It has often been asserted--and sometimes in this forum--that the U.S. Supreme Court building is adorned with one or more copies of the Ten Commandments.  That is simply not true.  The following link explains the nature of displays in that building and addresses a number of other misconceptions within the larger realm of church and state:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

 

Other errors and some deceptions are discussed in the link below, which examines the work of the shifty phony historian, David Barton:

 

http://candst.tripod.com/bjcpa1.htm

Original Post

So, Head,

 

What do YOU BELIEVE IN?  So far, we have seen that you do not like God in America!  So far, to the best of my knowledge -- you believe God has abandoned Israel, so, therefore America should abandon Israel.

 

And, you will not tell us your church affiliation or connection.  Why?

 

I am not ashamed to publicly state that I worship in a Baptist church.  I am not ashamed to share the Gospel as written in the Bible (Romans 1:16).  Head, why are you so hesitant?

 

And, why are you so against having Christian influence in our local, state, and federal leadership?

 

Who, or what, do you serve?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

So, Head,

 

What do YOU BELIEVE IN?  So far, we have seen that you do not like God in America!  So far, to the best of my knowledge -- you believe God has abandoned Israel, so, therefore America should abandon Israel.

 

And, you will not tell us your church affiliation or connection.  Why?

 

I am not ashamed to publicly state that I worship in a Baptist church.  I am not ashamed to share the Gospel as written in the Bible (Romans 1:16).  Head, why are you so hesitant?

 

And, why are you so against having Christian influence in our local, state, and federal leadership?

 

Who, or what, do you serve?

 

Bill wonderful

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Why would any of that be any of your business?

 

.


 

Hi Vic,

 

Two points.  First, if you are going to repeat my post -- please DO NOT add your words to my post -- or change anything I have written.   Anything above your little line is what I have written; anything below your line is your own personal ramblings.

 

Repeating another member's post is one thing.   But, to modify it, add to it, or change it in ANY way is deceitful and dishonest.  And, that little trick has gotten several members booted off in the past.  So, a word to the wise -- and, I realize I am being generous.

 

Second, are you trying to compete with Jimi to see who can post the most inane comments?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Second, are you trying to compete with Jimi to see who can post the most inane comments?

 

**********************************************************************************************************************

 

Of course they aren't competing bill, we all know you're the king of inane comments and posts!

Certain of the discussion above seems to me to represent a very deep misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and its relationship to the role of religion in American life. The initial post  included a great deal of information concerning the interpretation of these matters by those who consider the U.S.A. to be a "Christian nation" and who then reason that God and the Christian religion therefore should be granted certain prominence and recognition in the public life of the nation.  Those holding this view argue strongly that prayers and Bible reading in the public schools are constitutionally permissible activities and that the display of the 10 Commandments on public property, even in the absence of any displays of the tenets of other beliefs, is also constitutional.  The contrary view, in the initial post, is to the effect that religious matters do not belong under the control of secular government and that therefore government, including local public school boards, have no constitutional authority to selectively promote the Christian religion by means of instituting prayers in public school classrooms or other points of assembly.

 

"Bill" above, takes to task "upsidedehead" for "being so against having Christian influence in our local, state and federal leadership," for not liking "God in America," and for (perhaps in some other post, since I find none of that here) believing that "God has abandoned Israel."

 

Leaving aside the matter of Israel for now, since it is not apparent what the details of that argument might be, I submit that the post from "Bill" following the initial post by "upsidedehead" seems not to have addressed any of the numerous facts and arguments within the two rather informative and well-argued attachments that "upsidedehead" submitted to support his post. "Bill" submitted nothing that disputes the description of the displays in the Supreme Court building or that defends David Barton against the charges that he plays free and loose--and possibly dishonestly--with his use of alleged statements from the founding fathers.    Rather than meet these issues head-on, "Bill" chooses to  interrogate "upsidedehead" about his personal beliefs and religious affiliation, which seems rather peripheral to the topic in the post.

 

There are many,  many people who are devoutly religious Christians but who do not want anyone in their local, state, or federal governments directing religious exercises in public schools or selectively promoting  Judeo-Christian concepts through such measures as the placement of 10 Commandments displays on public property.  These people are not against "God in America."

