(09-18-2014 08:11 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I will say this to those who oppose organized religion:

There is a faction within the Bible Belt and other religious communities around the country that uses religion to push their guilty white liberalism.

Here is a conversation between two people on facebook. One of the participants is a girl I grew up around who is now a minister and just dripping with annoying liberalism. I bite my tongue all the time when she constantly posts her liberal bile in the name of her "faith." The other is a pastor at another Church I have never met.

Minister Girl:

"So tired of all the rhetoric and hate about Islam and Muslims here of late. News flash if you don't know any Muslims or had a conversation of more than 30 minutes with someone of the Muslim faith maybe you should. Stop being ignorant. I'm done. Seeing it in my news feed. I will delete you. I find it offensive not only to myself, but to my friends and those I love deeply."

Guilty White Pastor from Shepard of the Hills Presbyterian Church:

"We are experiencing the same ignorant prejudice that African Americans experienced in the last century and Hispanic Americans are also facing today! Why are Anglo-Americans so filled with fear?"
-------------------------------------------------
Probably because Anglo Americans are tired of having their homelands and cultures erased by invaders from outside cultures. (by the way I looked at this guy's profile and he is white as my ass) The same can be said for other races that are native to America. Not to be racist or anything you stupid idiot, but you took us down that road.

I simply cannot tolerate this level of stupidly being fed to people who go to a place of worship. I've seen clowns like this use their pulpit to push this self loathing nonsense many times. I will walk out and never return to your sham of a Church.

There is having faith and their is having pride in your home and your culture. These two dolts are not good for the religious community.

I don't care if you go with the goat.....you need something besides mr lefty/righty between the whitey around your waist....

lmfao at morality from a dixie cup....

btw, major props to the ignore factor of silence...

thank goodness the internutz can't strap 'em to the stake and watch 'em burn.....that would be utopia in your world of perfection....

what a miserable person you must be.....not only from a objective perspective, but you personify the inability to handle cultural adversity of any kind.....the viewpoint of the finite is infinite....you demonstrate that better than anyone on this board.....and 'they' are infinite....

zig ziglar is turning over in his grave right now going, "nope, just can't help them folk.......Mabel, it's 'bout time to pass the collection bucket for the burial."

So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

an oxymoron in itself....

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

God

(09-19-2014 08:17 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

God

Both the existence of God, and the existence of gods, is a pretty biblical concept.

(09-19-2014 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:17 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

God

Both the existence of God, and the existence of gods, is a pretty biblical concept.

My understanding, admittedly limited, is that an atheist doesn't believe in any of them. That's why I used the term gods. It seemed appropriately all inclusive.

(09-20-2014 02:31 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:17 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

God

Both the existence of God, and the existence of gods, is a pretty biblical concept.

My understanding, admittedly limited, is that an atheist doesn't believe in any of them. That's why I used the term gods. It seemed appropriately all inclusive.

But many of them need a God(s) to not believe in.

(09-20-2014 03:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 02:31 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:17 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  So... We were discussing the existence of gods.

God

Both the existence of God, and the existence of gods, is a pretty biblical concept.

My understanding, admittedly limited, is that an atheist doesn't believe in any of them. That's why I used the term gods. It seemed appropriately all inclusive.

But many of them need a God(s) to not believe in.

When you (or anyone) refers to "God", as opposed to "a god" I think it's safe to say they are referring to the God (Jahweh/Jehovah) of the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible.

If you say you don't believe in gods, you are including God in that group. If you say you don't believe in God, you aren't excluding the possibility of belief in some other divinity.

Personally, I don't have any more need to not believe in the existence of God than to not believe in the existence of pixies or leprechauns. Neither have any effect on how I live my life. I don't do something good, or not do something bad, based on the possibility of the existence of any supernatural beings, or even extra-natural beings.

Even if I were to accept that such a being exists, it wouldn't affect my behavior unless I also accepted that such a being interacts in some way with the natural world and cares how I behave. Without any evidence that God interacts with humans, much less that any such interaction is uniformly a force for good, he would be at best irrelevant in my day to day life.

(09-22-2014 01:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 03:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 02:31 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:17 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  God

Both the existence of God, and the existence of gods, is a pretty biblical concept.

My understanding, admittedly limited, is that an atheist doesn't believe in any of them. That's why I used the term gods. It seemed appropriately all inclusive.

But many of them need a God(s) to not believe in.

When you (or anyone) refers to "God", as opposed to "a god" I think it's safe to say they are referring to the God (Jahweh/Jehovah) of the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible.

If you say you don't believe in gods, you are including God in that group. If you say you don't believe in God, you aren't excluding the possibility of belief in some other divinity.

Personally, I don't have any more need to not believe in the existence of God than to not believe in the existence of pixies or leprechauns. Neither have any effect on how I live my life. I don't do something good, or not do something bad, based on the possibility of the existence of any supernatural beings, or even extra-natural beings.

Even if I were to accept that such a being exists, it wouldn't affect my behavior unless I also accepted that such a being interacts in some way with the natural world and cares how I behave. Without any evidence that God interacts with humans, much less that any such interaction is uniformly a force for good, he would be at best irrelevant in my day to day life.

I believe in one God and that is the Biblical God.

If you can be ok with others believing in Him(or any deity, for that matter) then you do not fall under the category I put forth.

The people I speak of are blatantly affected by Christianity in particular - enough to where they put a lot of energy in trying to erase any reminder of his existence in their field of vision.

People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

(09-22-2014 01:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

(09-22-2014 01:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

(09-22-2014 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

Sounds like you lack confidence and faith, considering the hurt the above causes you.......

Are you not supposed to "turn the other cheek?"

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

None of those things give me pause to back away from what I posted. I understand why you don't like it when some people go to extremes in their objection to having somebody else's religion thrust in their face. But it doesn't change, for me, the appropriateness of those objections.

The bottom line is that I think you disagree with the premise that the objections are appropriate more than you are offended by the vehemence of those objections. I reiterate that very few people object when churches display their religious symbols on their own grounds, or when individuals do so on their own property. Those displays are entirely appropriate.

(09-22-2014 05:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  People like that don't exist in any meaningful amount.

There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

None of those things give me pause to back away from what I posted. I understand why you don't like it when some people go to extremes in their objection to having somebody else's religion thrust in their face. But it doesn't change, for me, the appropriateness of those objections.

The bottom line is that I think you disagree with the premise that the objections are appropriate more than you are offended by the vehemence of those objections. I reiterate that very few people object when churches display their religious symbols on their own grounds, or when individuals do so on their own property. Those displays are entirely appropriate.

We are a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority in America identifies with Christianity. Try your philosophy in a Muslim country.

The fact remains these groups have spent a lot of time and money to remove something they fear. Whether they are a small group or a large group is irrelevant. It takes one and one activist judge.

(09-22-2014 05:29 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

Sounds like you lack confidence and faith, considering the hurt the above causes you.......

Are you not supposed to "turn the other cheek?"

this doesn't even make sense.

(09-22-2014 06:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 05:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There are enough of them to where Crosses are removed from city seals or historic sites. Enough of them where the word God is taken off school materials, public buildings and military signage. The list is endless.

I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

None of those things give me pause to back away from what I posted. I understand why you don't like it when some people go to extremes in their objection to having somebody else's religion thrust in their face. But it doesn't change, for me, the appropriateness of those objections.

The bottom line is that I think you disagree with the premise that the objections are appropriate more than you are offended by the vehemence of those objections. I reiterate that very few people object when churches display their religious symbols on their own grounds, or when individuals do so on their own property. Those displays are entirely appropriate.

We are a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority in America identifies with Christianity. Try your philosophy in a Muslim country.

The fact remains these groups have spent a lot of time and money to remove something they fear. Whether they are a small group or a large group is irrelevant. It takes one and one activist judge.

Your first sentence suggests that you do, in fact, believe that display of the symbols of one particular religion on government property is appropriate. I agree the number of people who disagree with that premise is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the practice offends a million people or a thousand. It is inappropriate regardless, and should be stopped.

(09-22-2014 07:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 06:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 05:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 04:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would have to agree with UCF08 because I believe he is just responding to a hyperbolic statement. I don't know anybody who objects to the use of God imagery "within their field of vision". I do know many people, some atheists and some who believe in the same God you do, that take exception to the use of such imagery in ways and places that suggests it is preferred, or at least sanctioned by the state. The list isn't endless, but the fact that it is lengthy is sufficient grounds to justify objection to the practice.

Does the Freedom from God Foundation ring any bells with you?

Shall we pull up all their activities for the last year? Ever tried to have a nativity scene in a public park in Los Angeles. Or erect a giant cross in San Diego? Maybe you haven't ever tried to have Christmas tree in an Oregon airport.

Or how about the ACLU and the Ten Commandments. Or how about the new fad among liberals: partner with satanic organizations to further ridicule Christians and their imagery by placing statues of Satan next to their displays.

Then we have the nerd atheists and their Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get the picture?

None of those things give me pause to back away from what I posted. I understand why you don't like it when some people go to extremes in their objection to having somebody else's religion thrust in their face. But it doesn't change, for me, the appropriateness of those objections.

The bottom line is that I think you disagree with the premise that the objections are appropriate more than you are offended by the vehemence of those objections. I reiterate that very few people object when churches display their religious symbols on their own grounds, or when individuals do so on their own property. Those displays are entirely appropriate.

We are a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority in America identifies with Christianity. Try your philosophy in a Muslim country.

The fact remains these groups have spent a lot of time and money to remove something they fear. Whether they are a small group or a large group is irrelevant. It takes one and one activist judge.

Your first sentence suggests that you do, in fact, believe that display of the symbols of one particular religion on government property is appropriate. I agree the number of people who disagree with that premise is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the practice offends a million people or a thousand. It is inappropriate regardless, and should be stopped.

No, I'm sorry it should not. Because being offended is not why these people want it removed. That is proven by the childish arguments they make for why it should be removed. Nor is is the reason you want it removed. It is fear and the fact that on some level they symbols remind people of all their immorality, laziness and selfish acts.

When you don't have the strength to follow God's law, you are compelled to pretend he doesn't exist. That is what it comes down to. There are no real atheists. They are more fearful than the most devout Christians because they have everything to lose.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk