Bill Maher vs Poptart

[Van]

Mizzou pats those words on the way out the tunnel each game, don't they?

Dude, I'm missing a lot more than a mere attitude of gratitude.

[Van]

TVO, I'm sure you already know Jefferson's and Madison's feelings on the matter so I won't bother repeating them here. The separation of church and state was a basic principle of the founding fathers and the Supreme Court has upheld the notion...

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that 'government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.'"

A lot of people, not just the founding fathers, are of the opinion that a separation of church and state is one of the guiding principles of this country.

The inscription "In god we trust" plus a symbol of god depicted on our government's currency is very clearly a governmental display of preference for "religion over non religion."

[LTS TRN 2]

I told you not to rev him up like this--you're exceeding phernol warp limits...

Van, about the "kook" disciples, in an environment of SEVERE perseccution of what these 12 were selling, a WHOLE lot of folks believed and followed their testimony ... DESPITE the threats of persecution, loss of social standing, or death.

The testimony of these 12 "kooks" was somehow INCREDIBLY powerful, moving, and ... truthful.

"Kook" Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit (God Himself) testified to the truth, and 3,000 people believed and received Christ -- Acts 2:41

The region, VERY UNFRIENDLY to Christians, was overturned.

The Gospel of truth, beginning from these 12, went in powerfully into many nations ... to the ends of the earth, just as Christ Promised it would.

12 kooks.



VAST portions of the Bible are imagery or "non-literal."


I don't lie down in green pastures ... literally.
God doesn't lead me beside still waters ... literally.
I don't walk through a valley of the shadow of death ... literally.
And on and on ...

The Book of Revelation is FULL of imagery.
Many of the 66 Books of the Bible also are.
But when someone asks a Christian if they believe in a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, what they really want to know is, "Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis?" :P

If a person had NO other books in the world to look at, NO source of information, NO background to sway his viewpoint, and he picked up Genesis and read the first few books of it, there is NO doubt he would take it all as a very straight forward account of the early days on earth.
It just says, "This happened, and then this happened, and then that happened ... etc." :cry:

I believe God formed Adam from the dirt.
I believe God formed Eve from Adam's rib.
I believe the serpent (NOT a snake -- big difference -- the serpent is satan, see Revelation 12:9) tempted Eve and deceived her and Adam into leaving God. How satan "communicated" to Eve is not known exactly. It doesn't say.
I believe in Noah's flood.

I believe God.
I believe these things because, as I said, they are written in a very straight forward, matter of fact, way.
It is clearly written to be taken literally.
And also, many of these events were spoken of LATER in Scripture.
Jesus, for just one of many many examples, referenced Noah and the flood.

Now, one can surely be a Christian and NOT believe that some (or perhaps even most) of the events of Genesis literally happened.

Because the fundamental issue is, who do you say Jesus is?

Again, John 5:39 -- the Scriptures testify that SALVATION is in Jesus Christ, and that is the reason why the Bible exists.
The Bible's purpose is not as a history text, or a science text, or any other text.

Just to get off on a brief tangent for a moment, WHY is Jesus Christ so important?
Why is he the focal point of the Bible?

The greatest tragedy was not a World War, a plague, or a financial crisis.
The greatet tragedy is that man, who was created to live w/God, became separated from God and put into in spiritual bondage by satan.
Because of this fundamental problem, ALL problems come to man.
Because people don't realize this spiritual reality, which is only revealed in the Bible, they live in darkness, and suffering comes to them ... inevitably and undoubtedly.

People would like to live right, do right, and find happiness, and they diligently strive for those things.
But the failure somehow always comes.

Anxiety, family problems, health trouble, money trouble, addictions, etc. ...
They all come crashing in on people.
Education, effort, goodness, diligence, good habits ... don't and can't stop the failure that comes to man.
And suffering comes.

Because man, who was created to live with God, instead lives as a slave to satan.

The event that caused this is recorded in Genesis 3, and the problem has passed to all men -- Romans 5:12.
Immediately after man fell into this tragic problem, God promised that He would provide a solution -- Genesis 3:15.
The Savior would NOT, could NOT be a decendant of Adam, because all that comes from Adam is in spiritual ruin.

The core of the Bible is about God's answer for man.

