GarthP2000

Jonny is accusing you of using a Personal Computer. :D-->

So-o-o, what's your point? Amen to that Ex.

Dude! Get some help! *Quickly*!! :D-->

Also, in regards to this ((cough)) 'indignancy' towards gays when they aren't 'very level, almost unemotional' in their activism, I find it a tad ironic that when it comes to the rather 'unlevel' emotion rendered in religious conservatives rantings, regarding homosexuality or anything else that blows up their skirts, ... hmmm, they don't seem to find a problem with it. Rather, to them it is 'taking a stand on principle and righteousness', etc., yadayada. Can you say 'strawman'? -->

Def, Like that its not a violation of Natural Law and/or that gays are hurting no one with their gay actions? I love it when this line keeps being brought up. ... Uhhm, since when was equal rights/treatment under the law a 'special law'? And how is it at your expense? Or in what way is a basic right given to them that is deprived to you? ??? Even if someone tells you that they are 'special' (imagining the church lady saying this :)-->), why would that give you an excuse not to treat them as equal human beings? Besides, where was this same complaint given by straights when gays were told that they were inferior and vile? Kinda like being 'special' in reverse, doncha think?

Steve!, If the only source that you get that from is the 'confession' of Matthew's killer on that TV interview, then it is, at most, on rather shakey ground. His heated arguments during the trial and around the time of Matthew's murder about Matthew making a pass at him/showing sexual interest in him, as well as his hatred for gays is well documented, and (if I'm not mistaken) there were witnesses to this effect. Now why he would be doing a downplaying turnaround like that should have one plain reason: to reduce his charge/sentence from 'hate crime' status. *splash*

Egads!! TWI meets The Lawrence Welk Show! Man, if someone actually *listens* to this stuff, I will be totally amazed, ... and hope that those individuals will be totally committed ..... to an institution!

Jonny, First off, where did anyone actually tell you that you had no right to voice your opinion? Mebbe I'm blind, but I can't see anywhere where this occured. Two, ExWay Daryl said, To which you replied, Now why, sir, is it that you take exception to gays being just like you are. I mean, is regarding them as equal human beings really an affront to the God that you believe in? Equal protection and regard in a civilized society is really that ungodly for you? Plus I also find it rather ironic how some verses (like those regarding homosexuality) get defended almost to the death, yet other verses (like regarding greed, swearing, bearing false witness, et al), don't seem to be regarded as so important -- especially by those who just might be involved with such in one way or another. Makes ya wanna go 'Hhhmmmmm'. ;)-->

For those of us here who enjoyed 'Kissing Hank's A$$', there is the video: http://www.infidelguy.com/special_featuret...inghanksass.mov Enjoy! And remember,

Raf, "Would someone please tell me why some folks get upset because the government isn't allowed to get involved with the matters of religion/spiritualty?" This question and yours are the kind of questions are what I keep asking religious conservatives all the time, and to this day, I have yet to get back a satisfactory answer, if even any answer at all. Notice Johniam's dance of an answer when I asked him the same thing. And now I hear rumor, rumor that I fear will be all too true, that Roy Moore is seriously thinking of running for governor for the state of Alabama. While in many other states, including a good number of Southern ones, that boy couldn't make dog catcher, in Alabama he has wide spread support. Wide spread enough where, if I were to place even money on a bet, I'd wager that he would win that election. Yes, I said win. ((sigh)) And here I was thinking that Alabama couldn't get any lower in the governor's mansion than Fob James. Boy was I wrong. :(-->

Musta been re-e-valation. That, ... and you probably saw my moniker at the bottom of the main page of the message board. :D--> Merry Xmas and Happy Bud Light New Year's to you too.

From the article, "But some Christians argue they are just fighting an exaggerated political correctness that they say is banishing Christ from Christmas. Well when you stop and think about it, the Christmas celebration is largely based on the pagan holiday Saturnalia and related holidays and celebrations (like Winter Solstice?) long before Christ was born. The church basically took all the trappings and 'painted' Christ on it all. So I guess thats why I find it rather amusing that many religious conservatives think that the 'politically correct liberals' are trying to 'steal' Christmas away from 'its true meaning'. Basically it was never really theirs to begin with as far as the meaning of the holiday goes. -->

Agreed. Like what is the best beer to give Cindy! to get her off this 1 ... 2 ... 3 .... thread kick! :D--> On the other hand, the separation of Cindy! and that thread might be as difficult as this topic is.

