Perversion of Liberty

[maxwell's demon]

So in Revelations when it says anyone who takes away or adds anything to this book is cursed and damned...there are...many interpretations of that statement.

Sorry, but it's sounds very clear to me, even if people want to attempt to squirm out of it's clarity.

i can give you some q-tips then. er..for you eyes...or something.

what's the q-tip version for eyeballs? damn.


(because , see, no one is adding or taking anything away, are they? the words are all still there on the page, right? except, of course, when you consider all the church elders over the genreations who DID take stuff away and put other stuff in, physically reinterpreting passages over and over again..them, yeah, maybe they're someplace awful. )

 

[Daisy]

only during office hours

Simply by wearing their required religious garb is not imposing their beliefs on others, it is their free exercise of their religious beliefs.

They can't possibly be employed by the governement as it would prevent them from abiding by their religious tenets.

You're then discriminating against devout Muslims, Sikh, Orthodox and some Conservative Jews, some Hindu, some Native Americans... and probably others.

To me, that's sending a message in direct opposition to the idea of personal liberty the country was founded upon.

This is exactly why some religious people get frightened of secularization, because they fear it will infringe on their personal liberties.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

i can give you some q-tips then. er..for you eyes...or something.

what's the q-tip version for eyeballs? damn.


(because , see, no one is adding or taking anything away, are they? the words are all still there on the page, right? except, of course, when you consider all the church elders over the genreations who DID take stuff away and put other stuff in, physically reinterpreting passages over and over again..them, yeah, maybe they're someplace awful. )

You're misunderstanding my point.
I'm not concerned with who has heeded that warning/threat and who hasn't, nor with whether or not a myriad of different interpretations constitutes "taking away" or "adding" to the book (it could mean words, it could mean concepts, etc.)

I'm saying that,...people act like the Bible in it's entirety is "up for interpretation", but horse-feathers.
It makes TONS of black+white, this-or-that, very concrete statements.

It doesn't say "Thou shalt not steal...unless you're really poor and you were sexually abused so you ran away from home and just stole a loaf of bread to survive 'cause no one will hire you."

It says "THOU. SHALT. NOT. STEAL."
The Biblical God was not f***ing around.

He KILLED little kids just for making fun of one of his prophets!
He made one of his right-hand men die in misery and disappointment because he hit a stone with a STICK!"

What you get now is the mamby-pamby kind of Christianity where YOU are your own God.
If you agree that lying is wrong, then you agree with the Bible when it says such. But it's almost invariably because you, personally have no prob with lying. It demands no sacrifice (you know, "taking up your CROSS?) on your part.

But when it says you can't have sex with your girlfriend, well...suddenly, hmmm...a lot of different interpretations of those verses spring to mind...allasudden.

 

[Emrys]

Simply by wearing their required religious garb is not imposing their beliefs on others, it is their free exercise of their religious beliefs.

They can't possibly be employed by the governement as it would prevent them from abiding by their religious tenets.

You're then discriminating against devout Muslims, Sikh, Orthodox and some Conservative Jews, some Hindu, some Native Americans... and probably others.

To me, that's sending a message in direct opposition to the idea of personal liberty the country was founded upon.

This is exactly why some religious people get frightened of secularization, because they fear it will infringe on their personal liberties.

Jepp because it is so unreasonable to demand that maybe you try not to send a message that this is a christians only, hindu only, muslim only etc government.. No one is denying them their right to their religion just that you don't display it while you're representing an institution that is called to be fair, impartial and balanced. i feel intimidated by a court that dsiplays the ten commandments I feel like this is a court that will not aknowledge me the same rights because I'm not christian. I feel intimidated by a judge wearing a burqua and I don't think she will make a fair and balanced judgement. In essence if I get a singnal that tells me that maybe these people don't leave their ideologies at home when they have business with me I will not trust them one iota.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I condemn thee to Eternal Torment and separation from God, because you keep saying "Jepp".

 

[lazur]

Nope I'm just someone who has developed a deep seated hatred for Islam and Christianity because of all the **** their believers are doing.

I also have developed a deep seated hatred for God after reading the Bible and the Quran because some of his rules and laws are idiotic and unreasonable.

To me God hates humanity and therefore as a human I hate God.

