Worst Economy in Decades and My State (MO) Decides to Kill Jobs [Archive]

molotov

September 01, 2010, 22:30

I base my morals on freedom.

And your version of freedom is a whorehouse, I get it.

That pretty much means if they are not denying anyone of their freedoms of life, liberty, or property then it's none of my, the state's, or anyone's business!

Sure you aren't. The same old pervs that patronize houses of ill repute are the same crums who piss and moan about the general downfall of the USA as a nation. First it's strip clubs then it's bath houses. You can justify all you like but sexual sin is a big problem in this country.

50 years ago huh....lets try a hundred years ago. Prostitution was legal and perfectly accepted then.

So was hanging spooks, what's your point?

Personally Molotov if one didn't know where you were you could be mistaken for a muslim.

Sounds like you are using a religion as an insult. You'll have to try harder.

Why do you types feel you need to regulate everyone?

Never said I wanted to. If you want smut, go where the smut is and where the darkness creeps. If I have a say in the matter, it won't be in my neighborhood.

Sex shops and smut parlours infringe on the liberties of the people whose neigborhoods have to put up with such filth.

Christian churches offend me

Yeah, wouldn't want to call a fornicator a fornicator. Don't feel bad though, I even call my good friends fornicators when they do.

Do I try? NO, it's their right to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect me.

But obviously it is affecting you. This whole thread is you lamenting your dick hurting. Grow up, dude.

These clubs DON'T affect you.

No, not at all. Smut is beautiful. Perversion and filth is to be cherished. The topless bar is just the surface of the water of a deep pool of disturbed employees, patrons, ruined lives and criminal enterprise.

Go ahead, make the Joe Redners and Hugh Hefners and Larry Flynts of the world rich. I guess it would be one thing if you had shame about the crap you engage in, but you seem rather brazen. Shame on you.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 01, 2010, 23:10

Wow you have absolutely no ability to think logically or reasonably. The fact of the matter is that they do not affect you. I've never seen a club in a residential area.....your "my neighborhood" argument is B.S. You have no sense of freedom. The only people in your mind that should be free are others that believe as you do. Funny. Best I remember God/ Jesus were big on free will. In fact the only time Christ ever used force for something that didn't fall within their belief system was when it was occurring within the church (gambling). Somehow so called Christians like you interpret the bible as telling you to FORCE people to believe the way you do and FORCE the end of activities that don't fall into your beliefs. That isn't in the bible my friend. OH darn, I forgot to tell you I came to my conclusion on the church by spending decades in them. So, tell me exactly how the people at these establishments being free to do what they want hurts you?

Until you can tell me how they deny you your freedoms, you have absolutely no argument and are nothing but a babbling fool. I somehow think you're incapable of this.

Aaron

molotov

September 02, 2010, 06:19

Wow you have absolutely no ability to think logically or reasonably.

When you know right from wrong, logic and reason isn't necessary. Those are greek inventions, not Christian ones.:)

The fact of the matter is that they do not affect you.

Says you. Sh-t draws flies. Flies carry disease. There's your logic.

I've never seen a club in a residential area.....your "my neighborhood" argument is B.S.

Because generally most people don't want them in their neighborhood and rally against them.

The only people in your mind that should be free are others that believe as you do.

The only people who are free are others that believe as I do. The rest are in bondage to their lusts and other sinful desires.

In fact the only time Christ ever used force for something that didn't fall within their belief system was when it was occurring within the church (gambling).

I recall the problem being money changers in the temple, not gambling.

Somehow so called Christians like you interpret the bible as telling you to FORCE people to believe the way you do and FORCE the end of activities that don't fall into your beliefs.

Whose forcing you? People just don't want it in their area. The rules you posted that are now in effect are commonplace here in FL. No one wants to live next to one of those crap holes of humanity unless they themselves are part of the filth.

So, tell me exactly how the people at these establishments being free to do what they want hurts you?

How does a crack head visiting a crack house in your area and them being free to do what they want hurt you? Tell me exactly.

you have absolutely no argument and are nothing but a babbling fool.

Name calling is the mark of a man who has already lost the discussion.

Sailor553

September 02, 2010, 07:31

[QUOTE]Name calling is the mark of a man who has already lost the discussion.[QUOTE]

See post #7

Taliban

Bigger_Is_Better

September 02, 2010, 10:26

Originally posted by molotov

When you know right from wrong, logic and reason isn't necessary. Those are greek inventions, not Christian ones.:)

Christians didn't invent it because they had leaders to tell them how to think. At points throughout history this lack of logic and reason have caused Christians some big...whoopsies! Flat Earth, Earth is only a few thousand years old, the inquisition...etc..etc

Says you. Sh-t draws flies. Flies carry disease. There's your logic.

Nice turn of phrase, now how has your freedom to life, liberty, and property been harmed?? Beuhler, Beuhler?

Because generally most people don't want them in their neighborhood and rally against them.

Wrong. It's because they are a business and most residential areas are not zoned for businesses.

The only people who are free are others that believe as I do. The rest are in bondage to their lusts and other sinful desires.

Wrong again. Freedom really is a foreign concept to someone who has other people/books make all their decisions for them. Contrary to your belief people live happy fruitful lives everyday without the church.

I recall the problem being money changers in the temple, not gambling.
Still the same issue that pissed him off though. It was happening in the church. He didn't go to places outside of the church and run the money changers out. Of course for some reason Christians now somehow know better than Christ and try to end everything they don't like, in the church or not.

Whose forcing you? People just don't want it in their area. The rules you posted that are now in effect are commonplace here in FL. No one wants to live next to one of those crap holes of humanity unless they themselves are part of the filth.

Again, people don't live next to any kind of club, much less strip clubs. If they do they need to talk to the zoning board. If you were capable of thought you would also realize that the people that go to these places don't disappear when the bars do. Nope, now they'll be looking at girls at your local beaches and pools (lots of those in FL). OH, and there's no regulation there so the girls their looking at could easily be under 18.

How does a crack head visiting a crack house in your area and them being free to do what they want hurt you? Tell me exactly.

They Don't....nice try though.

Name calling is the mark of a man who has already lost the discussion.

Another good try, but your reading comprehension must be lacking as well.
I said: "Until you can tell me how they deny you your freedoms, you have absolutely no argument and are nothing but a babbling fool."

The word until leading off the sentence means if you DO give the reasons you are NOT a babbling fool. You yourself prove that you are by not meeting the requirements of the statement. All you have to do to not be a babbling fool is give examples of how these establishments have denied you your freedom of life, liberty, and property. Of course you could just shut up as well, then the babbling extent of the comment would be put down.

SWOHFAL

September 02, 2010, 11:18

The economy needs some T&A stimulus. :rofl:

Brett

September 02, 2010, 13:51

Don't like guns...don't buy one.
Don't like alcohol...don't drink.
Don't like cigarettes...don't smoke.
Don't like gambling...don't gamble.
Don't like strip clubs...don't go to them.

Freedom can be good for everyone, not just some.

martin35

September 02, 2010, 14:06

The decisions made with your tally wacker are not to be regulated by any form of morality.
As we moderate behavior there eventually is no behavior to be corrupted, moderation and corruption can have the same meaning in certain instances, anything goes is not the fun and games folks think it is.
America is already at the hair in palms, going blind in need of glasses stage of moral conduct.
1960's mantra "if it feels good do it",,,,, we did,,, and we all feel good right?.

molotov

September 02, 2010, 17:36

Freedom really is a foreign concept to someone who has other people/books make all their decisions for them.

On the other hand, I don't feel the need to eyeball every piece of meat that crosses my path and I sympathize with those who lack the self control to view women as something other than objects and playthings.

Further, I don't have to defend the right of establishments like that to exist because I don't have to justify those kind of sinful behaviors to myself because I choose not to engage in them.

That's freedom to me. If your light is darkness, how great the darkness!

Contrary to your belief people live happy fruitful lives everyday without the church.

I recall saying nothing about "church", but rather the bible. I haven't attended proper services in nearly 10 years. A bummer, but a good church is rarer than hen's teeth these days. Then, when you find them, they are often to far to drive.

He didn't go to places outside of the church and run the money changers out. Of course for some reason Christians now somehow know better than Christ and try to end everything they don't like, in the church or not.

Christians are allowed to speak about what is right and wrong as is anyone else. Jesus did that, many others have done that, and I have done that here. It is you, with the G-d/church complex that chooses to criticize my criticism of strip clubs. Don't be mad at me, I didn't call you a fornicator, G-d did, so don't shoot the messenger.

Again, people don't live next to any kind of club, much less strip clubs.

Yes, as you said, due to both zoning and legal restrictions on strip clubs. In my area strip clubs really aren't strip clubs and face more restrictive rules, which I agree with. Tampa does not have those restrictions. I have a non-topless bar a few blocks from here. I would not want it to be a topless establishment, as enough scum floats by there to begin with.

Nope, now they'll be looking at girls at your local beaches and pools (lots of those in FL). OH, and there's no regulation there so the girls their looking at could easily be under 18.

No doubt. But they won't have the blessings of the local populace for what they are doing. Big difference.

The word until leading off the sentence means if you DO give the reasons you are NOT a babbling fool.

Like I said, the name caller is generally the loser. You make justifications while I am not required to. You look upon sexual sin as normal, I do not. You look upon it as harmless, I do not. It's pretty clear to the casual observer what is right and what ain't. In fact, a little child can figure it out faster than some people, that's whats so sad about it to me.

RG Coburn

September 02, 2010, 18:58

Originally posted by Brett
Don't like guns...don't buy one.
Don't like alcohol...don't drink.
Don't like cigarettes...don't smoke.
Don't like gambling...don't gamble.
Don't like strip clubs...don't go to them.

Freedom can be good for everyone, not just some.

With the exception of firearms,which are Constitutionally protected as a Right,the rest all have profound effect even on those who do not use them.
Like saying let anyone play with hand grenades. Though only one person is holding it when it pops,its shrapnel hits anyone within its radius.

Brett

September 02, 2010, 19:56

Ya, right...all those people that have been in grenade distance of me smoking have died of lung cancer.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 02, 2010, 21:01

Actual harm to your life, liberty, or property Molotov.....

Until then...well you know.

molotov

September 02, 2010, 22:09

Actual harm to your life, liberty, or property Molotov.....

I have already identified illicit activity that relates to those types of establishments. I suppose erotic massage parlours don't bring any harm to a community either. Your lies, tell them how you want I guess.

RG Coburn

September 02, 2010, 22:52

Originally posted by Brett
Ya, right...all those people that have been in grenade distance of me smoking have died of lung cancer.

Perhaps not died,but what of your children who lose a father earlier because of lung cancer?
What of the families of drunks who can't handle their booze and end up broken?
Same with gambling addicts.Or sex addicts.

JAB75

September 02, 2010, 23:07

Originally posted by RG Coburn

You're pretty brave. Please don't make me a sandwich.

All due respect, Im not talking about any invasive examination...:rolleyes:

My only point is that in MO you are not allowed to touch their hand, knee, shoulder...anything. It makes the lap dances fairly lame...and yes, anything other than casual touching of the ladies is gross and asking to pick something up.

I believe in the utmost personal hygiene practices, and if you wouldn't eat my food no problem...leaves more for me and my guests. Roast beef anyone? :beer:

Anyway, who cares what MO does...the talent will just migrate to where it is legal and they can make the easy buck for a bit. If a town doesn't want that around, so be it...pass a zoning ordinance prohibiting that type of establishment and move on.

Brett

September 02, 2010, 23:30

Just think, before long they will have a seat belt law so that if you have a wreck you won't kill any innocent bystanders with flying body parts. How about a salt law, or a fat law, etc. It won't be long till cars will have 25m.p.h. bumpers and only be able to go 20m.p.h., lawn mowers with rubber blades and 300lb. six ft. step ladders. Just give me more damn laws to protect me from myself and others from me till I live in a vacuum free of any personal choice. Make all my decisions for me. Legislate my morality. I haven't been to a damn strip club for 20 years, but that's not the point at all. Life is not a padded cell with piped in music.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 03, 2010, 00:31

Originally posted by molotov

I have already identified illicit activity that relates to those types of establishments. I suppose erotic massage parlours don't bring any harm to a community either. Your lies, tell them how you want I guess.

Actual harm to your life, liberty, or property Molotov.....

You know you loose the battle of whits when you can't answer this simple question. And no, you haven't identified any activity that causes you harm.

brunop

September 03, 2010, 01:23

Originally posted by molotov

... You can justify all you like but sexual sin is a big problem in this country.

Bottom line: both are right, and both are carrying their arguments too far.

Sexual sin is a big problem in this country? Fair enough, but the government shouldn't be in the business of defining (or regulating) "sin".

And, with props to Molotov, a community should be able to decide what works for them. Don't like it? Move. Or, alternately, get out there and work for what you want to see in your community.

Zoning laws work differently in different places. High density living (apartments) are frequently in the vicinity of strip clubs. Strip malls and other commercial properties are often in the vicinity of residential areas. I would fight - not because I want my morality projected on other people (losing battle), but because I live in a democracy (theoretically), and I will vote for the safety and property values of my residence and neighborhood.

Finally, the one stripper I know personally (married my best friend - divorced after 8 crazy years) is damaged goods. Her friends are/were too. I can't believe that these places don't hurt people.

And I think the "jobs" argument is pretty weak. This is really about your sense of government meddling and freedom - both of which are more powerful arguments in my opinion.

Peace.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 03, 2010, 02:17

Brunop,
The only thing I would change about your post is that you in no way live in a Democracy. We are a Republic, the founders feared Democracy as simply mob rule. I agree it's a government meddling issue for me.

Take It Easy,
Aaron

bakerjw

September 03, 2010, 05:26

I have no problem with strip clubs on religious grounds.

Where I do have a problem that they provide an employment situation that is demeaning to women. Ats its root it's pure and simple exploitation. Do they get paid well? Usually. Do they look in the mirror at themselves with any kind of self respect? I guess if you need money bad enough you'll do anything.

molotov

September 03, 2010, 06:59

Sexual sin is a big problem in this country? Fair enough, but the government shouldn't be in the business of defining (or regulating) "sin".

That is the meaning of a "vice" squad, regulating vices/sin.

It wasn't until the Balaam's of society showed up to make sexual promiscuity, fornication, and adultery seem "normal" (remember those "liberating" sixties and the "sexual revolution" and the beginning of the end of our nation) that these types of establishments were allowed to exist on this kind of scale.

Traditionally, these were places in back alleys hidden from the sight of the general public because that is where such establishments belong. Out of sight, out of mind, not in your face with the wares displayed in the windows.

Now, I drive down the Florida interstate and have to explain away the smut billboards to my kids. That smut infringes on my pursuit of happiness. Ever had someone shove a cell phone with dirty pics on it into your face? Putting dirty pictures and filth into someone's mind without their consent is indeed an infringement of their rights.

Anyone who considers himself more "free" because he can walk into a strip club or patronize a whore is deluding himself to an incredible degree. Debauchery and freedom are two different things!

Where I do have a problem that they provide an employment situation that is demeaning to women. Ats its root it's pure and simple exploitation. Do they get paid well? Usually. Do they look in the mirror at themselves with any kind of self respect?

According to bigger is better that "demeaning" situation is freedom. It's pretty easy to see through the phony veneer of "legitimacy" when dealing with strip clubs, "escort" services, and "massage" parlours.

A great many strippers/prostitutes are stripping and whoring to support drug habits. Drug dealers fulfill their needs and drug dealers are often tied in with gangs. Pretty easy to see why most normal people don't want strip clubs in their area. They attract undesirables.

Perhaps not died,but what of your children who lose a father earlier because of lung cancer? What of the families of drunks who can't handle their booze and end up broken? Same with gambling addicts.Or sex addicts.

Exactly. The damage created by these types of activities affect more than just those directly involved.

one hand clapping

September 03, 2010, 11:16

A women's view--

I do not frequent such places and if a woman was forced to do those things I would object.

HOWEVER
For some self righteous religious man TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN OR CAN NOT DO TO USE HER BODY IN ANY MANNOR AVAILABLE TO PRODUCE INCOME then I call bull shit.
How many professional MALE athletes leverage their physical attributes into millions?
I just remembered that when I was at walter reed the only decent bar around was called the shephard park inn. It was full of diplomats , bikers , and exotic female dancers. I became friends with a young woman from columbia who was making about $800.00 a night and was paying her way thru graduate school with a phyc major ,she would become a doctor. She was beautiful and a class dancer. after the stage she would dissapeer and then change into nice street clothes and slip out the side door and go home and study.
For an attractive woman to make high $$ for dancing in front of a bunch of guys who freeley spend time and money to support those activities is no less moral than a minister in a suburban church that refuses to point out the hippocracy of the modern church and call for action to change while gett'n payed to "dance " in front of the congration.
Jesus turned the money changers table over as an example of how to deal with corruption within the church.
Molotov - untill you prove to me you are for freedom for all , please keep your masognisistic ,hollier than thou world veiw in your pocket . Whether you intend or not you are comming across like "my shit don't stink and if ya don't believe like me you don't deserve the same rights" sounds kinda NAZI to me.
No harm no foul

Stop being the morality police . it will bite ya in the ass one day. I promise
Just ask Jesus.
OHC

Bigger_Is_Better

September 03, 2010, 11:38

I also support drugs being legal too, so to support a drug habit is no issue with me. They wouldn't have to work so much if it was legal.

BRAVO OHC!! BRAVO!! :bow:

If I could make $800 a night and just work Friday and Saturday nights shakin it my FAL collection would be HUGE!:biggrin:

Right Side Up

September 03, 2010, 13:19

Those places are hubs for drug activity, and all the associated crime and criminals that goes with it.

I could not care less what two consenting adults do as far as physical contact goes, but all the extra baggage that is attached to a strip club is not good for any neighborhood.

That fact concerns me.

molotov

September 03, 2010, 13:32

Molotov - untill you prove to me you are for freedom for all , please keep your masognisistic ,hollier than thou world veiw in your pocket .

Wah, another offended sinner. If you don't like fornication, don't fornicate. I have every right to say something is wrong if it is indeed wrong.

You telling me I should "keep my holier than thou world view in my pocket" is no different than me telling you that sexual sin is wrong except my statement comes from the bible and your statement just comes from you.:rolleyes: The difference is I don't care what you think about it but you sissies got your g strings in a bunch over the judgment G-d has passed on such activity.

If a woman is raped and you condemn it because it is wrong is it then right for me to tell you to keep your holier than thou judgments to yourself if I disagree with rape as a moral offense? Give me a break.

Whether you intend or not you are comming across like "my shit don't stink and if ya don't believe like me you don't deserve the same rights" sounds kinda NAZI to me.

Wrong again. The nazis were all about fornication. Quick read will learn you that. The nazis were all about telling people who knew better to shut up. You would fit right in. Take your goose stepping somewhere else, cause you can't fool me.

For an attractive woman to make high $$ for dancing in front of a bunch of guys who freeley spend time and money to support those activities is no less moral than a minister in a suburban church that refuses to point out the hippocracy of the modern church and call for action to change while gett'n payed to "dance " in front of the congration.

Once again, you attempt to justify the actions of a sinner by comparing them to someone who you "feel" is sinning because he/she doesn't "point out the hipocrisy of the modern church" ever sunday morning.

Poor comparison. The preacher doesn't take his clothes off for money, doesn't cause others to sin by simply being on stage, he probably ain't preaching to support his drug habit or pay for college, nor does the church draw criminals and crime the way a topless bar does and so create a detriment to the area it exists in.

The bottom line is you are defending adulteress'. That might be noble if I was casting stones, but I have merely conveyed the message that what a stripper does and what the patrons do are sinful in nature.

Only those who haven't come clean with G-d about their sins are angry that I have spoken with such certainty. Jesus said:

Matthew 5:28

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

From the master's lips. Maybe you should tell him to shut up too and to take his "holier than thou" attitude elsewhere. See how that works out for you.:)

martin35

September 03, 2010, 18:22

In my opinion; all laws are based on a cultural/religious moralities.
Religions use morality to guide and define their sanction for acceptable behavior.
One need not have faith in a religion to see the validity of sanctions based on religious morality or cultural imperatives.
There is no existing society without a moral code.There can be no societal or cultural continuum without at least a minimal moral code.
Everybody jumping everybody's bones is a unsustainable fantasy that will deplete your payday..

SWOHFAL

September 03, 2010, 18:27

Originally posted by brunop

I can't believe that these places don't hurt people.

They do, but some people would find some way to abuse and debase themselves, especially if they can get money doing it. Strippers are hookers lite, and I can't believe some don't use the job to drum up after hours business. Of course I've also heard porn stars prefer to work as strippers because the money is better and easier, so their "acting" career is used to enhance their notoriety for their appearances at strip joints.

SWOHFAL

September 03, 2010, 18:30

Originally posted by bakerjw
I have no problem with strip clubs on religious grounds.

Where I do have a problem that they provide an employment situation that is demeaning to women. Ats its root it's pure and simple exploitation. Do they get paid well? Usually. Do they look in the mirror at themselves with any kind of self respect? I guess if you need money bad enough you'll do anything.

They never had any self-respect and their daddy/uncle/brothers/family friend, etc. probably raped them early on, they did drugs and booze in junior high, started sleeping with guys around the same time, had a string of abusive boyfriends, and so forth.

Brett

September 03, 2010, 19:56

I guess according to Matthew 5:28 all men have committed adultery. Looks like they are worse than the women they judge.

brunop

September 03, 2010, 20:38

Originally posted by Bigger_Is_Better
Brunop,
The only thing I would change about your post is that you in no way live in a Democracy. We are a Republic, the founders feared Democracy as simply mob rule. I agree it's a government meddling issue for me.

Take It Easy,
Aaron

Nationally we live in a republic. When the ballot goes right to the people of a small/local community, we are in a democratic process (naked, direct, majority rules). I don't know if it is the best way or the best of the bad, but it is what we have locally in most places.

I line up with Molotov on several things, but I don't know if he ever heard the phrase about 'getting more flies with honey than with vinegar'.

Now that being said, there are times to draw a line in the sand. I would draw a line about a strip club going in next to my house or in my neighborhood. For a ton of reasons:

a) bad stuff and bad people hang out at lots of these places
b) 1/2 the girls are hooking
c) it treats women as objects, and I believe more than anything else, the massive, cultural acceptance of objectification is the primary reason for the mistreatment of women (from rape and murder to glass ceiling issues)
d) crime
e) real estate prices, and finally
f) it is plain wrong. I know it in my heart, and the data showing the 'cost' to the women bears this out, too.

BUT...

we are so far along a path in this country that morality isn't common (shared). It is based on religion (not shared/common). We are also very, very far along a PC dialogue where women won't have men (meaning well), or even other women step up and say what is 'right' (rejection of paternalism, traditional church [read catholic] misogyny, traditional societal roles as the definition of 'family' changes, etc.)

I don't feel like this topic is best dealt with the way that Jesus dealt with the moneychangers: everybody (Jews) KNEW that the moneychangers were stealing from the poor and paying off the priests. Everyone had the same, common religion and views. He did what needed doing. I believe that he will come again and do what needs to be doing, but until that time, I think we need to be both strong in our convictions and polite, thoughtful, and entreating to our neighbors in the hopes that they will see our side of the argument.

Telling people they are douchebags and sinners isn't going to gain a lot of ground. Might even push a lot of people away from the message. But it does make some people feel 'good' about how 'hard' and 'righteous' they are.

I'm not saying that this applies to Molotov, as I don't know him or his heart, but some people could construe this based on the apparent attitude.

JMHO.

Peace.

brunop

September 03, 2010, 20:56

Originally posted by molotov

That is the meaning of a "vice" squad, regulating vices/sin.

It wasn't until the Balaam's of society showed up to make sexual promiscuity, fornication, and adultery seem "normal" ...

I know what a vice squad is, and I know what it is not. A vice squad is NOT (repeat: not) in the business of "regulating vices/sin".

They are enforcing laws, which allow for the legal practice of prostitution in Nevada. So Nevada cities don't have 'vice'?

"Vice" is the same short hand as "Sin Tax" on alcohol and tobacco, neither of which are illegal in this country. In other words, your argument on the basis of the existence of a Vice Squad is less than weak - it is flat full of holes.

I actually line up with you on this topic. I don't want anything to do with your prosecution of your position, as it is less than Christ-like. Don't tell me about the moneychangers: I know He kicked ass when it was time. What about when it was time to condemn the woman "taken in the very act of adultery"? What was that verdict? Do you remember?

No condemnation. Kindness and an entreaty to "sin no more". Might want to read up on that. It is in the gospel of John.

molotov

September 03, 2010, 22:33

I'm not saying that this applies to Molotov, as I don't know him or his heart, but some people could construe this based on the apparent attitude.

Would you rather your mechanic pussyfoot around in regards to the condition of your automobile or would you rather a straightforward and easy to understand diagnosis?

So Nevada cities don't have 'vice'?

Prostitution is unlawful inside Vegas city limits. I'm certain they have vice squads to deal with illicit prostitution.

What about when it was time to condemn the woman "taken in the very act of adultery"? What was that verdict? Do you remember?

I don't recall endorsing stone throwing when it comes to strippers or strip clubs operating in my area. If some are offended because I call an adulterer and adulterer, it ain't my problem. Some people can't handle being called out for their sins. It was the same in Jesus' time, so it's no surprise I am getting negative feedback, even from the so called "christians" on the board. To me, it is validating the truthfulness of my statements.

FAL freek

September 04, 2010, 07:57

Originally posted by one hand clapping
I just remembered that when I was at walter reed the only decent bar around was called the shephard park inn. It was full of diplomats , bikers , and exotic female dancers. I became friends with a young woman from columbia who was making about $800.00 a night and was paying her way thru graduate school with a phyc major ,she would become a doctor. She was beautiful and a class dancer. after the stage she would dissapeer and then change into nice street clothes and slip out the side door and go home and study.
Guess waiting tables was beneath her? Seen many towns where major universities were located had several adult entertainment venues in close proximity. Lotsa girls dance their way through college, just cause it's easy money. Always found it funny that if a girl sleeps with a professor to make the grade or turns tricks to pay for college she's considered a dishonest whore but if she dances it's okay. Wonder if your friend openly tells folks how she made her money during her college years? I know I would be embarrased if my mom, sister, daughter, wife, or even cousin were working in such an establishment.

Perhaps your friend also told you about how many of those girls aren't above trading "favors" with the managers to get the Friday or Saturday night spots when the volumes are the highest and the most money is being made. Or how it's easy money for a dealer cause all they do is hafta show up and those girls are lining up to buy. Should have asked how many lap dances she was required to perform every night and how much of a take the management got from each dance. Takes a certain mentality to work there and will tell you I've known a couple strippers before, during, and after their choice of employment. And every single one without exception were concerned with one thing, money. Every one of them did their job in another city and told their parents and relatives they were doing other jobs besides stripping. And once they stopped dancing every one of them saw no problem with exploiting or deceiving their friends if they wanted something. Strang coincidence I assume.

one hand clapping

September 04, 2010, 11:26

Ya'll miss'n my point, First Molotove , Stick your judgemental prig faux christian "i know they only right path" up your judgemental ass.
You sure display that christos love and kindness real good.
Lame Ministers DO sin and steal and dance and Do give their flock Physic "head" while tell'n ya what you should be ashamed of and how ya should get down on yer knees and seek forgiveness al the while with thier eyes wide open and thier hand in your pocket. How many catholic priests to date have been outed?? how bout Jimmie Swaggart and his sexual antics??,Pat robertson always having some attractive young woman at his side?You come across like one limited sad sac. Your fundalmentalist world veiw is NO BETTER than yer cousin mohamad's, who we happen to be at war with cause we don't want no rag head tell'n us good christians how to live, right? Well I don't want no Do gooder "faux christian" telling me shit till ya get yer OWN danm house in order. Start pay'n attention to all yer brethern that are runn'n amoke and help them first. I'm do'n just fine with my creator and don't need no stink'n religious badges. now go peddle yer "I know the only path "speal to somebody who needs someone to tell them how to live.- You know, another weak in spirit and wandering directional less in the suburbs types -you got work to do so stop wasteing time here. get out there and walk yer talk . you got souls to save!!

One Hane Clapping
US army retired

A believer in god not men

Brett

September 04, 2010, 13:37

Amen.

the gman

September 04, 2010, 14:31

Originally posted by molotov

Would you rather your mechanic pussyfoot around in regards to the condition of your automobile or would you rather a straightforward and easy to understand diagnosis?

Prostitution is unlawful inside Vegas city limits. I'm certain they have vice squads to deal with illicit prostitution.

I don't recall endorsing stone throwing when it comes to strippers or strip clubs operating in my area. If some are offended because I call an adulterer and adulterer, it ain't my problem. Some people can't handle being called out for their sins. It was the same in Jesus' time, so it's no surprise I am getting negative feedback, even from the so called "christians" on the board. To me, it is validating the truthfulness of my statements.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957968082/" title="christianity-my-god-has-a-hammer-your-god-was-nailed-to-a-cross-400x500 by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4957968082_ee90bfaccb.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="christianity-my-god-has-a-hammer-your-god-was-nailed-to-a-cross-400x500" /></a>

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

the gman

September 04, 2010, 14:35

Originally posted by molotov

When you know right from wrong, logic and reason isn't necessary. Those are greek inventions, not Christian ones.:)

The only people who are free are others that believe as I do. The rest are in bondage to their lusts and other sinful desires.

Name calling is the mark of a man who has already lost the discussion.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957968128/" title="faithdi3 by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4957968128_342539a472.jpg" width="478" height="500" alt="faithdi3" /></a>

shlomo

September 04, 2010, 15:07

Originally posted by the gman

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957968128/" title="faithdi3 by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4957968128_342539a472.jpg" width="478" height="500" alt="faithdi3" /></a>

What are you tryin' to say here?

Are you sayin' that Jesus Christ can't hit the curve ball???

Brett

September 04, 2010, 15:18

You can tell the Pope has faith just by looking...He's wearing no seat belt.

BAS

September 04, 2010, 16:28

Originally posted by the gman

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957968082/" title="christianity-my-god-has-a-hammer-your-god-was-nailed-to-a-cross-400x500 by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4957968082_ee90bfaccb.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="christianity-my-god-has-a-hammer-your-god-was-nailed-to-a-cross-400x500" /></a>

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

+1 :biggrin:
'(see signature line)

Bjørn

molotov

September 04, 2010, 17:41

First Molotove , Stick your judgemental prig faux christian "i know they only right path" up your judgemental ass.

Conversely, you claim the right path and are heard endorsing dens of perversion. I never claimed the right path, I only claimed that strip clubs were wrong and immoral based on G-d's law.

You sure display that christos love and kindness real good.

Thanks, I think so. Like I said, I have friends who are fornicators. I don't hesitate to warn them of their behavior and tell them as such. If you brag to me your fornications and I have to hear about it I am going to tell you "wrong road" because I actually hate to see people do that to themselves. Doesn't mean they aren't my friends or that I think less of them.

If I instead coddled and heeded their stories of debauchery and nodded my head like every other sinner out there they would just continue unwarned and perhaps I could incur offense myself for not saying anything. So I consider it an obligation.

Lame Ministers DO sin and steal and dance and Do give their flock Physic "head" while tell'n ya what you should be ashamed of and how ya should get down on yer knees and seek forgiveness al the while with thier eyes wide open and thier hand in your pocket.

I don't think anyone is denying that, but we are talking about strip clubs not what I agree is a modern corrupt church system; a business.

Everyone knows the ministers and the strip clubs are wrong. Some here don't think strip clubs are wrong and others here do. Either G-d has drawn a judgment line or their isn't one, and if there isn't one, you have no grounds to criticize me for being "judgmental" to begin with. I haven't judged, G-d's word has.:)

the gman

September 05, 2010, 00:42

Who says your God is correct? And this is what I think of those who shout loudest about being a good Christian whilst having one the narrowest minds on the FAL Files....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957376059/" title="hypocritical christians by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4957376059_e9bd6e0883.jpg" width="378" height="500" alt="hypocritical christians" /></a>

molotov

September 05, 2010, 06:00

Who says your God is correct?

If there isn't a law giver, then there is only man's law and therefore no real law at all and so then you have no standards to begin with other than the one's you have invented in your own mind.

And this is what I think of those who shout loudest about being a good Christian whilst having one the narrowest minds on the FAL Files....

Gee, I don't know how I'll ever get over your opinion of me.:rolleyes:

the gman

September 05, 2010, 07:05

Real Christian attitude you have there Molocock, guess Jesus encourages you to be a bigot in his teachings right?

Personally, I think you are one brick short of a full load & get your jollies by inflaming threads & posting the wildest shit just to get a rise from folks. In other words, you're nothing but a troll.

You're lower than snakeshit in a wagon rut on my giveafuckmeter so carry on showing the rest of the world what a sorry ass excuse for a person you are, sure ain't gonna affect my day.

BTW:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53695313@N08/4957968058/" title="bible pics or it didn't happen by thegman2484, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/4957968058_68e60a7440.jpg" width="320" height="256" alt="bible pics or it didn't happen" /></a>

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :devil:

shlomo

September 05, 2010, 07:23

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ai3SH7Re-z0/TDX7CTqKPDI/AAAAAAAAAOc/dZUWcMj3idg/s400/beavis-and-butthead.jpg

,,,heh-heh-heh-heh... he forgot to say, "cockholster". Heh-heh-heh.

L Haney

September 05, 2010, 07:44

Shlomo, you post ONE more pic of me and Bama Steve and you got some answerin' to do.

shlomo

September 05, 2010, 07:47

Watch it, Haney. I'll sic the GP on ya. A cudgel don't ever need a reload.

Just ask yer bud.

L Haney

September 05, 2010, 07:49

Cudgel my ass. This be the innerwebs. Wiffle bats at best.

shlomo

September 05, 2010, 07:52

A whiffle bat can still give ya the butthurt.

Unless yer a hardass like "the" gman.

JDRoberts

September 05, 2010, 09:19

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/hsbrafiki/GodsFans.jpg

molotov

September 05, 2010, 09:51

Real Christian attitude you have there Molocock, guess Jesus encourages you to be a bigot in his teachings right?

Luke 6:45

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

Personally, I think you are one brick short of a full load & get your jollies by inflaming threads & posting the wildest shit just to get a rise from folks.

It's a forum, where thoughts and ideas are posted and others respond. Sometimes the responses aren't what we want to hear from others, but still, they are entitled to their viewpoints.

You're lower than snakeshit in a wagon rut on my giveafuckmeter so carry on showing the rest of the world what a sorry ass excuse for a person you are, sure ain't gonna affect my day.

If you had a legitimate argument, I might be able to concede you a point or two, but you have only foul language, name calling, and derision.

brunop

September 05, 2010, 14:39

Originally posted by molotov

Would you rather your mechanic pussyfoot around in regards to the condition of your automobile or would you rather a straightforward and easy to understand diagnosis?

Uh, Molotov? You aren't the physician. Might want to look into that. From your mistaken and self-appointed position stem all the other problems you create for yourself.

...some people can't handle being called out for their sins. It was the same in Jesus' time, so it's no surprise I am getting negative feedback, even from the so called "christians" on the board. To me, it is validating the truthfulness of my statements.

See above. Your validation is in need of calibration.

Again, it is good to be against a strip joint in your neighborhood or elsewhere. But you apparently are happier to flog other people and accomplish nothing regarding your stated aims rather than conduct a decent discussion about them seeing your side.

Have fun being 'right' in your own head.

molotov

September 06, 2010, 06:18

But you apparently are happier to flog other people and accomplish nothing regarding your stated aims rather than conduct a decent discussion about them seeing your side.

I did conduct a biblically sound discussion and was cussed out and called names. I received the flogging, not handed it out. My viewpoints were attacked and it is clear I successfully defended them using scripture.

Everyone else gave up because they have no defense for the sin of lust, fornication, adultery, and the like.

James 4:17

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."

Have fun being 'right' in your own head.

G-d's word is always right, and from it have drawn multiple quotes proving my argument.

the gman

September 06, 2010, 08:42

Only if everyone else believes in your God & the tripe that is contained in the biggest joke book in the world, the Bible. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The "word of God"?? Riiiight. Of course it is in the same way that Caesar's axe is the same one after 3 new handles & 2 new heads. It's the absolute truth, despite man having re-written it numerous times to suit whichever Pope or other despot decreed that the 'word of God' be adjusted to reflect their bias.

Nice bed time story with some decent ideas in it but the "Gospel"? Please.

In addition, as we have religious freedom in the USA, thank goodness that you & your fellow crackpots are free to practice your insanity but lack the ability to force it upon me & mine.

Now crawl back under your rock, hypocrite.:tongue:

FAL freek

September 06, 2010, 09:29

Originally posted by the gman

The "word of God"?? Riiiight. Of course it is in the same way that Caesar's axe is the same one after 3 new handles & 2 new heads. It's the absolute truth, despite man having re-written it numerous times to suit whichever Pope or other despot decreed that the 'word of God' be adjusted to reflect their bias.
Actually the Bible is almost ver batem with the Dead Sea Scrolls many of which were written before the common era. All books in the Bible with the exception of the Book of Ester were included in the cache of scrolls.

shlomo

September 06, 2010, 09:42

Gotta tell ya--the term, "common era" bugs me.

Just sayin'.

RG Coburn

September 06, 2010, 14:31

You clowns should all just follow me and become "fishers of men"....

martin35

September 06, 2010, 16:29

Derision of God has it's reactive realities when one faces eternity, dying men seek God with the frantic thoughts of a drowning man grasping at straws for salvation.
When the light is bright I will dance, frolic and make light of every serious thought ,,, when the night is dark and black I will fearfully seek a protector for all that I am,,, if nobody said that before they should have, it seems a natural thought..
Molotov your being mocked is a often used ploy of the uncommitted,,, I fear uncommttment more than mockery,,, and I still have a folic occasionally.

Firestarter

September 06, 2010, 16:35

Somebody please post up a "happy spot" to make this thread fair. :tongue:

martin35

September 06, 2010, 16:39

I'm happy thinking a soul or some essence of being is essential to be a human.
Somebody please post up a "happy spot" to make this thread fair.
Please define "happy spot".

molotov

September 06, 2010, 17:00

Actually the Bible is almost ver batem with the Dead Sea Scrolls many of which were written before the common era.

So much for contesting it's authenticity. Only problem is, in the information age, many people will believe whatever "source" suits themselves best.

Nice bed time story with some decent ideas in it but the "Gospel"? Please

Like I said, I don't have to look at human beings as pieces of meat. I will concede it is a daily battle, as it is for any normal man, but G-d has given me a respite of sorts. What few prayers I dared to say were answered. For me, that respite was good news as the Word of G-d is good news.

It's like someone paying your bond from jail. Set free from sin. Freedom was good news to me. Sorry my version of freedom angers you.

In addition, as we have religious freedom in the USA

I believe it's true meaning was more connected to "which christian denomination are you" and the freedom to be such. It was only later when atheist and commie infiltrators got hold of the school system that the rise of pagan religions and deviant sexual practices came into the open as they have in the past 20 years.

Now crawl back under your rock, hypocrite.

I noticed you were pretty angry in another thread with a whole other group of forum members. I'll wager that there is more in your life going on than just old molotov and a couple other FAL lovers making life hard for you. I hope you are well though.:)

Molotov your being mocked is a often used ploy of the uncommitted,,, I fear uncommttment more than mockery,,, and I still have a folic occasionally.

Well martin, I appreciate your understanding and I feel the same way. I have been trying hard to be committed as of late. Lots of people are making food and ammo preps right now as there are a multitude who see hard times coming. Most of us will agree to that.

I have been asking myself quite a bit the past year or two what kind of person I would be if I physically prepared for my wife and children but did not spiritually prepare. It seemed to me that I would have overlooked the most important prep.

martin35

September 06, 2010, 17:09

I am known as intolerant and bigoted. My views do not reflect the views of the FAL files forum or other members.
Some do some don't.

Munster30

September 06, 2010, 18:03

Originally posted by Firestarter
Somebody please post up a "happy spot" to make this thread fair. :tongue: Post up the "Happy Spot" and it's bound to wind up in the basement. :tongue:

martin35

September 06, 2010, 18:41

Post up the "Happy Spot" and it's bound to wind up in the basement.
Sometimes you tickle me, Gyrine. Like now.

martin35

September 06, 2010, 19:03

I think I nailed this guy's momma back in another life.

Firestarter

September 06, 2010, 20:04

Originally posted by martin35
I think I nailed this guy's momma back in another life.

Hell Martin, considering your age it was probably still in THIS life. :tongue:

:beer:

martin35

September 06, 2010, 21:01

It takes a lot of perseverence to hacksaw a Viking chick out of her Fredrick the Iron Smith do dads,,, even when they help. A boatload of'm can take all night

Firestarter

September 06, 2010, 23:06

Originally posted by martin35
It takes a lot of perseverence to hacksaw a Viking chick out of her Fredrick the Iron Smith do dads,,, even when they help. A boatload of'm can take all night

:bow: You are the man! :bow: :beer:

RG Coburn

September 06, 2010, 23:45

Originally posted by Firestarter
Somebody please post up a "happy spot" to make this thread fair. :tongue:

http://www.sherwinshootingsports.com/images/MiniDeluxe1-600-4.jpg

Its up to you to find it....

brunop

September 07, 2010, 00:24

@ Molotov -

Yes, the word of God is always right. Misapplication of his word to make a fight with people doesn't "prove" anything. Except to you.

@ FAL freek -

The Dead Sea Scrolls are almost verbatim with the Bible? I'm no linguist, but I would be shocked to find out that oral tradition, old texts, and Greek translations made it to English and remained word-for-word with another NON-SOURCE document.

There are 20,000 versions of the Bible translated on this earth. Which one are you talking about - the King James?

Finally - the thing which is damn-near verbatim with very old source documents is the Torah - of which there are only two or three versions extant: one is different by one word, and the other by two.

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God as long as it is translated properly.

@ the gman and others

Christianity shouldn't be forced on anyone. Christ wouldn't suggest that path for sure, and if the Christian version of Religion is correct, His Atonement was part of a plan wherein everyone could make their own choices.

Meanwhile, societal 'mores' or 'ethical conventions' can roughly equal 'morality', can't they? And can't a society decide for itself 'what goes' and what doesn't? Nevada & prostitution vs. the other states is one example. A guy can fight for no strip clubs without putting Christ on you - and if you disagree, there should be a dialogue.

Finally, Christianity is a faith-based religion. So is Atheism. Our version of 'crazy' is the oft-repeated joke about the crucified baby-god who 'taught' his worshippers to eat his flesh and drink his blood to become 'clean'. While that is strictly Catholic, and a massive over-simplification, I get the joke.

Meanwhile, your version of 'crazy' is that there was a dark and empty phosphorous and carbon-rich environment on Earth. Then lightning struck, and little bitty rocks and things that weren't alive became alive magically. Then accidentally random changes were selected billions of times in a row despite the fact that they didn't help the new magically alive beings compete for anything until much, much later in the development sequence. And frogs became whales, horses, dogs, monkeys, dragon flies, hummingbirds, and spiders. And then, because there isn't enough matter in the entire known universe to account for all the random changes that would have had to have happened, scientists now postulate that we aren't in a universe, but in a "multi-verse" where the changes COULD have had the time and matter to make the random march towards organization (entropy and thermo-dynamics, anyone?) - AND (happily) all the changes crossed the barriers of the "multi-verse" and all ended up here (and there, too, no doubt).

So while it is your right to be derisive of the "joke" of Christianity, your glass house looks target-rich for the same stones you throw.

I suggest detente between the two sides. We might learn to appreciate things about each other that we currently misunderstand.

Peace.

Brett

September 07, 2010, 00:24

What's the string for.......price tag?

martin35

September 07, 2010, 01:05

brunop your reply is very well thought out and issue oriented not a personal attack with little subjective relivance. Your points are well presented.

molotov

September 07, 2010, 06:00

Yes, the word of God is always right. Misapplication of his word to make a fight with people doesn't "prove" anything. Except to you.

There was no "misapplication" at all.

Exodus 20:7

"You shall not commit adultery."

Proverbs 6:32

"The one who commits ADULTERY with a woman is lacking in understanding; he that does it DESTROYS HIS OWN SOUL."

1 Corinthians 6:18-20,

"FLEE FORNICATION! Every SIN that a man doeth is without the body; but he hat committeth FORNICATION SINNETH AGAINST HIS OWN BODY. WHAT! Know ye not that your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are NOT YOUR OWN? For ye are BOUGHT WITH A PRICE; therefore glorify God in YOUR BODY, and in your spirit, WHICH ARE GOD'S."

Matthew 5:27-29

"You have heard that it was said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to LUST AFTER HER has COMMITTED ADULTERY with her already in HIS HEART. And if your right eye make you stumble (lust after another) tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your WHOLE BODY TO GO INTO HELL!"

Galatians 5:19-21

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, ADULTERY, FORNICATION, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, THAT THEY WHICH DO SUCH THINGS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD."

Mark 10:11-12

He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Or donâ€™t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Donâ€™t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals"

1 Corinthians 6:13

"Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods,â€ but God will bring to nothing both it and them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body."

Galatians 5:21

"envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

Ephesians 5:3-5

"But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints; nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not appropriate; but rather giving of thanks. Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God."

Hebrews 13:4

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

brunop

September 07, 2010, 11:19

Originally posted by molotov

...God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

Emphasis on "God", as He will be the judge. Not you. Again, you are neither the auto mechanic nor the Physician - despite your previous posts.

Are you the guy who stands on the corner and shouts at all the passers-by that they are sinners and that they need to come to the Lord? You know how many people that guy reaches, right? Zero.

Guess what - he's quoting the Scriptures to absolutely no avail. He is, however, probably creating some negative impact. Meanwhile, he's just pleased with himself, and accomplishing nothing.

brunop

September 07, 2010, 11:24

Martin -

We are all on the same side, eventually. And life is better if we defend our positions while recognizing that intelligent, well-meaning people may see things differently.

I'm also trying to get at the heart of the matter - something for which you have a talent.

Peace.

molotov

September 07, 2010, 14:55

Emphasis on "God", as He will be the judge. Not you.

Never said I was judging, I merely noted the scriptures and they do indeed support my position that it (adultery, fornication, strip clubs, etc) is immoral.

Perhaps you are being a little too judgmental of me yourself.

Again, you are neither the auto mechanic nor the Physician - despite your previous posts.

You missed the analogy. It was comparative to a simple diagnosis read in a straightforward manner. I didn't mean to imply I was Mr. Fixit himself.

Are you the guy who stands on the corner and shouts at all the passers-by that they are sinners and that they need to come to the Lord?

First off, a street preacher has more guts than most can dream of having.

Second, I reckoned you'd get to this. In other words, the only place you think preaching the gospel belongs is in the church. If such is the case then I challenge you to explain this away:

Mark 16:15

"And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone."

So, unless you believe Christ meant "world" meaning "all the churches" you just contradicted the G-d you supposedly follow.

You know how many people that guy reaches, right? Zero.

Preaching the gospel in the streets was the way Christianity had it's beginnings. It was the way of Christ and the Apostles. If they hadn't preached in the streets you would probably never have heard of Jesus Christ because it never would've taken off. It is one of the foundations of spreading the gospel and sadly many American churches have rejected it. Kind of ironic when you analyze the state of our churches today, who lack the most basic foundational doctrinal concepts and reject the most traditional of morals and commandments, don't you think?

Many thousands, millions perhaps, have converted via street preaching. Ever heard of John Wesley? George Whitefield? Ray Comfort? Kirk Cameron?...lol

It's sad that your distaste for my rigid views on immorality have reduced you to outright lying. And if you ain't lying, your ignorance has just overwhelmed you.

Outlaw Patriot

September 07, 2010, 15:36

Originally posted by molotov

Because they are immoral. Fifty years ago the vice squads would've shut them down and you would've gone to jail for your patronizing a smut factory. But because you and the other smut patrons bought into the Playboy lifestyle you think that there is no wrongdoing with your actions. You are mistaken.

Sounds like you need to move to a more liberal and tolerant place like NYC, LA, or maybe Vegas. Have fun.

A smut club in my neighborhood is my business. If the residents don't want it there then it ought not be.

It isnt the government's job to legislate based on morality unless there is a victim.

If you dont want it in your neighborhood you should have to follow the same legal process you would if you were trying to get rid of an airport or shooting range in your neighborhood. Passing a law that flat out bans them is just as immoral since the state does not have the right to legislate morality, despite the feeling of self righteous do gooders with no lives to the contrary.

I have never been in a strip club and never will, but you have NO right to ban such things just because having one on the other side of town from you offends your sensibilities. You have no right to not be offended. Harden up.

No children are going to be traumatized by the mere existence of a strip club. Girls may sacrifice their dignity and guys may piss off their wives, but neither of those things are any of my or your concern.

On the subject of religion, I would fight for any religion to have their rights as long as they werent hurting anything, but religions need to stop being treated like non profit charities just because they sometimes help the poor. They need to be taxed like any other company.

Molotov, you are why people HATE religion. Listen very closely, see if you can understand this, people hate hypocrisy, you profess to follow the beliefs of Christianity, but put absolutely NO value, as far as I can tell, on the MOST IMPORTANT teachings of Jesus.

You need to cleanse your heart of hatred vileness and spite. You need to learn to love your neighbor, forgive him his sins, and let go of your hatred for those that are different than you. It isnt your job to pass judgment, you arrogant blasphemer. Isn't that God's job?

If you had more faith then you'd try to convert people to your views by inspiring love in them, instead of beating them over the head with your tired rhetoric of hatred.

molotov

September 07, 2010, 16:36

Listen very closely, see if you can understand this, people hate hypocrisy, you profess to follow the beliefs of Christianity, but put absolutely NO value, as far as I can tell, on the MOST IMPORTANT teachings of Jesus.

That's a cop out though. To downplay what G-d has deemed immoral by attacking what may or may not be my personal misgivings doesn't then make said offense no longer immoral.

You are doing what two or three others have attempted to do, which is to divert attention away from G-d's law by attacking my supposed moral/ministerial failings. Trouble with that is this thread isn't about my moral or ministerial failings but rather about strip clubs being regulated and so more or less you are off topic.

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals"

You need to cleanse your heart of hatred vileness and spite.

I have done that already. As always, a work in progress, but there is no one I can honestly say I hate. Too much emotional investment involved in hate. It is taxing to the body and soul. Even science has concluded it is hard on the body.

You need to learn to love your neighbor, forgive him his sins, and let go of your hatred for those that are different than you.

Show me where I wasn't forgiving of someone's sins in this thread? In fact, I have been more than forgiving of the mockery, name calling, and derision that others have and you are currently directing at me.

Prove to me that you know my heart well enough that you can say I have not let go of hatred for those different than me. You can't.

It isnt your job to pass judgment, you arrogant blasphemer.

Nice try with the insults, but no dice. I didn't pass judgment on anyone but myself for my own past sexual misdeeds. And I have turned from those misdeeds.

However, I did make clear G-d's judgment against those who refuse to repent of their sexual immoralities. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference.

Isn't that God's job?

Correct. And it's the believers job to convey and share with others what G-d has deemed right and wrong. If I hadn't said it, nobody would have. If I had not spoken up, this thread would be at the bottom of the page long ago. But since the Word of G-d so inflames the sinner, it has gone on for two pages which now mainly consist of attacks against me rather than my argument, which is that strip clubs are immoral. Not one of you have been able to bring forth one iota of evidence showing me to be wrong in regards to the immoral nature of such establishments.

So what it all boils down to is a bunch of boys who aren't man enough to handle the truth of G-d's commands. No one wants to be told they are a dirty fornicator but the fact remains that anyone who even so looks upon a woman with lust has committed sin and will not inherit the kingdom unless he repent and turn to Christ.

The fact that the hate for the message I have shared only grows just makes me grow more and more reassured that I am correct in my assessments of strip clubs, prostitution, and sexual immorality in general. To reply is to strengthen me and harden me towards your future debasements of my character. Are you getting this?

Keep up the insults, you might inspire me to greatness.:)

If you had more faith then you'd try to convert people to your views by inspiring love in them, instead of beating them over the head with your tired rhetoric of hatred.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Rhetoric of hatred? Are you with the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center?...lol..lol

You just don't want to hear it. You don't want to hear that the sexually immoral are destined for the fires of hell. I believe it is because many here actually love their sins, their fornications, drunkenness, and debaucheries. Their behavior towards me causes me to conclude it as such.

Sure, I can relate to cherishing sins. I have done so in the past and am willing to admit it, others are not.

Proverbs 9:7

"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Proverbs 9:8

"Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you."

shlomo

September 07, 2010, 17:35

"....and thus I clothe my naked villainy with old odd-ends stolen forth from Holy Writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the Devil".

molotov

September 07, 2010, 17:45

"....and thus I clothe my naked villainy with old odd-ends stolen forth from Holy Writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the Devil".

Would be one thing if I had cherry picked a verse or two in regards to sexual sins, but I have enumerated many verses from many different parts of the bible in order to show that the G-d of the bible universally condemns such behavior.

shlomo

September 07, 2010, 17:53

Why did you think that referred to you?

molotov

September 07, 2010, 17:58

Why did you think that referred to you?

You posted it directly after my post. I am the only one who used scripture to defend my stance on the subject matter.

As I said though, I didn't pick "old odd ends" of scripture, but rather gave the forum a wide ranging group of scriptures to back my point. In theological discussions having more than one scrip to back your viewpoint is critical.

shlomo

September 07, 2010, 18:03

Originally posted by molotov

In theological discussions having more than one scrip to back your viewpoint is critical.

Only if the customer is buyin' what you're sellin'.

Outlaw Patriot

September 07, 2010, 19:00

Originally posted by molotov

That's a cop out though. To downplay what G-d has deemed immoral by attacking what may or may not be my personal misgivings doesn't then make said offense no longer immoral.

You are doing what two or three others have attempted to do, which is to divert attention away from G-d's law by attacking my supposed moral/ministerial failings. Trouble with that is this thread isn't about my moral or ministerial failings but rather about strip clubs being regulated and so more or less you are off topic.

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals"

I have done that already. As always, a work in progress, but there is no one I can honestly say I hate. Too much emotional investment involved in hate. It is taxing to the body and soul. Even science has concluded it is hard on the body.

Show me where I wasn't forgiving of someone's sins in this thread? In fact, I have been more than forgiving of the mockery, name calling, and derision that others have and you are currently directing at me.

Prove to me that you know my heart well enough that you can say I have not let go of hatred for those different than me. You can't.

Nice try with the insults, but no dice. I didn't pass judgment on anyone but myself for my own past sexual misdeeds. And I have turned from those misdeeds.

However, I did make clear G-d's judgment against those who refuse to repent of their sexual immoralities. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference.

Correct. And it's the believers job to convey and share with others what G-d has deemed right and wrong. If I hadn't said it, nobody would have. If I had not spoken up, this thread would be at the bottom of the page long ago. But since the Word of G-d so inflames the sinner, it has gone on for two pages which now mainly consist of attacks against me rather than my argument, which is that strip clubs are immoral. Not one of you have been able to bring forth one iota of evidence showing me to be wrong in regards to the immoral nature of such establishments.

So what it all boils down to is a bunch of boys who aren't man enough to handle the truth of G-d's commands. No one wants to be told they are a dirty fornicator but the fact remains that anyone who even so looks upon a woman with lust has committed sin and will not inherit the kingdom unless he repent and turn to Christ.

The fact that the hate for the message I have shared only grows just makes me grow more and more reassured that I am correct in my assessments of strip clubs, prostitution, and sexual immorality in general. To reply is to strengthen me and harden me towards your future debasements of my character. Are you getting this?

Keep up the insults, you might inspire me to greatness.:)

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Rhetoric of hatred? Are you with the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center?...lol..lol

You just don't want to hear it. You don't want to hear that the sexually immoral are destined for the fires of hell. I believe it is because many here actually love their sins, their fornications, drunkenness, and debaucheries. Their behavior towards me causes me to conclude it as such.

Sure, I can relate to cherishing sins. I have done so in the past and am willing to admit it, others are not.

Proverbs 9:7

"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Proverbs 9:8

"Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you."

Wow, you talk a whole lot.

I'm not downplaying anything, I dont go to strip clubs or do any of the other stuff youre ranting about.

YOU are downplaying the fact that you are angry self righteous hateful zealot that does not respect other people's right to their own beliefs.

I also have not insulted you or called you names. I called you a blasphemer because you use the Lord's Word to spread the word of HATE which is the language of the devil.

This has been a most enlightening look inside the mind of an insane zealot, thank you.

molotov

September 07, 2010, 20:13

YOU are downplaying the fact that you are angry self righteous hateful zealot that does not respect other people's right to their own beliefs.

And so the guy tossing the jedi insults around says I'm not respecting the beliefs of others. If respecting the beliefs of others means nodding in approval of sexual misdeeds, then no, I do not respect them.

If respecting the beliefs of others means conceding that strip clubs and houses of ill repute will exist legally or illegally in the current future, I would say yes, I can respect that.

As for my zealotry, the name callers only egg me on to enlightenment. 'Preciate that.:)

Only if the customer is buyin' what you're sellin'.

Always assume the sale.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

J/K

martin35

September 07, 2010, 22:01

Whores are very well thought of, even revered in our country we elect them to high office and give them lifetime pensions,,, morality is of little use in our present system of conduct.

the gman

September 07, 2010, 22:31

I'll readily agree with martin here; brunop posted a very cogent, well thought out & articulate response to the issue. Reason I throw bricks at molotov & the like is simply because of his relatively unthinking, rabid, simple repeating of what he has been conditioned to believe is the 'truth'.

At no point did I say I was an atheist nor that I necessarily believe or disbelieve in the 'miracle' of God creating this world. I am certainly not buying into the whole 6 day creation idea nor does the purely scientific explanation find favor with me for precisely many of the reasons you posted.

I personally am far more swayed by the idea that an ancient race of extra terrestrials are responsible for this great experiment we call the human race & Earth. It tidily explains many things such as why there are perfect geometric patterns all over the world (but most famously in S. America) that cannot be seen except from the air yet were laid down thousands of years prior to man being able to fly. Where do the dinosaurs fit into the story of Genesis? Or our Neolithic ancestors given that Adam & Eve were far in advance of them in terms of evolution if one believes the Bible?

I believe in good & evil as I have met several extremely evil people in this world as well as some the most selfless & generous people you could ever wish to meet. Unlike the unrealistic teachings of certain aspects of Christianity, I do not believe that everyone is either worthy or capable of redemption. There are some on this planet who simply need to be exterminated without much further thought than one would give to stepping on a cockroach. They are evil to their very core & simply removing them would brighten the world to no end.

Sadly, we seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that every life is worth something as opposed to the reality of the opposite being true. But I digress.

I love the South Park skit that had a large group of folks in Hell in front of the tour guide & they were all questioning how they had arrived there. Understandably, many were miffed for they thought they were following the one true path that would take them to Heaven & wanted to know if they weren't right, who was? In the skit, the correct answer was the Mormons which was pretty funny but in reality, we could all sit down & ask ourselves that same question.

I have & frankly, lacking a bolt from the blue or divine inspiration, I just find it incredibly difficult to be as dogmatic & absolutely (with zero doubt) sure of the right religion as someone like molotov appears to be. Maybe that makes him a better person than I but I have, for some reason, a deep rooted suspicion of those so fanatically certain of their pure rightness such as he is. Such fanaticism has been seen before in groups as varied as those in the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Hitler Youth, fundamentalist Muslims & many others. There is no room for doubt, no option but to follow their ‘truth’ regardless of conflicting evidence or face the consequences that can range from simply being ignored thru execution/torture/extermination of all those that disagree.
What gives people the arrogance, the absolute belief that they & only they have all the answers? I guess all others are heretics & therefore not worthy of consideration? There are other religions that pre-date Christianity & who also believe that their belief is supreme, I guess they have no validity either?

It is indicative of the fanatical belief that molotov has when he states that he believes that the right to religious freedom in this country only applies to Christian faiths. So it’s OK to be a Baptist or Catholic but not a Hindu or Buddhist? Really??

I have tried to debate these questions with religious people & pastors with little success because we never get past “well, the Bible says…..” & that is the end of it.

I’m not trying to convince myself or anyone else of anything; rather I am in search (but not too earnestly) of answers to the bigger questions of life, the universe & everything. I expect to continue the search (in slow time) for the rest of my life. Some, like my ex wife find that horrific & she still worries that I may die without accepting Jesus as my savior & therefore end up in Hell. I appreciate her & other’s concern but frankly, after living my life the best way I know how & not screwing folks over, cheating, lying or generally acting like a scumbag, if I am then refused entry to a nicer place then fcuk ‘em, I was never gonna fit in anyway…..

I don’t think of myself as an angry man & nor do my friends or family; I know because I asked. I have a low tolerance level for hypocrites, ignoramuses & arrogant, intolerant people. Often that leads to harsh posts on internet forums that probably wouldn’t occur in face to face discussion. Not that I mean I am ashamed of anything I post; rather that the written word can often be a poor substitute for the spoken word. I don’t pretend to have all or any of the answers but I will continue to look for them.

In the end, freedom of choice must win out as that is what separates the free Republic from the shackles of totalitarianism & oppression. molotov has the freedom to organize, protest & work for the abolition of strip clubs; those who choose to work in or patronize such places also should have the freedom to do so. I do not need to be protected from myself nor should I be; that is not the role of the state. (& I mean ‘state’ in the fullest sense of the word) I am responsible for my own actions & their consequences as is every other free born individual. To say that I am unable to make up my own mind as to the suitability or otherwise of a particular establishment or profession is to remove my free will & right to self determination. These are not the actions of a free society or Republic; they are the actions of a nanny state who seek to control every aspect of the citizen’s life & I want no part of it.

YMMV.:beer:

shlomo

September 07, 2010, 22:36

(the)gman,

That was a cogent, organized, and well-presented post.

But yer still goin' to hell. See you there. :wink:

the gman

September 07, 2010, 22:42

We can't go to Hell mate, there would be AC throughout the joint in a few days & a working sprinkler system within a fortnight........:rofl:

martin35

September 07, 2010, 23:23

A philosophical thought occurs to me, people who find their truth early in life and cling to it don't have to waste their last moments in life frantically looking for what will reconcile all doubt and give them peace.
I may have broken the suicide bombers code here.

Oh yeah the 6 day creation suggests a better work ethic and talent application than most of us have, and the likely use of a calendar we are not familiar with,,, probably not that hard to do in some arenas.

the gman

September 07, 2010, 23:59

Originally posted by martin35
A philosophical thought occurs to me, people who find their truth early in life and cling to it don't have to waste their last moments in life frantically looking for what will reconcile all doubt and give them peace.
I may have broken the suicide bombers code here.

Oh yeah the 6 day creation suggests a better work ethic and talent application than most of us have, and the likely use of a calendar we are not familiar with,,, probably not that hard to do in some arenas.

Fortunately, having already faced what I thought were going to be my last moments on this planet a couple of times, I am already at peace if I happen to be taken any time soon. Doesn't stop me being inquisitive tho' & I'm definitely NOT in any hurry to have the definitive answers laid before me.......:eek: ;) :rofl:

molotov

September 08, 2010, 02:51

Reason I throw bricks at molotov & the like is simply because of his relatively unthinking, rabid, simple repeating of what he has been conditioned to believe is the 'truth'.

"Unthinking"? I've been dwelling on it the better part of my life.

"Rabid"? Yes, I stand for what I believe.

"Simple"? The truth ought to be simple so the common man can understand.

"Conditioned"? I guess if me conditioning myself counts.

I personally am far more swayed by the idea that an ancient race of extra terrestrials are responsible for this great experiment we call the human race & Earth.

An analysis of Sumerian history filtered through the lens of biblical sources points to demonic creatures masquerading as extra terrestrials.

For a time, I pursued those possibilities and looked into it in depth. My final conclusion was that they were indeed demons and offspring of human women and demonic beings.

Where do the dinosaurs fit into the story of Genesis?

Job 40 15-18

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron."

Even some scientists disagree as to whether man may have walked with dinosaur in contrast to popular beliefs that they were extinct millions of years before man. Kind of would explain the "dragons" of legend.

Maybe that makes him a better person than I but I have, for some reason, a deep rooted suspicion of those so fanatically certain of their pure rightness such as he is.

Don't think it makes me a better person than you, it just makes me a better person than I was. Dogmatic and absolute has always worked better for me as I am sort of an all or nothing type of guy.

Such fanaticism has been seen before in groups as varied as those in the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Hitler Youth, fundamentalist Muslims & many others.

Except the difference is I don't believe in using my absolutism to justify violence against others who disagree with me.

It is indicative of the fanatical belief that molotov has when he states that he believes that the right to religious freedom in this country only applies to Christian faiths. So it’s OK to be a Baptist or Catholic but not a Hindu or Buddhist? Really??

No, I never said it was okay to be a Catholic....lol

What gives people the arrogance, the absolute belief that they & only they have all the answers?

I believe either morality is more or less set in stone or it is not. If it is not, then there is no morality and "do what thou wilt" (satanism) is the only rule.

I appreciate her & other’s concern but frankly, after living my life the best way I know how & not screwing folks over, cheating, lying or generally acting like a scumbag, if I am then refused entry to a nicer place then fcuk ‘em, I was never gonna fit in anyway…..

Entry to heaven is not really based on good deeds. If men were all judged by deeds we would all be sent to hell as all men have fallen short of the mark.

I have a low tolerance level for hypocrites, ignoramuses & arrogant, intolerant people.

Low tolerance for intolerance? Does that make sense?

brunop

September 08, 2010, 23:34

Originally posted by molotov
...First off, a street preacher has more guts than most can dream of having.

Second, I reckoned you'd get to this. In other words, the only place you think preaching the gospel belongs is in the church. If such is the case then I challenge you to explain this away:

Mark 16:15

"And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone."

So, unless you believe Christ meant "world" meaning "all the churches" you just contradicted the G-d you supposedly follow.

Preaching the gospel in the streets was the way Christianity had it's beginnings. It was the way of Christ and the Apostles. If they hadn't preached in the streets you would probably never have heard of Jesus Christ because it never would've taken off. It is one of the foundations of spreading the gospel and sadly many American churches have rejected it. Kind of ironic when you analyze the state of our churches today, who lack the most basic foundational doctrinal concepts and reject the most traditional of morals and commandments, don't you think?

Many thousands, millions perhaps, have converted via street preaching. Ever heard of John Wesley? George Whitefield? Ray Comfort? Kirk Cameron?...lol

It's sad that your distaste for my rigid views on immorality have reduced you to outright lying. And if you ain't lying, your ignorance has just overwhelmed you.

You would love for my statements to fit your illogical analysis, but they don't. Here is a simple list of your FAIL for you:

1) I asked if you were the guy who stands on the corner and shouts at people, and you say "In other words, the only place you think preaching the gospel belongs is in the church." FAIL. In an obvious, transparent, easily spotted FAIL kind of way. As in, I said no such thing, but you are creating a straw-man argument so you can keep talking, which leads us to

1.1) You may (now that your FAIL-prop/straw-man argument is made even more transparent) retreat and say "I only asked, which is why my next sentence says "If such is the case...". Not so fast, because you continue to build your counter-straw-man argument on the assumption that your illogical construction is vaild. As in, "...I challenge you to explain this away: blah, blah, blah." This, too, is FAIL.

2) You continue with your new construction when you equate "standing on the corner shouting at people" (what I said) to "Preaching the gospel in the streets" - a comparison that can only be true in so broad a sense as to make roughly anything true: as in "I jumped off the cliff" is the same thing as "I'm flying". FAIL. SO HARD. In other words: No it isn't.

3) Christ didn't stand on the corner and shout at people

4) Christ didn't tell random people walking by that they were sinners, and that they were doomed, etc.

5) Christ did tell people to:

follow him
take his yoke (for it is light)
love their neighbors
treat people the way they wanted to be treated

Christ also served the people he met: he healed them, taught them, fed them, and entreated them to be better. This is what the guy shouting "Sinners!" is doing? Um, no.

Finally, I know quite a bit about street preaching. Ever seen the white shirt and tie-wearing young men on bicycles? Mormon missionaries. Every single young man in our church is 'called' to serve a two year mission. If they accept, they pass a worthiness interview. They take two full years out of their lives to go preach the gospel. But they don't stand on corners and shout at people, and they don't tell people that they are sinners when they don't know anything about them. They take their example from Christ, so they serve the people to whom they are called: teaching English, teaching job skills, building houses, cleaning neighborhoods and other service projects. And all the while they are taking the opportunity to tell people about Christ. Not shouting at them.

In other words, when you call someone a liar because they don't match up to the tortured, straw-man arguments you've created while putting words in their mouths, then you are

(wait for it...)

FAILING.

And lying, too. But in the 'not-exactly-intentional because I didn't even understand what I was saying' kind of FAIL way.

In other words, I forgive you.

:p

molotov

September 09, 2010, 06:41

Mormon missionaries. Every single young man in our church is 'called' to serve a two year mission.

Oh, so preaching from a street corner is un Christ like but doing door to door sales is okay? There is little or no difference between them. They both bring the gospel to the ears of those who didn't ask to hear it, so you trying to make some distinction between the two is comical. You are a funny guy, Bruno.:)

brunop

September 09, 2010, 11:07

Originally posted by molotov

Oh, so preaching from a street corner is un Christ like but doing door to door sales is okay? There is little or no difference between them. They both bring the gospel to the ears of those who didn't ask to hear it...

First of all, I'm the one who said that I know a lot about preaching on the street, so I wasn't saying that one was okay and one was not. I don't believe you don't understand this, so this is another example of you twisting your "understanding" in order to create an argument that works. It does not. Except for you.

Secondly, you still don't get the idea that the guy on the corner shouting at people is counter-productive: he is alienating people. The fact that you don't get this (as if your conduct here and in other threads doesn't perfectly illustrate this anyway...) is further made clear by this quote:

"...they both bring the gospel to the ears of those who didn't ask to hear it..."

Um, no. In one case, a guy is fire-hosing any and all random people who fall under the sound of his voice. In another case, there is a polite knock, and then a request for a few minutes of time. In case #2, the person can say, "no" and shut the door (people do). In case #1, there is no escape.

In case #1, it is all about the shouting guy: he gets to decide. In case #2, it is all about the homeowner: he gets to decide. The fact that you equate these things is why you: a) alienate people (read: drive them away from your position), and b) why you come across as intellectually dishonest. It is why I pointed out that your assessment that they are roughly the same is messed up; it is the falling vs. flying analogy that you completely missed. Yes, Molotov - both people are in mid-air under their own power. It is the same. :rolleyes:

Keep shouting loudly in your head (and keyboard). That way you don't have to hear what people are saying back to you.

brunop

September 09, 2010, 11:22

And, you can have the last word here. I originally got involved to point out to you that you are not helping the cause. That fact is not important to you, so no matter how much you like or justify your method, your results speak for themselves.

Just so you don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I'll make it a little clearer for you:

You are driving down the street in a car. You are going 30 in a 25 mph residential zone. You look down to mess with your radio, and you feel a large impact on your front bumper.

You killed a kid on a tricycle who zoomed out of his parents' driveway. You were going within the legal speed limit - you've done nothing "wrong". You can shout inside your own head over and over and over your new mantra "I was going the speed limit. I was doing what was prescribed by the law. I didn't do anything wrong!", but you know what the results of not paying attention are, though, don't you? Your results speak for themselves.

And, I wanted to weigh in with the gman about Christians not being all bad or entirely crazy. Turns out that I misread his complaint, so I'm sorted out on that. In the end, I find that the non-Christians in this thread are more intellectually honest than some of the Christians seem to be. I just don't want to engage with someone who thinks that repeating over and over, "But I'm using Christ's words to defend my position" makes them a Christian (except in a very, very general, meaningless sense) when they can't even realize that Christ did NOT, in fact, hammer people the way you seem to think is okay (your posts in this thread, the "Sinners!" shouting guy on the corner, etc.). Christ ate with the publicans and sinners. Christ entreated people with the words, "Come, follow me". He did not alienate people as a method. Until you figure this out, you will be missing the whole point of his ministry.

I'm not bent out of shape with you - I just don't understand your position. And nothing you say here helps me get it.

Peace.

Douglas S Graham

September 09, 2010, 11:37

Why can't you type the "o" in the word God?? Just curious. Do you think He will get pissed if he sees his name in print???? Is so, THAT is weird.

brunop

September 09, 2010, 11:52

When I type the word "God", I type it so:

God

which you can see in my previous posts.

But it may stem from Hebrew tradition of not saying or writing the holy name indiscriminately. I notice that Molotov, among others, follows this custom.

one hand clapping

September 09, 2010, 14:03

great observations GMAN. I will point out that I am neither "christian nor athiest, I am a taoist. I acually do my best to walk a similar path as the one Christ walked. I can not tell you how to save your soul cause I'm busy save'n mine 24 / 7 by my actions. I fail to meet my own standards daily , but I am aware of my shortcommings and can tell you why I do what I do and why I think what I think [ along with foot notes for your entertainment.]
I find it sad that so many folks think they need a " middle man" to get them a fix with their god.

I also think the god of the bible was real and extrateristrial -real history in the good book but the old testiment brought up hundreds of more questions for me than it answered. There were many gods here to start - the god of the jews was the one that won the turf battle-- mabey crew members left behind with flying machines? Just ask the greeks who told of gods in flaming chariots- that still does NOT answer "how did it / we / creation all start" .
I personaly think that the bible story is about creation [ genetic engineering here on planet earth in our past ]as oposed to the " begining of all matter and the physical universe. ooor for that matter consiousness.
Still open to learning

martin35

September 09, 2010, 15:17

My sister married a Mormon, their son's went on missions abroad, they did not preach their faith but did service for their assignd mission's congration, they helped with planting and harvests, construction projects and the like, this work was deemed as witnessing and proving their faith. I worry they are too affable.

molotov

September 09, 2010, 16:45

I don't believe you don't understand this, so this is another example of you twisting your "understanding" in order to create an argument that works.

Except the "argument" has nothing to do with what you are lecturing on now.

Secondly, you still don't get the idea that the guy on the corner shouting at people is counter-productive: he is alienating people.

Sure he is. And everyone shouts with joy when the Witnesses and the Elders show up. They couldn't possibly have ever alienated anyone.:rolleyes:

Um, no. In one case, a guy is fire-hosing any and all random people who fall under the sound of his voice. In another case, there is a polite knock, and then a request for a few minutes of time. In case #2, the person can say, "no" and shut the door (people do). In case #1, there is no escape.

Maybe if you could point out the scriptures that show your view to be the correct one and mine to be the incorrect one. But, like the previous argument, you didn't bother using scripture to defeat me, but rather only stated your (and your church's) opinion on street preaching.

As it stands, street preaching has been proven effective, is biblically sound, and is no different from what you do regardless of who in your church told you differently.

For the record, most churches don't approve or engage in either mode of bringing the gospel, so it's not like either of us have the blessing of mainstream christianity.

I suppose next you'll tell me that handing out Gospel tracts on the street is not Christ like either.

In case #1, there is no escape.

In case #1, the person can walk away, ignore, or choose to listen.

In your case #2, the Elders are now aware of your location and will return to your home time and time again until you make the message clear that you aren't interested in being a Witness/Mormon.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud both faiths for doing what they do, but plenty of other christians out there will criticize the mode you support as well.

Keep shouting loudly in your head (and keyboard).

Hey, maybe if you had an argument that was on topic but you've spent the last two pages focusing your energies on what you deem my shortcomings. Don't you know that you just alienate people when you do that?...lol:p

when they can't even realize that Christ did NOT, in fact, hammer people the way you seem to think is okay

John 14:15

"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

Sounds pretty cut and dried and hammer like to me.

Your results speak for themselves.

Except I didn't see anyone volunteering to join the Mormons either. So your results also seem to be speaking for themselves.

But it may stem from Hebrew tradition of not saying or writing the holy name indiscriminately. I notice that Molotov, among others, follows this custom.

Bruno is correct.

Outlaw Patriot

September 09, 2010, 19:20

Originally posted by molotov
Maybe if you could point out the scriptures that show your view to be the correct one and mine to be the incorrect one. But, like the previous argument, you didn't bother using scripture to defeat me, but rather only stated your (and your church's) opinion on street preaching.

Didn't your god give you a conscience? Mine gave me one. I listen to it and dont need to rely on a book. I know when I (or anyone else) is being an asshole. Mormons are mildly annoying, someone yelling and preaching about how everyone different than him are horrible people, well thats just an asshole.

Your idea that anyone you debate with has to use only your sources is ludicrous.

No conscience, continually asserts the ludicrous to be true, fanatical belief, hatred of others, yea, I'd say its pretty clear youre batshit insane.

Oh by the way, I think the mormons going door to door is more about learning humility than really converting people. The thing that bothers me more about the mormons is they piss all over the separation of church and state and stick their nose in other people's business, hey, why does that sound like someone else?

molotov

September 09, 2010, 20:01

Your idea that anyone you debate with has to use only your sources is ludicrous.

It's kind of standard procedure in the christian community to back up your theological arguments with scripture.

No conscience, continually asserts the ludicrous to be true, fanatical belief, hatred of others, yea, I'd say its pretty clear youre batshit insane.

And there again is your OT non-argument. Nothing but insults. Funny you criticize me for "judging" and then sink to my supposed level (and lower)by jumping down my throat the same way. Kind of makes you an insane hypocrite who shows his hatred of those he disagrees with.

the gman

September 09, 2010, 22:41

Ah, ya got me with the low tolerance thing molotov, it really doesn't make sense.;) How about I lack patience instead? That work for you?

I don't have time for a full discussion or refutation of numerous of your points but you could ponder the following:

You say that you can't get into heaven thru good works, yet in your version you could be a bastard your entire life, repent, be saved & enter? Stick that kind of heaven up your arse mate, I want no part of that kind of ridiculous nonsense. Again, it's according to you & what you have been brainwashed to believe rather than anything else.

I am also not persuaded that the quote from Job refers to dinosaurs. Certainly the remaining story of Genesis with Adam & Eve has zero references to people whose remains have been found who are different from us & by inference, them. There is also no getting away from the problem that Genesis, as written, means the human race was founded on incest, either Cain with Eve or as the Jubilee's have it, with his sister. Neither proposition finds favor with me. YMMV.

More as I find time & energy.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 09, 2010, 23:20

Wow this thread is still going? I haven't checked in days. I know Molotov's type and don't really want to waste any time dealing with a person who puts believing in front of thinking. Until he can answer this:

Actual harm to your life, liberty, or property Molotov.....

He proves he's a moron without the ability to reason or think using logic. OH, and before you whine that was a Greek invention remind yourself, so was FREEDOM! The Jews of the Bible lived under a King......he'd like that too as long as the King believed the way he did.

Personally I believe I'm going to follow the teachings of Rev. Al. I'm going to do everything I can to make them law and force you to follow them as well. You know, what works for the Goose works for the Gander...Right!?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dj4GVyKYpZI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dj4GVyKYpZI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Long Live The Church Of No Ma'am!!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OcvRYPH0fOc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OcvRYPH0fOc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae67/Bigger_Is_Better/n1044718184_147322_9968.jpg

Pistolwiz

September 09, 2010, 23:47

The state should not meddle. If the locals at County/City decide that it's OK or not. That's their affair. IMHO.

Jesus didn't chase after the woman at the well to check on her and make sure she's a good girl and restrict her and make her pay penance or anything. She had choice that God gave us all to do as we see fit. We all fall short. Some are just shorter than others is all. I may be an unraptured midget. But I do try like most folks to be good.

But it is not my best interest. Or the interest of others to tell them what to do or not do in their own county/city. My own? I would prefer not have strip bars. But that won't be a problem around here...... Not much around here with less than 8 tits that doesn't eat grass........ :eek:

brunop

September 10, 2010, 00:42

Originally posted by Outlaw Patriot

Oh by the way, I think the mormons going door to door is more about learning humility than really converting people.

The thing that bothers me more about the mormons is they piss all over the separation of church and state and stick their nose in other people's business...

It is important to me that people don't get the idea that I'm suggesting Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is 'good', and that other religions are bad. I believe that my posts speak for themselves on this topic, but I was using the missionary example only to say that a) mormons don't think the gospel belongs only to them and that it should be preached in churches only (as was 'suggested'), and that b) asking people if they want to hear the Word is different than shouting "Sinner!" and "You're going to hell" at people.

Yes, Outlaw, humility is one of many important things a guy or gal learns when they head out into the real world to serve and to preach. Lots and lots of rejection. Polite responses and graciousness required - as that is the Lord's way. Evidently shouting at people passes for preaching in some places, but not at my church.

SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE (if you will allow...)

Mormons got a bad rep in many quarters for their members' contributions in support of Prop 8 in California regarding the definition of marriage in the California constitution. 'Gay Marriage' became the anti-cause, as this is the most obvious target of the traditional One Man & One Woman definition. Please allow me to explain the church's position on this, and then you will judge for yourself if it is reasonable or not (you would anyway, of course):

1) The Mormons want separation of Church and State more than most people you know. Please remember that Mormons are the only religious group in this nation's history to be hunted and killed with state troops on Executive Order of a state's governor. Also remember that Federal troops were dispatched against Mormons after they left the boundaries of the United States. Finally, remember that Mormon polygamy (minority practice, but practiced all the same) was the target of the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (US Congress), and the subsequent US Supreme Court decision Reynolds vs. United States (1878) wherein the court ruled that the government "cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, but may with practices."

Side note: if marriage is getting changed to include two men, two women, etc., what is to stop it from being one man and two women, etc.? It would appear that the 1878 court suffered from cultural distaste rather than actual constitutionally based rationale. Christians are quick to point fingers, and the practice is strange to me [I can't keep up with one wife and kids], but it would appear that the practice is not strange to the Christian god whose prophets (Abraham, etc.) practiced it. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, right? So if it wasn't a sin then.... Meanwhile, Mormons don't practice polygamy these days, and people who do are kicked out of the church no-questions-asked. But back to Church and State...

So back in the mid-19th century, the government was already violating the separation of Church and State: they were regulating (read: controlling) a religious ceremony - the union of man and woman before God. Governments have regulated this most personal and religious event in the past, too, as a way to control the populace. Primae Noctis (Law of the First Night) may or may not have happened in William Wallace's time (Braveheart reference), but Lords, Chieftans, and leaders in various cultures did, in fact, get involved in the marriage and marriage bed. Usually with bad results.

Fast forward. In order to get married in the US now, you have to pay a tax, take a government test, and obtain an actual license. What does this have to do with people's vows before God? You could argue, "Hey - now people want to get married and they don't want to do it in front of God - they just want the legal and tax rights of the union." Cool! I'm in favor of it. But meanwhile, governments have been taxing and licensing marriage since before Americans were making the atheist/agnostic argument, so hang on...

Californians wanted to get a 'minimum' definition on the books that calls marriage what it always was - a union of a man and a woman. Prop 8 got to the polls, and the Mormon church, which studiously avoids calling for specific political action from the pulpit, actually wrote a letter asking members to donate and/or get involved with the cause. Here is the bottom line:

1) the government shouldn't be defining what marriage is. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony. What is the state doing defining a religious ceremony?

2) all rights for couples that want to be "together" should or could be extended through a Civil Union (down at the courthouse). No discrimination on rights, taxes, status, etc. Available to all. Want marriage? Get a church. Want a union? Get a judge. Want to be married to man but you are a man? If you can find a church that will do it, GREAT - but here comes the slippery slope that Mormons want to avoid...

3) Since the government IS going to define marriage (even if it is just for tax purposes), Mormons want it to be the traditional way: 1) 70% of Californians voted that way (Mormons don't even make up 5% of the voters), and 2) Mormons really don't like what is on the horizon if the state defines it the OTHER way, because

4) if the government defines two men as 'marriage', and a non-profit defines two men as not marriage, it is not too long before that is going to be tested in court (i.e. two men sue to get married in a Mormon church - just because they can)

5) As you know, the government is also in the business of controlling debates with definitions of 'hate speech', 'discrimination', etc. - with penalties for such non-compliance

6) Mormons believe that the government is hell-bent (so to speak...) on pushing the Church and State separation right out the door - like they've been doing for a long, long time.

So Mormons "stick their nose in other people's business" only when the government is heading toward knocking the 1st Amendment on it's ass. Bottom line is still the same these past 180 years - we just want to be left alone.

Don't blame the Mormons for Prop 8 - it got to the ballot without them, and a better-than-two-to-one majority passed it. Mormons would have been just fine if there were no Prop 8. But once the government is in the religion business, and once the courts have proven that Activism = Good Jurisprudence, it is time to stand for the things that define America - and the First Amendment is one of them.

Mormons like the Second Amendment, too, for obvious, previously listed reasons.

Peace.

Pistolwiz

September 10, 2010, 01:33

Mormons are great! Best kinda folks usually in my experience. Nobodies perfect......... I don't believe what they do. That's OK. Good folks and several I call friend and respect greatly.

Yep, humility. Good way to learn it........

Two came to our home in the burbs a few years back. I was in a rather persnickity mood that day.

Me: Who is it?

MM's: Missionaries.

Me: ( I don't hear well.....) Mercenaries?!?!?!?

MM's: No! Missionaries!

Me: No thank you.....We do it doggy style so we don't miss any TV.........

A couple of snickers and a "Have a nice day sir! followed. They kept their bearing well against almost overwhelming odds.... I bet the elders are still passing the story around in that area. :rofl:

I like Mormons. Many hold the constitution sacred. My kinda folks. :bow:

brunop

September 10, 2010, 01:45

Holy smokes - that's outstanding!

Yes, that is now an EPIC story in your neck of the woods. I guarantee it.

Peace.

STGThndr

September 10, 2010, 03:30

Hmmm, battle lines bein drawn... I come down on the side of what used to be called "Blue Laws". At least in general. Here in our not-so-little town (anymore) we had a similar situation. A club owner wanted to bring such a club to the West end of Main St.. an older, lower rent area where bars already exist and there are some vacant buildings reflecting blight/flight to the newer East side.
There are no topless/strip clubs in town, havent been since the wild west days.
Many of us opposed it because we simply did not want our kids exposed to that sort of lifestyle and the behaviors associated with it. Also we don't like things bein shoved down our throats. So holy hell was raised and the idea went out on the horse it rode in on... and some town councilmen became unemployed at the next election.
I don't feel that it is my responsibility to explain or make apology for my attitude. Nor do I feel it needful to take any crap about it. Lowlife scum in general tend to gravitate to such places and there is a lot of criminal activity that comes to the attention of the authorities. Drugs, fighting and assaults up to and including murder. Excuse me but this is lowlife behavior whichever way you cut it. Nor do i need or particularly want a church ridin herd on my business, the law will do just fine. We don't need the extra pressure in the area which would come with porn shops or titty bars.
Some call Our Little Town a racist, narrow, redneck community. Some want to improve us by widening our "horizons". Thankfully enough people cared enough to put a stop to that. We live here, many of us, by purposeful intent BECAUSE it is the sort of community it is. We don't want Denver, Pueblo, Detroit or SanFran here. Ya'll don't like it go somewhere ya find more comfortable and leave us primitive barbarians to our own devices.
As an side note, I'll bet there are per capita considerably more personal firearms owned here than most anywhere else Ive been.

molotov

September 10, 2010, 08:12

asking people if they want to hear the Word is different than shouting "Sinner!" and "You're going to hell" at people.

Firstly, you stereotype and simplify what the street preacher says and does with your few statements. Secondly, you are not the judge of the street preacher's heart as to right and wrong. Thirdly, some will only be reached by preaching to them against their will, as they will refuse every time when asked. Have you ever considered that perhaps they are the ones most in need of hearing it? Fourthly, a street preacher "shouts" because he is on the street, which isn't nearly as quiet as a sanctuary.

Outlaw Patriot

September 10, 2010, 10:15

Originally posted by brunop

6) Mormons believe that the government is hell-bent (so to speak...) on pushing the Church and State separation right out the door - like they've been doing for a long, long time.

So Mormons "stick their nose in other people's business" only when the government is heading toward knocking the 1st Amendment on it's ass. Bottom line is still the same these past 180 years - we just want to be left alone.

Mormons like the Second Amendment, too, for obvious, previously listed reasons.

Mormons have been sticking their nose in other peoples business for decades. Ever been to utah? I really shouldn't even have to explain this, but church and state are NOT separate here. They legislate morality based on church ideals just like the people that want the strip clubs shut down in the OP.

Mormons do NOT want to leave me alone to do as I please. Individual mormons that I have known have mostly been good people, and have respected my right to my own ideas, and to do as i please, but as a religion, with members that are business owners, law makers, etc, they want to make it so the laws of the land are the same as the laws of the church.

Just like most other religious emigrants, the mormons didnt move to utah for religions freedom, they moved to utah so they could have a place where THEY are in charge of what people are allowed to do. They are FINE with no separation between church and state as long as it works in THEIR favor.

And yea, they respect the 2nd, John Moses what a mormon, that really doesnt change the fact that they dont respect MY rights.

Outlaw Patriot

September 10, 2010, 10:18

Originally posted by molotov

It's kind of standard procedure in the christian community to back up your theological arguments with scripture.

And there again is your OT non-argument. Nothing but insults. Funny you criticize me for "judging" and then sink to my supposed level (and lower)by jumping down my throat the same way. Kind of makes you an insane hypocrite who shows his hatred of those he disagrees with.

See thats the problem, you render yourself incapable of communicating with anyone who is not part of the christian community. I'm sure you dont want to talk to any of us churchless heathens, but Jesus wouldnt have shared your viewpoint on that.

molotov

September 10, 2010, 11:11

See thats the problem, you render yourself incapable of communicating with anyone who is not part of the christian community.

I'm still left wondering what exactly you have contributed to this thread besides attacks against me. No matter, if you are trying to hurt my feelings you'll have to try harder than that.

brunop

September 10, 2010, 11:44

Originally posted by Outlaw Patriot

Mormons have been sticking their nose in other peoples business for decades. Ever been to utah? I really shouldn't even have to explain this, but church and state are NOT separate here. They legislate morality based on church ideals just like the people that want the strip clubs shut down in the OP.

Mormons do NOT want to leave me alone to do as I please. Individual mormons that I have known have mostly been good people, and have respected my right to my own ideas, and to do as i please, but as a religion, with members that are business owners, law makers, etc, they want to make it so the laws of the land are the same as the laws of the church.

Just like most other religious emigrants, the mormons didnt move to utah for religions freedom, they moved to utah so they could have a place where THEY are in charge of what people are allowed to do. They are FINE with no separation between church and state as long as it works in THEIR favor.

And yea, they respect the 2nd, John Moses what a mormon, that really doesnt change the fact that they dont respect MY rights.

Yes, I've marked a lot of time in Utah. I notice the following:

more billboards for lingerie and "adult toys" than any other state in the union - and I've been on the freeways of 30 of them this year

new, looser alcohol laws - wherein a person doesn't have to pay a cover or "join" the "club" in order to get a drink. Red Rock seems like a good brewery

strip clubs within a couple stones-throws of the state capitol building. Go check the girls out at at the north end of SLC on HWY 89 near the oil refinery (or whatever that is)

normal business practices in larger cities and towns (SLC, Provo)

normal small town morality - don't bring strip clubs to our neighborhoods

Non-Mormons being elected all over the place - like the Mayor of SLC

So the "individuals" are okay, but the "individuals" who get elected aren't? Which of your rights are getting trampled or not-respected?

Mormons have argued for freedom of religion for others in this nation as well; clearly Mormons realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I'm not mistaken, BYU law school took up the defense for one Reverend Moon - a pastor that is not well regarded in many places in this country - because while his doctrine was anathema to Mormons, his plight was not.

Finally, yes; when Mormons got to the desert in Utah, there was no one there. Of course their laws reflect their biases. But I'm dying to know which of your rights they disrespect, so I can be on the look out for that. Because this: "that really doesnt change the fact that they dont respect MY rights", seems kinda silly. Do you have different "rights" than other people? Are they disrespecting others' rights? Are they disrespecting Mormons' rights, or just yours? How do they know that you aren't Mormon - are they asking?

Just hoping for some clarity.

chet

September 10, 2010, 13:08

Give a man enough time and he will eventually tell you everything he knows about his favorite subject, himself. I am continually amazed that what would have embarassed a group of men to stand around and talk about 50 years ago, now passes for decent conversation along with at least one woman.
I thought some of you guys were nice guys but the files you uploaded on this thread let me know that what was really on your hard drive and hard hearts.

A lot of you pretend to subscribe to some vacuous libertarian utopia where everyone gets to do what they want and only they themselves incur the penalties. Some of us know better. What you allow in your neighborhood has consequences, good, bad or hard to figure, but consequences they are.

Taliban and Nazi comments get flung towards molotov by the ignorant and ill-informed and that is nothing new although I was astounded at the amount of pent up hatred from some of you. But it was the irony of this statement that struck me most. Rarely do people use a eugenics argument to defend freedom but people suffer from all kinds of delusions I guess:

Originally posted by the gman

Sadly, we seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that every life is worth something as opposed to the reality of the opposite being true. But I digress.

It is this very lack of respect for life (not to mention the Creator of life) that led you to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what goes on in your town but that if anything impedes your personal desires, you should simply "squash it like a bug". Many of you fail to see the irony in these statements as you cite failed marriages and money problems and still think an old Book and an Invisible God are your biggest impedements to getting what you want. Incredible.

The founders had no problems citing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their various and sundry texts. You may want to consider another location if you think you can root this God out of their Constitution and all the legal thought that has flowed from it in the last couple hundred years. Maybe Ayn Rand and Al Bundy will come help you?

Outlaw Patriot

September 10, 2010, 14:33

Originally posted by brunop

Yes, I've marked a lot of time in Utah. I notice the following:

more billboards for lingerie and "adult toys" than any other state in the union - and I've been on the freeways of 30 of them this year

new, looser alcohol laws - wherein a person doesn't have to pay a cover or "join" the "club" in order to get a drink. Red Rock seems like a good brewery

strip clubs within a couple stones-throws of the state capitol building. Go check the girls out at at the north end of SLC on HWY 89 near the oil refinery (or whatever that is)

normal business practices in larger cities and towns (SLC, Provo)

normal small town morality - don't bring strip clubs to our neighborhoods

Non-Mormons being elected all over the place - like the Mayor of SLC

So the "individuals" are okay, but the "individuals" who get elected aren't? Which of your rights are getting trampled or not-respected?

Mormons have argued for freedom of religion for others in this nation as well; clearly Mormons realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I'm not mistaken, BYU law school took up the defense for one Reverend Moon - a pastor that is not well regarded in many places in this country - because while his doctrine was anathema to Mormons, his plight was not.

Finally, yes; when Mormons got to the desert in Utah, there was no one there. Of course their laws reflect their biases. But I'm dying to know which of your rights they disrespect, so I can be on the look out for that. Because this: "that really doesnt change the fact that they dont respect MY rights", seems kinda silly. Do you have different "rights" than other people? Are they disrespecting others' rights? Are they disrespecting Mormons' rights, or just yours? How do they know that you aren't Mormon - are they asking?

Just hoping for some clarity.

HA!

Ok, just choosing from your own examples, those looser liquor laws? Yea, real loose. I cant even legally get any of my favorite beers into this state, I have to smuggle them in myself from a free state.

Those strip clubs, never been, but there is no nudity, everything is covered, by law.

No concert or event anywhere here is bring your own beer. The only beer at the places where there is beer is going to be like $7 a glass. Thats the value of a lunch, not a beer.

Otherwise, high taxes, ridiculous police presence, and a general abundance of worthless needless rules. Not all of this is because of the mormons, but I dont think its a coincidence either.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 10, 2010, 16:13

If some of you need an invisible sky-daddy to tell you how to live, I'm ok with that. I won't force you to do anything, because your beliefs don't hurt me when you keep them to yourselves. When you try to work those beliefs into law I do have a problem with it. A theocracy is a theocracy and I will fight to keep it from occurring no matter what religion.

Aaron Green
(sky-daddy free since 2003)

Bigger_Is_Better

September 10, 2010, 16:18

molotov

September 10, 2010, 18:46

If some of you need an invisible sky-daddy to tell you how to live, I'm ok with that.

Your endless derision only reveals the extreme degree of your G-d complex, which has become laughable in light of your failure to make righteous the debaucheries you are in favor of.

Taliban and Nazi comments get flung towards molotov by the ignorant and ill-informed and that is nothing new although I was astounded at the amount of pent up hatred from some of you.

I was hoping someone still clung to their senses here. As a purveyor of the "hateful rhetoric" of scripture and common sense myself, I welcome you to the club....lol

I wasn't surprised by the tone some took with me. I knew it would ruffle some feathers. The truth always does. People dont' want the truth, but rather prefer lies they can swallow easy and which will affect the fewest changes in themselves i.e "looking at pornography doesn't hurt anyone". Nobody likes condemnation except for those open to the truth.

Insults and derision are standard procedure for the sinner in denial. I was however taken aback by some of these so called "christians" who did not acknowledge the word of G-d and instead turned to attacking my character. Reflective of the lukewarm American church these days.

Many of you fail to see the irony in these statements as you cite failed marriages and money problems and still think an old Book and an Invisible God are your biggest impedements to getting what you want. Incredible.

Well said, Chet.

As I said before; If there is no supreme lawgiver then there is no supreme law, and if there is no supreme law then anything goes (do what thou wilt-a satanic ideology) and there is no basis for which a man can weigh the merits or demerits of behavior and law and therefore no basis for them to criticize what I have said and done here. The "no god" logic is self defeating.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 10, 2010, 20:33

LOL....Molotov you crack me up! It's you who has not specified how the establishments cause you any harm. All you can do is spout your religion. You've pretty well made the point that you are against freedom. All you are doing now is digging the hole deeper and deeper. I will support freedom whether I agree with the actions or not as long as it does not deprive a third party of their life, liberty, or property. You can't legislate morality when morality means so many different things to different people.

OH, I don't have a God complex, I was there and did that for many many years. I just was simply too smart for them to pull the wool over my eyes forever. Once you see behind the curtain there is no unseeing it.

Again,

HOW DO THESE ESTABLISHMENTS DEPRIVE YOU OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY??

the gman

September 10, 2010, 20:36

Originally posted by chet
Give a man enough time and he will eventually tell you everything he knows about his favorite subject, himself. I am continually amazed that what would have embarassed a group of men to stand around and talk about 50 years ago, now passes for decent conversation along with at least one woman.
I thought some of you guys were nice guys but the files you uploaded on this thread let me know that what was really on your hard drive and hard hearts.

A lot of you pretend to subscribe to some vacuous libertarian utopia where everyone gets to do what they want and only they themselves incur the penalties. Some of us know better. What you allow in your neighborhood has consequences, good, bad or hard to figure, but consequences they are.

Taliban and Nazi comments get flung towards molotov by the ignorant and ill-informed and that is nothing new although I was astounded at the amount of pent up hatred from some of you. But it was the irony of this statement that struck me most. Rarely do people use a eugenics argument to defend freedom but people suffer from all kinds of delusions I guess:

It is this very lack of respect for life (not to mention the Creator of life) that led you to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what goes on in your town but that if anything impedes your personal desires, you should simply "squash it like a bug". Many of you fail to see the irony in these statements as you cite failed marriages and money problems and still think an old Book and an Invisible God are your biggest impedements to getting what you want. Incredible.

The founders had no problems citing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their various and sundry texts. You may want to consider another location if you think you can root this God out of their Constitution and all the legal thought that has flowed from it in the last couple hundred years. Maybe Ayn Rand and Al Bundy will come help you?

Whatever. If you think that a guy who repeatedly rapes a SIX MONTH old child, bites her all over her body, flings her to the ceiling letting her fall to the floor & then stomps on her is worthy of saving then you have something missing in your brain bucket. Me, I'd stomp that POS into the ground & then remove him from the gene pool permanently & sleep nights afterward.

If these are the kind of people your God wants to welcome into heaven because they say they accept him, I certainly want no part of it. Scum like that are just like rabid dogs, you put them down on sight. Don't like it? Don't bitch when it's your kid or relative or friend who one of these animals picks on next, he's just misunderstood is all.......:rolleyes: :rolleyes: What happened to that 'eye for an eye' deal that's mentioned in the book of fiction?

You have your faith & that's great but don't piss down my back & tell me it's raining. Your particular brand of faith has no more validity than the Hindu or Buddhist or the Muslim faith.

The Founding Fathers certainly did quote God but they were smarter than you bub because they certainly didn't make his worship mandatory nor exclusive.

Religion has been the cause of more deaths, more torture & more unrest around this world than any other single issue. You folks hate the fact that others who fail to see life your way exist; you would prefer to have everyone an automaton who follows whatever your God decrees is the right way, regardless of their own ideas, thoughts & desires.

You might need something external to hold on to; me, not so much.

You're right, this thread has been illuminating; I now know who believes in what & who has their head screwed on. I also know who can read, comprehend & actually quote what I said rather than try to put words in my mouth; nice try, go back & read what I wrote rather than lying. Nice Christian behavior there buddy.

I'm not angry at molotov or you, I pity you. Gonna be one hell of a surprise if you snuff it & your beliefs turn out to be wrong huh???;) ;) ;)

For the record, I'm plenty happy without your God or any mythical wondrous being to believe in & I know that just pisses you off. Go do some preaching elsewhere bub, we're all full up here.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 10, 2010, 21:25

LOL...George, you've got to make it over to Knob Creek sometime to hang out with the rest of us hetherns! There or the Gunners Pool camp out. You could also meet One hand clapping there as well. It's a get together of FREEDOM loving Americans.

Aaron

L Haney

September 10, 2010, 22:07

Molotov, you type G-d. Why is this? Even among the most devout of several splinter sects, speaking the descriptive word "God" causes no discord. It's not a "True Name", just a category. Do you think a mortal could grasp, spell, pronounce or otherwise impinge on the "true name" of the creator of all? If so, I think you give yourself a bit too much credit. But on the other hand, if he exists, I'm pretty sure he'd be tickled by this little bit of "aversion of the eyes". And I don't think he'd mind if you called him "Bub". You're his spittin' image after all.

brunop

September 10, 2010, 23:19

Originally posted by Outlaw Patriot

HA!

Ok, just choosing from your own examples, those looser liquor laws? Yea, real loose. I cant even legally get any of my favorite beers into this state, I have to smuggle them in myself from a free state.

Those strip clubs, never been, but there is no nudity, everything is covered, by law.

No concert or event anywhere here is bring your own beer. The only beer at the places where there is beer is going to be like $7 a glass. Thats the value of a lunch, not a beer.

Otherwise, high taxes, ridiculous police presence, and a general abundance of worthless needless rules. Not all of this is because of the mormons, but I dont think its a coincidence either.

Okay on the beer. Oregon, full of lib-tards, illogical knuckleheads, and not-very-full of Mormons, wouldn't allow Coors into the state for decades. My granddad used to come visit us in California, and my dad would have it in a cooler waiting for him to hit the front door. As late as 1988 people in college were making Coors Runs over the border. You can't get your favorite beer, and it's because the Mormons don't respect your rights? Um, no. Especially since there are lots and lots of types of beer IN the state.

Can't bring your own beer in lots and lots of places. $7/glass? Reality check, pal. Life sucks - but not because of Mormons. Can you bring your own beer to a ball game? No. Can you bring your own beer to a concert anywhere? No. What happens when the concessionaires have the choke-hold on the supply? $7/glass of beer, that's what. It is called capitalism, not Mormonism. And that stuff happens all over the place - you should get out more.

BTW - I don't like it either, but it isn't Mormons hatin' you. It is overbearing politician douchebags. Yours happen to be Mormon in lots of cases.

No naked chicks? Bummer. :rolleyes: Strip clubs are crap establishments that host a bunch of weird people and attract a LOT of flies. No big deal. I've never been either, so obviously I didn't know the girls were covered (versus naked) in SLC. That's good in my book, but I have my biases about the whole thing.

Outlaw - I think you are hatin' on politicians generally. Yours sound just like mine. I think it is coincidental that yours are Mormon - you happen to live where there are about 1.5M of them all in one place. Bound to be some fallout, man.

Next time I'm in SLC (if that is where you are), I'd buy you a beer. Take it easy.

:beer:

the gman

September 11, 2010, 00:15

How many of you strip club hatin' fools ever actually BEEN to one? I have been to many in my time, mostly in the military & in Canada (now I know where the inspiration for the song title "Oh Canada" came from ;) :rofl: ) but some in Europe/UK & some here.

Yes, some were sordid, tawdry little places & some were just plain weird. There's one in El Paso that was bring your own beer & had Mexicans drooling over nasty fat chicks that Outlaw Patriot (based on his continued posting of THAT you tube clip) would be gagging for whilst ignoring the hot skinny med student....:? :?

Most were very well run establishments that I felt very safe being a patron of, wish I could say the same for some bars, clubs & homes I've been in over the years.

There is so much misinformation in this thread about strip clubs from folks who've never even been in one that it makes me laugh. It's like someone who has never fired a full auto or doesn't own a gun preaching about how evil guns are, you have NO clue about that which you are talking about.

I've dated strippers, had one follow me to VA from CT once & they were all pretty fun in bed & in my experience, not at all screwed up. Other than being women of course...:rofl: :rofl: (Sorry ONC, ya know I'm joking, well, mostly anyway...:D :devil: ) I know the girl in CT was making well over a grand a night take home & in the better run clubs, they don't have to screw the management to make a living.

If I never visit another strip club in my entire life, it won't bother me at all; been there, done that, got better things to do with my life these days. Would I do things over again if I could? Hell yeah, I'd sleep with more strippers.......... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :p :p :p :p

Right Side Up

September 11, 2010, 00:39

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp3/smokinindianjoe/blahblahbitch_copy2.gif

I've dated strippers............blah blah blah (probably where you got the syphilis that rotted your brain).

martin35

September 11, 2010, 01:40

If I'm not allowed to add to the gross national product and piss off a payday ogling naked women and soaking up suds my male apparatus will atrophy and other males will think I'm a woose.
I totally agree,,, you would be a woose.

molotov

September 11, 2010, 06:42

Your particular brand of faith has no more validity than the Hindu or Buddhist or the Muslim faith.

John 14:6

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Gonna be one hell of a surprise if you snuff it & your beliefs turn out to be wrong huh???

Again, back to my point. If I am wrong I die and lose nothing. If you are wrong you die and lose your soul. Then you'll be more sorry than you already are. :p

Molotov, you type G-d. Why is this? Even among the most devout of several splinter sects, speaking the descriptive word "God" causes no discord. It's not a "True Name", just a category.

It's a habit of sorts. I studied with Messianic Jews who passed the habit on. You are correct that "god" isn't a holy or even his correct name, but I differentiate between generic or false "god" and the one true "G-d" via spelling.

Strip clubs are crap establishments that host a bunch of weird people and attract a LOT of flies.

Wow, some of you guys are extremely judgmental. Easy on the hateful rhetoric there, Chief....lol

How many of you strip club hatin' fools ever actually BEEN to one?

You wash your hands when you get home, right?

Mostly who patronizes strip clubs are college age kids; boys, not men.

Most were very well run establishments that I felt very safe being a patron of, wish I could say the same for some bars, clubs & homes I've been in over the years.

Ah, he's a connoisseur.:rolleyes:

I've dated strippers, had one follow me to VA from CT once & they were all pretty fun in bed & in my experience, not at all screwed up.

You only deceive yourself.:)

L Haney

September 11, 2010, 09:34

Well, thanks for answering my question.

the gman

September 11, 2010, 11:21

How would you know who patronizes strip clubs if you've never been in one nor near one? Same old tired rhetoric that relies on half truths, misdirection & BS. You know NOTHING bub. How the hell do college kids afford to pay for the strippers? Ya think college kids pay for Spearmint Rhino? Please. Most of the guys (& some gals) in there are regular Joes, between the ages of 25 & 65 who earn decent money. Hardly college kids but then, this ain't the first thing you've been 100% wrong on, nor will it be the last.

Still waiting for an answer on how, according to the Bible, we are the product of incest? Think I'll be waiting for quite some time for an answer to that.

You are like all of the other fanatics out there; certain that you & only you are right. Know what? I have met more nasty, hypocritical, small minded, self serving, two faced worms who claimed to be good Christians than others who aren't. Pastors are the worst of the lot, at least in the Baptist churches I attended with my ex. Say one thing from the pulpit & live an entirely different life out of it. Say what you want, I met more genuine folks in strip clubs than most churches; at least in the strip club we all knew why we were there......:p :p

How about this scenario: you come home from a hard day at work & find a scumbag in your house who has just raped & murdered your wife & daughters. You're about to blow his ass into the next county & he repents, right there in front of you, saying that he realizes he's been a bad person, that he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord & Savior & that he is truly sorry for his sins. Do you walk over & give him a big fat kiss as a brother in Christ or what? Ya think he's got the same right to enter heaven as an innocent 6 year old who got cancer & died?

I'm genuinely interested in the response to the murderer situation, got the nuts to answer?

molotov

September 11, 2010, 11:39

Say what you want, I met more genuine folks in strip clubs than most churches; at least in the strip club we all knew why we were there.

Hitler was genuine too. So was Crowley. So was Pol Pot. So was Mao. Being "genuine" doesn't add to your character if you are attempting to justify debauchery or wickedness. Being "genuine" don't mean a lot if you are a "genuine" scumbag.

you come home from a hard day at work & find a scumbag in your house who has just raped & murdered your wife & daughters. You're about to blow his ass into the next county & he repents, right there in front of you, saying that he realizes he's been a bad person, that he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord & Savior & that he is truly sorry for his sins. Do you walk over & give him a big fat kiss as a brother in Christ or what?

Aside from all the possible SD scenarios we could play with.....

Yes, a big kiss right before his brains fly into the next county. Exoneration from sin before G-d doesn't mean one doesn't have to face the due penalty in the current physical world. Even if I didn't pull the trigger he would still face legal repercussions.

Does it mean he is saved? Yes, if his heart is judged repentant by G-d. In fact I'd argue me blowing his brains out or him facing lethal injection is a just and due penalty and so perhaps G-d won't punish him in the next world because he will have paid the price for his crimes in this one.

Kind of like you catching crabs or syph from a stripper. The scriptures say you sin against your own body when fornicating so perhaps it is G-d's way of punishing you now rather than in the next life. G-d is merciful, but I suspect his version of mercy is beyond your comprehension.

the gman

September 11, 2010, 17:56

Just wanted to see if you were cut from the same cloth as yer buddy chet; he seems to think that all life is worth saving, even a scumbag's life. Nice to see you aren't cut from the same kind of cloth.

FYI, I have never had any form of STD. Why does everyone simply assume that strippers have to follow those tired old stereotypes of being desperate, sick women who have no idea of how to take care of themselves either economically or as regards sexual health? In my personal experience, they were the equal of any of my other girlfriends from an Air Force Major who worked at the Pentagon to a journalist for the Army Times to a check out girl at Home Depot et al. They all knew how to take care of themselves while having a good time, why is it so hard to believe that strippers can do the same??:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Most of the girls I have known in that line of work are intelligent & work where they do for the decent rewards that come from it. That some mythical being that I personally don't believe in says it isn't allowed is neither here nor there; the FACT is that we are supposed to have the FREEDOM to do that which we choose to as long as doing so does not injure others. Sure, there are women who are forced into stripping or prostitution but then, there are others who are forced by religion into remaining married because their religion states that it is the man's right to grant or withhold a divorce as he chooses.

Is that right? Should that be allowed? We used to have a member here who thought that the charge of rape between a husband & wife was ridiculous as it couldn't happen. In his world, the wife should never be allowed to say no to sex to her husband. How about you molotov, think the same way or what? Just trying to understand the mind of an true believer....;)

BTW, still waiting for that explanation of why the Bible says in Genesis that we were created from incest but I guess I'll be a long time waiting for that right?:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

SWOHFAL

September 11, 2010, 18:13

Originally posted by Bigger_Is_Better
If some of you need an invisible sky-daddy to tell you how to live, I'm ok with that. I won't force you to do anything, because your beliefs don't hurt me when you keep them to yourselves. When you try to work those beliefs into law I do have a problem with it. A theocracy is a theocracy and I will fight to keep it from occurring no matter what religion.

