KWSN Orbiting Fortress Forum Index KWSN Orbiting Fortress
KWSN Distributed Computing Teams forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

[CJ] Why Can't I Own Canadians?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KWSN Orbiting Fortress Forum Index -> Brother Maynard's Pizzeria and Library of Ancient Wisdom
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TonyH Cow Catipult Cptn
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just checked, toothpick is fine!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KWSN Sir CADCAM
hoser
hoser


Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 7498
Location: South of Nunavuut

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TonyH Cow Catipult Cptn wrote:
I just checked, toothpick is fine!


Oooh, Tony, you only allowed 2 minutes before rechecking that toothpick, what level of faith is that?
You are so going to go straight to "H-E-double hockey-sticks".

But..... you won't be on your own, that's where we are ALL headed because
a. If you're not Catholic, then according to 'their' interpretation of the 'book' you are going to Hell.
but....
b. If you're not Protestant, then you're destined to end up 'down below'
but also....
c. If you're not Jewish, then you've got a date with the devil.
but similarly....
d. If you're not Islamic, then you don't have a snowballs chance.

By extrapolation, we are ALL going to HE##.

See you there!
_________________
KWSN Sir CADCAM of the Wooden Rabbit
"Semper In Excrementa" "Hominem Iniocosum Non Diffidite"
"Cîam en des sterko" "Havi ne malesperi personoj kiu havi ne kompreno humuro"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Cracked of the Mind
Prince
Prince


Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 1690
Location: Ramsgate

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry I'm from the "self replicating DNA" school; in my opinion religions in general are nothing more than a set of bolt on morals and standards for those unable or unwilling to define standards of their own, the “Afterlife” a means to avoid dealing with the fact of death and “God” a means of explaining random or seemingly unaccountable events.

Despite most religions claiming peaceful roots and tenets, they are the cause of a large amount of warfare, the RC church is responsible for most of the poverty in the third world with it blanket ban on family planning, thus forcing most women into almost constant pregnancy and childbirth.

Although I am willing to concede that “Jesus” et al. Did exist, they where just normal people who tried to say “ Hey wouldn’t it be better if we were all nice to each other” The Bible a book of folk memories (Noah’s flood=end of the last ice age) and sage advice (don’t eat pork in a hot climate with out refrigeration).

You don’t need a God to live a good life.
_________________
我們是誰說鎳的騎士!



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KWSN Sir CADCAM
hoser
hoser


Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 7498
Location: South of Nunavuut

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Cracked of the Mind wrote:
Sorry I'm from the "self replicating DNA" school; in my opinion religions in general are nothing more than a set of bolt on morals and standards for those unable or unwilling to define standards of their own, the “Afterlife” a means to avoid dealing with the fact of death and “God” a means of explaining random or seemingly unaccountable events.

Despite most religions claiming peaceful roots and tenets, they are the cause of a large amount of warfare, the RC church is responsible for most of the poverty in the third world with it blanket ban on family planning, thus forcing most women into almost constant pregnancy and childbirth.

Although I am willing to concede that “Jesus” et al. Did exist, they where just normal people who tried to say “ Hey wouldn’t it be better if we were all nice to each other” The Bible a book of folk memories (Noah’s flood=end of the last ice age) and sage advice (don’t eat pork in a hot climate with out refrigeration).

You don’t need a God to live a good life.


AMEN! (or whatever the agnostic/atheistic equivalent is)
_________________
KWSN Sir CADCAM of the Wooden Rabbit
"Semper In Excrementa" "Hominem Iniocosum Non Diffidite"
"Cîam en des sterko" "Havi ne malesperi personoj kiu havi ne kompreno humuro"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
She Turned Me Into A Newt
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 18 May 2002
Posts: 4911
Location: On an Alpaca farm

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My... We did stir up the waters...

MK...
Quote:
That anti-Dr. Laura missive that Sir Cadcam was quoteing quotes its attacks on her DIRECTLY from The Law... If one assumes that The Law is non-literal, then the entire foundation of the Jewish faith, the Christian Faith, and the Moslem Faith is shattered, for all three (at least the orthodox branches thereof) maintain that The Law was delivered by God/G_d/Allah DIRECTLY AND VERBATEUM to Moses as an absolute standard of morality.


You may want to re-read the original... You appear to be saying that the original message contained the 10 Commandments? I thought I was reading about things like owning slaves and menstrual uncleanliness. I don't remember those being covered on the tablets. At least not in the Sunday school I went to until I lost my faith.

But like some others have said, you CAN live a good clean life without worshiping an omnipotent diety.

Cool
_________________
I am Sî aliigi min en lacerto, a proud member of the Migratory Coconuts.

If lovin' ewe is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grizzly
Prince
Prince


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 3136
Location: Creepy (Crawlley)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I "Skweake- Therefor I 'Ham" Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Rolling Eyes

Sneakes back to the Ppyrus .

Regds Grizz Rolling Eyes
PS Donks is me .

PPs " May your God go with you" (not anon)
_________________
Oh Bugger Forgot again - or is it Oh Father Reboot again ?

Ps Grizz in his second childhood - but not his last !

Edihtor of the KoKC (excused spel;l checher'er)

AND NI !!! Tophat 10e

[img]http://www.katrinashome.com/grizzly_counter.php[/[url=http://www.katrinashome.com/] ][/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Sir Hamster of Elderberry
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 5115
Location: Beer City, Cheese Quadrant

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Cracked of the Mind wrote:
Sorry I'm from the "self replicating DNA" school; ...


AND

She Turned Me Into A Newt wrote:
... It is simply pointing out that it is LUDICROUS to take everything in the King James version of the bible as literal. I don't think you will find a single Rabbi, Priest, Preacher, or Bible scholar that takes every passage in the KJ version as literal.

And I would guess that YOU certainly don't. If you do, please don't take this as an attack.

Take the post for what it is, an obvious attempt to HUMOURSLY point this out.


There is a point here that is bugging me, and I'm not sure quite how to approach it without stepping on toes. My understanding is that modern western literalist interpretations of the Bible developed in response to Darwinism and the rise of scientific theory that gave an alternative form of creation. Before this, there wasn't the same emphasis on literal interpretation. Certainly fundamentalist belief existed prior to this, but I think there is a distinction to be made between traditional fundamentalism and modern fundamentalism.

Let me generalize a bit more so I can stop picking on the fundamentalists: It bugs me to state that any belief is traditional, when certain aspects of it are almost certainly recent interpretations. The implication is that "people always believed this way in the past", and "traditional is better". I don't think we can define a "better" tradition any more than we can define a "better" religion (unless you want to cross the line to "evil" beliefs, but that's clearly not our discussion). Beliefs are different. Traditions are different. People will tend to believe there own beliefs are correct (otherwise it wouldn't be much of a belief, now would it?)


MajorKong wrote:
...
Its a bit more than that. Takeing some of the 'history' and 'prophecy' as non-literal parable is one thing. Its something else to take The Law as non-literal. Do not assume you know the extent of my orthodoxy (or lack thereof). Your assumption WILL bite you in the backside.


Dear MK: Please don't bite. We don't know if you have had your shots! Wink

ni! i!u
_________________
-- Have you seen my goat?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sir Hamster of Elderberry
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 5115
Location: Beer City, Cheese Quadrant

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a zen koan, a favorite of mine, that says "If you meet Buddha in the road, kill him.".
The meaning is that is you ever have the chance to test your beliefs, do so. If it turns out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs, then you should replace them with the truth. Yes, I know, truth is hard to find. I like the saying anyway.

ni! i!u
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MajorKong
Ozzy Fudd
Ozzy Fudd


Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1028
Location: In his mad-scientist lab working on yet another plan for World Domination(tm)!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

She Turned Me Into A Newt wrote:


You may want to re-read the original... You appear to be saying that the original message contained the 10 Commandments? I thought I was reading about things like owning slaves and menstrual uncleanliness. I don't remember those being covered on the tablets. At least not in the Sunday school I went to until I lost my faith.

But like some others have said, you CAN live a good clean life without worshiping an omnipotent diety.

Cool


You misunderstand me. There are three 'sets' of information composing The Law common to Jewish/Christian/Islamic tradition... In order they are:

1. The 10 Commandments - The ten most important 'rules' written in stone by G_d/God/Allah and given to Moses atop Mt. Sinai.

2. The Mosaic Law - The rest of the 'rules' that G_d/God/Allah verbally dictated to Moses after giving the previous 10 Commandments.

3. The rabbinical Law - Those rules that were 'revealed' to later Leaders of the Jewish faith.

The bulk of the quotes present in the original missive are Quotes from the 'book' of Leviticus, and as such are part of the Mosaic Law. For reasons that are a bit complicated to get into here, ALL three 'branches' of the Law are important (in varying degrees, and for varying reasons) to all three of the 'Peoples of the Book'. Just because something is not part of The Ten Commandments does not make it any less valid to Jews, Christians, and Moslems. Members of the 'Peoples of The Book' should study 'The Book'. Its ALWAYS a good idea to know exactly what you claim to believe in. Members of other faith systems (as well as those who are unsure of things {agnostics} or don't have a belief system {atheists }) should study 'The Book', if only to 'Know Thine Opponents'. I have studied (and studied CLOSELY) various 'scripture', from the closely related Jewish and Christian books to the slightly more distant Koran and Book of Mormon, to the totally un-related writings of, for example, Zorastrianism (one of the pre-Islamic religions of Persia/Iran... suprisingly, it still exists there in small numbers) and Hindus. Also, I have studied several of the Ancient Belief systems (for instance, Egypt, Greece/Rome, Celtic, Norse, Aztec, Mayan, several other native American belief systems, and the ever-popular Mesopotamia). While I have spent the better part of 40 years on this study, I may not be an expert on ALL of them, but I do have a darned good idea of what they are about.

Regardless of what *you* think/believe is true, to that adherents of that particular religious context it is *Truth*. If you take a pi$$ in the 'holy water' of another belief system, you should be prepared for one EXTREME reaction from that belief system's adherents. As has been stated before in this thread, one of the MAIN causes of wars is the argument that 'my diety is TRUTH, and yours is a LIE'. We should avoid all of this strife, and accept that other people believe differently than we do. Also, we should avoid deliberate attacks on other's belief systems. And that is what that missive that Sir Cadcam quoted was... A deliberate attack on the Belief system of one certain 'Dr. Laura' and her fellow orthodox jews (and by extension, the rest of the Peoples of The Book).

Regardless of what you may (or may not) believe about the Divinity of the man, a certain philosopher from about 2000 years ago got nailed up to a tree for saying, essentially, how great the world would be if we were all nice to each other for a change. In my opinion, we should all follow at LEAST *this* part of his teachings.

So, I will repeat, a person's belief system is a personal matter between them and their personal diety (or lack thereof). We here, should NOT engage in attacks on the belief systems of others. Religion Bashing is NOT NICE. It is NOT appropriate in this forum.

Thank you.
_________________


AMD AthlonII X3 450 / Intel Celeron M @ 1.3GHz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fart in your gen direxion
I am the goatse.cx guy
Prince


Joined: 24 May 2002
Posts: 2016
Location: Regrettably for you, I'm Upwind in Upstate N.Y.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me thinks this (has been) much ado about nothing Rolling Eyes .

I believe it is widely held that Dr. Laura is a pompous ass. I believe the intent of the original post was to provide a well-deserved skewering of her in general. The object of her skewering just happened to be via religion. It could just have well been about her years of pontification against pre-marital sex and then the subsequent publication of her nudie photos.

