# Religiously Intolerant?



## Chubby (Jan 24, 2009)

I am surprised Mino didn't bring this up.  I hope she doesn't have a selective vision. 

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christian and Muslim, Jews and Hindus -and nonbelievers."  Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented American culture and heritage.

What do you think?  Please discuss.

Obama's Nonbeliever Nod Unsettles Some


----------



## Splash Log (Jan 24, 2009)

Yes this approach into inclusiveness could possible be a misrepresentation of the numbered cultures and plentiful heritages of we Americans, having Christians taking issue seems some what not in the line


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

Melting pot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe it's time for SOME Christians to finally pull that stick out of their ass.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur







how DARE they not believe our myths


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

I love it. There is a Jewish state, a Hindu state, there are multiple Islamic states here on earth, but the second that Christians start claiming that the United States of America is a Christian state idiots start bitching about how we are not inclusive.

there is no way in hell i'm going to be made to feel bad for my beliefs, or choosing to vote the way I do because of them. Like it or not we are the greatest country in the world because of our Christian founding. The further we move away from our Christian principals the worst off this country is going to get


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

you do not have to be a christian to be  good and moral person.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I love it. There is a Jewish state, a Hindu state, there are multiple Islamic states here on earth, but the second that Christians start claiming that the United States of America is a Christian state idiots start bitching about how we are not inclusive.
> 
> there is no way in hell i'm going to be made to feel bad for my beliefs, or choosing to vote the way I do because of them. Like it or not we are the greatest country in the world because of our Christian founding. The further we move away from our Christian principals the worst off this country is going to get



Well said, bio-chem.

And to all those that object: A big FUCK YOU!!!

People like to shit on how bad the Christian US is, but take a look around the world folks.  In the US, we have armed police protecting the rights of animals.  In Hindu countries, they still kill infants if they're the female.  In Muslim countries, they murder people if they're gay.  In Buddhist countries, they take away all of your rights and kill you if you speak out against the government.

Pull your head out of your asses.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> you do not have to be a christian to be  good and moral person.



I agree, and I never said you did. Though I'm sure if you and I were to define moral we would come up with different answers


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Well said, bio-chem.
> 
> And to all those that object: A big FUCK YOU!!!
> 
> ...




um, i love the U.S. but here, 

we NEED police with guns to protect animals from abuses our people inflict on them.

here, parents murder and fuck their children every day 
*The United States Has the Highest Rates of Child Abuse*

here, people do get murdered for being gay... 

look how many people flood our prisons...

*do we really want the rest of the world to think gee that's how a bunch of Christians act?* it's pretty obvious this country is not solely made up of good honest Christians. 

how can the church and state be legally required to be separated then our president say we are a christian country? we aren't, we are a mixed bag of nuts.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I agree, and I never said you did. Though I'm sure if you and I were to define moral we would come up with different answers



what makes you so sure? define moral.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> what makes you so sure? define moral.


morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.


----------



## pyromaniac327 (Jan 24, 2009)

Since this is turning into a debate about religion and its morals....

Take this!



> The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category: Response, Number, and %----------------------- --------
> Catholic 29267 39.164%
> Protestant 26162 35.008%
> Muslim 5435 7.273%
> ...


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.




like it's ok to laugh at a woman willing to die to defend innocent people from having their homes destroyed if defiance of the geneva conventions? that jesus dude was a dumbass too. all he had to do was shut his pie hole n he'd have avoided being crucified. some of the shit people believe... like adhering to a code of conduct during wartime and being the son of god. some people huh?


----------



## mcguin (Jan 24, 2009)

recent findings which can be watched on a more recent history channel documentary show an ample amount of proof that the founding fathers and some of the most influential and important people of our history belonged to an underground group called the freemasons...read about it...and then tell me that this country was designed to be a christian state, it just so happens that christianity reached the west before other religions did.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.



mine = there is right and there is wrong, the difference is glaringly obvious and there is _no_ wiggle room.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> um, i love the U.S. but here,
> 
> we NEED police with guns to protect animals from abuses our people inflict on them.



I'm really not in the mood for dumb shit like this today.

_Everywhere_ around the planet, animals are mistreated. * Every-fucking-where.*  We're one of the few countries that care about it, and even one of the fewer countries that commits an entire armed task force to it.



Little Wing said:


> here, parents murder and fuck their children every day
> *The United States Has the Highest Rates of Child Abuse*



At a much lower rate than most of the world.  And we crack down on it like a motherfucker.  Children are being sold in the Middle East and raped at an unbelievable rate in Africa, but the US the pinnacle of that shit?!



Little Wing said:


> here, people do get murdered for being gay...



Not by the state, dumbass.



Little Wing said:


> look how many people flood our prisons...



I fucking love dumb shit like this.  "Oh, the US has more people in jail than China!"  That's because *we* *don't fucking* *kill them!*

Fuck it, I'm done.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 24, 2009)

Christians are not necessarily better than other religions.  And I certainly don't want to call it my religion or culture.
http://news aol.com/article/disgraced-pastor-ted-haggard-faces-more/316660


----------



## KelJu (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I love it. There is a Jewish state, a Hindu state, there are multiple Islamic states here on earth, but the second that Christians start claiming that the United States of America is a Christian state idiots start bitching about how we are not inclusive.
> 
> there is no way in hell i'm going to be made to feel bad for my beliefs, or choosing to vote the way I do because of them. Like it or not we are the greatest country in the world because of our Christian founding. The further we move away from our Christian principals the worst off this country is going to get




We are not a Christian state. But, you are right about other countries claiming to be the Jewish state, Hindu state, and multiple Islamic states. And just look how fucked up those places are. You know? Those places are fucked up beyond all recognition because of their religious systems run amok.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> That's because *we* *don't fucking* *kill them!*
> 
> Fuck it, I'm done.



just to pick one point. we should kill most of them. this country has some issues it's far from perfect. and to ignore the imperfections and hold our heads up like they don't exist poses us as something we are not and allows cancer to grow. 

it's just my opinion but i think targeting civilians in any war is wrong. i have no reason to think members of the Israeli army who are saying that is what is being done are lying.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> I'm really not in the mood for dumb shit like this today.
> 
> _Everywhere_ around the planet, animals are mistreated. * Every-fucking-where.*  We're one of the few countries that care about it, and even one of the fewer countries that commits an entire armed task force to it.
> 
> ...



the point of what i said was if this truly were a country made up entirely of good moral Christians why would we be a country with these issues?  

i said*"**do we really want the rest of the world to think gee that's how a bunch of Christians act?* it's pretty obvious this country is not solely made up of good honest Christians."


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jan 24, 2009)

Splash Log said:


> Yes this approach into inclusiveness could possible be a misrepresentation of the numbered cultures and plentiful heritages of we Americans, having Christians taking issue seems some what not in the line



OR...

Obama is again covering his ass for the failures or inadequacy his
administration will suffer...

"Change"  -


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> like it's ok to laugh at a woman willing to die to defend innocent people from having their homes destroyed if defiance of the geneva conventions? that jesus dude was a dumbass too. all he had to do was shut his pie hole n he'd have avoided being crucified. some of the shit people believe... like adhering to a code of conduct during wartime and being the son of god. some people huh?



you really need to read the scope of the geneva convention. What you are saying is not covered by the geneva convention.

and yea, Jesus could have shut his mouth, and lived. But then we would have died. The sacrifice of Jesus saved the human race.

The suicide of this woman was ineffectual. Do you really want to compare the two?


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> *do we really want the rest of the world to think gee that's how a bunch of Christians act?* it's pretty obvious this country is not solely made up of good honest Christians.
> 
> how can the church and state be legally required to be separated then our president say we are a christian country? we aren't, we are a mixed bag of nuts.



you're right this country is not made up solely of good honest Christians. Which is sad really.

The president saying we are a Christian nation in no way even remotely begins to violate the separation of church and state. to suggest otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding to the entire issue of separation of these two organizations


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> mine = there is right and there is wrong, the difference is glaringly obvious and there is _no_ wiggle room.



based upon what? there are plenty of things that I can argue are not moral, yet I'm sure you would disagree with. What are we to define as right and wrong? This is an age old argument of how a citizenship chooses to define right and wrong. I would argue that right and wrong, good and bad are eternal and are chosen by God. I doubt you would agree.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> I'm really not in the mood for dumb shit like this today.
> 
> _Everywhere_ around the planet, animals are mistreated. * Every-fucking-where.*  We're one of the few countries that care about it, and even one of the fewer countries that commits an entire armed task force to it.
> 
> ...



Once again DOMS it is nice to see your personal touch with sound reason and logic


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> just to pick one point. we should kill most of them. this country has some issues it's far from perfect. and to ignore the imperfections and hold our heads up like they don't exist poses us as something we are not and allows cancer to grow.
> 
> it's just my opinion but i think targeting civilians in any war is wrong. i have no reason to think members of the Israeli army who are saying that is what is being done are lying.



No one is saying the US is perfect, or Israel for that matter. We are just better than what we are being compared to


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> you really need to read the scope of the geneva convention. What you are saying is not covered by the geneva convention.




Switzerland accused Israel of war crimes, saying its recent resumption of the destruction of Palestinian homes is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

According to the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Israel has illegally demolished homes near Jerusalem and Ramallah in recent days. Switzerland has demanded that Israel immediately stop the demolitions.

Israel claims the demolitions are removals of unauthorized shacks. A spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, told the Associated Press (AP) that removing the homes was "not an arbitrary decision," but one permitted by an Israeli court.

"This demolition of houses was done under a court order," embassy spokeswoman Shlomit Sufa told the AP on Thursday.

_*But Swiss Foreign Ministry spokesman Lars Knuchel said the demolitions violated the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which outline an occupying force's rights and responsibilities during wartime. 

The Foreign Ministry claimed Israel's house-demolition policy violates the Fourth Convention, which prohibits occupying powers from damaging property belonging to the occupied population.*_ 

Since 2000, Israel has destroyed over 600 homes in occupied East Jerusalem - and nearly 2000 in the West Bank - according to a formal protest lodged with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Switzerland said that, as a neutral country, it "regards the recent incidents as violations of international humanitarian law."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you're mistaken. 

Israel has a very funny way of defining shack.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> you're right this country is not made up solely of good honest Christians. Which is sad really.
> 
> The president saying we are a Christian nation in no way even remotely begins to violate the separation of church and state. to suggest otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding to the entire issue of separation of these two organizations




it's the same thing as saying this is a pagan country because _some_ of us are. it's false.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> Switzerland accused Israel of war crimes, saying its recent resumption of the destruction of Palestinian homes is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> According to the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Israel has illegally demolished homes near Jerusalem and Ramallah in recent days. Switzerland has demanded that Israel immediately stop the demolitions.
> 
> ...



Swiss foreign ministries spokesman? yea, this is a long way from being a breach of the geneva convention.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Swiss foreign ministries spokesman? yea, this is a long way from being a breach of the geneva convention.




like i said, the line between right and wrong is obvious. some people just let a thing called politics blur their perception of it. there are so many ways to justify evil if you want to.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> it's the same thing as saying this is a pagan country because _some_ of us are. it's false.



No it's not what a joke. Muslim countries have Christians. Israel has Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This does not mean that Iraq is not a Muslim state or that Israel isn't a Jewish one. We are a Christian nation, accept it. your life will be easier.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Once again DOMS it is nice to see your personal touch with sound reason and logic



I have become quite displeased with how many people don't know jack about shit.  In the pursuit of a quest so retarded that I can't even begin to fathom it, some Americans feel the need to sanctify the actions of people (such as the Palestinian) that routinely target women and children while at the same time, creating some warped perspective on "how bad the US is."

Since it's in this thread, take Little Wing's post for example.  Her "we NEED police with guns to protect animals from abuses our people inflict on them" statement purposefully ignores that animal abuse goes on everywhere.

And then she links to a shit article on the US having the highest rates of child abuse.  Good God, who writes that shit?  Even more important, who the fuck believes that shit?  Is a pro-sex ed piece that only references Canada as a comparative.  The "author" never discusses the level of recording.  (Case in point, in the UK, it not recorded as an infant mortality at child birth if the infant weighed less than 2 pounds.  But in the US, it's recorded as such no matter the infant's weight.  So boom, we have a much higher infant mortality.)  It also ignores the rampant raping of children ages 3-11 in South African (the murder and rape capital of the planet).  Or how about the horrifically enormous child slave trade in South-East Asia?  How well recorded is child abuse there?

The article that she linked to had a very obvious agenda (they want sex ed. classes).  It's almost inconceivable how many people accept false information like that.

I think the problem is that doing your own research takes more time and effort that reading a five paragraph article that you already agree with because it "makes your point."


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

christ is a myth. a fairy tale. a story made up to help people control other people. to try and explain the unknown and still fears that come in the night.  accept it. your life will be easier.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> I think the problem is that doing your own research takes more time and effort that reading a five paragraph article that you already agree with because it "makes your point."



then listen to what uniformed Israeli soldiers who are refusing orders have to say about the ethics of this war.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> christ is a myth. a fairy tale. a story made up to help people control other people. to try and explain the unknown and still fears that come in the night.  accept it. your life will be easier.



My life might be easier, but less happy and fulfilled.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> then listen to what uniformed Israeli soldiers who are refusing orders have to say about the ethics of this war.




Every modern war has produced soldiers that didn't want to fight it.  Every.  Single. One.

Set aside who started the war and who continues it.  Instead, simply look at what each side does.  

The Israelis target Hamas fighters who are hiding among civilians (on purpose).  The Israelis target the Hamas fighters, which kills them and also kills the civilians that they're hiding behind.  The civilians dies because Hamas uses them as shields and their deaths as a rallying.

Hamas purposefully targets civilians.  They send in suicide bombers and rockets into places where there are no Israeli military personnel.  They're not killing civilians because the Israeli military is hiding behind them, they do it because fighting the Isreali military is harding than killing unarmed civlians.

This is how the two side differ in a meaningful way, and why I hate the Palestinians.

No doubt you're going to come up with some assinine bit of logic that suppose to say it's okay for the Palestininans to do that.  So come on, tell me why it's okay.  Tell me what some random article on the Internet said.  Tell me what the Washington Post said.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Every modern war has produced soldiers that didn't want to fight it.  Every.  Single. One.
> 
> Set aside who started the war and who continues it.  Instead, simply look at what each side does.
> 
> ...



i just wish they'd stop eye for an eyeing each other while some of their kids still have eyes.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 24, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> i just wish they'd stop eye for an eyeing each other while some of their kids still have eyes.



so does everyone else on this board!

But anyone of us committing suicide over this issue will not stop it, or bring attention to it that isn't already there. this is simply a problem that does not get resolved.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 24, 2009)

sadly.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 24, 2009)

Pilgraims != Founding Fathers


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Pilgraims != Founding Fathers



Founding Fathers = Christians


----------



## TexanTA1996 (Jan 25, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> I am surprised Mino didn't bring this up.  I hope she doesn't have a selective vision.
> 
> In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama celebrated America as a "nation of Christian and Muslim, Jews and Hindus -and nonbelievers."  Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented American culture and heritage.
> 
> ...



The fact that religion is even mentioned during an inauguration is absolutely appalling to me.  

*SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE*

There should be, in no way shape or form, any praying or religious talk during a presidential inauguration.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2009)

TexanTA1996 said:


> The fact that religion is even mentioned during an inauguration is absolutely appalling to me.
> 
> *SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE*
> 
> There should be, in no way shape or form, any praying or religious talk during a presidential inauguration.



Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

You keep for fighting for your baseless world and I'll fight for mine.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 25, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
> 
> You keep for fighting for your baseless world and I'll fight for mine.



+1


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 25, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.



And just how much talk of god is there in the Constitution? 



DOMS said:


> Founding Fathers = Christians



Not quite.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2009)

MWpro said:


> And just how much talk of god is there in the Constitution?



That document was the guidelines for the people.  If you want the _intent_ of the founding of the government of this land, you need to look at Declaration of Independence.

And I quote the first paragraph:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's _*God*_ entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

But feel free to delude yourself into thinking that their belief in God had nothing to do with it.




MWpro said:


> Not quite.



Unless you're into shit revisionist history.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 25, 2009)

DOMS said:


> That document was the guidelines for the people.  If you want the _intent_ of the founding of the government of this land, you need to look at Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And I quote the first paragraph:
> 
> ...



Educate yourself on Jefferson, Deism, and his thoughts on christianity and get back to me, k?

If the Declaration mentioned jesus, your argument might be more convincing. It doesn't. Read up.


----------



## tallcall (Jan 26, 2009)

I had really hoped to not come out in support of Bio-Chem and DOMS, but I agree with them 99%. I still think if I were president I would have skipped a majority of the religious ceremonies and think they are a little superfelous.

The idea that we are intolerant of other religions is laughable. Looking at the middle east, southeast asia, and africa, you see nothing but absolute intolerance for just about all western governments (of which most are Christian or Christian based). If I'm not mistaken religions in those areas include Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, and various tribal religions, then there's also Palestines Christianity (they're not innocent in this either - but I think Hamas is Islamic).

Being a gay man, I can't say I would rather be anywhere else (maybe Canada, but I still don't think they're the best). Besides I love my boys in green serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and will do everything I can to help them. Note that I am in no way a Bush supporter or a supporter of the idea that not voting "conservative" or voting against any increase in war spending is unpatriotic or against the "troops."

Anyways, I'm sure everyone's got a valid point, but if I were stuck in the third world, I choose to be stuck with DOMS and Bio-Chem (I also want the Monkey, Jarhed, and Devildog - to name a few) - at least I know these guys would be on my side no matter what (and be able to make a damn good case for their arguments when we start fighting amongst ourselves - good debates are so hard to find these days).


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

tallcall said:


> I had really hoped to not come out in support of Bio-Chem and DOMS, but I agree with them 99%..



 Everything about that post made me smile.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Educate yourself on Jefferson, Deism, and his thoughts on christianity and get back to me, k?
> 
> If the Declaration mentioned jesus, your argument might be more convincing. It doesn't. Read up.



I love the Jefferson debate. 1 guy out of all of the founders is what you point to? Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all wrote God into the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Jefferson believed in God, he believed in Jesus. He absolutely studied the bible. he had his concerns about the way things were practiced in his day, but so did guys like calvin and luther in theirs. that doesn't mean he didn't believe in God or wasn't Christian. To insinuate otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding. and as DOMS says revisionist history.


----------



## tallcall (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Everything about that post made me smile.



I luv u guyz ! 


