US election poll

[chemchok]

I never place any weight to what Robertson says.  He is in the same boat as Farwell, a religious nutjob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point (as I see it) isn't whether what he said is true or not, it's why he decided to make life difficult for Bush's campaign two weeks before the election. Everyone says that the religious right is firmly behind Bush, but this seems like a crack in the relationship to me. The fact Robertson is a close friend of both Bush Sr. and Jr. makes the situation even stranger.

 

Edit: My mistake on the close Bush ties to Robertson; Billy Graham is a close friend of the Bush's. And yes, Robertson is a complete nut.

[xanas3712]

I don't know that I think Robertson is a nut, but I don't have a lot of respect for him or the others. I never take televangelists seriously, and I am a conservative evangelical. Most conservatives that I know who are Christian don't take them seriously either. There are a few, but by and large we don't follow those people. I could care less what these organizations say about candidates or what-not. I'll make my own decisions on the matter. I know this is what most others that I know well will do as well, and I went to a Christian college for 4 years so I think I have an idea of what those kind of people think.

 

But the people get their justification and motivation from biblical texts. The root of the problem is religion.

The root motivations are hatred/bigotry/greed and those things exist apart from religion. Most religions provide the opposite of justification for these actions. Christianity condemns hatred, unforgiveness, and the love of money. I don't know how you could possibly say it's justified by the doctrine. It is clearly not.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Writing in Badnarik.

[Judge Hades]

The root motivations are hatred/bigotry/greed and those things exist apart from religion.  Most religions provide the opposite of justification for these actions.  Christianity condemns hatred,  unforgiveness, and the love of money.  I don't know how you could possibly say it's justified by the doctrine.  It is clearly not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Religion has always been a tool of social control and give a culture a identity of us versus them. Think back in the old testament when the Hebrews went back to Israel after their bit in Egypt. There was already people living there but what did their religious leaders do? By the doctrine of their god they went in and saught to wipe everyone out and steal land that wasn't theirs for centuries.

 

Also what is wrong with the love of money? Money allows one to put food on the table, allows one to be entertained, allows one to pay bills to both to public utilities and personal debts. Money is very versitile and the economy needs good love and care if it is to remain strong. Also here is the basic message of the new testament. Love and Worship Jesus or go to hell. Hell, an eternal punishment that is both torturous and inhumane, according to Christians. Doesn't sound forgiving or loving to me. Just because I have a different opinion on things that I am damned to eternal torture? There is no crime in the history of mankind that deserves millions upon millions of years worth of torture, let alone an eternity.

 

Some loving god you got.

[Cantousent]

I'm Christian and I don't argue that you're bound for eternal torture. I merely believe that your presence can sometimes be torturous. That's okay, as a Christian, I'm bound to forgive you... repeatedly... until I finally snap and run you over with a bulldozer or some such. Then we'll both be happy! You can tell me you always knew my Christianity was bunk. I'll be happy because those will be your last words before you go to the great beyond. The real beneficiary, however, will be the message board, which will celebrate the mass of Eldar every year on the occassion of your demise. Of course, in contrary fashion that is common to all humanity, there will be some who celebrate Hades One day as the death of a martyr. In the meantime, one year hence, President Bush will have to answer the question, "should the United States apologize for the tragic bulldozing of Hades One?" I, for one, hope he answers, "NO!"

 

***

 

I would never even think of bulldozing or otherwise physically harming my friend Hades One in real life.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Christians have and do change so much... lol. Many think their religion is a peaceful and forgiving one. It may be now.. But not throughout much of history. lol.

[Gorth]

 

You think there is a "St. Eldar" in it for you ?

[Rhomal]

Christians have and do change so much... lol.  Many think their religion is a peaceful and forgiving one.  It may be now..  But not throughout much of history. lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. The crusades, the 'burning times' aka Witch hunts that saw tens of thousands innocent (mostly women) burned, drowned and tortured to death, and thats for starters.

 

In fairness all religions have they dark periods but the christians on their soap box is the hight of hypcrosity. As a Pagan Witch I realize the pagans of long ago certainly had their short commings. (ie pagan rome feeding xians to lions for sport). But neither am I on a soapbox trying to tell anyone my beleifs are any more valid then yours.

 

And I find it telling, not one xian or bush supporter even touched the topic I bought up of him stating paganism "isnt a real religion". Yes, many of those christians like he have so much 'tolorance'.

[xanas3712]

No one could say paganism isn't a real religion by definition. It certainly is. However, the fact is agree with it or not it's fundamental to the doctrines of Christianity that the religion is exclusive to others. You can insult the people with intolerance or anything you like but it's very silly to do so, because your definitions are inaccurate. For one thing, Christianity doesn't teach to acknowledge the truth of other religions, but neither do you really acknowledge it's truth (or you'd have to acknowledge it's exclusivity as being accurate). The fact is mutually exclusive things cannot be concurrently correct and you have to choose. Now you may not choose Christianity, and that's fine. Tolerance is being willing to accept that there are people who have other beliefs and to "live and let live" But it is certainly not to say that their views are equally valid.

 

I don't know of any human being that honestly believes the views of another or equally valid, and I certainly don't believe that of you. You make a point to argue your own perspective on many issues, so how you can claim to possess this kind of "tolerance" is beyond me. Not that I do any "better" but at least I don't claim to possess this. I realize that my views are exclusive and I make no claims to not think my views better than those of others. But for you to push your views and then say you see others points as equally valid doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Hades, I'd say your comments are an oversimplication of the theology, and though some probably believe them in that manner, I don't agree with that or think the text supports it. But it's kind of pointless to go into specifics with someone who doesn't believe Christianity anyway, especially in a topic that's already off it's intended direction.

[Guest Darth Banooby7]

Lets KERRY Bush outta da White House!

[Rhomal]

> No one could say paganism isn't a real religion by definition.

 

Well bush looked into the camrea and did. And you support him?

 

> It certainly is. However, the fact is agree with it or not it's fundamental to the doctrines of Christianity that the religion is exclusive to others.

 

And thats my point. As a former catholic I am well aware of the beleifs. the beleif that its the 'true' religion is flawed IMO. That just a breeding ground for intolorance and religous persecution. As if christians need any more evidence then their own history for almost the past 1500 yrs to show that train of thought is in error.

 

> Tolerance is being willing to accept that there are people who have other beliefs and to "live and let live" But it is certainly not to say that their views are equally valid.

 

Ditto above. Your boy certainly does even go this far. I am not saying you have to accept my beleifs, but respect my choice. Which you seem to advocate, sadly many xians do not.

 

> I don't know of any human being that honestly believes the views of another or equally valid, and I certainly don't believe that of you.

 

You can beleive what you wish. And you have my pity for this apparent intolorant world you seem to live in. I certainly respest others beleifs and they are valid since they beleive in them. Hence who am I to say they are not just becasue I dont share said beleifs? Most pagans I know would give you a similar answer. Perhaps xians have a few things to learn from pagans (You 'stole' many of our holidays so you might as well take something other of substance )

[taks]

Yes, many of those christians like he have so much 'tolorance'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tolerance does not mean acceptance. you're applying a double standard. it's OK for you to believe one way, but if someone else disagrees with you he is "intolerant?" just because you accept someone else's view on religion is valid, doesn't mean they are required to accept yours.

 

i personally find ALL religion flawed, and pointless. yet i tolerate everyone's right to worship as they please. nowhere in the definition of tolerance does it say i have to accept such opinions as valid, however.

 

taks

[Rhomal]

Yes, many of those christians like he have so much 'tolorance'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tolerance does not mean acceptance. you're applying a double standard. it's OK for you to believe one way, but if someone else disagrees with you he is "intolerant?" just because you accept someone else's view on religion is valid, doesn't mean they are required to accept yours.

 

i personally find ALL religion flawed, and pointless. yet i tolerate everyone's right to worship as they please. nowhere in the definition of tolerance does it say i have to accept such opinions as valid, however.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you dont think to move forward its going to require more? Looking as us now becoming stagnet as a people certainly isnt getting us to where we need to be. When the guy in the whitehouse flat out states my religion isnt such I think we still have a ways to go in understanding, tolorance and acceptance. And saying 'well to bad in essence' just is not good enough, for me at least. As I know we can do better then that. But we are certainly not going to get their being complacient.

