Thank you!

[Dale143]

So You believe in a bunch of Jewish fairy tales?

 

Is that your point?

 

Here we go again.

[stephenhawkings]

Thank you for survival of the fittest, hopefully we can get back to it after we help every one out of there situations.

[CD4EMAN]

Quoting the bible is great. But what about people who are not christian. They do not follow what is in the bible. Also over the years the bible was altered by the monks who were copying it. It has been altered to their liking.

 

Also, didn't Jesus say love your fellow man. I don't remember him saying except the gay ones.

All of you bible quoters never quote the beatitudes, the words of Jesus, why?

 

 

this is the quote you are refering to and yea there are NO exclusions. “Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”

 

for those that are not christians, that is your right to believe as you choose. I feel there is nothing wrong with trying to live as Christ asks me, it hurts no one and keeps me from doing things I shouldn't.

 

as for the monks statement. did you know there are over 45,000 hand written transcripts of just the old testament that date from the time of Christ to thousands of years before with not so much as one word misplaced, as a matter of fact the dead sea scrolls(found in the 1940s) predate anything science has tested before, and in just one of the books only one letter was deleted in the writtings and made NO diffrerence in the text at all. so please before you make such a broad statement know there are a lot of books to the truth and authorty of the validity of the transcripts of the bible.

 

on such book is called "God wrote a book" by James McDonald

 

I did not intend on making this a religious string, if it offends anyone Im sorry.

 

I just dont like the road our political leaders are taking us at this time.

[Aces]

this is the quote you are refering to and yea there are NO exclusions. “Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”

 

for those that are not christians, that is your right to believe as you choose. I feel there is nothing wrong with trying to live as Christ asks me, it hurts no one and keeps me from doing things I shouldn't.

 

as for the monks statement. did you know there are over 45,000 hand written transcripts of just the old testament that date from the time of Christ to thousands of years before with not so much as one word misplaced, as a matter of fact the dead sea scrolls(found in the 1940s) predate anything science has tested before, and in just one of the books only one letter was deleted in the writtings and made NO diffrerence in the text at all. so please before you make such a broad statement know there are a lot of books to the truth and authorty of the validity of the transcripts of the bible.

 

on such book is called "God wrote a book" by James McDonald

 

I did not intend on making this a religious string, if it offends anyone Im sorry.

 

I just dont like the road our political leaders are taking us at this time.

 

 

Baloney

[CD4EMAN]

Baloney

 

 

 

genius!!

[Aces]

genius!!

 

 

http://desdinovasuperstar.blogspot.com/200...le-is-bunk.html

 

http://biblical-bunk.blogspot.com/

 

http://isnrblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/m...e-is-bull-shit/

 

I could post thousand of similar web sites, but you won't read them anyway.

 

Your mind is closed....it shows in your postings and your politics.

 

Happy new year.

[CD4EMAN]

http://desdinovasuperstar.blogspot.com/200...le-is-bunk.html

 

http://biblical-bunk.blogspot.com/

 

http://isnrblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/m...e-is-bull-shit/

 

I could post thousand of similar web sites, but you won't read them anyway.

 

Your mind is closed....it shows in your postings and your politics.

 

Happy new year.

 

 

These 3 blog spots the best you got? spoutings from people no one has ever heard of, thats the best you got?! REALLY!? ok i see. so let me ask, do you believe that all this you know and see just came from a big bang or something? Stephen Hawkings (the real one) even says "intelligent design screams designer". but none the less you keep trying to convince people that there is no God as we know it, thats fine I will continue to prove people like you wrong.

 

Also I could give you links to scientist and theologist by the 10,000s and you sir most likely would not read a one.

 

This will be my last post on my personal beliefs on this string, Again I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

 

Obama will drive our country into a third world country, thats my point! Religion bears no relivence on that.

 

Have a great day Aces. and yes,God even loves you to :-)

[Aces]

These 3 blog spots the best you got? spoutings from people no one has ever heard of, thats the best you got?! REALLY!? ok i see. so let me ask, do you believe that all this you know and see just came from a big bang or something? Stephen Hawkings (the real one) even says "intelligent design screams designer". but none the less you keep trying to convince people that there is no God as we know it, thats fine I will continue to prove people like you wrong.

 

Also I could give you links to scientist and theologist by the 10,000s and you sir most likely would not read a one.

 

This will be my last post on my personal beliefs on this string, Again I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

 

Obama will drive our country into a third world country, thats my point! Religion bears no relivence on that.

 

Have a great day Aces. and yes,God even loves you to :-)

 

 

 

 

If you want to believe in Jewish fairy tales that is up to you.

 

Spouting about them on the net just makes you look stupid.

 

It does fit in with and explain your closed mindedness on other subjects.

[FiredMotorCompany]

If you want to believe in Jewish fairy tales that is up to you. Just as it is up to you to believe in "Santa Claus", "the Easter Bunny", "the Tooth Fairy", the first perfect elected official who has performed economic miracles and never left this country less safe or abused the powers of his office or spent three times as much as any previous official who held the same office.

 

Spouting about them on the net just makes you look stupid. Why is this comment necessary? Unless you are filled with HATRED toward anyone who does not drink the same kool-aid as you, I cannot understand why you must attack him.

When he says, "God loves you", there are two possible perspectives you could take...

 

(1) God is not real, therefore God does not love you. You are not harmed by the nonexistent Jewish fairy tale. So just ignore the comment.

 

Or...

 

(2) God is real, therefore God does in fact love you. You are not under any obligation to abide by His word, but if you do you are destined to enjoy the everlasting life He has promised. If you choose to ignore Him, he will still love you, as He always has. So just continue in your day-to-day routine. No harm, no foul.

It does fit in with and explain your closed mindedness on other subjects. After a careful review of your comments on this site, I find it outrageously hilarious you have the gall to accuse him of "closed mindedness". Look in the mirror, Aces.

 

 

I am still waiting to be easily led to your point of view. Make your case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aces]

 

 

I am still waiting to be easily led to your point of view. Make your case.

 

Ah another of the believers in the tooth fairy in the sky!

 

 

Let me know when the money shows up under your pillow.

[FiredMotorCompany]

QUOTE (Aces @ Jan 1 2010, 06:36 PM) If you want to believe in Jewish fairy tales that is up to you. Just as it is up to you to believe in "Santa Claus", "the Easter Bunny", "the Tooth Fairy", the first perfect elected official who has performed economic miracles and never left this country less safe or abused the powers of his office or spent three times as much as any previous official who held the same office.

 

Spouting about them on the net just makes you look stupid. Why is this comment necessary? Unless you are filled with HATRED toward anyone who does not drink the same kool-aid as you, I cannot understand why you must attack him.

When he says, "God loves you", there are two possible perspectives you could take...

 

(1) God is not real, therefore God does not love you. You are not harmed by the nonexistent Jewish fairy tale. So just ignore the comment.

 

Or...

 

(2) God is real, therefore God does in fact love you. You are not under any obligation to abide by His word, but if you do you are destined to enjoy the everlasting life He has promised. If you choose to ignore Him, he will still love you, as He always has. So just continue in your day-to-day routine. No harm, no foul.

It does fit in with and explain your closed mindedness on other subjects. After a careful review of your comments on this site, I find it outrageously hilarious you have the gall to accuse him of "closed mindedness". Look in the mirror, Aces.

 

Ah another of the believers in the tooth fairy in the sky! Where did I say that? I was offering the possibilities you have regarding the comments from CD4EMAN.

 

 

Let me know when the money shows up under your pillow.

 

Try Reading Comprehension 101. I was not stating my personal beliefs. I was espousing your right to believe or not to believe in anything. If you don't believe in anything I stated, then why act threatened by my suggestions.

 

But your witty comebacks still leave me wanting. I am waiting to be led to your point of view. You said yourself I was easily led since I have admittedly watched Fox News, along with most other mainstream media outlets.

 

LLLEEEAAADDD MMMEEE! LLLEEEAAADDD MMMEEE! :bowdown:

[Dale143]

These 3 blog spots the best you got? spoutings from people no one has ever heard of, thats the best you got?! REALLY!? ok i see. so let me ask, do you believe that all this you know and see just came from a big bang or something? Stephen Hawkings (the real one) even says "intelligent design screams designer". but none the less you keep trying to convince people that there is no God as we know it, thats fine I will continue to prove people like you wrong.

 

Also I could give you links to scientist and theologist by the 10,000s and you sir most likely would not read a one.

 

This will be my last post on my personal beliefs on this string, Again I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

 

Obama will drive our country into a third world country, thats my point! Religion bears no relivence on that.

 

Have a great day Aces. and yes,God even loves you to :-)

 

Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Mathew 5:11.

[Dale143]

If you want to believe in Jewish fairy tales that is up to you.

 

Spouting about them on the net just makes you look stupid.

 

It does fit in with and explain your closed mindedness on other subjects.

 

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Aces]

Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Mathew 5:11.

 

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

 

Ok..So Christians seem to be right wing extremists ....on this board anyway.

 

Is that what Jesus taught?

 

 

My objection is to having religion involved in politics at all.

 

The separation of church and state was done for good reason.

[CD4EMAN]

Ok..So Christians seem to be right wing extremists ....on this board anyway.

 

Is that what Jesus taught?

 

 

My objection is to having religion involved in politics at all.

 

The separation of church and state was done for good reason.

 

 

Aces, if you can show me where it says seperation of church and state ill give you 50 bucks. hell if you can show me the word church in the 1st ammendment ill give you 100 dollars American!

[Aces]

Aces, if you can show me where it says seperation of church and state ill give you 50 bucks. hell if you can show me the word church in the 1st ammendment ill give you 100 dollars American!

 

 

Funny ...Jefferson agreed in his writings that the first amendment spoke about the separation of church and state but I guess your sect has taught you another meaning.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

[CD4EMAN]

Funny ...Jefferson agreed in his writings that the first amendment spoke about the separation of church and state but I guess your sect has taught you another meaning.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

 

 

this is from the link you gave me to look at!!

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

I still see no seperation of church and state ANYWHERE here. but what do I know. It very simply states the government will not create a church for its people to follow, thats why the original colonists left england, because of the church of england. do some homework please. im finished discussing this issue with you until you educate yourself about our American history.

[Aces]

Funny ...Jefferson agreed in his writings that the first amendment spoke about the separation of church and state but I guess your sect has taught you another meaning.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

 

 

this is from the link you gave me to look at!!

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

I still see no seperation of church and state ANYWHERE here. but what do I know. It very simply states the government will not create a church for its people to follow, thats why the original colonists left england, because of the church of england. do some homework please. im finished discussing this issue with you until you educate yourself about our American history.

 

 

You are right.

 

What do you know?

 

Apparently not enough to read the articles.

 

Bye now

[Dale143]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

A very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation of,"separation of church and state."

 

One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…"

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state."

[CD4EMAN]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

A very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation of,"separation of church and state."

 

One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…"

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state."

 

 

AMEN!

[partsisparts]

Religion has caused so many wars over the course of time, it has no place in politics.

[Aces]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

A very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation of,"separation of church and state."

 

One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…"

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state."

 

 

Did you write that?

 

If not then who did?

 

Stealing others words just shows your own lack of intellect.

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't accept the supreme courts interpretation of the law then why should I accept yours?

 

Or whoever wrote the diatribe above.

[Aces]

Religion has caused so many wars over the course of time, it has no place in politics.

 

 

Yes....exactly!

[FiredMotorCompany]

Religion has caused so many wars over the course of time, it has no place in politics.

 

Wars ARE politics.

[Dale143]

Did you write that?

 

If not then who did?

 

Stealing others words just shows your own lack of intellect.

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't accept the supreme courts interpretation of the law then why should I accept yours?

 

Or whoever wrote the diatribe above.

 

 

I pay attention to whats going on in this country and i use my resources (just like you) to stay on top of things. So unless you are an all knowing god who see's all and knows all, you get your information just like i do.RESEARCH. Tell me I'm wrong. And research,study etc etc. builds on our intellect.Can you agree to that? or must you always play the devils advocate.?