Monday, May 16, 2005

Eye for an Eye School of Law

Would you want a crazy fundamentalist Muslim who went to some unaccredited Muslim-only law school representing you, a Christian, in a criminal case? Better yet, you wouldn't want this type of judge presiding over a controversial first amendment case involving a painting of Christians killing Muslims in the crusades would you? That's exactly what Jerry Falwell would like to do. Of course, he would never approve of a Muslim-only law school which derives its code of ethics from the Quran, but he obviously approves of a Christian-only law school which derives it's code of ethics from the Baptist Bible. That's right; Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is joining the ranks of Pat Robertson’s Regent University, and now has a law school, if you can call it that. They only have 9 professors and are not accredited by the American Bar Association.

Falwell: "Liberty University's School of Law will employ professors who are: committed to the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible; committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ; committed to a strict constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution; committed to training godly attorneys for the law profession, for service in American government or as judges and justices. "

There are several things wrong with the idea of a religious, especially Christian-only, law school. First of all, they are guilty of creating sinners themselves. I don't think becoming a lawyer would count as a sin, nor would going to a Christians only law school, a rip off maybe but not a sin, but the Bible does say that judging another man is wrong and we have no right to do so. Therefore, any Christian judge or justice is inherently a sinner, according to the Bible.
Here are a few scriptures proving my point:

Matthew 7:1:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Romans 1:32:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

The other thing wrong with this is that they typically derive their legal and moral values from the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, not the New Testament which I have just done. Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that the New Testament is the only law that Jesus requires his believers to follow, and that the Old Testament is no longer the guideline as to how to get into heaven, and what Jesus taught replaced the 10 commandments. If those old laws still applied, Christians would still be going to church on Saturdays, they would eat Kosher, never shave their beards and stone their children when they, well, got stoned and talked back to them.


The Old Testament is where you find the ever so brilliant philosophy of eye for an eye, which we all know leaves everyone blind. Could you imagine a Christian judge who had to sentence a child molester; does that mean he would be sentenced to having children molest him? That's an eye for an eye right? He may like that sentence a little too much. Plus that would violate parts of the 10 commandments such as Adultery and thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass. If coveting thy neighbor's ass is a crime, lock me up, because I have been guilty of that throughout my entire life.

The other problem with training kids to become "Christian Lawyers", is that Christianity has no business in our laws to begin with. More than anything, a Judge applying his "Christian ethics" to any legal decision is unconstitutional Toad Report / Separation. I have said this over and over again, the only 2 of the 10 commandments that may be attributed to our current laws are don't kill, and don't steal. Both of these are basic common sense that have existed in non-Christian societies since the beginning of time to the present day (Communists, Socialists, Pagans, Muslims, Jews etc.).

This is another attempt by the Christian right to install activist judges to the bench that will bring back slavery, end abortion, end free speech(for non-Christians), allow religious political campaigning, take women out of the work force, change laws to favor Christian politicians, allow them to beat their kids, teach unintelligent design in schools and force everyone to live under the ancient and archaic laws of the Old Testament, and not the laws, freedoms and Constitution of the United States.


PBU20

35 comments:

BRUISER said...

Hey John ... I hope this is not you getting all preachy and shit... its not like the Repukes are replaying the scopes monkey trial or somethi..wait..wait...I just received news that Republicans are against the Evolution Process which DNA has proven the existence of species before Man created God in his image
and sadly yes they are replaying the Scopes Monkey Trial ...

another interesting fact is that Republicans have recently stated that they are oppossed to such...
" booklearnin' " as the Laws of Gravity..... if you can believe it...FOXNEWS...is reporting that James Guckert( Jeff Gannon to those of you who still think Saddam was tied to Bush's Friend Bin Laden) ... a longtime advocate of weightlessness not only in reporting but in life as well... has joined the Fox News Team as its Anti-Gravitational Specialist for its Peabody award winning Cable Channel...
Its Time The Republicans Get Rid of Baseball Because We Need The Stadiums and Coliseums of MLB For Some Roman Time Family Fun...

BRUISER said...

The Reichwing Party? read on....





"...its always a simple matter to drag the people along...

whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship,
a parliment,
or a communist dictatorship."

----Herman Goering's quote during the Nuremberg Trials..

Sandi said...

Shiver, shiver, shiver.

Why cant the unibomber mail packages to the right people?