I forgot to mention Busy-Livin in my last post. I would like him to accompany the five of us on our little Crusade through the third world!


----------



## tallcall (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I love the Jefferson debate. 1 guy out of all of the founders is what you point to? Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all wrote God into the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Jefferson believed in God, he believed in Jesus. He absolutely studied the bible. he had his concerns about the way things were practiced in his day, but so did guys like calvin and luther in theirs. that doesn't mean he didn't believe in God or wasn't Christian. To insinuate otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding. and as DOMS says revisionist history.



People should learn from history not attempt to re-write it. It may be written by the victors and be thus biased but it is the best record we have to go by.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I love the Jefferson debate. 1 guy out of all of the founders is what you point to? Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all wrote God into the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Jefferson believed in God, he believed in Jesus. He absolutely studied the bible. he had his concerns about the way things were practiced in his day, but so did guys like calvin and luther in theirs. that doesn't mean he didn't believe in God or wasn't Christian. To insinuate otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding. and as DOMS says revisionist history.



He's not interested in real history.  He's interested in whatever revisionist history back his world views.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> He's not interested in real history.  He's interested in whatever revisionist history back his world views.



I love how these guys point to Jefferson every single time while completely ignoring Washington, Adams, and the other founders that attended church every sunday. How many times is it recorded that Washington prayed?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

tallcall said:


> I had really hoped to not come out in support of Bio-Chem and DOMS, but I agree with them 99%. I still think if I were president I would have skipped a majority of the religious ceremonies and think they are a little superfelous.
> 
> The idea that we are intolerant of other religions is laughable. Looking at the middle east, southeast asia, and africa, you see nothing but absolute intolerance for just about all western governments (of which most are Christian or Christian based). If I'm not mistaken religions in those areas include Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, and various tribal religions, then there's also Palestines Christianity (they're not innocent in this either - but I think Hamas is Islamic).
> 
> ...



The UK is also a place that you'd be comfortable.  Hell, they have gay knights.  Yeah, I know it sounds like a Monty Python skit, but Elton John was knighted long ago.

Americans love to dump on themselves.  I think it's because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.  The problem is that many Americans have lost perspective on what the standards are around most of the world.

Case in point tallcall, here you can't get married, but in the Middle East you'd be killed.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> The UK is also a place that you'd be comfortable.  Hell, they have gay knights.  Yeah, I know it sounds like a Monty Python skit, but Elton John was knighted long ago.
> 
> .


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of *freedom of religion, not freedom from religion*.
> 
> You keep for fighting for your baseless world and I'll fight for mine.



 This post deserves some kind of medal.


----------



## tallcall (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> The UK is also a place that you'd be comfortable.  Hell, they have gay knights.  Yeah, I know it sounds like a Monty Python skit, but Elton John was knighted long ago.
> 
> Americans love to dump on themselves.  I think it's because we hold ourselves to a higher standard.  The problem is that many Americans have lost perspective on what the standards are around most of the world.
> 
> Case in point tallcall, here you can't get married, but in the Middle East you'd be killed.



Have you ever seen Generation Kill? Lt Col 'Godfather' Ferrando says at one point when asked to evacuate 2 wounded Iraqi's that the rules state that they have to recieve care comprable to local standards and he says "the standards here are zero, but nobody put a gun to our heads and told us to come here.” Sometimes the standards are just that, "zero."


----------



## maniclion (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I love the Jefferson debate. 1 guy out of all of the founders is what you point to? Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all wrote God into the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Jefferson believed in God, he believed in Jesus. He absolutely studied the bible. he had his concerns about the way things were practiced in his day, but so did guys like calvin and luther in theirs. that doesn't mean he didn't believe in God or wasn't Christian. To insinuate otherwise shows a severe lack of understanding. and as DOMS says revisionist history.


Franklin was a Deist and was a skeptic of how Christianity was practiced in his time.  Another name, the one I believe to be the sole reason we struck out for independence was Thomas Paine the man who wrote that he thought the Bible being gods word was absurd, and that if we really wanted to see gods word all we needed to do was study the trees, rocks, birds and the sky beyond in them we could find all the truth god wanted us to know....he, like myself and some of the others right here in this forum, had concluded that if everyone believed in God and the basis of their religions were to do good then why were we killing one another in his name?  He just was sick of the many sects fighting and murdering one another against the true tenets of their faith.....proof is here in this letter from Paine to Samuel Adams
_
"__The case my friend is, that the World has been over-run with fable and creeds of human invention, with sectaries of whole Nations against all other Nations, and sectaries of those sectaries in each of them against each other. Every sectary, except the quakers, has been a persecutor. Those who fled from persecution persecuted in their turn, and it is this confusion of creeds that has filled the World with persecution and deluged it with blood. Even the depredation on your commerce by the barbary powers sprang from the Crusades of the church against those powers. It was a war of creed against creed, each boasting of God for its author, and reviling each other with the name of Infidel. If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and this is all that it proves._ _     There is however one point of Union wherein all religions meet, and that is in the first article of every Man's Creed, and of every Nation's Creed, that has any Creed at all: 'I believe in God.' Those who rest here, and there are millions who do, cannot be wrong as far as their Creed goes. Those who chouse to go further may be wrong, for it is impossible that all can be right, since there is so much contradiction among them. The first therefore are, in my opinion, on the safest side._
_     I presume you are so far acquainted with ecclesiastical history as to know, and the bishop who has answered me has been obliged to acknowledge the fact, that the books that compose the New Testament were voted by 'Yeas and Nays' to be the Word of God, as you now vote a law, by the popish Councils of Nice and Laodocia about 1450 years ago. With respect to the fact there is no dispute, neither do I mention it for the sake of controversy. This Vote may appear authority enough to some, and not authority enough to others. It is proper however that everybody should know the fact."_


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
> 
> You keep for fighting for your baseless world and I'll fight for mine.



You are missing the point completely. Yes, they came here for religious freedom, but not the freedom to follow only their religion. The colonies were made up of many religions. They came here to ge taway from state sponsored religion such as the Church of England. For fuck's sake, 3 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence weren't Christians. Thomas Jefferson became president, and did a pretty damn good job. Benjamin Franklin did more to win our independence from the British than any other man in our nations history, and he was a deist who spoke out adamantly about religious intolerance. That notion of religious tolerance is the core of separation of church and state. 

To keep all religious practices and liberties free and pure, the government must not get involved under any circumstances. It keeps everyone on a level playing field. That is the price of freedom. You don't get to legislate laws based on your religion, and nobody else can legislate laws against you based on their religion. 

That is why so many people came here. That is why the greatest minds came here. That is why America has flourished and succeeded. 

The constitution mentions God, but it never ever ever ever ever differentiated who's God. The founding fathers recognized the importance of spiritual practice, and the right of humans to practice their beliefs on their own terms. The colonies had everything from Quakers to Protestants to Puritans to Baptists to Catholics to probably 10 others that I don't know. Religious diversity was a dominant part of colonial life.

But 200 and some odd years years later, you are going to tell me that the founding fathers intended Christians to have all the power? That is ridiculous. They went to great efforts to prevent that. They new that down the line some new religion might pop up and then it would be a dominate power. Then there would be no fail safes to prevent that religion from taking over.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Franklin was a Deist and was a skeptic of how Christianity was practiced in his time.  Another name, the one I believe to be the sole reason we struck out for independence was Thomas Paine [/I]



ha ha ha. I'm LDS. do you really think I have a problem that some of our founders questioned how Christianity was practiced in 1776? my point still stands it does not mean that these men were not Chrisitans, or didn't believe in Jesus Christ. These men read the bible and saw the difficulties with Christianities past. Many recognized the effects of the apostasy on Christianity as a whole. None of this changes their faith in Christ.

All of this further backs my belief that there was a need to break away from the European Christianity and it's history.


----------



## maniclion (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Many of the documents created at the founding of the country make mention of God.  The US was founded by Christians in the pursuit of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
> 
> You keep for fighting for your baseless world and I'll fight for mine.


It doesn't say whose God now does it, is it the Jewish God, a Greek God, an Incan God or maybe it was an all inclusive God since Ahteism wasn't popular at all during their time.  We all know that they intended Freedom of religion to mean they would not declare nor would they ever allow the US gov. to declare this a "Christian" Nation because if they could do that what would stop them from claiming it a Catholic Nation.....that was their goal simple as that.  They were all learned men and knew of all the various religions around the world and made it known that in this Free Land the people could practice anyone they wished.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> You are missing the point completely. Yes, they came here for religious freedom, but not the freedom to follow only their religion. The colonies were made up of many religions. They came here to ge taway from state sponsored religion such as the Church of England. For fuck's sake, 3 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence weren't Christians. Thomas Jefferson became president, and did a pretty damn good job. Benjamin Franklin did more to win our independence from the British than any other man in our nations history, and he was a deist who spoke out adamantly about religious intolerance. That notion of religious tolerance is the core of separation of church and state.
> 
> To keep all religious practices and liberties free and pure, the government must not get involved under any circumstances. It keeps everyone on a level playing field. That is the price of freedom. You don't get to legislate laws based on your religion, and nobody else can legislate laws against you based on their religion.
> 
> ...



I would argue the case that Franklin or Jefferson were not Christian.

 No one here is saying that Christians should have all the power? When you argue separation of church and state don't think religion, think denomination. The founders broke away from a country where the king was also the titular head of the church of england.

 Of course if the majority of our country follows a certain religion we are going to want our ideals reflected in our laws. to think otherwise is absurd. separation of church and state is something that has completely been misused lately because it is not understood as the founders intended it. A quick study of the men who built separation of church and state into our laws, and their practices will show what they intended this concept to mean. If now you believe that should be expanded that is another discussion.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jan 26, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> mine = there is right and there is wrong, the difference is glaringly obvious and there is _no_ wiggle room.



mine = there is often two sides to every story.  The difference between right and wrong is often a matter of perspective.

When we decide that our perspective is the truth and others are wrong, this just breeds intolerance.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> mine = there is often two sides to every story.  The difference between right and wrong is often a matter of perspective.
> 
> When we decide that our perspective is the truth and others are wrong, this just breeds intolerance.



And this outlook is why people can rationalize living immoral lives.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> And this outlook is why people can rationalize living immoral lives.



In your opinion.  Nobody was ever killed or beaten in the name of tolerance.  Can you say the same thing about Christianity?


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> And this outlook is why people can rationalize living immoral lives.



The dualism here is that it allows immoral behavior to be passed around as religious truth, and therefor justified.  

You can't get away from the fact that truth doesn't exist in the external world.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> In your opinion.  Nobody was ever killed or beaten in the name of tolerance.  Can you say the same thing about Christianity?



I don't consider tolerance and immorality to be the same thing. I don't agree with the premise of your statement or question.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> The dualism here is that it allows immoral behavior to be passed around as religious truth, and therefor justified.
> 
> You can't get away from the fact that truth doesn't exist in the external world.



I believe truth is an eternal principal. it exists regardless of whether we accept it or not.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I don't consider tolerance and immorality to be the same thing. I don't agree with the premise of your statement or question.



I am just saying that people do some pretty immoral things in support of their moral beliefs.

I don't believe morality can be dictated.  What is right for one is not right for everyone.

Just because I have no desire to have sex with a man and that morality doesn't work for me, why should I have the right to tell two other people that are perfectly happy living like that that their beliefs are immoral?

For me being moral means you don't hurt other people and you consider how your actions will affect others.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I believe truth is an eternal principal. it exists regardless of whether we accept it or not.



I believe that is the exact thinking that has caused most of humanities problems


----------



## maniclion (Jan 26, 2009)

I think Benjamin Franklin, one of our Founding Fathers and my favorite, says it best in his essay Savages of North America in which he wrote this anecdote:

"A Swedish minister having assembled the chiefs of the      Susquehanna Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them      with the principal historical facts on which our religion is      founded, such as the fall of our first parents by eating an      apple; the coming of Christ to repair the mischief; his      miracles and sufferings, etc. When he had finished, an Indian      orator stood up to thank him. 'What you have told us,' said      he, 'is all very good. It is indeed bad to eat apples. It is      better to make them all into cider. We are much obliged by      your kindness in coming so far to tell us those things which      you have heard from your mothers. In return, I will tell you      some of those which we have heard from ours. In the beginning,      our fathers had only the flesh of animals to subsist on; and      if their hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of      our young hunters having killed deer, made a fire in the woods      to broil some parts of it. When they were about to satisfy      their hunger, they beheld a beautiful young woman descend from      the clouds, and seat herself on that hill which you see yonder      among the blue mountains. They said to each other, it is a      spirit that perhaps has smelt our broiled venison and wishes      to eat of it; let us offer some to her. They presented her      with the tongue; she was pleased with the taste of it, and      said, 'Your kindness shall be rewarded. Come to this place      after thirteen moons, and you shall find something that will      be of a great benefit in nourishing you and your children to      the latest generations.' They did so and, to their surprise,      found plants they had never seen before; but which, from that      ancient time, have been constantly cultivated among us to our      great advantage. Where her right hand touched the ground they      found maize; where her left hand touched it they found kidney-      beans.' ... The good missionary, disgusted with this idle      tale, said, 'What I delivered to you were sacred truths; but      what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood.' The      Indian, offended, replied, 'My brother, it seems your friends      have not done you justice in your education; they have not      well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw      that we, who understand and practice these rules, believed all      your stories, why do you refuse to believe ours?'


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I believe truth is an eternal principal. it exists regardless of whether we accept it or not.



This is pretty up-tight bullshit right here.
Humans created the idealism behind truth or falsehood.

You think God just decided at some point to "create"
a set of values that are good or real or true, and then naysay
the rest?


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> This is pretty up-tight bullshit right here.
> Humans created the idealism behind truth or falsehood.
> 
> You think God just decided at some point to "create"
> ...



I'm not sure I even follow your rationalization on this one. What the hell are you even trying to say?


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I'm not sure I even follow your rationalization on this one. What the hell are you even trying to say?



Probably because you have zero rationalization yourself.

You said truth is an eternal thing. What the hell does that even mean?
That if anything is true, then it is always true?


----------



## maniclion (Jan 26, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> Probably because you have zero rationalization yourself.
> 
> You said truth is an eternal thing. What the hell does that even mean?
> That if anything is true, then it is always true?


I think his truth is eternal means that even though evidence may be found suggesting otherwise the truths will still be true in the minds of believers.  An example being that even though science has found tons of evidence pointing to the earth being formed ages ago and evidence of man and woman not coming until much later they all believe we were put here just a few days after it's creation....


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

What I understand of truth is that it negates itself. 

Truth, like many other values, ideas, and beliefs we hold don't really exist: omnipotence, tolerance, omnipresence, good, evil, ect. 

This words are logical fallacies. They can't exist outside the human mind. 

Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself can not lift it? 
Can we become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance?
Is good still good, when there is no evil to compare it to, or does good become neutral and cease to exist?


Truth is completely present inside our own reality. As far as moral truths go, the closest thing we can get to that is a democratic vote. All people who think abusing animals is morally wrong, raise your hand? Well, that sure is a shitty system if you ask me, but currently, this is the best humans have. We will try to find common truths. 

This is where 99% of bickering, killing, fighting, and hate come from.  

My conclusion is to say fuck it all. I will proclaim my truths, and live my life by my rules. I will try to bend and warp my truths to satisfy my life and bring the most amount of happiness to me and others. If your truths infringe on my truths, I will not yield, but I will fight to change, beat, or circumvent your systems that you have created to make your truths mine.  

And in that you see, that the person with the most power has the most truth.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> What I understand of truth is that it negates itself.
> 
> Truth, like many other values, ideas, and beliefs we hold don't really exist: omnipotence, tolerance, omnipresence, good, evil, ect.
> 
> ...



I like reading your posts. They have a flow to them that just works.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> Probably because you have zero rationalization yourself.
> 
> You said truth is an eternal thing. What the hell does that even mean?
> That if anything is true, then it is always true?



Well numb nuts. You have been here for all of about 12 minutes so I'm going to cut you some slack.

How about an eternal truth like murder is bad, or God exists. irregardless of whether you accept these two statements as fact, they are in actuality true. They do not require your belief, or my belief in them to be true, they just are.


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Well numb nuts. You have been here for all of about 12 minutes so I'm going to cut you some slack.
> 
> How about an eternal truth like murder is bad, or God exists. irregardless of whether you accept these two statements as fact, they are in actuality true. They do not require your belief, or my belief in them to be true, they just are.



Ok see now this I can work with.

I would agree with those 2 truths.
But I wouldn't agree that it is an absolute truth that you must follow a certain
set of doctrines, written by other humans who are no different than I fundamentally, in order to attain nirvana.

I don't think it's an eternal truth to that killing someone is bad because I could always justify it by saying if I didn't kill the armed robber, then he would have killed me and mine. Or that maybe by me taking out a sniper, that our president would not be killed, and therefore would not allow mass hysteria to ensue and hurt a lot more people.


It's okay to believe that you are right, but just remember that is only your opinion that you are right and not a fact that you are correct.
*
TO KELJU*: Amazing post, i couldn't agree more.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

Who god?  what god?  How does he look?  God is invented by human mind.  So called his teaching are made up by some one to keep people under control.
A LIE REPEATED A THOUSAND TIMES  BECOMES THE TRUTH._Chief Goebbels.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 26, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Who god?  what god?  How does he look?  God is invented by human mind.  So called his teaching are made up by some one to keep people under control.



I like you.
Unfortunately there's that whole 'faith' problem that continually interferes with most people's rational thought process. The very concept of religion appalls me.


----------



## AKIRA (Jan 26, 2009)

I am agnostic so i am really getting a kick out of these posts.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Who god?  what god?  How does he look?  God is invented by human mind.  So called his teaching are made up by some one to keep people under control.
> A LIE REPEATED A THOUSAND TIMES  BECOMES THE TRUTH._Chief Goebbels.



This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.

Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.
> 
> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.



You can't prove that God exists in the lab.  You can't disprove that God exists in the lab.  That of course make him right.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.
> 
> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.



there's that faith problem I mentioned...


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

lucifuge said:


> there's that faith problem I mentioned...



Fair enough.  You fight to remove our beliefs from the places they reside and we'll fight to keep them there.

Do keep in mind boy that we've been here longer and there are more of us.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.



no one can prove there is a god, nor disprove it, *if you believe in god its called faith.*


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Fair enough.  You fight to remove our beliefs from the places they reside and we'll fight to keep them there.
> 
> Do keep in mind boy that we've been here longer and there are more of us.



To be honest, I'm not 'fighting' to remove anything from you. Believe whatever you want... it quite honestly doesn't matter that much to me. I find it humorous how quickly and easily people become offended over the topic of religion. It doesn't matter what God an individual professes to worship, they all require and rely on the handy 'faith' catch all defense. IMO, believe in whatever ever helps you sleep better at night. I just know that from my point of view, there is simply too much evidence against and absolutely none for the case of religion - any religion.

Oh, and history and majority doesn't make it any more right..... boy.


----------



## maniclion (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> My conclusion is to say fuck it all. I will proclaim my truths, and live my life by my rules. I will try to bend and warp my truths to satisfy my life and bring the most amount of happiness to me and others. If your truths infringe on my truths, I will not yield, but I will fight to change, beat, or circumvent your systems that you have created to make your truths mine.
> 
> And in that you see, that the person with the most power has the most truth.


As long as you live by the Golden Rule then whatever truths you yield from it should be fine with me...


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Fair enough.  You fight to remove our beliefs from the places they reside and we'll fight to keep them there.
> 
> Do keep in mind boy that we've been here longer and there are more of us.



What is the "we", the "us", and the "here" you post of?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> What is the "we", the "us", and the "here" you post of?



We & us = Christians
Here = America


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> We & us = Christians
> Here = America



Actually, the Christians weren't here first. But they killed everybody else, so they get the prize of oldest thriving religion in America.  

Congratulations!


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Actually, the Christians weren't here first. But they killed everybody else, so they get the prize of oldest thriving religion in America.
> 
> Congratulations!



I lol'ed


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Actually, the Christians weren't here first. But they killed everybody else, so they get the prize of oldest thriving religion in America.
> 
> Congratulations!



Actually, that award goes to other native Americans.  They killed each other off.  The oldest religion in the Americas was located in what is now southwest US and Mexico.  I forget the name, but they were killed off by other Indians and drought.

But, all in all, nice job pulling that bit out of your ass.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Actually, that award goes to other native Americans.  They killed each other off.  The oldest religion in the Americas was located in what is now southwest US and Mexico.  I forget the name, but they were killed off by other Indians and drought.
> 
> But, all in all, nice job pulling that bit out of your ass.





Thanks! It was probably one of my better ones today. 


But seriously, you can't deny that the Spanish and the English wiped out damn near every major culture from South America, to New England and they were both Christian.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Thanks! It was probably one of my better ones today.
> 
> 
> But seriously, you can't deny that the Spanish and the English wiped out damn near every major culture from South America, to New England and they were both Christian.



Of course I won't deny that.  But to think that the leaders of either of those countries back then were typical, or even actual, Christians doesn't wash.

I'm not saying that Christians are perfect, I'm just saying they founded this nation.

On a barley related note, it was only the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that allowed the cultures in the Americas to last as long as they did.   Unlike the rest of the world (except sub-Saharan Africa), they weren't making much advancement in technology or society.  If they were in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, they'd have been wiped out long ago.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Thanks! It was probably one of my better ones today.
> 
> 
> But seriously, you can't deny that the Spanish and the English wiped out damn near every major culture from South America, to New England and they were both Christian.



Guys, no one here has ever denied that bad things have happened in the name of God. That every religion has skeletons in the closet, or out of it. This shows only that man is not perfect. It in no way disproves God. 

Why is it so easy to overlook or not recognize the good that is done by the followers of God?


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

Prince said:


> no one can prove there is a god, nor disprove it, *if you believe in god its called faith.*


A blind faith.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

danny81 said:


> A blind faith.



Wow Danny, you made a whole sentence.  Your mother will be proud.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Wow Danny, you made a whole sentence.  Your mother will be proud.





punctuation and everything!


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.
> 
> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.


Can you prove that Santa really exists?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

danny81 said:


> Can you prove that Santa really exists?



First off, I have no faith in Santa.

Secondly, if he really existed, he'd give me your head for Christmas.

I wish he was real.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Guys, no one here has ever denied that bad things have happened in the name of God. That every religion has skeletons in the closet, or out of it. This shows only that man is not perfect. It in no way disproves God.
> 
> Why is it so easy to overlook or not recognize the good that is done by the followers of God?



Hey I'm not holding it against anybody. I'm just saying that if you pull the"we were here first" card, I'll pull the "because you killed everybody else" card. that's more than fair.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

Kids believe in Santa as much as grown ups believe in god.  In the US, kids even write letters to Santa.  Does that mean that Santa really exists?  
Please don't get mad.  I am just trying to debate.


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 26, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Guys, no one here has ever denied that bad things have happened in the name of God. That every religion has skeletons in the closet, or out of it. This shows only that man is not perfect. It in no way disproves God.
> 
> Why is it so easy to overlook or not recognize the good that is done by the followers of God?



What about all the good done by everyone else?
And where exactly are you following God to? the promised land? heaven?
lol


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Of course I won't deny that.  But to think that the leaders of either of those countries back then were typical, or even actual, Christians doesn't wash.



But clearly the founders of the United States were the actual, typical christians. So you can pick and choose who the actual christians are... talk about revisionist history.



DOMS said:


> I'm not saying that Christians are perfect, I'm just saying they founded this nation.



"christians" did found this nation; however, our nation is not founded _on christianity_.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> But clearly the founders of the United States were the actual, typical christians. So you can pick and choose who the actual christians are... talk about revisionist history.



No dumbass.  

History, the non-revisionist shit that you ascribe to, has show that Europeans leaders only played lip service to the faith.    The Founding Fathers showed in many ways that they lived the faith.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> No dumbass.



How jesus-Like Of You.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> "christians" did found this nation; however, our nation is not founded _on christianity_.



Sure, because you won't find any Christian principles anywhere in any of the charter documents.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Sure, because you won't find any Christian principles anywhere in any of the charter documents.



One mention of a non-specific god in the Declaration of Independence is not convincing me, buddy.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> How jesus-Like Of You.



Who said I that I'm an active member of any church?

My point is that Christian principles were used to create the foundation of this country, even if people like you want to say, or revise, otherwise.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> One mention of a non-specific god in the Declaration of Independence is not convincing me, buddy.



Do I look like your teacher?  

See, here you are trying to prove your side of the argument.  A part of which requires me to spoon feed you.

I am sick to death of people that won't do their own research and still believe that they know anything of substance.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Hey I'm not holding it against anybody. I'm just saying that if you pull the"we were here first" card, I'll pull the "because you killed everybody else" card. that's more than fair.


I don't think he was here first.  His name is Ravi.  He is from India.  I am just so surprised to see him teaching white people about their history.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Do I look like your teacher?
> 
> See, here you are trying to prove your side of the argument.  A part of which requires me to spoon feed you.
> 
> I am sick to death of people that won't do their own research and still believe that they know anything of substance.



You are affirmatively arguing that this nation was founded on christianity. So maybe you should prove such a bold claim.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Who said I that I'm an active member of any church?



Why else would you ruthlessly, and some would say ignorantly, defend christianity in about every post that you have made throughout your time as a registered member of ironmagazineforums.com?

And what does being a member of a church have to do with it? Here, I'll come right out and ask: are you a christian? If so, you are doing a real shit job about adhering to the teachings of jesus that you are so adamently defending.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Why else would you ruthlessly, and some would say ignorantly, defend christianity in about every post that you have made throughout your time as a registered member of ironmagazineforums.com?
> 
> And what does being a member of a church have to do with it? Here, I'll come right out and ask: are you a christian? If so, you are doing a real shit job about adhering to the teachings of jesus that you are so adamently defending.


He is a 'Cafeteria Christian.'  He 'cherry picks' the teaching.  He only believes in "going to heaven" part of the teaching and ignores everything else.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Why else would you ruthlessly, and some would say ignorantly, defend christianity in about every post that you have made throughout your time as a registered member of ironmagazineforums.com?
> 
> And what does being a member of a church have to do with it? Here, I'll come right out and ask: are you a christian? If so, you are doing a real shit job about adhering to the teachings of jesus that you are so adamently defending.



Yes, I do a very shit job of it.  I should point out that I'm not defending Jesus, I'm defending the followers.

I generally very nice, but I've become very, very displeased with two aspects that I see in too many people and I've about reached my limit. 

You might be familiar with them:

1.  Having to defend everything I am.  I'm white, so I should feel some sort of crap guilt and not be proud.  I'm male, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  Although I struggle at it, I identify as Christian, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  I'm on my up through the fiscal strata and should feel guilty for working to be wealthy.  But if you're black, female, Muslim, and poor, you should feel proud?  Fuck that, I'm going on the offensive.  I do not sit idly by when someone attacks some aspect of me.  Neither on the Internet or in person.  Those days are fucking gone.

2. People that think they know anything about shit because they heard about it on the _interweb_, the news told them it's the truth, or some talking head spoon feeds them their views.  The same people that get tension headaches from reading books.   I tend to still let this go unless it's something egregiously stupid (this covers your revistionist history) or violates point one.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

danny81 said:


> He is a 'Cafeteria Christian.'  He 'cherry picks' the teaching.  He only believes in "going to heaven" part of the teaching and ignores everything else.



And yet again, here you are talking out of your ass.

You have no idea how often I help people without recompense or even letting them know that I helped.  You have no idea how often I've given of my possessions, even when they were meager.  You have no idea how often I put another's needs in front of my own.

