where do I go to meet an "evangelical"??

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Clearly the 'hateful' evangelicals ARE the bad guys, and something definitely has to be done about them. But first, we need to gather information on these creatures. I think a field trip is going to be necessary.

Are you proposing a "final solution"? I sure hope this is sarcasm.

On the contrary, it's our egos that create Myths and Religions. We cannot comprehend that there are things that are beyond our grasp of knowledge so we make up crap like the Bible to so we can feel good about having all the answers.

Um, nearly every book in the New Testament was written by someone who saw Jesus personally (Paul saw him in a vision). I hardly think those eyewitness accounts were written to comprehend "things that are beyond our grasp of knowledge." That thesis holds no water when you actually read the Bible.

So I gather that evertime someone has visions you believe that what they saw is real?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Condor
How many people has HIV/AIDs killed in the world since Gays propagated it in 1983?

It is important to realise that the HIV virus was initially primarily spread by gay males only in the West (the US, Europe, etc.) In Africa, the illness is, and always has been, transmitted primarily through heterosexual sexual contacts. The fact that HIV/ AIDS affected gay males (in the west) was the result of an unfortunate coincidence: i.e., a gay man travelled to Africa, had sex with someone infected with the virus, contracted the virus, returned to the US, and passed the infection on within the gay community. What would have happened if it had been a heterosexual US traveller who contracted the illness and returned to the US?

HIV enters the body through torn flesh with blood to blood contact. That happens very infrequently through heterosexual contact.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor
My issue with gays isn't a moral one. I really don't care. My issue with them is that they were stupid enough to spread HIV/AIDS. Once it crossed into the heterosexual population, it was all over for hundreds of thousands. Another source of AIDS is drug habits that involve exchange of blood products with multi use needles. The liberals on these boards say that Bush should fix the health system. He didn't break it. Smokers, drug users and AIDS patients are the ones who are swamping the system. Ambulance chasing attornies are a close third. Funny that liberals support gays and tried to get an ambulance chaser elected VP! There is a lack of logical thought evidenced there. My only problem with gays is when they become a burden on the health system.

Don't forget the Slothful and the Gluttons. Lazy ass fat slobs are more of a drain financially through health care costs than all of the others you mentioned combined.

That is a problem too, but they usually just die. They don't require $30K a year of meidcations to stay alive.

Are you denying that they are more of a financial drain than HIV/AIDs?

Absolutely!

 

[imported_Condor]

Breakfast is served - later!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Condor
Just to take one of your fake issues in context:

--the Iraq fiasco -- 100,000 civilians dead

How many people has HIV/AIDs killed in the world since Gays propagated it in 1983?

My friend, I will answer that when you provide me with the data proving your assertion that HIV/AIDS patients are "swamping" the US health system.

Surely you don't expect me to believe something is true just because you say it is?

I sort of expected you to have been watching the news and reading. This isn't the first grade.

Obviously he has because he is stating that your claim is false!

My wife ia a medical professional and she has a pretty clear understanding that is not based on reading the Internet. She has friends that have become infected with HIV simply because they closed a fluids tube incorrectly and got cut. My knowledge, like most of my postings, does come from very close.

It's an expensive burden no doubt but it isn't swamping the US Health System like health related issues due to Obesity.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

So I gather that evertime someone has visions you believe that what they saw is real?

Paul's visions were consistent with what the disciples saw of Jesus (even the institution of the Lord's Supper), so his particular vision can be regarded as true. Most visions cannot.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Condor
Breakfast is served - later!

LOL..Off to the gym here

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Clearly the 'hateful' evangelicals ARE the bad guys, and something definitely has to be done about them. But first, we need to gather information on these creatures. I think a field trip is going to be necessary.

Are you proposing a "final solution"? I sure hope this is sarcasm.

Lol. I was thinking more along the lines of a mass de-programming effort... but yes, that was sarcasm.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I find it amazing that you guys are still bashing the Christians. But hey, i'm pretty proud of my faith and the fact that the right President got in office due to the church's influence.

Here is one proud of the Theocracy out in the open.

At least you have the backbone to say you are all for changing the U.S. into the Theocracy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

What is RBH?

Used to be Rabid Bush Haters, but that will change into REH, Rabid Evangelical Haters because it is as a collective that they control the Country, not just the puppet at the top.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Rove's strategy was to pander to anyone he thought would vote for Bush. Kerry's strategy was to pander to anyone he thought would vote for him. That's how campaigning works. Additionally, Rove didn't have to work hard to get the vote out to xians. They were already sold because their values more closely match that of the Republiacn party.

Rove did not invent this meme of the Evangelicals winning the election for Bush. That came from the RBH'rs. They, like you, paint the Evangelicals as hateful so the RBH sheeple will hate them reflexively without even thinking it over. 'Those xians are hateful asshats...and I hate them!' How stupid is that?

Of course, realizing how foolish this whole 'hate' thing is requires just a small amount of thinking, something I believe the RBH'rs are entirely failing to do. They'd rather point fingers of blame and call people ignorant. Problem is, they end up looking far more ignorant than the people they are indicting.

What is RBH?
I do not 'hate' the evangelicals, they are an enigma to me. I seek information on this curious phenomenon of fundamentalist xian voters.

RBH=Rabid Bush Hater

Do you often label your human enigmas as "bad guys?"

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: Condor
You prove to me that this computer that I am using works without using theories!

May have started as a theory - and may even grow as a result of theories - but computers actually (IMHO) represent to us an extension of real, solid truth - that truth being mathamatics. It is a pretty constant truth.

By the way - there is scientific proof that God is who he says he is - as I said. Most just really want to stay in ignorance. Change is not easy.

I have to go earn money - but I look forward to picking thsi back up later today.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Condor
How many people has HIV/AIDs killed in the world since Gays propagated it in 1983?

It is important to realise that the HIV virus was initially primarily spread by gay males only in the West (the US, Europe, etc.) In Africa, the illness is, and always has been, transmitted primarily through heterosexual sexual contacts. The fact that HIV/ AIDS affected gay males (in the west) was the result of an unfortunate coincidence: i.e., a gay man travelled to Africa, had sex with someone infected with the virus, contracted the virus, returned to the US, and passed the infection on within the gay community. What would have happened if it had been a heterosexual US traveller who contracted the illness and returned to the US?

HIV enters the body through torn flesh with blood to blood contact. That happens very infrequently through heterosexual contact.

Perhaps you would care to explain that to the 40+ million people with this virus in Africa, where transmission is primarily through heterosexual contact.

There are fewer than 1 million US citizens who have this virus, by the way.

 

[chess9]

Blackjack2000:

You need to spend more time in the Old Testament. Quit reading that love thy neighbor nonsense and get on up to the GUNS OF GLORY. You can't be a true Christian until you've killed someone for American Democracy. And those poor people have only themselves to blame. Quit helping them-you are only enabling their laziness. Sheezh, you obviously did NOT get the memo. I'll ask Crimson to send it out again. j/k

And quit reading Moonbeam's posts. Those things will make you plug ugly and give you the silly giggles.

-Robert

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Condor
HIV enters the body through torn flesh with blood to blood contact. That happens very infrequently through heterosexual contact.

Lesbians are one of the least likely groups to contract aids. God must love them so, and have hated hemophilliacs with a heavenly passion. Damn satanic hemophilliacs.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: aidanjm
What is RBH?
I do not 'hate' the evangelicals, they are an enigma to me. I seek information on this curious phenomenon of fundamentalist xian voters.

RBH=Rabid Bush Hater

Do you often label your human enigmas as "bad guys?"

Always.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Neos
To clarify the homosexual issue from an evangelical position:
All have sinned, and come short. That includes me. That includes you. That includes gays. Problem we Evangelicals have with the homosexual movement (the radical, extreme, heard portion) is that they would make this particular sin (which is an especially bad one in God's eyes) mainstream. They have sought to glorify sodomy (English call it buggering) between two men. Many folk who have children and grandchildren do not want this behavior exhibited in such a flagrant way - trying to normalize it - and make it acceptable to all. It all goes back to a truism when I was a kid. When I was doing something that I knew deep down was wrong - I wanted someone to go on the journey with me. The more that I could get to do as I was doing - the more I felt that I was OK.

explain your priorities. there are all these important issues that might have influenced your vote in a certain direction, like:
--the massive and growing inequality b/w rich and poor in your country
--the lies, deceptions, of your president and his goons
--the Iraq fiasco -- 100,000 civilians dead
--Bin Laden on the loose, US military stretched to breaking point in Iraq
--the loss of respect and admiration of the US among people the world over
--the looming bankruptcy of your social security system
--Bush's so called "tax cuts" (hand-outs for the wealthy) 50% of which -- one trillion dollars -- went to the wealthiest 1% of your population
--and so on

but you evangelical folx (apparently, supposedly) chose to ignore the above, and focus instead on the all-important (lol) abortion & gay marriage...

