|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are. Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you are at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists don't give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone...there are no door to door atheist. Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close the door in their face. Cite? ----------------- Can not help since you are intellectually lazy. As expected, you have NOTHING. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article , says...
On 12/7/2012 5:38 PM, Califbill wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are. Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you are at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists don't give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone...there are no door to door atheist. Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close the door in their face. Cite? San Diego. The Atheists flooded the display committee with requests so they could put up signs near the Nativity. These signs were not celebrating anything, they were mocking hate speech, and the result was exactly as they wanted, to quell the free speech of others, period. Cited, done, now shut the **** up and go burn some books.... By a story by an insane little **** with no URL, no specifics.... right.... So you think that Christians should be able to shove the Nativity down everyone's throats as truth, but no one should be able to say "hey, that never happened"??? That is bigotry in it's finest. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Of course you do, you'll probably sic Westboro Baptist Church members on them. They are great Christians. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... In article , says... On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? He pays his taxes, unlike you. How do you know that? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says... ESAD wrote: On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam- , says... thumper wrote: On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote: Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close the door in their face. They are using the courts to enforce the constitution. Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be religion. Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala Church of England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is also owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people. Even atheists can have a display on public property. Ever hear of separation of church and state? ---------------------------- yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution? In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court, neither of which you've probably read for comprehension. The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years. The first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has priests. Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run our country without checks and balances? That's stupid. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 9:58 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 9:27 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else... That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the public schools. Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring one religion over another. It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools or onto public facilities. ---------------------------- Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the Atheists. And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own. So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all... It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot. No it doesn't, asshole... Sure it does. A Christmas tree has evolved to become the symbol of Christmas, the alleged time of the birth of Jesus, a religious figure. The tree is not a symbol of wintertime or the coming of the new year. It is a Christian religious symbol, just like Jesus, for who it is named. When the tree is put up in front of a public school or in a public park, et cetera, the implication is that the government supports/sponsors that religion. Such support is not Constitutional. It isn't my problem that you are too stupid to understand the principle. Oh, and for consistency's sake, I am opposed to the "national" Christmas tree in downtown DC, along with any other religious symbolism supported/sponsored by government. I don't think the POTUS should be engaged in supporting such religious celebrations if they are sponsored/supported by the government. These beliefs have nothing to do with agnosticism or atheism, by the way. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article , says...
On 12/7/2012 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else... ------------------ It may be hate and intolerance, but they have the same rights to speech as do those of a religious bent. Getting such banned, should not be, but they have the right to speak against religion. But not chase it down to shut it down and no other reason... They are sick bullies, pure and simple. Not confident enough with their own beliefs to stand strong without attacking others. Very weak people indeed. Gee, do you think that if some atheists put up a display that told people the atrocities of Christanity and that it's all a lie that Christians would just let it go?? Ever hear of Westboro? http://tinyurl.com/aey4u3v http://tinyurl.com/8bbjbz7 Let's see, Christians hate homosexuals, lesbians, Buddists, Muslims, any and all other religions, atheists, agnostics. They believe that all humans are sinners and deserve to be tortured for all eternity and the only solution to that IS Christianity. In other words, Christians tell everyone that they are horrible and that you should be tortured mercilessly because you are so horrible, but if you dedicate your like to worshiping [insert you favorite fictional character], you can be forgiven for being such a horrible person. Chic-fil-a fired a person because that person didn't want to participate in group prayer. Yeah, that's tolerant! |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article , says...
On 12/8/2012 9:27 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else... That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the public schools. Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring one religion over another. It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools or onto public facilities. ---------------------------- Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the Atheists. And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own. So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all... It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot. No it doesn't, asshole... You ****ing moron!!!! If it's on State property it is state sponsorship! Are you really too stupid to understand that? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com