[fourgivn1]

dmvprof, my purpose here was not to slander your name or make fun of you. If you're trying to bug or upset me or make fun of me, have a ball.

I did not say "Sit still while I provide you with evidence I've found." I SAID, and I quote,

"you need to spend some serious time (a few years, not a few days or even weeks) researching the historical and archaeological proof for the existence of Jesus, proof of His resurrection, and all of that."

I don't contain the entire sum of knowledge of the evidence in favor of Christianity in my head. That's why I read books and research stuff I'm interested in. You can do the same.

 

[fourgivn1]

I'll add one more thing, and then 'shut up.'

I'm not here to convert the entire board to Christianity. However, I will ALWAYS defend what I believe in. No less would be expected of a believer of any religion. I'm not going to waste time arguing why/why not Christianity is 'the right religion.' You will either go do research, or you won't. That's your choice. But making jokes isn't helping out.

 

[dmvprof]

You see what you have done dontcha. You have claimed that I don't know anything because there is evidence out there that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. And when I ask you to back it up, you bail out.

Typical christian response.

If you were to inquire what evidence I have, well, let me just say that this thread would triple in size very quickly.


So come on fourgivn, just post a link regarding the "evidence" that you are so familiar with. Just one little link, you can do it cantcha? Show me a little respect, and I'll do the same. I have friendly respectful discussions with Theologins quite often. You may even learn something about christianity that you didn't know, and of course, I wouldn't expect you to believe an infidel like me, I'd use a reference.

 

[fourgivn1]

Actually, I don't remember claiming you don't know anything.

Here's a link......http://www.josh.org. It's the website of the guy I told you about, Josh McDowell.

As far as providing evidence to back it up (in other words, starting a debate, and arguing the case for Christianity right here and now), there's one very simple reason I'm not doing so. It is because you're just as capable of researching to find that evidence as I am. By the tone you're using, it is obvious that you DON'T respect me. You say such things as "typical Christian response," and you're putting words in my mouth (saying I'm claiming you don't know anything.)

I will be glad to give you respect, providing you do the same. Otherwise, I won't bother to reply.

For the record, I DO apologize if anything I said was offensive. As I said, my purpose here is not to convert everyone (or even anyone), but when people imply that I'm 'brainwashed' or that I'm 'clinging to my beliefs because my world would crash down if I did not' it bugs me a bit. I don't 'cling' to them because I'll be destroyed if I don't. I 'cling' to them because there are facts in support of Christianity. Just as there are facts in support of scientific discoveries.

A side note (this was added just after my post asking where you live). I don't WANT you to post all your evidence. It WOULD take up too much room. I CAN say for a fact that if you refer me to books and stuff like that, I will go read them. I DEVOUR books of any sort. I may be Christian, but I will read pretty much ANYTHING. (Well, not the Satanic Bible, but then again, you can figure out why not. ) Both of us posting here, trying to disprove the other, arguing, would not serve a constructive purpose.

 

[fourgivn1]

On a COMPLETELY different topic (and not that I'm trying to change the topic - far from it), where in Georgia are you from? I used to live in Canton, if you know where that is, for about 5 years.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by dmvprof
You see what you have done dontcha. You have claimed that I don't know anything because there is evidence out there that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. And when I ask you to back it up, you bail out.

Typical christian response.

If you were to inquire what evidence I have, well, let me just say that this thread would triple in size very quickly.


So come on fourgivn, just post a link regarding the "evidence" that you are so familiar with. Just one little link, you can do it cantcha? Show me a little respect, and I'll do the same. I have friendly respectful discussions with Theologins quite often. You may even learn something about christianity that you didn't know, and of course, I wouldn't expect you to believe an infidel like me, I'd use a reference.

You're painting your arguments with too broad a brush and coming across as a narrow minded and mean spirted.

Are you narrow minded, and mean spirited?

Are you trying to be divisive?

What is your agenda?

Why are you here?

Welcome to the board, lower your rancor to simple disagreement, and it just might be fun to discuss our lives with you.


Peace

Rob

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by dmvprof



Fourgiv

Put up or shut up.

I realize I'm somewhat new here, so I'll let the crack about me "obviously not knowing" slide. Before I lower the boom, let me just ask you where is your overwhelming evidence? Ken Hamm, ROFLMAO....

Hey dmvprof...You are new here and I am not saying that you cannot express your views, but this thread is turning from a interesting argument about the pledge of allegiance and its unconstitutionality to you and forgiv having a holy war. Tone it down...both of you. You aren't going to disprove each other, and you should respect the other's view, and I don't think the comment "put up or shut up" shows much respect. Agree to disagree and be done with it already.

 

[fourgivn1]

Yeah, I should probably apologize to, uhm, the entire board in general, for turning this post into a Christian vs. non-Christian battlefield. I don't apologize for 'sticking up' for what I believe in, but if I've bugged anyone or been divisive myself I do apologize for repulsing other Monkeys.

 

[I Are Baboon]

I salute the flag, I pledge my allegiance to the USA, and I will be happy to keep repeating the Pledge, with or without the words "Under God."

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Yeah, I should probably apologize to, uhm, the entire board in general, for turning this post into a Christian vs. non-Christian battlefield. I don't apologize for 'sticking up' for what I believe in, but if I've bugged anyone or been divisive myself I do apologize for repulsing other Monkeys.

Apology appreciated--and sticking up for what you believe in is an admirable trait and I was not repulsed, but there comes a time when arguing in circles doesn't get anyone anywhere because some one else's views are just as strong as yours, albeit opposite of them

 

[Quadari]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet or not, but we should all remember that the phrase "under god" was ADDED by congress in 1954 right during the red scare, McCarthy-ism, etc.

Now that all that nastiness is over, why do we need to keep it?

 

[Instigator]

Wow, thanks LF things were starting to get nasty.

Ok, I don't have a lot of knowledge in any of this other than spending the last 40 minutes reading it all.

For me the pledge of allegiance could stay the way it is or have under god taken out. I can appreciate and respect other peoples views on this subject and religion (or lack of).

I think all of us here wishes this world to be a better, kinder (except keep the nasty girls) more forgiving place.

Please always respect each other.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Hey dmvprof...You are new here and I am not saying that you cannot express your views, but this thread is turning from a interesting argument about the pledge of allegiance and its unconstitutionality to you and forgiv having a holy war. Tone it down...both of you. You aren't going to disprove each other, and you should respect the other's view, and I don't think the comment "put up or shut up" shows much respect. Agree to disagree and be done with it already.

Oh please.

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.

I don't see any disrespect in his posts, either. Perhaps reading comprehension should be studied by more people?

 

[Shortbus]

forgivin1,

No harm done i know u weren't disagreeing wif me... I do apologize for adding fuel to the fire and helping turn this thread around a bit. But those comments were really uncalled for (as I noted earlier) and I feel this newer member doesn't really realize how we like to "discuss" things on RM without starting to scream and shout and pulling each others hair out


Anyways back to the real topic:

What about those girls calling each other then? :devil:



As for the side-topic we have here (the pledge of allegiance) , I guess people feel SO strongly about saying under god that they would go as far as making it UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? that's what i don't understand...

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by dmvprof


OK, you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it.

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional. The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it. When people deny truth that is based on observable evidence that is repeatable it makes me question their sanity. Eithor you are brainwashed or are clinging to your beliefs because they form your image of who you are in such a deep way, that to acknowledge the facts before you would be to discrediting your entire life and the beliefs and dogma instilled into you by your parents and the church. Your ego would come crashing down if you accepted the facts, so in effect, your mind has evoked a defense mechanism that has allowed it to deny reason and rational thought for the sake of your ego and the worldview that you have developed, no matter how arbitrary it is. You sir, are the victim of a meme, I suggest you search for a cure.

This is so rich! Who the heck are you anyway? I love it when someone says that because I believe that Christ is my Lord and Savior that I am somehow brainwashed and non-thinking. Prove the "big bang", evolution, or any of a laundry list of scientific assumptions. You can't, you just believe them to be true. Non-thinker. Yup the teachings of Jesus are in contradiction to much of what goes on today. Therin lies the problem. The farther this country gets from God the closer it is getting to going straight to Hell. Far better men have attempted to provoke me. I can take it.




You live in a secular country. And to correct waht IBISMOJO said, our founding fathers were not christian. This includes George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams. These were all men of the enlightenment, and could only be described as deists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once reffered to the revelation of John as the "ravings of a madman".

You are free to evangelize, but you are not free to do it with the sponsorship of the government. So to equate this ruling as infringing on your freedom of religion is absolutely and completely absurd. By your reasoning, as weak as it is, the pledge should not only mention , "Under God", it should include "Buddah, Confusios, Allah, Zues, and Hercules, etc... Otherwise, the government is directly supporting a Judeo-Christian religion, and that, my dillusional friend, is a violation of the constitution that so many have fought and died for.

You are so wrong on so many counts. First of all thank you for your psycological assesment of me based on what you have gleaned since you joined the monkey on June 12th. Amazing. In scarecly more than two weeks you have me all figured out. Faith hating, which is what you sir are demonstrating is no different in its origins than the motivations for terrorism. You are afraid. Afraid of the way we live. Afraid of the conviction that comes in admission of the truth. Afraid that you will be faced with the fact that much of your life has been lived serving sin. That fear stings. As long as faith haters can deny the existance or validity of God they can continue their "live and let live" that is causing the death of their souls. I pity you. I hope that someday your anger and fear are resolved.

I would hope that at some point in the last two weeks you would have picked up on the fact that we don't insult each other here. Apparently your vast and glorious intellect missed that little tidbit.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Oh please.

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.

I don't see any disrespect in his posts, either. Perhaps reading comprehension should be studied by more people?

Right.

He is being divisive, inflamatory, insulting......no wonder you don't see a problem with his posts.

 

[Damn True]

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
GEORGE WASHINGTON--
Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

...and some other old dudes.


We gotta burn the money. In God We Trust.

We gotta get that NY cop to stop singing God Bless America.

We gotta tear the ten commandments off the wall of the Supreme Court Chamber.

We gotta get rid of the benediction at the begining of each session of Congress.

We gotta take "So help me God" out of the oath of office.

Tell me again how this country is not formed on Judeo-Christian values. I love that story. It's a funny one.

 

[Damn True]

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

 

[Shortbus]

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.

Right when everyone's asking to act like matue eople....

 

[Damn True]

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.



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

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



I would hope that at some point in the last two weeks you would have picked up on the fact that we don't insult each other here. Apparently your vast and glorious intellect missed that little tidbit. Jerk.

C'mon True...name calling isn't called for. I realize you are insensed by this, but lowering yourself to this is really uncalled for.

 

[Damn True]

You are right.

Edited.

 

[fourgivn1]

I"m sorry, but when you said that, it reminded me of Lesley Nielsen in Naked Gun, when he's arguing with that guy...

"Let's be civilized about this....Mr. POOPYPANTS!!"

*ROTFLOL*

Just caught me in an odd mood. Sorry.

 

[Clark Kent]

I think we are missing the basic and MOST IMPORTANT point of this whole debate... That would be that if we need a silly banning like this to ensure the seperation of church and state...
WHY CANT I BUY BREWSKIES ON A SUNDAY?


i mean for gods sakes, I have needs ya know.

 

[dmvprof]

Originally posted by ummbikes


You're painting your arguments with too broad a brush and coming across as a narrow minded and mean spirted.

OK, thanks for the criticism.

You come across as apathetic, condescending, and detached.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Are you narrow minded, and mean spirited?

My mind is broad, yet I have come to conclusions, and I believe you have misinterpreted my confidence in them as narrowmindedness.

Mean spirited. Well let me say I believe that what christians believe about non believers is pretty offensive. And that part of their mission from god is to change what I believe.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Are you trying to be divisive?

I guess, but that is nothing more than expressing what side of a discussion you are on. Maybe you oughta try it instead of harrassing people that have.

Originally posted by ummbikes
What is your agenda?

To overthrow the world and make cars illegal and replace the Interstate system with some awesome singletrack.

Originally posted by ummbikes

Why are you here?

Back to the religious stuff again I see.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Welcome to the board, lower your rancor to simple disagreement, and it just might be fun to discuss our lives with you.

Peace

Rob

What's wrong with rancor?

In addition to riding bikes, I like to Coach 6 year old TBall and I'm building a tree house. What's going on with you?

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I"m sorry, but when you said that, it reminded me of Lesley Nielsen in Naked Gun, when he's arguing with that guy...

"Let's be civilized about this....Mr. POOPYPANTS!!"

*ROTFLOL*

Just caught me in an odd mood. Sorry.

See...Now that's more like it. Meet you in the sandbox

 

[fourgivn1]

I think that's one of the things that keeps me from being a total jerk (well, depending upon whom you are talking to *LOL*) - the fact that one minute, I can be waging Christian holy war, and the next, laughing my @$$ off at Lesley Nielsen.

 

[Shortbus]

Meet you in the sandbox

Shortbus<-- runs to the sandbox wif a waterhose to turn it into mud

MUDFIGHT!!!!!!

 

[Damn True]

I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=297973#post297973

 

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by Damn True
So why is it that when we are supposed to be "By the people-For the people." the will of the majority of the people gets subverted by a vocal minority?

My mistake. I didn't realize that "by the people, for the people" meant only those people that believe what you believe. I thought it meant everyone. So sorry.

 

[dmvprof]

Damn True,

I'm not scared of very much. I've been around quite a bit of death. What is interesting is your accusation of my fear is really a reflection of the fear that you have and is the foundation of your faith. You are the one that fears hell or "being apart from god", not me.

As for the rest of it, how about your own interpretation. You don't have to cut and paste, you can post links to your references.

 

[Damn True]

Presidential Oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


Military Enlistment oath:
I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by dmvprof



You come across as apathetic, condescending, and detached.

You are, clearly, a master of observation.

My mind is broad, yet I have come to conclusions, and I believe you have misinterpreted my confidence in them as narrowmindedness.

Yes, of course, you a the prime example of "open mindedness". How silly of me not to notice.


Mean spirited. Well let me say I believe that what christians believe about non believers is pretty offensive. And that part of their mission from god is to change what I believe.

You are so right, when jesus asks us to "love each other" , thats just BAD!



I guess, but that is nothing more than expressing what side of a discussion you are on. Maybe you oughta try it instead of harrassing people that have.

Are you so thinned skinned, that me asking you to mellow out a little is harrassment? You should see how I am when people disrespect Amy Grant



To overthrow the world and make cars illegal and replace the Interstate system with some awesome singletrack.

You almost had me here, but I like my cars...Single track is good....



Back to the religious stuff again I see.

Huh?





What's wrong with rancor?

It is fine, if you are just trying to get attention, and are three years old.

In addition to riding bikes, I like to Coach 6 year old TBall and I'm building a tree house. What's going on with you? [/B][/QUOTE

Let's see I also coach, I'm a parent, I am a trail advocate, I pay my taxes, brush and floss, put the seat down...

 

[fourgivn1]

FEAR is not the foundation of Christianity. (Or, at the least, I should say that it should NOT be. Anyone who is a Christian and DOES actually FEAR God - as in being afraid of Him - is sort of forgetting that having accepted Jesus as their savior sort of takes care of having to BE afraid.) I don't fear hell or being apart from God, and I don't think Damn True does either. Any Christian who has read the Bible (I'd hope they all do) knows they're going to heaven.

 

[fourgivn1]

I'm Christian, but I don't like Amy Grant either.

No disrespect intended, ummbikes! Please don't hurt me!

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by dmvprof
Damn True,

I'm not scared of very much. I've been around quite a bit of death. What is interesting is your accusation of my fear is really a reflection of the fear that you have and is the foundation of your faith. You are the one that fears hell or "being apart from god", not me.

As for the rest of it, how about your own interpretation. You don't have to cut and paste, you can post links to your references.

Someone posted that this thread is not a discussion of the validity of the Bible or Christianity, but a discussion of the merits of have a ref to God in the Pledge. I am going to adhere to that suggestion and not continue to entertain your efforts to inflame.

But, since you asked, my referance is the one true word of God. It is indisputible.

http://www.bible.org/netbible

 

[fourgivn1]

For the record, I'm on Damn True's side. (As if I needed to say that. I think my posts said it. ) Especially about the Bible remark.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I'm Christian, but I don't like Amy Grant either.

No disrespect intended, ummbikes! Please don't hurt me!

Thats it we just can't be friends now...

I don't care for either, I'm more of a Supertones, and POD kind of guy.

 

[Joe Pozer]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Ahh...I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Not everyone has an opportunity to succeed and improve his or her life. Sure, there may be cases where people overcame tremendous odds, but bottom line is, the majority of the folks in the US of A do not have access to the resources to get them where they dream to go. I mean, look at us...we have the luxury to have computers and the time to sit at them all day pontificating about everyone else who is not like us. We are in priviledged positions, and for the world's richest nation, there are too many people in poverty in this country. Now...would you like the long or the abridged sociology lesson?

I don't know why but the word pontificating makes me laugh. I'm going to try and work it into my daily conversations.

I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize that many people who come from impoverished backgrounds and/or come from a single parent households in which the parent can't spend much time with the child have the odds stacked against them.
That being said, I don't fall for the victim mentality that many people use as an excuse to fail in our society. Yes, at this point in my life I have the priviledge to sit here in front of my PC and have a discussion with a friend who lives all the way in Colorado. But that hasn't always been the case in my life. It wasn't until I got to college that I actually got to work on a PC because my parents were too poor to afford one for the home. I did not grow up rich, in fact my parents had to work second jobs as janitors to help make ends meet. Not a very pleasent job which I know first hand since I spent many evenings, including weekends, helping them. When your are in high school the last thing you want to do is spend your weekend picking garbage, sweeping floors, and cleaning bathrooms but it was something we had to do in order to pay the bills and put food on the table. The thing is that my parents didn't sit there and bitch about it nor did I use this as an excuse to fail in school. I didn't complain about how unfair the American system is, instead I took advantage of it, got some grants, went to college, studied my arse off and now I'm in a position where I can live reasonably well and help out my folks.

Now, I will add the fact that I'm very lucky to have two very loving parents which gave everything they had to me and my sister. What they lacked in money they more than made up in love and spending lots of time with us.

But I just think that too many people fall for the victim mentality and prefer to blame society for their failures instead of taking responsability for their own actions.

Anyway, sorry for being so wordy and now I will step off my soapbox before I get pushed off.

 

[fourgivn1]

Yeah, Supertones/POD rocks! You might want to check out Pillar as well, if you have never heard of them....

www.pillarmusic.com