Author Topic: Christians and end times- Are they here? (Read 3491 times)

Toad · « **Reply #135 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:00:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
I am concerned when people think religion should be involved in any way with politics.

Are you also concerned that religious people take part in politics?

Where in the Constitution does it require people to "check their religion" at the door prior to entering the voting booth?

The Constitution allows you to vote your beliefs... all of them.

Toad · « **Reply #136 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:01:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by z0rch
Wow. Look who's shouting now.

Wow, look at why the increase in size was needed.

I doubt he'll ever answer the question, but there's no doubt he at least SAW it that time.

Chairboy · « **Reply #137 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:08:39 PM »

Quote

Why does it bother you?

Because I don't think religion and government should mix. Both parties lose when it happens.

If a law is passed, it should be because someone made a persuasive case on the merits of the issue at hand. It shouldn't be because "god says so" or "because it's in the bible". When a legislator can question the moral fiber of anyone objecting because they didn't agree with the bible, then religion's involvement in legislation has taken an ugly turn.

Religion and government are NOT like chocolate and peanut butter. They do not go well together.

SirLoin · « **Reply #138 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:12:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Are you also concerned that religious people take part in politics?

Where in the Constitution does it require people to "check their religion" at the door prior to entering the voting booth?

The Constitution allows you to vote your beliefs... all of them.

I am talkin about the separation of religion from politics..Not your constitution..What country are you from anyway?

Toad · « **Reply #139 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:28:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
If a law is passed, it should be because someone made a persuasive case on the merits of the issue at hand.

[/b]

You seem to imply then that the bi-cameral legislatures of the States and the US do not pass laws based on "merit".

Is that what you are saying? That the system doesn't work at all?

Quote

It shouldn't be because "god says so" or "because it's in the bible". When a legislator can question the moral fiber of anyone objecting because they didn't agree with the bible, then religion's involvement in legislation has taken an ugly turn.

Again, however, all that has happened is that a "special interest group" has united to push an agenda.

I'm sure you realize it's not just "Christians" that do this. It is, in fact, pretty much the way the system works now. ALL special interest groups practice this skill/art/bribery.

Why single out "Christians"?

And a legistlator sure CAN question someone's moral fiber "because they didn't agree with the bible". There is no restriction on the type or content (short of slander/libel) that a legislator can make when trying to sway votes to his side. However, that legislator ought to laughed out of the building by the others.

Toad · « **Reply #140 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:31:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
I am talkin about the separation of religion from politics..Not your constitution..What country are you from anyway?

You can no more separate religion from politics on a personal level than you can separate other personal beliefs from politics.

Humans vote and involve themselves in politics based on their beliefs.

Some even believe it's best not to participate at all.

I'm from the US, thanks for asking.

The place where one of the first acts of the very first Senate was to hire a Chaplain. The place where some of the founders/first Senators and Representaives were ministers and bishops.

Chairboy · « **Reply #141 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:38:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
And a legistlator sure CAN question someone's moral fiber "because they didn't agree with the bible". There is no restriction on the type or content (short of slander/libel) that a legislator can make when trying to sway votes to his side. However, that legislator ought to laughed out of the building by the others. [/B]

I agree, they should, but they aren't.

That's what I've been trying to say, thanks for acknowledging it!

Toad · « **Reply #142 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:50:34 PM »

What you're saying and I'm acknowledging is that your "Christian" mantra is no different than any other special interest group. No more or no less dangerous to your freedom than Mother's Against Drunk Driving, the Gay/Lesbian Alliance, the NRA, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc..

They are all the same....special interests groups.

Glad you agree.

wrag · « **Reply #143 on:** March 28, 2006, 07:07:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, your most recent question had nothing to do with unconstitutionality, you asked if I could provide an example of christians imposing their morality on everyone else through the passage of laws.

I provided an answer, and asked you to answer my request for an example of the attacks you accused me of. I still await your answer.

You Sir remind me of someone. Your methods, your approach. He and I did NOT see eye to eye either.

He finally offered me a passing grade if I did NOT attend his class at college.

Why? Because I called him on nearly everything. How? With the truth about his beloved communist and what I SAW done to Vietnamese civilians and U.S. personel by his beloved communist. You want a crusade? You want something to fear? Fear them and what they will do should they ever truely get into power. Fight them and stop worrying about a group of people that have so little power. A group of people that mean you no REAL harm.

As to your reference to anti-sodomy laws. Where are they enforced? Who is enforcing them? I can answer you, they are not. They are old laws that remain on the books. Laws that were put in place during another time. I add in here it was a time when they HAD NO KNOWN CURES for many diseases! And yet some of the newest sexually transmitted diseases that have been spreading around, that also have no known cure, PERHAPS they had a point when the added them.

You keep asking me to prove, to produce, OK you just did it here by trying to use laws that have been in place since nearly the birth of this nation as your tool. Laws that to my knowledge aren't even being used or enforced anywhere by anyone. You want em off the books? Then seek the removal of those laws. Or is that TOO SIMPLE? Or does that MISS your TRUE GOAL?

You SEEM to be deliberately misleading? You SEEM to be clouding a fairly clear issue? An Issue that SEEMS dear to you.

The christains are coming the christains are coming HIDE the baby Ethel!

What is it you see being done by Christains lately to attack you and yours?????????

wrag · « **Reply #144 on:** March 28, 2006, 07:14:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
It seems to me that the two folks who have suggested I was frothing at the mouth are both folks who disagree with my. Far be it for me to question your motives, but it makes a fellow wonder.

FOR YOUR RECORDS SIR I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU!

If your stated goal is really your stated goal.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR REASONING AND TECHNIQUE.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR SINGLING OUT OF ONLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE OVER SO MANY OTHERS THAT SEEM TO WANT TO CONTROL ALL PEOPLE.

wrag · « **Reply #145 on:** March 28, 2006, 07:22:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I agree, they should, but they aren't.

That's what I've been trying to say, thanks for acknowledging it!

There ya go..................

That technique again LOL..........................

Get real, please, the majority of the people will vote according to their beliefs.

Don't you vote according to your beliefs? HUH?

You gonna answer that one? I answered your sodomy statement.

Chairboy · « **Reply #146 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:05:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
As to your reference to anti-sodomy laws. Where are they enforced? Who is enforcing them? I can answer you, they are not.

(a bunch of exclamation points and text snipped for clarity)
Here's an example:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews16.htm

Chairboy · « **Reply #147 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:08:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
FOR YOUR RECORDS SIR I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU!

If your stated goal is really your stated goal.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR REASONING AND TECHNIQUE.

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR SINGLING OUT OF ONLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE OVER SO MANY OTHERS THAT SEEM TO WANT TO CONTROL ALL PEOPLE.

Whoa, calm down. No need to lose your temper. I've been calm this whole time, and I'd like you to do it too. Remember, something like 7% of communication is the words themselves in face to face conversation, so written communication can be fraught with peril. There's no body language, no tone of voice, etc etc.

Rolex · « **Reply #148 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:40:21 PM »

Not to nitpick, okay, I'm nitpicking... but don't you guys mean religion and governing, not religion and politics?

Chairboy · « **Reply #149 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:47:45 PM »

Hmmm, good point. I think I've been guilty of confusing the two in this conversation. I'm talking about religion and governing, which is partially connected to the legislation angle.