The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

ATX_Skins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Kaz, fence sitting/fence riding, same thing. Keep digging. I admire individuals who make a decision either way. Not sit in the middle and provoke pointless arguments like you do with your conspiracy theories

Hmmm....can you give me an example of one of my "conspiracy theories?"

"How's government protecting you from reality working out for you?"

How is that a conspiracy theory? Government is spending us into the ground, confiscating and redistributing money. I'm not seeing any "conspiracy" in that, it's being done in front of our face.

ATX_Skins wrote:You believe that the gov't is purposely hiding the photos or actual death of Osama Bin Laden for the better good of the people.

When did I say the government was hiding anything about Bin Laden? Can you show me that quote? Good luck finding it because it doesn't exist.

ATX_Skins wrote:However, don't get too wrapped around "conspiracy theories" as I was mostly poking fun. Let's get back to the discussion.

I'm not wrapped around anything, I just responded to what you posted. My choices are to not respond or I'm somehow upset? Would there be some projection in that?

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Your opinion on this has no more weight... and would be no more correct... than a fundamentalist who says religion must be considered when considering laws and candidates.

The ONLY LITTLE problem is ...

... a fundamentalist will try to IMPOSE ITS TRUTHS on everybody.

Like most people I feel that fundamentalists have the right to express their views -among many other views- in a democratic society. Too bad they do not share that view, by definition, and they have a tendency to create teocracies and destroy democracies EVERYWHERE.

The rights of one person end where they curtail the rights of others. If religion had remained separate from government, the world would be in better shape in many countries.

well I'm probably what you would consider a fundamentalist, but you have a good point there. the church being in charge has a brutal history. people are fallible and they screw up God's intentions. I believe God expects us all to live by his laws, but he will let us do as we please while we are alive (free will). So we don't need our govt trying to enforce God's laws. we can't have people going to jail for adultery. My sins are for the most part, between me and God, and I will face Him at my judgment, with Christ beside me. I would assume that most fundamentalists feel the same way. That being said, we don't for example think homosexuals should be a protected class that gets PREFERENTIAL treatment, that's all. we're not trying to make it illegal to gobble wang. again, we believe in the Bible which calls it an abomination. you wouldn't tell an employer, hey you can't discriminate against this adulterer, or this thief, so why does the homosexual feel they should be a protected class? we even have gay parades to honor them. C'mon dawg, where's the parade for adulterers? and if homosexuals want to get married, fine, but I wouldn't recommend doing it in a church and pretending that God is joining you together. man can make whatever laws he wants, but the further we get from God's laws, then the less God will bless America. that is our "fundamentalist" belief.

someone on here accused fundamentalists of wanting to impose their views on others, but the other side is just as guilty. They want to use our tax money to teach our kids gender neutrality, evolution, and to fund planned parenthood abortions.

This religious tangent started with Cappster complaining about the far-right being anti-gay or something, hence the homo reference above. I don't have any particular beef against the homos on this board : ), I only meant to point out that we were just voting based on the Bible. We're not judging anyone or trying to discriminate, just following the play-book so to speak. The other guy's point that religion is as relevant in politics as any other issue is just a fact. whether you think it should be or not does not change the fact that Christians will vote their faith if given a choice, just as anyone will vote their own opinions. I'm not going to vote for any candidate that would support abortion for example. would an environmentalist ignore his/her opinions on that when voting because "environmentalism have no place in politics"? To each his own. I think you're confusing the establishment clause here.

To all the atheists/agnotics on here... your belief that there is no God is just as much of an act of faith as a Christian's belief IN God. Just as a Christian cannot "prove" the existence of God, an atheist cannot prove that there is NO God. Are you really 100% sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife when you die? Have you been dead? You believe whatever you believe based on faith. Faith that you are right. Faith that whatever knowledge and facts you used to ascertain your conclusion is correct. Do you know everything there is to know? If so, you would know the intimate details of the sex life of Clinton Portis' great-grandmother's black cat's fleas (that cat was gettin down I bet). With that as a baseline, would you say you maybe knew 1% of everything there is to know? or even 1% of 1% of 1%? Yet you're willing to bet your eternity on your very limited amount of knowledge. That is a major leap of faith on your part.

Anyway, this is way off point. sorry to hijack the Palin thread. I should know better than to copy and paste a bible verse and now quote Ray Comfort. Cappster, I don't have a crush on Palin. I'm more of a Dana Perino kind of guy. You just have to understand, when suddenly there is Palin, where once there was Bob Dole, folks start to get excited I guess.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:^^^ Religion should have no place in politics...

I'm agnostic... but, if I were religious, I suspect I'd disagree. Your opinion on this has no more weight... and would be no more correct... than a fundamentalist who says religion must be considered when considering laws and candidates.

But, you are not religious, and I am an Atheist. I see laws and candidates for what and who they are rather than a skewed perception through a religious lens. So that is my opinion, keep religion out of politics.

"But, if I were religious, I suspect I'd disagree". If I was born in Canada, I suspect I'd know how to ice skate.

I have a hard time taking fence riding agnostic people seriously. As much as I am not religious I admire the dedication of those who are.

Typically, those who have a defensible argument defend their argument... those who can't, insult.

The bottom line is, people are going to continue to insert religion into American politics... and there's not a damned thing that you... or I... can do about it. If you are serious about seeing "laws and candidates for what and who they are rather than a skewed perception through a religious lens." then you'd know that virtually all of them espouse some religious views... and virtually all of them insert those views into their politics, in one way or another.

The Constitution does not insulate you from the religious views of others... even when they stray into the political.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The ONLY LITTLE problem is ...

... a fundamentalist will try to IMPOSE ITS TRUTHS on everybody

Yep. Fundamentalist Christians and Liberals. Two peas in a pod. They disagree on the answers, but agree that there is only one answer and they are ordained to inform us what it is. Then they run to government to use the power of guns to force us to do what they decree. It's sad they aren't satisfied they know the one and only answer for themselves but must force their answers on us all.

What I like is how I'm an "extremist" because I don't want to force my views on others. I mean you have to listen to them, I do force that on you all. But I have no desire to have government force anyone to do anything other then preventing them from removing choice from others.

Sarah Palin largely follows that view as well. At least more then most politicians do. But she's only marginally consistent in that (like endorsing McCain for Senate) and I view her as having run in front of the parade, not having formed it. But still, most politicians are throwing stones at the parade of people who just want smaller government. At least she's advocating it and sort of fighting for it. Seems intelligent enough to me.

An overwhelming majority of the men who wrote our constitution were fundamentalist Christians. Many of them were ministers.

Do you suppose they too forced their views on others with guns and govt?

Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist Christian as well. Not much chance you'll see her "improving" on that if improvement to you = less than fundamental Christian ideology.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Kaz, fence sitting/fence riding, same thing. Keep digging. I admire individuals who make a decision either way. Not sit in the middle and provoke pointless arguments like you do with your conspiracy theories

Hmmm....can you give me an example of one of my "conspiracy theories?"

"How's government protecting you from reality working out for you?"

How is that a conspiracy theory? Government is spending us into the ground, confiscating and redistributing money. I'm not seeing any "conspiracy" in that, it's being done in front of our face.

ATX_Skins wrote:You believe that the gov't is purposely hiding the photos or actual death of Osama Bin Laden for the better good of the people.

When did I say the government was hiding anything about Bin Laden? Can you show me that quote? Good luck finding it because it doesn't exist.

ATX_Skins wrote:However, don't get too wrapped around "conspiracy theories" as I was mostly poking fun. Let's get back to the discussion.

I'm not wrapped around anything, I just responded to what you posted. My choices are to not respond or I'm somehow upset? Would there be some projection in that?

That was what the discussion was about Kaz, don't act ignorant. You tried to be funny and it was to a point. However, you did just get caught, I did quote you.

I'm on to you Kaz, you pick one or two words out of members posts, then turn the subject to specifically that. You must be a lawyer.

For anyone else interested in seeing how Kaz is trying to weasel his way out of this one, go to the UK Skins Bollucks thread in smack talk and go to page 5.

The problem here Kaz is that I wouldn't mind discussing stuff with you, and I actually do support much of what you say. But you are so pompous and arrogant towards everyone that I find it much more entertaining to annoy you now.

Funbuncher, most fundamentalist republicans are against homosexuality and that is a fact. How is it that gays get special treatment when they fight for equal treatment? If gays want to have a parade then let them. It is their Constitutional right to demonstrate peacefully. Keyword: Constitutional not Biblical. Another few key items I want to cover:
Evolution is real…that is unless you want to believe that God was pissed at us and decided make all of us different colors and change our tongues to speak differently. Let me guess…you also believe that humans have only lived on Earth for about 6,000 years right?
There is nothing wrong with gender neutrality. Teaching kids to respect each others differences only helps make the world a better place.
Our tax money is used to murder innocent people in many different ways besides abortion.
And come to think of it, those are some of the reasons I will not support SP. You also state that “An overwhelming majority of the men who wrote our constitution were fundamentalist Christians.” Really? I never knew slave owners could be fundamentalists. They were more like rebels who wanted to kick the British back across the pond so they could have the power and influence over the country.

