Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-03-2004, 08:54 PM   #91
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



as a secular humanist who admires the basic jesus message, i really don't care what Paul has to say.
just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?
__________________

__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:02 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart


just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?
Okay, I'm putting words in Irvine's mouth here, but I suspect he/she means "love thy neighbor as thyself" or something similar.

I would say the basic Jesus message is "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me."
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:07 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart


just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?
The Bible and the Bible alone. End of story.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:13 PM   #94
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 10:07 AM
listen, i have an idea! why don't we just go ahead and get rid of laws all together? the basic point of a law is to prevent people from acting on their basic instinct/desires/impulses. the overall message of these posts has been that everyone should be able to act on these natural desires, because hey, if they weren't meant to be acted on, why would they occur? so at this point i have to say that we might as well set no limits on human actions, abolish all rule of law, and just go with the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:17 PM   #95
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The Bible and the Bible alone. End of story.
agreed nb and speed.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:30 PM   #96
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
listen, i have an idea! why don't we just go ahead and get rid of laws all together? the basic point of a law is to prevent people from acting on their basic instinct/desires/impulses. the overall message of these posts has been that everyone should be able to act on these natural desires, because hey, if they weren't meant to be acted on, why would they occur? so at this point i have to say that we might as well set no limits on human actions, abolish all rule of law, and just go with the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.
oh come on.

you really think we're talking about about placing murder and homosexual marriages on the same platform here? Yeah, rules and laws were created to stop people from acting on their impulses, but moreover to PROTECT SOCIETY. Thus, having laws that would inhibit hurting others make sense. Banning marriages between same sex couples, however, does not. Who is it hurting?
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:35 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Please, the state exists to protect its citizens rights and protect them from harm.

Actions that do not harm anybody and do not vioate other peoples rights should not be restricted by government.

Drugs, sex, marriage whatever - it should not be the states duty to be the morality police on the matter - now argments about economic breaks within Gay Marriages, that is a matter for the states to argue.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:39 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
elevation2u's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: corner of Badlands & Magnolia Mountain
Posts: 5,371
Local Time: 08:07 AM
i guess you can call me a christian but yet i am still very opposed to bush and what he stands for, i cant say i was a big kerry fanatic either... i voted with the mindset "anyone but bush"
dont blame me
__________________
elevation2u is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 10:24 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
starsgoblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Looking for direction to perfection
Posts: 17,828
Local Time: 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




wake up and smell the burning flesh
of those believers would call heretics

Hey....quit butchering my sentences and twisting my words. I did not say what you implied by deleting the first and last third of that sentence and what's more, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the book of Leviticus is in the OT and not the NT.

You've done this repeatedly with my previous posts-taking a splice of a sentence and passing it off as my entire thought....stop it.
__________________
starsgoblue is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 11:22 PM   #100
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,148
Local Time: 11:07 AM

I comb other websites and forums once in a while but this quote from another site, captures a point that I was trying to make. It is a variation of what a Republican pollster said. LOL it may even apply to some the of the posters attacking religious people in this forum. I did not write this and it actually is referring to another forum with Kerry supporters attacking Bush/ evangelical/ republican...

Quote:
The funny thing is you people on the left are sitting around bitching about your loss, calling conservatives and those of faith every name in the book. Look at these threads today according to you guys every one of those 58 million voters who went for Bush did so because they are stupid brain washed uneducated racist fools who don’t have the “vision” or “understanding” that you on the left do. You idiots can not even understand that it is EXACTLY that attitude that is driving people away from the democratic party. Now slowly but surely the minority vote is slipping away from you as well, while it is true that they still vote overwhelmingly democratic, Bush has received around 9% of their vote in 2000 and it looks like he may have received around 12 to 14% this time around. I have some bad news for you with out them YOU CANNOT WIN. Why the switch? My guess is that as minorities begin to advance economically and educate themselves they begin to move away from the urban areas and to more rural or sub-urban locations. Once there they begin to focus more on family values, religion, and keeping their children from the “progressive” morals of the urban areas they have fled.

They begin to see that the democrats have done little more then pay them lip service and use them for years and they resent it.

Face it guys you may think you are the brightest, and most progressive folks around, but at the end of the day God and those traditional family values you laugh at will bring more voters to the table then Springsteen and Moore.
I don't agree with the insults (LOL) or believe all the points about black voters though (Bush did increase his voter support among blacks slightly) but the writer has very interesting perspective and IMO there are grains of truth.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 11:35 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Please, the state exists to protect its citizens rights and protect them from harm.

Actions that do not harm anybody and do not vioate other peoples rights should not be restricted by government.

Drugs, sex, marriage whatever - it should not be the states duty to be the morality police on the matter - now argments about economic breaks within Gay Marriages, that is a matter for the states to argue.
Yep. Agree, except that I think you should have written "the economic breaks within ANY marriages" instead of making it just GAY ones (to be the things the states deal with).
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:22 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Well I was trying to integrate the arguments, so that if the state has something to say about gay marriage it will be on the specifics and not the morality of it, I would say that there should be less economic breaks for marriage and child rearing.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 02:51 AM   #103
Refugee
 
bcrt2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,271
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

It is Stoning women to death for adultery instead of allowing them to do as they wish.

It is attempting to exterminate other people because of their religous beliefs.

If is having your government authority become divine thus justifiying any and all of its actions.

There are enough moderate republicans to keep the system working - it is not a monolithic group of theocrats.
I would like to add to that...

it is starting a war against a crippled, war torn, nonthreating country and killing thousands of innocent civilians as collateral damage and saying it was necessary and even the unecessary killing of tens of thousands members of that country's army and justifying it with arrogance

----

the other thing i think i need to say is that if a country has a rule against adultry as a law, i think it is fine as long as they treat men AND women fairly in that respect. i think its a misconception that in muslim countries only women are stoned for this crime.. islamically you cannot do this unless the action is seen by 2 legitimate/credible witnesses or more with their own eyes.. which means BOTH the man and the women would be punished.. so any other way should definately not be attributed to islam... there are many countries that claim to follow islamic law, but in the eye of the majority of the "middle muslims" (probably 85%+ of the 1.5 billion muslims in the world) believe that there is no country like this, and north american muslims believe that north america is the best place to practice their religion

the other thing is the nature of the culture, in terms of stoning.. i think in north america it doesn't make sense to do this because there are too many pressures which would lead to adultry, meanwhile in middle eastern countries, the culture and the role of men and women in society is seen very differently (and differently doesn't always mean wrongly)
__________________
bcrt2000 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 03:01 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Yes you are absolutely right, take for instance a most recent case in Iran where a young girl (16) and a young man were charged with having pre-marital sex, the girl was hung and the young man got a few lashings, fair and equal treatement my arse, couple that with honour killings, FGM and a whole variety of barbaric practices that are excused through interperatation of religon and you have a problem within many of these societies, multiculturalism is no excuse for human rights abuses ( http://www.activistchat.com/ and http://www.middleastwomen.org/ ).

And going to war is in itself would be warmongering and not a representation of theocracy, unless of course it was a war against the unbelievers.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 03:03 AM   #105
Refugee
 
bcrt2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,271
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I agree with you but there is a big difference between not allowing gay marriage and opressing women, gays can live their lives openly (an exceptional thing in this world), I think that it is a false moral equivalence.
which societies in the world today opress women? i'm just wondering

the other thing is that i think forcing teenage girls to wear skimpy clothes in your society is almost as opressing as women who are forced to cover their faces, opressing maybe in a more hidden way (and forcing muslim girls in France not to wear their hijabs in school is a much more direct way of opression), but definately can be viewed that way if you look at it from a certain point... i think one thing that i find funny is that people who want "liberty" can just be as closed minded as people who want to adhere to a certain set of rules... like Bono said... "what you thought was freedom was just greed"
__________________

__________________
bcrt2000 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com