1. Genesis 3:15 - Christ, who is not from Adam, will crush the serpent
2. Isaiah 7:14 - A virgin will bring forth the Christ
3. Galatians 4:3,4 - By God's time schedule, the Christ, who frees man from his bondage, has come
4. Matthew 16:16 - Jesus, you are the Christ
5. 1John 3:8 - Christ destroyed the work evil that satan brought to man in Genesis 3



The flood of Noah's time.

I say it was a real event.

A couple of things, first.
Before the flood we see the Bible record that people lived to be, like 900 years old (Adam, etc,),
When I initially saw that I said, "WTF??"
But the ages are given matter of factly and unapologetically.

Then after the flood people began having the sort of age spans that we have as of today.

Some DRASTIC change to man's enviornment happened.

The flood was not just rain.
The Bible tells us that there was a "canopy" of water above the earth which was "broken" and fell to earth.
It also tells us that the "fountains of the deep" broke and huge amounts of water came up that was inside the earth.

The point here is that the earth changed at that time in a VERY dramatic way.
The "dynamics" of the earth we see now are MUCH different than the dynamics were before the flood, and even shortly after the flood.
So some of the questions you ask about "How was this possible?," are, by me (because I believe the Bible), looked at with an understanding that the world was much different than what we see now.

I'll hit a few of your flood questions.

1. How could all the animals of the earth survive a trip to the middle east, in breeding groups no less? How would they know how to find the place? How would they get there?

My answer is this.

Genesis 6:20 records that God brought them to Noah.
How that was exactly accomplished, and from how far away the animals came, the Bible does not say.


2. How would all these different climate/diet specific animals survive the different climate/diet of the middle east? How would animals with different climate/temperature needs all survive on a non climate controlled boat? How would they all fit on one boat? How would they be housed and fed?

The Bible says that two of every ... sort ... of animal came onto the ark.
Some translations use the word ... kind.
The number of animals that came on the ark is nowhere near what detractors commonly imagine that the number needed to be.
It is my assumption that the animals must have "hibernated" while on the boat.
But that is my guess, since it is not said in Scripture.
And of course, there are aspects of the event that are miraculous in nature.


3. How would they survive the journey back home? The earth was flooded. How are they to make their way back to Alaska or Australia from the middle east, following a flood that covered the planet?

I won't pretend to have the answer to how it was accomplished, and the Bible does not say.
I will say again, however, that the dynamics of the earth that we see today are, in light of how the Bible describes the flood event, nothing like what they were both before the flood and right after the flood.

But for some possible answers to your question, look here.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c ... ah%27s+ark




Lastly, Bill Maher has been on a crusade against Christians for a long time, and when I see him, I see a very strange man.

Why is it that Christians prick him so much?
What IF Christians are all full of shit and all that they believe is totally wack?

So what is that to him?

They like it, they enjoy the faith that they have, so be it.
To each his own.

Oh, but we know the reason he crusades against Christians.

He thinks that they are imposing on him, or oppressing him somehow.
The ol' separation of church and state dealie.

I'm here to tell you that the "separation of church and state" is prolly THE most grossly perverted concept in our law over the last 40 years.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The very clear intent of the first amendment was for no offical state religon to be imposed on the people.

A nativity scene outside a government building, for exampe, can NEVER establish a religion.
And you have to be brain-dead to think it does.

Now if you require citizens to bow down and worship that nativity scene, yep, THAT would be the establishment of a religon.

"In God we Trust" on currency establishes no religon.
It's preposterous to imagine that it does.

Say hypothetically that I went to a "muslim" nation that had a pic of Muhammad on it's currency.
When I hold or use that money, am I PARTICIPATING in the muslim religon??

No friggin way, man, I'm just USING MONEY to buy shit.

What if a statue of Mohammed is outside a public building.
I walk by and see it.

OHHH, the HORRAH!! LMAO

Has the religon been ... ESTABLISHED?

It's laffable.

If they make me kneel down toward Mecca 5 times a day, then yep, Islam has been established.


Of course the two hot button issues near to this "separation" debacle are homosexual marriage and abortion.

Some elected REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE no doubt use their Christian sensibilities as they consider the issues of abortion or homosexual marriage.

That lights Bill Maher's ass like none other.

In Maher's world, these representatives, elected by ... THE PEOPLE ... to REPRESENT ... THE PEOPLE ... ought not be allowed to consider their Christian sensibilities when considering morality, which in fact, is the BASIS for all of our laws.

An atheist representative uses some sensibilities to arrive at a decision on, abortion, for example.
A Christian representative uses some sensabilities to arrive at a decision on, abortion, for example.

They are equal and both are valid.

Because a Christian has used "Christian" sensibilities, has he ESTABLISHED a relgion?

Has he atheist established atheism?

No, of course not.
They are just FREE people who are making moral evaluations based on sensibilities which they are FREELy granted under our Constitution.


Why does Bill Maher hate freedom?

A very strange and pitiful man.

[Van]

I would agree with the Vatican there. There's no reason god and evolution couldn't co-exist. If one believes in god it'd hardly be a stretch to believe god set evolution in motion.

It is however absurd to believe both in evolution and a literal interpretation of the bible. A literal belief in the Old Testament precludes any possible belief in evolution.

There's the conundrum for any modern Christian church. In trying to get with the times by bowing down to the inevitability of modern science and the provable aspects of evolution they're painting themselves into a corner. If they ever fully acknowledge evolution they're then up shit creek if they want to also continue selling the Old Testament as anything other than a charming book of fables.

[Tom In VA]

"Absurd" smack is a softball. I'm expecting the atheists to post a "Pot meet kettle" response followed by a multi quoted diatribe of all the absurdities in the history of the Catholic Church. The Pope, having nothing of substance to offer in response, would get flustered and go back to suggesting they suck black cock and stuff.

[Van]

I would agree with the Vatican there.

I'm not sure which "atheist notion" he's refering to but, in order for evolution to disprove the existence of God, it would have to conclusively pinpoint the origin of life which is a question it doesn't even pretend to ask let alone answer.

Sounds like a strawman argument.

Sounds like he's lumping The Big Bang Theory and all other scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe and the origin of life with the basic theory of evolution.

So, yep, you're right.

[Van]

The Pope, having nothing of substance to offer in response, would get flustered and go back to suggesting they suck black cock and stuff.

Birdy, as the pope! Bwaaahaaa!!!

[KC Scott]

Lastly, Bill Maher has been on a crusade against Christians for a long time, and when I see him, I see a very strange man.

Why is it that Christians prick him so much?
What IF Christians are all full of shit and all that they believe is totally wack?

So what is that to him?

It's the same reasons I stated on page 5.....

Religion is based on fear of the unknown; Specfically Death
It evolved with different stories and different charachters throughout recorded history.

All of them share one basic concept - Mine is right and yours is Wrong.
Quite a few were more than willing to kill or Die to inflict this point of view on others

The Thumpers in this thread don't "get" why there is such a backlash?

It's really simple - beacuse they set in judgement of anyone not sharing their belief,
They want to control that individual freedoms of all.

Poptart and I had this argument before - he'll say he doesn't "judge" any of us.
Yet he'll readily say those who don't believe as he does are going to Hell (in his mind)
So how can you opine that someone is going to Hell but not set in judgement of them?

You can't.

So the religous want to control what your kids are taught (or not taught) in schools.
They want to control the methods of contraception, or termination of prgenancy.
They want to inhibit the advancements of biotechnology in stem cell research.
They want to limit your ability to gamble, drink or select a partner of your choosing.

Even when it doesn't directly involve them.

It's an argument you avoid beacuse you know it's truth.
And yet you somehow turn it around and act like you're the persecuted one?

Hilarious.

Go nailthis crap to the proverbial cross on another thread - or better yet, go tell it to the ignorant slopes that will listen to anything for a bowl full of rice and some fish heads.

[War Wagon]

It's an argument you avoid beacuse you know it's truth.
And yet you somehow turn it around and act like you're the persecuted one?

'tart hasn't evaded any of your specious arguments. I've seen him address each and every one over the years.

Perhaps he's avoiding you "beacuse" you're a clueless moron.

[poptart]

Scott, I think I gave my answer to your question(s) in my long post from which you partially quoted there.

Bill Maher thinks Christians are pathetic goofballs.
Christians think Bill Maher is on his way to hell.

They both think something about the other.

Looks equal to me.


But Maher is on his crusade because he thinks Christians are trying to impose things on him.


All laws in our country are based on someone's version of morality.

The people elect representatives and these representatives rattle things around in their brain and weigh them in order to take some stance on a legal issues, which are based on someone's morality.

Perhaps one representative gets part of his world view from things he's learned from his Rabbi.
Another might get part of his understanding from the Bhagawat Geeta.
Another from the Bible.
Another from the Koran.
Another from the writings of Socrates.
Another from Penthouse Forum.

They are all valid.

People can arrive at a stance on an issue based on a LOT of different things.

But Maher wants to declare that people using "religious" sensibilities when dealing with an issue is out of bounds.

Fascism much?


The "separation of church and state" is a load of shit, as it has been ruled on over 'bout the past half century.

You can read the first amendment.

The clear intent was for people to have FREEDOM not to participate in a state religion.
There would be no laws put in place which would establish any religion as a state religion.

If you walk into the Post Office and there is a nativity scene, has some religon just been established in your life?

It's laffable.

If I walk by a statue of Mohammed, have I just joined Islam?

Nope, I just notice it and move on by.

If a given representative votes pro-life, and part (or even all) of his decision is based on a Biblical conviction that life is sacred, has Christianity been established?

If you say yes, then Judaism must also have just been established because the Jewish representative was influenced on his decision by things his Rabbi taught him.

[smackaholic]

This was a good thread.....5 or 6 pages ago.

Mods, how 'bout giving this thread 2 in the hat?

[Van]

Pop, if you walk by a statue of Muhammed that was commissioned with government funding then you have a right to be pissed. Your tax money just went to a government preference for religion.

Similarly, printing "In god we trust" along with a symbolic depiction of god on government currency is a clear effort by the government to propose religion over non religion.

The separation of church and state has been ruled on over the past century...

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that 'government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.'"

Our government is currently promoting Christian religion over non religion. I can guarantee you you'd be plenty pissed if our currency read, "In Allah we trust."

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Similarly, printing "In god we trust" along with a symbolic depiction of god on government currency is a clear effort by the government to propose religion over non religion.

Instead of Masonic, Ra sun-god cult idolatry, why didn't your government just use the Cross as a symbol of America's religious roots?

[Van]

Good question. I just know it shouldn't be on our money; nor should any reference to god or religion be inscribed on any government institution. It's not the government's place to speak for the people in saying "we" trust in god.

"We" don't trust in god. "We" trust in liberty, education and achievement. Those countries and governments which do place their trust in god are third world shitholes.

[LTS TRN 2]

Similarly, printing "In god we trust" along with a symbolic depiction of god on government currency is a clear effort by the government to propose religion over non religion.

Instead of Masonic, Ra sun-god cult idolatry, why didn't your government just use the Cross as a symbol of America's religious roots?

Or a Cross Of David, eh, M-tyrd?

you gotta look real close

http://www.asis.com/users/stag/seal.html

[Tom In VA]

Good question. I just know it shouldn't be on our money; nor should any reference to god or religion be inscribed on any government institution. It's not the government's place to speak for the people in saying "we" trust in god.

"We" don't trust in god. "We" trust in liberty, education and achievement. Those countries and governments which do place their trust in god are third world shitholes.

So you wouldn't have signed the Declaration of Independence unless it read.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's Way entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Mommy's Egg and Daddy's Sperm with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ......

I'm cool with that. But let's quit putting George Washington at the top of our list of "Best Presidents" then. He saw the value, if not a believer himself, in exploiting religious beliefs to govern people and .... it's apparent we didn't pay much attention to his farewell address.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Or a Cross Of David, eh, M-tyrd?

you gotta look real close

http://www.asis.com/users/stag/seal.html

Way to miss the point, fuckface.

I ask that the American people consider putting superstitious nonsense behind them and of course...you lead with superstitious nonsense.

Oh, and the Star Of David isn't Jewish per se.

[LTS TRN 2]

You regard the masonic as superstitious nonsense?

Tell it to this guy


Of course the six-pointed star is pre-Jewish, etc. Same with the swastika and the cross. But Isis and Osiris are. Good luck :wink:

[poptart]

The separation of church and state has been ruled on over the past century...

Yes, it has been ruled on AGAINST the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution, imo.

If the founders had intended for "religious" reference to be completely absent from the public square, they would have simply WRITTEN the first amendment that way.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


From Whom did the founders recognize that their rights come from?



Take your time.

[Moving Sale]

[quote="Van"]"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress ..."/quote]
Way to answer your own question you steaming pile of retarded DNA.

I thought you weren't 'talking' to me? KYOA much you stupid fuckstick?

[War Wagon]

I just know it shouldn't be on our money...

Yet, it is. Does that somehow make it less valuable?

"We" don't trust in god.

Speak for yourself.

The founders did, obviously.

[Moving Sale]

The founders did, obviously.

Which is why the put his name on our money.

[Van]

"We" don't trust in god.

Speak for yourself.

I am. I'm part of that "we." So are the millions of atheists and agnostics in this country.

Your segment of "we," ie, the segment which apparently doesn't mind the government assuming your religious beliefs for you, that segment shouldn't matter any more than any other.

The founders did, obviously.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't, among others. Pretty sure most people would say those two were among the primary architects of the Constitution and they were both staunch supporters of a separation between church and state.

[Moving Sale]

... separation between church and state.

Once again... there is no separation of church and state.

Father Mulcahy out front should have told you that.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion you vapid tawtface.

[War Wagon]

Your segment of "we," ie, the segment which apparently doesn't mind the government assuming your religious beliefs for you.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't, among others. Pretty sure most people would say those two were among the primary architects of the Constitution and they were both staunch supporters of a separation between church and state.

The government doesn't assume my religious beliefs. You confuse a fundamental belief in God with an organized religion.

I believe the founders broad intent was to not recognize any particular flavor of religion, be it Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal. whatever... but they did recognize God as common knowledge and common sense.

Ergo, "In God We Trust" printed and stamped on our money, the most widely accepted and recognized form of currency on this planet.

You don't have to trust in God, you just have to trust that that piece of paper in your pocket is negotiable.

[Moving Sale]

... the founders ...

Ergo, "In God We Trust" printed and stamped on our money, the most widely accepted and recognized form of currency on this planet.

Are you trying to be an ignorant fuck or is it baked into your shallow DNA?

[Van]

The government doesn't assume my religious beliefs.

Yes, they most certainly do. They're assuming for you that you believe in god, which is a religious belief. The currency doesn't say, "For those who believe in god, in god they trust." No, it simply states the all inclusive "we." They're assuming a belief in god for all of us.

You confuse a fundamental belief in God with an organized religion.

I do no such thing. The currency doesn't say, "In organized religion we trust," or "In the Christian church we trust." It simply mentions god. A person doesn't have to be a member of an organized church in order to believe in god.

The government simply shouldn't be assuming any religious beliefs on anybody. It's not their business. As Justice Souter stated in the Supreme Court's majority opinion, government shouldn't prefer religion to non religion. He didn't merely confine it to one religion over another. He said government should express no preference for religion or non religion; any religion, whether it be private or as part of a group.

[War Wagon]

TVO, shallow DNA are your weekend party plans.

[War Wagon]

They're assuming for you that you believe in god, which is a religious belief.

Belief in God is not a religious belief, the way you apparently define "religion". To me, belief in God is akin to believing the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow.

The currency doesn't say, "For those who believe in god, in god they trust." No, it simply states the all inclusive "we." They're assuming a belief in god for all of us.

Much in the same way that it's simply assumed that if you're deprived of oxygen, you will die.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

The government simply shouldn't be assuming any religious beliefs on anybody. It's not their business. As Justice Souter stated in the Supreme Court's majority opinion, government shouldn't prefer religion to non religion. He didn't merely confine it to one religion over another. He said government should express no preference for religion or non religion; any religion, whether it be private or as part of a group.

Damn Souter and damn the "majority" opinion. I'll decide what the governments business is and I'm good with "In God We Trust".

Quit trying to play devils advocate. I see right thru that charade.

[Van]

You, WW, will decide what the government's business is, and a belief in god isn't a religious belief? What, it's a secular belief??

:doh:

[Smackie Chan]

Those countries and governments which do place their trust in god are third world shitholes.

The biggest threat to America today is not communism. It's moving America toward a fascist theocracy, and everything that's happened during the Reagan administration is steering us right down that pipe ... When you have a government that prefers a certain moral code derived from a certain religion and that moral code turns into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view, and if that code happens to be very, very right wing, almost toward Attila the Hun...
March 28, 1986: Appearance on Crossfire

Let's not be too rough on our own ignorance, it's what makes America great!
The Tonight Show (June 29th, 1988)

Try to appreciate Frank's comments while at the same time not taking them too seriously.

[Moving Sale]

The only thing the Constitution prohibits is the establishment of a state religion and interference with the free exercise of religion.

Blind squirrel met nut.

You can read at a 4th grade level. Congrats.