More repercussions from Court Sodomy ruling.

[Skinzaholic]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1992875



Yup... seems like this ruling, which many claimed wasn't in support of the homosexual agenda, is now being used for just that.

[jsarno]

this does not surprise me...I warned that this would open pandora's box.
Nothing good will come from that ruling...just watch.

[TexSkin]

This will be intresting to see what they rule

[Seebs]

This guy have all my support, i really don't understand why being homosexual could be non compliant with being a soldier.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Seebs
This guy have all my support, i really don't understand why being homosexual could be non compliant with being a soldier.


I will tell you why. I spent 4 years in the Special Forces... 10th Group Mountain Division out of Ft. Devens, MA. We were organized into 6 man teams consisting of different soldiers with different skills (I was a Radio Sargeant). Each individual had to trust and rely on the other 5 men in their team for their very lives. If there was a mistake then the trust level was hurt and the mission hindered.

Females were not (and I believe are STILL not) allowed into the SF due to their inability (for the most part) to handle the strength requirements needed to perform a mission. Call it discrimination... but it was indeed a reality for those in the group.


As far the homosexual situation, strength may not be a factor... but the trust level is. Like it or not, there are a majority of men in this country who would have a problem being in close quaters with someone from that persuasion. The ability to focus on the task at hand is diminished... as well as the team attitude that is needed for the job.


I know MANY ex and current green beret's and NONE of them are in support of Bill Clinton's weak attempt at pleasing this agenda group. I never knew of anyone ever admittng they had homosexual tendencies while I was in 10th Group. (Doesnt mean they werent there). There is a sense of team in these elite branches of the military... and that sense of team should not be divided by this sort of interuption.


My argument is NOT based on homosexuals in the non-combat side of the military. (I have an opinion about that... but this argument doesn't support that opinion).



I don't think men should be placed in a situation where they could lose their life simply so that another can have freedom to express their sexual lifestyles.


The current commanding officer of the 10t Special Forces Group (now in Ft Carson, CO) also agrees VERY strongly.


THAT is the reality most Americans who spout off about this subject never even think about.

[Seebs]

Well, i will say that it is easy for me to say what I said as i haven't been involved in any kind of thing which has to do with military and i neither was really close to any gay or lesbian, so i guess i'm not reallly the most advised guy to have an opinion about all this "thing" but my personnal point of view is that sexual orientation has nothing to do with military aptitude. I won't have any pb to work with an homosexual, even if I was a soldier. IMO it's more a question of education than sth else. The one who has a pb is the one that can't stand working with an homosexual. Just my opinion.

[Skinzaholic]

Hey Seebs, your opinion is just as important as anyone elses. I guess I have seen the other side of the fence when it comes to this issue.

I just think some things are best left private. The problem seems to be that the agenda groups do not want these things kept private (as they claim)... but actually want them in the public and for everyone to outwardly accept them as ok. That I just cant do.

[Skins57]

just my opinion here guys, but it seems to me that the Worlds toughest military can defeat any thing on earth except homophobia(sp?) seems kinda odd to me

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Skins57
just my opinion here guys, but it seems to me that the Worlds toughest military can defeat any thing on earth except homophobia(sp?) seems kinda odd to me


I guess that is one way to look at it... but the straight soldiers feel that it is unconstitutional for them to be forced into a situation where they feel uncomfortable. It is one thing to demand total tolerance... but in some cases that is an unreachable goal. The argument can be taken up from so many sides that it becomes dizzying.

A soldier who is defending his country shouldn't be placed in a personal situation that compromises his beliefs. Especially when it comes to life or death. It is bad enough worrying about the enemy who is trying to shoot your head off... wthout having to keep away from Harry as he tries to sneak a grab. That is violating the straight soldiers rights...

[TexSkin]

I'm torn on this issue...it really would not have bothered me..as a matter of fact we were pretty sure there were a couple of guys that were gay that were in our batallion. It really depends on the person. As long as somone does not try to force their way of life or beliefs on me I am usually ok with whatever they believe in. Unless its something really out there.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I guess that is one way to look at it... but the straight soldiers feel that it is unconstitutional for them to be forced into a situation where they feel uncomfortable. It is one thing to demand total tolerance... but in some cases that is an unreachable goal. The argument can be taken up from so many sides that it becomes dizzying.

A soldier who is defending his country shouldn't be placed in a personal situation that compromises his beliefs. Especially when it comes to life or death. It is bad enough worrying about the enemy who is trying to shoot your head off... wthout having to keep away from Harry as he tries to sneak a grab. That is violating the straight soldiers rights...

Couldn't a racist be put in the situation of where their beliefs are compromised? How about religious beliefs? I am not inferring that your strong religious beliefs would place you personally in an intolerant category, however you must admit that many "religious" people are distrustful to the point of hating those of some other religions.

How would you handle these situations as opposed to the gay issue; by not allowing a soldier to proclaim his/her religoius beliefs or by restricting service in general or catagorizing companies, divisions, armies, etc. by religious beliefs?

How different do you think such examples are to the gay issue?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1992875



Yup... seems like this ruling, which many claimed wasn't in support of the homosexual agenda, is now being used for just that.

Man, I didn't read the attched article until after my last post. I could not think of a better result/fallout of the case than this guy winning his lawsuit. It is incredible that this guy, a wounded and decorated war hero who did not violate the "don't ask don't tell" edict (irony of ironies), but was rather involutarily outed as a result of a clear invasion of privacy, is getting screwed out of his rightful rewards.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Man, I didn't read the attched article until after my last post. I could not think of a better result/fallout of the case than this guy winning his lawsuit. It is incredible that this guy, a wounded and decorated war hero who did not violate the "don't ask don't tell" edict (irony of ironies), but was rather involutarily outed as a result of a clear invasion of privacy, is getting screwed out of his rightful rewards.

I don't think it's right that he didn't get that money. He kept it completely to himself and didn't come out to anyone...he was a model soldier. That's wrong.

Although...I think MORE gays should be in the military...operation FRONT LINE! :lol1:

[Skinzaholic]

My arguement is not against this man. I agree that his situation is very unfair. Im not in support of treating others as animals due to their sexual preferences.

BUT... I am also not in support of acting like it is a normal way of life... and not a choice. I am not in support of forcing people who do not agree with this lifestyle to be subjected to having it flaunted in front of them at every turn.

What do I think we should do? Not sure... but, I know what I wouldn't do... I wouldnt lift a ban that has been around for over 200 years simply because I have some misguided notion that we as a people have reached some sort of "enlightenment". I think that is further from the truth.

Im not sure what the answer is... should this man get his money... YES (He did serve for almost 20 years). Should this be used as a catapolt for lifting the "Dont Ask... Dont Tell" policy? No. That policy is there to respect the rights of those insulted and turned off by the homosexual lifestyle.


Staring to see that Political Correctness is an unattainable fantasy.

[dj_stouty]

Originally posted by jsarno
Although...I think MORE gays should be in the military...operation FRONT LINE! :lol1:

I'm having a hard time believing you think that statement was actually funny.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dj_stouty
I'm having a hard time believing you think that statement was actually funny.

If that's the case, then you haven't read what I had to say about this in the other thread.
They are people too. Maybe we all shouldn't be so blinded by PC and lighten up.
We all sin...just because you do something different from them doesn't mean anything. It's all sins. I do enough sinning for all of us.
HATE THE SIN, NOT THE SINNER. (how many times have I said that now?)

[Skins57]

maybe if Saddam Hussien had read this thread , he could have used a gay army and we would have lost. :D :D

I am sorry Skinz, I just can't believe that a gay soldier besides me is going to cause me any more of a chance of death than a straight one. Just my thoughts

[dj_stouty]

Originally posted by jsarno
If that's the case, then you haven't read what I had to say about this in the other thread.
They are people too. Maybe we all shouldn't be so blinded by PC and lighten up.
We all sin...just because you do something different from them doesn't mean anything. It's all sins. I do enough sinning for all of us.
HATE THE SIN, NOT THE SINNER. (how many times have I said that now?)

Dude...your comment was the following:

Although...I think MORE gays should be in the military...operation FRONT LINE!

To me...its sounds like you are joking that we should let more Gays in the military simply to be on the front lines. (where their chances to get killed are greater) If that is the way you meant it, I didn't think it was funny. If you meant it a different way, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

[Skinzaholic]

I am sorry Skinz, I just can't believe that a gay soldier besides me is going to cause me any more of a chance of death than a straight one. Just my thoughts [/B]



Diagreed... but respected my friend.

[dukeuch]

Skinz:

Just curious; what did you think of my anology regarding your claims of "discomfort" about serving with gays, as opposed to a racists discomfort with serving with other races, or an intolerant religous person serving with different religions? Comment on the difference.

[Skins57]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Diagreed... but respected my friend.



I have to say I have never served either and I have nothing but total respect for our vets. We agree to disagree and that is cool. you have a much better perspective than I

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1992875



Yup... seems like this ruling, which many claimed wasn't in support of the homosexual agenda, is now being used for just that.

Skinz:

Hate to rag on you (actually, I don't) but looking back at your orginal post you seem to be saying; "See, look how this is snowballing into unintended areas." If you respect the man and his accomplishments, agree that he was treated unfairly, and the ruling might (remember, this guy has not won anything yet) allow for redress of the situation, why would you choose this example to support your arguement?

Your use of political correctness is really overused. Isn't the court ruling and this case a matter of someone seeking fair and equal treatment, who happens to hold different beliefs than yourself? COuldn't the court's ruling cited in the other thread be a sincere belief in constitutional law and fairness by the judges (at least the majority) rather than a bow to political correctness?

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Skinz:

Just curious; what did you think of my anology regarding your claims of "discomfort" about serving with gays, as opposed to a racists discomfort with serving with other races, or an intolerant religous person serving with different religions? Comment on the difference.


Duke,

First, I didnt say that I had a "discomfort" about serving with gays. My feelings are much simpler... I just don't want to.

But, speaking for the many, many who DO have a discomfort... I personally feel race or religion comes across as totally "non-personal" when it comes to this issue. The #1 argument for those who are currently serving in combative-military occupations is that there is a distraction due to the sensitive distaste most men have with the homosexual community. The same cannot be said for race or religion since that is usually simply a difference in philosophy.

The strong distaste for most men is due to natural tendencies... not a simple like or dislike for a particular race or religion. Granted, there are some who would feel just as uncomfortable with someone who is a racist or who knocks their religion... but I dont think the argument of life or death could be the same.

Your point is a good one, but I dont view it as being in the same category... because in the short of it... when we all put our political correctness aside and really speak from the heart... the average male has a queasy problem when placed into a situation which involves being in close quarters with an individual struggling with this behavior. I don't think the same can be said for the other subjects. Maybe a distaste... but not queasy.


It is this queasy uncomfortableness that brings the distraction... and thus that is why most of these men are against it.


This isn't debating whether the feelings are right or wrong in themselves... (just like race and religion)... but it is debating whether it is fair to force others into a life or death situation against their own beliefs.


Thanks for your input though!:)

[jsarno]

why not give the gays special privelages in the military??? They get it most everywhere (special parade etc). Since there are male barricks, and female barricks...why not gay barricks?

[TexSkin]

Hell if it was not for the whole "sex with men" thing I would probably be gay. Women drive me crazy! :D


Is counting myself a male lesbain count?


disclaimer (just trying to lighten the mood guys don't get insulted)

[dukeuch]

Skinz:

I really disagree with you regarding race or religion not being as devisive an issue. There are people out there who really hate other races or religions, and there are probably many of them in the military who given a choice would rather not be side-by-side in a life/death situation with those of whom they have this intense dislike, uneasiness, whatever. In essence, they are told tough luck, you'll serve with and support them anyway, which is right. I see little or no difference with gays. I feel uncomfortable with the thought of gay sex, but do not have any problem with the fact that gays do not, nor have any problem with gays in general. I think it is a myth that they are more likely to impose themselves sexually on an unreceptive person (which you seem to imply, but forgive me if I'm misinterpreting) any more than heteros, certainly no more than a construction worker (no offense to any of you guys who are) harrasing a pretty woman as she walks by.

[Skinzaholic]

Hey Duke


I respect your diagreement... and you do have some good points. A couple of things to point out though... I dont think most men would agree that they have a "hatred" for gay people, just an uncomfortableness. Because the agenda has brainwashed many to interpret this as intolerance makes more keep quiet and not say anything... but they still feel it.

I can only go on my personal experience as I have never done an actual study of this subject... but I have never heard of anyone who views race or religion in the same light as homosexuality. (Although it is possible). And I also didnt mean to imply that someone who is gay is throwing themselves at other men... but I do think this is the preconcieved notion with the average male. Just the thought alone makes them uncomfortable and cautious... not saying it is right or wrong, but it is human nature.

[NamVet4]

“...that the close quarters involved with military service and soldiers' dependence on each other in life-threatening situations made trust an imperative.”

I can only speak based on 2 years of time, over thirty five years ago, when the truly important “trust" was to keep your shit together and watch your back and your buddy's back.
There were blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, atheists, Chicanos, Polacks, heteros, gays etc, to name a few, who went across the pond and served, bled and died!
There were rednecks and crackers, okies and city boys and as seen in many movies and books a lot was made of this - but the underlying theme was - do your time, keep your ass in the grass and don't screw up.
We are all, at one time or another, uncomfortable with those with whom, by chance or circumstance, we associate and work.
When it came down to it, in that time and place, – all I ever wanted to know was that the guy next to me was able to cover my ass in a firefight and I definitely would cover his!
The rest: “…don’t mean nothing, no thing, nothing at all”!


my 2 cents!

[TexSkin]

Well said Namvet

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by NamVet4
I can only speak based on 2 years of time, over thirty five years ago, when the truly important “trust" was to keep your shit together and watch your back and your buddy's back.
There were blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, atheists, Chicanos, Polacks, heteros, gays etc, to name a few, who went across the pond and served, bled and died!
There were rednecks and crackers, okies and city boys and as seen in many movies and books a lot was made of this - but the underlying theme was - do your time, keep your ass in the grass and don't screw up.
We are all, at one time or another, uncomfortable with those with whom, by chance or circumstance, we associate and work.
When it came down to it, in that time and place, – all I ever wanted to know was that the guy next to me was able to cover my ass in a firefight and I definitely would cover his!
The rest: “…don’t mean nothing, no thing, nothing at all”!


my 2 cents!

I can't claim to have any personal knowledge, but am happy that my opinion seems to have some merit based on your actual experience. It is heartening to hear from someone like you that whatever differences, all you cared about was someone covering your ass, and that their actions rather their beliefs were what fueled your trust.

Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, 'cause you say it best.

[jsarno]

I personally think that having gays in the military is just fine. If people have a problem with it, they need to work out their own problems with it. Because it's a personal issue, not a miltary issue.
If you ask those same military personel what they think about gays, you'll get a terrible response 9 times out of 10.


Anyway...kind of back to the subject...Mass. is now trying to legalize same sex marriages. This is a repercussion of this ruling. They say they "deserve" to be married. Sorry..I completely disagree. They do not deserve it. Research why marriage is around and it has nothing to do with unnatural "feelings".
I feel this must be said again "it's adam and eve, not adam and steve."
They want equal rights...that's a good thing...they want the ability to sin in private...so be it...but we can not allow the sanctity of marriage to be soiled any more than it already is. Divorce is running wild because no one holds to the sanctity of marriage and what it was designed for. Add gays to it, and what's the point of marriage?
(don't say love...you can love someone without having to have a piece of paper)

[dj_stouty]

...bump

[TexSkin]

Originally posted by dj_stouty
...bump

Wow this stie has come along way when the old bumpis being used on it. :dance:

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I guess that is one way to look at it... but the straight soldiers feel that it is unconstitutional for them to be forced into a situation where they feel uncomfortable. It is one thing to demand total tolerance... but in some cases that is an unreachable goal. The argument can be taken up from so many sides that it becomes dizzying.

A soldier who is defending his country shouldn't be placed in a personal situation that compromises his beliefs. Especially when it comes to life or death. It is bad enough worrying about the enemy who is trying to shoot your head off... wthout having to keep away from Harry as he tries to sneak a grab. That is violating the straight soldiers rights...

Accepting things that make you uncomfortable is part of a democracy. If you cannot accept the uncomfortable, you shouldn't be living in a free society.

What are the stats on soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are sexually assaulted by gay men? I'm willing to bet it happens almost never and that the primary sexual harassers in the military are straight men attacking women.

Seems like when it comes to sex in the military, straight males are the biggest problem of all. By far.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Divorce is running wild because no one holds to the sanctity of marriage and what it was designed for.

Good point. Heteros have screwed up marriage completely. Maybe gays can do better. They could hardly do worse.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
Accepting things that make you uncomfortable is part of a democracy. If you cannot accept the uncomfortable, you shouldn't be living in a free society.

What are the stats on soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are sexually assaulted by gay men? I'm willing to bet it happens almost never and that the primary sexual harassers in the military are straight men attacking women.

Seems like when it comes to sex in the military, straight males are the biggest problem of all. By far.


Wow Spence... bout time you showed up! I was beginning to think you had no opinion (yeah right!).:D

I must use one of your favorite sayings and ask you to read what I said before you comment. I never said that any gay men sexually assaulted any straight men in the military. In fact... I said indeed that many of the fears were due to preconceived notions and predjudices regarding gays.

BUT, I think your argument about a democracy being formed around living with discomforts is totally wrong. Maybe other democracys from the past... but not THIS one. America was born out of the simple frustration of "dealing with discomforts". The men who started America were tired of dealing with the discomforts England placed on them. To say that a man is free is to release him from being forced to deal with things by his goverment. By forcing straight men into uncomfortable situations is not freedom, but another form of slavery.

The very fuel for the gay (and liberal) agenda is that gay men have been forced into uncomfortable situations due to discrimination. I dont believe that is right or fair, but going the complete opposite way and labeling what is wrong as right isnt fair either.

The smartest thing said at this post was that money is controlling the world... and the democrats are controlling the money. That is true... but is it right? The loudest voice right now is the liberal agenda and their claims of "equality"... yet this isnt equality at all. Sure, most people never think beyond their TV set to pay attention to it... but there is another whole mass of the population who disagrees with the liberal agenda's point of view. They live in the small town of America... dont have much of a voice... nor would scream out their opinion like most due anyway. But... they are still Americans.


The point of my argument was not to point a finger at the gay population (seems most liberals bring ANY argument into this area)... but instead to reveal that the political correct statements are eronious and unfair to the average American.




By the way... ever notice how I have yet to discredit or disrespect any of you with what I say? Yet, most who disagree with this point of view (I did say "most") usually start or end their arguments with a sneaky slam to make themselves look bigger in their own eyes. Perhaps if people would learn to speak an opinion... but also respect someone elses and maybe even listen to it... we could rebuild America one day.

[Spence]

Skinz: Most of the arguments used against gays in the military used to be made about blacks. They worked for a long time against blacks, but eventually those arguments were destroyed. I think the same thing is going to happen to the arguments against gays in the military. Discrimination based on conduct is part of any normal society, but discrimination based on discomfort is not. If it is permissible to discriminate against homosexuals because some people are made uncomfortable by their presence, who else may we discriminate against based on this criterion?

Nobody is forcing straight men into uncomfortable situations in the military. We don't have a draft. Any straight man who cannot handle serving with homosexuals can leave the military. Problem solved. But to tell homosexuals they are not entitled to serve their country in this capacity because some straight guys feel weird around them--THAT is subjugation.

How are Democrats [I'm assuming you mean the political party] controlling the money in this country? The Republicans outspent the Democrats by more than $100 million in the 2002 elections. Despite the fact that Al Gore was an incumbent Vice President, George W Bush outspent him by $65 million in the 2000 elections. The Republicans outspend the Democrats in every single election, usually by massive sums. In the second quarter of this year, George W Bush raised more money than all the Democratic candidates combined. The White House is hinting that Mr Bush will spend $200-$300 million in the 2004 election, which would smash the spending record he set himself in 2000. How in the world are Democrats controlling the money? The truth is exactly the opposite.

You imply that conservatives are shut out of the media in this country. You are aware of Fox News, are you not? How about MSNBC, where not a single show host is a liberal and almost all are fire-breathing right-wingers? MSNBC fired Phil Donahue despite the fact that he had the network's highest-rated show and replaced him with a right-wing psychopath named Michael Savage who recently told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die." Did you know that most newspapers in this country endorsed George W Bush instead of Al Gore? Did you know that most newspapers in this country endorsed Bob Dole instead of Bill Clinton? Did you know that more newspapers in this country endorse Republican candidates than Democratic candidates just about every election?

Let me tell you, Skinz, I find the viewpoints expressed on Fox News to be revolting, most of the time. Same with the Wall Street Journal editorial page. And the Washington Times editorial page. And, increasingly, the Washington Post editorial page. I don't want anyone to prevent them from expressing their opinions, however. That's what I mean about tolerating things that make us uncomfortable.

[Skinzaholic]

How are Democrats [I'm assuming you mean the political party] controlling the money in this country? The Republicans outspent the Democrats by more than $100 million in the 2002 elections. Despite the fact that Al Gore was an incumbent Vice President, George W Bush outspent him by $65 million in the 2000 elections. The Republicans outspend the Democrats in every single election, usually by massive sums. In the second quarter of this year, George W Bush raised more money than all the Democratic candidates combined. The White House is hinting that Mr Bush will spend $200-$300 million in the 2004 election, which would smash the spending record he set himself in 2000. How in the world are Democrats controlling the money? The truth is exactly the opposite.




Actually... here I was attempting to repeat the quote I heard you, Spence, make regarding the fact tha corporate America is leading this entire fight... and that liberals are controlling corporate America. Unfortunately I didnt do a very good job of it... sorry.

But, your point with that quote was a good one.

[Skinzaholic]

Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society?

Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it. He thus declared:


The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence.
America's first law book, authored by founding jurist Zephaniah Swift, communicated the popular view concerning sodomy:


This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime.

John David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:


If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.

Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=8



This article outlines exactly what I am talking about. NOT whether homosexuality is right or wrong... but simply that America started 222 years ago with certain morals and values... today the liberal agenda is to completely change these values based on "equality" and "political correctness"... and this is a total fraud.

It took strong wise men to start this nation... and they were'nt bigots... they simply stood for what they knew was right. They made laws based on principles and standards of conduct... and it lasted for quite some time ( in fact it built the nation that this agenda is trying to destroy).

We support and defend some rights, yet totally infringe on others. Why should a straight man lose the opportunity to serve his country in the military all because a few groups cried loud enough for the laws to be changed from what America was born to be... into what she is being changed into?


(Please read the attached article before commenting... it makes an informed discussion).

[dukeuch]

Skinz:

Well of course if you quote a religious based organization that actively opposes homosexuality you will find arguements agionst the practice and the inclusion of gays in the military. I could qoute Larry Flynt to support pornography...I find it almost appalling that Wallbuilders co-mingles supporting the constitution with the support of Christianity in any way besides the right to practice religion in general.

But where in the article or elsewhere is there any mention of preventing a straight man form joining the army? What are you talking about?

[Skinzaholic]

Duke,

You need to read ALL the posts in a thread before responding...

[Skinzaholic]

I find it almost appalling that Wallbuilders co-mingles supporting the constitution with the support of Christianity in any way besides the right to practice religion in general.



This comment shows you not only have no idea what your country was created for... but also no idea what the many men who died in the Rev. and Civil wars actually fought and died for.

[Skinzaholic]

But where in the article or elsewhere is there any mention of preventing a straight man form joining the army? What are you talking about?


This was in response to a comment by Spence in an earlier post.

[Skinzaholic]

Well of course if you quote a religious based organization that actively opposes homosexuality you will find arguements agionst the practice and the inclusion of gays in the military. I could qoute Larry Flynt to support pornography...


Yes, you are right. The quotes by our Founding Fathers were really all fabricated just to provide more ammunition for the religious organizations of the world. These men really didnt say those things... they didnt write those things... it was all made up as a conspiracy.


:smash:

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Yes, you are right. The quotes by our Founding Fathers were really all fabricated just to provide more ammunition for the religious organizations of the world. These men really didnt say those things... they didnt write those things... it was all made up as a conspiracy.

Ouch, such biting sarcasm. I do not doubt the veracity of the quotes. My main point is that the Constitution primarily makes two points regarding religion; that everyone has the right to practice their own, and that there should be seperation between church and state. The Wallbuilders seem to be promoting an erosion between one of these precepts, the seperation of church and state, which I feel is disingenous.:smash:

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
This comment shows you not only have no idea what your country was created for... but also no idea what the many men who died in the Rev. and Civil wars actually fought and died for.

You are right, I do need to read all the posts before responding, otherwise I couldn't have let the above go. Are you serious? You are implying that the Rev. and Civil Wars were fought for the right to from or keep a Christian nation? The Rev certainly had somehting to do with religous freedom, and many of the FOunding Fathers were Christians, however they were wise enough to recognize the right to practice all religions.

You have been listening to too much Limbaugh.

[BigCountry]

I'm not gonna yell at anyone but all I can say is that saying this is Christian country constitutionaly is rideculous. Not that I've noticed anyone say that thus far.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by BigCountry
I'm not gonna yell at anyone but all I can say is that saying this is Christian country constitutionaly is rideculous. Not that I've noticed anyone say that thus far.

In an earlier post, Skinz directs to the "Wallbuilders" website, a Christian organization which appears to be primarily interested in establishing the religious (i.e. Christian) underpinnings of the Constitution. Their tag line at the bottom of each page is "Rebuilding the constitutional, moral, and religious heritage of America."

I simply find the strongly implied connection between Christianity and the Constitution, especially the belief that Christianity provides the key to the correct interpretation of the Constituion, disturbing. Nothing against the religion, many of the teachings of which I agree with.