And to add another point. Let's take George Washington, the first Constitutional President of the United States. He owned slaves (and its suspected he had bastard children with some of them), brewed his own alcohol, grew tobacco, and chopped down a cherry tree. The man was not larger than life nor were all of the "righteous" founding fathers. So to say they were fundamentalist Christians is a fallacy.

funbuncher wrote:well I'm probably what you would consider a fundamentalist, but you have a good point there.

What flavour of fundamentalism?

Protestant? Catholic? Sikh? Hindi? Muslim? Jewish? etc etc etc????

Because ALL of them are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and exclude all others as enemies according to the followers of each religion, denomination and sect.

Which God?

Because God is a somewhat different entity for each but they have no doubt about its ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Whether you call it a crusade, a jihad, or even premeditated assesination, extermination, and murder such as Isaac Rabin, fundamentalism justifies these terrible actions in the name of ... God.

I am not sure that God has anything to do with any of this. Poor God, how many crimes and vile acts have been committed in His Name.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:The ONLY LITTLE problem is ...

... a fundamentalist will try to IMPOSE ITS TRUTHS on everybody

Yep. Fundamentalist Christians and Liberals. Two peas in a pod.

I disagree to the extent of the size of the pot, which is much LARGER.

The pot has far too many more peas than two. And to be truthful, there have been anti-religious fundamentalists in history too. Those who persecute people following a religion for the sake of abolishing freedom of religion.

Let's make it clear: all forms of FUNDAMENTALISM and INTOLERANCE are wrong. Those who hide their weaknesses and failures as persons or political figures behind religion are simply appealing to the emotion and faith of the people. Most of them are NOT worthy of calling themselves good politicians whatever their alleged religion or faith.

Fundamentalism is not only wrong in OTHER countries and religions. Fundamentalism is wrong EVERYWHERE.

Long live the Ayatollah Komeini !!!

ATX_Skins wrote:For anyone else interested in seeing how Kaz is trying to weasel his way out of this one, go to the UK Skins Bollucks thread in smack talk and go to page 5.

I did a search and didn't find my name on that page. I also find the idea of going to a smack page to prove people are somehow not being genuine to be somewhat dubious. You quoted me, but I still don't see how that quote has anything to do with conspiracy theories.

ATX_Skins wrote:The problem here Kaz is that I wouldn't mind discussing stuff with you, and I actually do support much of what you say. But you are so pompous and arrogant towards everyone that I find it much more entertaining to annoy you now.

Well, you're going to have to work a lot harder then that to "annoy" me. Getting someone to respond to you on a message board isn't that hard an accomplishment. As for pompous and arrogant, I see why you say that, but a better insight would be that I'm egotistical. I do have a high opinion of myself, in that you're right. Where you're wrong is that to be pompous or arrogant means one assumes they are somehow smarter or better then others. My high opinion of myself doesn't come with the assumption that whoever I'm talking to doesn't possess intelligence. I let the discussion sort that out.

Which is why I'm not actually a lawyer, they are pompous and arrogant. They assume no matter how overwhelming the facts are that they are the smartest guy (or gal) in the room. You can trip them and stick their face in the punch bowl and they still can't see they are the court fool. They will still have zero question in their mind they are the smartest. It is that part of the equation I don't suffer from. Glad I could clear that distinction up for you.

Try searching page 11. My mistake.

My goal isn't to try and annoy you Kaz. I just think it's funny that you nitpick at posts you don't agree with. At times going off topic to prove a subtle point. Once again, I DO agree with a lot you say it's just the way you present yourself that seems to me to be conceited and at times very arrogant. I think a lot of members here think highly of themselves especially since hardly anyone knows each other.

Yes, Lawyers are pompous and arrogant. Even more annoying is that they will seek argument and conflict just for the sake of it no matter how morally wrong or right.

I look forward to our future discussions...

ATX_Skins wrote:I look forward to our future discussions...

Palin talking about Paul Revere's ride where he warned Americans the British were coming.

