"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:49:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it
contains?

I'm shocked.

And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.


Better stick with Harry, Doug. You guys go well together.
--
John H


I'm sorry if that little riddle entailed heavy lifting for you, John. Go put
some Ben-Gay on your skull.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.
And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.




It's not even the detail of the existence or non-existence of a creator.
I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

It's the absolute stupidity involved in actually believing that the
bible, with all its books and all its conflicts and all its translations
and interpretations and all the different ways ordinary people decided
what went in and what was kept out, and the utter silliness over popes
that could get married and did and popes that could not and did or
didn't, and the never-ending fights between these Christians and those
Christians and my Christians versus your Christians and so forth and so
on, ad nauseum, that makes me say "a pox on all your houses," and "keep
your crap far away from me."

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.

HK wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are.


I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove
their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the
rest of us.

Harry, you really need to re-read the above sentence and see how it
applies to you. No, it is a reflection of you.

When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push
back, and to push back hard.

Two eyes for an eye?

When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus
Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass
into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his
administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the
world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an
AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly
wrong with their belief system.

Seems to me that the 10th amendment comes into play here with the State
of Texas and every other state for that matter. And, you don't live in
Texas because you would have would have wound up shot dead by a Texan
carrying a sidearm.

You and your buddies can buy condoms and send them to Africa, you don't
the President's permission to do so.

But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the
Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal
view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him.

You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your heart.

"BAR" wrote in message
...


You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your
heart.


I'm absolutely positive you would not say the same thing to a Kristian
extremist who wanted to prevent condoms from being shipped to Africa as part
of a government program.

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it
contains?

I'm shocked.
And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.



It's not even the detail of the existence or non-existence of a creator.
I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

It's the absolute stupidity involved in actually believing that the
bible, with all its books and all its conflicts and all its translations
and interpretations and all the different ways ordinary people decided
what went in and what was kept out, and the utter silliness over popes
that could get married and did and popes that could not and did or
didn't, and the never-ending fights between these Christians and those
Christians and my Christians versus your Christians and so forth and so
on, ad nauseum, that makes me say "a pox on all your houses," and "keep
your crap far away from me."

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.


Do us and yourself a favor and go to the other side and let us know
what's there, if you can actually come back.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
...


You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your
heart.


I'm absolutely positive you would not say the same thing to a Kristian
extremist who wanted to prevent condoms from being shipped to Africa as
part of a government program.


Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Eisboch

HK wrote:

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

The Torah of your heritage (I don't say your religion because you are
your own religion, that is, godless) was written down by man. Many, many
Rabbi's have interpreted it since, and filled it with "mistranslations
and myths and folklore tales".

I suppose that's one reason why you don't follow it, despite quoting
from it.

-- Charlie

HK wrote:

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.

No it isn't. It's because you are amoral, and you want only your
morality (or more accurately, lack of morality.)

A good example of this is your having sex with a 14 year old minor child
at 13 years old.

-- Charlie

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

And another perfect example of the ability to traduce religious
belief.

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?

That would be your decision. If you felt that a monolistic theocracy
that relied on the subjugation of women to maintain social control is
a moral and ethical value system that's right for you, go for it. It's
not like there aren't those who do believe in similar systems -
certain fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, extremist LDS and neo-Nazi
polythiestic reconstructionists like Stormfront as examples.

Just don't expect to be greeted with open arms by the rest of society
if you do.

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Ah nuts - I was setting Doug up for just this - I was just trying to
work through his prejudices first. :)

Oh well...