You mean Lucifer was once a 8 year old little boy who was a pod racer and said "Yippee!!"? :D-->

One could think of this thread as THE meets Dr. Ruth.

Then we are talking ethics, Mark. And even the questions of existence and the purpose of life are best dealt with in a private and personal (;)-->) matter. Besides, this 'widening' of the definition of religion that encompasses all still doesn't allow government in to participate. I've noticed that there are some pro-break-down-the-wall afficianadoes (present company excluded of course ;)-->) who use that 'wide load' and obscure 'definition' of religion as a means of an end run around the church-state separation argument, and I can spot that one a mile off. (Maybe because of its 'wide load' characteristics :D-->) Basically 'religion', as distinct from 'ethics', has to do with God/spirituality/the ethereal world/etc. Ethics has to do with our behavior towards other human beings. Also, the reason I brought up that it was pagans who initiated the representative form of government was to show that it did come from those specific Greco-Roman 'pagans', in contrast to the biblical characters, who seemed to always concentrate on 'Let us have a king". Ie., an answer to those who seem to boast that democracy and the principles thereof was a distinctly Judeao-Christian invention come straight from the Bible. 'Tain't so.

Mark, Perhaps I should have clarified better. Instead of saying "Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies", I should have stated "have their roots and beginning concepts" in those societies. Good point. However (and you knew it was coming, didncha? ;)-->), first off, although the Roman version of representative government is crude and very limited to ours by comparison, so it could be also said that the representative government under our own Constitution *at its beginning* was also crude by comparison to today, what with non-property owners, blacks, women, and 18 year olds getting the right to vote, and the direct election of senators in the years since then. Two, I never brought in 'separation of church and state' into the Greco-Roman models. You did that. The concept of separation of church and state is relatively new, being about 200-250 years old. Still a very valid concept nonetheless (as opposed to being 'silly'), being determined from the experiences learned from the church-state mixture in Europe, and the dismal failure therewith. So also was the downside of the Greco-Roman age without the church-state separation. Why is there this downside of non-separation? The answer to that should be apparent to all. Government involvement in the private ( Always has. Always will. Or, as Thomas Jefferson once observed: Why this is so difficult for some folks to understand and grasp continues to escape me. -->

Steve, does that mean that she's acting 'batty'? :D--> ((ducking))

Socks, What I was referring to wasn't church polity, but to a civil government of a country. And there is enough difference between the two that they are clearly distinct from each other. For one thing, church government is still about worshipping that church's god. In a country's civil government where it's representitive of the people across the board, the 'god' factor disappears. And in the Bible, it is taught that "blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord", and they were all (the ones chosen and supported by God that is) kingdoms. And not even constitutional monarchies at that. All of them were of the 'divine right' variety. Democracies and republics, on the other hand, come straight from the Greco-Roman societies, and they were pagan (to play off of the term Valerie used). Just some historical facts to consider in the discussion re: god and government.

Stop and think about this, will you please, just stop and think. So you make the distinction between the American government (Constitution) which gaurantees religious freedom, even for 'pagan worshippers', and God, who says "Let not the pagans into your land". Hhmmmm. OK. Well, isn't it true that this very same God of yours required that pagans like this were to be *killed* in the land of Isreal for the worship of other gods? Is this the same one that you contrast the Constitution with? (And who is the 'war god' in these situations, hmmm?) Have you ever even read what some of our founding fathers thought about this kind of diety? Hhmmm? Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine. John Adams. Even Benjamin Franklin, with his gentle demeanor, and many others had some not-so-flattering things to say about belief systems like this. ... And these were the same people who founded the same country that you fought for, so you might want to keep that in mind. (And I can show you *plenty* of quotes and statements, that are NOT 'taken out of context', that show this plainly) "My ancestors fought and died for this freedom." What freedom? *The freedom for ALL religions to be free without persecution, NOT this 'freedom' for not having 'pagans' in this land.* "... we have really screwed up by letting Muslims practice their religion here." Christ on a crutch, listen to you! I'm sorry, but I had no idea that having religious freedom was to be so flippently dismissed as nothing more than 'political correctness'. Frankly, I think I prefer answering to the principles of what the Constitution communicates, rather than this OT 'war god' that demands the driving out/killing of those who don't worship accordingly. Or, as Thomas Jefferson so distinctly put it in one of his quotes that I referred to: Or how about this one: So perhaps there isn't the so-called danger that you seem to think there is. The U.S of A., contrary to what folks like you would like to think, is NOT the western hemisphere version of Isreal awaiting its Messianic King, thank you very much, but the first country that was founded on a secular government that is answerable to/elected by its people, and ONLY its people. P.S., Oh by the way, for you who believe that our country was founded on *biblical* concepts and principles, here is a brain teaser for you to think about. Where in the bible is the representative form of government found as a biblically/godly form of government, hmmm? Just think about that one for a moment. The answer just might surprise you.

If that were a squirrel, he'd go 'nuts' off of that pipe. Get it? Nuts? he he he ... Nuts. :D--> ... he he ... he ...... he . . . ((crickets chirping))..............

Johniam, Frankly, I don't see why my question, stated twice, is so difficult to understand, even with the not-that-uncommon hype that is practiced here, not only by yours truly. BUT, ok. Let me give a shot at it using the non-Garth-THE-only-poster-on-GSC method: ((drum roll please)) There. Hyperbole excised. (As much as I could anyway) But then again, I seriously don't think thats the major problem here, as there has been hype of various types here, and I didn't catch you scratching your head going "Huh???" with them. But that just might be my observation. --> Anywho, try taking a shot at answering the 'decaffinated' version of that question. .... If you care to. Here, how about answering the even shorter version of that question: How about that?

Dmiller, My post on December 17th, at 12:20? Read it again. Carefully. Note the non-coercive nature of allowing the voting to go on in the church building; no church leader is there to propagate who/what to vote for, no political commercials being allowed to go on there, nothing. Just a building being used as a polling place. (Now I could be wrong or mistaken legally. The Supreme Court/Constitutional legal scholars just might find out that it does violate the Constitution anyway. I am just not aware of it.) Fast forward to Roy Moore's antics, and similar activities bt 'like minded' judges. There you have the specific aim of propagating (teaching, encouraging, even intimidating) the religious (almost always Christian) concepts/beliefs/etc. in the courtroom, via things like the 10 Commandment monument, signs, wearing them on the judge's robes, etc. It would be like having that same behavior at the polling place! Ooopsie! Maybe you can answer the same question I put to Johniam. Please tell me why some folks go ape-.... because the government isn't allowed to get involved with the matters of religion/spiritualty? I mean, anybody else gets on the 'gummint public trough', and they are told to 'get a job, and quit being a socialist freeloader!'. But when it comes to the Sovereign God Almighty, apparently He just can't do His Will without government assistance in keeping His people on the straight and narrow. Why is this? I have put that question to quite a number of religious people that seem to get anal when it comes to the separation of church and state, and to this day, NONE could/would answer what I believe to be a legit question. (Not in a straightforward and honest manner anyway) Even if you look past my 'diplomatic and loving ways' ;)--> Hhhmmmm?

Johniam, Getting a tad desperate here, aren't we? I mean, this gives 'straining at a gnat' a whole new meaning and level of anal retentive pickyness. --> Establishment is happening whether we're talking about AN establishment or THE establishment. The 10 Commandments are laws that God specifically gave to Isreal that has elements that cross over into other religions and even morals. Consider, for example, the first 4 commandments. They *specifically* have to do with making God your god, to have no other gods beside him, not to have graven images, and the like. Morality has been around a LONG time before Moses was a gleam in his daddy's eye. AND morality is not specific to those who practice religion. Contrary to popular opinion, one could be an atheist and still have morals; don't kill, don't steal, you know the drill. MWUHAhahahaha! Why, thats part of the Grande, One World, Communist Corn-spiracy, doncha know. To *drive* out Christianity from this country, back to the Midle East where it belongs! :P--> And it all started with the first step: The outlawing of government sponsored prayer in the public schools!! --> Would someone please tell me why some folks go ape-.... because the government isn't allowed to get involved with the matters of religion/spiritualty please! I mean, anybody else gets on the 'gummint public trough', and they are told to 'get a job, and quit being a socialist freeloader!'. But when it comes to the Sovereign God Almighty, apparently He just can't do His Will without government assistance in keeping His people on the straight and narrow. Perhaps you can tell us Johniam. Why is this?

Mark, Thats not what I said, and I think you know it. Read what I said again. I had to post a retraction on another thread cause I made the same mistake.