Why??????????????????????????????????????

also, I'm wondering thought where you got the idea that it was ok to start banning things that you don't agree with (or things that 'God' doesn't agree with).

The massive 1 million+ abortions and the spread of homosexuality far outweighs any of the above in sheer numbers.

 

[Caminetto]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Clearly the 'hateful' evangelicals ARE the bad guys, and something definitely has to be done about them. But first, we need to gather information on these creatures. I think a field trip is going to be necessary.

Are you proposing a "final solution"? I sure hope this is sarcasm.

On the contrary, it's our egos that create Myths and Religions. We cannot comprehend that there are things that are beyond our grasp of knowledge so we make up crap like the Bible to so we can feel good about having all the answers.

Um, nearly every book in the New Testament was written by someone who saw Jesus personally (Paul saw him in a vision). I hardly think those eyewitness accounts were written to comprehend "things that are beyond our grasp of knowledge." That thesis holds no water when you actually read the Bible.

People who heard the stories from the actual followers and 50 to 100 years afterward wrote the 4 gospels about the life of Jesus. A substantial number of historians believe they were simply compiled and woven from a book of the sayings of Jesus thought to be in circulation at that time. The one gospel that did not make it into the bible, but was actually used by first century Christians in their worship services was the gospel of Thomas, and it is quite different. The fact that Paul saw Jesus in a vision does not necessarily mean that everything Paul thought was directly coming from God.

The problem with most evangelicals and fundamentalists is that they reject any idea that does not fit the plan that they had envisioned, finding certain people or ideas inappropriate or unsuitable, not unlike "rejecting the stone that became the chief cornerstone".

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

So I gather that evertime someone has visions you believe that what they saw is real?

Paul's visions were consistent with what the disciples saw of Jesus (even the institution of the Lord's Supper), so his particular vision can be regarded as true. Most visions cannot.

Paul's visions were in deep conflict with those of the Apostles. The early church was torn by conflicts between Apostolic Christianity based in Jerusalem and lead by James, brother of Jesus, and Paulian Christianity. The Roman Catholics assembled the New Testament in the 4th century as a compromise between those two versions, though leaning strongly if not entirely toward Paul.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Do evangelicals even use the Internet? I've never met one in my political mailing lists and discussion forums. Where would you go to find a large concentration of these people?

Google for Rapture Index.

 

[Infohawk]

You can interact with some born agains / evangelicals on this site. Most of them are in the closet but if you read between the lines and look at their viewpoint it's clear.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Paul's visions were in deep conflict with those of the Apostles. The early church was torn by conflicts between Apostolic Christianity based in Jerusalem and lead by James, brother of Jesus, and Paulian Christianity. The Roman Catholics assembled the New Testament in the 4th century as a compromise between those two versions, though leaning strongly if not entirely toward Paul.

I'm skeptical of that history. However, Paul himself records conflicts; he mentions heresies that Peter was spreading that Paul subsequently corrected. But Peter's letters praise Paul, suggesting a strong sense of unity despite initial tension.

I have never regarded James' letter to be in conflict with Paul's letters; it merely addresses aspects that Paul didn't cover as closely.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Paul's visions were in deep conflict with those of the Apostles. The early church was torn by conflicts between Apostolic Christianity based in Jerusalem and lead by James, brother of Jesus, and Paulian Christianity. The Roman Catholics assembled the New Testament in the 4th century as a compromise between those two versions, though leaning strongly if not entirely toward Paul.

I'm skeptical of that history. However, Paul himself records conflicts; he mentions heresies that Peter was spreading that Paul subsequently corrected. But Peter's letters praise Paul, suggesting a strong sense of unity despite initial tension.

I have never regarded James' letter to be in conflict with Paul's letters; it merely addresses aspects that Paul didn't cover as closely.

No, the Epistle of James does not conflict strongly with Paul, but that's most likely because it was not written by James, brother of Jesus. Including this epistle in the NT was highly controversial at the time and modern scholars still think that this epistle was not written by James. Doubts about James were also expressed in the Protestant Reformation when Luther made the first translation into German, removing several NT books, including James, from their usual order and placed them at the end, stating that they were not to be considered canonical.

While James is almost certainly not the real view of James and the Jewish Christians, we do see Paul arguing strongly against Jewish Christianity, which required following all 613 commandments, in Galatians, one of the four epistles scholars unanimously agree to be written by Paul. We also see the conflict between Judaeo-Christians and Paulians in the 2nd century when Marcion proposed the first Christian Bible: the Gospel of Luke, 10 epistles of Paul, and no Jewish law or histories. It wouldn't be until the 4th century that the Roman Catholics would propose something similar to the modern Catholic/Protestant NT.

Peter seems to be intermediate in the conflict between the Jewish Christians and Paulians, and that would take much longer to get into.

 

[kotss]

The problem I have is that all these statements about who is the author of the bible comes from historical
theories. There is no actual proof. That is why it is a matter of faith. Theories in science have a way of being proven in the here and now or the very soon future. The so called theory of gravity works on a daily
basis. It is provable. The act of a leap of faith requires one to put aside doubt without factual proof.
I personnally have no problem with someone having faith in whatever form it takes. When it becomes a problem is when it is used to try and coerce not convince other people into conforming to a particular
viewpoint that has no more proof than any of the other viewpoints.

I also have no particular problem with the President of the United States openly admitting to being a member of the Christian Faith. What I have a problem with is what "I believe" is what the founding fathers tried desperately to prevent from happening, the US holding one religion above all others. I will not argue the fact that Christianity was the most present faith in Early America and that a good percentage were active members of one form of Christian faith. I think the founding fathers were very careful about how the First Amendment was worded "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that government does not support one particular religion over another, nor prevent individuals from practicing their religion. The problem I have is when the CEO of the US is trying to use his regligious beliefs to run the country.

I do not hate any particular member of any particular Faith. I am open minded enough to try and make the attempt to see the strong and weak points of anyone personal beliefs, even when they disagree with
mine. Is it not through intelligent discourse, that we make the best headway into mutual understanding.

The ideal of using hate to sway groups is abominable. Anyone who uses their faith to preach any form of
hate should clearly reflect on why they are hating. Is it only because someone thinks or acts differently?

I could very easily prove that homosexuals are actually loved and pleasing in the eyes of what most
Christians believe to be their own teachings. But I am not here to bash a big group of people for the small
mindedness of a small group.

My major point is that undestanding is the key to all people becoming cohabitants in this world in such a
way that we can more easily live with one another in some form of peace that does not require subjugation. What must be controlled is pride, arrogance, greed and hatred.

One of the toughest concepts for most people is seeing that a particular belief could be wrong and
correcting the wrongs that may have come about because of that belief. ( I am not particularly meaning
belief as in faith, an example is I hate all blacks because one black person wronged me in some way.
The premise of despising all people in a group because of one or a small group is the narrow mindedness
that is the root of most hatred).

I would like to think that anyone who believes that their God is a God of Love cannot have any place for
hatred, but will also not condemn those who have hatred because they have the potential to change.

I would also like to think that since you have a belief in a particular form of faith you did not get there
solely because you believe other people. You should have some basis in your own mind or all you are
is a mindless sheep and when you follow blindly and are led off the cliff your life will end without meaning.
You should be strong enough in your convictions to stand up for them and say this is what I believe and
I think that what you do is wrong in the belief but as long as the rules of society as agreed upon by the
society are not broken you need to say well you will pay consequences for having the beliefs you have.
I can live with the consequences of being an Aethiest and a heterosexual male who has pretty strong
morals and family values.

I have many strong convictions and I know that I have been a hypocrit at least once in my life. I do try
to keep my hyprocricy to a minimum, and try to learn from my mistakes which much to my dismay I still
make to this day. I do not excuse my mistakes I take responsibility for them and most of the time I think
I have learned something from them. Hopefully more of us out there can live their lives in some form
close to this.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: kotss
The problem I have is that all these statements about who is the author of the bible comes from historical
theories. There is no actual proof. That is why it is a matter of faith.

Historical analyses can be debated, but they're still essential. Even if you disagree about specific analyses, the conflicts between different books, which ones are accepted by your Christian sect and which ones aren't, reveal that the division between Christian sects has existed from the beginning.

True, most people say "the Bible" and don't realize that they're making a choice out of ignorance that alternatives exist. But once you're aware, how you decide which Bible to have faith in today even if you don't care about what Christianity was like in the beginning?

Is it the original Lutheran bible, where James is not considered authorative?

Is it a Catholic bible, where James was eventually considered authoratative but which has Maccabees and a number of books not present in standard Protestant bibles?

Is it an Ethiopian bible, which has 3 epistles to the Corinthians, instead of 2 that the Catholics have?

Is it a one of the Gnostic bibles, which have additional Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypses that the Catholics suppressed starting in the late 4th century?