for yourself, if you really do, then a light should come on in your head. Ask yourself this question. Am I voting on issues that I know are right, or that have been sold to me by someone else?   Examples would be friends, family members, pastors, priests, deacons, rabbis, peer group members. etc. etc.  I am going to list some keys political points and then show that critical thinkers should vote using their brains, not their “hearts”.  
  1. National Security: John McCain (JMc) would be a worse threat to national security than Barack Obama (BO). BO has huge international support, when he gets elected BO will reflect that Americans are fed up with the current government and we are indeed ready for change. Both in foreign policy and domestic policy, the world would view us as a different country than we have been for the last 8 years. JMc would be viewed as an extension of George W. Bush. Therefore, our foreign policy would not really change, our enemies would still hate us and we would be more vulnerable to attack. Both here and abroad. 
  2. Gay Rights: Are you are married? Do you plan on getting married? How would you feel if the government told you that you could not marry the person you love? Gay people are just that. They are People. They are not to be “tolerated” like Palin implied, they are to be treated with the same respect every person deserves. You as an American have the right to marry or do pretty much anything you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. Gay marriages don’t hurt anybody. They are not “abominations”; they are people that are just different than you. It is not a choice or a lifestyle. They are born that way. 
  3. Roe v. Wade: This is a touchy one but if you think critically you will understand my point. Mind your own FUCKING business.
  4. Global Warming: We do not need to start off-shore drilling, this is a band aid. Yes, it will decrease dependence on foreign oil but it will help perpetuate the carbon emission problem. BO is right on the money, we need to focus on new energy resources. This will create new jobs and clean up the air. If we set the example the rest of the world will follow. We could actually make a new export! Imagine, having a real export besides grain. Now we would become players in the global economy again instead of just being consumers.
  5. Taxes: If you make over $250,000.00 a year BO’s tax plan might hurt you a little in the pocket book. It is fact that the top income earners pay most of the taxes in the U.S. Even if you DO make more the $250K (I think I know ONE family right now that does) a year this would not be a reason to vote Republican. If you do make $250K or more then good for you, you can afford to pay higher taxes. You can also do your part in helping your country pull out of Iraq and giving health care to millions of Americans who don’t have it. If you are like me and most are, then BO’s new tax plan will help you.
  6. The War: Haven’t enough people died over there? We need to get our troops home now. I have had friends and neighbors that have been on multiple tours. They are tired and have served their country well. They don’t need to go back. Having a full scale withdrawal would help international affairs not hinder them. The only thing that I agree with G. W. Bush on is “Mission Accomplished”. If you define ‘winning’ the war, over throwing the old régime and installing a democracy winning the war. Then we have won, and we need to get out. If you define it as occupying a foreign country and securing the region to control the flow and price of oil, then no, we haven’t won and we never will. We still need to get out of that country before the rest of the world joins the Taliban.
  I know there are a lot more topics but these are the top six as far as I am concerned. If you have anymore that you want to discuss feel free to respond.   I know I am not going to sway you. This is why I use the term over and over, think critically. Critical Thinkers vote for Obama!Superstitious people with imaginary friends vote for McCain. Think or know don’t “feel or believe”.Heathensrule

 

Heathensrule!

I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A great post. The only thing

A great post. The only thing I'm not personally in total agreement with is immediate withdrawl from Iraq. It could cause them more harm than staying. But that's a guess, not a fact. So it's not something I'd argue for or against at this point in time.

Welcome to the forums. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I can't say I disagree on

I can't say I disagree on anything serious.  The domestic stuff is a no-brainer.  There's no logical reason for discriminating against gays.  While the issue of abortion might be emotionally charged, the bottom line is that no amount of emotion equates to a sound argument.  On foreign policy, yeah... Bush is pretty much the most globally despised American president ever.  McCain is definitely seen as an extension of the Bush campaign.

I reserve judgment on the best way to get out of Iraq, but maintain that getting out is a good idea.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I agree with the six topics

I agree with the six topics you covered but I disagree that one of them is now or will be a primary goal of the potential McCain/Palin administration.

Republicans have held the White House now for the past eight years. And I do mean, Republicans have held.... not just GW, he's not smart enough to have [email protected] things up this badly all by himself.

Under the GW presidency, from the year 2000 until 2006, the U.S. Congress was essentially controlled by a Republican majority.

As far as the men who might actually take up Roe v Wade, seven of the U.S. Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republican presidents while only two currently sitting were appointed by the lone Democratic President, that of course being William Jefferson Clinton.

Now this doesn't mean the Supreme Court judges don't have minds of their own and they often "cross over' with their individual voting, going against the perceived or expected choice/decision...but we can keep a few things in mind.

Over much of the past eight years, the majority of the important, decision-making people in Washington (President, VP, Congress, Supreme Court) have been Republicans. Many of those have been bible-thumpers, if not openly then somewhat quietly although the overall aura in the nations capital has been one of christian religiosity like never before.

So.  Why didn't we see Roe v Wade overturned ? I've heard dozens upon dozens of various answers (excuses, really)...none of which, upon closer scrutiny, held any water. At least, with me. A McCain/Palin White House might be slightly more inclined to push the Supreme Court toward a reversal, but I think they're gonna have waaay to many other frickin' problems to worry about Roe v Wade. Of course, Roe could land at the feet of the justices again, without any directive from "above".

I appreciated your listing of "Taxes",  but noted the omission of the economy (as a broader topic than just taxes)

My two cents for what its worth...I'd replace Roe v Wade with the economy.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I do think R v W is in

I do think R v W is in danger if we keep having Rethugs in the White House - due to supreme court vacancies. Hopefully Obama wins and if we really get lucky Scalia kicks the bucket.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I do think

MattShizzle wrote:

I do think R v W is in danger if we keep having Rethugs in the White House - due to supreme court vacancies. Hopefully Obama wins and if we really get lucky Scalia kicks the bucket.

If we have a bible thumping group get into the White House and they appoint vacancies with more bible thumper judges who believe that life begins at conception, then yes, Roe might be in danger.

One of the points I was making earlier, though indirectly, is that not all Republicans believe Roe should be overturned. Another point was that whichever team "wins", will really have their hands full with many other issues. I don't think Roe will make it to the front burner...even with vacancies. After all, Republicans have appointed 7 of the current positions on the Supreme Court.

I think Obama would be the lesser of  the two evils... incompetence v inexperience. So yeah, I hope Obama and Joe Biden win.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't forget that McCain has

Don't forget that McCain has shifted way too the right in the last year or so. He's also more likely to die than Obama - Biden would be good, but Palin is even further to the right than GWB. If Obama won and Scalia died (and maybe Thomas too? That might prove a benevolent god! ) there would go the 2 most extreme conservative justices replaced with moderates or more likely liberals.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I used to vote republican

I used to vote republican years ago straight along party lines. However as I have gotten older I have realized that the individual message is more important than the party. Both candidates will not receive my vote and as I live in California my vote for a third party is meaningless. The issues you have mentioned are more complex than any one candidate can solve and I don't think either is capable of anything but more of the same.

1. I did appreciate BO and his willingness to talk to leaders that we have disagreements with. Pre-conditions to other countries do not work. The whole purpose to negotiations is to come to some common ground. JMc is a neo-con and even Reagan realized how dangerous these people are and threw them out on their asses. Another point to consider is to let other countries be responsible for themselves. The CIA was responsible for the overthrowing of the Iranian government and installing the Shah. We need someone in office that abides by the rule of law.

2. Biden himself disagrees with same-sex marriage. Yes, all people should have equal rights under the law but here in California we are going to the polls again to try to reverse the new law allowing homosexuals to marry. How can we as a free society still believe in civil rights for only some and not all?

3. If someone is pro-life then they should put their money where their mouth is and adopt an unwanted child. If you are so pro-life put up the 20 grand to pay for the delivery and adoption costs. The overturning of Roe V. Wade is a cowardly way of stopping the practice of abortion. I don't know of anyone that looks at a million aborted fetuses a year and smiles wishing there could be more.

4. I disagree. I think we do need to drill offshore and in Alaska. We need to lessen the gap in the supply which means producing our own fuel. I believe that the oil industry here should be nationalized and some of the money used to pay for developing renewable energy. As energy becomes more scarce the viability of producing new energy sources becomes less possible. Yes, it is a bandaid and it would take years but would provide a buffer while we get new technologies into production.

5. The wealthy should pay more in taxes. I like Barack's plan to tax those that make over $250,000. However, without actually knowing what percentage the wealthy pay in taxes I would have to digress somewhat. I do worry that taxing the rich more could hurt the economy, however everyone should pay a fair share. The problem is defining what the term fair share actually means.

6. You're right the war is over and this is an occupation. If we are to believe that Iraq is a sovereign nation then they have every right to demand we leave. The fact is we should have never gone in in the first place. Everyone who supported the force resolution in the administration should be tried on crimes against humanity.

Thanks for the great post and welcome aboard.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Heathensrule
Superfan
Heathensrule's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Wow!

I didn't realize this was such an active board.  Thanks for the compliments and criticisms.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Your welcome, RRS rocks ...

Your welcome, RRS rocks ... Wait, I didn't say anything.   Okay, "Eat the Rich" ....


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.

Welcome.


GoMetricToday
GoMetricToday's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-11
User is offlineOffline
 Wow!!!  I couldn't have

 Wow!!!  I couldn't have said it better.  Thank you.


GoMetricToday
GoMetricToday's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-11
User is offlineOffline
 You did forget one thing

 You did forget one thing thought.  We also need to finish our conversion to the metric system.  For so long we have laboured under 2 measuring systems.  People have died because of incorrect medicine dosing.  Hospital staff are often required to convert and reconvert measures leading to inaccurate measures and dosing.  When a measure is converted from one system to the other, the numbers are never accurate.  Furthermore when there is a re-conversion, again the numbers are different than what they were before.  Since all medicines are federally mandated to be measured in metric it would stand to reason that everything should be metric.  If not for just the ease of the metric system, but at least for our health and safety. 

 

A good example.  My weight is 210 Lbs.  which converts to 95 kg.  When the kilograms are converted back to pounds my weight is different than it was before.  Example.  95 kg converts to 209 Lbs.  In the re-conversion I lost a pound.  

 

Imagine what would happen if that kept happening between medical staff?  First I weigh 210 Lbs. converted to 95 kg.  Then the next staff member takes the 95 kg and reconverts it to 209 Lbs. , then the next staff member takes 209 Lbs. and converts it to 94 kg.  You can see each time it is converted I loose weight.  Now imagine if I had to be given a medicine that is based on weight.  I would be under dosed and possibly suffer ill effects of these conversion mistakes.  Computer programmes are pretty good at converting exactly, but when the staff member writes done the measurement they most often omit the decimal placement and give just a whole number.  

 

Can we afford to die because of our inability to finish the change over and get with the rest of the world?

 


Lorne (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
As far as your first point

As far as your first point goes, not only would McCain keep your enemies as enemies, the American people electing him would basically make enemies of your friends.  As a foreigner (Canadian) I can sympathize with ending up with a doofus for a leader.  I can sympathize with waiting it out instead of not taking more drastic action to get rid of him.  I cannot sympathize with replacing him with more of the same when there's an apparent alternative.  Elect McCain and you shift the blame from the leader to the people.


Heathensrule
Superfan
Heathensrule's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-10-09
User is offlineOffline
the metric system

I agree that we (the planet) should be under one standardized measuring system.  I know it would be difficult to change now, for people older than say 30.  It would be easy for children of pretty much any age school children because they are so malleable.  I would think in Standard for a long time before metric would become second nature.  If you told me it was 30 degrees Celsius outside I would have to do a conversion in my head and say, oh ya 86 F.   If you told me that the middle of the net on the tennis court was 91.4 cm I would have to guesstamate that you were trying to say 36 inches.  Of course I know the middle of the tennis court is 36 inches and roughly how high that is.  It would take a little while to start thinking metrically. 

  That being said we Americans look silly doing it differently.  I have been called an "American buffoon" using Miles in an international conversation before.  I thought it was a little harsh being that I didn't choose to be born in America and use the Standard system.   I wish we would swich just to make everything the same.  It would make trade and manufacturing easier.  If you think about it the metric system just makes sense, it is much easier to deal with and use especially if you are speaking in the language of Science!

This is a little off the topic of the election, but fun to talk about. LOL.

Heathensrule!

I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not too many Americans would

Not too many Americans would use the metric system - most of us hate it. I myself can convert most things, at least roughly, in my head, but when I hear "5 miles" or "25 lbs" for example, I can picture it right away. Metrics I have to convert first. They also have to teach it every year/semester in HS and even college science classes. There was even cases a few years ago where a state put some signs up in metrics instead of the correct units, and people shot the signs. The government wanted to convert to metrics since the 1970s, but the people won't tolerate it. The only exceptions are medication and booze really.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Heathensrule
Superfan
Heathensrule's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2008-10-09
User is offlineOffline
well.....

If the whole country switched everybody would have to use it.  It would be really hard at first but we would adapt.

Heathensrule!

I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How would that happen in a

How would that happen in a democratic country where politicians who would try to force us to switch would be sent packing? Especially if it came up and ones running against them promising "no foreign rulers" would win overwhelmingly? I certainly would be much less likely to vote for someone who wanted to do that. I myself hate the metric system.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I prefer the metric system

EDIT  - I prefer the metric system as it's based on simpler 10s to mentally figure, I think, even tho I am also not familiar with it in memory. We do need to choose and I say go metric. Makes easier simple sense.

