Bernie Sanders is only candidate that opposes CISA

ohio_grad_06 said:
As I said, I'm not going to argue with anyone

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-pagan-christianity.htm
http://www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=24f9c898-6b92-11e1-b1f8-842b2b162e97
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
Click to expand...

Yet, you keep arguing.. and please don't stop. Argument is the mother of agreement. I don't believe that anyone here is trying to change your mind about Jesus Christ. I believe that people, given the knowledge, can do that for themselves. All you need to do is be open-minded (The opposite of being "blindly religious").

For those, like Stonecat said:
YeOldeStonecat said:
Poking fun at politics is one thing, but once religion gets tossed into the ring of fire....gets a bit hot.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, and I'll tell you why. Ohio Tech, you have stated that you think the rapture is so close that politics don't matter.. and you're not the only one... which is scary to me. I don't want a politician up there that thinks the world is ending. I want someone that is going to assume the world isn't ending, in case it doesn't. Our very founding documents are clear that religion is poisonous to the political process. In the land of the free, religion has no place in Schools, religion has no say in who can marry who, religion has no say in what Women do with their bodies. Religion SHOULD have no say in who gets a war placed in their countries or define who we are to "protect". Why do Churches get 100% exempt from taxes? Why are most of the rehabilitation programs and prisons pushing religion as the answer (Only to have extremely poor outcomes)? It is these things that have been severely overshadowed by, fundamentally, Christianity in this country. Land of the free? Only if your Christian, I guess. Everyone else can go to Hell. Evangelical Protestants make up 25.4% of the population while 22.8% identify as "Unaffiliated", so why do the rest of us have to succumb to religious ideology that is not our own? No, sir. It is not "us" trying to change your mind, it's "you" trying to force "your" ideology on everyone else. This is why Religion and Politics seem to go hand and hand in the USA and why it comes up all the time here on TN. I'm going to say it... if YOU or ANYONE else votes one way or the other because of their religion, to further their religion in Politics, you are by definition, un-American, as per the US Constitution.
Not ragging on StoneCat though, I may disagree on some points but at least he is reasonable in his conclusions (or seems to be!) and is not affiliating himself with a political party based simply on "My parents/family vote that way", which I find deplorable.

I insist nobody leave Bernie alone... attack attack attack! Attack them all to expose their shortcomings and lies. This is how politics works, and why it isn't working now.

The GOP debate was a disaster - not one of them are credible and they keep blaming the Democrats for their failed Republican policies. I got no love for Obama (Most Republican Democrat ever) but the things the GOP are holding Obama (or even Hillary for that matter; Corporate shill) to account for, is ridiculous. People's memories just can't be this short. I would equate the latest GOP debate to a bunch of whiny, uneducated, lying children.
Who did you like in the debate and what policies did you like?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The first link loses right away with this at the very top:
WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS?

Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation.
Click to expand...
"Early centuries after Christ"? Really. Mystery religion? Cults? Only in this guys dreamworld. The author is Ronald Nash, a Christian presuppositional apologetic. He is known for actively attacking other faiths while strongly professing Christianity as the only true religion. His attacks are based on the Bible as if it were fact, without any basis and he rejects scientific evidence because it doesn't fit the narrative of the Bible. This is likely why he will not admit that other religions existed before Christianity, for if he did, his narrative would instantly fall apart. I'm pretty sure we're not going to get a balanced view from this guy. Many of his references are HIS OWN, from his own book! It is also obvious that he cherry-picked his sources that deal with "mystery religions" such as the 1903 book, The Mysteries of Mithra or the 1952 book, Ortheus and Greek Religion which are laughably outdated since there have been many more discoveries that put the hypothesis of these books into the fiction category. The rest of his sources are Christian biased. He had plenty of chance the use sources that were reputable (Nash wrote this up in 1994), yet instead only uses writings from other Christian apologetics. So long as it fits his worldview.

The second link. Has virtually no sources. Yes, he links to four, but following them does not offer any insight in to how the conclusions were reached. The links are at best, basic knowledge of the Egyptian religions and Gods. Go take a look at them. Also, while the first link you provided says that all of the "Mystery Religions" were 100-200AD... this link plainly references The Egyptian Book of The Dead and states that parts originated as far back as 2600BC and as late as 1350BC. Also, this is literally a BLOG POST by "Palmer". So we can discard this one as it doesn't meet your PhD status and the author contradicts himself throughout his opinions.

So which one do you want? You can't believe the first source AND the second at the same time because they grossly contradict one another; two wholly different worldviews here.

The third link. It's an attack on a film called Zeitgeist. What the author fails to see is that he believes the movie is about religion as it's primary talking point, it isn't. The movie Zeitgeist did a fine job of rehashing common knowledge about the beginnings of religion and some history into the subject. However, the main point of the film is to segway into a conspiracy theory and that is where the film falls apart for me. Zeitgeist didn't make up the beginning "Religion" part or many of the other foundational premises, but they do make big unsubstantiated leaps further into the film where "the world is a conspiracy". So, instead of your author attacking the sources of the religious information of the movie, he attacks Zeitgeist and pleads with his readers to prove Zeitgeist wrong as if Zeitgeist is the originator of the religious bit. It isn't.
Also, this is a Blog post too by an UKNOWN AUTHOR! So we can discard this one as well since it doesn't meet your PhD status.

The overall theme of each of these (Except for the first link) is to dispute a few details of the parallels, and then say, "Oh well, see.. such and such year isn't the same or Isis Meri wasn't a virgin"... well, ok.. but they all miss the bigger point that the substance and overall stories of the older religions are almost EXACTLY the same. It does not take a PhD to know that over 2000-3000 years some minor details will be incorrect or that Christianity was not bound to copying every detail word for word, duh! Look how much the Bible has changed from Old to New testament at the hands of kings and man in a very short time. So by the very same standards these guys claim Horus to be a crock, the Bible wouldn't stand any firmer when applied those same standards. So we can debate whether Jesus or Horus were or were not born on the same date.. but the fact remains that the date is extremely close (Within days). As another example, Isis Meri, The virgin who may not have been a virgin. Even these sites admit she could have been a virgin. Older texts (2600BC) reflect that she was married prior to her immaculate conception, but still a virgin. Later texts (1500BC) say that she was a virgin. Pay no attention to the fact that Meri would be pronounced "Mary" - of who has the exact same job as Mary in the Bible! Either way, the story changed over time and matches the Bible very closely. Nobody is arguing that Horus was a REAL God, only that the stories of Christianity are contained in texts much earlier, many times over, in many religions.

As for the naming conventions including KRST (Which means "burial") - well so what? It was and still is common to have names that were derived from ordinary words. Ancient Egypt is famous for naming their kin after events of the same day (Bright Sun, Cloudy day, Big eyes, or whatever) kind of like the American Indians did (Dances with Wolves!). My middle name is Cooper, it is derived from Middle English and a "Cooper" was a barrel maker. Cooper is the word relating to a type of profession. Tanner, River, Pepper, Patty, Iris, Crystal, Allie, Henry, Aurora, Jade... none of those names were "names" before they were common words describing things or ideas. So that premise is ridiculous even by today's standards. It's EXACTLY what the Egyptians did! Here's an interesting fact: KRST would be pronounced "Christ" - but I'm sure that has nothing to do with anything even though it wouldn't take a stretch of the imagination to think that people would refer to Horus as "The Buried Annointed One" since that is what their religion defined him as.

Final note, it is a bad idea to use scripture in an attempt to prove the Bible true, as these authors consistently do. You can't debate the validity of something with the very thing that is in question. It's an obvious logical fallacy and is defective thinking!
 
Last edited:
Here is what I believe, in a nutshell. Going to give you a link to a Jewish site, so keep that in mind. I am a Christian, but will try to explain how I believe.

http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm

This page kind of gives the basics of the patriarchs in Judaism. In my reading, I have read some things that say well even Judaism is based on pagan beliefs. I personally believe the biblical story of creation and of Abraham, Sara, and how Ishmael(whom as you know Arabs are descended from ultimately), and later Isaac(where Israel comes from).

No doubt you will say well why did God create the Arabs and allow the Muslim religion to take hold at all? Again, the premise of free will.

If you read in Genesis 15, God makes a promise to Abraham that he will make his seed(children) as the stars of the sky in number. Sarah his wife apparently did not believe God, and has Abraham take Hagar, which is where Ishmael comes from, but this is an example one could argue that Abraham and Sarah didn't really believe what God promised, and attempted to fix things themselves. However, a chapter later they have Isaac which is where Israel comes from.

Of course you likely know the story of exodus, etc.

So let's skip ahead to Jesus Christ.

Laying the groundwork there then, of course you probably know much of this.

When Moses was returning to Egypt he has a question for God.

Exodus 3:13 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

Exodus 3:15 "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

So at this point, God was establishing that He is the I AM. That was what He told Abraham to tell Israel that His name was.

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

If you read in John 8, Jesus is having conversation with the Jews of His day, after a woman was brought who was caught committing adultery. But toward the end, He begins speaking about Abraham.

John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Read the next verse, they are taking up stones wanting to kill Jesus. Why?

If you read in context with Exodus 3:14, God, said that my name is "I AM" So Jesus saying that term means that He was saying "I AM". As in meaning I am God.

Colossians 2:9 backs it up.

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

So Paul is saying in Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Godhead.


As you look through the Christian tradition, many people look at what they call the Trinity. Well meaning people to be certain, but I do not agree.

The terms of course are as follows

1. Father(God of the old testament)
2. Son(Jesus)
3. Holy Ghost(Spirit of God)

Lets look deeper.

Jehovah, Father God of the old Testament says

Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

This is another place God calls Himeself the I AM.

Notice what else.

"my glory will I not give to another"

Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."


There is a lot more, but the Jehovah, God of the Old Testament makes clear. I AM the Lord, there is no savior beside me.

Yet Jesus comes along and says He is the I AM.

Read it the way.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Greek word for the word "Word" is Logos.

Meaning from Brittanica Encylopedia.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

"Logos,( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”)"

So read the Bible a little further.

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Again, the word "Word" here is Logos.

So you could potentially read it as saying

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word(plan), and the Word(plan) was with God, and the Word(plan) was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word(plan) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

In other words, in the begging was God's Word or His plan, He possessed it, and it was Him.

In verse 14, that Plan is made flesh, and dwells with humanity.

Remember we also mentioned earlier

Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

God says my glory will I not give to another. Yet in verse 14 it says we beheld the glory of Jesus as of the only begotten of the Father.

So wait, contradiction right?

Hebrews 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"

Hebrews 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

Again, is there a contradiction? It says that Jesus is the brightness of God's glory right?

Wrong. What I submit, and what I believe, is that Jesus Christ actually was a man, but that He was also God manifest in the Flesh.

So the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is that right?

What I believe is that those are 3 manifestations of 1 God, that is Jesus Christ. In other words, if you believe in Heaven, I don't think we will see 3 sitting, only 1. In other words, these are 3 different ways God revealed Himself through the Bible and history.

I think this is what the first church believed and what they followed.

Paul told the Colossians

Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

Acts 2:38 "38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

They were even told to baptize in Jesus name. Many people will say

Matthew "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

But notice, it says in the name of those 3. As we said, those 3 are embodied in Jesus Christ, therefore, baptism in Jesus name fulfills that as well.




Lot of stuff there. Now onto the other portion. I think men like the Roman Emperor Constantine were dangerous to modern Christianity, because they likely introduced things from pagan religions before into modern Christianity.

I can't tell you specific years. But this is interesting. I thought I'd heard Jesus was born more toward July. Another place says September.

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/biblical-evidence-shows-jesus-christ-wasnt-born-on-dec-25

Here is another source

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/christ-is-born

According to second article, the romans worshipped their God Saturn around December 17-25. How convenient was it then to just let's celebrate Jesus birth at this time.

Just seems a bit too convenient to me that a pagan holiday was converted to a Christian holiday because men seeking power found that it would be easier to tell all their subjects, oh we are Christians now, but keep doing everything you've been doing.

Here's another article that discusses some holidays.

http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm

It seems to talk about how a lot of holidays were converted to Christian holidays from pagan.

So to me, leaders like Constantine and others did damage because it was easier for them to convert holidays to Christian festivals instead of changing.

I celebrate these holidays like anyone else, but try to remember the Lord when I do.



I cannot prove every single thing you said, this is what I believe. I know from what I've researched, different stories, such as Horus, and Attis, etc have similarities, but one thing they don't have is that their figures died, but they died from whatever circumstances befell them, in the case of Horus, he was said to be merged with Re the sun god, and reborn each morning when the sun rises.

The thing these other religions don't have, Jesus Christ died voluntarily for imperfect people. Those others, they died, had disciples, whatever, but they didn't lay down their lives for their creation. That is what sets Jesus apart.

I also believe that just to say those other religions were the basis of Christianity simply because they existed before, not a totally valid argument. Just because they all pre date it does not mean that Jews or Christians stole ideas. If they were in different areas, I'm sure different people formed different ideas possibly at different times.

We live today in an age where there is a free exchange of ideas. They didn't have the internet or forums like technibble to debate on. We probably forget that sometimes. What I read says that Abraham's parents probably were polytheistic, but that Abraham felt a different calling and began to believe different, and thus how Judaism started coming into being, from which Christianity is derived.

I will leave off for the time being.
 
A couple of things I forgot to answer for you as well. Regarding the rapture, my pastor teaches to plan like it will never happen, but live like it will happen in the next 5 seconds. In other words, go through life planning for all the future, but live the way you would want God to see you.

As to who can marry who, etc, that was all based upon religion. That said, We can agree that there should be separation of Church and State. Government should not dictate to churches. I will also say that I wish to elect leaders who reflect my beliefs, but if you allow the Church to dictate everything the government does, then you could end up opening a door to having for example Sharia law.

So in my opinion, separation of Church and state is good, as in if you are keeping Church out of Government, then keep Government out of Church. If Church cannot tell government what to do, then neither should the opposite be true.

I also feel like in the case of bakers for example asked to make cakes for same sex couples, if that violates their belief, don't force them to do that. Or for anything else. If you are going to say that then why is this story true?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...e-to-deliver-beer-win-240000-lawsuit-n2072722

No favorites. Treat everyone the same, not pick winners and losers. Or say ok, muslims have their beliefs, Christians, you have to abandon yours because you might offend someone. Does not work that way.

Also, if that means no tax breaks for Churches, I'm ok with that, but don't give them to Muslims or any other religious groups either.

On marriage, I'm very much against the redefinition of marriage, but if you take that side, then get privatize marriage. Don't let the government have any part of it at all. Abolish the IRS and tax code, do a flat tax, and privatize marriage, as it's before God anyway, or however it is you believe.

However, you must remember this country was initially founded upon Christian beliefs and ideals, that is why colonists came here. So many of us who are more conservative see new ways of thinking, socialism, same sex marriage as an attack on our beliefs.

I was taught in social studies, "your rights end where someone else's nose begins". In other words, if you feel like it, go marry whoever you want, but that does not mean I should be forced to agree with you. And the opposite is true, if I knock on your door, and I say hello I'm xyz and from the church down the road, and want to invite you to church, and you tell me no thanks. Ok, I'm leaving. I'm not going to try to force something down someone's throat. Not my place, but don't do the same to me.

Something I've heard on conservative radio describes how I feel. The younger generation today seems to believe that you must accept and agree with whatever they want to do, and that we should embrace what they want. In other words, if someone wants to have a sex change for example, then they seem to think everyone else should accept that, and that they should think that's great. This can apply to a lot of things, but for me, that's not how the world works. I can't force my beliefs on you or anyone else. If you for example want to be changed into a cat, I don't agree, but it's your life. We can all agree to disagree. And I don't think this younger generation always gets that.

As I said, I used to lean Democrat, and so some of my ideas may sound democratic to a point, but I feel that with the current administration that the pendulum swung so far left, that I went completely opposite wanting to offset. I want someone who's a moderate in office.

With your statement about voting your religious beliefs and being un american, I disagree with you. We are all entitled to freedom of speech, and have the right to elect who we feel best represents our beliefs, whether that person is or is not religious.

Hillary and stuff they are going after her for, come on. The email thing may sound overblown, but for me the Rubio quote from around the time of the latest debate says it.

"During the congressional hearing on Benghazi "it was revealed that Hillary Clinton knew early on and was telling her family and telling her friends that the attack on the consulate was by terrorists, al-Qaeda-like terrorists," Rubio said on CNN."

For me I am annoyed that it seems she knew what was happening, yet the night the attack happened they did not want to send extra help to the ambassador, when there was attack happening for hours they said. Come on. In times past, someone had pulled that, they would have been putting extra people in to help, or hunted down whoever did that. There was not a reason 4 americans had to die that night in my opinion.

With the recent debate, Rubio seemed to do well. I still support Trump, but I could vote for Carson or Rubio. I think Jeb is pretty well done. I felt the debate was unfair in a lot of ways to all the candidates. They seemed like they were trying to get the candidates to fight vs having an honest discussion. Example, they asked Rubio about his voting record and quoted the Sun Sentinel, yet, as he pointed out to them, the Sun Sentinel gave Obama a pass both times when he ran with the same or worse voting record than Rubio.

Seemed like John Kasich got a lot of time. Would have liked to have heard more from Trump and Carson. I mean like with Trump, he says good things, but I'm like ok, but how are you going to do what you say, so I want to hear more substance from him policy wise. It seemed like he didn't get a lot of time, and it's like ok, he's one of the top 2 candidates there, how do you just kind of pass him over.

Just felt cnbc had a bias from the get go.
 
Last edited:
Christians believe that Jews are going to hell unless they convert to Christianity and accept Jesus as the son of God and their lord and savior. Jews believe that Jesus was just a prophet, actually a false prophet and NOT the son of God. So each side believe the other side is wrong. Nothing is ever going to change that. So who cares about all of this stuff if neither side will EVER change what they think about the other side.

I believe in God, but I have a real problem with all these organized religions.
 
Woot woot Ohio Grad!

First, I sincerely thank and applaud you for your in depth look at your views.

I can't argue that the Bible doesn't say those things and that you are wrong or right to believe the Bible. Indeed the Bible states those things. The problem I have with that (and it's my problem, my view) is that the Bible shouldn't be given credibility without evidence, nor any other ancient text Christian or not. I still hold that other, older religions follow the narrative of the Bible so closely that it is unlikely that the Bible is the originator of the stories.
ohio_grad_06 said:
I also feel like in the case of bakers for example asked to make cakes for same sex couples, if that violates their belief, don't force them to do that. Or for anything else. If you are going to say that then why is this story true?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...e-to-deliver-beer-win-240000-lawsuit-n2072722
Click to expand...

Well isn't that the whole point.. Christians don't get to discriminate either. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been in effect for quite some time now but these Christians think they are above the law. You can't provide a public service (Read: Bakery) and discriminate based on Sex, color, religion, etc. If the Bakery owners don't want to provide services to everyone because of their religious beliefs, then they have no right to open a bakery in the first place. Don't like the law? Too bad, get it changed with an amendment. Again, it's not "us" forcing the Christians, it's the Christians forcing their religion onto others.

As far as the beer delivery guy, please read past the religion part. The delivery truck service could have given him a different route that didn't involve alcoholic beverages (as they admitted) and that drivers regularly switched routes (as they admitted again). The Muslim driver had been driving non-alcoholic deliveries for some time prior to being "forced" to take alcoholic deliveries. So the business switched it up on the Guy, not the other way around. Basically they didn't like Muslims and wouldn't accommodate him at any level and fired him, while at the same time, have full leniency for anyone else. That is discrimination. You cant do that, it's the law. The law plainly states that a workers' religious beliefs must be accommodated for so long as it does not create undue stress for the business. This applies to Churches in the sense that Churches would not be required to host Muslims as that WOULD create undue stress for the business. Seems fair to me.
To be blunt, your view of this situation is that Christians can discriminate as they please, but nobody else can? Not a word about this stuff until the tables have turned, as they say.

ohio_grad_06 said:
As to who can marry who, etc, that was all based upon religion. That said, We can agree that there should be separation of Church and State. Government should not dictate to churches.
Click to expand...
But the Government isn't dictating to Churches! That's a far-right republican alarmist talking point. The whole debate is that "married" couples can enjoy the benefits of being a married couple while Gay couples are not recognized and cannot take advantage of the very same benefits as heterosexual couples. That's it. The second that the Government dictates to the Church "they must marry same sex couples" is the same second the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be invoked on behalf of the Churches! So, you see, the entire premise is Religion taking control of politics and controlling peoples lives in which religion should have no bearing. It's the state's willingness to recognize a "marriage" as to allow benefits of such a union. So, where in the Constitution does it say Gays don't get the same benefits as everyone else? Again, no one is telling Churches they MUST marry Gay couples if they don't want to. Nobody is redefining marriage in the Christian sense of the word, rather, the legal use of the word marriage is what is to be redefined/changed. This is not an attack on Christians! The attack against Gays has already occurred!

ohio_grad_06 said:
However, you must remember this country was initially founded upon Christian beliefs and ideals, that is why colonists came here. So many of us who are more conservative see new ways of thinking, socialism, same sex marriage as an attack on our beliefs.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, you're entirely incorrect. This country WAS NOT founded upon Christian beliefs.. it was founded on the principal of "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom from Religion"... the whole idea was that anybody was welcome and would not face persecution based on their beliefs and that the Government would be "blind" to religion and WILL NOT favor one religion over the other (or lack of religion) by enacting laws that would do so. Even the Christians of the time agreed on this principle BECAUSE of their prior problems in England!

ohio_grad_06 said:
No favorites. Treat everyone the same, not pick winners and losers. Or say ok, muslims have their beliefs, Christians, you have to abandon yours because you might offend someone. Does not work that way.
Click to expand...
And yet, pretty much the entire Republican party is known for doing just that, in the name of Christianity. So you support the very view you disagree with, so long as it fits your worldview. That isn't America bud.

ohio_grad_06 said:
With your statement about voting your religious beliefs and being un american, I disagree with you. We are all entitled to freedom of speech, and have the right to elect who we feel best represents our beliefs, whether that person is or is not religious.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have no right to elect someone that you know is to going to break the Constitution. If I can clear my point from the prior post. I don't mean you can't elect someone that has the same views as you.. I mean to say it is un-American if you agree that changing the US laws to favor religion is OK and you vote that way. It is very short-sighted of Christians when they do this. If Christians are allowed to change the US law to favor Christianity, what's to say that one day Muslims or Druids get to change the laws in their favor? I bet the Christians would have a problem then, yet they would have done the same thing... so they get to eat it. I say lets go with "Freedom of Religion" as per the constitution - That means freedom from Christianity too.

ohio_grad_06 said:
Hillary and stuff they are going after her for, come on. The email thing may sound overblown, but for me the Rubio quote from around the time of the latest debate says it.

"During the congressional hearing on Benghazi "it was revealed that Hillary Clinton knew early on and was telling her family and telling her friends that the attack on the consulate was by terrorists, al-Qaeda-like terrorists," Rubio said on CNN."
Click to expand...
And yet Rubio is lying through his teeth. Here's the timeline according to the hearings:
3:40pm - Heard gunfire and an explosion outside the gates
4:00pm - Reporters are given this time as the approximate time the attack started.
4:15pm - Attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building.
4:15pm-4:45pm - Sean Smith is found dead
4:45pm - US security personnel are assigned to the mission annex try to retake the main building
5:20pm - US and Libyan security personnel regain control of the main building and secured it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

It wasn't until later that the emails began.. the whole "scandal" is based on the fact she used her Private Email server (Which wasn't illegal at the time). You and I can likely both agree that there are numerous issues that should/could have been addressed in Benghazi before the attack happened and that the situation could have been handled differently (and policy has changed because of the attacks), however, it's real weak-sauce to go after Hillary. It's distraction politics. Want a scandal? Instead of 4 people, 3000 died on 9/11 and Bush thought it best to sit in an elementary school classroom and continue reading "My Pet Goat" - where's the Republicans bleeding heart for them?
It's all distraction from the real issues. How many Benghazi hearings do we need? How many times to the Republicans need to come out of the hearings and say "What have we learned today? Nothing we didn't already know from the previous 7 congressional investigations and the 32 previous congressional hearings.
Benghazi-Press-Kit_Widespread-Criticism.png

http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/

There are plenty of things to legitimately attack the corporatist Hillary on, why do you think the Republicans are doing this? Because they are a bunch of Corporate tools too! Let's get real here. If Hillary wins... detrimental to the country, not because of Benghazi... much worse.

As far as Rubio, better check yer boy:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/statements/

As far as the Media - agreed, it is the corporate mouthpiece - all of them, Fox news included. And who is to blame for that? Hmmm. Give you one guess as to which party has actively pushed the media to become this way (Hint: Look who owns the media companies). The corporate media is there to keep "us" stupid and uninformed so as to further the agenda of the elites. That's my view, and so I will agree with you CNBC is deplorable, as are the rest.. but it's just there as a show, the World truly is but a stage.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat (He's really an Independent), he isn't a corporatist.. he wants money out of politics and he has a track record of 30 years to back it up. I feel he is, besides maybe the referendum candidate (Larry Lessig; no chance of winning), the only non-bought politician up there. Trump may be unbought too, but to me, he's a freakin' nut and his policies are disastrous.

Thanks for listening!
 
phaZed said:
This about sums up the state of things regarding the GOP debate for me...
Click to expand...

Hahaha, the R's are so used to being coddled and catered to by the far right corporate lackeys over at FOX Ruse that they are ill-equiped to deal with being called out on their goofy tales of fiction.
 
phaZed said:
I'm sorry, you're entirely incorrect. This country WAS NOT founded upon Christian beliefs.. it was founded on the principal of "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom from Religion"... the whole idea was that anybody was welcome and would not face persecution based on their beliefs and that the Government would be "blind" to religion and WILL NOT favor one religion over the other (or lack of religion) by enacting laws that would do so. Even the Christians of the time agreed on this principle BECAUSE of their prior problems in England!
Thanks for listening!
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a middle ground here. To be accurate, and going back to the earliest of pilgrims, they did come here to practice their beliefs...their old school beliefs. They were much more literal of the bible, and didn't like how the Catholic Church in England was going. So they moved to Holland first, to start up their old school church.
Read more here:
http://mayflowerhistory.com/religion/

Not that I'm big into religion..the above just stuck in my head because I've been to Plymouth MA a few times and learned the true old history.
 
Nice link YeOldeStonecat. Been to Plymouth a few times in my life as well as PA's Liberty Bell Center and Independence Hall. Cool places indeed! Being in Richmond, VA we have quite a bit of history here as well.. and DC is but an hour or so away.. so I get to hit up the museums once every few years, etc.

Just FYI, I consider the founding of the country to be 1770-1776.. prior to that it was British colonies.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
 
NYJimbo said:
Christians believe that Jews are going to hell unless they convert to Christianity and accept Jesus as the son of God and their lord and savior. Jews believe that Jesus was just a prophet, actually a false prophet and NOT the son of God. So each side believe the other side is wrong. Nothing is ever going to change that. So who cares about all of this stuff if neither side will EVER change what they think about the other side.
Click to expand...

And Buddhists are over here just chilling while everybody's flipping tables...
 
phaZed said:
N

Just FYI, I consider the founding of the country to be 1770-1776.. prior to that it was British colonies.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Click to expand...

I consider it to be 1776 also. But my point was that there was middle ground there. Ohio stated (and you quoted in your reply)...."Christian beliefs and ideals, that is why colonists came here.". That is the part I was referring to, as correct. The original settlers, the ones who fled to Holland for a brief time, came here to practice their more literal, old school beliefs in the Bible. Well before 1776.

Although....what we're talking about here is the First Amendment..."amendment"...meaning it was added later...not 1776 but a few decades later...however that doesn't matter.

They didn't like what England did with the Church...hence part of the First Amendment....which is what is interpreted as "...separation between Church and State"...as Jefferson interpreted it a few years later. And "freedom of religion".

The whole "Freedom of religion" is certainly interpreted in many ways....and over time its meaning likely morphs. Today, we interpret it as welcoming any form of religion. But did the founding fathers pen it to mean that Did they envision Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or..let's stretch it...Wicca? Or was it just a way to get the government off their back...referring to Englands control of religion preventing them from practicing the Bible more literally? Thus focusing on Christianity still.
 
Bernie can now add Ronda Rousey as a supporter. She, as I, like the fact that Sanders is the only politician who doesn't take corporate money unlike the rest of the shills who sell favorable legislation to the highest bidder.

You'd never know it by looking at her but she's a champion UFC fighter.

images
 
We're just doomed...doomed ....doomed....we need a "flush the toilet and give us all new candidates" button. Seriously!

There was 1x candidate I'd have voted for...and pretty much no longer in the race. We're gonna be stuck with either Cruz or Hillery. UGH...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top