Chick-fil-a

[Cliche Guevara]

I've looked into evolution, and will continue to do so, but it just doesn't make sense. There are no middle ground species etc etc, and there had to be SOMETHING to start evolution. Ie, I can see the sense in creationist evolution, and I also agree that at the very least, creatures had adapted and evolved to their surroundings, but not the extent of total evolution. But to each his own. I don't think we need to get into things that have nothing to do with the thread topic haha.

I'll reply in the god thread.

[FunfGan]

Also, just popped to mind: Aren't people not accepting of Chick-Fil-A's intolerance? Ie, you all are intolerant of intolerant people. Just food for thought...

[FunfGan]

I've looked into evolution, and will continue to do so, but it just doesn't make sense. There are no middle ground species etc etc, and there had to be SOMETHING to start evolution. Ie, I can see the sense in creationist evolution, and I also agree that at the very least, creatures had adapted and evolved to their surroundings, but not the extent of total evolution. But to each his own. I don't think we need to get into things that have nothing to do with the thread topic haha.

[Cliche Guevara]

I'm middle ground on that. As you may or may not know, the Christian community is kind of touchy on that. We obviously have the "7 days" of creation, in creationism. But there are a few hints that "God's days" are human days, along with some scientific evidence that it has been around longer than 2 thousand years. So simply, it's something I haven't researched enough myself, and therefor don't want to take a stand until I know enough to make my own decision.

Try the entire body of scientific evidence. There really isn't a middle ground on this, either you accept the factual evidence and acknowledge that the universe is 13.7 billion years old or you believe in an old book. Not trying to be a dick (though it certainly comes off that way ;)), that's just how it is. It's good that you're open to learning about it, though. Here's a great explanation of evolution to start you off.

[rwh11385]

So what point are you trying to make? I never said we should impose our beliefs. All I said was that many of our founding fathers did, at the very least, believe in a God, and in fact, the God of the Bible. That was my very point before, that although they held those beliefs, they don't play any part(read, banning gay marriage) in our laws that they didn't already have. I completely agree with you. The separation of church and state means, as you've said, that there will be no forced state religion, even if the laws had bits of theism in there already. Sorry again for any misunderstanding, hopefully that clears it up.

And I was mistaken about who said something, or about something somebody said. My bad, I'll try to be more careful reading :)

My point was that your argument about them being Christian or not MAKES NO DIFFERENCE in the gay marriage discussion what-so-ever. Why even argue it or bring it up? They could believe in flying spaghetti monsters but still think that the basic moral values and principles that are pretty much universally accepted are good. And regardless of what they may or may not personally think about anything, their striving for separation of religion and civil law takes priority over that. It's good to know that you agree on this, but wasted a bunch of time arguing with Kershaw about something that doesn't influence the topic at hand.

Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they have to be a dick to everyone else about it. It's just that so many politicians are Evangelical assholes and start these cultural wars because they lack any respect for religions other than their own.

[FunfGan]

So that makes at least three times you have been mistaken or wrong about facts or realities... not a great track record.

Is it that difficult for you to understand that those Christian men wanted to avoid the establishment of a state religion - even their own? Time and again, I try to help you get this simple concept, but you can't look past what you want to have as a conclusion, regardless of how ridiculous of steps you make to reach it. Re-read what I just posted and try to process it. The assumption that they intended to push their religious beliefs onto the nation in which they created a separation of church and state is a weak and pathetic attempt to explain why people now want their way forced on everyone else. (Which was what the founders wanted to avoid...) Again, arguing to impose one's belief on another is un-American.

So what point are you trying to make? I never said we should impose our beliefs. All I said was that many of our founding fathers did, at the very least, believe in a God, and in fact, the God of the Bible. That was my very point before, that although they held those beliefs, they don't play any part(read, banning gay marriage) in our laws that they didn't already have. I completely agree with you. The separation of church and state means, as you've said, that there will be no forced state religion, even if the laws had bits of theism in there already. Sorry again for any misunderstanding, hopefully that clears it up.

And I was mistaken about who said something, or about something somebody said. My bad, I'll try to be more careful reading :)

[rwh11385]

My apologies, I thought it was you, not Kershaw, who posted the picture. Regardless, more than one of those shows that they were in fact speaking of the Biblical God. But again, sorry for the mixup. And this is a totally different discussion.

So that makes at least three times you have been mistaken or wrong about facts or realities... not a great track record.

Is it that difficult for you to understand that those Christian men wanted to avoid the establishment of a state religion - even their own? Time and again, I try to help you get this simple concept, but you can't look past what you want to have as a conclusion, regardless of how ridiculous of steps you make to reach it. Re-read what I just posted and try to process it. The assumption that they intended to push their religious beliefs onto the nation in which they created a separation of church and state is a weak and pathetic attempt to explain why people now want their way forced on everyone else. (Which was what the founders wanted to avoid...) Again, arguing to impose one's belief on another is un-American.

p.s. First you get mad at Kershaw for posting an image that said American founders weren't Christian and you say the founding was theistic. And now you are going back to focusing on some of the founders being Christian - instead of actually responding to what I was talking about?? It's like a never-ending circle of illogical reasoning and constantly confusing who you are arguing with and what about - or again, trying to build a straw man that allows you to argue against something that a particular person isn't even talking about...

[FunfGan]

Please, tell me where I said that? !! (Just like where you said marriage was defined in the constitution and also where it was only defined as one particular thing in the Bible) In your wikipedia listing of fallacies, look up Straw Man - you're building one with an argument I never made because yours is full of lose.

You're missing that point that just because general moral values that are shared by multiple religions and cultures were used to build upon for universally accepted civil laws DOES NOT MEAN that one particular religion's definition (or multiple definitions) of marriage would be the basis for an entire nation which included a "separation of church and state". You can look to most religions and find similar principles such as not killing others, not stealing, not cheating, and be decent to others - so it's not surprising that people find common ground with civil laws in a melting pot of immigrants and those seeking refuge from religious persecution. Even atheists agree on basic moral principles. What people don't agree with, and what is un-American, is establishing civil law that oppresses others based on one religion.


Pot, meet kettle. (see start of this post)

My apologies, I thought it was you, not Kershaw, who posted the picture. Regardless, more than one of those shows that they were in fact speaking of the Biblical God. But again, sorry for the mixup. And this is a totally different discussion.

Honest question here: by "thousands and thousands" you mean "two hundred thousand," right? Definitely OT, but that struck me as odd.

I'm middle ground on that. As you may or may not know, the Christian community is kind of touchy on that. We obviously have the "7 days" of creation, in creationism. But there are a few hints that "God's days" are human days, along with some scientific evidence that it has been around longer than 2 thousand years. So simply, it's something I haven't researched enough myself, and therefor don't want to take a stand until I know enough to make my own decision.

What court rulings in favor of Sharia?

Actually what I was saying is that, innocent or not by our standards, those women aren't considered innocent in their culture, hence their fate.

it's barbaric and terrible, pointing it out doesn't mean I agree with it.

For fucks sake you're brilliant.

But my point being, in America we have guaranteed religious freedom, but we also have laws against murder, Equal rights, freedom and pursuit to happiness. So the vague issue becomes when the parents/ family members religious freedom tears into the freedom and pursuit of happiness of others in the family.


And there are a lot of cases of Sharia Law being used in American Courts, some of which I mentioned already. I'll try to find the published reports.

[z31maniac]

Oh, so you're in favor of the many rulings in American court( almost all of which unconstitutional) in favor of Sharia law? Such as the wife and her daughters who were run into a river and killed by the husband for "dressing too American". You believe that constitutes enough reason? ;) Or the girl in NYC who was held down by her mother, and shot by her father for obtaining a drivers license and seeking college education? I'm not going to put words in your mouth(although that's the only thing that's been done to me in this entire thread), but that's what it sounds like you're talking about. And it's a little hypocritical to say their can be no Christian like ideals invading this country, all while letting the violence of Islamic religions kill and harm innocent young women.

I failed to see how I'm sticking my foot in my mouth, and you still haven't answered my question from before :)

What court rulings in favor of Sharia?

Actually what I was saying is that, innocent or not by our standards, those women aren't considered innocent in their culture, hence their fate.

it's barbaric and terrible, pointing it out doesn't mean I agree with it.

For fucks sake you're brilliant.

[Cliche Guevara]

1a. What have we been doing to progress life for thousands and thousands of years?

Honest question here: by "thousands and thousands" you mean "two hundred thousand," right? Definitely OT, but that struck me as odd.

[rwh11385]

You were arguing that there was absolutely no theistic ideals behind the founding of this country, I proved their was. Not once did I say anything about imposing their beliefs on others. I was showing that the people behind our country had those worldviews, and thus, are present in our laws and rights.

Please, tell me where I said that? !! (Just like where you said marriage was defined in the constitution and also where it was only defined as one particular thing in the Bible) In your wikipedia listing of fallacies, look up Straw Man - you're building one with an argument I never made because yours is full of lose.

You're missing that point that just because general moral values that are shared by multiple religions and cultures were used to build upon for universally accepted civil laws DOES NOT MEAN that one particular religion's definition (or multiple definitions) of marriage would be the basis for an entire nation which included a "separation of church and state". You can look to most religions and find similar principles such as not killing others, not stealing, not cheating, and be decent to others - so it's not surprising that people find common ground with civil laws in a melting pot of immigrants and those seeking refuge from religious persecution. Even atheists agree on basic moral principles. What people don't agree with, and what is un-American, is establishing civil law that oppresses others based on one religion.

I'm not going to put words in your mouth(although that's the only thing that's been done to me in this entire thread)

Pot, meet kettle. (see start of this post)

[FunfGan]

WOW. :hitler:


LOL. There is no such thing as utopia, only a place in which people in power believe it to be and many people suffer from lack of freedom.


And in NONE of those quotes do they say they wish to impose their beliefs on others.

You were arguing that there was absolutely no theistic ideals behind the founding of this country, I proved their was. Not once did I say anything about imposing their beliefs on others. I was showing that the people behind our country had those worldviews, and thus, are present in our laws and rights.

What the fuck are you talking about? What does honor killings have to do with this? (BTW Honor killings are because they believe the woman is GUILTY of something that has dishonored the family).

You're missing the fucking point. He said he was appalled somebody actually admitted to something that they believed in, and I responded saying that those who actually stand by their beliefs instead of hiding them, that they admit them, have at least 1 thing to be respected for.


Oh, so you're in favor of the many rulings in American court( almost all of which unconstitutional) in favor of Sharia law? Such as the wife and her daughters who were run into a river and killed by the husband for "dressing too American". You believe that constitutes enough reason? ;) Or the girl in NYC who was held down by her mother, and shot by her father for obtaining a drivers license and seeking college education? I'm not going to put words in your mouth(although that's the only thing that's been done to me in this entire thread), but that's what it sounds like you're talking about. And it's a little hypocritical to say their can be no Christian like ideals invading this country, all while letting the violence of Islamic religions kill and harm innocent young women.

I failed to see how I'm sticking my foot in my mouth, and you still haven't answered my question from before :)

[z31maniac]

If It was a muslim company, I'd have more respect for the person if he came out and said he was in support of killing innocent young women(i.e. Sharia Law) than if he tried to deny it. That is, respect for having the balls to say it in the face of adversity.

What the fuck are you talking about? What does honor killings have to do with this? (BTW Honor killings are because they believe the woman is GUILTY of something that has dishonored the family).


You should really, REALLY consider not making any more posts in this thread, or this section until you can stop shoving your foot in your mouth.

[rwh11385]

If It was a muslim company, I'd have more respect for the person if he came out and said he was in support of killing innocent young women(i.e. Sharia Law) than if he tried to deny it. That is, respect for having the balls to say it in the face of adversity.

WOW. :hitler:

What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.

LOL. There is no such thing as utopia, only a place in which people in power believe it to be and many people suffer from lack of freedom.


And in NONE of those quotes do they say they wish to impose their beliefs on others.

[Kershaw]

he also said...

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson,