well right now the biggest problem on the planet seems to be the middle east...a bunch of religious fanatics hell bent on killing the infidels*









*they consider the rest of the people in the world infidels

 

Nice, but no cigar, mate...

That statement is almost as naive as it gets. I grant you there are several religions out there that take care of their own - but there are a great deal more that have profited through out history. Not all Pope's were great and that goes for their cardinals, bishops, etc... look it up

I agree whole-heartedly, mate! Not all Christians are bad - but there are quite a few hypocrits - so all you've done is quoted bible verse? I don't see the debate. Unless you're just agreeing with me

Hey! Now here's a challenge! You're putting an author of children's books up as an authority for Christianity? That's like asking JK Rowling to speak on behalf of gay rights. lol

Just so you know I'll overlook the slight on my educational background. One does not need big words to convey big thoughts.

Again, a belief system is exactly that, mate - it's your belief. I don't question it and I may not embrace it. Live with it - I'm cool with you being Christian.

OK here you are dead wrong. The bloody Pope Alexander II gave his blessings on one of them! lol...Templar knights were sanctioned by the Holy See!

So, perhaps you're right. The priests weren't fighting - but everyone else sure the hell was

lol.. I'm well aware of the meaning of the word. But allow me to copy from dictionary.com for you...

3. to separate, withdraw, or go apart; separate from the main body and collect in one place; become segregated.

Almost everyone of these religions removed themselves or were expatriated to become what they are. Why? because they simply don't agree amongst themselves.

Even the Episcopalians are tearing themselves apart because they approved a gay bishop??? Guess what? Segregation is happening yet again

Again, with the slights - ok, sparky, pull your head out of your four corner contact and look up the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yes, you are right it doesn't say "separation of church and state".

But it does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".

So, that means - and guess what? the US Supreme Court thinks this too - that Christianity - or any religion - is not the religion for the United States.

That pretty much says it all there.

 

Thankyou.

Btw-do you even know where the phrase comes from? Or in what context it was used?Most people spouting it don't.
If you knew you wouldn't be using it in the exact OPPOSITE Context.

Again, a little more education before speaking would be great.

And, who told you my nick name was Sparky?

 

lol... small victories - yet you lost the war...

Because I'm man enough to say - technically you're right - is enough for you to gloat - go for it. Funny how you agreed with me on a few points.

As for the quote of separation of church and state - it's believed to have originated with Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptist cult

 

So are you saying it evolved? Because animals don't have this right? Where do instincts come from. This sounds like the evolutionist, something from nothing arugment to me.

 

Your resistance of the truth is futile. You have to concede the phrase was used in the context of government intruding into religion, not the other way around. This was the slight-of-hand shell game performed by the supreme court in the mid 50s-60s which totally warped our religious heritage of this nation. Saying it means the opposite will put you in the same category of mentalityas Rosie O'Donnel.

 

So much to respond to and so little time but this one I couldn't resist.

But , yea , he (C.S. Lewis)is , ahem, an authority on Christianity.

ANd a belief system is not isolated, it is based on either a truth or a lie.

Likewise live with your beliefs, I'm just apologizing for the rancid mis-interpretations of religion and Christianity by alack of knowledge. "lack of knowledge" !?!? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

 

Uhhhh.... animals have all kinds of instincts. I'm saying I believe we do instinctually have morals and a sense of right from wrong. We don't need relgion to tell us right from wrong. Our human selfish nature certainly complicates the execution of right and wrong, but I think at a basic animalistic level we know right from wrong.

Is it ok to kill other people for fun? I don't think anyone without religious input would natually decide yes... this is a good thing to do! I think by instict we know there is something that's not right about it.

On the opposite side, is it ok to kill in self defense? I think anyone put into a life threatening situation could say that instict would kick in and say, I've got to do what I can to preserve myself.

I use that as an extreme to illustrate what I personally believe. Now of course I can't prove this to be the truth. You can disagree with me and say someone requires a moral structure to tell them something is wrong. I would argue that the Bible itself does suggest that man knows right from wrong, and is corrupted by sin and separation from God. I believe you quoted this yourself previously.

Also, whether you agree with evolution or not, no educated believer in evolution would state that something happened from nothing. The theory is based on something happening over time because of external influences in nature adapting to its environment. Evolutionists by the way are using "faith" to believe, just as much as Christians use "faith" to believe that Jesus is their savior. Evolution is a theory (at least Macro-evolution is) and is yet to be proven.

My point being that many Christians would eagerly encourage anyone to adopt their beliefs by "faith", yet are incredibly offended by evolutionists insisting you accept evolution on "faith". Seek the truth and hopefully you will find it, whatever it may be.

 

lol... well at least you're passionate for a cultist

now pardon me, I must get back to work

 

Sure; for the most part, it is necessary to have a governing body of some sort to provide guidelines and consequences for the people of a population. Else those fewwho cannot, or will not, behave in a manner which is harmonious with the greater population will eventually cause rampant, unchecked mayhem. And of course there will always be people who would just prefer that someone else tellthem how to behave, and then be perfectly happy doing as they are told without question.But those of us who are not sociopaths or sheepare perfectly capable of being responsible for, andto, OURSELVES.

At some point,thethings an individual does will affect a few other people in some way. But throughout the course of a lifetime, EVERYTHING an individual does has a full and defining effect on that individual'sENTIRE life. Therefore as a matter of self-preservation, it becomes necessary for that individual to examine their actions (and the consequences thereof), judge whether or not those actions are prudent, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Thus morality can be acheived from within, through necessity.

I am not saying that religionhas no purpose; I'm saying that it is incorrect toclaim that religion is the one and only source of morality. Personally, I see religion as an antiquated, and nearly obsolete, form of government. It served its purpose; and to some degree, it still does. But to say that there can be no true morality without God and religion is just as great a fallacy as to say that there can be no truelaw without a totalitarian government.

By the way, an excuse may be a great cop-out, but a cop-out is not always an excuse. And don't criticize my word usage until you learn how to use punctuation correctly.