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot ... 49982.html

Cappster wrote:Palin talking about Paul Revere's ride where he warned Americans the British were coming.

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot ... 49982.html

Palin defending her version of history:

Sarah Palin wrote:"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 ... 71479.html

Yes, she is getting better...better at making herself look foolish. I guess they don't teach basic American history all they way up there in Alaska. Oh, that's right Sarah, it was a "gotcha" question...

Cappster wrote:

Cappster wrote:Palin talking about Paul Revere's ride where he warned Americans the British were coming.

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot ... 49982.html

Palin defending her version of history:

Sarah Palin wrote:"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 ... 71479.html

Yes, she is getting better...better at making herself look foolish. I guess they don't teach basic American history all they way up there in Alaska. Oh, that's right Sarah, it was a "gotcha" question...

Interesting how a moderate has a liberal ring in their nose. I read idiotic Democratic statements all day long, and don't see any of these posts about it. This doesn't even contradict my post on that she improved.

Kaz, come on man, really? Do you really think its irrelevant that someone who is thinking about running for president and on the notion that we need to get back to the "core principles of the founding fathers" blah blah blah, can so easily butcher Paul Revere's famous ride warning Americans the British were coming? And I do believe that it puts a dent in your statement that she has improved, because she is still the same person giving the same idiotic answers.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

funbuncher wrote:well I'm probably what you would consider a fundamentalist, but you have a good point there.

What flavour of fundamentalism?

Protestant? Catholic? Sikh? Hindi? Muslim? Jewish? etc etc etc????

Because ALL of them are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and exclude all others as enemies according to the followers of each religion, denomination and sect.

Which God?

Because God is a somewhat different entity for each but they have no doubt about its ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Whether you call it a crusade, a jihad, or even premeditated assesination, extermination, and murder such as Isaac Rabin, fundamentalism justifies these terrible actions in the name of ... God.

I am not sure that God has anything to do with any of this. Poor God, how many crimes and vile acts have been committed in His Name.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:The ONLY LITTLE problem is ...

... a fundamentalist will try to IMPOSE ITS TRUTHS on everybody

Yep. Fundamentalist Christians and Liberals. Two peas in a pod.

I disagree to the extent of the size of the pot, which is much LARGER.

The pot has far too many more peas than two. And to be truthful, there have been anti-religious fundamentalists in history too. Those who persecute people following a religion for the sake of abolishing freedom of religion.

Let's make it clear: all forms of FUNDAMENTALISM and INTOLERANCE are wrong. Those who hide their weaknesses and failures as persons or political figures behind religion are simply appealing to the emotion and faith of the people. Most of them are NOT worthy of calling themselves good politicians whatever their alleged religion or faith.

Fundamentalism is not only wrong in OTHER countries and religions. Fundamentalism is wrong EVERYWHERE.

Long live the Ayatollah Komeini !!!

which God you ask? since that was obvious by previous posts, I guess you ask that to make your point, but if not then... the One and Only True God, the God of the Bible.

And yes, all faiths believe their faith is real. So since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, is that it? If the question is "what is 2 + 2?" and you're the only one in a roomful of folks with the number 4, does that make 4 wrong? again, your belief in nothing is just as much a faith as everyone else's, and since you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, you may as well take your seat at the table of absolute truth with the rest of us.

there must be an atheist form letter that goes out across the land to all the concerned atheist historians out there. "...people have done evil in the name of God, so we would be better off without God". wow, twas the first time I've heard that today. it warms my heart at how concerned atheists are with all the evil in the world that is committed in God's name. Know this... where you see evil, that is the absence of God. That is the real point. Welcome to your God-less utopia.

Jesus' purpose for the church (his followers) was for them to be the salt and light of the earth. salt, stops corruption, being the salt of the earth, means that we are to impact our culture for Christ in every facet while we're here, our mission is to resist moral and spiritual corruption wherever we find it. sorry if that is annoying, but we must. we're just trying to be as loud as everyone else. What's your beef with that? You don't have to listen. We are to be champions for Christ, not Bible thumping wimps hiding out in the church. Christ stood up for the weak, so we cannot as believers remain silent as 4,000 babies are killed a week in abortion clinics. Where is their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? are Christian fundamentalists really the only people trying to impose their views on others? why are you secular humanists not concerned about the rights of those babies to live? where is the libertarian's rage at that gross intrusion of one person's beliefs over another's rights?!

If the evil that men do in the name of God has made Christianity so abhorrent to you, then by the same logic, the good that has been done in the name of God must make him vital to you as well? or does that not support your point? for every extremist lunatic that has done something horrible in the name of God, there are a hundred wonderful, Godly things that have been done. should the good be ignored? would those that have been helped by the millions in ministry around the world be better off without God? would the world be better off? since these acts by men are the measuring stick by which you determine whether God is worthy of our belief, then surely He can count you in, right?

why do people that don't believe in God insist on lumping Christians in with Islamic fundamentalists. Which group has killed any of your friends or relatives recently? Which group openly declares that Israel should be wiped off the map and that Jews and apostates should be killed? Which group's holy scriptures actually contain those instructions? Which group has a suicide bomber killing innocent people in the news almost daily? Is the threat of those darn fundamentalists Christians really keeping you awake at night. Is that who you need to protect your kids from? When were the Crusades again? Do you really think those men that killed in the name of the catholic church were Christians in the eyes of God? Please find a new argument.

I think we need to define Christian fundamentalism. from Websters...

a movement emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

That is the fundamentalism I am referring to, and it is by no means "wrong". Again (for the 4,003rd time), the people that carry out intolerable acts of violence have nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. The Bible does not preach violence, it teaches forgiveness. How many times shall you forgive? 70 times 7 times. Those are the words of Jesus. It seems that there is a tendency to attack the messenger when it comes to Christianity. True Christians are not intolerant of other lifestyles, views, religions, etc... (they are not supposed to be at least). But God is intolerant. God's laws are God's laws, no matter what man thinks about them. God hates sin, and the penalty for our sin is death and eternity away from Him. That may sound harsh, but cut Him some slack since He gives you every breath you take and the free will not to believe in Him or follow His laws until you die. The Bible also requires us to spread the Good News that He has provided us a way out through Jesus. During the spreading of this news, Christians may sometimes come off sounding like they are doing the judging (especially if what they are saying convicts you of sin), but God is the only judge.

As a Christian, we are supposed to tolerate, but not validate. Take homosexuality, which has been the topic here for some reason, my point was that to God it is on the same level as adultery, stealing, lusting, etc... it's sin. I love you, and I accept you, but because of my Christianity that trumps all, and Jesus's example and his teachings, no I will not tell you that it's ok to be a homosexual. you may say, "well I'm born that way", well I got news for you, I was born to lust, but that doesn't make it ok, I was born to fornicate, but that doesn't make it fine. we are all born with a sinful nature. Now if you want to call my views "intolerant", then fine, but we simply refuse to denounce what the Bible teaches because society's laws say it's ok. We're not going to walk in your gay parade, that you are constitutionally, (but not Biblically) allowed to have. I was just comparing that parade to the ridiculousness of having a parade for adulterers. Why do gays need to be glorified for their sin?

As for the founders and their righteousness, that is for God to decide. I said they were fundamentalist Christians which they were. It does not mean they were perfect, sinless individuals. there has only been one of those. they obviously had some moral relativists tendencies since they were able to rationalize slavery.

much like atheists always bring up the Crusades, anti-American libs (who often pose as independents), always bring up slavery. We are not a perfect country with a perfect history, but we're the best thing going Bub. I don't know how you can grow up in this country and know anything about our history and not be ashamed of that last post. It's so "cool" these days to badmouth America and so disappointingly common. even on the anniversary of D-Day no less? This country saved the world, and many have died to protect the ideals of those founders you slammed as only interested in "power and influence".

There has got to be a better thread for this conversation. Cappster you got all Matt Damon on me back there and even skewed into evolution for a second. Consider this... the theory of evolution claims a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. and after unearthing literally hundreds of millions of fossils, where is the missing link? scientific THEORY does conflict with creation. But the FACTS of science do not. All the observable facts of science strongly support the Bible's claim that it is impossible for one kind to reproduce a different kind. if you can point out an example of that that has been proven, then the whole scientific community would love to see it. there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support evolution from any area of science, just theory. Because of this, there are many scientists who fully accept Biblical creation. Evolution is just a theory bro, that's why they call it that. The same crew that feeds you that is the one that said the earth was flat, when the Bible called it round long before man ever figured that out.

Cappster wrote:Kaz, come on man, really? Do you really think its irrelevant that someone who is thinking about running for president and on the notion that we need to get back to the "core principles of the founding fathers" blah blah blah, can so easily butcher Paul Revere's famous ride warning Americans the British were coming? And I do believe that it puts a dent in your statement that she has improved, because she is still the same person giving the same idiotic answers.