Actually, as I reviewed, this mess is pretty fucked up. Umm, start over, nay ... Metrics seems it's indeed based on 10's which make funny numbers out of other measurement ways, such as Americas 12's or whatever system ....  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/mw/table/weight.htm

  Powers of ten please ....


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The metric system is just a

The metric system is just a subset of the universally employed Systeme International d'Unites (SI units). Every engineer, scientist and mathematician on the planet uses SI units. Every single derived unit expressed in SI is derived from a set of seven base units, each of which is based on a fundamental and immutable property of the universe (these units are the meter, second, ampere, Kelvin, mole, kilogram and candela). As the units for all of these are defined in terms of immutable properties of the entire universe, the SI system is overwhelmingly superior in every way to any other system. Any quantity in the universe can be expressed in terms of the SI units. For example, If you want to measure charge, it is simply the current-time product in a region. Thus, 1C is one Ampere-second, or 1As. Magnetic fields are produced by moving charges, and the strength of magnetic fields (also called flux density) is related to the velocity, charge and the force exerted. Velocity is a derived unit (ms-1), so is charge (As), and so is force (kgms-2). The derived unit for magnetic fields (Teslas) are equivalent (in base units) to kgs-2A-1. Since every quantity can be expressed in terms of the base units, relating quantities is vastly easier, and entirely universal. There is no sense in not employing the SI.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks DG, I believe you ,

Thanks DG, I believe you , SI it is then. I will pass it on .... metric wins, now I must learn it ....

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Conversion_factors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication

"All countries across the globe have officially adopted the metric system except the

United States of America, Liberia and Burma (Myanmar

 These remaining countries have not officially adopted metric but have done so to some degree indirectly through international trade and standardisation." 


JesusSlaves (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
That's my boy...

That's my boy...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Heathensrule wrote:If the

Heathensrule wrote:

If the whole country switched everybody would have to use it.  It would be really hard at first but we would adapt.


That's what we did in Canada.......mostly anyway......

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
I dont think you need to

I dont think you need to change anyone's mind here. Infact virtually no one on this forum is for Mclame and Failin. I suspect there's an above average amount who go for Bob Barr though.

Quote:
Global Warming: We do not need to start off-shore drilling, this is a band aid. Yes, it will decrease dependence on foreign oil but it will help perpetuate the carbon emission problem. BO is right on the money, we need to focus on new energy resources. This will create new jobs and clean up the air.

I dont know about the jobs option. Alternative energy sources is inevitable because oil isnt going to last much longer. Not to mention a terrible mistake could severely damage the oil reserves.

So really the amount of jobs created vs lost might be very similar. What we could do is impose a tax of sorts on carbon producing giants. Not a tax like GST or whatever. But something like a Pollution credit. Planting 100 new trees creates 1 Pollution credit. Then some Coal power plant has to purchase or generate X amount of Pollution credits for X amount of their carbon emissions. Only good can come from that; because alternative sources are going to happen but the carbon emissions will still exist.

Quote:
Taxes: If you make over $250,000.00 a year BO’s tax plan might hurt you a little in the pocket book. It is fact that the top income earners pay most of the taxes in the U.S. Even if you DO make more the $250K (I think I know ONE family right now that does) a year this would not be a reason to vote Republican. If you do make $250K or more then good for you, you can afford to pay higher taxes. You can also do your part in helping your country pull out of Iraq and giving health care to millions of Americans who don’t have it. If you are like me and most are, then BO’s new tax plan will help you.

Person A earns $20,000 a year and pays $5,000 lets say? Person B earns $200,000 and he pays $50,000?

But really they get all the same rights and freedoms equally. The government doesnt have different levels of rights and freedoms. Why do rich have to pay more?

/devilsadvocate


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
munky. Because the guys

munky. Because the guys making 20, helped the guys making 200, and the poor need a little help, and as a rule the ecological foot print of the rich is larger, so also like a pollution fine. Luxury tax also comes to mind. These are all methods of stabilizing society, and always debated. Competition vs Cooperation.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Heathensrule wrote: Usually

Heathensrule wrote:

 

Usually I like to keep Politics and Religion out of most conversations. I have a military like stance, don't ask don't tell. I know I am not going to change anyone’s mind, even though I would like to, so talking about it or arguing about it is pointless. However, in light of the current campaigns and the magnitude of this election I would like to put my two cents in. After watching the Vice Presidential Debates I hope it has become appallingly clear that Sarah Palin has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. She has, so far, been unable to answer a question directly regardless of the interview or forum. She skates around the issue and regurgitates what she thinks her contingents want to hear. Joe Biden answered every question directly and concisely. The clear winner of that debate was Biden. Regardless of your opinion on the issues that were discussed Biden won that debate.I am a recovering Republican, not really though, my parents were Republicans but that was because they were well off and liked the tax breaks. They understood Reaganomics and were in a tax bracket that voting Republican would benefit them. Yes, they are conservative on most issues but not the ones you might think or for the reasons you might think. I would call them fiscally Republican and socially Democrat. I was a Republican because they were. This brings me to my next point.   If you are a Republican because of your religion then you are not thinking critically. Unless your church pays taxes (NONE of them do) then they should NOT be preaching politics. If you are voting the Republican ticket because someone else told you to or tried to sway you, you are not thinking critically. Try thinking for yourself, if you really do, then a light should come on in your head. Ask yourself this question. Am I voting on issues that I know are right, or that have been sold to me by someone else?   Examples would be friends, family members, pastors, priests, deacons, rabbis, peer group members. etc. etc.  I am going to list some keys political points and then show that critical thinkers should vote using their brains, not their “hearts”.  
  1. National Security: John McCain (JMc) would be a worse threat to national security than Barack Obama (BO). BO has huge international support, when he gets elected BO will reflect that Americans are fed up with the current government and we are indeed ready for change. Both in foreign policy and domestic policy, the world would view us as a different country than we have been for the last 8 years. JMc would be viewed as an extension of George W. Bush. Therefore, our foreign policy would not really change, our enemies would still hate us and we would be more vulnerable to attack. Both here and abroad. 
  2. Gay Rights: Are you are married? Do you plan on getting married? How would you feel if the government told you that you could not marry the person you love? Gay people are just that. They are People. They are not to be “tolerated” like Palin implied, they are to be treated with the same respect every person deserves. You as an American have the right to marry or do pretty much anything you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. Gay marriages don’t hurt anybody. They are not “abominations”; they are people that are just different than you. It is not a choice or a lifestyle. They are born that way. 
  3. Roe v. Wade: This is a touchy one but if you think critically you will understand my point. Mind your own FUCKING business.
  4. Global Warming: We do not need to start off-shore drilling, this is a band aid. Yes, it will decrease dependence on foreign oil but it will help perpetuate the carbon emission problem. BO is right on the money, we need to focus on new energy resources. This will create new jobs and clean up the air. If we set the example the rest of the world will follow. We could actually make a new export! Imagine, having a real export besides grain. Now we would become players in the global economy again instead of just being consumers.
  5. Taxes: If you make over $250,000.00 a year BO’s tax plan might hurt you a little in the pocket book. It is fact that the top income earners pay most of the taxes in the U.S. Even if you DO make more the $250K (I think I know ONE family right now that does) a year this would not be a reason to vote Republican. If you do make $250K or more then good for you, you can afford to pay higher taxes. You can also do your part in helping your country pull out of Iraq and giving health care to millions of Americans who don’t have it. If you are like me and most are, then BO’s new tax plan will help you.
  6. The War: Haven’t enough people died over there? We need to get our troops home now. I have had friends and neighbors that have been on multiple tours. They are tired and have served their country well. They don’t need to go back. Having a full scale withdrawal would help international affairs not hinder them. The only thing that I agree with G. W. Bush on is “Mission Accomplished”. If you define ‘winning’ the war, over throwing the old régime and installing a democracy winning the war. Then we have won, and we need to get out. If you define it as occupying a foreign country and securing the region to control the flow and price of oil, then no, we haven’t won and we never will. We still need to get out of that country before the rest of the world joins the Taliban.
  I know there are a lot more topics but these are the top six as far as I am concerned. If you have anymore that you want to discuss feel free to respond.   I know I am not going to sway you. This is why I use the term over and over, think critically. Critical Thinkers vote for Obama!Superstitious people with imaginary friends vote for McCain. Think or know don’t “feel or believe”.Heathensrule