Joe Wiess said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, (and I believe I am using that term rather loosely.)

I do believe that what John is trying to tell you, in his own rather interesting style, is that Falwell and Robertson are way over the edge kooks, and yes, this is coming from a Christian.

I am glad to say that these two kooks in no way represent the way I think as an American.

I am going to take just a few minutes to answer John's assertion that Christ-centered judges will: A) Bring back Black Slavery, B) End Abortion, C) End Free Speech, D) Allow religious political campaining, E) Take women out of the work force, F) Change Laws to favor Christian Politicians, and G) Teach Intelligent Design.

Lately, we've seen a lot of things that should be changed, like high school teachers that are either raping or getting raped by their students, children shooting each other, and politicians getting away with murder (literally)

A) Most normal Christian's believe in the constituion and do care for their fellow man, so I do not believe that we'd like anyone to go back into slavery. I, myself, believe that the liberal big government, is making slaves out of people by putting them on programs such as Welfare, Medicaide, Medicare, SSI.
I do have a question. If a child is reading his Bible in the schoolyard and not bothering anyone at all, why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

B) Abortion is the law of the land, not by choice, but because an unelected judge said it was. While Believers think that life begins at conception, we do understand the neccesity of the medical procedure. I, myself, am not an anti-abortion activist, and would allow abortions in the following situations 1) If the child would be born with such hideious health problems that it couldn't survive, 2) Rape, 3) incest, and 4) if the mother were going to die giving birth.

C) There's not a Christian out there that would take away anyone's freedom of speech. However, that doesn't seem to be the same way that the ACLU thinks.

D)Christian's aren't for only religious political campaigning..we are for truth, where all sides may speak their share and listen to other side. During the last election, the liberals chose to sue anyone who dared speak out against them, Kerry in particular. Why should only the left get to speak?

E) There is no church teaching that would take women out of the work force. As Christian's, we realize that women are our strength, and because we love them, we want them to be happy. Besides, if we took women out of the workforce, we'd quickly be like Islamic countries, where half of the workforce stays at home. We'd be broke.

F) Christian Politicians...hm. Let's see, Bush is a believer (although sometimes I wonder) and he's ridiculed, judges who believe are being held up in congress, The president's choice for Ambassador for the UN is being held up because he won't take shit off of people.

G) No Christian will ever beat their children. My parents never did, nor did their parents, nor their parents. However, they did believe in discipline, and so do I. And believe me, time outs don't work. I believe in the "5 good swats" rule. There's no problem that 5 good swats on some brat's behind won't cure.
If more parents took an active role in their kids lives, we wouldn't have so much trouble today.

H) Intelligent Design. We aren't demanding that you teach only intelligent design, we are only asking that you teach a balanced cirriculem. If you are going to teach the "Theory" of evolution, then you should be fair enough to teach that we were created as well.

And lastly, Christians aren't going to force everyone to live under Old testament laws, we are only asking that we follow the laws as set down by the Constition of the United States of America, and let us have our freedoms as set forth by the creator. Life, Liberty (to worship how you choose to, or not to,) and Pursuit of Happiness. For us, that means that we have the rights to believe and can follow our hearts and try to expain to others what makes us who we are.
Unlike the Muslim's, we won't force you to listen, or force you to convert. After all, we didn't hunt down and kill Madeline O'Hare, or Michael Nedow.

Toad734 said...

RE: Joe

Ok so I don't really believe anyone wants to bring back slavery, it was a point being made because the Bible specifically tells slaves that they should obey their owners and accept their fate. Therefore it's in some part of the Bible so someone has and always does use one line and take it out of context, just like almost every other major social issue.

Reading a Bible in the Schoolyard is not a problem that is not what the issue is about though. Christians want to take time out of the day for kids to pray in class. If we are going to extend those freedoms, then we have to extend it to Muslims who pray 5 times a day. Don't you think that would get to be a bit of a disruption? Also, you are at school 7 hours a day, what's wrong with praying the other 17 hours a day while not at school? After all, you are not Muslims who are forced to such.

As far as abortion goes, life does not begin at conception, there is no heartbeat, there is no brain activity, it's an embryo; there is more life in my sperm than there is in an embryo, are you going to make laws to save it too? And if you are referring to "unelected judges" what kind of judges do you think the German people would have elected in 1940? Maybe it's a good Idea, especially since that was the intentions of the founding fathers, that one branch of our government didn't have to worry about the trend of the masses in order to get reelected, therefore would interpret our laws as they see they were intended, not as the mass of nimrods want them to interpret them.

Censorship:

Quotes from the American Family Association, a Methodist organization that favors censorship on everything except for Christian rights:
"Without authorized censorship, we would not have a nation, nor would we be civilized nations."

"Should pornography by censored? My answer, it depends on who is doing the censoring."

They just don't want to censor "In God we Trust" from our money and public buildings.

If you need more examples of Christians and censorship, give me 5 minutes and I’ll give you 100 more.

With regards to the Christian political campaigning, I am not referring to Christian individuals campaigning for a candidate. I am talking about Church's having tax exempt status and endorsing a candidate. They can endorse whom ever they want if they pay their fair share in taxes.
See: Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, H.R. 235
http://www.hr235.org/

Falwell: “It is the responsibility of...every evangelical Christian
...to get serious about re-electing President Bush."

Women:

Falwell:
“I listen to feminists and all these radical gals... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem."

Sounds like he has a real high opinion of women.

Intelligent Design:
Show me one shred of scientific proof or evidence that could even lead to some conclusions of Intelligent Design. One artifact, one smoking gun, anything. I have just as much proof that Santa Clause had the elves built the Earth.
We don't know everything about the universe but we still teach astronomy, so even though we may not know every single detail about evolution and the big bang, we have enough to teach. Do we know everything about animal or human behavior? No, but we still teach psychology and learn about animal behavior.

Michael Nedow gets death threats everyday and has had to change his number several times.

And by way of Christian politicians and activist judges interpreting the constitution with context to the Bible, censorship and with all the other laws they now have on the books, they are forcing everyone to live the Christian life.

BRUISER said...

WELCOME TO THE 17TH CENTURY...INTELLIGENT DESIGN LOST THEN TOO...

or How I learned to laugh at the Bible which states that the Sun revolved around the Earth and other mistakes of the past...

Joe ... Joe ... Joe ... Say it ain't so Joe... We are reverting to the 1920's arguing the Scopes Monkey trial all over again...are you a Modernist or a Traditionalist? Myself, I like Jazz so call it progress...

Joe ... Intelligent Design as you call it is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one. ID like most biblical crationist theories are Empirical and not scientific. Science is of course open to theists and atheists alike however, metaphysical beliefs such as god & creationism are irrelevant to scientific explanations of nature.

In science god is an uneccessary hypothesis.

Your fundamentalist beliefs about creation may have you teetering on the edge of Taliban reasoning for instituting it into America's public school system. Whats next a war agaisnt evil? Oh wait ..you have that.

Darwin Stated in 1868, " I can not possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts."

And I believe that a conservative think tank which resides in Seattle known as the CRSC has no other agenda for science fact than to be the PR machine it has become for the Christian Reichwing. The Center for Renewal of Science and Culture's mission statement says,"We want nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." With the likes of Jonathan Wells, Michael J. Behe, & Sun Myung Moon at the fore front of the "ID" message its no wonder they have not released any finding nor culminated data for peer review or other science related findings to support their claims. They exist only to push their evangelical agenda and propaganda on the mainstream populace and its youth.

Certainly you must realize that through Modern genetic analysis Darwin's theory has been substantiated...any progress in your "creationist" camp?...or would that be a form of evolving? So with absolutely no biochemical evidence for intelligent design and armed with a misinterpretation of second law of thermodynamics the battle rages on.

If the proponents of Intelligent Design such as Joe wish to put more of their effort into swaying politicians and the public thus deliberatly abandoning the scientific community...I ask if the proponents of Intelligent Design is truly just or just a spring board for their fight against the Modernists and their Jazz?

Joe argues that ID should be taught alongside Evolution ... but fails like the CRSC... to give it validation. This is what happens when a group trying to gain acceptance in the scientific community chooses to advance its strategy...or is that strategery Mr. Bush?...When their tactics are no substitute for real science.

Testify,

Justice

www.skepdic.com/essays/secondcrusade.html
www.mstar2.net
www.botany.org
www.actionbioscience.org
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution
www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Joe ... Intelligent Design as you call it is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one.

But the belief in science as the sole source of truth also has no basis in science. If you're going to claim that science alone gives us truth, hadn't you better first give us some scientific evidence for that idea?

In science god is an uneccessary hypothesis.

But unless there is some Higher Power to force order into unwilling matter, how can you expect science to work?

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Matthew 7:1:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


You gave these verses of the Bible as evidence for the idea that Christian judges are sinning. But this idea is ridiculous.

This verse is speaking about judging hypocritically, not all judging. It is not evil to be a judge, as long as you make sure that you judge justly.

Toad734 said...

RE: Gabriel

The belief in science as the sole source of truth does have basis in science if it can be observed, analyzed, measured, tested and proven.

You can observe natural selection by looking at the faces of the people walking down a street. Some are tall, short, black, white Asian, etc., that is natural selection. People are now getting taller, living longer, being born without wisdom teeth which is proof that we are still evolving. That's just the easiest part of understanding evolution, the rest lies in studying different species in different parts of the world and analyzing fossil samples.

Creationism has no such evidence.

"How can you expect science to work without a higher power?" Easy, mix an acid with a base and see what happens. No higher power involved there.

Toad734 said...

Well, that's your interpretation, this is mine. Some people interpret parts of the Old Testament to read that you should beat gay people, and bomb abortion clinics.

And how many of these judges judge justly?

Gabriel Bertilson said...

The belief in science as the sole source of truth does have basis in science if it can be observed, analyzed, measured, tested and proven.

That's not what I meant. Does science tell you that only science contains truth?

You can observe natural selection by looking at the faces of the people walking down a street. Some are tall, short, black, white Asian, etc., that is natural selection.

Of course natural selection exists. That's obvious, just as you said.

But natural selection can't create humans from reptiles. There's a limit as to what it can do.

Creationism has no such evidence.

Well, what about humor, love, etc.? Can evolution give us those?

“How can you expect science to work without a higher power?” Easy, mix an acid with a base and see what happens. No higher power involved there.

But why in the world would such an orderly process result from chance?

Toad734 said...

RE Gabriel


Why is there a limit to natural selection and not to how God came into existence?

"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins,

How is Humor and love proof of God?
Does that mean War and Hate is proof God doesn't exist?
Again, why are you putting limits on nature and natural selection and not on God?

On to the next point about random chance:

You were born as you weren't you?
Think about the chances and the probability of you being born.

This is raw numbers, not probability so here we go:

Your mom had a 1 and 5.5 billion chance of meeting your dad, since that was the approximate population of the world when they met.
Had she married or met any other guy, you don’t exist and we never have this discussion

Your dad had a 1 and 5.5 billion chance of meeting your mom. So add that do your moms 1 and 5.5 billion chances.

The egg inside your mother which was fertilized by your father was one of about 360 that your mom will generate in her lifetime. So add 1:360 chances to the two 1:5.5 billion chance ratios.
Any other egg than the one that was fertilized and you are a different person and we are not having this conversation right now.

Now, add that to the 1 and 400 million sperm that was excreted by your father to the 1:360 and the two 1:5.5billion chances of your parents meeting. Any other sperm that made it through and you are a different person and we are not having this conversation right now.

Now, those eggs are only fertile for 24 hours per month. So you now have to calculate the chance that your mom and dad meet, have sex on the day your egg was in her, the 1 of 400 million sperm that would be you, reaching that egg, the one and 30 chance that an actual fertile egg being there when they decided to have sex.

You see where I am going with this.

You are an orderly process produced by such staggering odds I don't even have the calculator to run the numbers, nor the time.

BRUISER said...

AGAIN GABES----

MAN CREATED GOD IN HIS OWN IMAGE ...

THIS IS SCIENCE AND HISTORICAL FACT...


So are you a follower of the Evangelical Reichwing? I believe so... you still cannot account for seeing a Monkey evolve to a President....

Thanks Gabe "Hater of Jazz"

Gabriel Bertilson said...

How is Humor and love proof of God?

Well, would they give the creature who had them enough advantage to evolve?

Does that mean War and Hate is proof God doesn't exist?

No. A world without God would be amoral, and so there would be no difference between war and peace, or hate and love. If you really believe that there isn't a god, why do you think that Christians are wrong?

You are an orderly process produced by such staggering odds I don't even have the calculator to run the numbers, nor the time.

But my orderliness does not depend on who my parents are.

Sandi said...

The monkey did not evolve, he just has good handlers.

Mike's America said...