I care what they want to do in office. Not caring all the time is better then your only caring when it's a Republican. Biden says things like this all the time. Al Gore lives in a fantasy world. John Kerry is a compulsive liar. Obama never shuts up about his ability to solve every problem in the world with common sense, yet he's accomplished nothing in his life, including his almost 2 1/2 years as President. Yet it's only Sarah Palin who bothers you enough to speak up. Why is that exactly?

funbuncher wrote:which God you ask? since that was obvious by previous posts, I guess you ask that to make your point, but if not then... the One and Only True God, the God of the Bible.

It is not about what you believe to be the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Everyone has a right to believe or not in anything and anyone. It is about respecting each others views and respecting a fundamental human right: freedom of religion.

And yes, all faiths believe their faith is real. So since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, is that it?

Not at all. And quite frankly, it is a matter of FAITH. I just do not feel that my right to select my personal faith is higher, more righteous or superior to any other. I respect them all. I work with people of all religions and with some who do not espouse any too.

since you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, you may as well take your seat at the table of absolute truth with the rest of us.

The opposite is the case. I do not care who is right as long as the right of all to praise God (or not) in whatever manner we choose is respected.

there must be an atheist form letter that goes out across the land to all the concerned atheist historians out there. "...people have done evil in the name of God, so we would be better off without God". wow, twas the first time I've heard that today. it warms my heart at how concerned atheists are with all the evil in the world that is committed in God's name. Know this... where you see evil, that is the absence of God. That is the real point. Welcome to your God-less utopia.

I am a religious person and I hate it when IN THE NAME OF GOD, some fanatics feel that they are compelled to commit crimes in HIS name, WHATEVER the religion.

Jesus' purpose for the church (his followers) was for them to be the salt and light of the earth ... Christ stood up for the weak, so we cannot as believers remain silent as 4,000 babies are killed a week in abortion clinics. Where is their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? are Christian fundamentalists really the only people trying to impose their views on others? why are you secular humanists not concerned about the rights of those babies to live? where is the libertarian's rage at that gross intrusion of one person's beliefs over another's rights?!

Nobody opposes your right to be in the pro-life movement. However, being on that side is not the prerogative of fundamentalists only. There are other people, including non-Christians, who would agree with you.

If the evil that men do in the name of God has made Christianity so abhorrent to you, then by the same logic, the good that has been done in the name of God must make him vital to you as well? or does that not support your point? for every extremist lunatic that has done something horrible in the name of God, there are a hundred wonderful, Godly things that have been done. should the good be ignored? would those that have been helped by the millions in ministry around the world be better off without God? would the world be better off? since these acts by men are the measuring stick by which you determine whether God is worthy of our belief, then surely He can count you in, right?

There are plenty of good actions that have been carried out by plenty of people from ALL religions. It is the manipulation of religious views for political and military purposes that I abhor.

This paragraph containing reminders of some of the atrocities conducted by various forms of fundamentalism remind me of one famous quote:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

why do people that don't believe in God insist on lumping Christians in with Islamic fundamentalists. Which group has killed any of your friends or relatives recently? Which group openly declares that Israel should be wiped off the map and that Jews and apostates should be killed? Which group's holy scriptures actually contain those instructions? Which group has a suicide bomber killing innocent people in the news almost daily? Is the threat of those darn fundamentalists Christians really keeping you awake at night. Is that who you need to protect your kids from? When were the Crusades again? Do you really think those men that killed in the name of the catholic church were Christians in the eyes of God? Please find a new argument.

All flavours of fundamentalism share the common denominator of owners of absolute TRUTHS and thus justified to commit ANY crime at any time anywhere. However, they feel that they are defending themselves. They are committing the "ultimate sacrifice" WHATEVER the origin of their fundamentalism. A fundamentalist should be able to recognise another of the same but opposite kind, no?

I

think we need to define Christian fundamentalism. from Websters...

a movement emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

You are right. The Ayatollah Komeini was a moderate.

That is the fundamentalism I am referring to,

Nothing wrong with the recognition of ONE brand of fundamentalism. There are a few more which you, and Webster seem to fail to recognise.

As a Christian, we are supposed to tolerate, but not validate. Take homosexuality, ...

As for the founders and their righteousness, ...

much like atheists always bring up the Crusades, anti-American libs (who often pose as independents), always bring up slavery.

