Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Wolfgang's Vault - You won't believe this...
| Wolfgang's Vault - You won't believe this... [message #70168] |
Sun, 09 July 2006 22:48  |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
..html</A> </FONT></DIV></BODY ></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C6C513.0CBE81E0--The reason I'm so disappointed in Clinton is that during his whole
administration, I was wanting him to do the things he needed to
do........and I watched in fcinated horror as he fucked up again and again..
Even an insignificant, regular old citizen like me could see what needed to
be done and he couldn't????..........and I was right!!!!. It just blows me
away. I wanted to believe that I was missing something and that this Rhoades
scholar superdude/great national hope knew more than I did. Well, he turned
out to be the bitggest dumbass we've ever elected and his oversights brought
us to 911.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:44e967d0$1@linux...
>
> Clinton Clinton Clinton.. It seems DJ that you has now swallow the
"Kool-Aid"
> that the Neo-con right has given you.
> Look, liberals are not dumb or stupid. They are real passionate Americans.
>
>
> Before I state my rebuttals to your Clinton Clinton Clinton rhetoric, let
> me just say this to your how can Dems be so dumb.
>
> Do you really think that if we are attacked , that fellow so-called
liberals
> would not fight??
>
> To decent is not American?
> Look DJ, the Bush(ites) are war mongers. They had their plan is place well
> before they took office. T
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wolfgang's Vault - You won't believe this... [message #70266 is a reply to message #70168] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 14:58  |
Larry Hogan
Messages: 17
Registered: June 2005
Location: Upstate New York
|
Junior Member |
|
|
point of view in terms
> of rights. Where faith must be bound, so must irreligious beliefs - both
> are faith decisions - one deciding to believe in God, the other deciding not
> to. The reason is that to provide equal rights without conflict or
> contradiction between two contradictory belief systems (Christianity vs.
> Atheism/Agnosticism for example), one belief would have to be false to the
> point of being considered non-existent.
>
> Sidebar - Blaise Pascal had an interesting comment on the idea of
> conflicting beliefs:
> "Pascal's wager":
>
> "Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and
> you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God,
> heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've
> had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything
> makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false,
> you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be
> true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell."
>
> On 8/17/06 5:05 PM, in article 44e4f4b2@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Yet we must succeed at communicating between groups as diverse as
>> Christians and Muslims, or for a tougher example, AELC Lutherans and
>> Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. I'm only half joking about that last one...
>
> Agreed. The church we attend here isn't one of the largest (about 1000),
> but has held two community discussion forums (both got local press) - the
> first was to discuss homosexuality, and the second religious diversity
> (including a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, etc). I wasn't able to attend either
> one, but heard both were very successful at opening up dialogue and giving
> people a chance to ask questions of panel members on all sides of both
> issues. The rea
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wolfgang's Vault - You won't believe this... [message #70267 is a reply to message #70266] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:03 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
son our church hosted this was simply to open up dialogue.
> I believe it both were moderated by 3rd parties so there wouldn't be a
> question of objectivity.
>> In the USA some (not all) members of the following groups feel
>> persecuted because of religious bias in our culture:
>>
>> 1) Christians (way too diverse a group to be under a single label, BTW).
> To a degree that is true, but a Christian is simply someone who believes
> that Jesus is the son of one true God, and that he died to overcome our
> sins, giving us a direct path to God and the promise of eternal life.
>
>> 2) Muslims
>> 3) Jews
>> 4) Sikhs
>> 5) Atheists
>> 6) etc.
>>
>> I don't know if Buddhists bother feeling persecuted.
>>
>> I do like the ACLU for the most part, because the Bill of Rights is
>> constantly under attack. Since it's a fundamental part of what makes the
>> USA a special place it needs to be looked after. So I'll add:
>>
>> 7) The Bill Of Rights
>>
>> Even though it's not a group, it protects all of us from a variety of
>> bad stuff. Hey, it's my list and I'm adding it! :^)
>
> 7 is a good number. I do also see the Bill of Rights under attack, but
> perhaps from a different perspective.
>> How do we balance different outlooks and perceptions around all this? It
>> ain't easy. Talking is good, though.
>
> It isn't easy, from any perspective. But I also agree, talking is the only
> way to understand, if not resolve differences.
>> I don't see anything that indicates we are about to outlaw Christianity.
>> You'll have to convince me on that one. The appropriateness of
>> government sanctioning of the symbol of one religion over another is an
>> interesting issue but I wouldn't read that as moving toward banning
>> Christianity. Probably makes great material for rousing sermons, though,
>> in some churches, while other churches can and do support the separation
>> of church and state for religious reasons so their sermons would go the
>> other way. See how hard it is to generalize about Christianity as one
>> entity?
>
> Actually I've never heard a sermon about a specific move to outlaw
> Christianity. Some ministers do refer to specific events where a Christian
> organization or event was sanctioned because it was perceived as being too
> public (a deviation of the separation of church and state). Why would the
> ACLU want to prevent someone from putting a cross on their ow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Jun 11 13:54:55 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01591 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
