Senator Sues God

He/She/It does exist in my world and I don't care what anyone says! :mad:

I have said it's no big deal that those words are on the bills and would still say it's no big deal if "We Don't Believe in God" were to replace the current words. It makes no difference to me because it doesn't change the value of the money. It's still going to be $10 no matter what words are on it, as long as the numbers remain the same.

Btw, why must God be referred to as a "He"? This makes me think that religion-based God is created by men who wants to keep women in line. *suspicious*
BACK IN LINE WOMAN!:cmad: ...
 
It's their parents' fault they were alive to be killed. :o:cmad:
 
Well I'm not a believer however i haven't died yet to check out whether God does exist or not, the thing is there is no real evidence either way except one could argue the state of the world is proof he doesn't b/c as horrific news stories break every day you wonder "surely it couldn't have been worse when Noah built his ark, isn't it about time for a fresh start ?"

Now the truth is some believe as it gives them a sense of spirituality that is foreign to me but is their way of dealing with life, we ALL have some way of doing this.

I voted yes on the poll b/c the two things are separate and shouldn't be merged.
 
You know... when someone gets killed by a drunk driver, they die through no fault of their own or their parents, too. :huh:
Uh, yeah? :huh:
Are you...saying that God is, the "drunk driver" of the Cosmos? :huh:

Anyway, :huh:, I love that God's rebuttal/defense is built on a lie, that it just appeared "poof" like that. Fitting.
 
i think you guys are overlooking one important piece of information during all these attacks on blind_fury; he's admitted to paying for sex! :wow:

Sure I've spent money on biological needs. Everything from food to shelter to sex.

there, now have fun with that, but play nice. :ninja:
 
Dude, when your mom says you're fat, and your best friend says you're fat, and your wife says you're fat, and a stranger on the street says you're fat, and your doctor says you're fat, it's time to stop and accept the possibility that you might be fat.
Popular sentiment is no indication of validity. Many blacks heard the N-word 20 times a day but they would've been foolish to allow it to sway them in any way.

I treat insults the way insults should be treated. Like forked tongued slander.

You may be surrounded by ass-kissers doesn't mean you're better than those who are slandered. Group logic is not infallible and you people are in no position to dictate my behavior or judge me so go f**k yourselves. :yay:

You are incapable of thoughtful debate, people destroy your arguments and you won't accept the truth. That's when the insults come out, and have you noticed that you don't see the same people insulting jag, or Erzengel, or Maxwell's Demon, etc.?
Yeah I see the same people resorting to mud-slinging which says more about them than it does about me. You cannot destroy a subjective argument. We're not discussing global warming. We're discussing whether the word "God" has a place on money.

That's because they ARE logical, and their beliefs are NOT preposterous, and they don't daily exhibit hypocritical and foolish behaviour in their posts.
You can justify rude and childish insults all you want. I'm not asking you forked tongued Prom Queens to approve of anything I say. Just stop initiating insults so you can claim I was trolling rather than simply standing up for myself. I'm not posting for you or to get your approval, acceptance, or even casual appreciation.

If you don't like the way I express myself or my "behavior" too bad. Put me on ignore and be done with it. (Unless you're a hypocrite. lolz.)

I'm not trying to get banned again dealing with your type.
 
Do you understand that God doesn't exist. Some people believe he does, but we all have to use the money.

I wonder, if the people who are saying it's no big deal and isn't hurting anyone, would say the same if our Money said, "We Don't Believe In God."

I wonder if staunch Christians would say, "Meh, don't be a baby. Just leave it."

lol
I think not.

God may exist or He may not exist. I think the miracle that is the rare Earth and an evolution that results in a morally challenged human civilization (coincidence?) suggest that he does.

Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything put on money. I'm sure that there are quite a few racists who wish they didn't have to look at Lincoln's mug every time they break a five and quite a few Americans who don't really understand why New World Order is printed in Latin with an optically capable pyramid above it.

But it does make things more interesting so who cares? If cash was like monopoly money to me I'd put all that trippy s--t on the dollar too. :up:
 
Chuck Norris currently writes a weekly column on the WorldNet Daily website, and here's his current one. i think it may present a unique perspective on the founding of our country.