Consider this... the theory of evolution claims a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.

Anti-gay, intolerant, history revisionist, and anti-evolution ...

Man, I wish you had started the post with these paragraphs. You would have saved me the trouble to respond.

I am not gay but I respect other people's choices as I want the to respect mine. I do not attend their parades but in the words of Gerard K. O'Neill, a famous scientist:

"Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression."

I MUST be tolerant with people that I do not share views or values.

The fundamental success of the US as a nation is based on, among others, the separation of Church and State. While the US constitution recognises the existence of God and guarantees freedom of religion, it makes sure that no single kind of religion creeps in into government.

The anti-evolution argument, which is only confined to fundamentalist protestant churches, is pathetic and laughable in light of all the scientific information available today. The sad thing is that evolution and Christianity are not at odds. I have never been able to understand the need for this argument in some fundamentalist protestant religious circles.

For some catholic views on evolution, please see:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

For such a smart guy you are not a very thorough reader. I plainly said that I am not intolerant of gays ("I love you, I accept you" was my quote I believe), I just don't validate them by marching in their parade. That is my religious view. My God considers homosexuality an abomination. I referenced that scripture before. You say you wish you hadn't bothered to respond to me because of my views on that and evolution? I only believe the Bible dude. Poke fun at me all you want Mr. tolerant, but why not address my point directly, rather than just calling my views "pathetic and laughable". in case you skimmed over it too...

For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of the missing links between species in a desperate effort to prove biblical creation wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, not one missing link has ever been found. If you can point to even one that can prove their "theory", I'm sure they would love to hear from you. then they can start calling it the "fact" of evolution. There are plenty of scientists on this side of the argument, so what you said about the anti-evolution argument being confined to the fundamentalist churches is simply not true. instead of calling us pathetic, laughable, and trying to portray us as loons, go read about it. Unlike religion and our absolute truths, what scientists believe is always up for debate until they PROVE IT, which they have yet to do, and you cannot honestly claim that they have.

If I may reference the Bible without anyone setting their hair on fire, Genesis chapter one states 10 times that life forms can only reproduce after their own kind (ape to ape, man to man). I only bring this up because you condescendingly informed me how "sad" it was that I failed to realize that evolution and Christianity are not at odds.

As the aforementioned Webster's definition clearly points out, yes, we crazy fundamentalists believe in the LITERAL translation of the Bible, so my apologies to the catholic church you linked, but I don't try to keep up with what they believe.

(on a side note in response to you regarding Websters, I did not mean to infer that was the only definition of fundamentalism, I picked out Christian fundamentalism because you asked which type I was referring to specifically, so I am to blame, not Webster)

As for that part about fundamentalists all share the common denominator that we can commit any crime, any where, any time in the name of God... and that surely I should recognize the same but opposite kind of fundamentalist... Those are Islamic fundamentalists. I know you like to group us together, but as I said before, which ones are more likely to try to blow up your kids school? Which group do you want to see waiting at your gate at the airport? enough with the moral equivocating. it's Ludacris who hotta than Nevadda, ready to break the steering column on yo impaaala, to compare the two groups as opposite but equal. We both whole heartedly believe, but that's about as far as it goes. How many Christian suicide bombers do you see making "the ultimate sacrifice" that you speak of? you really think that's fair?

More generally, you seem to keep going back to this point about acceptance of other's religious freedoms. I get it. I do. I can obviously see where it's in my (and my great-grandchildrens') interest for all the citizens of this country to have freedom of religion. Nowhere have I remotely disagreed with that, so if that's the point you want to get across to me, then you can move on, Voltaire.

funbuncher wrote:For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of the missing links between species in a desperate effort to prove biblical creation wrong

While I agree that only a tiny portion of evolution has been proven and there are major gaps, the existence of the fossils themselves actually still proves the bible literalists wrong

That also is an opinion, based on scientific theory, being presented by you here as scientific fact.

funbuncher wrote:That also is an opinion, based on scientific theory, being presented by you here as scientific fact.

You seriously think there's no proof that fossils exist? It's only an "opinion" being resented as "scientific fact?"

There is voluminous evidence that evolution exists. There is 0 evidence that man sprang from nothing. Genesis was written as an explanation for existence at a time when high tech was a bronze spear head. There was also a belief, at that time, that gold could be devined from lead, Earth was the center of the Universe, infection was the result of evil, and that flies grew from bad air.