Aaron Green
(sky-daddy free since 2003)

Just seven years? I haven't believe since sometime just after I found out about Santa Claus. It would seem society is perfectly willing to perpetrate frauds on its children.

molotov

September 11, 2010, 19:02

Just wanted to see if you were cut from the same cloth as yer buddy chet; he seems to think that all life is worth saving, even a scumbag's life.

All life is worth saving, which I think is the point of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Chet is not wrong, your method of ascribing beliefs that he never spoke is.

FYI, I have never had any form of STD.

How many times have you been tested?

Why does everyone simply assume that strippers have to follow those tired old stereotypes of being desperate, sick women who have no idea of how to take care of themselves either economically or as regards sexual health?

Again, how many times have you been tested? Or did you just assume they were clean? If you haven't been tested, then how do you know you are clean?

They all knew how to take care of themselves while having a good time, why is it so hard to believe that strippers can do the same?

It's not hard to believe. IV drug users can take care of themselves while having a good time too, but they are still IV drug users.

Sure, there are women who are forced into stripping or prostitution but then, there are others who are forced by religion into remaining married because their religion states that it is the man's right to grant or withhold a divorce as he chooses. Is that right? Should that be allowed?

Gonna upset your apple cart here buddy, as I am a traditionalist in some ways. Bear with me while I take us to the stone age.:)

1. A woman should not be able to divorce her husband except for a case of infidelity.
2. A woman should not have the right to vote
3. A woman should not refuse her husband sex

She shouldn't be able to divorce her husband except in cases of adultery. The same goes for the husband, he should not be able to divorce his wife unless she is guilty of infidelity. I can use OT and NT scriptures to back that viewpoint.

The voting issue is more of a personal belief for me rather than a biblical based one. Women are too emotional for politics. Also, I don't believe many women make sound decisions during their menstrual period.

I don't believe it is right for a woman to refuse her husband sex. Her body belongs to her husband and her husbands body to her. She has no right to withhold except by mutual consent. I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife.

BTW, still waiting for that explanation of why the Bible says in Genesis that we were created from incest but I guess I'll be a long time waiting for that right?

Perhaps you could quote the book and the verse so that I could examine what it is you are talking about.

Bama Steve

September 11, 2010, 19:21

Non-land owners should not be able to vote.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 11, 2010, 19:49

Originally posted by molotov

Gonna upset your apple cart here buddy, as I am a traditionalist in some ways. Bear with me while I take us to the stone age.:)

1. A woman should not be able to divorce her husband except for a case of infidelity.
2. A woman should not have the right to vote
3. A woman should not refuse her husband sex

She shouldn't be able to divorce her husband except in cases of adultery. The same goes for the husband, he should not be able to divorce his wife unless she is guilty of infidelity. I can use OT and NT scriptures to back that viewpoint.

The voting issue is more of a personal belief for me rather than a biblical based one. Women are too emotional for politics. Also, I don't believe many women make sound decisions during their menstrual period.

I don't believe it is right for a woman to refuse her husband sex. Her body belongs to her husband and her husbands body to her. She has no right to withhold except by mutual consent. I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife.

WOW....Just HAD to save that one in case our savior Molotov decides to change it!!:rofl:

chet

September 11, 2010, 21:05

Originally posted by the gman
Just wanted to see if you were cut from the same cloth as yer buddy chet; he seems to think that all life is worth saving, even a scumbag's life. Nice to see you aren't cut from the same kind of cloth.

Let's try re-reading your statement again:

Originally posted by the gman Sadly, we seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that every life is worth something as opposed to the reality of the opposite being true.

The opposite of "every life is worth something" is "every life is worth nothing". That, young American citizen, simply ain't true. And, the thought process behind runs counter to everything this country is built on.

I'll let my original unedited post stand, but somehow you extrapolated that I would allow all sorts of pedophiles and murderers go free, as if it was up to me. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. But, that is a common thing. Believing that a Christian is weak and unwilling to stand against evil helps people believe that my God is also weak and unwilling. That is a comforting thought, isn't it? That way, you can mock Him and not trouble yourself with the the idea that the OT God of Plagues might still be around. And THAT is the very essence of religious freedom that you are exercising. You are welcome to humor yourself with that thought all you want without fear of physical or legal reprisal from me or any other Sunday School teacher.

Taliban? Please. Go to the Swat Valley and see what Taliban actually does to people. Zoning restrictions passed in a legal process subject to legal challenges is not really in the same league as putting an RPG in a girls school. But, I can see your education on freedom is probably as deep as your understanding of violence - just enough to get yourself in trouble.

As far as death and killing is concerned:
God's Word didn't hinder me from enlisting or serving as a grunt. It didn't hinder me in combat either (quite the opposite). God's Word doesn't prevent me from carrying a sidearm either, everyday. (I'll let you know if I bump into any of those baby killers you mentioned.) It doesn't hinder me in anyway I can think of when it comes to defending myself, my family or my country. In fact, it requires me to do so.

As far as respect for life:
You and I evidently have vastly different impressions of what I said, so I'll elaborate. I would never force another man to worship the way I worship or even the God I worship. If I actually believe God's Word, what would be the point? When it was done in centuries past, it was subverted and used as a vehicle to consolidate power among kings and others seeking governmental authority, not by Christians acting in accordance with God's Word. You already knew that but straw men are easier to construct than real arguments, I know.

If you ever bothered to read it, you'd know that God's Word is pretty specific on life and death and even carrying weapons. Instead, you want to hang on to the theology you think you learned watching "Footloose". Well, ok. Some guys never really grow up, I guess.

As far as strip clubs:
BiB is being too easy on the rest of us. If the only legal burden was to prove that strip clubs had or could deprive me of life, liberty and property, I could do that in a very short concise study on property devaluation and drunk driving and the cost and deaths directly attributable to them. 'Course, that would take out all the honky tonks and bars, too. Furtunately for BiB, the Founders and other legislators put a few minutes more thought into it than he did.

As far as being 'holier than thou':

Well, I can truly say I have run hard and fast in my day and scoured more dives than I care to admit. I had some temporary happiness and a lot of heartache as well. And I came very, very close to following a few good friends to their graves.

But, I never knew what joy was all about til I quit running and started listening. In God's plan, I stay married, I get to raise my kids and be their daddy, and I get to have a home that is worthy of being called a home. Why do I get that luxury along with everlasting life? What could I have possibly done to merit such favor?
Romans 5:8 tells me it had nothing to do with me. Read it. It will explain a lot to you gman.
How could a man like me have shed his past and moved on to this new life?
II COR 5:17. Again, didn't have much to do with me.

I don't hate people who go to strip clubs. As a man, I have a full understanding of how lust works and I struggle with it too. But, I don't quibble when it comes to "legislating morality". All laws are based on some type of morality. If yours and mine don't line up, well, see you at the ballot box.

martin35

September 11, 2010, 21:07

Gonna upset your apple cart here buddy, as I am a traditionalist in some ways. Bear with me while I take us to the stone age.

1. A woman should not be able to divorce her husband except for a case of infidelity.
2. A woman should not have the right to vote
3. A woman should not refuse her husband sex

She shouldn't be able to divorce her husband except in cases of adultery. The same goes for the husband, he should not be able to divorce his wife unless she is guilty of infidelity. I can use OT and NT scriptures to back that viewpoint.

The voting issue is more of a personal belief for me rather than a biblical based one. Women are too emotional for politics. Also, I don't believe many women make sound decisions during their menstrual period.

I don't believe it is right for a woman to refuse her husband sex. Her body belongs to her husband and her husbands body to her. She has no right to withhold except by mutual consent. I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife.e.

My momma was a Alpha pack momma who had to take down her own game and would rip off your head and pee down your gullet if such were spoken to her. Keep using a alias for safety sake.
Other than physical dominance my wife is my equal plus she is capable of a sensitivity I will never have.
My wife will shed a tear at a tree planting. I only cry at people planting funerals and people parting divorces.
I make a real show of crying hard at funerals of those who were not the pargons of virtue I am.

the gman

September 11, 2010, 21:07

Don't play games molotov. Adam & Eve beget Cain & Able. Cain kills Able then without any other explanation, Cain has a child, Enoch.

Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived [AMP: And Cain's wife ... became pregnant], and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Who is Cain's wife? Depending on who you believe & what you read, Cain either slept with his mother or according to the Jubilee's, his twin sister. Nice. Way to go there God.......:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Regarding the wife thing, you'd fit right in with the fundamental Muslims mate.

Your boy chet condemned himself out of his own mouth. I can read, he obviously can't.

When did I get tested for STD? Not that it's any of your fuckin' business you understand but the first time would be back in about '97; military required it for a course I was selected to attend & the result was clear. Next & last time was when my wife & I were undergoing fertility treatment/testing to conceive our baby girl about 18 months ago; again, clear as clear can be. But then, I've only slept with nice, intelligent girls, not obedient slaves like you seem to want to have around.

Have a nice night & look forward to hearing your explanation of the Cain dynasty.....;) :rolleyes:

martin35

September 11, 2010, 21:19

I can show you how to cinch your rigging and how to stay on the full 8 seconds if that is your problem there the gman.

Bama Steve

September 11, 2010, 21:22

The answer is right there in your scriptural quote if you care to see it.

Just sayin'

Check out Genesis for the place that the wife came from if this isn't clear . . .

chet

September 11, 2010, 21:23

gman - You are so full of hate you can't see straight. You think you've got molotov in a bind over creation and incest? Wait til you explain to your little girl why you wrote on the internet one day how you wished you had slept with more strippers. Again, a few minutes of reflection......

Brett

September 11, 2010, 23:55

J-sus

molotov

September 12, 2010, 06:30

Next & last time was when my wife & I were undergoing fertility treatment/testing to conceive our baby girl about 18 months ago; again, clear as clear can be. But then, I've only slept with nice, intelligent girls, not obedient slaves like you seem to want to have around.

If they were "nice" and "intelligent" then you could've trusted them enough to not get tested. But they were whorish and dirty so you couldn't assume they were clean and had no other way of knowing you weren't infected. In other words, you couldn't trust them as far as you can spit.

Thanks for answering my trick question. You lose again.

"A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, To call passengers who go right on their ways. Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell [sheol]."

Who is Cain's wife?

It was his sister or his niece in all likelihood. Not that it matters, Cain rejected G-d when he killed his brother so his choice of wife would reflect his un-G-dly attitude. Kind of like your rejection of G-d and your past preference for strippers.

Can't name any names as none are listed but she's probably the equivalent to something you'd admit to having slept with....lol

My momma was a Alpha pack momma who had to take down her own game and would rip off your head and pee down your gullet if such were spoken to her. Keep using a alias for safety sake.

Sorry I have offended you, but those are my beliefs. I guess if you could convince me women ought to vote using a good argument, I would change my views but I won't change my views on the other two statements. They are biblical.

the gman

September 12, 2010, 08:11

Neither test was asked for by me; they were incidental to other situations. Nice try. Sadly your feeble attempt to 'trick' me failed as do most of your other attempts to justify any of your rather sad positions on life.

So if a husband is beating the crap out of his wife on a regular basis, she's not allowed to get divorced? How about if he tortures her & makes her work in a strip bar against her will, can she dump his ass then?

But hold on, didn't you say that you commit adultery if you even lust after another woman? Or isn't that a stringent enough test? So if hubby has a penchant for strip clubs, can wifey divorce him then?

BTW, I'd rather have a menstruating woman vote than you.......:tongue:

I'll deal with chet when I get back from working out but I'm not full of hate for Christians, Muslims or any religion. Why hate? Is that what you folks are reduced to now? Someone who opposes or holds a different view to that of yours is classified as a hater because they won't give in to your views? Really? That's the best you can come up with? I guess that's how 'hate crimes' got on the books too; bunch of whiners who get their panties in a wad when someone challenges their long held views so they have to cry "HATE", instead of coming up with a reasoned argument to justify their positions. Nice.

Douglas S Graham

September 12, 2010, 09:09

Wife has to be unfaithful in order to get divorced!!!??? Wow. I guess I'm a goner then. You can't imagine what it's like to be married to lunatic Jekyl and Hyde woman. I'd rather have been physically abused than listening to her lunatic rantings. No thanks. Divorce worked for me, I now have a terrific woman who is intelligent and kind. I think GOD will understand. Or G-d, for you, since it makes you uncomfortable for some strange reason.

Outlaw Patriot

September 12, 2010, 09:38

Originally posted by molotov

Gonna upset your apple cart here buddy, as I am a traditionalist in some ways. Bear with me while I take us to the stone age.:)

1. A woman should not be able to divorce her husband except for a case of infidelity.
2. A woman should not have the right to vote
3. A woman should not refuse her husband sex

She shouldn't be able to divorce her husband except in cases of adultery. The same goes for the husband, he should not be able to divorce his wife unless she is guilty of infidelity. I can use OT and NT scriptures to back that viewpoint.

The voting issue is more of a personal belief for me rather than a biblical based one. Women are too emotional for politics. Also, I don't believe many women make sound decisions during their menstrual period.

I don't believe it is right for a woman to refuse her husband sex. Her body belongs to her husband and her husbands body to her. She has no right to withhold except by mutual consent. I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife.

Wow, you are really insane huh?

I know TONS of women I would trust with important decisions and responsibility LONG before I'd trust you.

RG Coburn

September 12, 2010, 09:58

Originally posted by Bama Steve
Non-land owners should not be able to vote.
I'd agree with this.
If you ain't smart enough to own land,you ain't smart enough to have a say-so where land taxes go.

RG Coburn

September 12, 2010, 10:03

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Outlaw Patriot

Wow, you are really insane huh?

I know TONS of women I would trust with important decisions and responsibility LONG before I'd trust you. [/QUOTE

Men think with their peckers,women think with their boobs.

RG Coburn

September 12, 2010, 10:13

Originally posted by the gman

How about if he tortures her & makes her work in a strip bar against her will, can she dump his ass then?

But hold on, didn't you say that you commit adultery if you even lust after another woman? Or isn't that a stringent enough test? So if hubby has a penchant for strip clubs, can wifey divorce him then?

Isn't this thread originally about how benign and beneficial to society strips bars are? How could you percieve her working at one as a abuse or punishment? If you don't use Christianity (or another religion)as a benchmark of what is wrong or right,what do you use? Its like using your own personal system to gauge the temperature outside.

ftierson

September 12, 2010, 14:25

Originally posted by RG Coburn
Isn't this thread originally about how benign and beneficial to society strips bars are? How could you percieve her working at one as a abuse or punishment? If you don't use Christianity (or another religion)as a benchmark of what is wrong or right,what do you use? Its like using your own personal system to gauge the temperature outside.

My name is not George nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I think that George was just setting up an abusive situation in molotov's mind given Molotov's 'no divorce except' rule...

And, actually, I like my personal system to gauge the temperature outside very much since I trust myself more than anyone else. So having someone set the rules for me is not high on my list of things to do but, obviously, that may be just me (and, likely, George)...

Forrest

RG Coburn

September 12, 2010, 16:01

But your personal system would only work for you.How would you relate,accurately,to someone else,exactly how cold or hot it is?
Cold to people in Florida is not cold to people in Michigan,but 32 degrees farenheit is freezing no matter where you are.
I do remember Jesus explaining that divorce thingy.Inconvenient for many I'm sure,but "till death do us part" was suppose to be superglue. Only infidelity would dissolve it.Or death..

the gman

September 12, 2010, 17:10

Originally posted by Bama Steve
Non-land owners should not be able to vote.

Originally posted by RG Coburn
I'd agree with this.
If you ain't smart enough to own land,you ain't smart enough to have a say-so where land taxes go.

Either one of you brain surgeons ever consider that there are a multitude of reasons that folks might not own land, many of them completely unrelated to how smart they are? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I can let Bama off the hook a little cuz he clearly isn't bright enough to understand the basic concept of private property rights (which, given this post, is fuckin' hilarious :wink: ) but I thought more of RG.

Either of you two bright sparks ever move to a high end RE market area for a job like Los Angeles or the Metro DC area? Ever found that you simply couldn't get a foot in the door of the very expensive RE market so you had to rent? Especially if you didn't know if the job was gonna be permanent? How about if you get moved around a lot with your job like with, oh I dunno, maybe the fuckin' MILITARY ya dumb schmucks.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Or maybe you get hurt on the job or get cancer or lose your job or anyone of a million frigging reasons your income can get tossed in the shitter & your nice house gets foreclosed on & now you are back to renting.

Fcuk it, let's go all the way back to the bad old days & you can't vote if you are black? Why not? Stupidfuckers like you give retards a bad name but carry on carrying on; ol' chet was right about folks showing the depth of their stupidity if you give 'em enough rope.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BTW RG, molotov was the one with an issue about strip joints so I wondered if the hubby frequenting one on a regular basis was grounds for a divorce as he considers lusting adultery?? Just tryin' to keep the lines in the sand clear y'know??:wink: :wink:

I also don't need a religion to tell me that raping a 6 month old baby is wrong; if you do, you might need a check up from the neck up. I know common sense isn't as widely spread as it once was but there is a Congress, a Senate, a Judiciary & a system to determine what the temperature is. All are open to being changed by the simple application of a vote rather than the never to be changed words of a long dead dude.

Religion is, first & foremost an issue of control just like anti firearms ownership laws. It's not about the guns or the faith, it's all about control because someone wants control over what you do, say or think for their own reasons & those reasons are not usually clear except to a select few in charge.

People talk of Christianity & fail to realize that they are being controlled by decisions made almost two thousand years ago by men, not a God. In the ensuing passage of years, other men, for various venal or personal reasons have also altered their religion & the supposed Gospel. What of all the books that *could* have been included in the NT but were rejected? What of the alterations to the NT that were authorized & directed by various Popes over the years? What of the alterations caused by transcription & alteration to suit the modern language?

How about the differences in opinion between the various factions of Christianity? If you're a Catholic & you use contraception, you're going to hell; if you're a Jehovah's Witness & you get a blood transfusion, you're going to hell? Fcuk, none of you can keep a straight fuggin' story so what makes you think that anyone else should believe a word you say?

All religions become corrupted by their leaders inevitably & their leaders are men. We have seen enough of the results of those who claim to be 'divinely' inspired to know that that kind of mumbo jumbo leads to disaster....:rolleyes:

My dear Bama, when the book of fiction sez that God does something, it states it plainly & simply as in the case of God creating Eve or him afflicting Job with various sundry ailments. Nowhere does the Bible say that God created a wife for Cain nor does it explain where she comes from. I would have thought that these were pretty basic concepts that would have been explained but apparently the Christians or fellow travelers are too busy believing in anything to question it.

I'm all about freedom chet, I said right from the start that molotov & everyone else has the absolute right to petition, to protest & vote for that which they believe to be right. The major difference is that HE doesn't want to give me & others the same rights. His version is that this country should be run along the ideas he holds dear, even if he is in the minority. He is the epitome of intolerance & that's why I give him so much shit. You catch some because you back his plays & fail to quote me correctly. I don't believe that all life is worthless, I just believe that some people are alive that shouldn't be & they are pretty easy to identify & those folks can & should be exterminated with no more thought than crushing a bug.

FYI, you ain't the only one to have seen combat or violence; I was fighting terrorists in Ireland while plenty of stupidfuckers in the USA were donating money to the 'cause'...:mad: :rolleyes: Wonder how stupid those people feel now after 9/11 & seeing how the IRA have been training Muslim terrorists on IED making & terrorist tactics as well as working for drug cartels in S. America???:confused: :mad:

You talk of Christianity being some wonderful religion yet the Scottish minister who spoke to me & the other 800 or so guys with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards who went over the Iraqi border in Desert Shield wasn't so nice. In his words our fight was a just fight, a fight against the God less heathens & we were doing God's work. In reality, it was a war about oil & power as much as anything. Sad it had to get dressed up as a religious battle but I guess you can do anything with the religion if it puts bums on seats, pennies in the coffers or soldiers on the battlefield.

Regarding the rest of your tripe on devaluing property, drunk driving etc: most strip clubs seem to be located in the areas where they are zoned for, like in the business district or where other similar properties are located. Sadly for your feeble effort, they really don't drive down property values anywhere near your hypothesis, if at all unless you have some iron clad hard evidence from some unbiased organization like the National Association of Real Estate Appraisers? Hmm, thought not.

Drink driving? That's an education & enforcement issue that is not given enough attention in society. There was a major push in the UK about 30 years ago to stamp out DUI & it has been a massive success. Whereas back then a DUI offense was just another thing, today a DUI conviction in the UK has you looked at as if you were a child molester. Severe penalties for first time & especially repeat offenders means that the DUI rate has gone down hill faster than Obama's chances of a second term....:rofl:

What will I tell my baby girl about writing on the internet about sleeping with more strippers? Simple. "See Olivia, one day daddy was trying to make a joke to lighten the mood with a bunch of humorless dicks & he even put a shit load of ROTFLMAO & tongue sticking out smileys by his words so they would know it was a joke & guess what? Yes, that's right sweetie, the religious nutcases took Daddy seriously."

That's what I'll tell her cuz funny old thing, it's the truth. I suggest you get out more.

I am full of hate? Hardly. But it is much easier to categorize me as a hater because I don't fall in with the rest of those who do believe. It's easy to point the finger at me & say I'm a hater & that's why I have issues with your God, your or frankly, any religion. Nice try but it won't wash. Free thinkers often get tarred with labels but the big difference between me & molotov is that he would literally tar (& feather) me for what I believe.

I'll take freedom, you can gladly have molotov, you should make such a lovely couple.......:tongue: :tongue: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: (BTW, just to make it clear, this was a JOKE, y'know, it's something that involves HUMOR, try it some time, you might like it....:rolleyes: )

molotov

September 12, 2010, 17:23

Wife has to be unfaithful in order to get divorced!!!??? Wow. I guess I'm a goner then. You can't imagine what it's like to be married to lunatic Jekyl and Hyde woman.

You didn't know that rule at the time, you ain't guilty by G-d's law. If you had been aware of those standards it might be different.

I know TONS of women I would trust with important decisions and responsibility LONG before I'd trust you.

A friend will help you move, a real friend will help you move a body. I don't know anyone, male or female, asides my old lady, that I can call a real friend and do "trust".

I do remember Jesus explaining that divorce thingy.Inconvenient for many I'm sure,but "till death do us part" was suppose to be superglue. Only infidelity would dissolve it.Or death..

Some translate the adultery clause to mean any breaking of the marriage covenant. As I noted earlier that looking with lust is the same as adultery, then what of that? I think a deliberate act to break marriage vows by one party (cheating, physical abuse) more or less entitles one to a legitimate divorce before G-d. I could probably be swayed by a more hard line stance, but for now this will do.

Non-land owners should not be able to vote.

I would've mentioned that but it wasn't on topic. I have believed this for some time. The person with no land or properties to his name is too prone to vote for the person promising the biggest handouts. He has no stake in his country, why should he get a say?

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 18:17

Originally posted by molotov

I would've mentioned that but it wasn't on topic. I have believed this for some time. The person with no land or properties to his name is too prone to vote for the person promising the biggest handouts. He has no stake in his country, why should he get a say?

Well, lets take me for example.

8 Years in The Marine Corps, Combat in Iraq, BTDT etc...

Medically retired and back in school since I can't do what I want to do anymore (Physically unable)

Yea... Guess I have no stake in this country since I don't yet own land!

(Insert pic of me flipping you off)

molotov

September 12, 2010, 18:38

Yea... Guess I have no stake in this country since I don't yet own land!

Who said that? I just said if you don't own land you ought not be able to vote. Don't really understand why you tied your service record to not having property, you had as much chance as anyone to buy.

If it were law though, I would agree with vets getting an exemption.

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 18:47

Originally posted by molotov

Who said that?

This guy:

Originally posted by molotov

Originally posted by molotov

The person with no land or properties to his name... He has no stake in his country, why should he get a say?

Originally posted by molotov

Who said that? I just said if you don't own land you ought not be able to vote. Don't really understand why you tied your service record to not having property, you had as much chance as anyone to buy.

If it were law though, I would agree with vets getting an exemption.

So, me serving in the Corps = I do not deserve a right to vote.

But if I bought 1 SqFt of ground...

I would.

You have a Fucked up sense of priorities.

I did not tie me being enlisted to not owning property. (Although moving all over the World kinda gets in the way) I tied it to EARNING the 'RIGHT' to vote.

So, vets get the right, but not firefighters?
Not cops?

Etc.

As I said...

You have your head up your ass.

the gman

September 12, 2010, 19:23

Originally posted this in 169 above but it involved reading more than scripture so molotov missed it I guess....:sleep:

quote:Originally posted by Bama Steve
Non-land owners should not be able to vote.

quote:Originally posted by RG Coburn
I'd agree with this.
If you ain't smart enough to own land,you ain't smart enough to have a say-so where land taxes go.

Either one of you brain surgeons ever consider that there are a multitude of reasons that folks might not own land, many of them completely unrelated to how smart they are?

I can let Bama off the hook a little cuz he clearly isn't bright enough to understand the basic concept of private property rights (which, given this post, is fuckin' hilarious ) but I thought more of RG.

Either of you two bright sparks ever move to a high end RE market area for a job like Los Angeles or the Metro DC area? Ever found that you simply couldn't get a foot in the door of the very expensive RE market so you had to rent? Especially if you didn't know if the job was gonna be permanent? How about if you get moved around a lot with your job like with, oh I dunno, maybe the fuckin' MILITARY ya dumb schmucks.....

Or maybe you get hurt on the job or get cancer or lose your job or anyone of a million frigging reasons your income can get tossed in the shitter & your nice house gets foreclosed on & now you are back to renting.

Fcuk it, let's go all the way back to the bad old days & you can't vote if you are black? Why not? Stupidfuckers like you give retards a bad name but carry on carrying on; ol' chet was right about folks showing the depth of their stupidity if you give 'em enough rope.....

End of previous post.

Up pops a Vet with a perfect example of a worthy person who doesn't own land yet you fcuks want to take away his right to vote? How about all the millions of good honest folks in NY City who will NEVER have the chance to own property? Guess they should move huh?

Nomad had it right, you have your head up your arse.:tongue: :mad:

molotov

September 12, 2010, 19:50

Either of you two bright sparks ever move to a high end RE market area for a job like Los Angeles or the Metro DC area?

Who would want to live there anyways?

Ever found that you simply couldn't get a foot in the door of the very expensive RE market so you had to rent?

I would just move elsewhere.

How about if you get moved around a lot with your job like with, oh I dunno, maybe the fuckin' MILITARY ya dumb schmucks.....

The circumstances surrounding a job you signed on for still don't make for a valid excuse not to own property, nor does it prevent you from acquiring it.

Or maybe you get hurt on the job or get cancer or lose your job or anyone of a million frigging reasons your income can get tossed in the shitter & your nice house gets foreclosed on & now you are back to renting.

I generally pay majority cash for what I purchase, as I do not like debt and so this doesn't really apply in my world.

Fcuk it, let's go all the way back to the bad old days & you can't vote if you are black? Why not?

No problems with blacks voting, so long as they hold property. The hand out mentality among a sizeable portion of blacks is precisely how people like Obama get elected.

Up pops a Vet with a perfect example of a worthy person who doesn't own land yet you fcuks want to take away his right to vote?

It's not my fault he didn't buy property. He still can, no one is stopping him.

How about all the millions of good honest folks in NY City who will NEVER have the chance to own property? Guess they should move huh?

Many of them own apartments and houses. An apartment qualifies as "property" in my book.

So, vets get the right, but not firefighters?

Exactly.

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 20:08

Originally posted by molotov

The circumstances surrounding a job you signed on for still don't make for a valid excuse not to own property, nor does it prevent you from acquiring it.

Howabout this:

You are making $1,100 per month, and living in a Barrics, getting shipped all over, have duties elsewhere etc.

Or howabout this:

IT DOES NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.

BUT... YOU think that if I bought an acre, and split it up into 1 inch parcles, and GAVE it to everyone on welfare, and voted the way I wanted...

THEY have the right to vote.

But The SSGT who won the CMH reciently....

DOES NOT deserve to vote.

What gives YOU the right to Judge people better than you like that SSGT.

What have YOU done to deserve ETHER the right to vote OR to pass judgement.

Your credability is suffering GREATELY.

molotov

September 12, 2010, 20:36

You are making $1,100 per month, and living in a Barrics, getting shipped all over, have duties elsewhere etc.

So go land shopping while on leave.

BUT... YOU think that if I bought an acre, and split it up into 1 inch parcles, and GAVE it to everyone on welfare, and voted the way I wanted...

No, it would have to be a viable property.

THEY have the right to vote.

They shouldn't. I think you are basing your viewpoint more on the fact that you don't own property more than anything else.

But The SSGT who won the CMH reciently.... DOES NOT deserve to vote.

He isn't prevented from being a property owner. Seems you are playing your argument from a standpoint of discrimination against those who don't hold properties, but there is nothing preventing you or anyone else from owning some except excuses you have created.

You've been in the corps 8 years? I think you have had the time to make a purchase.

What gives YOU the right to Judge people better than you like that SSGT.

I wasn't judging people even though you just did when you said "better than you like that SSGT". I merely said if you don't own property you shouldn't get to vote. You act like it is a foreign concept but initially this country was indeed run that way, you know, back when it was actually a free nation.:rolleyes:

What have YOU done to deserve ETHER the right to vote OR to pass judgement.

I am a landowner.:p

And for the record, I don't vote. I don't feel my vote is worth anything in a country where every illiterate welfare case has the "right" to vote. Flame away, those people whose "rights" you support are the ones who elected your favorite commander in chief.

And I never passed judgment on anyone so quit with the Semper Cry-delis....lol

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 21:29

Originally posted by molotov

So go land shopping while on leave.

No, it would have to be a viable property.

They shouldn't. I think you are basing your viewpoint more on the fact that you don't own property more than anything else.

He isn't prevented from being a property owner. Seems you are playing your argument from a standpoint of discrimination against those who don't hold properties, but there is nothing preventing you or anyone else from owning some except excuses you have created.

You've been in the corps 8 years? I think you have had the time to make a purchase.

I wasn't judging people even though you just did when you said "better than you like that SSGT". I merely said if you don't own property you shouldn't get to vote. You act like it is a foreign concept but initially this country was indeed run that way, you know, back when it was actually a free nation.:rolleyes:

I am a landowner.:p

And for the record, I don't vote. I don't feel my vote is worth anything in a country where every illiterate welfare case has the "right" to vote. Flame away, those people whose "rights" you support are the ones who elected your favorite commander in chief.

And I never passed judgment on anyone so quit with the Semper Cry-delis....lol

Yes, I COULD have spent a large portion of my limited resources on a piece of land which was of ABSOLUTELY NO use to me...

Just because.

I don't base my viewpoint on the fact that I own property. I base it on the fact that People who actually SERVE this country... Have done more than someone who owns land and doesn't even VOTE (Not that I think it does much good)

...But not according to you!

Yea, I've had plenty of time to buy land.
It just hasn't made economic sense.

I've saved my money insted.

(I also don't do debt)

When it makes sense, then I will do it. Not until.

Yea, I'll say that a CMH EARNER who has PUT HIS LIFE ON THE LINE for his country is better than someone who places judgements and doesn't even bother to vote.

As for the country... IIRC it was property... As in land OR assets. (May not be thinking of something else, but I believe)

Your a landowner... great.
Apparently that and the fact that you believe you have the right to pass judgement on others is all you've done.

Congradulations.

:p

You'd done a LOT of Judging in this thread.

See your a liar too.
:biggrin:

Personally, It is my opinion that your just getting your rocks off with your additude and trying to piss everyone off to make yourself feel superior.

Some people don't have your security issues.

Outlaw Patriot

September 12, 2010, 21:45

Originally posted by Nomad, 2nd

This guy:

So, me serving in the Corps = I do not deserve a right to vote.

But if I bought 1 SqFt of ground...

I would.

You have a Fucked up sense of priorities.

I did not tie me being enlisted to not owning property. (Although moving all over the World kinda gets in the way) I tied it to EARNING the 'RIGHT' to vote.

So, vets get the right, but not firefighters?
Not cops?

Etc.

As I said...

You have your head up your ass. [/QUOTE]

Hey cheer up, at least you arent a woman who has served this country AND bought land and STILL shouldnt be able to vote in molotov's mind.

Oh, and just what would be so great about only land owners being allowed to vote?

It would be counterproductive. There are a great many reasons why owning land is not a smart move for people. I dont own land, but anyone that tries to take away my right to vote would probably find such an action would be detrimental to their health and well being.

RG Coburn

September 12, 2010, 21:51

All my active duty military relatives own property. I don't see what you clowns don't get...when you let EVERYBODY vote,they inevitibly vote for the most goodies for themselves,and for those who promise it,without putting anything at risk..For every military non-land owner,you've got dozens and dozens of welfare baby's-mommas voting to get more bennies steered toward them and away from the military. You wonder why we are trillions and trillions in debt?
How did you determine that CMH earner doesn't own a couple acres back home?

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 21:53

Originally posted by Outlaw Patriot

Hey cheer up, at least you arent a woman who has served this country AND bought land and STILL shouldnt be able to vote in molotov's mind.

Oh, and just what would be so great about only land owners being allowed to vote?

It would be counterproductive. There are a great many reasons why owning land is not a smart move for people. I dont own land, but anyone that tries to take away my right to vote would probably find such an action would be detrimental to their health and well being.

TRUTH!

There's a Chick in my Terrorism class, Been to Afganistan, in the Air Guard.
Consirvative, pretty cool chick. (Has her own Bike AND a Biplane...)

She's not 5 ft 5, but I'd like to see him tell her!:biggrin:

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 21:56

Originally posted by RG Coburn
All my active duty military relatives own property. I don't see what you clowns don't get...when you let EVERYBODY vote,they inevitibly vote for the most goodies for themselves,and for those who promise it,without putting anything at risk..For every military non-land owner,you've got dozens and dozens of welfare baby's-mommas voting to get more bennies steered toward them and away from the military. You wonder why we are trillions and trillions in debt?
How did you determine that CMH earner doesn't own a couple acres back home?

Howabout this INSTED:

IF you go on Welfare, you give up the right to vote.

Get off the dole for 6 months... you get to vote.

THIS would be OK for me, because it would be VOLUNTARY... you have a CHOICE.

(And I agree with THIS)

JMHO, Someone who RISKS THEIR LIFE for this country... has a HELL of alot more stake in this country than someone who owns a few feet of dirt!

molotov

September 12, 2010, 22:01

I base it on the fact that People who actually SERVE this country... Have done more than someone who owns land and doesn't even VOTE (Not that I think it does much good)

Seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion though. As I said, in such a system you aren't deprived of your ability to own property (or assets as you mentioned).

Still, being a vet in today's system doesn't allow you to circumvent the other rules and requirements we are all held to. You still have to have an ID to vote.

I could argue that requiring an ID is discriminatory towards the homeless and towards those who have no way of legitimately obtaining one. After all, you just argued that "THEY" be allowed to vote.

You could say "but not requiring ID allows the voting system to be manipulated" but the fact is not requiring land/asset ownership allows the system to be more easily manipulated. As I said, people who lack land/assets are more likely to vote to the candidate who offers the most handouts. Just the way it is.

Personally, It is my opinion that your just getting your rocks off with your additude and trying to piss everyone off to make yourself feel superior.

I don't intend to, it just happens naturally. I have always tended to think outside the box a little bit. It's only a discussion and no harm or offense is meant.:)

EDIT:

THIS would be OK for me, because it would be VOLUNTARY... you have a CHOICE.

Buying property is voluntary.

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 22:20

Originally posted by molotov

Seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion though. As I said, in such a system you aren't deprived of your ability to own property (or assets as you mentioned).

Still, being a vet in today's system doesn't allow you to circumvent the other rules and requirements we are all held to. You still have to have an ID to vote.

I could argue that requiring an ID is discriminatory towards the homeless and towards those who have no way of legitimately obtaining one. After all, you just argued that "THEY" be allowed to vote.

You could say "but not requiring ID allows the voting system to be manipulated" but the fact is not requiring land/asset ownership allows the system to be more easily manipulated. As I said, people who lack land/assets are more likely to vote to the candidate who offers the most handouts. Just the way it is.

I don't intend to, it just happens naturally. I have always tended to think outside the box a little bit. It's only a discussion and no harm or offense is meant.:)

EDIT:

Buying property is voluntary.

You are incorrect.

You are saying that you should be required to own property to vote.

I remind you that property (Not all, but enough if you wanted it) was FREE in 1775

MY POINT is that there are MANY Americans who do NOT fit 'your perfect little world' Who DO INDEED have alot of 'stake' in this country.

Many have MORE than your 'landowner'

Second point: I see no reason someone (As outlined above) should be REQUIRED to buy useless (To them) land, in order to have a voice.

You are NOT 'thinking outside the box'... You have blinders on.
this is proven by your first comment, about "irrelevant"...

ETA: Forcing people to buy property is akin to a 'poll tax' and we know the dispensation of THAT little gem!

the gman

September 12, 2010, 22:29

Don't blame the right to vote for the issues at hand, place it where it is due; a lack of personal responsibility & weak politicians. McCain is the BEST that the GOP could come up with?? Obama got elected by a bunch of stupid white folks who thought they owed blacks something because of slavery & those who were tired of the equally worthless George Bush. Ain't no way Obama would have got elected without the help of whites so be careful what you wish for.

molotov is just a tired old douchebag with arrogance issues. Look on the bright side, he might get hit by a bus tomorrow & increase the IQ level in his town by a good few points....:tongue: :devil:

You don't vote? Nice. Way to go to honor the right you were accorded. Yeah, back in the day there were property restrictions on who could vote precisely to stop all the blacks voting. To use your own words against you, they also lynched blacks back then so your point is what exactly?

You can't handle a beat down so you cry off for a while & come back with crap. Why don't you go finish beating your wife or rape her, cuz it's not like she can say no after all? Right?

Woohoo, the molotov household must be a whole lotta fun I bet....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm sure you'd never take a job where the RE market is high, they don't tolerate 25 year old broken down single wides in those kind of markets now do they? Some people actually have jobs they love that are in those areas as opposed to being stuck in a shit hole area where molotov can manage to afford his aforesaid single wide trailer payments....:tongue: :tongue: :rolleyes:

Sure, mil folks can buy property but why should they? Oh yeah, we're back to that freedom thing again. I guess molotov just loves Animal Farm; all animals are equal, just some animals are more equal than others.

Have a nice life. I'm gonna piss my sides laughing when you end up in hell & wonder what the fcuk happened. See, even your God knows you're a complete douchebag.......:p :p :devil:

molotov

September 12, 2010, 22:36

I remind you that property (Not all, but enough if you wanted it) was FREE in 1775

Being a military man you make a mistake assuming that the west was taken free of charge. Indians, outlaws, disease. That was high priced property.

MY POINT is that there are MANY Americans who do NOT fit 'your perfect little world' Who DO INDEED have alot of 'stake' in this country.

Sure, even the illegals have a "stake" in this country by your description, however, they, like those with no land/assets are basically risking nothing financially when it comes down to who wins or loses at the ballot box. Why you think Obama got elected? People with nothing to lose.

Second point: I see no reason someone (As outlined above) should be REQUIRED to buy useless (To them) land, in order to have a voice.

I see no reason why they shouldn't be.

Forcing people to buy property is akin to a 'poll tax' and we know the dispensation of THAT little gem!

No one is getting forced to. It's simple, if you want to vote, be a landowner or buy assets. If you don't want to vote, don't bother.

The adoption of looser and ever more inclusive voting standards pretty well runs concurrent from with our march from a republic towards democratic aka handout socialism.

Nomad, 2nd

September 12, 2010, 22:43

Originally posted by molotov

Being a military man you make a mistake assuming that the west was taken free of charge. Indians, outlaws, disease. That was high priced property.

Sure, even the illegals have a "stake" in this country by your description, however, they, like those with no land/assets are basically risking nothing financially when it comes down to who wins or loses at the ballot box. Why you think Obama got elected? People with nothing to lose.

I see no reason why they shouldn't be.

No one is getting forced to. It's simple, if you want to vote, be a landowner or buy assets. If you don't want to vote, don't bother.

The adoption of looser and ever more inclusive voting standards pretty well runs concurrent from with our march from a republic towards democratic aka handout socialism.

The words you are attempting to put in my mouth are incorrect.
I do NOT forget about 'difficulity costs' but it's NOT a 'buy your right to vote with cash' deal like you advocate.

Doesn't matter because no one wants your little 'rules' which you are advocating.

And since you don't even vote... there's not even a SLIM chance we'll haveto worry about it.:tongue:

molotov

September 12, 2010, 22:51

You can't handle a beat down so you cry off for a while & come back with crap. Why don't you go finish beating your wife or rape her , cuz it's not like she can say no after all? Right?

And so Mr. Hateful finally drags my family into it. Way to go genius. So much for all the BS about not being an angry or spiteful SOB.

Perhaps you can edit your post after doing some reflecting on what you just said to me. And over what? A forum discussion? That's pretty sad, g.

For someone who says he has seen battle you sure do poorly in a war of words.

martin35

September 13, 2010, 13:16

And for the record, I don't vote. I don't feel my vote is worth anything in a country where every illiterate welfare case has the "right" to vote.
That is the attitude of a useless ignorant elitist who can't be bothered with being a American,,, let Mikey do it,,,, that really pisses me off.
Please assume every derogatory I know for yourself.
You can't mean God bless America when all you really mean is God bless me.

On the subject of a woman's right to vote; women during WWII more than earned the right to vote by building the ships, planes and tanks along with all the attendant war materials that were used to win the war.
People who don't vote forfeit their rights and their voice for complaint.

chet

September 13, 2010, 13:25

This thread aint going anywhere. Turns out the folks who were the most upset over the law agree with zoning restrictions after all. Go figure.

gman wants humor. Laugh away, young American. Marriage, fidelity, and sexual morality are important to some of us but, as I mentioned, some guys still haven't grown up. Me? I have seen firsthand what happens when sexual immorality (in the mind or the body) from either spouse kills a marriage, most especially for those in the military. You have too, gman, but haven't yet got the maturity to connect the dots.

Erect all the straw men you want. But, I am hoping you get it at some point. America needs more men who understand that the family is the core unit of this whole thing and the country you asked to be a Citizen of is a gift from God himself.

brunop

September 13, 2010, 13:51

Originally posted by molotov

And so Mr. Hateful finally drags my family into it. Way to go genius...

Actually, it looks to me like you either did the "dragging" yourself, or at least knew someone would make the obvious leap when you posted:

Gonna upset your apple cart here buddy, as I am a traditionalist in some ways. Bear with me while I take us to the stone age.

1. A woman should not be able to divorce her husband except for a case of infidelity.
2. A woman should not have the right to vote
3. A woman should not refuse her husband sex

What, you didn't think people would think your position applies to your family?

the gman is treading on thin ice as the rules of the forum take a dim view of bringing members' family members into 'fights' - but he's suggesting that your view looks a lot like what some people call rape. This connection is made MUCH MORE OBVIOUS by YOUR inclusion of the following as a "defense" (of sorts) for the position:

...She has no right to withhold except by mutual consent. I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife.

This thread is turning uglier by the minute. And I suggest that Molotov can't do his arguments 'justice' (if you want to call it that) when he's responding to a dog-pile at this point. Of course he's a big boy, and he brought it on himself, and he knew it going in. It is the internet, after all.

How about everybody attack the ideas instead of the person? Calling someone a "f**kstick" may be warranted on occasion, but it hardly keeps a debate going. Attacking a person makes it look like a person can't attack the idea very well.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not asking for people to play pattycake here. Big boys will do what they want. But Chet's and Martin's last posts say a LOT - and they say it without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

On a personal note, I like Martin's assessment of the non-voting issue, and Chet's last sentence is A++++

I suspect that the gman doesn't feel very differently about those points, either.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 13, 2010, 14:34

Originally posted by chet
This thread aint going anywhere. Turns out the folks who were the most upset over the law agree with zoning restrictions after all. Go figure.

Zoning and outright bans are totally different things. Zoning tells you where commercial or residential areas are. As businesses of course they belong in commercial areas.

Originally posted by chet
sexual immorality (in the mind or the body) from either spouse kills a marriage, most especially for those in the military. [/B]

What happens between two married citizens is their own business. It's still no reason for GOVERNMENT to point GUNS at people and tell them what they CANNOT DO!

I never would have guessed how many anti-freedom types would be on a firearms board. Bunch of hypocrites, "I want the freedoms I enjoy, but everyone that enjoys something else can get fucked." I HATE hypocrites more than liberals.

Aaron

Outlaw Patriot

September 13, 2010, 15:08

I would usually say that bringing family into any arguments on the internet is uncalled for, but molotv pretty much brought his own into this.

I fear for his wife and children. Really, I dont say this too often, but the guy really seems like he is functionally insane. I would not trust him around children.

Originally posted by chet

Erect all the straw men you want. But, I am hoping you get it at some point. America needs more men who understand that the family is the core unit of this whole thing and the country you asked to be a Citizen of is a gift from God himself.

Maybe so. I will agree that many people are lacking in fundamental morals, although I wonder if it wasnt always so. I'm not so sure what family has to do with it. I've known plenty of immoral people that tied the knot and popped out a few kids. Righteous moral people will act as such whether they have a family or not.

Regardless, it is not the government's business, unless these people's actions have an impact on others.

Originally posted by Nomad, 2nd

TRUTH!

There's a Chick in my Terrorism class, Been to Afganistan, in the Air Guard.
Consirvative, pretty cool chick. (Has her own Bike AND a Biplane...)

She's not 5 ft 5, but I'd like to see him tell her!:biggrin:

Hmmm, I might tell her myself, just to let her wrassle me around a lil.

martin35

September 13, 2010, 16:02

In Texas we named a town for the result of discussing religion and politics, we call it Cut n' Shoot, Texas, zip code 77303

chet

September 13, 2010, 16:05

Originally posted by Bigger_Is_Better

Zoning and outright bans are totally different things. Zoning tells you where commercial or residential areas are. As businesses of course they belong in commercial areas.

And that is what you got, a statewide ordinance that dictates the type of business that may be conducted and where it may be conducted. This type of regulation is hardly new or unique to Missouri. You ought to be upset with yourself for not keeping up with pending legislation on a subject that is evidently near and dear to you.

Originally posted by Bigger_Is_Better

What happens between two married citizens is their own business. It's still no reason for GOVERNMENT to point GUNS at people and tell them what they CANNOT DO!

I never would have guessed how many anti-freedom types would be on a firearms board. Bunch of hypocrites....{whine/whine/whine].

Aaron

Umm yeah. Lamenting the fact that divorce is usually ugly and painful and advocating the use of force to prevent it are two very different things. You'll need a phone pole to prop this straw man up unless you can quote me stating otherwise.

Back on topic:
I witnessed a lot (as in dozens) of marriages fail while in the Marines. While time, distance and money problems were major contributing factors, sexual immorality brought most of them to a head and THAT was what the attorneys made sure the judge was aware of. Any guesses why?

What happened when the divorce rate among 1st term Marines doubled in a decade back in 94? Did the Commandant, General Mundy, put strip clubs off limits on while on libo? No, he restricted marriage instead.

Why?
It was marriage that was taking a beating. Bars and clubs were doing fine. General Mundy simply realized the obvious - warriors can't be married and live like a broke rock star (which is what young Marines and the women they marry tend to do, I did, and future ones probably will do, too.) More importantly, the People of the United States had to pay to clean up the mess vis a vis lots of trained Marines on emergency leave, lined up at Navy Relief and Family Services, and ultimately some of them were non deployable and later separated.

Of course, that paragon of military fortitude, Les Aspin, promptly danced all over Mundy's head the next day and let us all know that "modern society" was fully capable of balancing marriage, deployment, insolvency, and rampant sexual immorality just like his Commander in Chief showed us we could. And people wonder where terms like WestPac widow come from?

On the civilian side, do you really think the taxpayer bears much less burden with subsized legal and social aid for the immoral indegents who wrecklessly gamble, drink, and striptip their gubmint checks away? Then, we get to pay to tend (not really raise) their offspring and cover their debts while they continue their lifestyle on my dime.

So, you can lecture me about my Christian intolerance and the violence you think you perceive while week after week I pay for adults to live like frat boys and I clean up the mess. Excuse me if I advocate regulating a small portion of that mess to a mere 1000 feet or more from my house or my kids school.

If you like, go ride with your fire department one weekend night. Heck, you can ride the back seat of my engine, Aaron. Don't worry, I don't get paid to ride either. Tell me what kind of people we scrape off the road at 2am - responsible citizens or immoral idiots? Try doing it a few years and see if you can find the pattern in bahavior that leads to misery and death for themselves and innocents alike. It ain't rocket science.

And I can promise you Aaron, I give the best service and care I can to one and all, regardless of race, creed, or color or moral terpitude. I do it for free so my fellow tax payers and I can pay a little less each year rather than pony up the few million it would take to man a fire station 24/7 if we walked out.

Your rant on lost freedom at the strip club carries absolutely no weight with me. It is simply another regulated business that doesn't even come close to covering the debt it owes to society for the trouble it has caused. Ain't happy about it? Call your Congressman. Me? I'm already double down in my community and you haven't even ante'd up and I'll take whatever respite I can get.

chet

September 13, 2010, 16:15

And for the unwilling to comprehend:
I didn't say divorce should be outlawed or prevented by force. I didn't even advocate shutting down every smut shop from here to Sheboygan. And, I don't want police interferring between consenting adults when it comes to sex.

I simply said zoning with due process was ok in my book and I'll pay my taxes and do my part like everybody else, even if I disagree with the outcome. Only in the liberal mind does this make one a Nazi or Taliban.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 13, 2010, 17:02

Dude, banning and zoning are NOT the same. Zoning simply divides areas for commerce and areas for residence. By your reasoning firearms ownership could be done away with simply by zoning. That's not how it works bud. The force comment wasn't directed to divorce, but to the banning of private transactions between individual citizens. What you and the rest of the religious nuts are advocating is to allow armed men to use force to keep a stripper from doing her work. All because it may offend some prudish sky-daddy follower.

Freedom is freedom...end of argument. I will oppose any law that attempts to reign it in. I unlike religious hypocrites will even defend freedoms I don't agree with. Mosque on ground zero.....well, if they have the cash they should be allowed. Do I think it's a damn travesty, yes I do. The fact of the matter is though they are free to worship whomever they want wherever they can afford to. It does not harm anyone's life, liberty, or property.

chet

September 13, 2010, 17:21

Uhh, zoning is rather more than that Aaron. I live in a fairly simple rural interface area and we have about a half dozen different zoning categories in use and several more simply on the books. Zoning regulates MANY aspects of business and homes, not just the type of business that goes on inside. Ask a real estate agent or better yet, a real estate atty.

Bud, fortunately for you and I, possession of firearms has it's own big fat protection clause in the Constitution (although that hasn't prevented anybody from running roughshod over it lately). Businesses? Not so much. Business is subject to a whole slew gob of police powers at the local and municipal level (and that firearms were not intended to be). You knew that but I guess it helps your position to ignore that.

You'd like to believe SWAT will show up to shutdown the dance just like Footloose with the preacher wagging his finger in the background but fortunately, real life has this thing we call the rule of law. When it applies to zoning, it is the same "force" that prevents an ethel-methyl-bad stuff plant (a business) from setting up next to a day care (another business). It's usually simply the lack of a buidling permit and business license that prevent people from setting up shop but I suppose P.T. Barnum was probably right. Let me know if you see the Missouri State Police and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir pointing guns at strip club owners. Better yet, grab your FAL and take up a position! Ooops, wait....you can't do that, you said you would defend freedoms you don't agree with......like legal and duely processed zoning restrictions, I guess?

chet

September 13, 2010, 17:33

And here's a question for the mildly interested:

If "Freedom is Freedom" is as simple as Aaron postulates, why did the Founder's incorporate a legislative and judicial branch in addition to an executive? Wouldn't it simply have been enough to designate an executive power to enforce a delineated definition of Freedom?

Answer:________________. (Hint: It's in God's book, Aaron, not Ayn Rand's.)

molotov

September 13, 2010, 17:37

That is the attitude of a useless ignorant elitist who can't be bothered with being a American,

Nonsense. McCain vs Obama? C'mon. Clinton vs. Bush? It's like asking "who would you rather your doctor, Mengele or Brandt?" My time is too valuable to mess around voting for one criminal or the other. I'll register when Jesus Christ is on the ballot.

Actually, it looks to me like you either did the "dragging" yourself, or at least knew someone would make the obvious leap when you posted

Way to enforce the rules. I could have used his daughter to make points about strip clubs, but it is disrespectful and dishonorable (that morality discussion that gman can't grasp again), kind of like building a mosque at ground zero is disrespectful. Kind of like burning Korans is disrespectful.

If you didn't notice, he made that remark in what appears to be his last post ("have a great life"). Then he tucked his tail between his legs and disappeared. Run, g-string, run.

You can't mean God bless America when all you really mean is God bless me.

So you think G-d is angry with me for not voting? Aside from your petty insults, can you quote the scripture to back your viewpoints? No.

Less knee jerk response and more substantive arguments. You are saying failure to vote is morally wrong, but what is your source for that, aside from yourself?

I fear for his wife and children.

Maybe instead of talking out of ignorance you should meet us sometime.

My wife is a nurse who has a heart for the elderly she takes care of. She is well loved and has many strong supporters in her place of employment. She enjoys playing guitar, singing, and writing music with equal or greater fervor than she has for her job. Next month will be our ninth anniversary.:biggrin:

My daughter (actually my stepdaughter but I am her only "dad") is 13 and makes the honor roll in spite of the ghetto middle school she attends. She aspires to be an artist someday, and is quite talented and has won scholarships and had award winning artwork displayed at the local art gallery downtown (St. Petersburg). She likes making art, riding bikes, and shopping (of course). She is easygoing and laid back with a sense of humor. I love her as my own.

My son is 8. He was tested for gifted but denied. He is too much like his old man and only cares about what he is interested in, sometimes to the detriment of other subjects. He likes playing drums, legos, helping his dad with firearms projects and bullet casting and sizing as well as riding his bike and making loud farting noises...lol

Unlike the dysfunctional light some would like to cast me in simply for my personal religious and political beliefs, we are more or less an "average" family. Faith and family is pretty much everything to me nowadays.

Bigger_Is_Better

September 13, 2010, 18:01

Originally posted by chet
And here's a question for the mildly interested:

If "Freedom is Freedom" is as simple as Aaron postulates, why did the Founder's incorporate a legislative and judicial branch in addition to an executive? Wouldn't it simply have been enough to designate an executive power to enforce a delineated definition of Freedom?

Answer:________________. (Hint: It's in God's book, Aaron, not Ayn Rand's.)

They were put there to protect freedom not to interfere with it. One branch would rule would lead to the person in power being able to enforce their views. If a crazy Christian or Muslim (about the same minus the pork restriction) were to come to power they would rule according to whatever book they are believing in on that day. The branch system was to keep any one power (this includes religion) from taking control. Thus protecting even the freedoms some hypocrites didn't like.

OH, which God? There are apparently many of them right? Of course most of their books have been changed by whomever held power over them for the last several millennia or so. If you believe otherwise you are very naive.

brunop

September 13, 2010, 18:41

Originally posted by molotov
...
Way to enforce the rules. I could have used his daughter to make points about strip clubs, but it is disrespectful and dishonorable (that morality discussion that gman can't grasp again), kind of like building a mosque at ground zero is disrespectful. Kind of like burning Korans is disrespectful.

If you didn't notice, he made that remark in what appears to be his last post ("have a great life"). Then he tucked his tail between his legs and disappeared. Run, g-string, run.

I don't know if he's breaking the rules or not: saying, "why don't you go do something to your wife" is not the same thing as "your wife is a stupid, fat, bitch...". It is irony - a concept most normally confused with 'coincidence' in American English, but clearly used here to communicate that you'd be in violation of your own standards for 'husbandness', etc. if you were to act on the standards you just espoused. I'll remind you that you brought in the 'rape' statutes offered by several states as it applies to husbands and wives.

I know you get the difference as you are moderately well educated - in spite of the fact that you intentionally misinterpret people's words so that you can attack them erroneously.

If you had, in fact, suggested that his daughter should be allowed to dance in a club, then you would be engaging in the same sort of 'what if' game that is a decent argumentative tactic. If you had said that you couldn't wait to find out if his daughter was working after hours so that you could hit it, I'd ban you in a second. And so would W.E.G., Andy, Ted, Jen, or any other person who knows what is what.

I guess you can actually determine the line, right?

Funny thing is that you and I believe many of the same things. I don't believe you are getting anyone to examine your faith by punching them in the mouth. To each his own.

martin35

September 13, 2010, 19:32

I'll register when Jesus Christ is on the ballot.
Like I said you will be a responcible American when it suits your purposes and only then,,, teats on a boar hog.

molotov

September 13, 2010, 20:13

saying, "why don't you go do something to your wife" is not the same thing as "your wife is a stupid, fat, bitch

The rule is you don't bring family into an argument, at least, that is how I understood it. Am I wrong?

It is irony - a concept most normally confused with 'coincidence' in American English, but clearly used here to communicate that you'd be in violation of your own standards for 'husbandness', etc. if you were to act on the standards you just espoused.

How am I in violation of my own standards for "husbandness"? I say a woman "shouldn't" refuse her husband sex but what did I say about when she does refuse? Where did I advocating beating on her for it?

What's not "husband-like" about believing a woman ought not refuse her husband sex? I tell my old lady this stuff all the time she just doesn't freak out like the women here.

I'll remind you that you brought in the 'rape' statutes offered by several states as it applies to husbands and wives.

If you interpreted my bringing those statutes to light as my endorsement of beating the hell out my old lady you are way off base. I merely used them to illustrate that even current law doesn't always recognize "rape" as such when it involves a man and his wife.

I know you get the difference as you are moderately well educated - in spite of the fact that you intentionally misinterpret people's words so that you can attack them erroneously.

I don't misinterpret peoples words, people simply convey messages and information poorly and I am a fairly acute reader who notices the inconsistencies in their language and actions.

If you had, in fact, suggested that his daughter should be allowed to dance in a club, then you would be engaging in the same sort of 'what if' game that is a decent argumentative tactic.

Yeah, but as I said, I won't go there. It's disrespectful and it's not allowed. Maybe, since you can't seem to make a decision, you ought to contact a moderator who can make a correct call. That would be the right thing to do.

I mean, you say all this but then you went on:

"the gman is treading on thin ice as the rules of the forum take a dim view of bringing members' family members into 'fights"

Why would he be "treading on thin ice" if he had legitimately brought my family in it to make a point? If the forum takes a dim view of it, what is your problem? Either he is in the wrong or well within the rules of the forum. I can't believe you wrestle with such clear cut standards.

I guess you can actually determine the line, right?

Yes, I can, it's you I wonder about.

the gman

September 13, 2010, 22:11

You know what? molotov is right. I did step over the line in regards to my post about him going to beat on his wife. It was a poor attempt to use the old lawyers line of "so Mr molotov, when did you stop beating your wife?" but I failed miserably in conveying that. I apologize to molotov for posting such & but I will not delete said post unless he wishes me to. Deleting things you post is kinda chickenshit in my book; if ya post it, stand by it or apologize for it but let folks see what was said.

brunop is right in divining my intent which was to show the somewhat illogical nature of molotov's response to whether rape can exist between a husband & wife. In addition, I thought his response as to under what grounds can a spouse seek a divorce illogical too. My poorly framed retort was an attempt to show that such narrow reasons as molotov proposes aren't reasonable given that any number of equally justifiable reasons for divorce exist.

Oh my dear chet, you still don't get it. Never said that I disagree with any of your points about fidelity, marriage & family; I actually adhere to those tenets in my every day life & I sure don't need an imaginary God to tell me that.

BTW, I guess you must have a thing for Kevin Bacon or something for you keep referring to Footloose? Me, I have no idea what the film is about as I have never seen it so your continually bringing it up means nothing to me. I was more into Commando or First Blood rather than music based junk.

You sure do think highly of yourself now don't you? You think you're the only one to have ever seen service related divorces? Please. I served for just shy of 12 years in the British Army & it's one of the only military's in the world that has been in constant combat since WW2. Every year for the last 65 years, British soldiers have deployed to combat away from wives & families. In 1993, I spent less than 11 weeks in my base location with my new wife & I didn't even go on a combat tour, that was just courses, exercises & training. '94 was even worse with CT tours of NI & more courses & exercises. I didn't even have it bad compared to many others or how it has been since 9/11 so please don't lecture me on the dramas of military service, you have no clue.

My first wife & I got divorced but it had nothing to do with infidelity on either side, more to do with being young & dumb. I'm going to guess that being young & dumb has a lot more to do with the USMC divorce rate than strip clubs ever did. I'd also agree with the Commandant & his action to resolve the issue. I had to ask for permission from my CO to get married & no one thought any more of it than asking for permission to live in other than base housing.

There's a principle that this country was founded on, more than freedom of religion, more than the 2nd, more than any other & that is personal responsibility. You can try to argue that strip clubs cause this or bars cause that but at the end of the day, no one forces anyone else to do anything. This is a matter of free will & to blame outside forces for the causes of the exercise of free will is the abrogation of personal responsibility. I'm not blaming another person for what I wrote about molotov's family; I wrote it, I accept the excoriation of molotov & anyone else who chooses to jump in. That is the right & logical thing to do.

The problem you & others have is that you see drunks & blame the bars; you see fornicators & blame strip clubs. I see human beings being the way they are & I blame them for their own choices & decisions.

You have the idea that if people would believe in your God, all would be well in the world & possibly that may be so. Some of us choose not to believe but that doesn't mean we are stupid nor ignorant of the choices we make or that we refrain from taking personal responsibility for them.

I am happy with my life, very happy indeed with my wife & ecstatic about our baby girl. I have a wonderful circle of friends who I enjoy spending time with & I am about to embark on a career I have sought for many years. Sure, every now & again I make a mistake, who doesn't?

I wish everyone here a prosperous & fulfilling life, with or without a God they can believe in.

Sig220

September 13, 2010, 22:13

I can tell you what I have learned by reading the 5 pages......

If I were to pick a belief/religion based on what I read in this thread, I would be a Mormon (or what ever Molotov is not!!!)

In my opinion Brunop represents them well:bow:

ftierson

September 13, 2010, 23:46

Originally posted by Sig220
I can tell you what I have learned by reading the 5 pages......

If I were to pick a belief/religion based on what I read in this thread, I would be a Mormon (or what ever Molotov is not!!!)

In my opinion Brunop represents them well:bow:

I'll second that...

Forrest

Brett

September 13, 2010, 23:48

Gman...that was good, and you are right about deleting posts being chickenshit. You are also right about people doing what they want. They will seek out a way to fulfill their desires whether their are neon lights above the entrance or not.
I once knew a hell of a good man. He worked hard and helped anyone in need. His only "problem" was that he could only speak religion. Every conversation was related in some way to scripture and most people would avoid him like the plague. He knew the Bible front to back, but couldn't have a casual conversation without quoting a verse. He was not pushy about his beliefs...it was just his way of life. I felt sorry for him when I had no need to. He had more reason to feel sorry for others. I learned to accept his frame of reference and respect his personality. I don't know what happened to him, but I miss seeing him.

Outlaw Patriot

September 14, 2010, 01:18

molotov

September 14, 2010, 07:24

I apologize to molotov for posting such & but I will not delete said post unless he wishes me to.

Apology accepted and I forgive you. Whether you choose to delete it is entirely up to you. I won't call you a chickenshit for doing so at this point.

In addition, I thought his response as to under what grounds can a spouse seek a divorce illogical too. My poorly framed retort was an attempt to show that such narrow reasons as molotov proposes aren't reasonable given that any number of equally justifiable reasons for divorce exist.

I think part of what I was saying got lost in the fray. If "adultery" is the only grounds for divorce and "looking lustfully" is the equivalent to adultery, then there is more than one legitimate reason for divorce. I noted that I was taught "any breaking of the marriage covenant" was legitimate grounds.

I believe Jesus said these things because at the time Rabbis allowed divorce for even the most petty of reasons, like finding a wife who was more attractive or a better cook.

There's a principle that this country was founded on, more than freedom of religion, more than the 2nd, more than any other & that is personal responsibility.

Well said.

The problem you & others have is that you see drunks & blame the bars; you see fornicators & blame strip clubs.

This is Florida. If I see drunks I blame Natty's light....lol

If I were to pick a belief/religion based on what I read in this thread, I would be a Mormon (or what ever Molotov is not!!!)

I wholeheartedly agree with not wanting to be a part of whatever cult molotov is in.

Haha, I'm not a member of any church, let alone a cult. My father was a Catholic and my mother a Baptist. Wouldn't feel safe leaving my kids with a Priest, so no go there. Baptists have prohibitions against dancing or drinking, which are legalistic rather than scriptural.

So I was raised evangelical. Confirmed as well. But my church was all about physical structures instead of spiritual ones and was more or less your average watered down modern church. I quit attending.

Then I got involved with Messianic Judaism, which taught me very much, though, I got somewhat burnt out on the ritual and the judaic trappings, as I am not a jew by birth. I wound up moving to FL and didn't find another messianic synagogue within easy driving distance. I do miss the Cantor chanting the Aaronic blessing though.

So now, I just read my bible and once in a while talk to my old Rabbi. I celebrate Sabbath on saturday according to scripture. Cook a good meal, hang out with my kids and wife, read some bible, rest. So I guess if that makes a cultist, I am okay with that.

September 14, 2010, 08:49

All of you bastages seem like pretty good guys. If you can't agree on religion or politics, well that's just the way life is. I think sometimes on subjects like these - the sparring gets going back and forth and the emotions naturally wind themselves up. Maybe it would be best to let it bounce around in your head and reply the next day or something.

One of the reasons we have such complicated laws is that truly in many cases, the politicians are trying to cover every single base and it becomes onerous to say the least. ie must be a landowner to vote - well we want the people that have a stake in the game to be the ones deciding the outcome, right, well what about the soldier who has shed blood for the country, or the firefighter, police, ok....we amend the law and allow them....well what about stockholders who own bits and pieces of many things, ok we amend the law again, well what about someone just working and paying taxes, well we gotta let them have their say....just gets more and more complicated.

I hope we can arrange a meeting with Filer's at Knob Creek and that I can make it this year. Oughta be dry as it has been a REALLY dry spell up here this year.

Whatever. If you think that a guy who repeatedly rapes a SIX MONTH old child, bites her all over her body, flings her to the ceiling letting her fall to the floor & then stomps on her is worthy of saving then you have something missing in your brain bucket. Me, I'd stomp that POS into the ground & then remove him from the gene pool permanently & sleep nights afterward.

The difference being in this one is that I feel like my God would have the ability to forgive him, I wouldn't, and would likely try to do the same as you - albeit not likely as bad ass as some of you exmil guys on here, just have to do my best!!:devil: I am just human and nowhere near as Godlike as I would like to be - and feel many scumbags are on this earth stealing O2 from those more deserving!!! Like you too gman, I am comfortable with my life and when it's time to meet my maker - I'll feel pretty comfortable as I too have been on the edge of the precipice, though only three times did it involve guns pointing in my direction, others were car wrecks, heart attacks, stroke, open heart surgery.....on my tenth life or so, and really appreciating every minute...LOL!! Most of ya'll may not want to stand too close if we do get together as who the heck knows, I am on borrowed time! :rofl:

Peace ya'll!!!

DP

brunop

September 14, 2010, 11:20

Originally posted by molotov

The rule is you don't bring family into an argument, at least, that is how I understood it. Am I wrong?

I understand it differently. While I'm under no tutelage (as of yet) from Jen or Gary, I have a decent understanding from two years of lurking here before I registered, and then several years since.

I believe the FAL Files rule regarding family is, roughly, thus:

"Don't attack family members."

So if you had asked the gman what he thinks about his daughter stripping at one of his 'finer' establishments, you would be in bounds - whether or not this crosses your personal line for decorum. I'll warrant that most members here don't want the "Molotov Forums", so your conduct for yourself isn't the bar we're using. I don't take the Lord's name in vain, but my personal rules don't necessarily distill upon other people I talk to. You see where I'm going with that.

If you had, instead, told the gman that his daughter is a whore, and will probably be dancing at one of his 'finer' establishments as soon as she is old enough, you would probably be banned for the rest of your natural born days. And you would deserve it.

Finally, I chose my words carefully when I said that the gman was walking on "thin ice", and I chose carefully when I said that the Files takes a "dim view" of bringing family into it. That is, the gman didn't break any rules I'm aware of, but was walking 'close to the cliff' - if that analogy helps you: one wrong step could mean consequences. Meanwhile, if a person is comfortable keeping themselves one step off the edge, they are welcome to walk there.

Again, and for all to see, the Files has always had a fair amount of non-moderated, uncensored debate. Almost all of us like that, which is why we are still here. People will try to get people to think about uncomfortable things, like when a person asks how they would like it if a bunch of dirty old men were fapping away to their naked daughter shaking it on the pole. Disturbing thought, to be sure. But this is not an attack. Clear as day this is a useful debate tactic.

The Files will not tolerate the attack of a person's family. I frankly don't know if this applies generally (your whole family is a bunch of whiskey tango douchebags on welfare), but I'm positive that it applies specifically (your wife is fat, ugly, and stupid).

How am I in violation of my own standards for "husbandness"? I say a woman "shouldn't" refuse her husband sex but what did I say about when she does refuse? Where did I advocating beating on her for it?

What's not "husband-like" about believing a woman ought not refuse her husband sex? I tell my old lady this stuff all the time she just doesn't freak out like the women here.

Slowly now, since you are playing dumb...

1. Everyone on this board has an understanding of the word 'rape': it is forceful, non-consentual (I don't know if that is a word) sex act. As such, it usually occurs with the application of force - either real or threatened
2. Everyone on this board assumes that you are a decent enough human being to NOT rape your wife
3. You said that a woman shouldn't withhold sex from her husband, and THEN...
2. You said that you have scriptural references with which to back your opinion up, AND
3. You said (direct quote coming), "...I have scripture to back that up also. I also believe several states do not press charges in cases where a husband "raped" his wife."

You will remember that I specifically said that people will misunderstand your position because of your stupidly chosen 'evidence' (states don't press charges in cases where a husband 'raped' his wife).

I didn't say you "stated" your standards for "husbandliness": everyone here 'granted' the 'non-raping' standard to you as a foregone conclusion. You confused your own issue by using non-prosecution of rape as 'evidence' that women shouldn't withhold sex from their husbands.

I don't think you're so very weird. I can actually dig a relationship where the man and the woman both understand and agree that unilateral 'withholding' is 'off the table'. But then WHY ON EARTH DID YOU EVEN BRING THE RAPE ISSUE UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Dude - either you are nuts, or your argumentation on this topic sucks. Or there is another option that I'm too stupid to see.

If you interpreted my bringing those statutes to light as my endorsement of beating the hell out my old lady you are way off base. I merely used them to illustrate that even current law doesn't always recognize "rape" as such when it involves a man and his wife.

I know you don't beat your wife. So does everyone else. Don't be so obtuse.

I don't misinterpret peoples words, people simply convey messages and information poorly and I am a fairly acute reader who notices the inconsistencies in their language and actions.

This one deserves special attention, but it will likely get lost in the mess of this thread...

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!

No, man, stop... you're killing me. Re-read the thread. Pay special attention to the construction of your arguments when you've quoted people. Then (here's a tip), go back and read what they've said.

It may help to have someone read it out loud to you. Then you will see the look on their faces when they realize you're either getting your ass handed to you, or you're making crap up. I suggest you use someone other than your wife for this job...

Maybe, since you can't seem to make a decision, you ought to contact a moderator who can make a correct call. That would be the right thing to do.

willing to step aside at a moment's notice. Meanwhile, as stated above, your premise is wrong: he didn't break any rules.

chet

September 14, 2010, 15:12

{In a probably vain attempt to keep the thread productive:}

It would be a good idea for those who oppose Mo.'s new law to do a quick study on police powers and how the Constitution reserved most of that to the states.

If you were going to offer a rational objection to this law, you can't just say "morality cannot be legislated" because man has been doing that a long, long time. Instead, you'd have to show how the states don't have the very police powers the Constitution granted them OR that those affected by the law weren't afforded the opportunity to have it reviewed by the judiciary. Good luck.

From either the American Civics or morality perspective, the Founders didn't give two shakes about "personal responsibility" as a primary principle that they imbedded in the Constitution or other writings. Far from it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson spoke out specifically against ethical egoism, which is one of the underpinnings of modern libertarianism. If you want to know where the primary principles of this country came from, you'd simply have to read the Bible.

Listen to what the Founders said about that:

Originally written by John Adams:
W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Originally written by James Madison:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

BTW, Madison is the fellow who had the politically-incorrect audicity to cite not Montesquieu, not Britain, but the BIBLE as the authority on the 3 branch govt system at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 with Isaiah 33:22. Madison spoke Hebrew so he could read the original text just fine and comprehend it's meaning fully.

So gman, when people start posting pictures of Thor with jokes about Jesus' nails, ridiculing followers of a sky daddy or imaginary God, and whining like children because they failed to participate in the legislative freedoms good men died to grant them, I just don't get it. Why would you openly mock something the Founders and the men who died afterwards trusted in so deeply, much less SWEAR OFF your old allegiance to a place you were evidently willing to die for previously to come here? NON SEQUITOR.

You want to disagree about whether the Judeo-Christian idea of lust leads to unhappiness. Well, thank God we are in America where you can. But Jefferson blatantly disagreed with that idea:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

The question you should be asking yourselves, gman and Aaron, is why would anybody CARE enough to explain all this stuff to me without losing their temper even though they have been cussed and slurred.

The answer is the very same reason that Patrick Henry wrote in his will to his family :

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

I am praying you guys will become as "rich" as Patrick is right now. In the mean time, please exercise a little respect for the men and their God that created this place.

Right Side Up

September 14, 2010, 18:54

Originally posted by chet

BTW, Madison is the fellow who had the politically-incorrect audicity to cite not Montesquieu, not Britain, but the BIBLE as the authority on the 3 branch govt system at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 with Isaiah 33:22. Madison spoke Hebrew so he could read the original text just fine and comprehend it's meaning fully.

Where is the source for that quote?

I've done a fair amount of studying about Madison, and he wasn't a religious type. And he fought tooth and nail to NOT have government and religion intertwined.

I remember reading the Admas quote, but you have to keep in mind that it is only his opinion. It does not have the force of law behind it.

the gman

September 14, 2010, 22:32

Originally posted by chet
{In a probably vain attempt to keep the thread productive:}

From either the American Civics or morality perspective, the Founders didn't give two shakes about "personal responsibility" as a primary principle that they imbedded in the Constitution or other writings. Far from it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson spoke out specifically against ethical egoism, which is one of the underpinnings of modern libertarianism. If you want to know where the primary principles of this country came from, you'd simply have to read the Bible.

In the mean time, please exercise a little respect for the men and their God that created this place.

I know you're not stupid but that first paragraph has to be just about the most stupid thing I have read on the FAL Files for a very, very long time.:rolleyes:

You're smoking crack if you think the Founders didn't give a damn about personal responsibility, they RELIED upon it when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.

It might help if we define "Personal Responsibility" & I don't mean what the dictionary sez about it either. To me, it means accepting that when I do something, post something or say something, I am held accountable for that something by another. Whether that is a deity, a court of law, the court of public opinion or the forces of the Crown coming to try & torture me as a traitor. It means that when I screw up, I have to face the consequences of that screw up & not try to slough it off as a result of a poor childhood in a shitty neighborhood or that the way the bitch was dressed meant she was asking for it nor the color of my skin. It means owning the decisions & actions one takes, pure & simple.

If you really think that personal responsibility had nothing to do with the founding of this nation & the men that did so, you have lost the plot completely. What on earth do you think the words "For the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" really mean? For sure, they are calling on the protection of whatever God each one of them believes in but in pledging their "sacred honor", they are taking ownership of this decision & realize that it will have serious consequences for them personally.

They're not asking anyone else to make the decisions for them nor accept the consequences of same, they took personal responsibility for them. The Founding Fathers were, by & large, good & honorable men who perfectly understood the idea of personal responsibility as they lived it on a daily basis.

To suggest otherwise is frankly a stupid idea & I'm surprised that you would advance it.

I have a great deal of respect for the men (& women) who founded this nation but you seem to think that because I don't follow your or (possibly their) God, I am being disrespectful. Keep dreaming bub.

The disrespect is coming from you Sir. The Founding Fathers, to paraphrase you, had more sense then you do or they would NOT have made the First Amendment, well, FIRST on the list. Nor would they have included the words of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " if they didn't mean what they say. That is, I have the right to spurn religion & you shall have the right to practice whatever religion you choose.

Pretty fuckin' obvious to me that the Founding Fathers were some smart cookies who despised compunction in any & all things. It's a damn shame that you lose the commonsense you have when it comes to this discussion.

BTW, I already explained that posting pics of Vikings et al was taking easy cheap shots at molotov that gave me some amusement. That you take more offense at it than he does tells me you're wound a little tight, in fact, I think: http://new.wavlist.com/movies/311/gmv-need.wav

chet

September 15, 2010, 12:28

gman- Do some reading on the Founders. You'll find that "personal responsibility" wasn't mentioned very much, not the words, not the concept. People taking responsibility for their actions was hardly a unique or binding principle for this Nation. If someone would have said "people should take responsibility for their actions" the Founders would have said "Yeah, and ?" Their ideas were quite a bit more complex than that. Your statements on this are tantamount to saying the Founders thought breathing was conducive to good health.

(BTW, It was PEOPLE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT that was the revolutionary idea.)

You may want to look up "sacred honor" before you abscond the definition to mean simply "personal resonsibility". These were not politicians who threw around pretty words with generalized, pop culture definitions. The written word was considered to be infinitely important in communicating across time and space. "Sacred honor" CLEARLY meant one's honor before the Almighty to them. "Sacred" was exclusively used to refer to holiness in a religious sense, not simply "important" as pop culture uses it today. And, according to their words, they didn't believe in "whatever god". They were all followers of the same God, although they worshipped him with slight differences and it didn't bother them one iota to write the Declaration with that in mind. Again, read their writings. It's there in their own hand.

It's ironic that you referenced that phrase because "sacred honor", as the Founders knew it, is something an agnostic/atheist would freely admit he does not have or want. How can anything be sacred if there is no higher power to deem it so? Can an agnostic have honor? Sure. But only according to himself and others that think so too. God never enters into the equation.

It doubly ironic that you want to free yourself from the accepted and historical definitions of words and ask everyone to accept your personal revised definitions, instead. That's hardly responsible, is it? Liberals love this concept, though. They very much want the Constitution to be a "living document" also, where everyone is free to interpret it as they see fit. It frees them to change everything they want without actually changing our form of govt (too much work).

And the third irony, is that you continue under the delusion that I and other Christians would deny you your right to deny God when I have repeatedly posted otherwise. God gave you the ability to deny Him. I support no govt that would hinder that ability. I am not aware of any large evangelical Christian orgnaizations that would do otherwise. Straw men scare crows, no one else.

The ultimate irony is this: you harp about your respect for the Founders but you mock their God openly here. They derived their ideas directly from God's Word and trusted him infinitely. Childishly mocking their God and their faith in Him seems disengenuous from a man who was willing to come here and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

chet

September 15, 2010, 12:42

Originally posted by the gman

....... the Founding Fathers....despised compunction in any & all things..........

Herein lies the source of your error.

brunop

September 15, 2010, 12:52

Alternately, a person could say that the gman is acting on his gratitude that they did what they did, that he respects their ideas and their sacrifices, and that he's aware (more than most Americans) that his life is better because of them.

Hardly "mocking" of the Founders. He already said he was punching on Molotov. And, I'll add, I can have a lot of respect for Gandhi without buying his religious underpinnings, can't I?

Bottom line is that the founders had a very different idea about God than most Christians have today - whether they were reading the Bible or not. Of course you are aware that Jefferson re-wrote the Bible, and that a copy of the Jefferson Bible was given to every new member of Congress until almost the 20th century.

This could turn (again) into a LONG religious debate, but that's not working very well. My point is that you don't like the gman's disavowal of your (and my) God. Very well, but you can't make him fit your religion - you can only invite him to investigate or learn about your views.

This world (and this site) would be more friendly and peaceful if people would figure that out on their own.

brunop

September 15, 2010, 12:55

And, Chet, I'd love to understand on what subjects or concepts the Founding Fathers were in favor of "compunction" for the citizens of this land.

I am asking seriously.

chet

September 15, 2010, 13:23

Would the latest link be considered gratitude? I don't know. I didn't click on it. If he wanted to make fun of molotov or me, he could have done so. Instead, the links and pictures slur Christ and those who follow him, not just one or two people. I am not happy about it but I am more than willing to continue the discussion civilly if allowed.

You can say you respect Gandhi and disagree with his religion. That's fine. But would you stand in his face and mock his gods and still be able to say you respect him? No.

As far as I can tell, we haven't discussed differing views of God much yet. This thread is about where our govt derives it's power and how it is used. THAT IS GREAT DISCUSSION FOR CITIZENS and we should jump on the opportunity to share ideas!

If gman continues to deny my God, that is on him and I wish him well (honestly). But, this particular conversation would be more productive if we left the childishness out. Again, doubtful gman would have behaved the same face to face. Why not go back to that old tried and true axiom?

brunop

September 15, 2010, 13:31

Fair enough.

And I didn't click the link either, so I don't know.

Peace.

chet

September 15, 2010, 13:59

Originally posted by brunop
And, Chet, I'd love to understand on what subjects or concepts the Founding Fathers were in favor of "compunction" for the citizens of this land.

I am asking seriously.

Most probably in all subjects and concepts. Look up the word. Only the most amoral and evil people would consider compunction in a general sense a bad thing.

Regret, remorse, conscious, and repentance were important concepts to the Founders. Again, they wrote about it repeatedly.

gman either grossly misunderstood or totally misused the word. He was likely looking for a synonym of compulsion but, he would be wrong in stating the Founders opposed that "in any & all things". Worship of a deity? Yes. Taxation, military service, other duties of a citizen, etc, etc. No.

If we boiled it down to the crux of the disagreement here: Some people want desparately to believe that the Founders had a very open, very broad definition of freedom that included all types of sexual perversion and avarice in public behavior. The would have us believe that the Founders had very similiar concepts to Ayn Rand or Nietzsche because those philosophies condone behavior they approve of. I happen to disagree.

Right Side Up

September 15, 2010, 15:11

Originally posted by chet

They derived their ideas directly from God's Word and trusted him infinitely.

That's just simply not true. They derived their political theories from Enlightenment Philosophy, and they formed their new central government after studying past governments and identifying what worked and what failed.

Forget about letters and arguments at the Convention. What became law what a religion free government.

brunop

September 15, 2010, 15:23

I assumed the use was 'compulsion' as well.

Are you stating that the Founders were in favor of compelling people to worship a Diety? I seriously, seriously doubt that.

You are making a mistake I believe when you say that "...some people want desperately to believe that the Founders had a very open, broad definition of freedom that included all types of sexual perversion and avarice in public behavior..." (emphasis added)

Chet -

Jefferson slept with Sally Hennings iirc. If she were a black slave (she was), would this fall outside of Puritan Christian morality norms for the day?

What about Franklin? He was chasing skirts in Paris almost til he died. Normal behavior or not? Is it "public behavior" or not?

My point is this:

1) I don't think the Founder envisioned anyone being compelled to worship a Diety. If forced to worship, then "how" to worship comes next - anathema to the Founders and all they stood for

2) the Founders weren't really big on codifying "Freedom". One can't very well make laws around a concept, but one can make laws about how it won't be abridged (Bill of Rights). Founders didn't mention anything about personal conduct that I can think of, and especially didn't say anything about sexual conduct, etc. afaik...

3) Is it possible the Founders (some of them - I wouldn't put Jefferson and Adams in the same category) had a more 'laissez faire' attitude towards sex than the traditional Catholic-influenced Puritan view held? Based on several of their actions/lifestyles, I would suggest that such was the case (and add Hamilton to the mix)

4) I believe with all my heart that de Tocqueville was correct: "America is great because America is Good." A moral people is what this government was designed for. That morality (in their minds), as far as i can decipher from the Founders lives and words, was based largely on the Golden Rule and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This does NOT, as far as I can tell, mean to say that the Founders expected to compel people to their Moral definitions

5) Finally, I believe that Islamic morality norms are not conducive to a properly running government. I offer, as evidence, the entire world. BUT many people in this nation have been 'burned' by organized religion - too many bad people doing bad things and taking advantage of their flocks. Because of this, many people have decided to 'make their own way'. I'm satisfied that if a man such as the gman believes he has to answer in front of (my) God, his God (or god), or a superior being some time later for his actions here, he will be moral enough for my liking, and moral enough FOR SURE for the proper running of a productive society

6) Finally (I mean it this time), I believe that it is possible for the Atheist to be more than enough moral for the running of the country according to the intentions of the Founders - but I'm absolutely sure that this isn't a sufficient SYSTEM - as it will be an accident of environment rather than something that we can all depend on

FWIW only

maxhush

September 15, 2010, 16:31

Regarding the taxes issue raised above, my simplistic take is that if one is not subject to a tax (does not have to pay it), one should not get to vote on it.

the gman

September 15, 2010, 16:52

Originally posted by brunop
I assumed the use was 'compulsion' as well.

Are you stating that the Founders were in favor of compelling people to worship a Diety? I seriously, seriously doubt that.

You are making a mistake I believe when you say that "...some people want desperately to believe that the Founders had a very open, broad definition of freedom that included all types of sexual perversion and avarice in public behavior..." (emphasis added)

Chet -

Jefferson slept with Sally Hennings iirc. If she were a black slave (she was), would this fall outside of Puritan Christian morality norms for the day?

What about Franklin? He was chasing skirts in Paris almost til he died. Normal behavior or not? Is it "public behavior" or not?

My point is this:

1) I don't think the Founder envisioned anyone being compelled to worship a Diety. If forced to worship, then "how" to worship comes next - anathema to the Founders and all they stood for

2) the Founders weren't really big on codifying "Freedom". One can't very well make laws around a concept, but one can make laws about how it won't be abridged (Bill of Rights). Founders didn't mention anything about personal conduct that I can think of, and especially didn't say anything about sexual conduct, etc. afaik...

3) Is it possible the Founders (some of them - I wouldn't put Jefferson and Adams in the same category) had a more 'laissez faire' attitude towards sex than the traditional Catholic-influenced Puritan view held? Based on several of their actions/lifestyles, I would suggest that such was the case (and add Hamilton to the mix)

4) I believe with all my heart that de Tocqueville was correct: "America is great because America is Good." A moral people is what this government was designed for. That morality (in their minds), as far as i can decipher from the Founders lives and words, was based largely on the Golden Rule and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This does NOT, as far as I can tell, mean to say that the Founders expected to compel people to their Moral definitions

5) Finally, I believe that Islamic morality norms are not conducive to a properly running government. I offer, as evidence, the entire world. BUT many people in this nation have been 'burned' by organized religion - too many bad people doing bad things and taking advantage of their flocks. Because of this, many people have decided to 'make their own way'. I'm satisfied that if a man such as the gman believes he has to answer in front of (my) God, his God (or god), or a superior being some time later for his actions here, he will be moral enough for my liking, and moral enough FOR SURE for the proper running of a productive society

6) Finally (I mean it this time), I believe that it is possible for the Atheist to be more than enough moral for the running of the country according to the intentions of the Founders - but I'm absolutely sure that this isn't a sufficient SYSTEM - as it will be an accident of environment rather than something that we can all depend on

FWIW only

Actually, it's been well established that Jefferson didn't sleep with Sally & that the rumor was given prominence by a disgruntled newspaper owner who wanted an appointment out of Jefferson when he was President. I'm going off memory here as I'm surfing on my crackberry that isn't very easy to play with on the 'net.

BTW, the link is nothing more than a link to an audio file from "Good Morning Vietnam" when Robin Williams' character tells the uptight Sgt Major that he's "in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history". Humor again, I guess that's beyond chet?

More as I get the time or inclination.

chet

September 15, 2010, 16:59

Brunop,

I seriously doubt that Jefferson or Franklin fornicated or viewed naked women in public. Public behavior? Hardly. Write laws that promoted it? Not a chance.

Let me answer your points by number:

1. I never stated the Founders would compel anyone to worship any deity. Far from it. Nor would I cause that to be law were it up to me. I hate to sound curt but I have stated that several times now. Why is that hard to understand?

2. The founders made many laws around many concepts. In answer to your specific point, several of the founders felt including the Bill of Rights would abridge more freedoms than it guaranteed simply by enumerating them. It was a huge controversy then. It created a slippery slope of juris prudence that is getting steeper by the day. Read up the federalist/anti-federalist controversy. One could make a significant argument that the Bill of Rights has curtailed freedom far more than had we gone without it. But, I think the debate would be instructional.

3. Men have faults. The important thing to consider is not whether or not some Founders had sexual weaknesses, the important thing to consider is HOW THEY VIEWED IT THEMSELVES. Did they hold up their faults as examples of normative goodness? No. Not once. And this is why they did not look inside themselves for good! Laissez Faire sexuality? Seriously? Care to give an example in their words? Think about this - if you had the opportunity to ask these two about these instances, do you think they would be ashamed of it? Of course they would. READ JEFFERSON"S ADVICE TO HIS NEPHEW:

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

Jefferson was speaking from his own experience! Think about that!

4. I have re-read your point a few times and I think you are wrong. The Founders wrote about morality, universal morality, and morality as it relates to law. They wrote their laws based on the precepts of the Bible and they expected people to follow them, not redefine what they wrote to suit their needs. Before you condemn that as overly restrictive using your imagination, LOOK at the laws they wrote and ask yourself if you consider them to be too restrictive compared to what came about in the last 50 years from nominal and non-practicing "Christians" and others who don't trust God.

5. So: Islam=bad? Agreed. Some organized religions=bad? Agreed. Man has ability to tell God what morality is and how he will worship Him? Implausible by any stretch, but certainly not illegal in the US. No man has the right to impose earthly penalties on another man for trying this. I've stated that. But once something is codified in US law, things change. Again, this is as simple or complex as you'd like to make it.

6. This is an entirely new topic. Talk about can of worms! Would you be surprised to learn how many States had/has laws requiring legislators to profess to be Christians? I am not saying that is good or bad but it would be instructive to investigate why that was and who defended that idea.

Good discussion BTW.

brunop

September 15, 2010, 18:47

Originally posted by chet

gman either grossly misunderstood or totally misused the word. He was likely looking for a synonym of compulsion but, he would be wrong in stating the Founders opposed that "in any & all things". Worship of a deity? Yes. Taxation, military service, other duties of a citizen, etc, etc. No.

This is where I came under the (mis)understanding that you were stating that the Founders were 'for' compulsion to worship a Deity - which is why I asked for clarification. I didn't think you actually thought that, but I'm unclear on what the above statement means, then. It "...is that hard to understand..." because I don't get what you are saying up there if you aren't suggesting compulsion.

Right you are. And my point is that if they operated outside of cultural norms then (and I'm not yet convinced by the gman's non-crackberry-references :) ), it is not that easy to translate their 'morality' to today. Yes, I know they didn't promote strip clubs.

1. Answered above

2. I've read many or most of the Federalist Papers. I'm aware of the debate then and now. Based on the 'creep' of Federalism ever since, it was a good thing to have a Bill of Rights. What would have become of the 2nd if there weren't that 'foundation level' protection to refer to over the years?

3. Right - we all have faults. I'm not suggesting that they were cavalier about whether or not they obeyed their consciences: I'm suggesting that they may have had clean consciences about sex - in a way that didn't fit with the norms of the day. As an example: if a man believes in a just and loving God, and is honor-bound to do his best to obey, and part of his 'understanding' is that the prophets in the Old Testament had two or more wives, and based on that example he decides to take two wives, is he a deviant? The answer appears to be "yes" if I understand you and Molotov, but I'm asking for clarification, because I may have misread that. I happen to take a different view of that person. Alternately, if a man believes that the current crop of Christian religions he is familiar with are all without authority from God to 'Bind on earth and in heaven', and therefore marriages performed under their legal 'authority' only are null, AND if he decides his best bet is to swear on his head before God in Heaven that he will cleave to his domestic servant for the rest of his natural born days, is he living in sin? Again, I don't know where you and others who are 'importing' your morality norms backwards onto the FFs come down on this question, but I suspect that the answer is 'yes'. My basic precept here and in the entire thread is that I don't have enough data to judge those men or others (including people in this thread), and so I'm going to skip it, and stick with trying to understand their thoughts and hearts (as they will allow through discussion), as well as invite them to investigate mine.

4. As of yet I'm not convinced of your argument, but I'll give it more thought. On at least two sub-points we agree: a) it is a paradox that giving up a certain amount of freedom to 'obey' God's commandments brings more freedom - but it is true, and b) C.S. Lewis was right - "moral busybodies" torment us "for our own good", and do it with the blessing of their consciences - which is a greater threat to freedom than other things. Depending on how a person reads "moral" here, that could go both ways. But the "intellectual elite" moral busybody douchebag/progressives trying to save me from myself have hurt me and mine much, much more than the Founders did

5. Islam doesn't necessarily = bad in my book. Islam does NOT, however, equal 'Good'. There are too many justifications listed in the Koran for the objectification of, and violence toward, other people for me to believe that it is a problem of the "Extremists". In fact, I believe that the Extremists are conforming to the tenets of the Koran more carefully than the moderates I know. This is a system allowing for the violent resolution of 'difference', and is not a good system for a government. Meanwhile, I know very, very good Muslims - who I regard as the same sort of anomaly as I would regard a 'moral' atheist: someone who went outside of the norm to establish something in his own heart (which I believe is based on his Spirit, and is therefore of God). But this is a side discussion, because my major point is that a person can, and does, jump ship and "make his own way". Investigates his own spirituality outside the codification of the established religions. Is he telling God how things work? No. Is he trying to understand how to proceed? I believe so. Will it be the way you envision it should? Not necessarily, but I'm saying that his very investigation will, necessarily, make him moral enough to be productive in a good society. I'm not saying that he's moral enough for God - not my place to judge. But he might be...

6. doesn't matter much. I was only saying that an Atheist could, accidentally only - and not as a product of the atheist 'system' - be moral enough to be useful in a good society. I'm only saying it because, as you pointed out, things have changed and people aren't as homogeneous as they once were. People are leaving God out of their lives. Their choice. Also to say that when there is no higher power, then Expediency is the order of the day as it relates to morality. Not a good system, either short term or long term.

Peace.

brunop

September 15, 2010, 20:42

And, happily, it appears that the gman is correct about Jefferson and Hemings: didn't happen. Bottom line is that the Hemings family has an oral history that is suspect, and that they're continuing to cash in on the speaking circuit/book deal side. Meanwhile, they won't have a male descendant tested for DNA. That, by itself, tells me something (assuming the last allegation is true).

Peace.

molotov

September 15, 2010, 20:48

if a man believes in a just and loving God, and is honor-bound to do his best to obey, and part of his 'understanding' is that the prophets in the Old Testament had two or more wives, and based on that example he decides to take two wives, is he a deviant?

Only if he had never come to understand or never had access to the NT.

The answer appears to be "yes" if I understand you and Molotov, but I'm asking for clarification, because I may have misread that. I happen to take a different view of that person.

If this had been a country that the Jewish religion had founded, then perhaps it would be acceptable, but even then likely not. Look at Israel, most there are not familiar or accepting of NT scriptures, but even they consider the Ethiopians outcasts among them because they take several wives.

Discrimination against Ethiopian black jews is a problem, and the number of wives they take a part of it. At the same time, they live more closely to the ways of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael than the modern european white skinned jew would.

Are the ethiopians evil for doing so? No, they were unaware or ignorant of NT teachings. Fewer outside influences. Even the bible doesn't recommend divorcing a wife if you come to Christ and have more than one. No, you don't take any more and you don't abandon the ones you have.

Alternately, if a man believes that the current crop of Christian religions he is familiar with are all without authority from God to 'Bind on earth and in heaven', and therefore marriages performed under their legal 'authority' only are null, AND if he decides his best bet is to swear on his head before God in Heaven that he will cleave to his domestic servant for the rest of his natural born days, is he living in sin?

That is solely dependent on whether his view of current Christian religions and their inherent authority is a correct view or not. So really, the question has little to do with his status as a fornicator and more to do with his status as being capable of righteous judgment against the current church before G-d.

a) it is a paradox that giving up a certain amount of freedom to 'obey' God's commandments brings more freedom - but it is true

Exactly, paradox. You can't gain freedom by giving it up. My point was that freedom to some is more or less enslavement.

If I say "I gave up enslavement to obey G-d's commandments and they brought freedom" that would be a sensible statement.

So if it's all personal perception then anything can fall under the guise of freedom. Some limit it to activities that "don't hurt anyone else", but still, what hurts someone else and what doesn't is also your perception.

So, in my world, we either base our judgments off perceptions or we have a standard with which to compare it to. My standard is G-d's Word. Yes, even that is my perception of right and wrong, but it neither comes from myself nor are it's precepts of my own limited invention.

I hope that makes some sense. :)

chet

September 15, 2010, 21:48

Originally posted by brunop

This is where I came under the (mis)understanding that you were stating that the Founders were 'for' compulsion to worship a Deity - which is why I asked for clarification. I didn't think you actually thought that, but I'm unclear on what the above statement means, then. It "...is that hard to understand..." because I don't get what you are saying up there if you aren't suggesting compulsion.

OK. Go back to my post. Starting at the words "Worship a deity? Yes {they opposed compulsion in that respect}. Taxation, military service, other duties of a citizen, etc. etc.? No {they didn't oppose compulsion in some of those respects}."

Good to go?

Originally posted by brunop

2. I've read many or most of the Federalist Papers. I'm aware of the debate then and now. Based on the 'creep' of Federalism ever since, it was a good thing to have a Bill of Rights. What would have become of the 2nd if there weren't that 'foundation level' protection to refer to over the years?

{Again, great area for discussion.} Look at the legal attacks on the right to bear arms in the US. Where have the anti-gunners gained the strongest foothold and made the most headway? By using the words of the 2nd against itself ( even though you and I believe those words are infinitely clear ). They have not only made it say something it doesn't ( namely apply to the National Guard), they have succeeded (to some extent) in creating judicial standards (collective right) that reflect that mistaken interpretation.

It was over 200 years before anyone really USED the 2nd successfully to overturn bad gun laws in the Supreme Court (ie Heller and Parker). If there was no 2nd, then the Left would have had to create federal gun laws out of whole cloth and would have run smack into Article I, Section 8 - Congress does not have the enumerated power to do so. Even given the modern attempts to stretch the Commerce Clause as far as it would go, it still would have been tough to wedge gun control under that umbrella, at least until very recently and probably not in 1939 ( Miller) when McReynolds and the remnants of the Four Horseman were probably still not willing to grant more power to the Feds in this area.

Look at it this way - if the 2nd was as powerful as the Anti-Federalists intended, there would never have been any federal gun bearing laws, would there?

chet

September 15, 2010, 22:04

Originally posted by the gman

Humor again, I guess that's beyond chet?

I love humor and have the crow's feet to prove it! However, the older I get, the less I find humor in vulgarity and insipid gutter talk. Grow up. Learn to enjoy real "adult entertainment". People will find your company more agreeable.

brunop

September 16, 2010, 21:12

Molotov -

Again, I believe in the New Testament, and I believe that Jesus is the Christ. I don't believe that the Founders meant to assess citizens based on their adherence to the NT, and I specifically point to the Thomas Jefferson bible as one example of the generally accepted 'dissonance' that the NT created for many Founders.

From that point, I jumped off to say that a person's morality is based on what is in their heart. In one sense I get that you 'get' that, since you pointed out that they would only be a 'sinner' if they didn't know any better (rough approximation of my understanding of your words), but on the other hand, you apply the NT as the basis for that morality norm ("...only if they weren't familiar with the NT...").

My very point is this: citizens here can be contributive and excellent with a different, non-NT based morality, even if the Founders DID (and I think they didn't think the way you and Chet think they did, or the way you and Chet do) base the laws here with the expectation that the citizens would be Christian in the way the public 'narrative' understood Christianity at the time (read: Catholic or Puritan Protestant). I believe strongly that a person who believes in a higher power has the ability to 'regulate' their morality via their conscience if they believe in a higher power, and IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they knew the NT or NOT. You have judged them: you say that if they've read the NT, and decide to take two wives, that they are a sinner (my word was "deviant", but I'm not talking about 'deviating from the norm', and it is clear you understood that). I have two things to say to that:

1) US citizens don't have to perform to the general accepted, Catholic-derivative version of Christianity to be moral; they need to be true to their consciences and their understanding of the Higher Power that they have faith in, and

2) I believe that Christians shouldn't be judging people as sinners or deviants based on their adherence to an external code. Again, at some level you realize this, since you offer ignorance of the law as justification for the Ethiopian Jews. I believe you are right in this. Be careful about judging too surely too quickly. Of course you will do what you want with that, but you'll be a better citizen and a better neighbor if you do more investigation and less judging of people (JMHO)

3) I guess we'll 'twist' words in our own ways, but we're saying the same thing: you say giving up actions is freedom which creates more freedom. I say "paradox" to describe that giving up those actions creates more freedom.

RSU made a point to Chet about the Enlightenment studies of the FFs, and it is clear to me that this true. It is NOT, however, a rejection of God; it is more than clear in personal and public writings that they believed and had a full measure of faith. I do believe that the FFs rejected Religion as it was being 'sold' (literally and figuratively) in those days. I rather suspect that the First Amendment was a rejection of the Anglican church (and therefore Catholic, as well) - both doctrinally and organizationally. I do believe that they believed the words of Jesus Christ when he said, "The kingdom of God is within you", and that this concept resonated/meshed perfectly with the Enlightenment ethic of self-improvement and personal Enlightenment.

the gman

September 16, 2010, 22:20

Originally posted by chet

I love humor and have the crow's feet to prove it! However, the older I get, the less I find humor in vulgarity and insipid gutter talk. Grow up. Learn to enjoy real "adult entertainment". People will find your company more agreeable.

I had a nice answer all typed out & got called to work & the 'puter decided to reboot for a security update so all was lost.

Frankly I grow increasingly tired of your arrogant, know it all attitude. I have tried to be patient but you are just not worth the effort. I have plenty of friends who I enjoy spending time with & I sure as shit don't need your approval, friendship or anything else you have to share. Have a nice life & one day you might get that stick you have shoved up your arse removed. Either that or the fall from that ivory tower might just knock some sense into your sanctimonious head that allows you to see further than the end of your nose but I doubt it.

I'm done with you & this topic.

molotov

September 16, 2010, 23:39

but on the other hand, you apply the NT as the basis for that morality norm ("...only if they weren't familiar with the NT...").

In the case of taking multiple wives, yes, I do apply the NT as the basis. I have heard no other religions frown upon taking of multiple wives.

I'm guessing you are trying to convey that simply because NT is one of my moral gold standards it doesn't mean everyone else should be subjected to the same rule.

I believe strongly that a person who believes in a higher power has the ability to 'regulate' their morality via their conscience if they believe in a higher power, and IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they knew the NT or NOT.

I believe strongly that a person who doesn't believe in a higher power has the ability to regulate their morality, it doesn't matter whether they have a religion or not. No disagreement there.

You have judged them: you say that if they've read the NT, and decide to take two wives, that they are a sinner

I stand by the statement.

US citizens don't have to perform to the general accepted, Catholic-derivative version of Christianity to be moral; they need to be true to their consciences and their understanding of the Higher Power that they have faith in

I would agree. However, if I believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the true faith, then logic tells me that other faiths are a mix of half truths and lies and so therefore their moral understanding is more susceptible to corruption.

I'm not saying that every non christian has corrupted morality, just saying that it's easier for a satanist to justify his trip to the strip club than it is for a christian. One religion allows justification, the other offers condemnation for certain deeds.

The only other option around it for me is saying that everyone else's religion is just as good as mine. If I believed that it would make Christ a liar, as he claimed to be the only way and for me to believe otherwise a blasphemy.

I am often amused by those who adhere to other faiths and yet say "there are many paths (to god)". My only question to them becomes "then what good is yours to me?" Might as well draw names out of a hat.

I believe that Christians shouldn't be judging people as sinners or deviants based on their adherence to an external code

I have to give this statement some more thought. Not sure where I stand on that yet. I'll get back to you.

I do believe that they believed the words of Jesus Christ when he said, "The kingdom of God is within you", and that this concept resonated/meshed perfectly with the Enlightenment ethic of self-improvement and personal Enlightenment.

More than likely, you are correct. Still, you can't just pick and choose what you "think" they believed or didn't believe.

As Jefferson said "“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Except his neighbor didn't likely have 20 gods, or a god whose word encourages blood lust among his followers, or a god who said homosexuality and other sexual sin was virtuous. Sure, perhaps directly it neither picks your pocket or breaks your leg, but clearly, it has broken the legs of and destroys the cohesiveness of American society.

Too many chiefs, not enough indians, that's what you get when society heads down the path of "do what thou wilt", "do your thing", etc (often followed by "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone). The mixing of satanic and christian doctrines will surely contribute to our demise as a great nation. The muslim radicals well realize this and are busy capitalizing on the loss of solidarity in thought among Americans.

Right Side Up

September 16, 2010, 23:54

Originally posted by brunop
Molotov -

RSU made a point to Chet about the Enlightenment studies of the FFs, and it is clear to me that this true. It is NOT, however, a rejection of God; it is more than clear in personal and public writings that they believed and had a full measure of faith. I do believe that the FFs rejected Religion as it was being 'sold' (literally and figuratively) in those days. I rather suspect that the First Amendment was a rejection of the Anglican church (and therefore Catholic, as well) - both doctrinally and organizationally. I do believe that they believed the words of Jesus Christ when he said, "The kingdom of God is within you", and that this concept resonated/meshed perfectly with the Enlightenment ethic of self-improvement and personal Enlightenment.

Correct. They did not reject God, or even religion. I do not know of one Founder that was an atheist, at least none of the famous ones were, that I know of. Many attended church service, but many did not want religion having the force of law behind it, as in pre-Revolutionary times. Some did, like Patrick Henry.

It is amazing how much wrong ministers did, just in Virginia. Madison fought successfully to have several hundred Baptists released from jail who did nothing wrong but to practice their faith, put there by Anglican ministers that were on the government payroll. Several of the *big players* in our Founding were completely turned off by religion it affected how the Constitution was written.

One can find all sorts of references to religion and God in letters and speeches, but the Constitution, the law they collectively made, does not. That's important to note. On the whole, God and religion became a *personal* matter.

And something about Jefferson I have come to believe after reading many books about him. He was great at writing and teaching, a superb source of history, philosophy, and one of the most intelligent men that ever lived, but his actions showed a casual indifference towards the principles he wrote of if that person was not a *white adult male landowner*. One example is his position towards the native Americans. In his book *Notes on virginia*, he praised native Americans and their form of government. But *Notes on Virginia* was simply a rebuttal to French criticism of America. The book was nothing more a sales pitch to the people of France about his country. In reality, he was part of the machine that sought to remove native Americans from their land by dubious means. I can't condone that. It was hypocritical. He encouraged, as one of our most important revolutionaries, people to take up arms, yet never did so himself.

As for the Sally Hemings controversy, I don't care. Sally and other house slaves were the progeny of his father-in-law. Some plantation owners liked fair skinned slaves for the house, and it was not unheard of for the man of the house to mate with a slave woman to produce them. Sally was one of them. I read of a letter that someone wrote who had visited Monticello, and the person remarked that the house slaves looked rather like white people. It would not be out of the ordinary for Jefferson to have mated with Sally. All of her pregnancies occurred when Jefferson was around, his wife had already passed on, he promised his wife he would never re-marry, and it is highly unlikely in my view that someone with his ego would allow another man to father house slaves for *his* house. Just my personal view on the subject.

SWOHFAL

September 17, 2010, 01:09

Originally posted by Right Side Up

All of her pregnancies occurred when Jefferson was around, his wife had already passed on, he promised his wife he would never re-marry, and it is highly unlikely in my view that someone with his ego would allow another man to father house slaves for *his* house. Just my personal view on the subject.

Whoever did her was likely a close relative of his, so they probably got a pass. Who knows if he and this someone else didn't both spend their time in her bedroom?

chet

September 17, 2010, 07:56

Originally posted by Right Side Up

That's just simply not true. They derived their political theories from Enlightenment Philosophy, and they formed their new central government after studying past governments and identifying what worked and what failed.

Forget about letters and arguments at the Convention. What became law what a religion free government.

It is true.

The "Enlightment Philosophy" was NOT a unified, cogent philosophy that the Founders looked at as source material. It was a period of time when men (in many parts of the world) began to believe they could determine things for themselves (as opposed to govt or a king doing it for them), including law and religion.

What became law was government free religion (not a religion free government) - an infinitely important disctinction.

Ignore the Founders other writings and letters? Seriously? Nah.

Washington's Farewell Address.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

chet

September 17, 2010, 08:02

Originally posted by the gman

I had a nice answer all typed out & got called to work & the 'puter decided to reboot for a security update so all was lost.

I hate that, too. Happened to me twice so far in this thread. Maybe we should become MAC men?

Don't quit the thread though. Defending your beliefs in public helps you more than you realize.

Happy Constitution Day.

chet

September 17, 2010, 08:49

Originally posted by Right Side Up

Several of the *big players* in our Founding were completely turned off by *govt mandated CHURCHES* it affected how the Constitution was written.

Fixed it. Big difference, especially as it relates to this thead.

Originally posted by Right Side Up

One can find all sorts of references to religion and God in letters and speeches, but the Constitution, the law they collectively made, does not. That's important to note. On the whole, God and religion became a *personal* matter.

As it relates to worship of God and practice of religion? Yes. But, basic Biblical principles and Scripture itself were primary source material for many of our laws.

Right Side Up

September 17, 2010, 11:17

Originally posted by chet

The "Enlightment Philosophy" was NOT a unified, cogent philosophy that the Founders looked at as source material.

Yes Sir, Enlightenment Philosophy, particularly John Locke, heavily influenced our Founders.

Do you even know where our *right to revolt* comes from? John Locke. And we weren't the first to use it. The English used it to overthrow several kings.

You seem like a good man, but your history could use some touching up, no offense.

chet

September 20, 2010, 12:02

Originally posted by Right Side Up

Yes Sir, Enlightenment Philosophy, particularly John Locke, heavily influenced our Founders.

Do you even know where our *right to revolt* comes from? John Locke. And we weren't the first to use it. The English used it to overthrow several kings.

You seem like a good man, but your history could use some touching up, no offense.

It is probably not my knowledge of history that is causing you and I to disagree so much as my interpretation of it, which evidently differs from yours.

Was Locke part of the Enlightenment period? Yes, he was. Did some Founders utilize some of his philosophy? Yes, they did. Locke's idea on revolt did appear in the Declaration. But, Locke did not agree with everything that Hobbes, Bacon, Rousseau or Voltaire or the rest of the Enlightenment philosophers wrote. I am not aware of any scholars that say the Enlightenment was a single , cogent philosophy or the AmRevWar was a direct product of that enlightenment. But my point earlier had more to do not with how the founders thought politics should work but where the Founders derived their thoughts on morality and good and how that would play into what they created as a new nation.

Locke does not state in the Two Treatises that monarchies are wrong. When he argued against the divine right of kings, he argued that their right came from the people (who derived it from God first) and not God directly. Monarchies were fine as long most of the people consented that both parties complied with "the contract". The majority of our Founders disagreed and said kings are simply wrong, regardless of contract and republican forms of govt are better.

And again, maybe I am failing to see your thrust here, especially as it relates to the thread. Let's pull it back and boil it down because I want to understand your point.

The originator of the thread and several posters stated that legislating morality in general is wrong and zoning of strip clubs is clearly unconstitional.

I disagree. The 10th Amendment clearly reserves powers to the states of which police powers (such as zoning) were a part. Further, English common law, on which most local laws in the colonies were derived, regulated "moral" behavior in a big way. The Constitution did nothing to abolish those police powers.

Further, despite some fundamentally different views on politics and philosophy, the Founders UNIVERSALLY referenced the God of the Bible as the sole source of 'good' and 'morals'. The Founders disagreed on many things, some very important things like slavery and separation of church and state. Yet, none of them disagreed on who God was.

Were the Founders in Mo's state legislature today, they would have most likely voted for an outright ban of strip clubs as legitimate public businesses and not simply regulated them thru zoning.