 

It has been a long time since I have commented on anything on this site.  I guess when I read your post, it certainly called for a response.  Your headline stated "if I did not agree explain why."  No problem.

Before I state anything, hear me on this.  I think it is shameful that either of these candidates are at the top of the ticket, but I disagree with you on several points.

1.  Foreign policy - I will reserve judgment and the best you or anyone can do when it comes to BO foreign policy is speculate.  But I believe it is pretty naive to think that all these foreign governments/leaders have the interest of the U.S. in their hearts.  Seriously, you believe that Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, etc . . . all want to see the United States lead in the world.  That is crazy.  They do not want what is best for us - they want what is best for them.  So when all the world applauds for BO - know that it is what is best for them - not for us.  The other leaders are not looking to promote U.S. interests - it is their own interests that they are ready to promote.

2.  Gay rights - I have never attempted to hide the fact that I am a minister.  I believe the Bible is clear about the sin of homosexuality.  I am not going to argue that with you, but I also believe that homosexuals are to be tolerated.  Let me explain what this means.  This means that I do not agree with it and I do not believe it is just as "right" as being heterosexual, but it means that I live peacefully with them.  Even today, there is no consensus on what exactly makes a person homosexual.  Those on the left say they are born that way while others proclaim that it is a choice.  Even if you produce a journal that states your opinion, I can find others that contradict it. 

While we are on the subject, why isn't tolerance for Christians also included.  One of the leaders of this website believes that I ought to be committed because of what I believe.  You stated that homosexuals are people and should be respected.  Should that also be extended to Christians?  According to this website - the answer is no.  Before someone responds that Christians affect public policy - so do many other groups and they are tolerated.  It seems that the only ones that RRS agrees with  . . . should be allowed to exist.

3.   R v. W - So I am supposed to mind my business.  Well, I would love to, but there are a couple of problems with that.

     A.  My tax dollars go to help fund Planned Parenthood.  In a 7 year period they have recieved 1.5 billion dollars from the government.  So if my money goes to fund this, you nor anyone else has the right to tell me it is none of my business.

     B.  I have to pick up the pieces later.  Many women deal with the choice of aborting a baby later in life when they decide to have children.  When everyone is celebrating their "first" child they know in their heart that in reality - this is not their first child.  Of course people will say that it is the church that makes them feel guilty.  That simply is avoiding the issue. 

So to say that because my wife and I do not agree with abortions and we should just ignore it and it is none of my business - please tell our government to stop paying money to organizations that provide it.  Wouldn't that be the better route????

4.  Global warming - Again you speak with such certainty and yet many scientist do not believe that it is even man-made.  What is absolutely amazing is that you have someone like Al Gore make a film with proven lies - not just opinions, but out-right lies and he receives an Oscar.  AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DOCUMENTARY.  I believe that both candidates have stated they would focus money on new energy sources.  Again, the hypocricy of Al Gore - Mr. Environment is laughable except it is so sad.  His house uses more energy in a month than the average home does in a year.  check out    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp - liberals own this site.

I am fine with finding out how we can be better stewards of the planet - but I am tired of politicians who want me to "save" the environment while they continue to rape the planet.

I believe that we have some of the resources here in the U.S. when it comes to oil, so let's go get it while we develope new alternatives.  

5.  Taxes - ah yes, the killer word in politics.  BO is out of his mind.  He made his plan quite clear - redistribute wealth.  Again, let me explain the hypocrisy.  IF BO wants to help people - why isn't he giving.  Are you???  In the years 2000 to 2006 BO gave as little as 0.4% to charities (He made $259,394 and gave away $1,050).  So BO is all ready to give my money and other people's money to help others, but he is holding on to his.  The highest he gave was 6.1%.  Man, he really cares for others.  The reality is that in 2006, those that made over $31,987 (50% of taxpayers) paid 97.01% of the income tax.  BO's math simply does not work out.  You cannot give a tax break to 95% of people and say you are only going to tax those over $250,000.  I believe and I will support those who want me to keep my money.  I have never made the money that BO has made and I have ALWAYS given more away, but that is my choice and the more the government takes - the less that I can give away and choose where I want to give it. 

I find it interesting that you have decided that others can pay more.  Others have worked hard for their money as I assume that you have.  Should I then be able to tell you what you should give away.  I am assuming that since you are here on this website you do not believe in God - what if some of your money went to support my church?  Would you want more of it taken.  Just think - if the government let you keep more - you could support RRS more.  YIKES. 

As a minister, I NEVER preach politics in church, but I wonder if that is true for Planned Parenthood.  Another non-profit institution - they pay no taxes.

I believe that we ought to help the poor.  I live that out in my life, but I am not for the government continuing to take my money, that I have worked hard for and continue to give it to people so that they are dependent on the government.

6.  The war - I am ready for it to be over like others.  I have a brother that has been in Iraq and I am grateful that he is back.  I believe we ought to let the military commanders do their job.  You and I DO NOT know everything when it comes to the military and we are not in a place to make that judgment.  I have to believe that our commanders want as few of our men dead aand they are doing their best to complete their mission. 