My belief systems at no time were insulted by the right-honorable Sir CadCam. He introduced the post as "tongue in cheek" and had he not, one would have to be an imbecile to not see it was meant in that light.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MajorKong
Ozzy Fudd
Ozzy Fudd


Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1028
Location: In his mad-scientist lab working on yet another plan for World Domination(tm)!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Hamster of Elderberry wrote:


There is a point here that is bugging me, and I'm not sure quite how to approach it without stepping on toes. My understanding is that modern western literalist interpretations of the Bible developed in response to Darwinism and the rise of scientific theory that gave an alternative form of creation. Before this, there wasn't the same emphasis on literal interpretation. Certainly fundamentalist belief existed prior to this, but I think there is a distinction to be made between traditional fundamentalism and modern fundamentalism.


I will certainly agree that the Accepted Orthodoxy of *some* religions (Christianity, for instance) has somewhat shifted over time. However, the Accepted Orthodoxy of some OTHER religions has shifted to a VERY MUCH smaller degree (Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Moslems, etc).

But as to your comment about literal interpretations of various Christian scripture and the rise of Darwinism, I beg to differ.

How many scientists, philosophers, and even ORDINARY adherents of Christianity, for instance, have been silenced, exiled, or even killed because they even slightly implied that the Christian scripture may contain an error here and there, or not be intrepreted correctly?? Gallieo, anyone?

Even some religious leaders have gotten into BAD trouble over this... Martin Luthor, anyone???

And ALL of this is pre-Darwin... If anything, the Christian Church has calmed down and mellowed out during the post-Darwin age...

Ask the victims of the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions about 'tolerance of different intrepertations of Scripture.

Ask the viciims of the Salem Witchhunt hysteria about the literalness of the Church's intrepretation of the phrase 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'.

And I am not bashing the Christian Church here. Pretty much ALL religions have done various Bad Things down throught history. I am merely pointing out that there was HEATED (can you say 'burning at the stake'?) debate over the 'literal vs. non-literal' intrepretation of Christian Scripture WELL before the rise of Darwinism and modern cosmology.
_________________


AMD AthlonII X3 450 / Intel Celeron M @ 1.3GHz


Last edited by MajorKong on Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
She Turned Me Into A Newt
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 18 May 2002
Posts: 4911
Location: On an Alpaca farm

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And my point is that religions evolve. The rules evolve. They must - or they die. The "LAWS" of "The Book" do state that one may own slaves. Do you think that such a law is just? I don't. If any religion did, I suspect they wouldn't have much membership - or at least not a very good membership.

One must always question the laws to understand them.

I refuse to believe that God would tell me "Thou shall not kill." And then tell me to smite anyone.

And while you keep saying that this isn't an appropriate place to discuss this, I say bullcrap. This is a wonderful place to discuss this. The original writer of the Dr. Laura "letter" may have been a bigoted butthead, but look at the wonderful debate it has prompted. No one is being hateful because of it. We are simply stating our personal beliefs and intreprations. Something you profess.
_________________
I am Sî aliigi min en lacerto, a proud member of the Migratory Coconuts.

If lovin' ewe is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MajorKong
Ozzy Fudd
Ozzy Fudd


Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1028
Location: In his mad-scientist lab working on yet another plan for World Domination(tm)!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

She Turned Me Into A Newt wrote:
And my point is that religions evolve. The rules evolve. They must - or they die. The "LAWS" of "The Book" do state that one may own slaves. Do you think that such a law is just? I don't. If any religion did, I suspect they wouldn't have much membership - or at least not a very good membership.

One must always question the laws to understand them.

I refuse to believe that God would tell me "Thou shall not kill." And then tell me to smite anyone.

And while you keep saying that this isn't an appropriate place to discuss this, I say bullcrap. This is a wonderful place to discuss this. The original writer of the Dr. Laura "letter" may have been a bigoted butthead, but look at the wonderful debate it has prompted. No one is being hateful because of it. We are simply stating our personal beliefs and intreprations. Something you profess.


I agree that this discussion is quite a bit more civil than I feared.

As to your statement:

Quote:
I refuse to believe that God would tell me "Thou shall not kill." And then tell me to smite anyone.


