The Religion Thread

[Bungalow Bill]

They did have a very profitable feud going on there for a while.

[Mr.B]

When everybody on earth was dead and waiting to enter Heaven, God appeared
and said, "I want the men to make two lines. One line for the men who were
true heads of their household, and the other line for the men who were
dominated by their women. I want all the women to report to St. Peter.
"Soon, after the women were gone, and there were two lines of men.

The line of the men who were dominated by their wives was 100 miles long,
and in the line of men who truly were heads of their household, there was only one man.

God said to the long line, "You men should be ashamed of yourselves!
I created you to be the head of your household! You have been disobedient and
have not fulfilled your purpose! Of all of you, only one obeyed....learn from him."

God turned to the one man, "How did you manage to be the only one in this line?"
The man replied, "My wife told me to stand here."

[Mr.B]

"You cry when an adult uses adult language."
No...I don't cry; but it does make me wonder if you use foul language in your everyday language when conversing with friends or family.

"You cry over the use of the word "holiday".
I do? When, where?

"You cry because someone calls you a dumb ass for acting like a dumb ass."
I wasn't "crying"....considering the mentality of the one calling the name, it was easy to overlook.

"Now you're crying because one word in a song was changed."
Again, I wasn't crying....I merely posted the video showing the uproar that the song change invoked. You're the one who got your a*s in a sling.

"Who you kidding son? Besides yourself?"
Son...? "Who (are) you kidding? Besides yourself?"

[Ombudsman]

How many times you going to respond to the same post B? Good to hear you're not crying about it though.

[Mr.B]

"How many times you going to respond to the same post B? Good to hear you're not crying about it though."

If you're so bored with me, why are you only responding to my posts, Freddy? I'm sure there's a picket line waiting for you somewhere.

[O Really]

Hoist with their own petard...http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12 ... ature?lite

[bannination]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/08/sa ... -oklahoma/

Satanists seek spot next to ten commandments monument on steps Oklahoma



That's..... hilarious. Excellent work by the Republicans.

[O Really]

"...one potential...is meant to be an interactive display for children."



"I think these Satanists are a different group," Cleveland, R-Slaughterville, said. "You put them under the nut category."

Meaning people that believe Satan is real?

Dang, I hate to agree with a (choke) Republican, but yeah, anybody that actually believes Satan is real probably qualifies for the nut category. Wouldn't you agree, Mr.B?

On the other hand, it doesn't appear that their law (or any law I know of) specifies that the primary object of a religion has to be real. Apparently not everyone's god can be real. If they are, then there are more than just one god running around out there. Hardly anybody goes along with that. So if there is only one "true" god, somebody's have to be fictional. Yet all of them are protected by the First, and welcome to put up their monument in Oklahoma City.

[Mr.B]

Simple solution....let the people vote as to whether or not they want another statue;
also as to whether or not they want to keep the existing statue. Aren't we supposed to be living in a <ahem> democratic society?

Why should one individual (a judge) have the power to decide what is correct for the whole community?

Also this: Judge "orders"...... I'd go ahead and bake 'em their coveted cake; wouldn't be my fault if I confused salt and sugar.....

[O Really]

You can't have a vote, bolded or not, on whether to comply with Constitutional requirements. The majority in a given locale can't, by vote, deny rights to the minority.

As to why one individual judge ...has the power - he doesn't have the last word, given the opportunity for appeals, etc., but it's his job to interpret and apply the law. That's what we pay him to do, and what his legal responsibility is. And that is a fundamental part of our democratic society, which as you know isn't a true democracy, but a republic.

[Ombudsman]

Simple solution....let the people vote as to whether or not they want another statue;
also as to whether or not they want to keep the existing statue. Aren't we supposed to be living in a <ahem> democratic society?

Why should one individual (a judge) have the power to decide what is correct for the whole community?

Also this: Judge "orders"...... I'd go ahead and bake 'em their coveted cake; wouldn't be my fault if I confused salt and sugar.....

(at the risk of upsetting you by responding to you again) Fortunately the Founders saw the problem with your suggestion, that being the tyranny of the majority, and created a constitution instead of a pure democracy. Your version of government would most likely mean that slavery would never have been abolished.

[O Really]

And, following Mr.B's logic, if voters alone ruled, and he lived in Lancaster, PA, he'd be driving around in a horse carriage, watching no TV, going out to the public phone to make a call, using electricity only from generators, lights from propane, and wearing "plain" clothing without pockets. Still want to let voters determine religious issues, Mr.B?

[JTA]

"...one potential...is meant to be an interactive display for children."



"I think these Satanists are a different group," Cleveland, R-Slaughterville, said. "You put them under the nut category."

Dang, I hate to agree with a (choke) Republican, but yeah, anybody that actually believes Satan is real probably qualifies for the nut category. Wouldn't you agree, Mr.B?

