The Bible is a book.

I could start posting scripture that might change your view on that.

Why do people always ignore all the bad stuff in the bible?

I beg to differ. If I assert the right to live my life as I see fit (as long as it harms no one else) I am in no way asking anyone to accept my moral code unless I made laws that assigned punishment for non-conformity. If smoking pot were legal no one would be forced to smoke it so it wouldn't affect non-smokers in any way. If gay marriage were legalized the affect on homophobes would be exactly nil. No one will arrest them, fine them, or deny them individual rights because they married the same gender. On the other hand, an amendment banning gay marriage restricts the freedom of others to live as they choose with the same rights and priveledges as straight people. They are not two sides of the same coin as you assert.

The "defense of marriage act" is a great example of how absurd this line of reasoning is. Exactly how is marriage under attack? The only thing under attack is the belief that Christians have a right to define morality for everyone else. The tactic is always the same. If you fight back against Christians claiming moral absolutes based on their mythology (that are then codified into law so that non-conformists can be punished) you're accused of attacking Christianity or their moral code. The whole point of freedom is that EVERYONE gets to live their life and pursue happinness according to their own beliefs, not those forced on them by Christians.

No, you couldn't. I've read the bible plenty.




Nobody is ignorning anything. I'm not saying some stuff in the bible isn't a bit questionable, I'm saying that nothing in the bible supports what the WBC is doing. And it doesn't.

Understanding the bible isn't as easy as cutting out snippets out of context.

Understanding the bible means taking those snippets *IN* context, and looking at the *WHOLE* picture, not just the parts that make you warm and fuzzy.

And questionable isn't the problem. The cruelty, anger, and bigotry throughout the book is frightening.

How totally presumptuous and self-righteous of you.

I'm sorry. I was sure that I was.



Since billions of Bibles have been printed earthwide and the vast majority of those billions all carry the same books and scriptures (with very few oddball exceptions), I would say that the basic cannonization of the Bible is pretty much set as fact. Personal beliefs, doctrine and dogma is an entirely different thing.



I appreciate that's your personal opinion. I know however, that others would strongly disagree.



And again, there are many people who would disagree with you. According to a Christian, your personal refusal to accept the accounts of the Bible and supporting historical evidence does not invalidate the work. They would argue that is nothing more than your personal opinion, without basis in fact (which is pretty much what you're arguing on your side). Again, the sword cuts both ways.




Now that I won't disagree with or even attempt to argue. There's quite a bit of evidence that the activities of moderm-day mainstream religion have very little to do with the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact (from what I've been told by Catholics) the Pope pretty much is the representation of God on earth and even has the right to override Biblical teachings-- even if the direct words of Jesus himself. Dunno that for a certainty, but I've heard that from a lot of Catholics. (I'm not picking on the Catholic religion. Most religions I've seen have some rather questionable concepts).



Please don't take this wrong, but... duh. Pretty obvious. LOL Computer forums generally are not the stuff of history textbooks, regardless of the subject matter.



LOL I can appreciate the humor there. But I will present one more purpose of organized religion, and all else ignored, it may be one of its greatest values: to give hope to those without hope. Because one thing you have to admit about athieists and evolutionists: "hope" isn't even in their vocabulary. According to their philosophy, the eventual result of all our efforts, no matter what, is death, period. Non-existence. So why should anyone care about anything but having a blast while were alive, because nothing else we do matters at all.

So whether we're Pope or a thief, a businessman or a beggar, a saint or a mass-murderer, the eventuality is all the same. So we might as well get rich, ignore the welfare of our fellow man and do whatever we want regardless of its effect on others, because when it's over, it's over.

With that fact, it's no wonder so many people embrace religion. Right or wrong, it seems a sight better than that bleak prospect. LOL

This is actually not true. If you compare most of the current versions of the bible, the scripture changes from version to version. Some things small, some things rather important.

Valid question. The answer is "yes".

