You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trading and the love of God
- Thread starter FrancisXavier
- Start date
Quote from pattersb2:
you're a petty fool ... I changed the password and email settings to prevent myself from acting on the urge to logon onto this site and twiddlle away more of my precious time combating people such as yourself.
Wait a minute, this is too good. You're telling us that you felt like you were spending too much time here, but you were unable to simply exercise the self control necessary to post less? You actually had to change the password settings in an effort to prevent yourself from acting?
And now you're back here peddling your hate-filled propaganda? Why did you create a new username? Why didn't you just use the changed password information for the old username??
Pathetic.
By the way, thanks for shamelessly evading my questions, thereby showing what your belief system is really all about.
is it hate filled to believe that homosexuals should not be married?
is it hate filled to believe that a man can't marry 6 woman with 50s hair cuts?
Is it hate filled to want to ban killing other human beings as they are being born?
Is it hate filled to say that women were not priests and therefore not going to be priests but you would rather see a woman president than the current candidates even if you think she is not very concerned with the truth.
Is it hate to disagree with your value judgments?
Weren't you the one who supported putting people in jail for thinking bad thoughts about homosexuals?
You are the real danger to our liberty.
You support the barbaric killing of children being born and imprisoning people for thoughts or statements.
is it hate filled to believe that a man can't marry 6 woman with 50s hair cuts?
Is it hate filled to want to ban killing other human beings as they are being born?
Is it hate filled to say that women were not priests and therefore not going to be priests but you would rather see a woman president than the current candidates even if you think she is not very concerned with the truth.
Is it hate to disagree with your value judgments?
Weren't you the one who supported putting people in jail for thinking bad thoughts about homosexuals?
You are the real danger to our liberty.
You support the barbaric killing of children being born and imprisoning people for thoughts or statements.
heres a thought. keep your superstitious rituals in your churches and no one will care what you think.Quote from jem:
is it hate filled to believe that homosexuals should not be married?
is it hate filled to believe that a man can't marry 6 woman with 50s hair cuts?
Is it hate filled to want to ban killing other human beings as they are being born?
Is it hate filled to say that women were not priests and therefore not going to be priests but you would rather see a woman president than the current candidates even if you think she is not very concerned with the truth.
Is it hate to disagree with your value judgments?
Weren't you the one who supported putting people in jail for thinking bad thoughts about homosexuals?
You are the real danger to our liberty.
You support the barbaric killing of children being born and imprisoning people for thoughts or statements.
Quote from vhehn:
heres a thought. keep your superstitious rituals in your churches and no one will care what you think.
here a thought keep the left out of trying to reengineer my culture and society and I will be happy to return to being a libertarian.
I should keep my thoughts out of my schools my people with radical agendas try to "educate" my kids way of thinking into what they believe is right for their way of life.
cut the shit. its all value judgments.
for instance now that we are changing the definition of marriage - who has the right to say a gay and 14 year old can't get married? or 6 people.
your values are not better than faith informed values - they are just different.
And then you completely discount the fact that many christians have no desire to impose our religious concepts on you - we just don't want you imposing subjective bullshit on us through the courts.
I am all in favor of majority rule. If the majority of Californian's really vote to allow gay marriage - then thats the way it should be. I would be in the minority but I would be happy for the gay people I know - that they got what they wanted the right way.
if you want to censor reality from your children you are more than welcome to start a church school where you can enforce your superstitious rituals. you can eat and drink all the jesus your heart desires but in a public form you have no right to claim that your imaginary friends rules are more desirable than the rules of man.Quote from jem:
here a thought keep the left out of trying to reengineer my culture and society and I will be happy to return to being a libertarian.
I should keep my thoughts out of my schools my people with radical agendas try to "educate" my kids way of thinking into what they believe is right for their way of life.
cut the shit. its all value judgments.
for instance now that we are changing the definition of marriage - who has the right to say a gay and 14 year old can't get married? or 6 people.
your values are not better than faith informed values - they are just different.
And then you completely discount the fact that many christians have no desire to impose our religious concepts on you - we just don't want you imposing subjective bullshit on us through the courts.
I am all in favor of majority rule. If the majority of Californian's really vote to allow gay marriage - then thats the way it should be. I would be in the minority but I would be happy for the gay people I know - that they got what they wanted the right way.
you just don't get it - you totally missed the fricken point.
1. A christian has just as much right to vote his conscience as an atheist.
2. The west laws are based on common law. And common law was formed within the context of Christianity.
3. Our constitution allows for majority rule as long as fundamental rights are not violated.
finally you are fucking idiot if you think I am trying to tell you to live like a christian by my vote.
your are really not getting the point... I know you t be intelligent so lets go over it...
1. A christian has just as much right to vote his conscience as an atheist.
2. The west laws are based on common law. And common law was formed within the context of Christianity.
3. Our constitution allows for majority rule as long as fundamental rights are not violated.
finally you are fucking idiot if you think I am trying to tell you to live like a christian by my vote.
Quote from vhehn:
if you want to censor reality from your children you are more than welcome to start a church school where you can enforce your superstitious rituals. you can eat and drink all the jesus your heart desires but in a public form you have no right to claim that your imaginary friends rules are more desirable than the rules of man.
your are really not getting the point... I know you t be intelligent so lets go over it...
Quote from jem:
2. The west laws are based on common law. And common law was formed within the context of Christianity.
Then it can be equally said common law was formed within the context of business and commerce. Formed within the context of atheists and theists. Formed within the context of deception and theft. Formed within the context of honesty and truthfulness.
Your "formed within the context of Christianity" is equal to and no more meaningful than saying " common law was formed within the context of larceny.
Anyway, let's take the argument to Thomas Jefferson and see what he has to say....
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."