Your ignorance is astonishing. Should I be surprised that you are located in Forth Worth? (that's a rhetorical question)
You small-minded and backwards bible-thumper types seem also to be completely unaware of the fact that the bible - both Old and New Testaments - have been translated hundreds of times over; and that the passage to which you refer in actuality had nothing to do with sex. This was added at a later date.
In any case - and regardless - the United States of America is a NON-theocratic country. Our laws were devised to ensure the separation of Church and State. Which seems to be something which you fundamental-nutjob religious types cannot seem to accept or understand. Your own congregation is probably ignorant enough to believe that the USA was founded as a Christian state - it was not. Again... it is very simple: Church and State are separate.
I know that arguing with your type is a lost cause, as the stupid don't realize to what degree they misapprehend even the most basic realities.
Your ignorance is astonishing. Should I be surprised that you are located in Forth Worth? (that's a rhetorical question)
You small-minded and backwards bible-thumper types seem also to be completely unaware of the fact that the bible - both Old and New Testaments - have been translated hundreds of times over; and that the passage to which you refer in actuality had nothing to do with sex. This was added at a later date.
In any case - and regardless - the United States of America is a NON-theocratic country. Our laws were devised to ensure the separation of Church and State. Which seems to be something which you fundamental-nutjob religious types cannot seem to accept or understand. Your own congregation is probably ignorant enough to believe that the USA was founded as a Christian state - it was not. Again... it is very simple: Church and State are separate.
I know that arguing with your type is a lost cause, as the stupid don't realize to what degree they misapprehend even the most basic realities.
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
Why is it that whenever I ask for blatantly political threads to just be immediately moved to PO they aren’t? Sets a double standard on what kind of behavior is acceptable when the thread is outside PO, as infringers can simply say, “the topic of this thread is political” and assume some form of ‘immunity’. Sort of like the “I own Apple products” ‘defense’.
Further exploration at the US Treasury history page indicates that it was added during the Civil War (1861) and later only periodically present on currency.
The problem with that is I could run into Taylor Swift and ask her , but yes you're right faith is something that is very hard to have.
1) If you DO run into T-Swizzle, please ask her. (And tell her that, despite her net personal value being about 8 billion times mine, I'm totally willing to buy her dinner!)
2) What someone tells you about how he or she feels is not necessarily how he or she feels. Remember high school, anyone?
I hope the governor stays strong and doesn't bow to political BS. And I'd love it it Apple would stick to what it does best and not get involved in politics. They've gotten more political under Cook and I don't like it.
If you're talking about Brewer, then you would make a TERRIBLE politician.
Marriot, the NFL, Apple, American Airlines, and numerous other major corporations -- not to mention the two senators from AZ, both Republicans -- have asked her to veto the bill. Arizona would lose hundreds of millions of dollars by losing the Super Bowl, just as they did when they refused to accept MLK Day in '93, and lost the Super Bowl to Pasedena.
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
Do you have any thoughts on the words "God Created" in 1:1? Someone told me it was the same word used as in 'created a wooden chair' for example, the chair was created from material that previously existed.
Like the same word being "made" as in you made me mad. Or I "made" lemonade.
It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.
I don't think people are trying to use that to 'justify' pedophilia - they can certainly help acting on their desires. It's mainly used as an argument for some sort of support framework for these people - a hotline that they can call early on and say 'help, I think I like kids' and then get counselling or aversion therapy or something. Obviously you'd still drop a legal ton of bricks on anyone who does molest kids, but proponents of this idea argue that preventing these crimes from happening in the first place would also help.
Even if you support the idea of the bill, you should still oppose the bill itself. The chief requirement for these 'protections' to hold sway is that your religious beliefs must be 'sincerely held' - a virtually impossible criterion for a court to decide on. Any discrimination becomes fine, provided you can keep a straight face and say "Jesus told me so". The courts are going to err on the side of deciding your beliefs are sincerely held nine times out of ten, because of the gigantic poopstorm that would ensue if they did otherwise.
I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible.
"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.
And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.
The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.
And every day you see the evidence. Like opposition to a bill that simply provides protections for religious freedoms.
Everyone is OK with the idea of religious freedom until the "religious people" actually want to make good on those freedoms.
The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.
So God doesn't care that the money has his name on it? It's all going to burn. Exactly my point. "In God We Trust" has no value whatsoever in the context of being printed on a piece of paper, including the pages of your Bible.
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.
Like the same word being "made" as in you made me mad. Or I "made" lemonade.
It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.
No I think that in most languages other than English, words are not as ambiguous and have clear singular meanings with extended implications. Not in all cases but if in fact there were more than one word in Paleo-Hebrew for "create" and it was definitive that one of those words meant create from thin air and the other meant create from materials that preexisted and were on hand, that would make a substantial difference in the meaning.
I'm not saying that is the case but I've been told that may be the basis for a possible mistranslation.
And please let me add that there is no proof that a God didn't create the universe, which wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case, as it is a rather spectacular creation. I just don't think such a powerful entity would bother to write such childish fairy tales as are found in the Bible.
It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.
Exactly. All one need do is look at bills from the 1850s, say, to see that it is a modern invention.
I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible.
"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.
And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.
LOL
I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned? No, seriously, are you high right now? Meth, maybe? I'm very curious.
I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned? No, seriously, are you high right now? Meth, maybe? I'm very curious.
I wouldn't bother arguing with him, because it's not really reason against reason. It's whatever you say vs whatever translation of the Bible or whatever other religious book. They absolutely deserve the right to congregate, but there are other relics that should have disappeared long ago. For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.
Comments
Your ignorance is astonishing. Should I be surprised that you are located in Forth Worth? (that's a rhetorical question)
You small-minded and backwards bible-thumper types seem also to be completely unaware of the fact that the bible - both Old and New Testaments - have been translated hundreds of times over; and that the passage to which you refer in actuality had nothing to do with sex. This was added at a later date.
In any case - and regardless - the United States of America is a NON-theocratic country. Our laws were devised to ensure the separation of Church and State. Which seems to be something which you fundamental-nutjob religious types cannot seem to accept or understand. Your own congregation is probably ignorant enough to believe that the USA was founded as a Christian state - it was not. Again... it is very simple: Church and State are separate.
I know that arguing with your type is a lost cause, as the stupid don't realize to what degree they misapprehend even the most basic realities.
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
Why is it that whenever I ask for blatantly political threads to just be immediately moved to PO they aren’t? Sets a double standard on what kind of behavior is acceptable when the thread is outside PO, as infringers can simply say, “the topic of this thread is political” and assume some form of ‘immunity’. Sort of like the “I own Apple products” ‘defense’.
This was ADDED to money at a LATER date. It was added in...1956.
Further exploration at the US Treasury history page indicates that it was added during the Civil War (1861) and later only periodically present on currency.
6 pages of horseshit. Cool.
The problem with that is I could run into Taylor Swift and ask her
1) If you DO run into T-Swizzle, please ask her. (And tell her that, despite her net personal value being about 8 billion times mine, I'm totally willing to buy her dinner!)
2) What someone tells you about how he or she feels is not necessarily how he or she feels. Remember high school, anyone?
I hope the governor stays strong and doesn't bow to political BS. And I'd love it it Apple would stick to what it does best and not get involved in politics. They've gotten more political under Cook and I don't like it.
If you're talking about Brewer, then you would make a TERRIBLE politician.
Marriot, the NFL, Apple, American Airlines, and numerous other major corporations -- not to mention the two senators from AZ, both Republicans -- have asked her to veto the bill. Arizona would lose hundreds of millions of dollars by losing the Super Bowl, just as they did when they refused to accept MLK Day in '93, and lost the Super Bowl to Pasedena.
The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
Do you have any thoughts on the words "God Created" in 1:1? Someone told me it was the same word used as in 'created a wooden chair' for example, the chair was created from material that previously existed.
Like the same word being "made" as in you made me mad. Or I "made" lemonade.
It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.
I don't think people are trying to use that to 'justify' pedophilia - they can certainly help acting on their desires. It's mainly used as an argument for some sort of support framework for these people - a hotline that they can call early on and say 'help, I think I like kids' and then get counselling or aversion therapy or something. Obviously you'd still drop a legal ton of bricks on anyone who does molest kids, but proponents of this idea argue that preventing these crimes from happening in the first place would also help.
Even if you support the idea of the bill, you should still oppose the bill itself. The chief requirement for these 'protections' to hold sway is that your religious beliefs must be 'sincerely held' - a virtually impossible criterion for a court to decide on. Any discrimination becomes fine, provided you can keep a straight face and say "Jesus told me so". The courts are going to err on the side of deciding your beliefs are sincerely held nine times out of ten, because of the gigantic poopstorm that would ensue if they did otherwise.
I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible.
"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.
And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.
The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.
And every day you see the evidence. Like opposition to a bill that simply provides protections for religious freedoms.
Everyone is OK with the idea of religious freedom until the "religious people" actually want to make good on those freedoms.
Talk about hypocrisy.
The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.
That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.
So God doesn't care that the money has his name on it? It's all going to burn. Exactly my point. "In God We Trust" has no value whatsoever in the context of being printed on a piece of paper, including the pages of your Bible.
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.
I just sent a tweet to the Pope he will be weighing in on this thread shortly.
It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.
No I think that in most languages other than English, words are not as ambiguous and have clear singular meanings with extended implications. Not in all cases but if in fact there were more than one word in Paleo-Hebrew for "create" and it was definitive that one of those words meant create from thin air and the other meant create from materials that preexisted and were on hand, that would make a substantial difference in the meaning.
I'm not saying that is the case but I've been told that may be the basis for a possible mistranslation.
And please let me add that there is no proof that a God didn't create the universe, which wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case, as it is a rather spectacular creation. I just don't think such a powerful entity would bother to write such childish fairy tales as are found in the Bible.
It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.
Exactly. All one need do is look at bills from the 1850s, say, to see that it is a modern invention.
I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible.
"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.
And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.
LOL
I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned? No, seriously, are you high right now? Meth, maybe? I'm very curious.
I stopped reading after "Homosexuality is a sin."
LOL
I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned? No, seriously, are you high right now? Meth, maybe? I'm very curious.
I wouldn't bother arguing with him, because it's not really reason against reason. It's whatever you say vs whatever translation of the Bible or whatever other religious book. They absolutely deserve the right to congregate, but there are other relics that should have disappeared long ago. For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.