Chuck Norris said:
For those who find our country's Christian origins both implausible and untenable, the greatest alleged witness and support they cite is Amendment XI in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…"
But do those words prove what they so plainly are quoted to proclaim?
To properly understand the alleged rejection clause of America's Christian foundation in Amendment XI, one must understand the religious contexts in which the treaty was given.One of the errors of the Barbary States was that they considered America a Christian nation in the lineage of its European predecessors. The way they understood Christianity was through the lens of the Crusades, and so perceived any Christian country as a militant threat to their existence.
So prevalent was this warlike view of Christianity that, in his April 8, 1805 journal entry, even Gen. William Eaton said of Muslim radicals, "We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking!"
With that grave Islamic misunderstanding of Christianity, how would and should a Christian nation's delegates answer the question, "Are you a Christian nation?" If you answer "yes," you are quickly categorized into a Crusade-form of Christianity and an enemy. If you answer "no," then you appear to be denying the basis upon which you were founded. Add to the mix that you are negotiating in a time of war, have very limited naval resources, are in recovery from another (Revolutionary) war, and that "yes, with an explanation" is not exactly the answer that is going to bail your seamen, cargo and ships out of Muslim extremist captivity.
In that context, there was simply no way that America was going to align itself with European-Christian countries. U.S. leaders believed, as Noah Webster later elaborated, "The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it." The perception, however, that the U.S. did support a Euro-brand of Christianity had already exacerbated the holy war and caused the enslavement of thousands of our citizens. But America simply had no might, right or fight to pick with Muslims and the Barbary Powers.
After months of deliberation over the treaty, from before its inception Nov. 4, 1796, in Tripoli to its further discussions in the Senate from May 29-30 and June 7, 1797 it was accepted and ratified, because our government leaders understood its context, meaning, and the strategic, diplomatic and expedient nature of this negotiation.
The full context of Article XI clearly reveals that American leaders wanted Muslims to know that the U.S. rejected the Muslim pejorative understanding of Christianity, which was nothing more than an anti-Islamic, European-Crusade religion.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said [United] States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Amendment XI in the Treaty of Tripoli is not a simple historical declaration of national non-Christian origins or denial of America's religious roots, but a diplomatic negotiation intended to free U.S. seamen and ships and to avert further international (Muslim) attacks and warfare on the very young and war-torn United States.
It's amazing that antagonists who disavow America's founding as a Christian nation will quote (out of context) complex war-time negotiations and yet avoid the explicit words of our Founders during times of peace. Why don't skeptics ever cite any of the following governmental leaders from the same period as the Barbary Wars?
John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified), "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
John Adams, America's second president and the same one who signed and sent the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate, just one year later delivered these words in a military address Oct. 11, 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And to what religion is Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united."
Patrick Henry wrote to Archibald Blair Jan. 8, 1799,"The greatest pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Constitution, wrote to James McHenry Nov. 4, 1800, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure. … are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
John Quincy Adams, America's sixth president, spoke at an Independence Day celebration in 1837, "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity…?
Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, pointed to a Bible as he lay sick near death in 1845 and said, "That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."
How much clearer can it be? There are no contradictions between the preceding leadership sayings and those drafted by Joel Barlow, the author and diplomat of the Treaty of Tripoli, when one understands the historical, diplomatic and religious context of it all.
America was founded as a Christian nation.
 
i think you guys are overlooking one important piece of information during all these attacks on blind_fury; he's admitted to paying for sex! :wow:

Any man who's bought a $70,000 Porsche is paying for sex whether they admit it to themselves or not. :o

I've spent nothing close to that amount. Not even the same ball park.
 
I don't understand this reverence for America's foundation, at all.
Because it was also founded on the "fact" the Black people aren't fully human, and were put on the Earth to be our slaves. :huh:

It was also founded on the idea that when your sovereign government taxes you and you don't think it's done fairly, you should grab your gun and try to kill them.

Those two beliefs are anthema now.
 
Chuck Norris currently writes a weekly column on the WorldNet Daily website, and here's his current one. i think it may present a unique perspective on the founding of our country.

do christians like this realize that this kind of rhetoric is alienating not only our non-christian citizens, but the rest of the non-christian world? who cares if we were founded as a christian nation or not? freedom of religion is pretty self-explanatory, to me anyway. why do we constantly get into these debates? "oooh, america's a christian country!" "iraq's a muslim country!" we're just using labels to set up boundaries and pitting one religion against another. what's the ****ing point? worship who or what you want, call yourself what you want, but stop trying to force your views on everyone and claiming your religion is the official religion of the united states and therefore all others are inferior. this is exactly why i want nothing to do with organized religion.
 
Must have been a slow day for the lawyers to write the responses. Guess there weren't that many ambulances on the street
 
Uh, yeah? :huh:
Are you...saying that God is, the "drunk driver" of the Cosmos? :huh:

I'm saying that another person's 'free will' can and does affect you. It doesn't matter if something isn't your fault or not... or your parent's fault.
 
I don't understand this reverence for America's foundation, at all.
Because it was also founded on the "fact" the Black people aren't fully human, and were put on the Earth to be our slaves. :huh:
We can't really be sure what this country was founded on. It wasn't founded by the Borg, it was founded by individuals who barely agreed enough to draft a constitution or kick out the British.

Our country is still a work in progress by it's very design today. That's the beauty of it.

The only color that ever mattered was green. Racism was just a means to an end as evil as that may be. I like the constitution. I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nor should anyone who disapproves of slavery. :dry:
 
Please, please tell me that not even the most backwater religious nut job actually believes that this is an actual response from God himself, please, please don't destroy the last shred of hope I have left for humanity.
 
I'm saying that another person's 'free will' can and does affect you. It doesn't matter if something isn't your fault or not... or your parent's fault.
Lackey.......

why :(

That is obvious and irrelevant.

What I'm talking about is, If you ask why a loving God would allow a little kid to be raped, Christians say, "Because, God gave us Free Will, so some some choose to do Evil. A Necessary Evil."

But that is not an explanation for all the suffering God allows, only the stuff where Free Will DOES play a part.
There is plenty of suffering that is just by chance, occurring in nature, that has NOTHING to do with human choices. :huh:

Free Will has nothing to do with it and therefore doesn't explain a a loving God allowing it, actually presiding over it.
 
We can't really be sure what this country was founded on.
Yes, we can. It's a matter of history, and to clarify for any who might disagree, it was all written down. :huh:
I really don't understand the way your brain works.
Building a nation requires Herculean effort and organization, and all those people are working FOR something.
We know what they were working for. :huh: They were very vocal about it.




It wasn't founded by the Borg,
Finally we agree on something. :up:






Our country is still a work in progress by it's very design today. That's the beauty of it.
Uh, yeah. That's what I said. At or near it's inception, armed rebellion against sovereign gov't. was the order of the day and Black people were not legally deemed "human", and were enslaved.
That's not the case anymore, but the union still stands, because,...it's a work in progress. :huh:
Another step in that progress would be to quit paying lip service to the idea of separation of Church and State and actually live by it, since both sides seem to agree that it's a good idea.
 
Yes, we can. It's a matter of history, and to clarify for any who might disagree, it was all written down. :huh:
I really don't understand the way your brain works.
Building a nation requires Herculean effort and organization, and all those people are working FOR something.
We know what they were working for. :huh: They were very vocal about it.
Ok so everyone who resents slavery should disavow the constitution like an inbred confederate?

and I don't care if you don't understand how my brain works. You're not a nueroscientist and even if you were I'd ask for a second opinion that didn't come from the hype.



Uh, yeah. That's what I said. At or near it's inception, armed rebellion against sovereign gov't. was the order of the day and Black people were not legally deemed "human", and were enslaved.
That's not the case anymore, but the union still stands, because,...it's a work in progress. :huh:
Another step in that progress would be to quit paying lip service to the idea of separation of Church and State and actually live by it, since both sides seem to agree that it's a good idea.
So no bibles in court?

Take the word "God" out of every justice house and public school?

These are extreme methods to prevent theocracy and could be ultimately counter-productive.
 
Ok so everyone who resents slavery should disavow the constitution like an inbred confederate?
God man, calm down and read what I'm saying. Ultimately we agree. I'm saying that the humans are flawed, so I don't understand why the foundation of the country is so revered. We should CHANGE when necessary, just as we changed the legal stance on Black people, and women being able to vote, etc.
There's nothing sacred about the founding fathers or their words. There are a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. The nation was not founded on Christianity, but even if it was, that's no reason to adhere to that mistake.




So no bibles in court?

Take the word "God" out of every justice house and public school?

These are extreme methods to prevent theocracy and could be ultimately counter-productive.
So you think it might be harnful to stop having, say, a practicing Jew, be forced to place his hand on and revere the "authority" of the Bible, when it completely contradicts what he believes.
I sure don't see that.

There is no "God", so removing reference to him causes no problem at all. It just makes things more accurate while also ceasing to crap all over the beliefs of a huge percentage of Americans.

No respect for the beliefs of others, even though everyone says we have to respect the beliefs of others, the majority abusing it's power to actively disrespect the beliefs of others.

I can't believe anyone would defend such malarky.
 
Just wondering... when 'we' take our oath and promise to "Tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God", does putting the hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth mean that the court will actually GET the truth? Doesn't the person's (one who's taking the oath) belief matter? What if that person isn't a Christian or is a non-believer? Does that necessarily make that person a liar. Or, even if that person is a Christian, does it mean that him/her putting his/her hand on the Bible and swearing mean that he/she IS indeed telling the truth?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"