[Cantousent]

Every view should not be tolerated. If a religion advocates human sacrifice or encourages sexual acts with children, then it deserves scorn.

 

It is important, nevertheless, to accept the fact that folks have a right to a belief, even if you look down on them for the belief. Personally, I draw the line at the destructiveness of the religion. Clearly, Wicca has views I find strange, but I tolerate (hell, even accept) it. Why not? The Wiccans I've known have really been decent sorts. They wear a pentagram and I wear a cross. *shrug* (actually, I don't wear any jewelry, but I guess I would wear a cross if I did.)

 

Now, I'm a Catholic. Really... a churchgoing, God fearing Catholic. Still, that doesn't mean I cannot tolerate, say, a Wiccan or anyone from another religion. Will I tolerate someone whose religion dictates murder, theft, or mayhem? Of course not. I should not and, indeed, cannot tolerate these beliefs. Of equal course, murder, theft, or mayhem are intolerable on grounds other than religious.

[Judge Hades]

For me, intolerance means bigotry. Bush is a bigot against homosexuals by not allowing them the same rights as everyone else, which a lot of Christians agree with him so a lot of Christians are bigots therefore intolerant. So while Christianity preaches tolerance its followers, at least a good chunk of them, are a bunch of bigots.

[Craftsman]

So when do you draw the line between what people can and cant do. Same sex relasionships are not natural. Two yangs dont complete the puzzle.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So when do you draw the line between what people can and cant do. Same sex relasionships are not natural. Two yangs dont complete the puzzle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually homosexuality exists in nature so it is natural. It might be against the norms of society but that is a different thing to being unatural. Unatural are things like test tube births (but no one sees them as wrong and nor should they).

[Judge Hades]

That, my friend, is an ignorant and bigoted response. Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality for one's sexual drive is completely based on hormonal chemicals and neural firings in the person's brain. A person has no choice how his sexual orientation will be as much as one can choose his or her natural hair color.

[Craftsman]

Natural process create life. The splitting of cells is natural. Photosysnesis powers the food chain thus fueling life. Two of the same sex having intercourse is not natural. Sexual orintation is geared toward hetrosexuality. It is a conscience choice to eirhter change, or give in to such feelings. Im no doctor but i think i make a valid point.

[Judge Hades]

No you do no. Homosexuality has been found in nature in other primate species as well as other mammalian species on our pathetic blue orb. It is not a conscious choice, but part of one's personal instinct.

[Craftsman]

But mammals might do that becasuse they have no real concious thought of what they are doing. Humans have intelligence an thus a choice. If nothing is wrong with homosexuality why is it so repulsive to most?

[Judge Hades]

Basic sexual instinct, Craftman, strengthen by social controls and religion. Personally I have no problem with gays and lesbians marrying. What goes behind their doors is their business and not mine, and they deserve the same rights as I do. Now I wouldn't want to see anything that goes behind their doors, but I am against any public form of affection beyond holding hands and a quick kiss, either hetero or homo.

[Craftsman]

Keep in mind that a healthy family is a man and wife and kids. This structure is what will keep humanity going. Allowing homo to marry and raise children is sexually confusing. They can do what they want. But certain values must be kept. Free speech is not at stake here, humanity must define what it is. It lives becasue of the relasionships between men and women.

 

Period.

[Judge Hades]

You values are not mine so don't be telling me what values hsould be kept because I don't see any point keeping them. This is the 21st century boyo, get with ithe times because its not the 18th century here. The human race will keep going and going, and homosexuality is the least threat to it. The biggest threat to humanity is warmongering nutjobs with nuclear weapons.

 

Also, I don't see a problem with homosexuals raising children. Its biological, so these children's sex drives will not be confused. They will be straight, homo, or bi depending on their genetics and these children, once reaching adulthood, have every right to explore their sexuality as they see fit. Its their life, let them live it.

 

Traditions and values are meaningless.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But mammals might do that becasuse they have no real concious thought of what they are doing. Humans have intelligence an thus a choice. If nothing is wrong with homosexuality why is it so repulsive to most?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because that is how they have been conditioned to think. Which is very different from being unatural. Now if humans were the only ones practicing (odd term that) homosexual relations then it could be claimed as unatural. But they dont so you have to look for another reason of why it is wrong or not depending on your view.