Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest vmunchie

Free speech, foreign concept to Canessa!

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Oh, really? So when a pastor at church on Sunday urges the congregation to treat others well, he is "unwittingly imply"ing that none of them are doing so?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any respectable pastor would take quite a bit of offense to this, I think. If one tells a group of people to be kind, one is certainly _not_ implying that none of them are kind. That's absurd. No one short of a fire-and-brimstone Puritan (wannabe) would be conveying something that extreme with a simply encouragement of good behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KearnyKard
You do realize they only changed the motto in 1956, right? I guess the sentiment of E Pluribus Unum didn't play well with the hicks.

Wrong again, Kool-aid breath. The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum". What else would you expect in a christian country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
It would appear that shiny trinkets and baubles are able to captivate your imagination to the exclusion of just about everything else my dear Pat-Rat.

As it turns out, I just happen to have a bridge for sale which I think you might be interested in buying. Are you familiar with the Brooklyn area?

New dollar coin = buying a bridge ?? Your getting more weird by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Wrong again, Kool-aid breath.  The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust"  and  "E Pluribus Unum".  What else would you expect in a christian country.

Ah, KearnyKard, another member of the ASININE Kool-Aid Kommentary Klub.

And just WHERE does it say "In Christ We Trust"?

If you were not so narrow minded you'd realize that worshippers of ANY God can proudly point to a coin and say "Yes We Do"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldfart56 wrote:

Which god?

Do you mean Zeus, or Brahma, or Shiva, or Ammon Ra, or Allah, or Ahura Mazda, or Poseidon, or.........?

:ninja: dave you know the bible very well too well was you a priest? or pastor? what made you turn? whats your back story? you have lots to say here and we want to see why you feel the way you do! comeon mate! tell us :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong again, Kool-aid breath.  The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust"  and  "E Pluribus Unum".

"In 1956, e pluribus unum was superseded by "In God We Trust" as the national motto by United States Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 302, which is now printed on most U.S. currency." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Pluribus_Unum (emphasis added)

What else would you expect in a christian country.

The USA isn't a Christian country--if it was, the first and most important Commandment would be law. Care to explain how an alleged "Christian country" fails to even legislate arguably its most important 'law'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:ninja: dave you know the bible very well too well was you a priest? or pastor?

Number one sign you're a fundamentalist Christian:

"1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian." --http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

:ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dingo Dave
New dollar coin =  buying a bridge ??  Your getting more weird by the day.

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't get it.

If you believe that having 'In God we trust' printed on you currency, somehow helps to make your invisible friend any more of a reality than Zeus is, then it appears that you'll believe just about anything. If a sales presentation is packaged attractively enough, and endorsed by the right people, then you seem willing to swallow the most outrageous claims, hook line and sinker.

I've got a lot of catching up to do, if for any reason I had a desire to to achieve the same weirdness level that you appear to have reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
:ninja: dave you know the bible very well too well was you a priest? or pastor? what made you turn? whats your back story? you have lots to say here and we want to see why you feel the way you do! comeon mate! tell us :ninja:

DingoDave is an atheist (or at least he pretends to be) who must have a very boring personal life because he has a lot of time on his hands to post his long, tedious threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
Wrong again, Kool-aid breath.  The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust"  and  "E Pluribus Unum".  What else would you expect in a christian country.

Who said that E Pluribus Unum was taken off currency.

This is not a christian country for two reasons: our constitution prohibits it and, if it truly were a christian country, I would expect far less crime, poverty, violence, etc. Jesus said "love your neighbor as you love yourself".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
:ninja: dave you know the bible very well too well was you a priest? or pastor? what made you turn? whats your back story? you have lots to say here and we want to see why you feel the way you do! comeon mate! tell us :ninja:

If I were Dave I would tell you it is none of your F**KING business. But that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dingo Dave
:ninja: dave you know the bible very well too well was you a priest? or pastor? what made you turn? whats your back story? you have lots to say here and we want to see why you feel the way you do! comeon mate! tell us :ninja:

Dear oldfart56,

Thank you for your question. I'll attempt to answer it as thoroughly and concisely as I can.

In my younger days I was a Baptist church youth leader, as well as a regular Sunday school music teacher. Also,(partly because because I enjoyed surfing), I occasionally helped out at beachside evangelical outreach centres, known in Australia as 'Beach Missions'.

It was all great fun, and I got a real sense of enjoyment and achievement out of contributing my part towards the salvation of the Human race, as I saw it at the time.

I still have family and friends who are both pastors and/or missionaries. In fact one of my sisters was a missionary for many years, although she was and is a high school mathematics teacher by profession. I have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible. Far too much time according to my wife.