They simply want government to take its proper role, a role that does not extend to becoming an arm for the promotion of Judeo-Christian precepts or other systems of religious belief.

 

I have recently heard a great deal of comment from conservative politicians who are in favor of government being "limited" and avoiding intrusions into the personal business of the citizens.  It is hard for me to understand how someone can hold to that view and at the same time argue  that  government may legitimately use its authority to influence matters that are as deeply personal as religion! 

The Islamis "10 Commandments" are

 

“And your Lord has ordained that you should not worship anyone except Him and shun unclean idols”

 

And do not make Allah a target for your oaths for doing good or avoiding evil or reconciling people

 

And We said to them, “Do not violate Sabbath, and We took from them a solemn Covenant”

 

And your Lord ordains that you do not worship anyone but only Him, and do good to your parents. If they reach old age before your eyes, any one of them or both, then do not say a word of criticism to them and do not scold them, rather speak kindly to them. And lean your wing of humility towards them and pray, ”O Lord, have mercy on them as they had brought me up since my childhood





And do not kill anybody that Allah has prohibited except when you have a right to kill”

 

And do not even go near adultery. It is open vice and bad way

 

As to the thief (man or woman) let their hands be cut off, a retaliation for what they did, a punishment from Allah.

 

And They (Servants of God) do not testify falsely.

 

And do not covet what Allah has favored some of you over others.

Originally Posted by Mohammad Suket Rashid:

The Islamis "10 Commandments" are

 

“And your Lord has ordained that you should not worship anyone except Him and shun unclean idols”

 

And do not make Allah a target for your oaths for doing good or avoiding evil or reconciling people

 

And We said to them, “Do not violate Sabbath, and We took from them a solemn Covenant”

 

And your Lord ordains that you do not worship anyone but only Him, and do good to your parents. If they reach old age before your eyes, any one of them or both, then do not say a word of criticism to them and do not scold them, rather speak kindly to them. And lean your wing of humility towards them and pray, ”O Lord, have mercy on them as they had brought me up since my childhood



And do not kill anybody that Allah has prohibited except when you have a right to kill”

 

And do not even go near adultery. It is open vice and bad way

 

As to the thief (man or woman) let their hands be cut off, a retaliation for what they did, a punishment from Allah.

 

And They (Servants of God) do not testify falsely.

 

And do not covet what Allah has favored some of you over others.

____

Mo,

 

You say that one of these Muslim commandments is, "And do not kill anybody that Allah has prohibited except when you have a right to kill.”

 

Then tell us this:  Are those Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan killing people that they "have a right to kill"?   Or are they just a radical fringe of Islam and failing to honor this Islamic commandment?

 

It has to be one way or the other, Mo.

 

Tell us which it is.
 

Then tell us this:  Are those Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan killing people that they "have a right to kill"?   Or are they just a radical fringe of Islam and failing to honor this Islamic commandment?

 

It has to be one way or the other, Mo.

 

Tell us which it is.
 

 --------

We believe that anyone who does not follow the Quran or AL Sahree'a is a sinner, "Kafer" in arabic, Christians are the infidels according to Muslims and any Muslim helping or assisting and working with infidels is considered Sinner and according to these fanatics, our Holly book of Quran does justify the death and killing of such perosn(s).

And, why are you so against having Christian influence in our local, state, and federal leadership?

 

 

Gawd, I hate this format.

 

Vic, I am against Christian influence in government because insanity has no place in government.  Our Constitution expresses flatly that no establishment of religion shall be emplaced in government.

 

Christianity depends on faith in revealed suggestions.  Government should depend on reason and reality.

 

Government should embrace justice and morality.  Christianity is the antithesis of both.  OK, not so much as Islam, but a solid second.

 

I am against Christian influences in government because America is a land of religious freedom.  Muslim, Jain, atheist, Catholic, FSM.... no one gets political power because of one's religion.  Recent Republican trends make me reconsider my party affiliation.

 

This country was not founded on Christian values.  It was founded on Enlightenment values of liberty, democracy, secularism, and capitalism.  Christianity cherishes few of those.  OK, capitalism, since it funds so many churches.

