CS....Do you accept the idea of having someone else dictate what you will believe in? If organized religion of any kind becomes part and parcel of a government, then you have what is prevalent in the Middle East. Seriously...Would this be OK with you?

I believe in individual freedom of choice, based on universal moral and civil tenets (Do not hurt each other, basically).

I do not believe that any organized religion has the "whole story", nor do I believe in a vindictive Creator. I suppose that makes me somehow a heretic and sinner, doomed forever..........

To me the issue really boils down to what I think my government should support with the tax dollars that I send to it. If they are spending my tax dollars, I think I have a right to voice my opinion on how those tax dollars should be spent. I don't think my tax dollars should be spent on late term abortions. I don't think my tax dollars should be spent on gay marriage. It's really no different than Rodeo having his right to talk about the war in Iraq all the time. He doesn't think his tax dollars should be spent on that war. What is the difference?

Rick:

We agree on what our taxes should and should not be spent on. But, I would also agree that "faith based initiatives", for example, if they are receiving federal funds, must be regulated so that funding is not used to attempt to convert or to influence. In reality, though, we have little choice over how our dollars are spent since those decisions are made by 535 people we send to Washington. Whether the money is spent on the war or on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, no one in those august bodies really seem to listen or even care.

CS: That is really not the point. We can choose to ignore a sales pitch because it is not legislated. Once some moral value is enacted into law, it cannot be ignored. That is a fear I have. Like Rick said, if abortion on demand is somehow approved and federally funded, it is no longer something we, as citizens, have any further voice in. We have a pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" included. We can, when reciting the pledge, currently choose to include or eliminate these words, but by some stretch of the imagination, if it were legislated that these words must be included and spoken, then it is no longer an option. I would not be so certain that, over time, attempts to establish a theocracy will not be attempted, one small brick at a time. It has happened in other countries; even England has an official state religion (albeit rather tolerant overall).

That's true and I agree with you. As soon as the gubmint stops funding gay groups and minority groups and female groups and every other group you can think of based on gender, race, sexual preference, etc., THEN I will say you can't fund a "faith based initiative".

Don't worry Bob I am tight with the big guy upstairs (although God being a spiritual being doesn't actually have a gender) and I will put in a good word for you. ;)

If you are a Christian, then you should know that Isaiah 64:6 is how God views our "righteousness" and the other scripture here states the only way a person can be saved.

Z-man, you're not going to believe this, DOG FOOD!

Scott..Thank you for putting in a good word for me. I can use all the help I can get!!!

T: You really think that God can be described as having human frailities? God is all good as well as all knowing. It is the words of man that attempt to make God out as vengeful, vindictive, angry, all of which are human frailities. I do not wish to debate religion, but it is this idea that God can be defined in human terms with our limited intelligence that I truly find disturbing. Let all men believe as they please as long as their belief does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. God is far too complex a subject for my limited intellect.

Perhaps worthy of its own thread, but one of the conundrums of religion is the concept that a perfect God would create imperfection.

I respect everyone's right to believe as they wish. Just please do not try toconvince me that your specific brand of Christianity is the only true path to redemption. Ain't so, IMHO. COnsider that there are, according to some Christian churches, three kinds of baptism...water (with which we are all familiar), blood (giving up one's life for another) and desire (one who knew all the facts would choose Christianity). That may be the answer to redemption not being an exclusive club for some.

Follow the beatitudes if you want the true message Christ left us.

I think that if people quote the bible, they should pick a random verse every day and abide by that particular passage. No "buffet" consumption of the Good Book...

That is an excellent observation. Too often people "pick and choose" what they want.

A friend of mine (retired minister) used this as an example:

The bible proves that skin is far more elastic than rubber.

"Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked into the desert".

Things taken out of context, misinterpreted and viola!! The bible can be used to prove and disprove any possible moral or ethical stand!! Personally I think the New Testament is far clearer than any other part of holy writings, much less subject to being misinterpreted, though God knows, folks try!!

Todd,
That is why I just read the Bible. I just don't have time to do all the sacrifing of bulls.

What I don't understand is why folks who believe as you do care whether or not evangelicals think nonbelievers will go to hell after they die. Obviously, the liberal left attacks these people at every chance they get...Apparently many are not as secure in their "non-belief" as believers are in theirs.

Now that is a funny statement and certainly a strange position for an "unbiased" moderator. The thread was not started by the person you slight, it was started by a "regular" that chose to "stir the pot" (attack christians). The "newbie" has responded with a very measured tone in response to personal attacks...

I would prefer that people who read the Bible (or any written material) sequentially and not take it out of context.

Just look at the pissing matches we get here on PPOT were people cut and paste little sections out of some other post and piece them together to make someone look like an idiot. You could make anyone look like a fool if you followed them around all day with a tape recorder then rearrange their words.

Scott

Thank you for a cogent observation.

fint...You have made an error. You are confusing me with someone who cares.....

eehm , if you are a true Christian, you should focus more on the New Testament, instead of the Old one

or else you could just be Jewish without having you're weewee clipped...

To vote Republican, you have to be either rich or dumb.

To vote Democrat, you have to be (I'll let you fill it in.)

To vote strictly along EITHER party's lines is typically to be undeserving of having the right to vote, IMHO.

It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent individuals with beliefs and opinions to match the complexity of their own individuality let their political decisions get dictated to them by collections of dumbed-down bullet-points intended for the lowest possible common denominator of idiot.

Please people. . . vote individual candidates. Vote individual issues. Vote your individual consciousness. Leave the partisan crap out of it. I bet you'll find you vote for a mix that might have surprised you prior to becoming so enlightened to the fact that you actually don't have to accept "party A" or "party B" telling you how to think.

I agree with you -- 99% of the time. This year is the 1%. Seriously.

I would not send a Republican back to Congress this year. Because if you vote for a Republican, you are not just voting for that person, you are voting for that person's party to control the Congress. You are voting for a Republican Speaker, Majority leader, committee chairmen, and on and on.

You are voting for Republicans to continue to control the agenda, and to continue to control the subpoena power. We know what that means, it means two more years of a do-nothing Congress.

In my state, we have a Republican Senator that I agree with on most issues. I also think he is a good man, and would normally vote to send him back. Not this year. His party has failed completely in it's oversight role, and my vote will be for the other party.

For the Congressional races I sort of agree with you - I'll likely be voting for the candidates that happen to be Democratic - although that's not how I made my decision.

FWIW, I'll be voting for Ahhnold for governator once again (who is a Republican) simply because I think he's the better candidate. Party labels don't mean that much to me, but the "end product" (at least in terms of Congressional elections this year) happen to put me in the "likely to vote Democratic" category.