The reason I am no longer a Christian, is that one day I made up my mind to do some serious study about what the Bible actually teaches, and what basis there is for believing some of the claims that it makes.

I was very disturbed by what I discovered.

Much of what I had been taught to believe since I was a kid, did not mesh at all well with what I was actually reading on the pages in front of me, and with what my common sense told me was reasonable to believe.

What I discovered was, that both I, and my Christian colleagues, had either been flatly ignoring, or simply rationalising away much of what the Bible really does actually teach. So many of the things I read in the Bible seemed to be so completely at odds with other things I had been brought up to believe, that I could no longer in all good conscience, continue to support many of the ideas contained within it’s pages. Consider the Bible’s consistent endorsement of human slavery; it’s oppression of women; it’s endorsement of both polygamy and celibacy; it’s endorsement of genocide and ethnic cleansing; it's promotion of the concept of a 'chosen people'; it's endorsement of punishing children for the crimes of their parents; it's promotion of the concept of inherited sin; it’s complete and utter intolerance of any other religions or philosophies; it’s hatred and contempt for new learning and free inquiry; it’s racism; it’s pleas and demands for blind unquestioning obedience to authority; it’s prohibitions against questioning the government or the clergy; it's endorsement of inflicting infinite punishments for finite crimes; it's promotion of the idea of substitutionary sacrifice; Need I go on?

It boggles my imagination how anyone could, after reading the thing with an open mind, come away from the experience, with the impression that the Bible is a GOOD BOOK.

I came to the conclusion that my pastor and other religious leaders had been knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting the Bible and what it teaches for all those years. I confess that it still makes me a little bit hot under the collar when I think about how thoroughly I had been deceived into believing that the Bible is something which it is not i.e. a ‘Good Book’.

The Bible is an interesting book, but it's not a Good Book. It offers us a glimpse into the workings of the minds of certain ancient iron-age tribalists. It offers us a glimpse into how their societies worked (and that’s important), but that’s about it.

The people who wrote the Bible clearly believed that the universe was only a few thousand years old, and that some sort of cosmic Emperor, who they named Yahweh, lived in his palace with all of his servants and advisors, up in the sky just a few miles above the Earth. They also believed that he could and did, literally drop in for a visit any time he wished.

We now know, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were just flat out wrong about those things. If they were so wrong about such fundamental things, why should we trust their opinions about how societies are supposed to be run, or how the planet should be responsibly managed for the benefit of our children, and the multitude of other living creatures, which we share it with?

According to recent polls, nearly 40% of Americans claim to believe that Jesus is going to return and destroy the world sometime during the next 50 years.

This is insane thinking, and the stuff that nightmares are made of. Yet people seem to think nothing about claiming that this is what they truly believe in. It frightens me, as it should frighten any sane and rational person who cares about the long-term future of our planet.

In answer to your question oldfart56, that is why I ‘turned’.

Sorry for the rant, but you did ask. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Wrong again, Kool-aid breath.  The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust"  and  "E Pluribus Unum".  What else would you expect in a christian country.

If I mention 1956 only an complete idiot would think I was speaking of the new coins. 1956 is the year our national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust." But calling me "kool-aid breath" obviously proves my point that E Pluribus Unum doesn't play well with the hicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Dear oldfart56,

Thank you for your question. I'll attempt to answer it as thoroughly and concisely as I can.

In my younger days I was a Baptist church youth leader, as well as a regular Sunday school music teacher. Also,(partly because because I enjoyed surfing), I occasionally helped out at beachside evangelical outreach centres, known in Australia as 'Beach Missions'.

It was all great fun, and I got a real sense of enjoyment and achievement out of contributing my part towards the salvation of the Human race, as I saw it at the time.

I still have family and friends who are both pastors and/or missionaries. In fact one of my sisters was a missionary for many years, although she was and is a high school mathematics teacher by profession. I have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible. Far too much time according to my wife.

The reason I am no longer a Christian, is that one day I made up my mind to do some serious study about what the Bible actually teaches, and what basis there is for believing some of the claims that it makes.

I was very disturbed by what I discovered.

Much of what I had been taught to believe since I was a kid, did not mesh at all well with what I was actually reading on the pages in front of me, and with what my common sense told me was reasonable to believe.

What I discovered was, that both I, and my Christian colleagues, had either been flatly ignoring, or simply rationalising away much of what the Bible really does actually teach. So many of the things I read in the Bible seemed to be so completely at odds with other things I had been brought up to believe, that I could no longer in all good conscience, continue to support many of the ideas contained within it’s pages. Consider the Bible’s consistent endorsement of human slavery; it’s oppression of women; it’s endorsement of both polygamy and celibacy; it’s endorsement of genocide and ethnic cleansing; it's promotion of the concept of a 'chosen people'; it's endorsement of punishing children for the crimes of their parents; it's promotion of the concept of inherited sin; it’s complete and utter intolerance of any other religions or philosophies; it’s hatred and contempt for new learning and free inquiry; it’s racism; it’s pleas and demands for blind unquestioning obedience to authority; it’s prohibitions against questioning the government or the clergy; it's endorsement of inflicting infinite punishments for finite crimes; it's promotion of the idea of substitutionary sacrifice; Need I go on?

It boggles my imagination how anyone could, after reading the thing with an open mind, come away from the experience, with the impression that the Bible is a GOOD BOOK.         

I came to the conclusion that my pastor and other religious leaders had been knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting the Bible and what it teaches for all those years. I confess that it still makes me a little bit hot under the collar when I think about how thoroughly I had been deceived into believing that the Bible is something which it is not i.e. a ‘Good Book’.

The Bible is an interesting book, but it's not a Good Book. It offers us a glimpse into the workings of the minds of certain ancient iron-age tribalists. It offers us a glimpse into how their societies worked (and that’s important), but that’s about it.

The people who wrote the Bible clearly believed that the universe was only a few thousand years old, and that some sort of cosmic Emperor, who they named Yahweh, lived in his palace with all of his servants and advisors, up in the sky just a few miles above the Earth. They also believed that he could and did, literally drop in for a visit any time he wished.

We now know, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were just flat out wrong about those things. If they were so wrong about such fundamental things, why should we trust their opinions about how societies are supposed to be run, or how the planet should be responsibly managed for the benefit of our children, and the multitude of other living creatures, which we share it with?

According to recent polls, nearly 40% of Americans claim to believe that Jesus is going to return and destroy the world sometime during the next 50 years.

This is insane thinking, and the stuff that nightmares are made of. Yet people seem to think nothing about claiming that this is what they truly believe in. It frightens me, as it should frighten any sane and rational person who cares about the long-term future of our planet.

In answer to your question oldfart56, that is why I ‘turned’.

Sorry for the rant, but you did ask. :angry:

Dave, most people believe what they wish to believe. Some have the courage to face the truth, even if it forces them to change their minds and abandon the comfortable and secure notions of their innocence. Anyone who has ever done that recognizes your story and the path you have taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoDave is an atheist (or at least he pretends to be) who must have a very boring personal life because he has a lot of time on his hands to post his long, tedious threads.

I'm sure any intelligent person would rather read a well-thought out post by Dingo Dave than 3rd-grade whining/insulting from someone who calls himself a patriot yet is against many of this country's fundamental freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Leigh,

It's encouraging to hear that not all those who label themselves as Christians, endorse the doctrine of eternal Hellfire.

Unfortunately, you and your fellow Universalists are only a tiny minority within the larger Christian community. It's also unfortunate that your views flatly contradict the numerous passages in the Bible where the doctrine of eternal suffering is explicitly and unapologetically promoted.

If there is no Hellfire, then what was it that the gospel Jesus meant when he himself taught the doctrine of Hell, and what is it that his torture and murder is supposed to save us from?

The gospel Jesus explicitly taught that finding yourself being thrown into Hell is a fate worse than death.

Luke 12:4-5 "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast you into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!"

In other words, fear Jesus and his dear old dad.

and;

Mark 16:16 " He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be damned."

If there is no Hell, then there is no need for fear, and no need for salvation. It's as simple as that.

The New Testament passages describing the fate of unbelievers are numerous and explicit. There is no escaping this fact. Jesus himself preached about Hell more often than any other New Testament figure did.

So, whilst I admire your efforts to disassociate the doctrine of Hellfire from the Christian religion, I'm afraid that you are fighting an uphill battle. It's a battle which you cannot possibly win.

The only way that the doctrine of Hell can be expunged from Christianity is to simply ignore, or flatly contradict the numerous New Testament passages which clearly teach it.

The vast majority of Christians worldwide would not consider your views, or the views of your church, to be ‘truly Christian’. They would accuse you of not being faithful to the texts themselves, or to the interpretations which all mainstream Christian communities have placed on them from the earliest of times. If you reject the notion of eternal Hellfire, then you can no longer be classified as a mainstream, orthodox Christian. Most Christians throughout the world would consider your views to be misguided and/or heretical. I don’t use the word heretical in an insulting or disparaging way, but as a simple statement of fact.

I suspect that most Christians, if asked, would tell you that you may well be condemned to Hell yourself for holding such views, and not so long ago you would have been forced to recant under the threat of persecution, or torture, or worse.

This is the unfortunate reality for any who choose to ignore or contradict what the Bible actually teaches about Hell.

Dear Dave, I believe the concept of Hell as a place of eternal torture is a much later construct (that is, later than Jesus). Jesus talks primarily of Gehenna, which was an actual place, and he's talking to Jews in Jerusalem. He does speak of Hades -- fewer times -- and is speaking of the abode or kingdom of the dead. The Gehenna talk is comparable to the dooms spoken of by the Prophets and seems to be a place of corporate or national destruction. You'll remember that Jerusalem was indeed burned and destroyed in A.D. 70, and I believe that is what he's speaking of . . . not of our present-day condition and risks. Jesus speaks of Hades because he holds the keys to death and intends to unlock those gates.

Far more Christians are universalists than you've been led to believe. For example, here is a discussion on a recent Barna poll (Barna is the best-know polling organization for gathering information about Christianity in the U.S.):

"Polling on issues such as whether non-Christians can go to Heaven or whether homosexuality is an "acceptable lifestyle", show that a unexpectedly small percentage of people are exclusionary on these questions, even when the polls are tilted toward getting an that sort of answer.

Take, for example, Barna's conclusions that 46% of respondents agree and 47% disagree "that all good people will go to Heaven". Initially, that seems like corroboration of the point that intolerant views are widespread. Until, that is, you understand how deeply skewed to the right Barna's polls are. This response is a much lower number than he would have expected or agreed with. What his poll really demonstrates then is that the exclusionary message isn't getting through to conservative evangelicals." http://www.streetprophets.com/main/3

Part of the difficulty with this is that our English translations are largely flawed in how they translate Gehenna (they shouldn't; it was an actual place just outside Jerusalem, not an otherwordly or underworld lake of fire) and Hades (they shouldn't; it was a mythological and literary construct where all the dead go). So in this respect, I would argue that I'm being far more faithful to the text than the church has traditionally been.

I can't speak to any persecution I might have faced in the past, but certainly in my own denomination today I am not considered unorthodox.

If you'd like to discuss this further, please message me privately. There's lots more, but I doubt many of our compatriots want to hear me continue to blabber on about theology.

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
DingoDave is an atheist (or at least he pretends to be) who must have a very boring personal life because he has a lot of time on his hands to post his long, tedious threads.

Is it just sheer coincidence that you have enough time on your hanfs to read these long tedious threads and post your asinine comments?

Or do you just describe them without reading them, once again showing your usual lack of factual basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Wrong again, Kool-aid breath.  The new dollar coins say "In God We Trust"  and  "E Pluribus Unum".  What else would you expect in a christian country.

I might expect a "Christian" country to actually read the Bible and note the part about money being the root of all evil and the Commandments against graven images or using God's name in vain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

What I don't understand is...how can you be a "so-called" unbias reporter (Cannessa) on an issue and then in the following pages have an editorial written by the same person giving their opinion on the issue? Does that really make sense? How journalistically ethical is that?

Get a clue Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Mr. Canessa is the editor, not a reporter. It's his job to write editorials. In small newspapers, editors cover stories also. How many times do you Professor P people have to be told this? I've read his stories about the Feb, BOE meeting, and it was VERY FAIR. Your the one that needs to get a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
What I don't understand is...how can you be a "so-called" unbias reporter (Cannessa) on an issue and then in the following pages have an editorial written by the same person giving their opinion on the issue? Does that really make sense? How journalistically ethical is that?

Get a clue Observer

Of course it makes sense. It's exactly how journalists are supposed to do it. The problem comes when they don't know the difference between the news pages and the editorial pages, or even worse when they know no distinction between fact and fiction (Fox News).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I don't understand is...how can you be a "so-called" unbias reporter (Cannessa) on an issue and then in the following pages have an editorial written by the same person giving their opinion on the issue? Does that really make sense? How journalistically ethical is that?

Get a clue Observer

Your position is absurd. By that standard, ALL reporting would be unethical.

Being human beings, all journalists have opinions. Ethical news reporting requires only that they do their best to report the "who what where when" as plainly and detached as possible, and keep opinions to the editorial pages or other venues where it is understood and expected that opinions will be expressed.

Having an opinion and expressing it in the proper forum does not, in itself, make a journalist's reporting unethical or untrustworthy.

Get a clue, Guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...