 

Vic, your thirst for an American theocracy frightens me, and stiffens my backbone to resist you and your kind.  Bring it on.  We'll be here.  Expect us.

 

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

And, why are you so against having Christian influence in our local, state, and federal leadership?

 

 

Gawd, I hate this format.

 

Vic, I am against Christian influence in government because insanity has no place in government.  Our Constitution expresses flatly that no establishment of religion shall be emplaced in government.

 

Christianity depends on faith in revealed suggestions.  Government should depend on reason and reality.

 

Government should embrace justice and morality.  Christianity is the antithesis of both.  OK, not so much as Islam, but a solid second.

 

I am against Christian influences in government because America is a land of religious freedom.  Muslim, Jain, atheist, Catholic, FSM.... no one gets political power because of one's religion.  Recent Republican trends make me reconsider my party affiliation.

 

This country was not founded on Christian values.  It was founded on Enlightenment values of liberty, democracy, secularism, and capitalism.  Christianity cherishes few of those.  OK, capitalism, since it funds so many churches.

 

Vic, your thirst for an American theocracy frightens me, and stiffens my backbone to resist you and your kind.  Bring it on.  We'll be here.  Expect us.

 

 

DF

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

NS---Not sure why you named me in this post, not sure why I should "Bring it on"

I know you'll be here, not sure what you're going to do about a six thousand

year old Judeo Christian religion thats growing stronger every day.

 

But you have got your pseudo intellect, phony speech delivery and counterfeit

videos. The reason I stopped posting you, you're insane with hate, too much

hate. This Country was founded for, Right To Religion, without the nut jobs

like yourself. So, rant the good rant, but if you would please nauseate

someone else.

 

Iv

Originally Posted by Mohammad Suket Rashid:
Then tell us this:  Are those Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan killing people that they "have a right to kill"?   Or are they just a radical fringe of Islam and failing to honor this Islamic commandment?

 

It has to be one way or the other, Mo.

 

Tell us which it is.
 

 --------

We believe that anyone who does not follow the Quran or AL Sahree'a is a sinner, "Kafer" in arabic, Christians are the infidels according to Muslims and any Muslim helping or assisting and working with infidels is considered Sinner and according to these fanatics, our Holly book of Quran does justify the death and killing of such perosn(s).

Well, then, Mo, how about THIS situation?

 

An Islamist suicide bomber, loaded up with plastic explosive, enters a public marketplace full of people, including men, women, and children.  Among these people are other Muslims, including those who are minding their own business and who have not done anything to help or assist or work with "infidels." Certainly the tiny Muslim infants and children in this mixed assemblage are not lending any aid or comfort to the "infidels."   And it is almost certain that among the adults there are those who are not implicated in any such anti-Islamic activities.  But never mind that.The bomber--perhaps envisioning his rapid disembarking to a 72-woman harem--positions himself within a densely-packed area of the marketplace and proceeds to blow up himself and several dozen others. 

 

Under such a scenario, Mo, is Allah pleased that totally innocent persons are blown to bits along with any "infidels" who also happened to be within killing distance? 

The 10 Commandments shown in and on the Supreme court building (actually just roman numerals 1 to 10 (I to X) are similar to those depicted in and on synagogues.  In Sheffield, there is a small brick church used by several denominations over the years. The Methodists used it at one time. It was a synnagogue, also. If, you look carefully, behind and above the front portico, you may see a depiction of two white tablets with the same roman numerals.

 

The 10 commandments were Hebrew in origin, and were meant for obediance for those under the mosaic code.  In pre-Christian times, jews did not insist thal all who worshipped God do so as Jews. Gentiles could do so and obey the seven Noahaic commandments.  In the old Temple, there was a seperate Court of the Gentiles for their worship.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

Under such a scenario, Mo, is Allah pleased that totally innocent persons are blown to bits along with any "infidels" who also happened to be within killing distance?

 

----

Contendah my friend.  There is no such thing as "innocents." There are those who accept Islam and the holy words of Mohammed (peace be upon him) and those that do not.  The innocents that serve with the infidels know what is coming to them.
  I beleive this to be no different from what your religion demands of you according to your holy book of testaments.  

 

Originally Posted by Mohammad Suket Rashid:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

Under such a scenario, Mo, is Allah pleased that totally innocent persons are blown to bits along with any "infidels" who also happened to be within killing distance?

 

----

Contendah my friend.  There is no such thing as "innocents." There are those who accept Islam and the holy words of Mohammed (peace be upon him) and those that do not.  The innocents that serve with the infidels know what is coming to them.
  I beleive this to be no different from what your religion demands of you according to your holy book of testaments.  

 

If you are going to be "Cage", you need to do a little better job of research and deliverance.

Originally Posted by Mohammad Suket Rashid:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

Under such a scenario, Mo, is Allah pleased that totally innocent persons are blown to bits along with any "infidels" who also happened to be within killing distance?

 

----

Contendah my friend.  There is no such thing as "innocents." There are those who accept Islam and the holy words of Mohammed (peace be upon him) and those that do not.  The innocents that serve with the infidels know what is coming to them.
  I beleive this to be no different from what your religion demands of you according to your holy book of testaments.  

 

So what I hear you say is that a three year old child killed in one of your religious attacks is just fine.

They are not innocent because they can't understand your Prophet Mohammed. Or someone who has never heard of your Prophet Mohammed. Not innocent, Off With Their Head!

Skippy

Originally Posted by Mohammad Suket Rashid:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

Under such a scenario, Mo, is Allah pleased that totally innocent persons are blown to bits along with any "infidels" who also happened to be within killing distance?

 

----

Contendah my friend.  There is no such thing as "innocents." There are those who accept Islam and the holy words of Mohammed (peace be upon him) and those that do not.  The innocents that serve with the infidels know what is coming to them.
  I beleive this to be no different from what your religion demands of you according to your holy book of testaments.  

 

***********************************

 

Rashid, you continue to dodge the issue, as is obvious to anyone reading your evasive non-answer!

 

Here is the question, stated as simply as possible, such that even you can not miss the meaning:

 

Are those babes in arms who are blown up by Muslim suicide bombers "innocent" or are they guilty of some offense against Allah?  If they are innocent, then that bomber is killing innocent persons.  If they are "guilty" then please reach deep into your Islamic intellect and tell us what they are guilty of!

 

We would appreciate a real answer this time instead of the transparently dishonest responses you continue to submit.

 

Rashid, if you have followed the development of public sentiment in this nation concerning Islam, you will know that there are many in the U.S.A. who want to believe that not all Muslims are murderous scum like Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic organizations.  Many in this nation have called upon allegedly peace-loving American Muslims to denounce the radicalism of these Islamist murderers.  Sadly, there has been little response to this invitation.  Tell us, do you believe that Al Qaeda and other such organizations are doing the will of Allah?  Or do you consider them as apostates from Islam, the alleged religion of peace? 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Rashid, you continue to dodge the issue, as is obvious to anyone reading your evasive non-answer!

 

A question, Contendah?  Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?  

No "evasive" answer, please. Just answer the question. 

Some historians believe that at the secret heart of the Muslim religion is a nasty secret.  That some worship the old god Ba'al.  As Ba'al demanded the sacrifice of innocent babes, it seems to fit.  Mohammed (fleas be upon him) admitted some of the verses (the Satanic verses) were not transcribed by Allah to him (while Mohammed was in paradise), but a trick of the devil.  Wonder if only those verses were the work of Shaitan. 

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Rashid, you continue to dodge the issue, as is obvious to anyone reading your evasive non-answer!

 

A question, Contendah?  Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?  

No "evasive" answer, please. Just answer the question. 

----

 

Well dang. Contendah seems to have signed off.  Can't imagine why.  I'm sure he is not "evading" the answer.

  
So, I'll answer for him honestly and non-evasively:  Yes, of course the bible condones all sorts of horrible acts in the Old and New testaments.  Ergo: There is no substantive difference between the tenets of the Quran and the Christian Bible.  At least form the outside looking in.   

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Rashid, you continue to dodge the issue, as is obvious to anyone reading your evasive non-answer!

 

A question, Contendah?  Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?  

No "evasive" answer, please. Just answer the question. 

----

 

Well dang. Contendah seems to have signed off.  Can't imagine why.  I'm sure he is not "evading" the answer.

  
So, I'll answer for him honestly and non-evasively:  Yes, of course the bible condones all sorts of horrible acts in the Old and New testaments.  Ergo: There is no substantive difference between the tenets of the Quran and the Christian Bible.  At least form the outside looking in.   

Leaving aside those instances in the Old Testament that you have in mind (and which I am prepared to address, once your inquiry is fully formed), please expand your challenge to include some kind of description of where the New Testament "condones all kinds of horrible acts."

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Leaving aside those instances in the Old Testament that you have in mind (and which I am prepared to address, once your inquiry is fully formed), please expand your challenge to include some kind of description of where the New Testament "condones all kinds of horrible acts."

 

 

Contendah, that is an evasive answer.  The very simple question was, "Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?"  

 

(Holy Book includes the OLD as well as new testaments, of course. Once cannot stand without the other)

It's really just a yes or no. 

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Leaving aside those instances in the Old Testament that you have in mind (and which I am prepared to address, once your inquiry is fully formed), please expand your challenge to include some kind of description of where the New Testament "condones all kinds of horrible acts."

 

 

Contendah, that is an evasive answer.  The very simple question was, "Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?"  

 

(Holy Book includes the OLD as well as new testaments, of course. Once cannot stand without the other)

It's really just a yes or no. 

*********************

 

The term "your holy book" is your term, not mine.

 

There are indeed two distinct volumes in the Bible--the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

You seem to understand this to some degree, since you said:  "Yes, of course the bible condones all sorts of horrible acts in the Old and New testaments." (emphasis mine).  Since you are thereby asserting that there are "all sorts of horrible Acts" in both testaments, one could expect you to serve up at least one such act from the New Testament, thus enhancing the dimensions of your inquiry by some small degree of ilustration.

 

In the Old Testament, there are many acts of God and God's people that involve the violent deaths of people, including some that would be regarded as "innocents."  The circumstances of these deaths vary by historical and theological contexts and the particular  human behaviors involved in them.   If you want a candid reply to your inquiry, will you identify two or three of these for discussion--more if you wish, but keep it reasonable; after a time you would be reinventing the wheel.

 

As to your sprawling generic question (" Does your holy book condone the killing of innocents?"), there are too many ways that you and other skeptics would be inclined to interpret a simple "yes or no," and I will not tempt you to such simplisms as would undoubtedly arise within your narrow theological perspectives, should I supply the simple one-word answer you demand.   

Forget about the book. It's "inspiration" is responsible for AIDs, smallpox, polio, cancer, VD, tornados, floods, fires, drought, famine, the plague, autism, etc, etc, etc. He is also responsible for killing every living thing. Why would anyone defend this truly evil god? Ignorance? Insanity? Stupidity?
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Forget about the book. It's "inspiration" is responsible for AIDs, smallpox, polio, cancer, VD, tornados, floods, fires, drought, famine, the plague, autism, etc, etc, etc. He is also responsible for killing every living thing. Why would anyone defend this truly evil god? Ignorance? Insanity? Stupidity?

------------------------------------------------

Yeah jimi, Insanity and all, I'm all that. but maybe you could tell me how the Bible

is responsible for AIDS. 

It was probably caused by Africans who butchered and killed injected monkey's that had something that was like HIV and then mutated to become what we now know as HIV. 

 

In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of  Alabama  announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.   

       

The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.

 

I know most people are aware of the chain of events leading up to 24 million people

dying of AIDs and the New Yorkers along with San Francisco guys playing around

in Africa and/or islands of choice. I thought you may not know jimi.

 

.  

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Forget about the book. It's "inspiration" is responsible for AIDs, smallpox, polio, cancer, VD, tornados, floods, fires, drought, famine, the plague, autism, etc, etc, etc. He is also responsible for killing every living thing. Why would anyone defend this truly evil god? Ignorance? Insanity? Stupidity?

------------------------------------------------

Yeah jimi, Insanity and all, I'm all that. but maybe you could tell me how the Bible

is responsible for AIDS. 

It was probably caused by Africans who butchered and killed injected monkey's that had something that was like HIV and then mutated to become what we now know as HIV. 