There are people who claim that morality cannot be legislated. Sure it can. It's legislated every day. It is "immoral" to steal. It is "immoral" to murder. It is immoral to lie, slander, do physical or mental harm, etc etc.

Now, should that legislation extend to sexuality? Sure it should. It happens all the time. It is illegal (in this country) to have sex with a minor (even if you're a minor yourself). Sodomy is illegal in many states, as is bestiality. In most states, homosexual marriage is illegal.

These are all things that society in general views as "immoral" and they legislate every day to prevent these things. Why? Because they see them as a danger to the stability and fabric of society as a whole. Now whether society is right or wrong... that's a judgement call. But the fact is, society made that judgement call. The majority have spoken. So should morality be enforced by legislation? Absolutely. Happens all the time, even when we're sleeping.

Because the opposite of course, is anarchy and each person enforcing his own indivdual all-wise whims upon others. That is what we call chaos-- and blatant stupidity. (not that some of society's laws aren't also blatantly stupid. There's enough raw stupid to go around for everyone. )

Exactly.



See above.



Just honest, actually. You couldn't post anything I haven't read before. The contents of the bible are finite. You can't change my mind with stuff I already know. The presumption and self-righteousness, if anything, comes in you assuming you are sufficiently more educated about the topic than me and would be able to so easily sway my views.

Are you an ordained minister?

That's not "logic", that's making stuff up. No law has been passed that forbids individual students from praying if they wish to. The prohibition is on school-sanctioned prayers in the public (taxpayer-supported) school system. You're creating a strawman.


One, the "Intelligent Design" movement of today is ABSOLUTELY a religious movement -- the backers and promoters are well-known and well-funded right-wing fundamentalist Christian groups. Want some names?

Two, claiming that evolution proposes that the physical universe came into existence "by accident" betrays an abysmal lack of knowledge on the topic of Evolutionary Theory. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of the universe whatsoever -- you're confusing it with the Big Bang. The Theory of Evolution states, very simply, "gene pools change over time" -- a fact for which we have literally a mountain of intimidating evidence. Methinks you've been reading too much Creationist literature and it's addling your thought processes.


Again, have you actually read Darwin? Yes, like most of his era, he was a believer (Christian or Deist, doesn't matter), but his theory dealt with changes in gene pools, NOT with creation. Please stop perpetrating this ridiculous myth.


You need to read some real science, then. Just about every single thing written by I.D. proponents has been ripped to shreds in scientific journals due to lack of logic and lack of data -- including Micheal Behe's attempt with Irreducible Complexity. You make it sound like Creationists have a leg to stand on when actually, they're a laughingstock.


That's not what the Federal Judge in Dover, PA said:

"A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago. "


Come back when you have some real facts.

Nope. No interesting in being one, nor requirement to be one.

I am... or more to the point... was.

Not quite.

While it's true there are no laws on the books to this effect that I'm aware of, incidents to this effect have occoured and hit the media in the past.

And that is where the opposition would stop you, with a very valid question: Who are you to determine what is harmful or harmless to others? (no personal attack intended).

I remember a thread where a piece of "artwork" on SL was stated as being extremely offensive, repulsive and psychologically harmful (in fact, I believe I started the post. LOL).

Know what many people responded? "It's not harmful".

Who are they to determine how something strikes other people? Where did they get their level of omniscience? How many centuries have they been alive to gain such a degree of incredible, overwhelming wisdom?

I know I'm being sarcastic here... intentionally so to make the point. What one person might individually believe to be harmless has very little relevance on whether it is actually harmful or not. As an example: I have known cigarette smokers who adamantly insisted that smoking is harmless and even denied that second-hand smoke harms other people-- despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I know numerous people who speed on the highway and refuse to use turn signals, despite the documented fact that the primary causes of accidents are speeding and refusing to use turn signals. They are willing to risk their lives and the lives of everyone around them to get somewhere 2 minutes faster... and claim "I'm not harming anyone" when in truth, such people harm others every day.

