Put yer call o' war memes here!
I saw this is the s1914 forums and I figured why not here?
I am always right, never wrong, VOTE Ocean 2020Quasi-duck wrote:
For once, Ocean is right about politics! I agree!oceanhawk wrote:
Either way, a separation between Church and State is a must, and is better for people. It is that way, and should be that way. Religion is for the individual, not for the country.First things first, kill the Pope.
Thats horrible, no you cant say that stuff
The separation of Church and state won't work well
Why? Worked well enough for the USSR, right up until the end of course but religion was not part of that.Not A Communist wrote:
The separation of Church and state won't work well
I wouldn't call that working well. More like oppression.Quasi-duck wrote:
Why? Worked well enough for the USSR, right up until the end of course but religion was not part of that.Not A Communist wrote:
The separation of Church and state won't work well
oceanhawk wrote:
Either way, a separation between Church and State is a must, and is better for people. It is that way, and should be that way. Religion is for the individual, not for the country.
No, God designed faith to be individual AND to be corporate. Communion between the believers was and is essential to the growth of the Church as well as to the well-being of our Christian American society.
The First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the right of [only] Christians to worship without fear of interference by the government. It also guarantees the right of individuals to worship corporately in the public square. It ALSO guarantees that Christianity was to be at the center of public life. No individual Church denomination was to directly control government (this is the part that was taken out of context by Judge Black.
However, the body of believers -- the corporate Church of God across the whole of the nation (the American portion of all real Christians) -- was guaranteed by the First Amendment to have a place of leadership in government. And the Founding Fathers intended that only responsible Christian Men should and would be allowed to lead our nation.
You see, our wise founding fathers designed the First Amendment to protect religion from government and NOT to protect government from religion. And religion was and is ONLY Christianity. Any other faith system was and is paganism and the Founders did not accept paganism or it's adherents to be valid in government. And that included atheists, too.
So, to sum up, the First Amendment guarantees that government shall not block Christians (singular or corporately) from worshiping in the public square. It guarantees Christians could and should run the government. It does not guarantee that government or the people should be protected from religion. And it (through their intent) defines religion solely as the one true belief in God...aka, Christianity.
Quasi-duck wrote:
For once, Ocean is right about politics! I agree!oceanhawk wrote:
Either way, a separation between Church and State is a must, and is better for people. It is that way, and should be that way. Religion is for the individual, not for the country.First things first, kill the Pope.
Um...isn't that a death threat? Where's the moderator to ban you for a week?
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.No, I mean taking the church out of politics. Not banning religion.GreatbigHippo wrote:
I wouldn't call that working well. More like oppression.
Unless you're the Pope, no it isn't. It should've clearly been a joke as well. I mean, would you have said the same thing if I said kill Kim Jong Un?Diabolical wrote:
Um...isn't that a death threat? Where's the moderator to ban you for a week?
Oh, I thought I was joking too...I guess I'm too deadpan.Quasi-duck wrote:
Unless you're the Pope, no it isn't. It should've clearly been a joke as well. I mean, would you have said the same thing if I said kill Kim Jong Un?
(pun intended)
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.LOL that's not what the 1st amendment says. Actually it is totally wrong, and once again I see through your disgusting lies.Diabolical wrote:
You see, our wise founding fathers designed the First Amendment to protect religion from government and NOT to protect government from religion. And religion was and is ONLY Christianity. Any other faith system was and is paganism and the Founders did not accept paganism or it's adherents to be valid in government. And that included atheists, too.So, to sum up, the First Amendment guarantees that government shall not block Christians (singular or corporately) from worshiping in the public square. It guarantees Christians could and should run the government. It does not guarantee that government or the people should be protected from religion. And it (through their intent) defines religion solely as the one true belief in God...aka, Christianity.
1st amendment guarantees that any religion should be accepted and that no government can pass laws which aid one religion/religions, or prefer one religion to another . . .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I feel like religion brings morals into society. In Britain there has been a large decline in Christianity, a record low of people go to Church weekly and the youth care less and less about religion or their countries' history. This has lead the youth to being extremely careless. It doesn't help that we can mock Christianity without repercussions but mocking any other religion is a deathwish. Then I see all the muslims that I know sticking by their religion and respecting it, they might not have the same views as myself but atleast they will lead a life with morals and respect.
