Obama..... not religious?

That would be a literal, simplistic take on what I said.

The Bible certainly contains parables, which I referenced here.

The point however, is that the Bible is a complex document (or collection of documents). Each person must take what he or she can from the Bible, from church, from faith, from personal experience, then make their own choices.

Sorry Jerkoff...I forgot you stupid you actually are.

Here's a quote from Sozobe that might help you:

I have long known of Frank's preening, strutting, over-blown ego. I have agreed with him sometimes, but at other's times, and probably more times, have not. I certainly don't agree with the simple-minded arguments he advances for the alleged moral superiority of agnoasticism. But that doesn't mean that anyone should deny it when he correctly states a case. Frank started another thread (i assume so as not to clog this thread) about whether or not the laws of the "Old Testament" are applicable to Christianity. I responded immediately that they are, and quoted Matthew, Chapter Five, verses 17-20:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

On that basis, if one alleges that "scripture" is the inerrant, divinely-inspired revealed word of god, then Christians are bound by "Old Testament" law. I then pointed out that the Pentateuch is the law. The Hebrew name for those first five books is torah, which means law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are those five books. Of them all, Leviticus is most purely an expression of the law.

The twentieth chapter of Leviticus is a doozy. You can read it in its entirety, in the King James Version, by clicking here. So, let's just hit the highlights, since it is concerned with a good deal of depravity, much of it reminiscent of the sins often attributed to hillbillies.

20:9--For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Badmouth your parents, and we're gonna hafta kill ya.

20:10--And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Screw around (in the literal sense), and we're gonna hafta kill ya.

20:13--If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If we find any homos, we're gonna hafta kill 'em.

20:15--And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Any man who screws the pooch, he's toast.

20:16--And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

A woman who does the same thing--we're gonna hafta kill her.

The rest of chapter 20 largely concerns itself with sexual depravity with family members or in-laws.

Now, given what your boy Jesus is alleged to have said in the passage from Matthew quoted above, and given the content of Leviticus, i cannot but observe that anyone who countenances homosexuality (leaving aside the obligation to execute homosexuals), won't be going to heaven. Personally, i would go as far as Frank and observe that anyone who countenances homosexuality cannot be a true Christian, because they are ignoring the law of which their boy Jesus says not one jot or tittle shall pass away until the end of days. I would only reserve the charge of hypocrisy because it is my experience that religionists are usually ignorant of their own scripture, and even when informed on scriptural topics, appear to rarely if ever give careful thought to the meanings and implications of scripture.

I agree... that's one of the things I do fight against. (I worry a lot about safeguards -- how to allow euthanasia in needed situations without protecting people who would kill the elderly or weakened when it's NOT needed or wanted -- but that's another thread.)

Again, I'm not claiming, by a long shot, that all elements of all religions are completely perfect at all times. Though in this case, as I indicate above, I don't think all opposition to making euthanasia more available is religion-based.

He didn't say "no scorn" he said he didn't scorn folks just for being religious.

Kind of an equal-opportunity scorner, I think.

You might try addressing the idea that medical ethics are no longer founded on Christianity.

Also, how someone approaches serious illness and death is an immensely individual choice. Your idea that you can alleviate suffering by ending her life prematurely is far more invasive, IMO, than a physician's oath to "do no harm".

And, speaking of stupid, you might try to keep in mind that Sozobe and I are different people.

Christian opposition make the issue something that cannot even be discussed at the national level.

Of course there are some out of religion opposition...that always is the case. But as with opposition to choice in abortion...the central and crucial element of opposition is religion.

To ANYBODY HERE...mentioning my alleged strutting, preening, and over-blown ego...I say **** YOU!

Nobody in this forum says the words "I do not know" as often as I. And by no means am I the least informed or the least intelligent.

I simply have the ethics, self-assurance, and spine to say "I do not know" when I do not know...pretend I do when I don't.

Get a grip, Frank. You're losin' it . . . you need to draw back to a sense of proportion . . .

I was addressing political ethics...even if that seems an oxymoron.

The politicians are prevented from even discussing the issue on a national level by the fierce opposition the religious would bring to the notion.

For you to suppose doctors would not participate in more humane endings to life is absurd. Many already do...but they do so at great risk.

Get with it!




Tell me, ******* mastermind, just how many conversations on this very issue have I ever had with my mother-in-law before she deteriorated into Altzheimer's...so that this idiotic statement of yours makes any sense.

What has my mother-in-law said to me over the years about this very thing? How often....and with how much fervor?

How about me? How do I feel about ending up in this kind of condition...versus deciding to end it more humanely for myself and the people who love me? Or if I become incapacitated, what do I feel about what I would want Nancy to do...except that she probably can't do it because the ******* religious hypocrites of this country have made consideration of humane ends with the aid of doctors anathema?

So tell me genius...what do you know about these things?

**** you, Set!

Marvellous reply, Frank. I'm sure this sort of thing does wonders for your blood pressure. My remark was made in a spirit of humor, which you might have seen from the rest of character of that post, if you hadn't been seeing red already when you read it. If you can't keep a more level keel than that in discussion of this sort, you need to stay away. It is certainly no fault of mine that you can't govern your temper, and that your sense of proportion is so warped that you look for, and unsurprisingly find, insults in what everyone else posts.

Soz said:


I was kidding Soz. I was making reference to the fact that Thomas was ready to excuse as if all Italian New Jerseyans are the same. They're not.
I've really never heard anyone else ever anywhere heap the amount of scorn on people for what they believe that I've witnessed on this forum- in New Jersey or otherwise.
I think it's because it's the internet.
My dad's lived in Jersey fifty years - and he's not an obnoxious bigmouth...oh yeah - but he's a deluded Christian...I forgot

One, if you were to take my blood pressure right now, I doubt it'd be much higher than the 118/68 that it was when taken last Thursday during a doctor's appointment.

Two, I am laughing my ass off while doing this. It is something I should have done starting a couple days ago.

Three, nobody in A2K has better control of temper than I...certainly not you.

Four, trying to get through to some of these people on this issue using reasonable, courteous arguments...is like trying to get through to H2OMan using that tactic in the political forums.

Five, read my first three-four days of posts on this topic. Actually read them. Go back to page 1...(I think I start on page 2)...and tell me that I was pompous, arrogant, preening, struting, or over-indulgent in ego. If you are honest, you will come back and acknowledge that was none of those things...and the initiation of that kind of bullshit was on the part of DrewDad.

Six, stop giving me advice in this area. My mote is not nearly the size of your piece of lumber!

So was my mother, Aiden...and I loved her dearly.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what has been said here.

Well, it certainly is a good laugh to see you claim, Frank, that nobody at this site is more willing to admit he is wrong than you are, or that nobody at this site is more in control of his temper than you are. No one is ever free of self-delusion, and you just prove the point.

Frank - I don't know you at all - I'm quoting the 'obnoxious bigmouth' thing. That's not something I'd ever call anyone - especially someone I didn't know.
I know you're going through a difficult time - I wish you peace.
But I wish you'd also try to understand that that's exactly what my faith gives me. I don't need to be sorted - I am sorted.
I accept that you're sorted.
I think that's how we should leave it.

With nothing but respect until you prove you don't deserve it - Rebecca (aidan is not me - my name is Rebecca - just like yours is Frank).

Jesus . . . this is why i say that you need to get a grip. I've read the thread, Frank. I copied and pasted the claim as a means of lightening up the thread with a little satire . . . it's hardly my fault if you're so worked up at this point that you decided i was seriously making that accusation. This is why is say you are losing your sense of proportion.

Setanta...

...this is what you wrote:



Not sure what there is about that...or anything else you wrote in that thread that should case me to take it as "lightening up the thread."

Point out why I should have taken it that way.