Individuals insisting that they can personally judge what is harmful or harmless to society (and thus follow or break laws at their own personal whim) are imho, arrogant. Every person has a right to question societal rules and even challenge them. But does he have the right to try to enforce his personal views or to break the laws of society just because he personally disagrees with them? That's the question. Whether he has the right or not, should he choose to do so he'd better have eyes open enough to realize that there will be consequenses for such belief.

I'm going to insist on some sources, then, as well as some follow-up on what appeals occurred, because quite honestly I don't believe you.

Well, the representatives of the small portion of eligible voters who actually voted to achieve that alleged majority have spoken, at the very least.

Can't argue with you there.

etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Cindy, just a note:

All I saw in your rather lengthy post was a collection of very opinionated statements, a general lack of respect for others, thinking very highly of yourself and a healthy dose of snide to add to the pot. You can't really expect others to respect your position if you don't respect theirs. Not really inclined to respond to your post point by point considering the obvious fact that you wouldn't really respect my reply anyway.

Honestly I don't care enough about that sub-thread of this thread to bother. It's enough for me that I remember hearing of a few incidents of students being asked to remove cross neclaces and such.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I am certainly not saying it is right to tell someone to take off their cross... but with all of the oppression and bigotry I've personally seen by christians... I am not surprised in the least that it happened.

I'm not surprised either.

But I lump them right in with the WBC group in terms of personality and attitude. They aren't an iota better or worse.

Wayfinder, just a note:

All I saw in your comments on Evolution was the same sort of blatant misinformation and untruths that I've seen in hundreds of other discussions on this topic with other Creationists around the web. If you have some real information to impart, I invite a discussion. But if all you're going to do is toss out platitudes and lies you picked up from religious websites and then run away, you're going to do nothing for your own credibility and you'll get no respect from me.

If you want facts, ask. I'll be happy to provide them in more detail. But don't expect me to respect your opinion when all you're bringing to the table are rehashes of the same old popular misconceptions & falsehoods about Darwin and Evolution. Come armed or don't come at all, you'll save both of us some time.

What oppression and bigotry are you talking about?

So in other words, you don't have any sources. That's ok, Reitsuki, I did a 10-second Google and found that there are a huge number of cases where religious symbolism has been banned from public schools. It's not going to help your case, I'm afraid, since all but one of these are cases of non-Christian symbols being banned:

1998; Colorado: Two African-American students at Arvada High School in Lakewood CO wanted to express pride in their African heritage by wearing a ceremonial Ghanian Kente cloth over their graduation gowns. The school administrated would not allow them to be worn

1998-OCT; Michigan: The Lincoln Park High School in a suburb of Detroit had issued a dress code to be followed by all students. 2,3 It prohibited the wearing of clothing or jewelry associated with white supremacy groups, youth gangs, Satanism and "Wigga" [sic]. The writers of the dress code probably meant "Wicca," This included the wearing of pentagrams (a 5 pointed star) and pentacles (a pentagram inside a circle).

1998-NOV; Rhode Island: The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed an appeal with the State Department of Education concerning a high school student who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt which displayed the name of a rock band and the number 666.

1999-JUL; Texas: Public school officials in McKinney, TX, installed a new dress code which bans the wearing of pentagrams and pentacles on campus.

1999-AUG; Mississipi: A 15 year old Jewish student, Ryan Green, was not allowed to wear a Star of David necklace at his Biloxi MS high school. This is a six-pointed star which is the universal symbol of Judaism.

1999-OCT-18; Alabama: Kandice Smith is in 6th grade at Curry Middle School in Jasper AL. She brought a lawsuit against the Walker County Public School System and her school's principal because she was allegedly told on two occasions to wear a gold cross out of sight inside her shirt. She was represented by the Fundamentalist Christian American Center for Law and Justice. A school district attorney, Russ Richardson, said that the policy's intent was to "keep distractions down" in the schools. The system's policy is that "No neck jewelry of any type is allowed, religious or otherwise."