That is a mis-translation. A much better translation out of the original Hebrew is 'Thou shalt not commit murder'. Murder being the UN-justified takeing of another human life. If G_d/God/Allah/(insert name of personal diety here) says to 'go forth and kill them all!'... what you gonna do?? Shocked

And yes, the 'Bible' does state that one MAY own slaves... However, I choose not to do so. Do I think that that 'law' is just?? Hmm.. If I were a member of one of the 'Peoples of The Book', I might respond with something like:

Quote:
Who am *I* to question the Laws and Rules of my Creator?? Besides, its not like this issue is a *COMMANDMENT*... It only says that I can if I want to... under certain circumstances... I don't wanna, so this is the end of discussion on *THIS* topic.


Or, I might say something like:

Quote:
The Bible states that it is easier for a camel to go through an 'eye of the needle' than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Slaves are valuable property, and a status symbol for the very RICH. I don't wanna jepordize my chances of gettin into Heaven, so I have no desire to obtain slaves or any other trappings of extreme wealth... Just let me earn enough wealth to get by on and feed my family, and I am happy.


OR... I could adopt a Secular Humanist attidude and say something like:

Quote:
Man, I don't know what ole YHVH was smokeing when HE came up with that one... Owning other people is morally wrong, and we SHOULD NOT DO IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!


So... whether I respond from a Jewish, a Christian, or a Secular Humanist perspective, my response to the slavery issue is the same... I dont wanna own any. My morality on THIS subject does not depend on ANY particular religious belief (or lack thereof).

By the way, I come from a LONG line of Southerners, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of my ancestors EVER owned a slave or indentured servant. In fact, several of my ancestors WERE indentured servants ('slaves for a period of 7 to 10 years to pay for their forced passage to the New World')...

#ni-1
_________________


AMD AthlonII X3 450 / Intel Celeron M @ 1.3GHz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
She Turned Me Into A Newt
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 18 May 2002
Posts: 4911
Location: On an Alpaca farm

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That is a mis-translation. A much better translation out of the original Hebrew is 'Thou shalt not commit murder'. Murder being the UN-justified takeing of another human life. If G_d/God/Allah/(insert name of personal diety here) says to 'go forth and kill them all!'... what you gonna do??


Find a new diety. Killing in the name of God is like fornicating in the name of chastity.

Shocked
_________________
I am Sî aliigi min en lacerto, a proud member of the Migratory Coconuts.

If lovin' ewe is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyH Cow Catipult Cptn
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My challenge is open to all G_DS everywhere of every persuiasion, Nudge Nudge, Wink wink!


Who will step up to the plate and break the toothpick???

Can somebody volunteer their G_D to do the job please????

Silly G_D, can't even break a toothpick.

T.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sir Hamster of Elderberry
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 5115
Location: Beer City, Cheese Quadrant

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MajorKong wrote:
Sir Hamster of Elderberry wrote:


There is a point here that is bugging me, and I'm not sure quite how to approach it without stepping on toes. My understanding is that modern western literalist interpretations of the Bible developed in response to Darwinism and the rise of scientific theory that gave an alternative form of creation. Before this, there wasn't the same emphasis on literal interpretation. Certainly fundamentalist belief existed prior to this, but I think there is a distinction to be made between traditional fundamentalism and modern fundamentalism.


I will certainly agree that the Accepted Orthodoxy of *some* religions (Christianity, for instance) has somewhat shifted over time. However, the Accepted Orthodoxy of some OTHER religions has shifted to a VERY MUCH smaller degree (Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Moslems, etc).

But as to your comment about literal interpretations of various Christian scripture and the rise of Darwinism, I beg to differ.

How many scientists, philosophers, and even ORDINARY adherents of Christianity, for instance, have been silenced, exiled, or even killed because they even slightly implied that the Christian scripture may contain an error here and there, or not be intrepreted correctly?? Gallieo, anyone?

Even some religious leaders have gotten into BAD trouble over this... Martin Luthor, anyone???

And ALL of this is pre-Darwin... If anything, the Christian Church has calmed down and mellowed out during the post-Darwin age...

Ask the victims of the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions about 'tolerance of different intrepertations of Scripture.

Ask the viciims of the Salem Witchhunt hysteria about the literalness of the Church's intrepretation of the phrase 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'.

And I am not bashing the Christian Church here. Pretty much ALL religions have done various Bad Things down throught history. I am merely pointing out that there was HEATED (can you say 'burning at the stake'?) debate over the 'literal vs. non-literal' intrepretation of Christian Scripture WELL before the rise of Darwinism and modern cosmology.


WHOA there horse! Smile I'm not saying that Darwinism is the root cause of all conflicts about literal interpretation (nicely argued though Smile ). I'm trying to say that some of the modern * views are not traditional, but are in fact radical. Some people are trying to put spin on what they think the proper belief is. They are packaging radical interpretations in a box labeled "traditional American values" and trying to sell it to the rest of us.
THAT is what bugs me, and I'm not buying it.

* I had the word "fundamentalist" here, but to be fair, the fundamentalists aren't the only ones guilty of this. Political correctness is observed.

ni! i!u

P.S.: Why can't the Presbyterians ever get accused of anything interesting? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KWSN Sir CADCAM
hoser
hoser


Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 7498
Location: South of Nunavuut

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Hamster of Elderberry wrote:
P.S.: Why can't the Presbyterians ever get accused of anything interesting? Wink


The Presbyterians have their own small closet of skeletons.

e.g. The United Presbyterian Church contributed $10,000 for the defence fund of Angela Davis, a self-confessed Communist charged with complicity in the murder of a judge and three others during an attack on a courthouse by Black militants.

But, on the other side of the coin, Presbyterian Ministers laid out a case, very well I might add, for Christians to be unopposed to removal of "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and that several hundred rabbis and ministers recently signed an amicus brief to the High Court. The brief asked the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the case that:
"The only plausible reason the government could use to excuse the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was that "Under God" was devoid of religious significance, and to rotely use the name of Deity in a context devoid of religious significance is to break an important commandment:
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

Interesting stuff.
_________________
KWSN Sir CADCAM of the Wooden Rabbit
"Semper In Excrementa" "Hominem Iniocosum Non Diffidite"
"Cîam en des sterko" "Havi ne malesperi personoj kiu havi ne kompreno humuro"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Hamster of Elderberry
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 5115
Location: Beer City, Cheese Quadrant

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KWSN Sir CADCAM wrote:
Sir Hamster of Elderberry wrote:
P.S.: Why can't the Presbyterians ever get accused of anything interesting? Wink


The Presbyterians have their own small closet of skeletons.
...


I had no idea! Embarassed That will teach me not to nod-off on Sundays. #Sleep Wink

ni! i!u
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KWSN_hgs
Prince
Prince


Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 910
Location: location, location.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Hamster of Elderberry wrote:

P.S.: Why can't the Presbyterians ever get accused of anything interesting? Wink


'snot in the book of order. Shocked

But the General Assembly has had some VERY interesting debates on same-sex marriage... the (officially frowned upon) topic has the potential to split PCUSA.

I don't think they rank abominations though. Any thou shalt not that remains unforgiven is a first class ticket to perdition. Wink
_________________
now, where was I???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Hamster of Elderberry
KWSN ArchBishop
KWSN ArchBishop


Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 5115
Location: Beer City, Cheese Quadrant

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KWSN_hgs wrote:
...

'snot in the book of order. Shocked

But the General Assembly has had some VERY interesting debates on same-sex marriage... the (officially frowned upon) topic has the potential to split PCUSA.

...


I don't see what all the fuss is about, I think sex has always been pretty much the same, marriage or not. Wink Wink Wink

ni! i!u
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KWSN Orbiting Fortress Forum Index -> Brother Maynard's Pizzeria and Library of Ancient Wisdom All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Optimized Seti@Home App | BOINC Stats