So the youth is careless and immoral because they don't believe in the religion? what a load of........
Maybe religion failed to modernize, you ever think of that?
Not necessarily because they don't believe in religion, but religious guidelines would definitely help a lot of people. Religion doesn't need to modernize, nor can it.wildL SPQR wrote:
So the youth is careless and immoral because they don't believe in the religion? what a load of........Maybe religion failed to modernize, you ever think of that?
Let's get back on topic
Tell me where God designed faith to be individual AND to be corporate? Religion has no benifit in Government. It is an obstacle. There should be freedom of Religion everywhere.Diabolical wrote:
No, God designed faith to be individual AND to be corporate. Communion between the believers was and is essential to the growth of the Church as well as to the well-being of our Christian American society.oceanhawk wrote:
Either way, a separation between Church and State is a must, and is better for people. It is that way, and should be that way. Religion is for the individual, not for the country.The First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the right of [only] Christians to worship without fear of interference by the government. It also guarantees the right of individuals to worship corporately in the public square. It ALSO guarantees that Christianity was to be at the center of public life. No individual Church denomination was to directly control government (this is the part that was taken out of context by Judge Black.
However, the body of believers -- the corporate Church of God across the whole of the nation (the American portion of all real Christians) -- was guaranteed by the First Amendment to have a place of leadership in government. And the Founding Fathers intended that only responsible Christian Men should and would be allowed to lead our nation.
You see, our wise founding fathers designed the First Amendment to protect religion from government and NOT to protect government from religion. And religion was and is ONLY Christianity. Any other faith system was and is paganism and the Founders did not accept paganism or it's adherents to be valid in government. And that included atheists, too.
So, to sum up, the First Amendment guarantees that government shall not block Christians (singular or corporately) from worshiping in the public square. It guarantees Christians could and should run the government. It does not guarantee that government or the people should be protected from religion. And it (through their intent) defines religion solely as the one true belief in God...aka, Christianity.
Um...isn't that a death threat? Where's the moderator to ban you for a week?Quasi-duck wrote:
For once, Ocean is right about politics! I agree!First things first, kill the Pope.oceanhawk wrote:
Either way, a separation between Church and State is a must, and is better for people. It is that way, and should be that way. Religion is for the individual, not for the country.
Even do it doesnt mentioned Christianity once...
What makes you so sure Christianity, is right?. I already told you, that the Church Lied, Jesus went to India and studied there.
Last chance to get back on topic.
Actually, there was a pretty cool experiment carried out on Christians and non-religious people. The experiment consisted of several different ethics tests. It actually showed that non-religious people were more moral than Christians. At least here in Spain.wildL SPQR wrote:
So the youth is careless and immoral because they don't believe in the religion? what a load of........Maybe religion failed to modernize, you ever think of that?
wildL SPQR wrote:
Last chance to get back on topic.
@wildL SPQR, This is the OT section of the forums. And last I checked nobody was complaining about this so... Why lock it? We're all having a good time here.
I don't see any lies there. Everything I said falls within that. Perhaps you need to know the definition of "Religion" as the founding fathers understood it....to the best of Webster's ability to define (already 50 years after the Founders) in the American Dictionary of the English Language as published by Noah Webster in 1828. Note the almost exclusive use of Christian terminology and Christian theology in describing "religion". Note also that Webster was being very generous to include paganism as religion in the fourth entry, something that even the founders didn't have in their definition of "religion".wildL SPQR wrote:
LOL that's not what the 1st amendment says. Actually it is totally wrong, and once again I see through your disgusting lies.Diabolical wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
1st amendment guarantees that any religion should be accepted and that no government can pass laws which aid one religion/religions, or prefer one religion to another . . .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Here is the definition of Religion as defined in 1828:
RELIGION, noun relij'on. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]
1. religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion
2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1:26.
3. religion as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion
4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, etc. as well as of the christian religion We speak of false religion as well as of true religion
5. The rites of religion; in the plural.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Oh yeah, and by "God", they mean Allah! Or maybe Yahweh?Diabolical wrote:
Here is the definition of Religion as defined in 1828:
I think he means Zarathustra.Quasi-duck wrote:
Oh yeah, and by "God", they mean Allah! Or maybe Yahweh?Diabolical wrote:
Here is the definition of Religion as defined in 1828:
