Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
Missy, I swore that I was never going to engage you in discussion again after the last maddening experience, but I cannot let that remark go by. How dare you say such a thing? You have just decided that these people's lives have no meaning and that they have had no impact on the world around them because they don't believe in God.
If they have children, they will live on through their children and the love that they gave to them. If they have spouses, they will live on in the memories of the one left behind. If they've given time or money to a charitable organization, they will live on in the good that they did for someone else.
What you said was hateful and cruel and I don't believe for a second that Jesus would praise you for it.
Just yesterday I was shocked when I saw for the first time Calvin of 'Calvin and Hobbes' pissing on a cross. At the very next light I saw the second one I've ever seen. Why don't they just put a big sticker saying "We deserved 9-11!" That probably wouldn't even anger as many people.
> my understanding is this marvel was accomplished by using a living molecular base for some super-added components.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_02/polio_create.shtml
"To create the virus, the researchers first assembled single nucleotide bases into DNA based on the virus' known genetic sequence. An enzyme then transcribed the DNA into the single-stranded RNA genome. The virus could then replicate itself naturally."
And from:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
"But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God?"
Somebody has to!
(2 points to whoever gets the reference...)
Actually... dust in the wind is a misnomer. My body will be broken down into basic components, spread into the soil and water table surrounding my "final resting place," make their way into growing flora and fauna, where little bits of me will help make life continue. Just like all of my ancestors, and the bodies of your ancestors, and the bodies of every living thing that has ever died.
But on the other hand maybe your point of view explains all the dust in my apartment...
I can appreciate the gap. Truly.
I have absolutely no issue with weak atheists and with agnostics. None. Doubt exists - perfect. I have doubt too. Without it, I'd either be certifiable, or a prophet. Either one is bad. Prophets have hard jobs.
Strong atheists tend to be more militant, and more activists, while at the same time maintaining this surety that is not logically supportable. I wouldn't have an issue with strong atheists either if they weren't trying to undermine the some of the stronger traditions upon which the US was founded.
I am fascinated by agnostics, when you can get them to talk about it.
"Missy, I swore that I was never going to engage you in discussion again after the last maddening experience, but I cannot let that remark go by. How dare you say such a thing? You have just decided that these people's lives have no meaning and that they have had no impact on the world around them because they don't believe in God.
If they have children, they will live on through their children and the love that they gave to them. If they have spouses, they will live on in the memories of the one left behind. If they've given time or money to a charitable organization, they will live on in the good that they did for someone else."
I've had a tendency over the years to view atheists by three types: the ordinary atheist who doesn't believe but doesn't mind if you do, the pondering atheist who wants to present his reasoning (as if always reevaluating his own thoughts) and the evangelical atheist who insists that nobody else ought believe in God. IMHO, the Newdow's and Lewontin's are evangelical - using every power at their disposal to influence others.
Two questions for you, if I may. Have you ever believed? If so, what made you stop?
Public blasphemy or other public insult is a violation of rights unless the receiver of the message had consented to it. It would be fine in an environment which one enters knowingly, such as this forum. It is not fine on the public square if it violates the decency norm. Your comment is mild enough so it is not violative, and in fact the public square in the United States has deteriorated to such extent that it is hard to imagine anything to be below the pale. Nevertheless if some punk on the street, for example, yells at people that their wifes are ugly sluts and their children are cretins, such punk will be hauled away. The offence of plasphemy in justice should be treated no differently.
Stone Mountain: it's just your opinion that the judges who overturned the public decency laws understood the Constitution better than the ones who upheld them
I assume you meant the exact opposite. It is not just mine opinion: it is also the opinion of any conservative I know. These are the judges that gave us the IRS, the Social Security, undeclared by Conress foreign expeditions, the gun laws, and the hate crime laws, -- all in clear contradiction to the Constitution, -- and who invented the right to abortion from the constitutional penumbras. Besides, the 19 century judges were simply closer to the Founding Fathers in mentality and had a better grasp on the original intent of the Constitution.
"Two questions for you, if I may. Have you ever believed? If so, what made you stop?
"
Two answers for you. Yes, and it's a long story that I am not going to post here.
Excuse Me..
They are the ones who have Chosen to believe this way. They deny GOD they deny Jesus they have chosen there own path.
Why would GOD choose to remember them when they have chose to deny him?
AS fas as there loved ones go, they don't plan on seeing or ever hearing from them again after there physical death.
I never wished these things for Un-believing Atheists they have chosen it for themselves.
"Public blasphemy or other public insult is a violation of rights unless the receiver of the message had consented to it. It would be fine in an environment which one enters knowingly, such as this forum. It is not fine on the public square if it violates the decency norm. Your comment is mild enough so it is not violative, and in fact the public square in the United States has deteriorated to such extent that it is hard to imagine anything to be below the pale. Nevertheless if some punk on the street, for example, yells at people that their wifes are ugly sluts and their children are cretins, such punk will be hauled away. The offence of plasphemy in justice should be treated no differently. "
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Blasphemy, in itself, is not illegal, nor should it be. Indeed, your example fo the street punk is wrong, as well. He can freely do what you said and, while he might face retribution from the hearer, will not be arrested.
Blasphemy is a simple thing and may be directed at any deity you wish. I might say that Kali is a lying, thieving, murderous bitch. That is blasphemy. I could say, as has been said on this forum that Allah is a false diety and that its followers are criminals. That is blasphemy. Such an utterance would engender only amusement in this country, while it would create anger elsewhere.
What you're referring to is blasphemy only against the locally popular deity in the USA. That is not illegal, and should never be illegal.
When we lose the freedom to declare that there is no God, or that the popular God is a bully, we lose all of our freedom of speech. That is an opinion, and opinions are protected in the USA.
I would not say those things, nor would I put an anti-religious bumpersticker on my vehicle. I would, however, reserve my right to do so if I chose to. That right is one which I served in our nation's military to protect, and the oath I affirmed at that time is still in effect.
A Baby Christian hmmm really never heard that before, but I will tell you this As a Child of GOD I talk to him all the time I ask him for many things and I pray for where I fail in my life and you know what he answers me he guides me he has NEVER failed me NEVER. If that makes me a Baby Christian then that's okay...
THE LAW OF GOD...
I see nothing that makes exceptions for Atheists.
I am the Lord your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery"
"You shall have no other gods but me"
"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain"
"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy"
"Honor your father and mother"
"You shall not murder"
"You shall not commit adultery"
"You shall not steal"
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
"You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his bull, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's."
"I just can't understand why it is a personal affront to people that you don't believe."
It is not an affront to anyone who is secure in his or her faith. It is only an affront to those who doubt, or to those who believe they have some calling to condemn all unbelievers. At least that's my opinion on the matter.
It has never concerned me that most people have some sort of religious beliefs. I can't imagine why I'd be upset by that. That's why I don't mind if folks worship however they choose. Why would I?
There are some religionists, though, who feel otherwise about those who disbelieve or who believe otherwise than themselves. Wars have been fought over such things, and not just a few. It's a sad thing, to me, since I believe that the realm of faith is a personal realm and has nothing to do with anyone but onesself.
Oh well...this has been a long thread and I'm just about out of steam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.