 

In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of  Alabama  announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.   

       

The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.

 

I know most people are aware of the chain of events leading up to 24 million people

dying of AIDs and the New Yorkers along with San Francisco guys playing around

in Africa and/or islands of choice. I thought you may not know jimi.

 

.  

If your God exists, the buck stops with Him, and you can't spin yourself out of that. You just appear foolish. You creationists always claim that nothing can come from nothing and that God created everything. If he is responsible for rainbows and sunsets, he must also take the credit for AIDs and all other horrible diseases. You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Forget about the book. It's "inspiration" is responsible for AIDs, smallpox, polio, cancer, VD, tornados, floods, fires, drought, famine, the plague, autism, etc, etc, etc. He is also responsible for killing every living thing. Why would anyone defend this truly evil god? Ignorance? Insanity? Stupidity?

------------------------------------------------

Yeah jimi, Insanity and all, I'm all that. but maybe you could tell me how the Bible

is responsible for AIDS. 

It was probably caused by Africans who butchered and killed injected monkey's that had something that was like HIV and then mutated to become what we now know as HIV. 

 

In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of  Alabama  announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.   

       

The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.

 

I know most people are aware of the chain of events leading up to 24 million people

dying of AIDs and the New Yorkers along with San Francisco guys playing around

in Africa and/or islands of choice. I thought you may not know jimi.

 

.

----------------------  

If your God exists, the buck stops with Him, and you can't spin yourself out of that. You just appear foolish. You creationists always claim that nothing can come from nothing and that God created everything. If he is responsible for rainbows and sunsets, he must also take the credit for AIDs and all other horrible diseases. You can't have it both ways.

--------------------------

 

The buck stops with the above facts.

.

 

 

quote:   Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
If your God exists, the buck stops with Him, and you can't spin yourself out of that. You just appear foolish. You creationists always claim that nothing can come from nothing and that God created everything. If he is responsible for rainbows and sunsets, he must also take the credit for AIDs and all other horrible diseases. You can't have it both ways.

Hi Jimi,

 

YOU say He does not exist -- so your argument has no validity.   Whether He exist or not is irrelevant -- YOU say he does not exist, yet, you base your position upon the fact that He does exist

 

So, which is it?  Does He exist in your mind and you are not really an atheist, but, instead just a young non-believer who likes to argue?  Or, does He not exist -- and you have based your position on nothing?

 

But, that, too, is irrelevant.   Leaving God out of it -- where do YOU say that HIV and AIDS originated?  And, wasn't it the result of hedonistic, worldly living?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Jimi, many diseases are man made, i.e.some forms of Parvo viruses. Other diseases are spread via the intrusion of man, i.e. Hanson's Disease. God is not responsible for the degradation or mutation of certain genes. Why doesn't he stop it? Ahh, that is where the leap of faith comes in.

 

While I'm sure Contendah (and his name seems somewhat self-effacing) can or will offer a better apologetic, the question of God commanding the death of innocents is one that smacks of "do it for the children." God knew what these innocents would be capable of when adults. If we really have such a problem with pre-emptive strikes, there are probably some still living who participated in some manner in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki whom we could prosecute.

quote:   Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
If your God exists,

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Jimi,

YOU say He does not exist -- 

Bill

***********************************************************************************

Bill, there you go putting words in people's mouth again. Why do you do that?????

Jimi said IF.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Vic,

Two points.  First, if you are going to repeat my post -- please DO NOT add your words to my post -- or change anything I have written.   Anything above your little line is what I have written; anything below your line is your own personal ramblings.

 

Repeating another member's post is one thing.   But, to modify it, add to it, or change it in ANY way is deceitful and dishonest.  And, that little trick has gotten several members booted off in the past.  So, a word to the wise -- and, I realize I am being generous. 

Bill

***********************************************************************************************

Bill, you may not change the words in someone's original post but you change our words in your reply. How is that any different?????

You frequently modify, add to or change mine & others words, so that would make you deceitful & dishonest.

You threaten to get Vic "booted off" as you have others before, so I could make the same threat the  next time you modify, add to or change my words....in ANY way!

 

So, a word to the wise...and I am being generous!

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×