Liberals Are Keeping The Church From Taking Over

[No Limit]

Or so Robert Green Ingersoll predicted in 1879. This is a great quote:

It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm

 

[Murray_H]

I really envy dwellers of this forum. How the hell can you cope with reading such massive amounts of text on a regular basis?

 

[Foxtrot]

I really envy dwellers of this forum. How the hell can you cope with reading such massive amounts of text on a regular basis?

Glasses?

 

[FictiousWill]

Preferably not white opaque ones.


Cool link, agreement as always - Thanks No Limit.

 

[Adabiviak]

Preach it sister! Can I get an Amen!

 

[bliink]

When the writer says liberals, he means the liberals of 1879 not the liberals of 2005 btw, there may be a slight difference.....

 

[Raziaar]

When the writer says liberals, he means the liberals of 1879 not the liberals of 2005 btw, there may be a slight difference.....

<raucous laughter>

 

[CptStern]

I really envy dwellers of this forum. How the hell can you cope with reading such massive amounts of text on a regular basis?

well most dont ..I doubt some even get past the headline.

 

[Murray_H]

well most dont ..I doubt some even get past the headline.

Well, I salute the brave minority and wish them well on their quest.

 

[CptStern]

hehe

 

[Hapless]

well most dont ..I doubt some even get past the headline.

Surely you aren't referring to me?

BTW I'm posting from my PSP...w00t for 2.0!

 

[Tr0n]

Surely you aren't referring to me?

BTW I'm posting from my PSP...w00t for 2.0!

Holy shit really?I didn't know you could surf the web with the psp.

 

[CptStern]

Surely you aren't referring to me?

BTW I'm posting from my PSP...w00t for 2.0!

oh hapless you're so ego-centric ...but to answer your question ...why yes


can you get sliced toast on that thing cuz I'd really like some right about now

 

[Tr0n]

Ain't nothin' wrong with being ego-centric.

 

[bliink]

Holy shit really?I didn't know you could surf the web with the psp.

you need to hax it I believe psp is very good for haxing

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The church isn't anywhere near taking over, any threat of it taking over is a hyped scare tactic by liberals.

 

[Hapless]

no hacks necessary, new firmware v2.0 just came out. Browser came with it.

 

[SOCL]

The church isn't anywhere near taking over, any threat of it taking over is a hyped scare tactic by liberals.

I don't intend to take a side on this, but in defence of the 'liberals' (I'll later defend the 'conservatives' if need finds itself before me): Aren't the 'conservatives' the ones who use religious basis (specifically Christianity) for agruments against their opposition? Though they can certainly do this during political rallies if they feel the need to do so, to establish such an arguement in order to win and then continue using it once in power is a violation of the separation of church and state. I don't mean to say that 'liberals' are holding matters together in the USA, but I'm also not saying 'conservatives' are holding them together either.

 

[No Limit]

Glasses?

20/20 vision actually.

 

[No Limit]

The church isn't anywhere near taking over, any threat of it taking over is a hyped scare tactic by liberals.

Yes, Ingersoll was just saying all that in 1879 to discredit the conservatives of today. Do you not agree that religion has divided this country greatly and it's getting worse? I'm a catholic and I can even admit that.

 

[Korgoth]

Yes, Ingersoll was just saying all that in 1879 to discredit the conservatives of today. Do you not agree that religion has divided this country greatly and it's getting worse? I'm a catholic and I can even admit that.

Of course it HAS NOT.. Because if you don't believe what we believe, then you'll simply burn in hell for all eternity, and we'll get you there faster if need be... So stand in line monkey.



:E

 

[CptStern]

last night's episode of Law and Order was about a born again christian who confessed to a murder he had committed 9 years ago ..his lawyers defense was that since he had been "born again" and had repented his sins he didnt need to stand trial ..the episode ended with the man pleading guilty against his lawyers wishes ..at the end the lawyer turns to Jack (lead prosecutor) and says "Jack the way things are going in this country lately with religion I know I could have beaten this murder charge"


when it hits mainstream culture you know there's something wrong

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I don't care what priest absolves his sins, if you wanted to be ultra christian about it, you must follow the law of the land, and he would need to fry for the murder. As it is read to the condemned before they are executed here, "may god have mercy on your soul."

 

[CptStern]

please, not every state has capital punishment nor does every guilty verdict in a murder trial end with an execution

you're missing the point, it's not about whether a priest absolved him of his sins ..it's more about how he himself through finding god repented his sin and showed remorse and attempts at restitution ..which is what sentencing in criminal cases is all about


oh and every christian not just the wachos feel god is above the law of the land ...god first man second

 

[The Monkey]

Our church and state got seperated in 2000.

EDIT: 5000 posts!!!! yay :cheers:

 

[SOCL]

I don't care what priest absolves his sins, if you wanted to be ultra christian about it, you must follow the law of the land, and he would need to fry for the murder. As it is read to the condemned before they are executed here, "may god have mercy on your soul."

But wasn't it also Jesus who was against the idea of an eye for an eye (i.e. corporal punishment). For instance, Jesus was presented with a woman who had committed adultery, a punishment the people and priests claimed was punishable by death (i.e. stoning), yet Jesus said that the first without sin should cast the first stone. In the end, Jesus let the woman go free. This story tells us that Jesus wants us to forgive others for their sins. On the other hand (and other side of the Christian Bible), though, the Old Testament tells of a wrathful God who punishes the wicked and evil for their deeds. For example, God punished the wicked of the Earth by flooding the land and starting anew with what Noah, his wife, his sons, his daughters, and their respective spouses brought aboard the fabled ark (i.e. animals). In this case, then, is a story of how God punishes people for their actions, and saves the good.

Both of these type of stories serve as the basis for those Christians who believe in corporal punishment and for those who do not. It all depends which side you lean heavier towards when it comes to punishment, the Old or the New Testament.

EDIT: This in no way means everyone should subscribe to this idea, nor is that what I mean to imply, I was simply stating a response, not law.

 

[Korgoth]

But wasn't it also Jesus who was against the idea of an eye for an eye (i.e. corporal punishment). For instance, Jesus was presented with a woman who had committed adultery, a punishment the people and priests claimed was punishable by death (i.e. stoning), yet Jesus said that the first without sin should cast the first stone. In the end, Jesus let the woman go free. This story tells us that Jesus wants us to forgive others for their sins. On the other hand (and other side of the Christian Bible), though, the Old Testament tells of a wrathful God who punishes the wicked and evil for their deeds. For example, God punished the wicked of the Earth by flooding the land and starting anew with what Noah, his wife, his sons, his daughters, and their respective spouses brought aboard the fabled ark (i.e. animals). In this case, then, is a story of how God punishes people for their actions, and saves the good.

Both of these type of stories serve as the basis for those Christians who believe in corporal punishment and for those who do not. It all depends which side you lean heavier towards when it comes to punishment, the Old or the New Testament.

EDIT: This in no way means everyone should subscribe to this idea, nor is that what I mean to imply, I was simply stating a response, not law.

You can't find "them" with this logic, because if it worked I'd just say:

"well jesus wouldn't invade iraq on supposed WMD's"

But God, now God would, because God speaks to bush, and God wanted him to be president...just ask him

 

[SOCL]

You can't find "them" with this logic, because if it worked I'd just say:

"well jesus wouldn't invade iraq on supposed WMD's"

But God, now God would, because God speaks to bush, and God wanted him to be president...just ask him

Yes, I heard that too. Something about President Bush saying God told him he would win the elections. And Pat Robertson is the Protestant pope because he said God told him that President Bush would win the elections... Funny, though, had President Bush lost, would Pat Robertson have become an atheist?...