The Religion Thread

[Vrede too]

... Now that same individual, having tired of constant vulgarity being tossed at his family, retaliated in a rather unconventional manner by exposing the identity of his tormentor. That, in turn, made him the "bad person" and the villain in the eyes and minds of the others, and left him to shunning by the others who obviously thought that his tormentor had every right to torment him because of this being an open forum. :-0?>

Way incorrect history, you've been lied to.
Years ago Mr.B asked if we could leave family out of it, I agreed and went along scrupulously.
Last year, Mr.B attacked my family and I replied in kind.
After weeks of refusing to admit he opened the door, Mr.B finally PM'd an apology - too cowardly to do so openly - and I stopped all mention of his family.
Then, during this family-less period, Mr.B openly revealed enough of my identity for anyone with basic research skills and half a brain (Kernel Failure disqualified) to positively ID me.
A month or so ago I did quote homerfobe and then Mr.B's discussion of Mrs.B's sexual practices in a thread where she had not been mentioned by anyone, but said nothing about her myself.

The point of this post is to ask the question 'Where should the line have been drawn'? Before the ship hit the sand would have been a good place to start, but the administrator states this is an uncensored forum. OK; this is an uncensored forum, so I ask why vilify the one who fought back? Is that not in itself a form of censorship against one individual?

No and if you really are the journalist you say you are, you should know the difference.

This sure is no thread on "Religion"

Mr.B's false witness and cherry picking often become the issue. It's hard to move anywhere from there.

[O Really]

What makes it less a thread on "Religion" that most participants aren't religious? Is it less a thread on football if most participants don't play the game? Or less a thread on politics if most participants aren't politicians and some may not even vote? Conversely, could it be a thread on "religion" if only one or two of the thousands of religions are discussed? Is a thread that is against something not as valid as one for something?

[rstrong]

What makes it less a thread on "Religion" that most participants aren't religious?

Meanwhile no-one questions what business someone has talking about their government when they're not IN government. Or what business someone has talking about the weather when they don't work for the National Weather Service.

As long as the religious insist on dictating religious policy for those outside their religion - be it Sunday shopping laws, same-sex marriage, what scientific facts can be put into school textbooks or on signs and postcards at the Grand Canyon - then it's everyone's business.

Especially when Cruz, Carson, Santorum and many others proudly declare that their religion - their particular interpretation of their religion - is guiding their decisions. Especially these days when the religious right - through Bachmann, Cruz, Carson, Santorum and their ilk - is trying hard to further break down the separation of church and state.

[Mr.B]

" As far as my attempting to "force my opinions on others", post a citation."

"I was talking about the religious in general. Dictating to others who can get married, what days they can't shop, what scientific facts can be put into school textbooks or on signs and postcards at the Grand Canyon, etc."
Oh...guilty by association. Got it.

Call me a troll if you wish;

Done. Keep trolling if you wish.
I'm right at home with the best of 'em.

[rstrong]

"I was talking about the religious in general. Dictating to others who can get married, what days they can't shop, what scientific facts can be put into school textbooks or on signs and postcards at the Grand Canyon, etc."

Oh...guilty by association. Got it.

You tell me. You're the one making the connection.

[Mr.B]

"He never learns and he always whines."

Not as loud as you've been whining.

Example: "Way incorrect history, you've been lied to.."

Who would have lied to Seth Milner? I've not had any contact with him; he said he had been reading "past posts". Has someone changed the wording of those "past posts" to make them appear as lies?....or maybe you're saying Seth Milner is a liar? Or maybe you found a clean crying towel to garner some more of your pal's feigned sympathy toward you?

Grow up.....the world ain't stood still for you.

[Mr.B]

" You're the one making the connection."

You're the one making the accusation.

[bannination]

Muslims and Christians share most of the same teachings, did you really think this one out?

Yes, I did. You were referring to today's Christians vs. Muslims, therefore I was comparing today's Christians and Muslims.
Many Muslim sects still adhere to Sharia law, Christians do not follow the laws set forth to the Jews of the Old Testament.

Some Christians do, some don't, some Muslims do, some don't.

[O Really]

Muslims and Christians share most of the same teachings, did you really think this one out?

Yes, I did. You were referring to today's Christians vs. Muslims, therefore I was comparing today's Christians and Muslims.
Many Muslim sects still adhere to Sharia law, Christians do not follow the laws set forth to the Jews of the Old Testament.

Some Christians do, some don't, some Muslims do, some don't.

And many Jews do. But not generally the violent parts. That's the thing - if you take a document such as the Bible literally as the word of God, you have to take it all, OR, acknowledge that it's reasonable to adapt for cultural differences.

[GoCubsGo]

You can't take it literally.

Leviticus 11:
and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

How are we to enjoy our Sabbath Sundays without watching football, you know passing the ole' pigskin.
Oh wait, aren't those players working on the Sabbath?

Exodus 35:2:
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

I guess they can take their Sabbath on Monday or Tuesday.

[O Really]

No, the Sabbath is clearly defined as what we call Saturday, arbitrarily changed to Sunday by Christians.
Speaking of Sunday football... http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/don-t- ... -1-6663335

[rstrong]

No, the Sabbath is clearly defined as what we call Saturday, arbitrarily changed to Sunday by Christians.

*Some* Christians.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the mark of the beast (but not the number 666) refers to a future, universal, legally enforced Sunday-worship. "Those who reject God's memorial of creatorship—the Bible Sabbath—choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God's appointed day of worship, will receive the 'mark of the beast.'" "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast."

[Vrede too]

JTA experiences rapture every Friday, nttawwt.

http://blueridgedebate.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1132

[Mr.B]

No, the Sabbath is clearly defined as what we call Saturday, arbitrarily changed to Sunday by Christians.

*Some* Christians.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the mark of the beast (but not the number 666) refers to a future, universal, legally enforced Sunday-worship. "Those who reject God's memorial of creatorship—the Bible Sabbath—choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God's appointed day of worship, will receive the 'mark of the beast.'" "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast."

It depends on which calendar was in use at the time.....and who declared which calendar was the official calendar.

God said to observe the seventh day as holy. Had a calendar been devised that showed Tuesday as the first day of the week, Monday would have been the seventh day....or the Sabbath day. God did not name the days of the week.

Romans 14

1..Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2.. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3.. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4.. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5.. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6..He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7.. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8.. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

[GoCubsGo]

Well, glad we've not solved that Sabbath thing, and proved that the bible sure is contradicted. Now, what about that piggie thing?

[Mr.B]

"Well, glad we've not solved that Sabbath thing, and proved that the bible sure is contradicted.
Now, what about that piggie thing?"

1 Timothy 4:4,5
4..For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5..For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

[GoCubsGo]

"Well, glad we've not solved that Sabbath thing, and proved that the bible sure is contradicted.
Now, what about that piggie thing?"

1 Timothy 4:4,5
4..For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5..For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Thank you for the confirmation.

[Mr.B]

So Vrede.....I know you're reading my posts. Man up and answer the question......

"Who would have lied to Seth Milner"? Or are you just pissin' in the wind as usual?

[O Really]

"Well, glad we've not solved that Sabbath thing, and proved that the bible sure is contradicted.
Now, what about that piggie thing?"

1 Timothy 4:4,5
4..For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5..For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Thank you for the confirmation.

That's the thing with Bible quotes - they're almost always taken without context. Can we say from that quote that a homosexual creature is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving? Are we sure the quote refers to eating, and not to some other use?

Here's the rest of the verse:
1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Does "forbidding to marry" sound familiar?

[Vrede too]

Eight 'Bible-Believing' (Fundamentalist) Churches vs. One Progressive Church