The Defecit!

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
So the Roman Crusades werent about religion? or the isrealites and the egyptions? or hitler meglomaniacal acts werent? or how about the crusades of Count Orlok (you may know him as Count Dracula)? And then we get to our President who did reference god for a reason we went to Iraq... I guess all of these people could be "FANATICS" or even better radicalists...
ABOUT religion as believed by religious fanatics or called for by the teachings of Jesus and his disciples? if you can show me anywhere in the Bible where it calls for anyone to make war on God's behalf, I'll agree with you, but you won't find that anywhere in the Bible. in fact, the Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". the Bible does not call on any man to pass God's judgement, so you're not right here.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
as far as the origin of this thread taxing the churches is a great idea, and has nothing to do with separation of church and state... separation of church and state means that a government establishment will not show a preference to one religion over another, so if there was a blanket effect and ALL religions were taxed it may work...
the amendment, or at least the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amendment, basically says that government will not be ruled by religion and religion will not be ruled by government. so yes, it has everything to do with the separation of church and state.
I don't know if it was you or another poster referring to what George Bush said about God leading him into Iraq. personally, I couldn't care what Bush says, and such a moronic statement isn't an indictment of God or religion, it's an indictment on Bush's own stupidity. the Bible is the word of God, and nowhere in there does it say that Bush should go to war, even against a religion that is not Christianity. that statement reminds me of the bit that Sam Kinnison did when Pat Buchanan said that God told him to run for president. Kinnison said "after Buchanan got 1% of the popular vote, wonder if God told him what a jackass he was for taking that advice? wonder if God told Buchanan that he was just kidding?" lmao, pretty similar scenario. wonder if God has now told Bush that he was joking about going into Iraq?

 

[ruaround]

but I am not limiting religion to only the beliefs of the bible, you might be suprised that there are other beliefs... religion is the belief of the practices, values and teachings of a spiritual leader... or the belief in a supernatural power/governing being...

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
why don't you go back and read this thread from the beginning and see that YOU were the one that started the unnecessary badmouthing which such statements as "backward logic", etc. that's because you know you're wrong and losing the argument that you had to resort to such tripe. and I'm sure you're to narrow minded to even see that you started the mudslinging. that's why I said I was done reading what you post. btw, the above quoted sentence was the last thing I read by you, so if you continue posting to make a point to me, don't waste anymore of your time.
Well, you're right about that, I did say it was backward logic. If you remember what that was about, it was after you quoted a point and claimed it was my logic, when in actuality it was you who had been trying to make that point or distinction. You were quoting this point insinuating it was bad logic to begin with, forgetting it was your own. I was just agreeing with you that it was indeed bad logic and I asked you to please not to pass it off on me. I don't feel like repeating it again because I already have to keep reminding you of what you said, and of what I didn't say. You don't follow the conversation very well. And trust me, I do know that it's a waste of time trying to explain any point to you because you don't really pay attention. Repeatedly saying "I'm right, I'm right, and I'll always be right" doesn't make it so. Try paying attention to people, pay enough attention to the point that you actually understand what they are saying, that might help you in the logic department, as well as open up your mind a bit. I actually listened to your point every time you said it, I even had to remind you of what you said when you forgot and blamed the logic on me. To be honest, I don't really care who started the mudslinging, and I'm certainly not offended by your ignorance. If you are truly done conversing with me as you keep on saying then why do you keep responding and addressing me? By the way, addressing me as "someone who said something earlier" is still addressing me. Somehow I really don't believe you when you say you're done reading my posts, because somehow I'm certain that you have now worked your way through this entire post.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
but I am not limiting religion to only the beliefs of the bible, you might be suprised that there are other beliefs... religion is the belief of the practices, values and teachings of a spiritual leader... or the belief in a supernatural power/governing being...
Christianity is the Holy Trinity and the word, nothing else, not a preacher, not a president, nothing else. and none of these things that you attribute to Christianity, such as the crusades, were ordered by God.
I'm speaking for Christianity, as I am not Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or any other religion. if somebody of one of those faiths wants to come over and pick up the argument, fine. but you specifically mentioned something that you attributed to Christianity, and the people that tortured "witches" and such, they were fanatics and not sanctioned by God to do these things.

 

[dogstar]

"" such a moronic statement ""
Easy, I debated you for a while and never called you names. You could show some respect if you able too. Every one should be able to post their thoughts freely here without being called names.

 

[ruaround]

Pontius if I am understanding you what you are saying is that religion has its freedom from the government... so if a religion has a belief that paligamy, bigamy, robbery or murder/sacrafice is okay then the government cant step in?
what the separation says is it will not show favoritism and all religions are equal from a governments point of view...