If this is the Church of Satan, which I don't think it is, they don't actually believe Satan is a real entity. They're basically atheists. Satan is just a symbol for their "philosophy":

“Satan is a symbol, nothing more,” LaVey says. “Satan signifies our love of the worldly and our rejection of the pallid, ineffectual image of Christ on the cross.”

Accepting the axiomatic premise that no gods exist as independent supernatural entities means that Satanists are de facto atheists. We know that the objective universe is indifferent to us.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/what-the-devil.php

I think it's these guys who are trying to get a monument erected: http://www.thesatanictemple.com/

Satanism is not mindless abandon and depravity, but a philosophy that drives us to lead fruitful and dignified, epicurean lives. Satan, the symbolic force of design that would urge humanity toward refined pleasures of the Arts and Sciences. Satan, who first brought the fruit of knowledge to Humankind that thereafter we might live not as naked brutes in the wild, but develop our cultural splendor into ever more aesthetically and technologically advanced heights. Ours is the Humanistic Satan who would sacrifice His own Heavenly residence so that Humanity might learn to understand and enjoy the physical world they inhabit.

Sounds reminiscent of Prometheus.

The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness.

[bannination]

Said no kid in a wheelchair ever....

[Bungalow Bill]

How about a tasteful bas-relief of the cunning one that,
when you press his pitchfork, plays a song by Black Sabbath.

[Mr.B]

"Fortunately the Founders saw the problem with your suggestion, that being the tyranny of the majority, and created a constitution instead of a pure democracy.
Your version of government would most likely mean that slavery would never have been abolished."

"Still want to let voters determine religious issues, Mr.B?"

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs. Friday's order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer says Masterpiece Cake Shop in suburban Denver will face fines if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes for their wedding celebrations.

The judge addressed a store owner's right to refuse service:
"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

So by the incredible insight of this judge's ruling, and the rationale of you two, Christians (or any other religions) have no rights at all when it comes to their religious convictions, but gays have all the rights in the world, and to hell with all others.

By this judges ruling, a Christian radio station or publication MUST accept advertising from alcohol vendors, abortion clinics, and any other non-religion group that insists in advertising in their media. Jewish and Muslim store owners must start selling pork if some meat vendor insists they buy their meat products; Christian book stores must sell men's magazines if a vendor insists they sell their trash....... refuse, and the ACLU will be on your ass like white on rice.

If I went into a place of business and I was told they didn't want my business, do you think I would go there again? Would you?
Of course you wouldn't, but these two Sodomites felt it necessary to rub their perversion in the bake shop owner's face.

Personally, I feel the judge was out of line in his ruling, as this was just as much as a Constitutional issue with the store owner as it was with the "gay rights" issue.

I hope the shop owner fights this all the way to the Supreme Court, as the judges words about "cost and hurt" obviously only apply to the "gays",
and as I previously stated; "to hell with anyone else".

[Mr.B]

"Your advocacy of cake fraud could get a baker sued or busted."

Oh, I wouldn't charge them for it, I would give it to them out of the kindness of my heart.....they'd have the best fruitcake in town.....

[Ombudsman]

So by the incredible insight of this judge's ruling, and the rationale of you two, Christians (or any other religions) have no rights at all when it comes to their religious convictions, but gays have all the rights in the world, and to hell with all others.
.

No MrV(victim), no one said Christians have no rights.

[O Really]

So, Mr.B, do you really think there should be no limits on a business supposedly open to the public in how it can discriminate against its customers? Can they refuse service to one-legged guys? Army vets? If you think a business owner ought to be able to serve only those s/he wants, and blatantly discriminate any way s/he wants, fine. You're wrong, but I understand the point. But if you think it's only applicable to gays, an everybody else gets protected, then that's a different story.

[Mr.B]

"No MrV (victim), no one said Christians have no rights."

Uhhhh....."A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs."
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to read into that now, does it?

"So, Mr.B, do you really think there should be no limits on a business supposedly open to the public in how it can discriminate against its customers? Can they refuse service to one-legged guys? Army vets? If you think a business owner ought to be able to serve only those s/he wants, and blatantly discriminate any way s/he wants, fine. You're wrong, but I understand the point. But if you think it's only applicable to gays, an everybody else gets protected, then that's a different story."

The favorite word of the "gay" crowd...."discriminate". A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Your ludicrous, far-fetched examples would apply if those you've cited presented a problem to the owner; say, in their attitudes or mannerisms while in his shop.

This judge's ruling could open the door to a Pandora's box of lawsuits when it comes to the examples I've already cited. Businesses that don't normally do business in a manner that is contrary to their personal beliefs or business agenda could be forced to change based on the whims of some individual or group that comes along and files a suit claiming "discrimination".

Interesting to note here that the "unbiased" ACLU took the side for the "rights" of the perversion, rather than to defend the "rights" of the shop owner, who obviously has no "rights" when it comes to his beliefs.