[Skinzaholic]

Actually my friend, the constiution never uses the phrase "seperation of church and state". That prase was taken out of a letter taken from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation expressing concerns about the new government dictating when and where and how a particular church could worship.

The phrase was never meant to be used to promote intolerance as the modern society has adopted. Unfortunately one of the main mistakes of the Founding Fathers was they never anticipated our society straying from our Biblical roots as much as we have today.

George Washington, in his farewell address made a statement that when a goverment begins to make decisions apart from the standards set in the Bible, that government is on the decline. Funny, I never heard that quote in school...


Sorry for the sarcasm... this subject is a tense one for me.

[BigCountry]

Sepparation of church and state is key for any modern country besides Israel but then again they were never very normal. I'm just glad we have it here.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Sepparation of church and state is key for any modern country besides Israel but then again they were never very normal. I'm just glad we have it here.

Sorry, but this is about as ignorant a comment as they come.
We take that comment far too literally.
That comments was not intended to disregard ANY christian thoughts.
So go ahead, throw away the backbone of the country, see how far it gets you. I just hope I'm dead before the chaos begins.

ps- do you really think people ould behave if there wasn't a "higher power"? If that underlying thought wasn't in our head, all of us would do whatever it takes to get by. Steal, cheat, whatever.
(it's obvious when the world is more and more turning away from God and it's getting worse and worse.)
Do you really think God will let a country succeed if it's not following His direction?
It may not be in my life time, but America will go down because of this. It's a shame, but "the people have spoken".

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Actually my friend, the constiution never uses the phrase "seperation of church and state". That prase was taken out of a letter taken from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation expressing concerns about the new government dictating when and where and how a particular church could worship.

The phrase was never meant to be used to promote intolerance as the modern society has adopted. Unfortunately one of the main mistakes of the Founding Fathers was they never anticipated our society straying from our Biblical roots as much as we have today.

George Washington, in his farewell address made a statement that when a goverment begins to make decisions apart from the standards set in the Bible, that government is on the decline. Funny, I never heard that quote in school...


Sorry for the sarcasm... this subject is a tense one for me.


You are shameless in your attempts to misdirect attention from the point with your use of facts. I do not doubt that George Washington (a great man) said what you attribute to him above, but what in the world does that have to do the Constitution? It is his farewell address, expressing his opinion, not a carefully conceived treatise made in concert with other great minds to assure a fair, unbiased document from which to form a government and state.

Further, (and since I started writing here I'm going to have to rely on my memory of earlier posts) that when I expressed my problem with Wallbuilders linking the Constitution with Christianity, you accused me of having no idea what our country was created for. Well; here's the Preamble (one of the best "executive summaries" ever written, in my opinion):

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How in the world can anything in this statement be attributable to religion? If I understand anything about Christianity, there is no higher authority than God, yet this makes clear that it is the people establishing this Constitution for the benefit of the people.

Regarding no mention of "seperation of church and state", the first amendment says:

"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."

This is widely understood to call for the seperation of church and state, especially the seperation between any specific religion and the laws of the land. This, despite the fact that most of the founding fathers were probably Christians (based on claims others have made), one of the reasons they were such great men; they refused to incorporate their religoius beliefs into the law of the land. To say the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and therefore was never intended is ludicrous and self serving.

I agree that many of the principles of Christianity (and many other religions) are reflected within the Constitution, that does not equate, however, to Constitutional Law being based on or subserviant to Biblical Law. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I am glad that the laws of men dictate our treatment in court.

Regarding another reply someone made about if not for a belief in a higher authority we would all be doing whatever we pleased, lying, cheating stealing: shame on you. I practice no religion and begrudge nobody from practicing theirs as long as it is not imposed on me. I believe when we are dead we are dead, there is no reward of an afterlife in heaven or punishment in hell, and feel there is no "higher being" than man, but accept that I might be wrong. Yet I try my best to go through life treating all with the dignity and respect I'd want for myself. I don't need the Bible to tell me how to do it, I learned from my parents, teachers (public school) and experiences how to act in a civilized society. Included is a tolerance for other's beliefs, which is the point of this thread anyway, a point you seem to ignore in this particular case. It is just so curious that you lament the "intolerance" to your religion regarding the "forced" tolerance towards gays, when clearly your view that gays should be kept out of the military is being forced on gays at their expense, while allowing gays in asks only tolerance of heteros.

Please, look at the only post in this thread from a person who cites his wartime experience, and try once more to justify your position. Your views are based on your religoius beliefs, which is your right, but don't try to back it up with some secular arguement, or by tying your religion to the COnstitution.

Or do it anyway, that's your right.

[BigCountry]

Not even worth a response jsarno.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Regarding another reply someone made about if not for a belief in a higher authority we would all be doing whatever we pleased, lying, cheating stealing: shame on you. I practice no religion and begrudge nobody from practicing theirs as long as it is not imposed on me. I believe when we are dead we are dead, there is no reward of an afterlife in heaven or punishment in hell, and feel there is no "higher being" than man, but accept that I might be wrong. Yet I try my best to go through life treating all with the dignity and respect I'd want for myself. I don't need the Bible to tell me how to do it, I learned from my parents, teachers (public school) and experiences how to act in a civilized society.

You take the bible away from everyone that ever saw it (an impossibility) and there would be chaos. The reason why people still have morals and values toda is because the bible was a deep factor in everyone's lives for years. Even if they didn't follow it, they knew of it, and that lingering voice of "maybe there is a higher being". Any person that can use their common sense will conclude there is obviously a higher being. I can see how picking a religion can get scetchy, and it will only get worse with more and more peopledoing thier own thing.
I am an upstanding person in my community. But let me tell you, f there were no ramifications for my actions, I'd do whatever made me happy and prosper. That's honesty. And human nature would have you do the same.
Just imagine if there weren't those people with underlying christian beliefs to teach you.

Included is a tolerance for other's beliefs, which is the point of this thread anyway, a point you seem to ignore in this particular case. /b]

Oh, how is that?

[b]It is just so curious that you lament the "intolerance" to your religion regarding the "forced" tolerance towards gays, when clearly your view that gays should be kept out of the military is being forced on gays at their expense, while allowing gays in asks only tolerance of heteros.

What the hell are you taking about??? Are you even talking to me in this paragraph. If you're not...may I suggest you take more care in your responses as to who you address.

Please, look at the only post in this thread from a person who cites his wartime experience, and try once more to justify your position. Your views are based on your religoius beliefs, which is your right, but don't try to back it up with some secular arguement, or by tying your religion to the COnstitution.

Again...I already stated that Gays should be in the military, every person deserves equal rights.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Not even worth a response jsarno.