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
Well, you're right about that, I did say it was backward logic. If you remember what that was about, it was after you quoted a point and claimed it was my logic, when in actuality it was you who had been trying to make that point or distinction. You were quoting this point insinuating it was bad logic to begin with, forgetting it was your own. I was just agreeing with you that it was indeed bad logic and I asked you to please not to pass it off on me. I don't feel like repeating it again because I already have to keep reminding you of what you said, and of what I didn't say. You don't follow the conversation very well. And trust me, I do know that it's a waste of time trying to explain any point to you because you don't really pay attention. Repeatedly saying "I'm right, I'm right, and I'll always be right" doesn't make it so. Try paying attention to people, pay enough attention to the point that you actually understand what they are saying, that might help you in the logic department, as well as open up your mind a bit. I actually listened to your point every time you said it, I even had to remind you of what you said when you forgot and blamed the logic on me. To be honest, I don't really care who started the mudslinging, and I'm certainly not offended by your ignorance. If you are truly done conversing with me as you keep on saying then why do you keep responding and addressing me? By the way, addressing me as "someone who said something earlier" is still addressing me. Somehow I really don't believe you when you say you're done reading my posts, because somehow I'm certain that you have now worked your way through this entire post.
see, here you go again. I got about halfway through reading this post before you started with the insults again. how dare you attempt to insult my intelligence by saying "you're not following this conversation well"??? between me and you, I'm the ONLY one that's using the right logic. I say apply the first amendment in ALL cases....YOU want to pick and choose how it's applied, and that's why you're wrong. you started all the childish remarks, and if you can't tone it down, the conversation between me and you is over.

 

[ruaround]

I forsee a lock or a deletion coming soon... there is no need for name calling... simply debate your points and move on... Cant we all just get along???

 

[ruaround]

a crusade is any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See Synonyms at campaign.
The Crusades were ordered by the Popes or Religious leaders of the time...

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
Pontius if I am understanding you what you are saying is that religion has its freedom from the government... so if a religion has a belief that paligamy, bigamy, robbery or murder/sacrafice is okay then the government cant step in?
what the separation says is it will not show favoritism and all religions are equal from a governments point of view...
ruaround, the Bible doesn't say that the church should not be taxed, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st amendment does. the Bible says that while on earth, man must accept the rule of law, but the rule of law says that the government does not have a right to tax the church.
as far as the examples you give above...first, murder/sacrifice, of course this should not be accepted by government. and again, the Bible says for man to accept the rule of law. Christianity isn't concerned with paligamy and bigamy, so you'd have to ask a Mormon. but again, in my opinion, the law should not be changed to support this.
but liberal groups have used the Supreme Court to make sure that there is a complete separation of church and state, and thus, they have no right to tax the church. if you don't agree, fine.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by ruaround
I forsee a lock or a deletion coming soon... there is no need for name calling... simply debate your points and move on... Cant we all just get along???
Yeah, you're definately right. And I also foresee myself being banned from this site for egging this poor guy on. My apologies to all who I've offended. I'll just spectate from my soon to be non-participating banned status.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
a crusade is any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See Synonyms at campaign.
The Crusades were ordered by the Popes or Religious leaders of the time...
again, the words "religious leaders", "Pope", and "Christianity" are not interchangeable terms. my religious faith is in God, not the Pope or any other religious leader. God did not ask for these people to crusade on his behalf.
as far as the locking of this thread, it really should be. but jones started with the insults and namecalling about 3 days ago and it hasn't been closed yet. that's why I've said I'm done with discussing this with him if he can't tone it down.

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by Pontius
ruaround, the Bible doesn't say that the church should not be taxed, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st amendment does. the Bible says that while on earth, man must accept the rule of law, but the rule of law says that the government does not have a right to tax the church.
as far as the examples you give above...first, murder/sacrifice, of course this should not be accepted by government. and again, the Bible says for man to accept the rule of law. Christianity isn't concerned with paligamy and bigamy, so you'd have to ask a Mormon. but again, in my opinion, the law should not be changed to support this.
but liberal groups have used the Supreme Court to make sure that there is a complete separation of church and state, and thus, they have no right to tax the church. if you don't agree, fine.
solid points, and especially the last setence... it may never happen but it is an excellent idea, and laws have changed due to being out dated...

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
Yeah, you're definately right. And I also foresee myself being banned from this site for egging this poor guy on. My apologies to all who I've offended. I'll just spectate from my soon to be non-participating banned status.
you're continuing to offend.
define "this poor guy"? don't assume the position to look down on me as "this poor guy". if you want to compare education, or wealth, or however else you define "poor", let me know.
you can disagree, but taking the tone you've taken for the past two days up to and including your last post isn't necessary.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
you're continuing to offend.
define "this poor guy"? don't assume the position to look down on me as "this poor guy". if you want to compare education, or wealth, or however else you define "poor", let me know.
Oh my...I honestly meant that with no offense. I meant "poor guy" as the guy I kept egging on is all. But now im convinced youreally are a total loon.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
solid points, and especially the last setence... it may never happen but it is an excellent idea, and laws have changed due to being out dated...

until someone replaces the "religious right" as the biggest voting block in the US, this will never change. and since analysts are saying that Hispanics will be the majority by 2050, this definitely won't change since Hispanics are generally more religious than other Americans.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
Oh my...I honestly meant that with no offense. I meant "poor guy" as the guy I kept egging on is all. But now im convinced youreally are a total loon.
well since you obviously have the authority to make such a claim, with your vast reservoir of intelligence (pun is definitely intended here), you must be right.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
well since you obviously have the authority to make such a claim, with your vast reservoir of intelligence (pun is definitely intended here), you must be right.
That's not even close to a pun. Go do yourself some learnin.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
That's not even close to a pun. Go do yourself some learnin.
yeah, you're right here. let me correct it to say that referring to you and "intelligence" in the same sentence is an "oxymoron". and referring to you and oxymoron in the same sentence is an intended pun. does that make you feel better?