You are a shining example of the points in my previous post.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> 1.  Having to defend everything I am.  I'm white, so I should feel some sort of crap guilt and not be proud.  I'm male, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  Although I struggle at it, I identify as Christian, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  I'm on my up through the fiscal strata and should feel guilty for working to be wealthy.  But if you're black, female, Muslim, and poor, you should feel proud?  Fuck that, I'm going on the offensive.  I do not sit idly by when someone attacks some aspect of me.  Neither on the Internet or in person.  Those days are fucking gone.



 you may want to see a therapist, because I have no clue what you're talking about.






DOMS said:


> 2. People that think they know anything about shit because they heard about it on the _interweb_, the news told them it's the truth, or some talking head spoon feeds them their views.  The same people that get tension headaches from reading books.   I tend to still let this go unless it's something egregiously stupid (this covers your revistionist history) or violates point one.





Claiming something is "revisionist history" is highly ignorant of you. If you have ever studied history, you know that history is constantly being challenged. It is an ever-evolving academic field. Just because new information about the founding of the United States has come to light since you were in high school (I am assuming this is your highest level of education from your posts), does not mean that it is “revisionist.” 

The point is this: historical theories change as new information comes to light. So do some research, and do not brush everything off as being “revisionist.” The Constitution is what our country is founded on, not the Declaration of Independence. Even if it was the other way around, the Declaration of Independence references maybe twice a god or creator. When it does, it says “their Creator,” not “the Creator.” You are going to have to do better than that.

Furthermore, you argue that since the founders were christian, this must mean our nation was founded on christianity. Assuming they were even the “actual, typical” christians that you talk about (which is highly debatable and most likely not the case)… why does this matter? The founders being christian does not equate to our nation being founded on christianity. 

If you have actually read the Constitution, which you probably haven not, you will realize that the founders did not include “god,” “jesus,” “creator,” etc in there. This was not a mistake. Go read the First Amendment. 

And these christian principles that you claim this country is founded on… what are they? Can you even articulate them, or is this just a Conservative catchphrase to use while bitching about Blacks, Muslims, Jews, the homeless, how you pay too much taxes, abortion, etc… that “these were not what our country was founded on.” 

And even if our country was founded on christianity…. What difference does that make? How does that idea make us more moral, when you yourself, a purported christian, are about the biggest asshole ever? You are proof that identifying as a christian in no way makes you moral. From the example you give us, it is more likely a bad thing.  



DOMS said:


> But if you're black, female, Muslim, and poor, you should feel proud?  Fuck that . . .


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Why else would you ruthlessly, and some would say ignorantly, defend christianity in about every post that you have made throughout your time as a registered member of ironmagazineforums.com?
> 
> And what does being a member of a church have to do with it? Here, I'll come right out and ask: are you a christian? If so, you are doing a real shit job about adhering to the teachings of jesus that you are so adamently defending.



*sigh*

Sorry for going off like that.  I've been rubbed the wrong by a good many people out there that my fuse is short.

It is utterly depressing how little people think (not just here in the US, but abroad as well).  I'm not saying that people aren't educated, they're just not thinking for themselves.

I really am tired of catching shit for made up reasons regarding some aspect of who I am (white, Christian, etc.), and it has made be impatient.

In any case, sorry.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 26, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> He is a 'Cafeteria Christian.'  He 'cherry picks' the teaching.  He only believes in "going to heaven" part of the teaching and ignores everything else.



But not you.  I still fucking hate you.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 26, 2009)

DOMS said:


> But not you.  I still fucking hate you.



LOL


----------



## maniclion (Jan 27, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Who said I that I'm an active member of any church?
> 
> My point is that Christian principles were used to create the foundation of this country, even if people like you want to say, or revise, otherwise.


I thought it was more of the Greco-Roman ideas of Democracy that the nation was built upon, if it were based on Christian Principles then why did they want so much to not include any religious pretexts in the Founding Documents, there were a few who fought against mentioning God in those papers.  What was the point of religious freedom if everyone was to follow rules based on Christian Doctrine?


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 27, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> A blind faith.



Here is the problem... .everything around us requires faith.

Science requires faith.... everything.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> Here is the problem... .everything around us requires faith.
> 
> Science requires faith.... everything.



Science does not require _complete faith_, unlike religion. There is at least _some_ evidence science and how the universe works scientifically. Observations, experiments, fossils, theories that are constantly being tested and challenged, scientific principles being applied to produce new technologies that save lives. 

With religion, where is your proof? There is none. It is dependent on _complete faith_.


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 27, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Science does not require _complete faith_, unlike religion. There is at least _some_ evidence science and how the universe works scientifically. Observations, experiments, fossils, theories that are constantly being tested and challenged, scientific principles being applied to produce new technologies that save lives.
> 
> With religion, where is your proof? There is none. It is dependent on _complete faith_.




So now we determine how much faith is required to make things acceptable?


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 27, 2009)

Religion is a beautiful thing, it brings peace and joy.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.
> 
> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.





DOMS said:


> I generally very nice, but I've become very, very displeased with two aspects that I see in too many people and I've about reached my limit.
> 
> You might be familiar with them:
> 
> 1.  Having to defend everything I am.  I'm white, so I should feel some sort of crap guilt and not be proud.  I'm male, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  Although I struggle at it, I identify as Christian, so I should feel guilty and not be proud.  I'm on my up through the fiscal strata and should feel guilty for working to be wealthy.  But if you're black, female, Muslim, and poor, you should feel proud?  Fuck that, I'm going on the offensive.  I do not sit idly by when someone attacks some aspect of me.  Neither on the Internet or in person.  Those days are fucking gone.







DOMS said:


> You can't prove that God exists in the lab.  You can't disprove that God exists in the lab.  That of course make him right.



How do discussions of separation of church and state eventually degrade into proving or disproving god?  I don't think anyone needs to prove who they are or what they believe, and it is irrelevant.  The question is, "Should religion play a part in government?"  I am not religious, and don't think the president has any right to use religious faith in governing the nation, but the wants of a significant portion of the population are based on that, so you can't discount it's significance.  His job is to decide what's best for the country based on the wants of the people, which seems to be moving away from religion.  Now, the OPs question was whether a christian reaction to inclusiveness was wrong.  IMO, it is, get over yourself, it's not the 1700s any more.  But, at the same time, you can't assume this is every Christian's feeling on the subject, nor that every Christian wants every gay person and abortion seeking chick to rot in hell.  They may not believe in it, and you can't force it down their throat, but most Christians I know tend to ignore it.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> So now we determine how much faith is required to make things acceptable?



Science, which can be proven with objective evidence requires no where near the level of "faith" as religion. Where is the evidence of religion being true, that god exists? 

I think you are speaking generally just to appear to sound intelligent, so let me ask you this: what in science do you think requires so much "faith" of the kind that approaches the level of faith required for religion?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 27, 2009)

MWpro said:


> Science, which can be proven with objective evidence requires no where near the level of "faith" as religion. Where is the evidence of religion being true, that god exists?
> 
> I think you are speaking generally just to appear to sound intelligent, so let me ask you this: what in science do you think requires so much "faith" of the kind that approaches the level of aith required for religion?



You need faith that any hard rule happens 100% of the time.  The laws of physics for example.  I don't know that there has never been an instance where they haven't come true, and we have no data for the distant past or future.  Also, there are situations where they don't hold true, typically explainable, but at the same time, they cast doubt.

BTW, I am a science guy.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> You need faith that any hard rule happens 100% of the time.  The laws of physics for example.  I don't know that there has never been an instance where they haven't come true, and we have no data for the distant past or future.  Also, there are situations where they don't hold true, typically explainable, but at the same time, they cast doubt.
> 
> BTW, I am a science guy.



This is the foundation of science. That all we have are our evidence and observations, which becomes theories. Theories are never absolute, they are merely things that have not been disproven yet. 

Science has never said that any of its theories are absolute. It simply says that there is no record of any contradiction of them to date. If they are disproved, scientists will rework their theories, experiment more, and produce better ones *in order to gain a greater understanding of the world.*

Contrast this to religion, which purports to be the absolute rule, to know everything... but without any evidence at all.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Religion is a beautiful thing, it brings peace and joy.



yes, it is also the cause of violence, death, hate, war, etc.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

Prince said:


> yes, it is also the cause of violence, death, hate, war, etc.



Not to mention christian rock


----------



## NeilPearson (Jan 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> This is really quite good. Pretty soon even the people that might want to agree with you won't because they know your posts are pretty much worthless.
> 
> Prove it big boy. prove to me God is made up, prove he is invented.



It's impossible to prove that he is made up... just like you can't prove that I don't have an invisible cat.

You also can't prove he does exist


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

YouTube - 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer
"Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?"


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 27, 2009)

MWpro said:


> YouTube - 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer
> "Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?"



well I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch a you tube video against Christianity I will say this. When Christ instituted the sacrament he explained it pretty clearly. how could there be confusion on this? if you don't accept it that is fine, but questioning an ordinance of remembrance? doesn't make sense to me


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 27, 2009)

MWpro said:


> This is the foundation of science. That all we have are our evidence and observations, which becomes theories. Theories are never absolute, they are merely things that have not been disproven yet.
> 
> Science has never said that any of its theories are absolute. It simply says that there is no record of any contradiction of them to date. If they are disproved, scientists will rework their theories, experiment more, and produce better ones *in order to gain a greater understanding of the world.*
> 
> Contrast this to religion, which purports to be the absolute rule, to know everything... but without any evidence at all.



Exactly god damnit! (excuse the pun)

The point of the scientific theory is that the conclusions are always
*FALSIFIABLE*. See, give and take.
Religion does not have this. How could anyone from the 21st century believe in something that won't give under any circumstance?

We've survived this long because we are highly adaptable, so basing your existence off something that is not adaptable is fallible.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Religion is a beautiful thing, it brings peace and joy.


Don't be so naive.  If entire America is ruled by these Christian Talibans, then we will be no different the Afghanistan.  Look at the attitute of Dom and Ravi (biochem).  Do you really thing there is joy and peace in their heart?  So far, I have only heard them talking about torturing and killing people.  Also look at the Dom's signature.  Wake up my, friend.


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 27, 2009)

Prince said:


> yes, it is also the cause of violence, death, hate, war, etc.







chobby192 said:


> Don't be so naive.  If entire America is ruled by these Christian Talibans, then we will be no different the Afghanistan.  Look at the attitute of Dom and Ravi (biochem).  Do you really thing there is joy and peace in their heart?  So far, I have only heard them talking about torturing and killing people.  Also look at the Dom's signature.  Wake up my, friend.



I was being sarcastic. Anytime religion is brought up there's an argument, so there must be something wrong with it.

I don't belong to any religion.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 27, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Don't be so naive.  If entire America is ruled by these Christian Talibans, then we will be no different the Afghanistan.  Look at the attitute of Dom and Ravi (biochem).  Do you really thing there is joy and peace in their heart?  So far, I have only heard them talking about torturing and killing people.  Also look at the Dom's signature.  Wake up my, friend.



Both DOMS and I are pretty well known on this board. Comparing us to Christian Taliban is kind of funny actually. Funny in a you really are retarded kind of way. another few posts like this and people will know not to take anything you say seriously. thats assuming it hasn't happened already.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 27, 2009)

danny81 said:


> Don't be so naive.  If entire America is ruled by these Christian Talibans, then we will be no different the Afghanistan.  Look at the attitute of Dom and Ravi (biochem).  Do you really thing there is joy and peace in their heart?  So far, I have only heard them talking about torturing and killing people.  Also look at the Dom's signature.  Wake up my, friend.




My signature?  That's from Gore Vidal.  I person a find very humorous.  Look at my location.  Do you really think I like, or want to live, in a van down by the river?  That's a quote from Chris Farely, another very humorous person.

I don't know what third-world country you're from, but I'm willing to be they have the concept of nuance there.  So the problem is all about you, Danny.


----------



## maniclion (Jan 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I was being sarcastic. Anytime religion is brought up there's an argument, so there must be something wrong with it.
> 
> I don't belong to any religion.


There's nothing wrong with religion, it's man that is the problem.  We have waged wars to spread Democracy and to stop the spread of Communism, neither is a religion.  Our problem is our arrogance to think that there can only be one way.  Eventually we will have to learn to solve our differences the way we try to teach our children, or it will all come to an end.....all I ever want is for the religions to extol the positive virtues and leave the petty bickering behind.....


----------



## maxpro2 (Jan 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> well I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch a you tube video against Christianity I will say this. When Christ instituted the sacrament he explained it pretty clearly. how could there be confusion on this? if you don't accept it that is fine, but questioning an ordinance of remembrance? doesn't make sense to me



Give it a whirl, it raises some interesting points for a youtube video.


----------



## busyLivin (Jan 27, 2009)

I think Christianity is a good plan.  I whole-heartedly believe in Jesus as the son of God, but if I'm wrong.. what did I lose?  

I tried to live a moral life, treat people well, and believe I'm more than a random collection of cells.  I think what I do matters, that I'll see lost loved ones again & I don't fear death. I look forward to an afterlife with my family & my God. I care more about others, and more about myself.  

Seems like a good thing to me.. 

Men have distored it in the past, and still do today.. but that doesn't mean the message is bad.

And no Christian claims perfection.. Pointing out flaws or "un-Christian" attributes in a person's character doesn't disqualify them a Christian, it makes them human.  Christians try to live _like_ Christ.. we are not infallable like He is.


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 27, 2009)

I like this shirt.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I was being sarcastic. Anytime religion is brought up there's an argument, *so there must be something wrong with it.*



there is A LOT wrong with it/them (IMO), which is why I stay away from all organized religions.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 27, 2009)

After all these heated discussion, what did we learn from this topic?
Does god exist?
Yes, but it is only an image that exists in the peoples' imagination.

How did it exist?
It was created by human mind.

Can you prove that god doesn't exist?  
The fact that it doesn't exist is the proof that it doesn't exist.

Can christians prove that god exists?
No, you can't give physical proof of things that only exist in peoples' imagination.

Why do christians believe in god?
They are presured to believe in god by using tactics like: "If you don't believe in god you will go to hell.  If you believe in god, you will go to heaven."

How about all those teaching of god?
Those teaching were made up by some one to give desperate people of the time to give a false hope.

How come so many people still believe in god today?
Lies have  already been repeated thousand times.  Now it has become the truth for them.

Why can't they leave christianity?
 They were told they will go to hell if they do.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 27, 2009)

never say never.


----------



## busyLivin (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> After all these heated discussion, what did we learn from this topic?
> Does god exist?
> Yes, but it is only an image that exists in the peoples' imagination.
> 
> ...



You forgot one.

Does Chobby know everything?
No, despite speaking as an authority over life, he knows nothing of it's origin and existence.  His glaring anti-Christian bias gives him no objective view of religion and therefore renders all opinions useless, uninteresting and a time consuming waste.  He watched Bill Maher a few too many times & now reiterates his garbage... discarding what Christians say in favor of more shocking & hateful bites (see above list), truth be damned.


----------



## Little Wing (Jan 28, 2009)

maybe god doesn't even have to be true to be real. even if it's only an idea an ideal a collection of stories meant to lend comfort, guide...  aren't people better off with something to believe in?


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 28, 2009)

Little Wing said:


> maybe god doesn't even have to be true to be real. even if it's only an idea an ideal a collection of stories meant to lend comfort, guide...  aren't people better off with something to believe in?



Not when they use it as an excuse to slaughter people with a 
different crutch, i mean belief system.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> Not when they use it as an excuse to slaughter people with a
> different crutch, i mean belief system.



What do you care?  You can do it with your baseless life.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> I don't know what third-world country you're from, but I'm willing to be they have the concept of nuance there


Don't look down on third world, chobby hater.  The idea of first world and third world is made up by rich countries to make themselves feel superior.   There is a first world because there is third world.  If there wasn't a third world, then there wouldn't be a first world.  So, existent of first world depends on the existent to third world.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Don't look down on third world, chobby hater.  The idea of first world and third world is made up by rich countries to make themselves feel superior.   There is a first world because there is third world.  If there wasn't a third world, then there wouldn't be a first world.  So, existent of first world depends on the existent to third world.



Here again you show just how stupid you really are.

The term was phrased along with "second world" and "third world".  It was created during the cold war.  First-world countries were those aligned with the US, such as the UK, the French, etc. (countries that are now referred to as "The West", mainly).  Second world countries were those aligned with the Soviet Union.  Third world countries were those aligned with neither. 

It had nothing to do with money, moron.  It had to do with what side of the Cold War you were on.

For the sake of this back-and-forth, I'll say "sure" to "If there wasn't a third world, then there wouldn't be a first world."   That doesn't preclude most third world countries from being absolute shit.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Don't look down on third world, chobby hater.  The idea of first world and third world is made up by rich countries to make themselves feel superior.   There is a first world because there is third world.  If there wasn't a third world, then there wouldn't be a first world.  So, existent of first world depends on the existent to third world.



UM...............you really are retarded. 

Have you ever been to a third world country? Have you ever been out of your home state? If you spend more than 20 minutes in a 3rd world country you will know why there is a distinction. This isn't about semantics. This is just black and white. scratch that you will turn that into something racist and stupid even though it wasn't intended that way. the difference between 1st world and 3rd world is the difference between day and night.

and rich people never invented it to feel superior. do you know how much aid we send to 3rd world countries?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Have you ever been to a third world country?



He's from a third-world country.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> He's from a third-world country.





how did i not realize this?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> how did i not realize this?




He's quite likely from China.  He's also as likely to be living here in the US illegally.  I first ran across him in a thread where I was bashing illegal Mexicans (my favorite hobby...chobby?...Chinese hobby?...but I digress), and he stuck up for the illegals rather passionately.

So he's living here illegally while talking smack about the west.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> Here again you show just how stupid you really are.
> 
> The term was phrased along with "second world" and "third world".  It was created during the cold war.  First-world countries were those aligned with the US, such as the UK, the French, etc. (countries that are now referred to as "The West", mainly).  Second world countries were those aligned with the Soviet Union.  Third world countries were those aligned with neither.
> 
> ...


Fact still remains.


----------



## brogers (Jan 28, 2009)

Mao and Stalin didn't need any religion to justify their slaughter of ~50 million people--the two biggest mass murderers in history.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> UM...............you really are retarded.
> 
> Have you ever been to a third world country? Have you ever been out of your home state? If you spend more than 20 minutes in a 3rd world country you will know why there is a distinction. This isn't about semantics. This is just black and white. scratch that you will turn that into something racist and stupid even though it wasn't intended that way. the difference between 1st world and 3rd world is the difference between day and night.
> 
> and rich people never invented it to feel superior. do you know how much aid we send to 3rd world countries?


So, aren't you from third world?  Your name is Ravi.  that is Hindu name.  So I am asumming you are from India eventhough you are pretending to be a white man.


----------



## Yanick (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Don't look down on third world, chobby hater.  The idea of first world and third world is made up by rich countries to make themselves feel superior.   There is a first world because there is third world.  If there wasn't a third world, then there wouldn't be a first world.  So, existent of first world depends on the existent to third world.



Dude, you made some decent points before. I didn't look at your posts as stupid but you just changed all that, from my perspective at least. This was the dumbest post ever. It doesn't matter what you call it, 3rd world or shit hole. The fact of the matter is that 1st world countries are better in every way. I don't see or hear of people risking their lives' to get into fucking Nigeria. We don't need to make up shit to feel superior, we are superior, thats a fact.

And your whole 1st world wouldn't exist if there was no third world, while a valid argument is completely fucking stupid and offers nothing resembling an original thought. Duality brings forth existence of many things, without dark there is no light, without man there is no woman, without evil there is no good etc. What'd you just finish freshman philosophy?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> Fact still remains.



What "fact still remains"?  What are you babbling about?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

Yanick said:


> I don't see or hear of people risking their lives' to get into fucking Nigeria. We don't need to make up shit to feel superior, we are superior, thats a fact.





I almost spit Diet Pepsi all over my desk!  I have never, ever, heard anyone put it like that before!

The closest was from Tony Blair.  He was asked if he though that America was great, to which he responded that there is nothing more conclusive of a country's greatness than the number of people trying to get in and those trying to get out.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> So, aren't you from third world?  Your name is Ravi.  that is Hindu name.  So I am asumming you are from India eventhough you are pretending to be a white man.



What the hell are you talking about? RAVI? I was born in Richland, WA. I'm as white as anyone on this board. I've lived for a couple of years in the Philippines so that is my experience with the 3rd world.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> What "fact still remains"?  What are you babbling about?



are you really asking for more babbling? WTF? stop that! Bad DOMS! BAD, BAD!


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> What do you care?  You can do it with your baseless life.



Why is my life baseless? I believe in God.
I just don't need other humans telling me why, how and what I should do
to show that I believe in God.

If you truly believe in him and want to be a good person, that's all there is to it.

People like you really need to trip some shrooms or something.
Get a different perspective than the brain-washed typical everyday point of view.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> Why is my life baseless? I believe in God.
> I just don't need other humans telling me why, how and what I should do
> to show that I believe in God.
> 
> ...



So, who exactly is your god?

"brain-washed typical everyday point of view"?    You haven't been here long enough to know jack about shit.  I can't be pigeon-holed.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> are you really asking for more babbling? WTF? stop that! Bad DOMS! BAD, BAD!



It's free entertainment.


----------



## Yanick (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> I almost spit Diet Pepsi all over my desk!  I have never, ever, heard anyone put it like that before!
> 
> The closest was from Tony Blair.  He was asked if he though that America was great, to which he responded that there is nothing more conclusive of a country's greatness than the number of people trying to get in and those trying to get out.



Haha, yeah thats actually my adaptation of the Tony Blair statement.


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> So, who exactly is your god?
> 
> "brain-washed typical everyday point of view"?    You haven't been here long enough to know jack about shit.  I can't be pigeon-holed.



What's wrong with me collecting evidence just from this thread?
Unless you are quite bi-polar, then there is no reason I can't take
the collective posts you have made in this thread and form an opinion about you.

And what does that mean, who is my God?

It doesn't matter who you think God is, or what some religion thinks God is, or what the man down the street thinks.
God is God. Maybe he has a face, maybe not.
But I have a personal relationship with whatever he is, and that is good enough for me.
I don't need the semantics or all these fictional works from people who died hundreds or thousands of years ago.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha

(disclaimer: and no i'm not fucking buddhist  )


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

Yanick said:


> Dude, you made some decent points before. I didn't look at your posts as stupid but you just changed all that, from my perspective at least. This was the dumbest post ever. It doesn't matter what you call it, 3rd world or shit hole. The fact of the matter is that 1st world countries are better in every way. I don't see or hear of people risking their lives' to get into fucking Nigeria. We don't need to make up shit to feel superior, we are superior, thats a fact.
> 
> And your whole 1st world wouldn't exist if there was no third world, while a valid argument is completely fucking stupid and offers nothing resembling an original thought. Duality brings forth existence of many things, without dark there is no light, without man there is no woman, without evil there is no good etc. What'd you just finish freshman philosophy?


I wasn't saying the third world is better than the first world.  I was just saying that in order to first world to become the first world, there has to  be third world.  If there is no third world, then there is only 'the world or rich world or poor world.'  You already answered your question on your last paragraph.


----------



## Yanick (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> I wasn't saying the third world is better than the first world.  I was just saying that in order to first world to become the first world, there has to  be third world.  If there is no third world, then there is only 'the world or rich world or poor world.'  You already answered your question on your last paragraph.



You completely missed my point.

My point was that your post has no point...it was just a bunch of rhetoric that really went nowhere. Hence my 'freshman philosophy' statement at the end (which is where i learned about duality and thought i was a genius too...ah its interesting that the more i learn the more i understand that i don't know anything).


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> What the hell are you talking about? RAVI? I was born in Richland, WA. I'm as white as anyone on this board. I've lived for a couple of years in the Philippines so that is my experience with the 3rd world.


Not everyone born in the US is white race.  You are an american born Indian pretending to be a white man.  I am so surprised to see you insulting your own home country, India.


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> He's from a third-world country.


You will never know, and I love to keep that 'question mark' hanging on your head.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

PainandGain said:


> What's wrong with me collecting evidence just from this thread?
> Unless you are quite bi-polar, then there is no reason I can't take
> the collective posts you have made in this thread and form an opinion about you.



That's a lot like look at the only the 4th digits and saying that you know all of them.

Well then, based on the fact that I've only seen you in the form of text, you're obviously only a poor candidate for the Turning Test.



PainandGain said:


> And what does that mean, who is my God?
> 
> It doesn't matter who you think God is, or what some religion thinks God is, or what the man down the street thinks.
> God is God. Maybe he has a face, maybe not.
> ...



Ah, new age crap.  I get it now.



PainandGain said:


> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha
> 
> (disclaimer: and no i'm not fucking buddhist  )



And what _exactly_ is wrong with Buddhists?


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

Yanick said:


> You completely missed my point.
> 
> My point was that your post has no point...it was just a bunch of rhetoric that really went nowhere. Hence my 'freshman philosophy' statement at the end (which is where i learned about duality and thought i was a genius too...ah its interesting that the more i learn the more i understand that i don't know anything).


I wasn't talking about the country itself.  I was talking about the label called, 'first world and third world.'  I hope you got my point.


----------



## Yanick (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> I wasn't talking about the country itself.  I was talking about the label called, 'first world and third world.'  I hope you got my point.



Not only did DOMS refute your point literally...I refuted based on the fact that we don't need to make ourselves feel better...we are better, that in and of itself makes us (or at least me) feel great.

I'll clarify since you'll probably say something asinine which will make me hate you instead think of you as stupid.

We don't need to make up labels to feel better about ourselves. The rest of the world lets us know everyday how great we are. The fact that people risk their, and their family's, lives to get here is proof enough.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> You will never know, and I love to keep that 'question mark' hanging on your head.



No...really...what the *fuck* are you babbling about?  Question mark?

Sorry, I don't speak the freaky "third world."


----------



## PainandGain (Jan 28, 2009)

DOMS said:


> That's a lot like look at the only the 4th digits and saying that you know all of them.
> 
> Well then, based on the fact that I've only seen you in the form of text, you're obviously only a poor candidate for the Turning Test.
> 
> ...



Firstly, nothing is wrong with Buddhists, it's just that people seem to be jumping to so many conclusions and I quoted the Buddha so I had to put that disclaimer.

I'm not familiar with the "Turning Test", perhaps you meant Turing?
Anyway...
Hah, that's funny, all you say is "New age crap"?
Really, that's the best you could come up with?

And what exactly is wrong with forward thinking?
What is wrong with using logic vs. mysticism?
We have evolved this high level of intellect for a reason, and yet you still want to rely on out-dated literature from thousands of years ago?

All the scriptures and what-not are just Man's petty attempt at
rationalizing their reality.

Why do you have to do good only because you think God wants you to?
Can't you just do good for the sake of it?


----------



## Chubby (Jan 28, 2009)

Yanick said:


> You completely missed my point.
> Hence my 'freshman philosophy' statement at the end (which is where i learned about duality and thought i was a genius too...ah its interesting that the more i learn the more i understand that i don't know anything).


If you understood nothing by studying more, then may be you are not the 'genius' you thought you were.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> If you understood nothing by studying more, then may be you are not the 'genius' you thought you were.



so what is it your currently smoking? or is this pills? no one can possibly be this stupid with out chemical help..


----------



## Yanick (Jan 28, 2009)

I really, truly, with all my heart, hope its a language barrier.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 28, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> If you understood nothing by studying more, then may be you are not the 'genius' you thought you were.



Sorry, I have to recant my earlier statement.
I do not like you... I agree with Yanick, I hope it's a language barrier...


----------