  

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


MyGang
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Great intro'

I just stumbled on this site via some research I was doing on Wikipedia.  An article I was reading spoke of RRS.  A quick search on Yahoo! and here I am.  Yours was the 1st post I saw.  I thought, OMG, I'm home! There're intelligent THINKING people here who actually engage in intelligent and - as you said - critical thinking.  I created an acct right away and saw that my initial impressions held true w/ the responses to your introductory post.  I just recently relocated from southern CA to NC - rural, in-the-middle-of-nowhere NC.  I don't have time to expound on the impact of this change right now.  Suffice it to say I am quite alone (at least it appears that way) w/ respect to my so called "liberal" views and atheistic belief system.  I was actually (subtly) chastised in public the other day for making the statement "....feels like the gods are out to get me lately..."  I was light-heartedly bemoaning my string of bad luck lately w/ the lady behind the counter.  I was told in a hushed voice (by the sweet little ol' lady ahead of me in line (the only other person in line...)) that "there is only one god"....  Stunned that a complete stranger would actually weigh in on my religious beliefs, I stammered a reply of "it's just an expression"... 

A middle-aged atheist and lesbian in the strap of the bible belt.  I knew b4 I came here I'd have to look to connections on the I'net in order to remain sane.

It would appear that I've found one. Thank you for your post and to the other members here.  Thank you to RSS.

 

MyGang in NC

 

 


MyGang
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Great Pic

Wow.  Great pic/avatar, deludedgod.  The pic coupled w/ the caption says it all...

I'm really looking forward to exploring this site more later...

 

MyGang in NC


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Rural North Carolina?

 Rural North Carolina? Ouch.

This forum is truly overflowing with intelligent people: scientists, economists, historians, philosophers, college students (like me!); it never ceases to amaze me how active it is. You'll love it here.

Welcome to RRS. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:Before I state

REVLyle wrote:
Before I state anything, hear me on this.  I think it is shameful that either of these candidates are at the top of the ticket...

 

I might be inclined to agree it is shameful, if you will be supplying some evidence.

 

REVLyle wrote:
1.  Foreign policy - I will reserve judgment and the best you or anyone can do when it comes to BO foreign policy is speculate.

 

I submit you can do no different with JM. Unless you or your magical sky daddy know what JM will do and know whether or not his foreign policies will benefit America, you cannot make claim that he is the better choice based on your speculations.

 

 

REVLyle wrote:
But I believe it is pretty naive to think that all these foreign governments/leaders have the interest of the U.S. in their hearts.  Seriously, you believe that Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, etc . . . all want to see the United States lead in the world.  That is crazy.  They do not want what is best for us - they want what is best for them.  So when all the world applauds for BO - know that it is what is best for them - not for us.  The other leaders are not looking to promote U.S. interests - it is their own interests that they are ready to promote.

 

Several facts for you to digest.... The United States is the world's largest consumer. We buy and we purchase, then we purchase and we buy. Consume, consume, consume. Without us, the rest of the world will be severely crippled. Perhaps not crippled forever, but for the foreseeable future. Some foreign countries may not want to see us "lead", but their own economic prosperity keeps them coming back for more. We are the major contributing force for the success of many countries economies.

Beyond any of that, consider this: The wealthy are always ready to move their operations, their businesses, their corporations, our livelihoods to other more 'labor-friendly nations'. Over the past decade they've been moving out in staggeringly large numbers. The rich, the well-to-do? They love foreign countries if for no other reason than the inexpensive work forces they can exploit. It's been my personal experience that only the wealthy still easily promote and encourage slavery in the lesser nations. Yes, these practices allow Americans to buy cheap goods... but I submit they often are cheap, as in poorly made or designed, and they only serve to further our addictive spending habits. In the long run this cannot be beneficial. But, silly me, JM and the Republican party aren't interested in what the rich and wealthy want or need, now are they ?

 

REVLyle wrote:
2.  Gay rights - I have never attempted to hide the fact that I am a minister.  I believe the Bible is clear about the sin of homosexuality.  I am not going to argue that with you, but I also believe that homosexuals are to be tolerated.

 

I won't hide the fact from you. I'm not a minister and so I will not ask you to argue but rather point out the verses where you find your elucidation. Mighty big of you to offer tolerance. Please don't try to join the Westboro Baptist Church. They may lynch you.

 

REVLyle wrote:
  Let me explain what this means.  This means that I do not agree with it and I do not believe it is just as "right" as being heterosexual, but it means that I live peacefully with them.  Even today, there is no consensus on what exactly makes a person homosexual. 

 

Why would you need human consensus? Haven't you already stated and don't you believe that the christian bible has the sin of that preference clearly written for all to see? If it is clear, then how a person ends up that way has no bearing on the actual sin, right???  

 

REVLyle wrote:
While we are on the subject, why isn't tolerance for Christians also included.

 

Where I live the christians are outnumber Agnostics and Atheists by the count of 23 to 1... give or take roughly 5%. We have plenty of tolerance, where I live. Actually, I practice some measure of kindness to everyone I come in contact with, not just "tolerance".

I won't speak for RRS as I have only been here a few short months so I'll let others answer more directly to your questions and concerns.

 

 

REVLyle wrote:
3.   R v. W - So I am supposed to mind my business.  Well, I would love to, but there are a couple of problems with that.

     A.  My tax dollars go to help fund Planned Parenthood.  In a 7 year period they have received 1.5 billion dollars from the government.  So if my money goes to fund this, you nor anyone else has the right to tell me it is none of my business.

 

I agree with you on one point here. Tax dollars do help fund Planned Parenthood. This gives taxpayers the right to question, to at least an extent, where funds are spent. Do you pay taxes Rev. ?

   

REVLyle wrote:
  4.  Global warming - Again you speak with such certainty and yet many scientist do not believe that it is even man-made.  What is absolutely amazing is that you have someone like Al Gore make a film with proven lies - not just opinions, but out-right lies and he receives an Oscar.  AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DOCUMENTARY.  I believe that both candidates have stated they would focus money on new energy sources.  I am fine with finding out how we can be better stewards of the planet - but I am tired of politicians who want me to "save" the environment while they continue to rape the planet.

 

Rev.  Do you believe that mankind, through willful negligence or otherwise, is at all capable of changing the planet for the worse? Are you aware just how much science has been examining the issues surrounding global warming? 

 

Well, I'm out of time and need to go to work. Perhaps others will respond to you soon.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:2.  Gay

REVLyle wrote:
2.  Gay rights - I have never attempted to hide the fact that I am a minister.
Thuper!  You don't hide the fact that you're a bigot either.

Quote:
I believe the Bible is clear about the sin of homosexuality.
You are a bigot and the book you claim to draw your morals from is bigoted.

Quote:
I am not going to argue that with you,
No wonder, it's not a claim that can be defended.  It is best for you not to try to argue it.

Quote:
but I also believe that homosexuals are to be tolerated.
It always makes me feel good to know that other people believe that I should be tolerated.  You are a bigot.

Quote:
Let me explain what this means.
I can't wait to read it! 

Quote:
This means that I do not agree with it and I do not believe it is just as "right" as being heterosexual, but it means that I live peacefully with them.
And what does that mean exactly?  That you won't beat up or kill homosexuals?  That's wonderful.  Does it mean that you also extend all the same rights you have as a person to people who identify as homosexual?

Quote:
Even today, there is no consensus on what exactly makes a person homosexual.
There is a very clear concensus you ignorant bigot.  Homosexuality is not a choice.  There is no evidence that it is a choice.  There are literally mountains of evidence from psychology alone that show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  There is so much conclusive evidence, in fact, that it's not something that's even debated.  Simply because there is confusion about this in America (which is alone, apparently, in the first world regarding homosexuality and equal rights) does not mean that the truth is not that it is not a choice, whatever it is.

Quote:
Those on the left say they are born that way while others proclaim that it is a choice.  Even if you produce a journal that states your opinion, I can find others that contradict it.
You can find no legitimate journal from any science that refutes the fact that homosexuality is not a choice.  I challenge you to produce such a journal.  Show me a journal from any science you wish that contradicts homosexuality not being a choice.

Quote:
While we are on the subject, why isn't tolerance for Christians also included.
Tolerance for Christians?  We all here do far more than just tolerate Christians.

Quote:
One of the leaders of this website believes that I ought to be committed because of what I believe.
I think you'll find that you are incorrect.

Quote:
You stated that homosexuals are people and should be respected.
Homosexuals aren't deserved of any inherent respect because they are homosexuals.  They are deserved of the respect that humans typically extend to other members of their species.

Quote:
Should that also be extended to Christians?
You mean should Christians be respected as Christians?  No, they shouldn't.  Their beliefs are ludicrous and deserved of every form of intellectual ridicule.  Further, this respect, even were homosexuals deserved of it, wouldn't extend to an ideology.  You seem to be confusing the sexual oreintation of some people with an ideological and faith-based belief, the two are not comparable for a number of what I should hope are obvious reasons.  One of your major faults here is that your logic here would seem to stem from the (unfounded) belief that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. 

Quote:
According to this website - the answer is no.
Read above.

Quote:
Before someone responds that Christians affect public policy
They do (did I write too soon?)

Quote:
- so do many other groups and they are tolerated.
No, they're protected by laws and by your constitution and so are Christians.  Blacks, presumably one of those other groups at least historically, or women, are not merely tolerated and the changes to the constitution and laws made to increase equality for these minorities did not work to counteract or diminish the rights extended to everyone else, only to make those laws inclusive of everyone.  Homosexuals are fighting so that they are regarded equally in the eyes of the law, not to be treated specially.  The way Christians affect public policy often diminishes the rights of others and serves to make laws exclusive, or are you going to tell me that bans on gay marriage somehow allow homosexuals the same rights as others?  Christians also want laws that specifically protect or promote their worldview, as in trying to get creationism taught in public schools.  Also, there is no other group that attempts to affect public policy that is a majority and already has equal treatment in the eyes of the law.  In fact, there is only one group in America that is a majority and already has equal treatment in the eyes of the law and still tries to affect public policy (and succeeds in affecting it positively for themselves and only themselves), Christians.  There is no one but Christians who would be served by having a creationist programme in schools and there is no one in society who is better served by denying marriage to homosexuals.  You are an ignorant bigot.

Quote:
It seems that the only ones that RRS agrees with  . . . should be allowed to exist.
Christiand can exist and evidently they do exist.  Hopefully, one day, they won't exist.  I think, however, that you mean to say that only groups that agree with the RRS should be allowed to affect public policy.  That is, perhaps, idealistic, but there are groups that may disagree with the RRS which still happen to work to the betterment of society.  Christians do not work for the betterment of society, they work to opress and extinguish society at large such that they may have an exclusive Christian society... or does banning gay marriage and the like benefit society at large in some way I'm unfamiliar with?

Fuck you, bigot.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
REVlyle, my atheist story

REVlyle, my atheist story jesus would call you satan as he did peter, and go on to smash your church spewing blind hypocrisy of god separatism idol worship and fear. You are a terrorist. You should do your 40 days alone with your internal demon devil. The devil of wrong thinking is the creed of churchanity, as is embarrassing Xainity.

Thomas Paine: "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true."

As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams

   PLEASE please Add some variety to your reading habits, you idiol worshipers. I love you more .... me god as you .... atheist, No Master.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
MyGang , lucky you, welcome

MyGang , lucky you, welcome to rocking "saving" RRS ....

 


MyGang
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Right o'!

Thank you for the warm welcome.  I'm tickled pink to have found this site!  I do appreciate those who have the patience to "engage" w/ folks like "the minister" in this thread.  I gave up on trying to reason w/ folks like him a long time ago.  We have an expression down here in the good ol' south - "...You can't teach a pig to sing - it just wastes your time and annoys the pig..."  'nuf said, IMHO.  I'm a lot more conservative w/ where I choose to expend my energy in my "old age".  I figure I'll leave the brawlin' w/ to the youngsters....  

 

 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
MyGang wrote:I do appreciate

MyGang wrote:

I do appreciate those who have the patience to "engage" w/ folks like "the minister" in this thread.  I gave up on trying to reason w/ folks like him a long time ago. 

That's defnitely a nice part of the forums, someone who's got your back when you're tired of fighting!

Welcome to both you and Heathensrule.  I would very much recommend the Articles & Essays  and Videos links to the left.  There is some really nice material on both.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Problems with your response

Well, first of all, you obviously feel that the best way to debate is to simply call names.  To be a bigot is simply to be intolerantly devoted to ones views.  The definition goes on to say that a bigot treats others not in his or her group with intolerance and hatred.  Between the two of us based upon what you have written - I am pretty sure you more closely fit this definition.

I responded to the original post with opinions and facts that the post asked for.  Let's look at what you stated.  At the beginning of your post you neither asked anything nor contributed anything - you simply called me a bigot.

Finally you asked would I extend rights to others that identify as being homosexual.  What I mean when I say that when I tolerate someone, belief, lifestyle, etc. . . is that I do not believe it has the same claim to truth or being right as that of Christianity.  It does not mean that I hate or harm.  Would I extend the same rights?  I believe that marriage is only for a man and a woman.  You believe something different.  I wonder - civil unions give all the same "rights" as marriage and yet homosexuals want the word marriage . . . interesting.  The rights were extended, but evidently that was not enough.  Maybe rights were not the issue????

You might want to do some research before you make the claim, "there is a clear consensus" when it comes to the reason people are homosexual.  This site has links to Procon.org in which guys with PhD's on both sides present their findings.  You simply are not being honest or you do not know the facts.

You wrote:  We all here do far more than just tolerate Christians.  Really, you tolerate me???  You did not respond to anything else I wrote and you simply called me names - the worse that you could do through the internet, based upon one belief that I have.  Look at the hypocrisy in what you have written.  I have degrees in two liberal art programs in which I worked and studied along side homosexuals who knew that I did not agree with their lifestyle and yet we befriended each other.  Can you say the same when it comes to Christians.  By the way - I never called them fags and they never called me a bigot.

The founders of this website believe that belief in God should be classified as a mental disorder.  Other atheist that they support and subscribe to believe that I should not be able to pass along my beliefs to my children.  You talk about an invasion of rights - YIKES.  If you need quotes - I will be more than happy to supply them.

I certainly disagree with you when it comes to Christianity being good for society.  When you go to St. Lukes hospital or Methodist hospital, etc. . . it is Christian organizations that established these institutions of medicine.  Do some research.  I could list many other moral issues, but you would probably simply call me another name and not get what I am saying.  What "good" is the homosexual agenda doing for the U.S.  How do the displays of homosexual promiscuity in the street parades promote the good of this country?  How does their agenda promote the good of the country rather than the good of their voting block?

What is amazing is that you vote and attempt to influence public policy in a way that agrees with your beliefs - even if it is in conflict with my beliefs - but then you are the one who calls me a bigot.

Exactly how are homosexuals discriminated against.  It has been 35 years since the American Psychological Association removed it from the list of mental disorders (again, Kelly wants me and my church put on the list).  Homosexuals have all the rights to employment, housing, health care, etc. . . But for some reason even when given the title civil union - with all the rights of marriage - they want the word marriage.  Again - why is that so important to the gay agenda?  Find me one group Christians, white, black, homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, etc that has not been persecuted or discriminated against.  All of them face it today as well.  That is the sinful nature of people.  I can tell you that I have felt discrimination simply because I am a minister.  Welcome to the world and there are laws against all of it in our country but it still happens.

I will once again give you more respect than you gave me and I stand by my orginal post.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The symbol a Christianity is

The symbol a Christianity is the cross, a device of brutal slow murder. Xainity is terrorism and child abuse, sick and immoral by any rational definition I consider true.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
A rather short response

The issue of foreign policy - even the OB campaign will admit that OB has no experience and he is certainly has not been as exposed as JM.  I have certainly seen how OB voted concerning the Iraq war and I do not agree with those views.  He publically said he was against it and then he voted to fund it.  I could at least respect the guy if he did what said, but his actions and his views seem to contradict one another.

Do I believe that companies will move to help their bottom line - sure they will.  BUT many of them move because our government places too many obstacles in the way of a company staying.  Environmental issues come to mind.  Again, I believe we ought to be good stewards of this planet, but we have many making decisions based upon a lobbyist and not based upon analysis of what is beneficial to U.S. corporations AND the environment.  They jump through hoops until they finally just leave because it is not profitable to stay. 

Dude, you are naive to once again state that the Republicans are the rich.  Again, look at the income of BO and his wife.  Not exactly poor.  Go and look at the numbers when it comes to the campaigns.  Both the republicans and the democrats have large amounts of money.  Please do not attempt to say that the democrats care about the poor and the republicans only care about the rich.  It is simply a lie.  There is not one poor senator and please tell me the last time our president was poor or even average.  They have all been rich.  Let's go look at their check books and see how much money they have and if they have been giving it away.  Again - the vast majority is simply shameful in this aspect.

I will not make debate about what the Bible says about homosexuality verses what the world thinks.  I have done that on other posts if you want to read it.  For one to proclaim that the Bible does not assert the sinfulness of homosexuality - they would have to be a language contortionist.  I have studied and I have spent the time to read both Greek and Hebrew.  By the way - I could easily use the Bible to crush the hatred spewing out of Westboro as well.  They use only the passages that speak to their beliefs (hatred) and tossed out the wholeness of scripture.

Concerning your question about how a person is gay.  For me it absolutely does not matter.  If you have those temptations - you have the ability to resist and not fall into it.  For the heterosexual - as a young man - I was tempted to have sex before I was married and before I was ready to take on the responsibility.  It is not wrong to be tempted, but to act on the temptation is where sin enters into the picture.  Whereas your world view is:  Hey, if that is the way you are wired, why not live like that?" - my worldview is that just because I may want to do something - I look to scripture as a way of defining what is good and bad for me as my creator has told me.

Was I born to want sex whereas others may never care for it OR was it a choice based upon the environment I grew up in.  It absolutely does not matter.  I can choose to either sin or not.  When it comes to homosexuality - you cannot argue that many who believed they were gay - have been reformed and they no longer are.  How does that happen if it is simply something they are born with????  I am not saying that homosexuality is not more of a temptation for some than others - but sex outside of marriage is also a temptation for some more than others.  The issue is - what do you choose to do. 

You can read my other post when it comes to tolerance for homosexuals.  I can make the same claim you make concerning Christians.  I have no hatred for homosexuals, but I do not subscribe that their lifestyle is something to strive for.

Yes, I pay taxes.  I have every single year since I graduated from college.  I was not always a minister and my wife is in the healthcare profession.  You will disagree with me, but let me state my belief.  God has blessed my family with a comfortable income.  I believe it is a privilege to live in this country and I do not mind paying taxes.  I do not feel that taxes should become an undo burden and I certainly do not feel that our government should redistribute wealth.  Again – A BO stated belief. 

Global warming:  I am aware of the science that has both stated pro AND con concerning man-made global climate change.  Again – no one seems to agree with me concerning the hypocrisy of our leaders concerning this issue. 

Go back to the 1970's - the same scientists were telling us of this impending ice age.  Where is it????

Go and look at the website  http://www.worldclimatereport.com.  Your question is, can we harm the planet.  Of course you will once again not agree with my answer.  We harmed the entire world when we ushered in sin.  I believe your question is, can we have a negative global impact.  I believe that the world and how it works is so much bigger than us and our understanding that we cannot make a global impact for the negative or positive barring global nuclear war. 

When you look at the amount of green house gases released naturally, man's impact is simply almost nothing.  I believe that we certainly impact local environments, and there needs to be things in place to protect them.  We over estimate our impact in the negative and we over estimate our ability to change an entire planet.  Basically, I believe man has too high a view of himself.

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
caring REV , add some

Caring REV , add some paragraphs to your last post using the "Edit" button, while you still can.

Ahh thanks .... I care what you have to say. I yell loud in the "spirit" of my atheist jesus who yelled .... your enemy is my enemy ....


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps thinking before you write would be a good idea

The symbol of Christianity is the cross - the sacrifice of a savior.  Christians did not crucify Christ.  It is a symbol of Christ GIVING his life, not a symbol of a person taking someone else's life.  If you want to claim that Rome is a symbol of terrorism - go right ahead with that campaign.  Your post was both funny and sad at the same time.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of swine

I believe I may be going against scripture since I seem to be casting pearls before swine.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Calling your self a

Calling your self a Christian is also a broken confusing concept. Why not just say my Jesus interpretation is my favorite mentor, and explain it ? I also dig my Jesus, and Buddha and others alot.

  We can't fix messy Christianity, so move on .... this explains,

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation   http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/INTLVIEW/intlvi02.htm


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:Well, first of

REVLyle wrote:
Well, first of all, you obviously feel that the best way to debate is to simply call names.
 

REVLyle wrote:
I believe I may be going against scripture since I seem to be casting pearls before swine.

Ah, so you play the victim and then call all of us swine. Typical.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

Despite this verse, Christians still invade this forum endlessly. 

REVLyle wrote:
For the heterosexual - as a young man - I was tempted to have sex before I was married and before I was ready to take on the responsibility.  It is not wrong to be tempted, but to act on the temptation is where sin enters into the picture.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." Matthew 5:27-30

REVLyle wrote:
Christians did not crucify Christ.

Of course not, the Jews did it. We can blame it on them

REVLyle wrote:
The symbol of Christianity is the cross - the sacrifice of a savior.
 

Yes, but why? Why do you worship the device upon which the Lamb of God, the Savior, the Messiah was slowly tortured to death? Is there a chapter in the Bible that declares that we should worship crucifixes?  

REVLyle wrote:
We harmed the entire world when we ushered in sin.

"Sin" is a ridiculous concept.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    butter is tasty

    butter is tasty


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You added nothing

I don't play the victim - I simply state the facts.  I did not call you swine - scripture makes that statement.  Sooooo, you are admitting the scritprue is right and we are casting pearls before swine.  That's great that you have grown in this discussion.

Temptation and lusting are two different things.  I was tempted to look at girls as objects.  Lusting IS looking at girls as objects.

Was it just the Jews?????  You might want to read some history.

Christians DO NOT worship the cross.  It is a symbol.  We worship Christ.

You added nothing to this discussion.  This was a discussion about BO and JM and why we support one or the other.  If you want to talk about your misunderstanding of Christianity - perhaps another post would be better.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
For God so hated life, that

For God so hated life, that it killed his only Son, that whoever believes in that would not understand the eternal of oneness. Christianity, DEVIL SHIT indeed ....


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:I don't play

REVLyle wrote:
I don't play the victim - I simply state the facts.

Wow, I didn't realize you were that delusional. By the way, I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact. 

REVLyle wrote:
I did not call you swine - scripture makes that statement.

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." -Anais Nin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning. -Bill Gates

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal

"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means." -Clarence Darrow

"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." -James Feibleman

Oh, I'm not ridiculing your imaginary friend, I'm citing famous quotes.

REVLyle wrote:
Sooooo, you are admitting the scritprue is right and we are casting pearls before swine.  That's great that you have grown in this discussion.

Facepalm....

Why do I have to believe in your stupid book in order to show that you've contradicted yourself? 

REVLyle wrote:
Temptation and lusting are two different things.  I was tempted to look at girls as objects.  Lusting IS looking at girls as objects.

Lusting:

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

2. a) An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.

    b) Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.

Lust:

1. Intense sexual desire or appetite.

2. Uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3. A passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.

4. Ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

This dictionary fails to mention the word "objects." Of course, the fundamental problem is that the phrase you proposed is already a subjective definition. Realistically, "looking at a girl as an object," is just a figure of speech. What this really means is simply that you are admiring the girl's body. Similarly, what reason could any young man have for being tempted? Her body.

You claim that you were tempted to lust, but you didn't. What does that mean? How can you want to admire her body, but not? Do you keep her out of your field of vision? Do you pretend that you're homosexual? (no, that can't be right) This is ludicrous.

You are practicing is self-denial, plain and simple. You created a completely non-existent distinction to make yourself comfortable because lusting is a sin in the eyes of the Lord, (In fact, go and gouge your eyes out.) and unless you choose to repent of your sins, the all-loving Heavenly Father will allow you to burn in the fiery pits of hell for all eternity, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

REVLyle wrote:
Was it just the Jews?????  You might want to read some history.

I will. You didn't actually understand my point by the way..............

REVLyle wrote:
Christians DO NOT worship the cross.  It is a symbol.  We worship Christ.

Worship

1. Reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

2. Formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.

3. Adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.

4. The object of adoring reverence or regard.

Nope, you're wrong again.

REVLyle wrote:
You added nothing to this discussion.  This was a discussion about BO and JM and why we support one or the other.  If you want to talk about your misunderstanding of Christianity - perhaps another post would be better.

My misunderstanding of Christianity? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  

OMG. ROFLMAO.

Okay, so you can detract from the conversation all you want, but when the evil atheists start tempting you, you need to order them away?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Oh, the OP.I don't think I

 Oh, the OP.

I don't think I understand these issues well enough to make truly strong statements. 

1) I don't know.

2) I see no reason why they can't be married. All of the protests against it are derived from morality.

3) So, let the states decide? Eh, I don't know.

4) More drilling will cause more emissions, but we simply need more energy resources right now, so maybe I'm not so sure about that.

5) I don't know. I wouldn't like it if I was rich. I've always supported the idea of a flat-rate tax.

6) We certainly need to get out, but, how fast? I don't know.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle is a gifted

butterbattle is a gifted prophet, just had to say thanks again ....no reply necessary.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
A lot of false information

A lot of false information about global warming. There is no controversy over it by climatologists and anyway BOTH candidates agree it is a fact. The thing about scientists saying global cooloing would happen in the '70s is false - it was the media, not scientists.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
A half truth at best.

In the 1970's, it was a lot of media hype, but it began with scientist reporting that dirty air would reverse the warming effects of CO2 and therefore it would cool the earth sending us into another ice age.  see Stephen Schneider, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland during the early 70's.

 

Both candidates agree.  WOW.  Tell me where they got their degrees in ANY scientific field.

Just a couple of quotes from papers and articles:

Oregon state climatologist George Taylor does not believe that global warming is due to human activity.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

Since 1988, when Jim Hansen's testimony before Congress during a sweltering summer triggered the first major wave of global warming reports, Lindzen has sought the center of the public debate. Upset by what he saw as the media's rush to judgment, the MIT meteorologist began arguing that opinion on global warming was far from consensus. Newsweek and Forbes published his criticisms, as did newspapers across the country. A 1989 profile in Science dubbed him "a top general" in the skepticism movement.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.

Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus

"[I]n November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by nonscientists ..." (My insert: BOTH CANDIDATES) I COULD DO THIS ALL DAY You guys claim that we, Christians, are stupid because we believe what we cannot prove.  You believe and write about things that can eaisly be disproved.  Global warming is not accepted by all climatologist.  There is controversy.  What you wrote is a lie, or at best, ignorance.

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.