I really feel bad for you Toad... Living in a perpetual climate of fear induced by paranoia and willing disinformation. I'd rather be in the company of Jerry Falwell anyday than Barbara Streisand and "the sky is falling" theocracy crowd...

Grow up and get over it...

Gabriel Bertilson said...

MAN CREATED GOD IN HIS OWN IMAGE ...

If you're right, we're infinite, know everything, and can destroy the world with one word from our mouth.

So are you a follower of the Evangelical Reichwing?

Does the Bible teach us to kill anyone who disagrees with our beliefs?

erinberry said...

"Get over" what, Mike's America? The fact that religious radicals are trying to shove their religion down our throats, using the Bible as the reason to discriminate against gays? Yeah, I don't think so. Because in my America, the government is accountable to its constituents, and I actually care enough about my country not to sit back, wave my flag, and turn a blind eye to what they're doing.

So go ahead and feel sorry for Toad. We feel sorry for you.

erinberry said...

Hey Toad - I just checked out the blog by "Mike's America". Pure hilarity! That guy is BEYOND moronic - I especially liked his post that said because Americans have more avg dwelling space than Europeans, that means socialism is bad! What a well thought-out conclusion! (Of course, he also complained about universities being part of a liberal conspiracy, so clearly he tries to avoid education... We should cut him a little slack.)

I would have read through more of his posts, but I've got to get up early for a meeting.

Joe Wiess said...

Out of curiosity, has anyone here heard of Blaise Pascal? He was a scientist, mathmetician, and a devout Christian.

When he was approached by his times version of John, and challenged to a similiar debate, he very calmly said.

"I'll make you a bet. If you can prove that God doesn't exist, I'll pay you a dollar, but 'if' I am right, about there being a god, I'm just out a dollar. But if I am wrong, the only thing I am out is the time that I have spent being a Christian. Either way, I have nothing to lose."

I do see another trend here, you guys keep quoting that fanatic Falwell. He doesn't think before he speaks, so in his case, I guess evolution hasn't worked quiet well enough.

I am in no way arguing against Evolution, within the species. But so far, nobody has proven that homosapiens came from Apes, Monkeys, or orangutans. Your Biochemist test doesn't really prove anything, since we are all intertwined in this world.

Let me give you this point to ponder.

Earth sits in just the perfect place to sustain life. One orbit out, we'd be a desert, one orbit in, we'd be ash.

If you want to go back to the big bang, go ahead. It can be used for my argument too. In a universe of nothing, someone or something had to spark the fuse, and out of that explosion came stellar nurseries, gas clouds, planetoids, and star systems. Also consider the way everything on our world has a niche, from the air we breath, to the earth we walk upon, to the animals we either eat or domesticate, and the water that keeps us from dying. (We are 95% water, by the way.)
My beliefs as a Christian, are reflected in the way I treat myself, my family, and my world. I am for conservation of resources, against the useless killing of animals and plants, and the useless destruction of forests. I respect my parents, the people who I elect to make laws, and even the laws themselves.

I'll make you the same bet that Pascal made, and in the end, the only thing I will have lost is the time you'll think I've wasted. But then, it is my time to waste.

There is one last thing: I do believe that science can answer many questions, but so far, even the scientists have been unable to tell you where life came from.

I can tell you how a rainbow forms, and why the sky is blue, but that in no way stops me from enjoying the breathtaking sunrisesm, sunsets, and rainbows. I know how lightening forms, and how tornadoes work, but that in no way stops me from holding my breath and thinking "of God's Wonders."

Toad734 said...

RE: ERinberry

Yes Mikes America's hilarity is infinite. Apparently I am a little kid with a rattle so I am going to go change by diaper now and jump to outrageous conclusions based on one small graph. I like how he is able to take a chart about living space and call it socialism but isn't able to take CO2 emissions, ice caps melting, and a higher average global temperature and come to the conclusion of global warming. It's funny the steps one skips in order to prove their own meager point, and the steps they ignore to prove others. Hey it rained today, that must mean Jupiter exploded!

RE: Gabe

This world is amoral. And it's generally the people who claim to have all the morals who are the biggest perpetrators, i.e. fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and chiefs of state.

RE: Joe

Again, I am glad there are Christians, which just means there are more seats available at Soldier Field on Sundays. I don't care if someone else is a Christian or believes in God, it fulfills some basic human needs, and many people feel that it has helped them through bad times. However, the minute someone tries to label me based on these Christian principles, or makes laws based on the Bible, that is when I go into defense mode, which is exactly what this blog is about. I am not out to convert Christians, I am here to try to tell them not to take it so seriously and not to bother anybody else with it. In order to make them not take it so seriously I have to point out the flaws in their thinking, once you start shooting holes in their theories that they can't fill, that makes them think twice.

Anyway, why do both you and gabe admit to some degree that evolution and natural selection exists but think it's irrational to think it can go as far as to create a new species? Shit, you can let cheese sit out for a day and see a new form of life spring up that didn't exist the day before, so I don't think it’s that big of a leap. What is a big leap is to say that someone had to put the mass here that resulted in the big bang, but you don't think the being that did this had to be put here by anything else.
By you saying, “what came before the mass of the big bang?”, you also have to ask yourself, who put the guy here that but the clump of mass there in the first place?
If the Earth needed intelligent design to form, then the intelligent being who did this, also needed someone even more intelligent to create him, and so on and so on.
In either argument, something was just here, somehow, so one is really no more ridiculous than the other I suppose. Well, thinking there’s a guy with a white beard in the clouds who hates fags and loves only protestant Christians in America is ridiculous but whatever.

So I guess that is the million dollar question, which no one knows, nor can they prove; how was something just here?

I still have to revert to this quote; it works on so many different levels:

...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!'
--Douglas Adams

Jinx said...

Why not just get the answers from the big guy himself?

God's Blog

erinberry said...

"Nobody has proven that homosapiens came from Apes, Monkeys, or orangutans."

Joe, I said this once here already, but apparently I need to repeat myself.

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT WE CAME FROM APES, MONKEYS, OR ORANGUTANS. Seriously, read a science book! That is not what evolutionary theory says!

Gabriel Bertilson said...

This world is amoral. And it's generally the people who claim to have all the morals who are the biggest perpetrators, i.e. fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and chiefs of state.

The world is amoral? Then why do you get so angry at people who claim that it is moral?

Gabriel Bertilson said...

If the Earth needed intelligent design to form, then the intelligent being who did this, also needed someone even more intelligent to create him, and so on and so on.

But it couldn't have gone on forever. And that's why God is infinitely intelligent.

...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!'

But the hole fits a little too neatly, don't you think?

Toad734 said...

RE: Gabriel

Your missing the point, the hole doesn’t fit anything, the water formed to reside within the hole; exactly as we did.

I don't get angry when someone calls the world moral; I get angry when people call me amoral because I don't hate fags and Arabs and don't pray to the same invisible man as them.

BRUISER said...

THE REICHWING IS ALL THEOCRATIC ...WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE CALLING SOCIAL VALUES THEOCRATIC ?????

RECOCKULOUS....


I THINK REPUBLICANS CAN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY SEE THEIR OWN WIVES ON A DAILY BASIS... THERE IS NO EVOLUTION AT AN RNC PARTY WHERE THE WHITE CHICKS AND POINDEXTERS THINK THEY CAN DANCE...

CHIMPEACHMENT 2006

Toad734 said...

RE: Bruiser

See their own wives??

No one knows what you are talking about.

Fred said...

Interesting stuff!

http://www.truth-serum.blogspot.com/

Gabriel said...

Your missing the point, the hole doesn’t fit anything, the water formed to reside within the hole; exactly as we did.

How could such an amazingly designed hole form without a Designer?

I don't get angry when someone calls the world moral; I get angry when people call me amoral because I don't hate fags and Arabs and don't pray to the same invisible man as them.

We don't hate Arabs; we hate what a few of them do.

Toad734 said...

RE: Gabriel

Ice, Water, Traffic, Heat, Seasons...I don't know, I didn't know a pot hole was amazing.

BRUISER said...

Republicans Never Evolved Why Should Anyone Else Think They Did ?

If the Bush Administration flushes our Bill Of Rights down the toilet will Americans get offended? Didn't think so.


If I flush the bible down the toilet with no one looking ... will anyone get offended?

Gabriel said...

So you think that the earth is a pothole?

BRUISER said...

Earth The Pot Hole of the Universe...

hey thats catchy

Toad734 said...

RE: Gabriel

Well the Earth and the Universe; and we are the puddle that has fit ourselves into existence within the pothole. Without the pothole we would just be rain that dried up.