Why? Because you can't imagine a world without underlying Christian beliefs...or you would rather think of yourself as a "good" person therefore not capable of such things??? How you are raised and how your moral belief systems are put in place are major factors on who you are now. And like it or not, we are all influenced by God. Whether is someone who would rather ignore him, or someone who worships him. If you can't see that, then this conversation can not move forward.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
You take the bible away from everyone that ever saw it (an impossibility) and there would be chaos. The reason why people still have morals and values toda is because the bible was a deep factor in everyone's lives for years. Even if they didn't follow it, they knew of it, and that lingering voice of "maybe there is a higher being". Any person that can use their common sense will conclude there is obviously a higher being. I can see how picking a religion can get scetchy, and it will only get worse with more and more peopledoing thier own thing.
I am an upstanding person in my community. But let me tell you, f there were no ramifications for my actions, I'd do whatever made me happy and prosper. That's honesty. And human nature would have you do the same.
Just imagine if there weren't those people with underlying christian beliefs to teach you.



First, I apologize for mixing my reply to you and Skinz together. My comments regarding everything except what you are talking about above were directed to points Skinz made. I realize that you have been taking a stance of tolerance towards gays and gays in the military.

I do disagree with you that people need a belief in a higher being in order to behave, and especially your inference that "underlying christian" beliefs have anything to do with my behaviour. My father's parents were Jewish, and he bascially ignored the religion upon becoming an adult (he actually thinks religion is a crutch) and my mother's father was fingered as a communist by the Catholic church, so there was no influence in that regard.

No, I'm basically a secular humanist, a term pilloried by the Reagan Administration and the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Basically, I believe in the glory and inate good nature of man, and offer myself as an imperfect student of trying to do the right thing without religious influence. Man is not born evil, he learns it, and the laws of man deal with man made crimes.

Concerning the claim that anyone with common sense will conclude that there is a higher being, nah. Religion is based on faith, not common sense. How else to explain an all-powerful and compasionate God who kills people, allows people to kill each other, created horrible diseases and unleashed them on man, his beloved creation?

My intent is not to mock. I respect your faith, and conceed that it might be well placed, but do not think that common sense has anything to do with it.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Why? Because you can't imagine a world without underlying Christian beliefs...or you would rather think of yourself as a "good" person therefore not capable of such things??? How you are raised and how your moral belief systems are put in place are major factors on who you are now. And like it or not, we are all influenced by God. Whether is someone who would rather ignore him, or someone who worships him. If you can't see that, then this conversation can not move forward.

This is what I can't understand: If we are all influenced by God, you seem to be saying he has a hand in what we do, how we act, etc. So, Saddam was influenced by God to direct an attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton was influenced by God to accept a BJ from his intern, Limbaugh is influenced by God to talk like an idiot? For what purpose? Is God just capable of orchestrating glorious events and uplifting behaviour, and only man responsible for reprehensible actions? How do you reconcile a benevolent God with what misery exists in the world?

It just does not make sense to me. I'll accept religion as an expression of faith, but not as a conclusion gleaned from logic.

[BigCountry]

Jsarno I'm Jewish and no I'm not influenced by Christian "values" or Jewish "values" or any other religion practice and I do believe there's a God but I don't want someone telling me how to believe.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Jsarno I'm Jewish and no I'm not influenced by Christian "values" or Jewish "values" or any other religion practice and I do believe there's a God but I don't want someone telling me how to believe.


I sometimes say Christian beliefs when I really mean a "Godly" influence. It's my Christian upbringing.
Who's telling you "how to believe"?
Sorry...we are all influenced...we live in America, from school to commercials...it's all around us.

(I want to take more time to respond to the other comments, so I will do so in the morning)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
This is what I can't understand: If we are all influenced by God, you seem to be saying he has a hand in what we do, how we act, etc.

You are assuming...and you know what happens when you assume???
I don't believe that at all. I don't believe he has a hand in what we do because it is clear that we have free will. I believe that His influence helps shape who we are, directly or indirectly.

So, Saddam was influenced by God to direct an attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton was influenced by God to accept a BJ from his intern, Limbaugh is influenced by God to talk like an idiot? For what purpose? Is God just capable of orchestrating glorious events and uplifting behaviour, and only man responsible for reprehensible actions? How do you reconcile a benevolent God with what misery exists in the world?

It is very clear to me that you have no clue what the bible says or teaches. This is a common arguement from non believers, and people who have no desire to learn it. You instantly assume that all loving God couldn't allow such things. This is a huge argument and could take forever to explain. But number one...God NEVER (I repeat) NEVER, said life was fair, or that he'd protect us in any way. He only guarentees an afterlife with Him if we believe. Misery exists because of sin. HUMAN sin. We brought it here, and it's multiplying every day with poor human choices.
I see this a lot when someone dies and the other person thinks it's unfair. I had a friend that lost his mother at the age of 29 and he thinks that God is mean now. She lived a long life and the FACT is people die...some die young. Such is life. This is a result of our own sin.

It just does not make sense to me. I'll accept religion as an expression of faith, but not as a conclusion gleaned from logic.

Do you want to know why God is "common sense"?? Because everythign in this world was made from something. Where did the "big bang" come from? Where did it all start? Someone HAD to have made us...we are far too complicated to be an "accident". Doctors, scientists, people of intellect agree with a passion that it's no coincidence. (granted not all of them...just the ones that study the facts...once studied it's evident)
So let me ask you...what would it take to believe? I'd ask you to actually study it as I did and make your own conclusions (and no this does not mean read a few verses or go to church occasionally). I mean dig into it. What could it hurt? If after you dig into it and you still don't believe, at least you gave it the college try. But look at this objectively. If God exists and you don't believe, you're going directly to hell and misery for eternity. But if he does not exist, and you lived your life doing good deeds and living a Godly life...what does it hurt? What's the big deal? The common sense would tell you to believe if for nothing else but to ensure salvation. By believing, nothing could possibly go wrong for you...but by not believing something HUGE could go wrong for you. That is common sense. One way has no repercussions or effort mostly, the other way has massive repercussions and pain. Let's look at that objectively. Let's assume that a God is 50/50 (I know it to be 100%, but let's just say 50/50 for the sake of argument). Now what if you had a true 50/50 shot at curing a disease that you had by only taking a small pill that has no side effects other than good things...would you take it and give it a shot? Of course you would. The disease is the same as sin, and the pill is God. So why is God tossed in the trash so quickly without actually looking into it with everything you got. This is no joke, this is life and death and people don't take it seriously. I'm sure you will toss what I have to say aside. Most people don't want to think about it because "of course" their way HAS to be right. Fact is, you can not make a properly informed decision unless you truely know ALL the facts.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
First, I apologize for mixing my reply to you and Skinz together. My comments regarding everything except what you are talking about above were directed to points Skinz made. I realize that you have been taking a stance of tolerance towards gays and gays in the military.

No problem, kind of figured that was what it was. No biggy..I'm glad you cleared that up.

I do disagree with you that people need a belief in a higher being in order to behave, and especially your inference that "underlying christian" beliefs have anything to do with my behaviour. My father's parents were Jewish, and he bascially ignored the religion upon becoming an adult (he actually thinks religion is a crutch) and my mother's father was fingered as a communist by the Catholic church, so there was no influence in that regard.

Then I will respectfully agree to disagree with you. I have the differences first hand, but I understand your view.

No, I'm basically a secular humanist, a term pilloried by the Reagan Administration and the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Basically, I believe in the glory and inate good nature of man, and offer myself as an imperfect student of trying to do the right thing without religious influence. Man is not born evil, he learns it, and the laws of man deal with man made crimes.

I believe that man is born with the disire to do evil, this is why little boys do such stupid things. Steal, or hit others and don't know why. Also why if left alone (no good parental supervision) that the child is MUCH more likely to be a terrible adult. The easy way is to be evil, and the difficult way is to think of others. There is a reason crime is way up in this country, and it's no coincidence that Godly people are on the decline. There is a distinct parrellel.

Concerning the claim that anyone with common sense will conclude that there is a higher being, nah. Religion is based on faith, not common sense.

Actually it's based on both. See my above statement. Common sense keeps you from denying it. Complete ignorance is what keeps you from accepting it. Faith is just a way to maintain it.

How else to explain an all-powerful and compasionate God who kills people, allows people to kill each other, created horrible diseases and unleashed them on man, his beloved creation?

It is clear that you have not studied the bible either. How can you make comments about something that you clearly do not know about? What does God have to do with an evil person killing another? Who said He'd protect each person from any bad in this life? There is no such thing! What we go through in this life is nothing...He only guarentees the afterlife.
Not that this is biblical but he obviously doesn't "create" the diseases, but I think that diseases are in the world due to our sins. AIDS is from people sticking their "thingys" whereever and whenever they want. (just an example) I also think that if from the start of time, we didn't have diseases etc, this world would be too over populated. I think it might be natures way of regulating us. How else would you explain why we cure one disease then another pops up? Just a theory anyway.
Just remember that this world is 100% a result of sin, something that He didn't create, but we took part in. We created this bed, we need to lie in it. God created us a perfect world, we spat on Him and brought sin to it. We have to live with it now.

My intent is not to mock. I respect your faith, and conceed that it might be well placed, but do not think that common sense has anything to do with it.

Well, I appreciate that, but common sense does have something to do with it, as I described above. If you have given it your all, and I mean 100% to God, and still chose otherwise, then I will leave this alone. But your comments are clear that you have not done that yet.
I really would like to know what your excuse will be when (or if) you meet your maker. What will you say to Him if you're wrong?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno



I believe that man is born with the disire to do evil, this is why little boys do such stupid things.
Actually it's based on both. See my above statement. Common sense keeps you from denying it. Complete ignorance is what keeps you from accepting it. Faith is just a way to maintain it.


It is clear that you have not studied the bible either. How can you make comments about something that you clearly do not know about? What does God have to do with an evil person killing another? Who said He'd protect each person from any bad in this life? There is no such thing! What we go through in this life is nothing...He only guarentees the afterlife.
Not that this is biblical but he obviously doesn't "create" the diseases, but I think that diseases are in the world due to our sins. AIDS is from people sticking their "thingys" whereever and whenever they want. (just an example) I also think that if from the start of time, we didn't have diseases etc, this world would be too over populated. I think it might be natures way of regulating us. How else would you explain why we cure one disease then another pops up? Just a theory anyway.
Just remember that this world is 100% a result of sin, something that He didn't create, but we took part in. We created this bed, we need to lie in it. God created us a perfect world, we spat on Him and brought sin to it. We have to live with it now.



Well, I believe that according to the Bible, God created the Universe and all that is in it. This includes viruses, germ carrying flies (which Noah must have had to bring along on his voyage according to God's instruction, right?) and I believe according to the Bible He has inflicted or ordered harms (including murder) upon various of his children (Job, and his sons, right?) to prove their faith in Him. Heck, we have laws on Earth punishing such crimes. How about the innocent first born sons of Egyptians? Let's not even get into the instructions God gave Moses regarding how to divide up the booty (including the virgins) of the Midianites, after, of course, killing every male "among the little ones". So who's right concerning the ability and will of God to inflict pain and suffering, you or the Bible?

And if man is born evil, who made him that way, and for what purpose?

Look, it just has nothing to do with common sense, in my opinion, and my opinion has nothing to do with having not embraced God 100%; it has to do with faith (or in my case, lack of) in God. And if I am wrong, and I must face Him upon my demise, I hope he judges me on my deeds regardless of my motives. Because if he holds it against me for simply "being a good guy" instead of fear of Him, than he truly is a jelous and vengeful diety.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Well, I believe that according to the Bible, God created the Universe and all that is in it. This includes viruses, germ carrying flies (which Noah must have had to bring along on his voyage according to God's instruction, right?) and I believe according to the Bible He has inflicted or ordered harms (including murder) upon various of his children (Job, and his sons, right?) to prove their faith in Him. Heck, we have laws on Earth punishing such crimes. How about the innocent first born sons of Egyptians? Let's not even get into the instructions God gave Moses regarding how to divide up the booty (including the virgins) of the Midianites, after, of course, killing every male "among the little ones". So who's right concerning the ability and will of God to inflict pain and suffering, you or the Bible?

You didn't read my post did you. How did sin enter this world? Through MAN. Man opened the door, and now we have to live in it. All those bad things are a result of WHAT WE DID. Not God. So you need to understand that before there was moses, virus etc, there was a perfect universe. We humans messed it up.
If you understand the book of Job, I will converse with you. But I have a feeling you're just grasping at straws here. I could be wrong, but it takes a while to explain Job and I don't have the time or energy.
I'm EXTREMELY curious as to why you'd argue AGAINST God when it doesn't benefit anything but can only cause harm. I know you have not studied the bible in the past 24 hours, so why do such a thing? I understand expressing your opinion, and beleive it or not, I respect your position right now. I won't later if you don't seek all knowledge and head down this same path. You have a choice to learn or not. I hope you choose the path of knowledge. (again, if you still don't believe, then at least you gave it your best)
ps- even all that to Job didn't sway his faith.

And if man is born evil, who made him that way, and for what purpose?

HUMANS DID! Satan did.
Free will breeds strange things. Remember that we are blessed with free will, there is good and bad that can come from that.

Look, it just has nothing to do with common sense, in my opinion,

I will respectfully agree to disagree here. I feel I a much vaster knowledge of this subject since I've studied it for MANY years, and was a non believer at one point. (this doesn't belittle your opinion at all, but which guy would you listen to about Math, the 5 year old just starting 1st grade with a small knowledge, or the college professor?? Not comparing us in this manner, just making a point)

and my opinion has nothing to do with having not embraced God 100%;

but it truely does. No one takes the bar exam if they don't know law. You are in effect doing that. Embraced might be the wrong word though. No one is asking you to embrace Him...just research Him. (I apologize if I appear to be "shoving religion down your throat"...I assure you it is not my intent.)

it has to do with faith (or in my case, lack of) in God.
Can't have faith without knowledge.

And if I am wrong, and I must face Him upon my demise, I hope he judges me on my deeds regardless of my motives. Because if he holds it against me for simply "being a good guy" instead of fear of Him, than he truly is a jelous and vengeful diety.

Not true at all. You never repented for your sins...so you're going to Him in affect not caring that you are a sinner. How would you expect a judge to repond if a criminal came before him with no remorse? Sure we can try, but in the end, we ALL fail.
I applaud you for trying. You're not viewing this objectively though.
ps- God is vengeful. It says so in the bible. REVENGE IS MINE SAYS THE LORD.
I do actually believe (again not biblical, just a guess) that people will be sent to hell for periods of time to "work off their mistakes". Since He is all loving, I find it hard to believe He will allows us to burn for eternity.
I also believe we are punished here on earth if we're going to heaven with no hell stop over. This is why "bad things happen to good people." Again...just a theory. I can't imagine being all powerful or all loving, so I have no clue. All I have is His all time best seller.

[dukeuch]

Js:

We could go on forever. I am not a Bible scholar, but that does not mean I can't read, and from reading the Book of Job, it seems pretty clear that God visited a series of atrocities on Job to prove to Satan that Job's faith in God had nothing to do with all he was blessed with. Am I wrong? If not, is not God responsible for the killing of Job's sons, laying waste to his property, etc?

I suppose a lot comes down to just pure logic, and whether one believes in the Bible as a literal or allogorical work. If one takes the Bible literally, then God had a chance to clean up the mess with the great flood (by the way, how did the american buffalo survive? How did Noah succeed in finding a couple, from a place nobody at that time knew existed?). If you view it as literal, it makes no sense. If you view it as allogorical, then it's interpretation is subject to the interpreter's beliefs, prejudices, interpretaitons, etc. It's gotta be one or the other, right?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Js:

We could go on forever.

Yes we could. I just wanted to make sure you understood my stance, and I look forward to future discussions.

I am not a Bible scholar, but that does not mean I can't read, and from reading the Book of Job, it seems pretty clear that God visited a series of atrocities on Job to prove to Satan that Job's faith in God had nothing to do with all he was blessed with. Am I wrong? If not, is not God responsible for the killing of Job's sons, laying waste to his property, etc?

I know you are not a scholar, and therefore can not understand why certain things were done in the bible. But I will say that God did not "do" anything to Job...satan did. So no, God is not responsible. And let me tell you, I'd take a few years of shit to live forever in heaven. We are all tested everyday, and we are warned we'd be tested too. DEATH IS NOTHING. It's just another day...we humans have over exxagerated it. We do this because we really don't know what will happen after we die. I don't blame humans, but life does not end when you're in a casket. I find that impossible. Even if there is no God, our souls move on...I can feel it.

I suppose a lot comes down to just pure logic, and whether one believes in the Bible as a literal or allogorical work. If one takes the Bible literally, then God had a chance to clean up the mess with the great flood (by the way, how did the american buffalo survive? How did Noah succeed in finding a couple, from a place nobody at that time knew existed?). If you view it as literal, it makes no sense. If you view it as allogorical, then it's interpretation is subject to the interpreter's beliefs, prejudices, interpretaitons, etc. It's gotta be one or the other, right?
You're asking some questions only God can answer...but I ask you this, if God is all powerful, don't you think he would have found a way to get those on the ship?
It's no surprise he flooded the earth, it was full of sin and no love. It's headed that way again, but due to his promise (rainbow) it will never be done again, instead the world will end (see revelation).

[BigCountry]

Ok if that's true I just wanna say one thing. Thanks for acne! :smash:

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Ok if that's true I just wanna say one thing. Thanks for acne! :smash:

You know...that's actually funny.
We deem acne as this terrible problem, but is it in reality??? How can we judge that? Is that a result of our sin????

I'm not all knowing and can not answer all questions...just know you brought a smile to my face and put a question in my mind.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Yes we could. I just wanted to make sure you understood my stance, and I look forward to future discussions.

[b]

I know you are not a scholar, and therefore can not understand why certain things were done in the bible. But I will say that God did not "do" anything to Job...satan did. So no, God is not responsible. And let me tell you, I'd take a few years of shit to live forever in heaven. We are all tested everyday, and we are warned we'd be tested too. DEATH IS NOTHING. It's just another day...we humans have over exxagerated it. We do this because we really don't know what will happen after we die. I don't blame humans, but life does not end when you're in a casket. I find that impossible. Even if there is no God, our souls move on...I can feel it.

[b]
You're asking some questions only God can answer...but I ask you this, if God is all powerful, don't you think he would have found a way to get those on the ship?
It's no surprise he flooded the earth, it was full of sin and no love. It's headed that way again, but due to his promise (rainbow) it will never be done again, instead the world will end (see revelation).

Oh boy, one more try.

I'm looking at the Bible right now. In the Book of Job, Chapter 1,

11 And the Lord said unto Satan Behold, [in the Bible, doesn't Behold signify a giving?] all that he hath is in thy power: only upon himself put not forth thy hand...

So you are technically right, God did not do all these things to Job's family and possessions, he invited Satan to do them.

Later, in Chapter 2 Verse 3, God asks Satan again to consider Job's virtues (this after his sons, servants, livestock, etc. are killed), and continues "...and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."

Doesn't it sound, at least a little bit, Like God is assuming responsiblity according to the Bible?

Any way you look at it, it seems that God, either directly or by instructung Satan to do so, destroys Job's family and livelyhood to prove to Satan that Job is a man of faith.

Look, I don't begrudge you your faith and beliefs. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. We will never convince each other, so feel free to respond, but I suggest that thereafter we get back to talkin' about the 'Skins.