I wonder if God has someone reading message boards for him. For your sake, I hope not!

 

[Emrys]

I condemn thee to Eternal Torment and separation from God, because you keep saying "Jepp".

thank you, that's the most beautiful present you could have given me

 

[Emrys]

I wonder if God has someone reading message boards for him. For your sake, I hope not!

I hope he does!!! hear me god I HATE you with all my heart

besides I say it loud at least 6 times a day so he knows.

 

[Daisy]

oh if just more would follow your train of though but all I see when turning my eyes to the middle east or the US are theOsamas, Buchannans and Robertsons. Why the devil isn't the extreme put into their place by the majority can you answer me that?

if the extreme is the minorty how can something like the marriage amendment ban be existing?

I did explain it earlier.

Because it's the Osamas, the Buchannans and the Robertsons who get the lion's share of the media coverage. How interesting is it to watch Mrs. Fred Smith get up in the morning, get her family ready for the day, drop her kids off at school, run errands, pick up the youngest from kindergarten, go to the grocery, go home, unload kid, groceries and other items, set kid with video while she cleans up, are you still reading, get kid back in car, pick up other kids, really you haven't fallen asleep yet, take them to soccer practice, go home, get dinner, clean up after dinner while helping kids with homework, get little one off to bed, settle argument between older ones about what to watch on TV, pay a few bills, get older kids to bed, discuss weekend plans with husband, seriously are you still here, get ready for bed, maybe have quick obligatory sex with husband if he hasn't fallen asleep in the recliner in front of the TV downstairs, fall asleep, did you really read all of this, then get up and do it all over again...

Some of it is reactionary... they see the same media coverage you do and hear the 'fringe' groups talking about how the 'far left' is 'threatening their way of life'. It's also a misunderstanding... surrounding the M-word. If you ask most of the same people if they're in favor of "Civil Unions" where gay people are given the same rights as married people, they're okay with it. They associate 'marriage', however, with the church and are afraid they will be forced to allow gays to marry in their church. It's not particularly logical, but that's pretty much why. Their afraid their free exercise is being chipped away.

Many of the votes have been close. I suggest you'll see the tide changing in the next 5-10 years, and even some of the places that added amendments to their state constitutions will begin to repeal them.

 

[War Lord]

That is perverted alright.

"I personally feel that the answer for the poor is Jesus Christ."

Yes well, praying doesnt make meny grow on trees, you idiot.

Perhaps, but most poverty in the Western sphere is a consequence of bad decisions people make in life.

If you can teach them to make better decisions, you can do more to help the poor than anything else.

 

[maxwell's demon]

You're misunderstanding my point.
I'm not concerned with who has heeded that warning/threat and who hasn't, nor with whether or not a myriad of different interpretations constitutes "taking away" or "adding" to the book (it could mean words, it could mean concepts, etc.)

I'm saying that,...people act like the Bible in it's entirety is "up for interpretation", but horse-feathers.
It makes TONS of black+white, this-or-that, very concrete statements.

It doesn't say "Thou shalt not steal...unless you're really poor and you were sexually abused so you ran away from home and just stole a loaf of bread to survive 'cause no one will hire you."

It says "THOU. SHALT. NOT. STEAL."
The Biblical God was not f***ing around.

He KILLED little kids just for making fun of one of his prophets!
He made one of his right-hand men die in misery and disappointment because he hit a stone with a STICK!"

What you get now is the mamby-pamby kind of Christianity where YOU are your own God.
If you agree that lying is wrong, then you agree with the Bible when it says such. But it's almost invariably because you, personally have no prob with lying. It demands no sacrifice (you know, "taking up your CROSS?) on your part.

But when it says you can't have sex with your girlfriend, well...suddenly, hmmm...a lot of different interpretations of those verses spring to mind...allasudden.

Wil, Wil, Wil i didn't miss your point at all. i jsut disagree with you.


and i've always called you out on it. truth is, the "bible" "passages" you're "quoting" or referencing has already BEEN interpreted and reinterpreted about 12 times. across at least 5 different languages in most cases. and it gets reitnerpreted EVERY time someone picks it up and reads it.


a friend of mine did this thing once- he took the Abe Lincoln "4 score and seven" speech and sent it thorugh an translater program, through a few differnt languages.

it came back GIBBERISH.

now true, it was a comptuer translater, but even so, the point is- whenever you have people translating things from language to langauge, often across decades, even centuries, thigns are bound to lose some of thier original meaning and context. thats why i said that thing yesterday:

"such is the problem with language at times. the vernaculars of the olden days fade away so that, in the later ages, people study only the bones of the words left behind, unaware that they used to be alive and moving."

but hey- feel free to believe the hard-edged binary version, if you want.
me, i figure this. if god is real, nad he is a creative force, then hey- i'll bet he's probably a creative WRITER too. which means he'd be using a lot of the smae tools writers today use. allusion, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. and not JUST in the "parables" or what have you.

but again, you want to think the bible is a factual RECORD of the times, and nothign more? go ahead. i just hope no one 2,000 years from now looks back and thinks people at the end of the second millenium kept this "record" of humanity called "Highway to Heaven"...or worse...."Three's Company".

 

[lazur]

I did explain it earlier.

Because it's the Osamas, the Buchannans and the Robertsons who get the lion's share of the media coverage. How interesting is it to watch Mrs. Fred Smith get up in the morning, get her family ready for the day, drop her kids off at school, run errands, pick up the youngest from kindergarten, go to the grocery, go home, unload kid, groceries and other items, set kid with video while she cleans up, are you still reading, get kid back in car, pick up other kids, really you haven't fallen asleep yet, take them to soccer practice, go home, get dinner, clean up after dinner while helping kids with homework, get little one off to bed, settle argument between older ones about what to watch on TV, pay a few bills, get older kids to bed, discuss weekend plans with husband, seriously are you still here, get ready for bed, maybe have quick obligatory sex with husband if he hasn't fallen asleep in the recliner in front of the TV downstairs, fall asleep, did you really read all of this, then get up and do it all over again...

Some of it is reactionary... they see the same media coverage you do and hear the 'fringe' groups talking about how the 'far left' is 'threatening their way of life'. It's also a misunderstanding... surrounding the M-word. If you ask most of the same people if they're in favor of "Civil Unions" where gay people are given the same rights as married people, they're okay with it. They associate 'marriage', however, with the church and are afraid they will be forced to allow gays to marry in their church. It's not particularly logical, but that's pretty much why. Their afraid their free exercise is being chipped away.

Many of the votes have been close. I suggest you'll see the tide changing in the next 5-10 years, and even some of the places that added amendments to their state constitutions will begin to repeal them.

OMG Daisy, I think I'm in love!

 

[Daisy]

Jepp because it is so unreasonable to demand that maybe you try not to send a message that this is a christians only, hindu only, muslim only etc government.. No one is denying them their right to their religion just that you don't display it while you're representing an institution that is called to be fair, impartial and balanced. i feel intimidated by a court that dsiplays the ten commandments I feel like this is a court that will not aknowledge me the same rights because I'm not christian. I feel intimidated by a judge wearing a burqua and I don't think she will make a fair and balanced judgement. In essence if I get a singnal that tells me that maybe these people don't leave their ideologies at home when they have business with me I will not trust them one iota.

So instead we send the message that this is an atheist (as much an ideology as the others) government. I feel intimdated by that.

I don't, however, feel intimidated by a government that shows that it tolerates a variety of viewpoints.

 

[maxwell's demon]

I condemn thee to Eternal Torment and separation from God, because you keep saying "Jepp".

damn, i've been away so long i actually thought jepp was someone's nickname.

emrys=

 

[Emrys]

So instead we send the message that this is an atheist (as much an ideology as the others) government. I feel intimdated by that.

I don't, however, feel intimidated by a government that shows that it tolerates a variety of viewpoints.

Not atheist secularist, that's the difference.

I would actually agree with you but I don't see a government that tolerates a variety of viewpoints, I see one that mainly consists of WASPs

 

[Emrys]

damn, i've been away so long i actually thought jepp was someone's nickname.

emrys=

Oh go lick a chunk of Kryptonite

 

[Daisy]

I hope he does!!! hear me god I HATE you with all my heart

besides I say it loud at least 6 times a day so he knows.

If I believed god had human-type feelings, I think god would pity you.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

wrong, wrong wrong. i dnd't miss your point at all. i jsut disagree with you.

thats your mindset, wil.
and i've always called you out on it. truth is, the "bible" "passage" you're "quoting" has already BEEN interpreted and reinterpreted about 12 times. across at least 5 different languages in most cases. and it gets reitnerpreted EVERY time someone picks it up and reads it.


a friend of mine did this thing once- he took the Abe Lincoln "4 score and seven" speech and sent it thorugh an translater program, through a few differnt languages.

it came back GIBBERISH.

now true, it was a comptuer translater, but even so, the point is- whenever you have people translating things from language to langauge, often across decades, even centuries, thigns are bound to lose some of thier original meaning and context. thats why i said that thing yesterday:


"such is the problem with language at times. the vernaculars of the olden days fade away so that, in the later ages, people study only the bones of the words left behind, unaware that they used to be alive and moving."


but hey- feel free to believe the hard-edged binary version, if you want.
me, i figure this. if god is real, nad he is a creative force, then hey- i'll bet he's probably a creative WRITER too. which means he'd be using a lot of the smae tools writers today use. allusion, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. and not JUST in the "parables" or what have you.

but again, you want to think the bible is a factual RECORD of the times, and nothign more? go ahead. i just hope no one 2,000 years from now looks back and thinks people at the end of the second millenium kept this "record" of humanity called "Highway to Heaven"...or worse...."Three's Company".

Yes, the notion of a God who requires certain things of his followers, when the stakes are so high, eternal hapiness or eternal torment, the second death or whatever, something super BAD, and can't find a way to make those requirements known to said followers clearly, it's preposterous, to me.

People act like when it says, "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey", that it could very well mean that he flew in on a dragon.
I say bologna.
Anyone who's intellectually honest with themselves will have to admit that either 1) he did ride on a donkey, and that the Bible is an accurate account....or that 2) the Bible is not always accurate, and therefore can not be used as a definitive standard for living, and that the "God" of the Bible is not anywhere near as powerful as all of the centuries worth of scholars, scribes, editors and compilers who have the mind-blowing power to KEEP the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE from getting his true message to those he supposedly loves.

It's silly.

 

[Emrys]

If I believed god had human-type feelings, I think god would pity you.

Let him, I personally don't give a rat's ass if he pities me, hates me, loves me or doesn't care about me. I hate him, that's all that counts to me.

 

[Daisy]

Not atheist secularist, that's the difference.

I would actually agree with you but I don't see a government that tolerates a variety of viewpoints, I see one that mainly consists of WASPs

By not allowing people to exercise their personal freedom of religious expression, you are asserting an a-theist stance for the government.

Really, do you live/work in the DC area or work for the government in some other locations?

You realize that elected representatives are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who 'work for the government'.

 

[Abaddon]

Let him, I personally don't give a rat's ass if he pities me, hates me, loves me or doesn't care about me. I hate him, that's all that counts to me.

Geez,what did he ever do to you?

 

[Daisy]

Geez,what did he ever do to you?

Peed in his wheaties.

 

[sinewave]

I wonder how Jesus would feel about "Megachurches"?

 

[Daisy]

Yes, the notion of a God who requires certain things of his followers, when the stakes are so high, eternal hapiness or eternal torment, the second death or whatever, something super BAD, and can't find a way to make those requirements known to said followers clearly, it's preposterous, to me.

People act like when it says, "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey", that it could very well mean that he flew in on a dragon.
I say bologna.
Anyone who's intellectually honest with themselves will have to admit that either 1) he did ride on a donkey, and that the Bible is an accurate account....or that 2) the Bible is not always accurate, and therefore can not be used as a definitive standard for living, and that the "God" of the Bible is not anywhere near as powerful as all of the centuries worth of scholars, scribes, editors and compilers who have the mind-blowing power to KEEP the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE from getting his true message to those he supposedly loves.

It's silly.

Didn't it say that he rode in on the back of an ass?

How do you know Thomas didn't give him a piggy back ride into town?

 

[Emrys]

Geez,what did he ever do to you?

He created a believe system that calls for the murder of innocent people if they express their love for each other, is that enough?

To me God is an abomination!