fc no more pre game prayers??? I've never been a big fan of this

[Michael.Felli]

1) Hitler made war on Stalin (both practical atheists). How comical is that? You don't think great thoughts, do you Michael?

2) Hitchen's Razor. Now that really is funny. Because he makes a specious statement like that, it's true? Either you or Hitchen's (who's dead I realize) need to provide a proof for that statement first of all, and you better well define what you mean by evidence, because there is PLENTY of evidence both by reason and by sight for the existence of God. How foolish you are.

Howie, you're no Einstein.
The letters -- most written in German but some in English -- offer an inside look at Einstein's personal beliefs, like his thoughts about religion and the likelihood of the existence of God.
In a 1945 letter to Guy H. Raner, Einstein described himself as an atheist.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with these outside of the human sphere -- childish analogies,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/us/einstein-letters-auction/index.html

 

[Michael.Felli]

Never heard that story about Stalin, but I can believe it. Kind of like that old saw, "There are no atheists in foxholes."

There are no clean underwear in foxholes, either.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Short answer - you can substitute AA for FB.
Question:
For years, we have been closing Alcoholics Anonymous meetings with the Lord’s Prayer, as do many other groups. We sometimes have Jewish people attending, and I had been taught this was a universal prayer. Lately, by request, we have begun to consider closing with something else. What do you think?

Answer:
Shalom,

It’s true that the Lord’s Prayer fits equally across all the Abrahamic traditions. It is similar in many ways to prayers that were popular among pious Jews in Roman times, including the kaddish prayer, and reflects traditional Jewish values. You may wish to read more on this in the relevant article in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, Jews do not say this prayer. If a Jew attends an AA meeting where it is recited, he does not have to leave, but he should not recite it along with them. The reason is easy to understand: Its source is what is called “The New Testament.” The existence of the Jewish people is predicated on an eternal pact G‑d made with Abraham, and later with his descendants at Mount Sinai. A “New Testament” implies that this pact was somehow annulled. By reciting a prayer from a context that undermines the existential foundation of his people, a Jew feels that he is surrendering his unique identity to the ideology of the majority culture. It seems to me that this runs contrary to the aims and goals of AA, which looks to strengthen each member’s identity as a unique individual, with his own meaning and purpose in life.

Many AA groups and other 12-step societies have a practice of saying the 23rd Psalm, “The L‑rd is my shepherd . . .” The Psalms are revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and this one in particular relates closely to the theme of AA.

Oh, God made a pact with Abraham. You know, when he asked Abraham to take his kid to a rock to slit his throat. Now, some say that isn't meant to be literal, but allogorical. Which is meant to say, "What God asks, you do."

So, if God says KILL KILL KILL, you just shut up and do. Anyone with half a brain knows the story of Abraham is merely to "justify" human (mostly, male) desires to inflict pain and misery by saying this is what God wants.

If God asked me to do anything, I'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.

Take a kid to a rock to slit his throat. GEEZ!

 

[Judge Smails]

My statement still stands. Our nation was founded as a free country, not a secular country. At the founding, States were free to establish/maintain their own State religion well after ratifying the Constitution.

BTW - our founding fathers, including Jefferson, attended church services held in the capital building.

Secular - denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

So the founding fathers created this country without mentioning "God" in any of the founding documents. They had no religious or spiritual basis = secular.

Continue to play the ridiculous word games, but I'm done.

 

[Howie'81]

Howie, you're no Einstein.
The letters -- most written in German but some in English -- offer an inside look at Einstein's personal beliefs, like his thoughts about religion and the likelihood of the existence of God.
In a 1945 letter to Guy H. Raner, Einstein described himself as an atheist.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with these outside of the human sphere -- childish analogies,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/us/einstein-letters-auction/index.html

LOL - So Einstein doesn't believe in god (by the way, neither does Stephen Hawking) I should think they're right? You gotta do better than that dude.

 

[bmw199]

I understand why religious people want to pray before a game, and everything I have said, if they want to do that as individuals, be my guest. Now when it becomes a group, organized activity, that's when I have a problem. So when Dabo gathers the team around before/after a game and tells his team to get down on 1 knee and gives thanks, that isn't mandatory?? The HFC just gave you an order, and those players know the consequences if they don't follow the HFC orders , otherwise they just go turn the music on.

So because a coach is a position of power he can't practice his religion, even when those he oversees are about to go participate in a dangerous activity.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Einstein......

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

 

[bmw199]

Howie, you're no Einstein.
The letters -- most written in German but some in English -- offer an inside look at Einstein's personal beliefs, like his thoughts about religion and the likelihood of the existence of God.
In a 1945 letter to Guy H. Raner, Einstein described himself as an atheist.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with these outside of the human sphere -- childish analogies,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/us/einstein-letters-auction/index.html

I'm relativity [sic] sure that there is evidence of his belief in a deity post dating those letters. I'll see if I can find it later

 

[Michael.Felli]

LOL - So Einstein doesn't believe in god (by the way, neither does Stephen Hawking) I should think they're right? You gotta do better than that dude.

Well, you do have Osama Bin Laden and David Koresh on your side. Not to mention, zero evidence.

 

[Howie'81]

Oh, God made a pact with Abraham. You know, when he asked Abraham to take his kid to a rock to slit his throat. Now, some say that isn't meant to be literal, but allogorical. Which is meant to say, "What God asks, you do."

So, if God says KILL KILL KILL, you just shut up and do. Anyone with half a brain knows the story of Abraham is merely to "justify" human (mostly, male) desires to inflict pain and misery by saying this is what God wants.

If God asked me to do anything, I'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.

Take a kid to a rock to slit his throat. GEEZ!

And yet he hasn't slit yours. Interesting. If you knew anything about Christianity, which you clearly know little, you'd know that God never intended Isaac to be killed. God himself became Isaac, so to speak, and sacrificed himself, not Isaac, so that flawed humans, dare I say sinners, might live.

 

[sluggo72]

So because a coach is a position of power he can't practice his religion, even when those he oversees are about to go participate in a dangerous activity.

he can certainly practice his religion, unless his religion says he has to impose it on others. It's no fun when the HFC at XYZ Baptist tells the Jewish players from the other team that they need Jesus Christ in their lives or they will burn in hell. They think it is their job to witness Christ after a game.

 

[Obliviax]

Einstein......

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

I am not surprised you would pick and choose to support your argument. Fact is, Einstein often argued both sides and most believe he is an agnostic and not an atheist. You can use his words, in various letters and publications, to both support and deny the existence of God. Having said that, its pretty clear he had no trust in organized religions.

 

[bmw199]

Einstein......

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

Isaacson, Walter (2007), Einstein: His Life and Universe "He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist."

He was Pantheistic -
Einstein, Albert "Gelegentliches", Soncino Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1929, p. 9 "This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)."

 

[bmw199]

he can certainly practice his religion, unless his religion says he has to impose it on others. It's no fun when the HFC at XYZ Baptist tells the Jewish players from the other team that they need Jesus Christ in their lives or they will burn in hell. They think it is their job to witness Christ after a game.

That's not what we're talking about and you know it.

 

[Aoshiro]

As such, it is not an affront to those who do not believe in Jesus.

Since you are apparently a believer, who the heck are you to say what's an "affront" to people who do not believe?

Chutzpah. Look it up.

 

[Aoshiro]

So because a coach is a position of power he can't practice his religion, even when those he oversees are about to go participate in a dangerous activity.

No one is saying that he can't practice his own religion. We're saying that it's wrong for him to coerce OTHER PEOPLE to practice his religion.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Oddly enough, as one becomes MORE educated, the less one believes in any Deity. Why is that? One would think that as one becomes MORE educated, one would believe MORE in a Deity, not less - if there truly is a Deity, right?

 

[sluggo72]

That's not what we're talking about and you know it.

actually it is, because where does it stop?? Who draws the line??

 

[Op2]

Never heard that story about Stalin, but I can believe it. Kind of like that old saw, "There are no atheists in foxholes."

Even amidst the battle that resulted in his death via friendly fire Pat Tillman was an atheist.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/07/29/marine-disputes-report-pat-tillman-final-moments.html

 

[Obliviax]

Since you are apparently a believer, who the heck are you to say what's an "affront" to people who do not believe?

Chutzpah. Look it up.

No different than the OP stating that Jewish people were offended by people using the Lord's Prayer. Fact is, even the quote he included didn't say that. it simply said that they don't use it nor believe in it. (which makes sense because it is the teachings of Jesus, in the new testament).



Not sure why you didn't call him/her out on it. Oh wait, yes I am sure why you didn't call him out on it.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Isaacson, Walter (2007), Einstein: His Life and Universe "He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist."

He was Pantheistic -
Einstein, Albert "Gelegentliches", Soncino Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1929, p. 9 "This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)."

Einstein died in 1955. That letter was written in 1954.

Nice try Einstein! (no pun intended)

 

[bmw199]

No one is saying that he can't practice his own religion. We're saying that it's wrong for him to coerce OTHER PEOPLE to practice his religion.

But you are saying he cant practice with other believers/spiritual people on the team bc that would be excluding some... so effectively you are saying that he and others can't

I'm not sure why it offends you that others pray for your safety

 

[Obliviax]

Einstein died in 1955. That letter was written in 1954.

Nice try Einstein! (no pun intended)

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

This can be more associated with things like "the force" or whatever. Still doesn'

 

[Michael.Felli]

I am not surprised you would pick and choose to support your argument. Fact is, Einstein often argued both sides and most believe he is an agnostic and not an atheist. You can use his words, in various letters and publications, to both support and deny the existence of God. Having said that, its pretty clear he had no trust in organized religions.

Dude, Einstein died in 1955. Letter was written in 1954. DUDE?!?

Let me be clear...

If Einstein, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and other prominent people TRULY believed in a God and there was INDISPUTABLE evidence of such, religious people would be holding that sign up for everyone to see. But they aren't, now, are they?

Fact is, those people weren't. Accept it!

 

[bmw199]

Einstein died in 1955. That letter was written in 1954.

Nice try Einstein! (no pun intended)

I am not surprised you would pick and choose to support your argument. Fact is, Einstein often argued both sides and most believe he is an agnostic and not an atheist. You can use his words, in various letters and publications, to both support and deny the existence of God. Having said that, its pretty clear he had no trust in organized religions.

Agree with Obli

 

[bmw199]

Dude, Einstein died in 1955. Letter was written in 1954. DUDE?!?

Let me be clear...

If Einstein, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and other prominent people TRULY believed in a God and there was INDISPUTABLE evidence of such, religious people would be holding that sign up for everyone to see. But they aren't, now, are they?

Fact is, those people weren't. Accept it!

Washington had visions of Angels and of the future of the Nation he was creating. He believed they were divine visions. There is plenty of text on this.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

This can be more associated with things like "the force" or whatever. Still doesn'

As a Secular Humanist, I consider Pantheists my cousins. I belong to many Pantheist sites and message boards. Sadly, like any "religion", they, too, can not agree among themselves.

Most Pantheists will never ever use the word God. If they use anything, it is the word "Divine".

 

[Howie'81]

Well, you do have Osama Bin Laden and David Koresh on your side. Not to mention, zero evidence.

Define evidence.

 

[bmw199]

Define evidence.

You know what we consider evidence he doesn't

 

[Howie'81]

As a Secular Humanist, I consider Pantheists my cousins. I belong to many Pantheist sites and message boards. Sadly, like any "religion", they, too, can not agree among themselves.

Most Pantheists will never ever use the word God. If they use anything, it is the word "Divine".

I'm sure a lot of people don't agree with you either. So your anthropology must be messed up as well.

 

[Obliviax]

As a Secular Humanist, I consider Pantheists my cousins. I belong to many Pantheist sites and message boards. Sadly, like any "religion", they, too, can not agree among themselves.

Most Pantheists will never ever use the word God. If they use anything, it is the word "Divine".

I've got no beef with that....but they do concede to the notion of some kind of divinity. it may be the combined consciousness of all mankind. it may be the "force" like in Star Wars. It may be in "the collective" like the Borgs in STTNG. Regardless, it concedes that there is a higher consciousness.

That does not counter the notion of "The Father" in Jewish, Christian and/or Muslim religions. In fact, it is possible that they are one and the same.

its also possible that we pray to an alien that impregnated mankind to create "the division bell".

 

[Michael.Felli]

Washington had visions of Angels and of the future of the Nation he was creating. He believed they were divine visions. There is plenty of text on this.

Well, why aren't the Christian majority holding that sign up, then?

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

 

[cronk]

Again....you aren't hearing things correctly. They thank God for the opportunity and the ability. Its no different than thanking God for winning the lottery, health, a great family or whatever other good fortune you may be provided. I am sure you can pull up the exceptions from some place, but 99% of the time, that's what they are thanking God for.

I am shocked that you, of all people on this board, don't get this. I don't have a problem with people enforcing the division between church and state (and the constitutional protections to worship in any form one chooses) but these false statements are over the top. (BTW, teams pray after losses all the time. Most often, they leave the field ASAP for several reasons....and pray after the game for the opportunity, health of the players and their blessings. Ever really listen to the Lord's prayer?)

LOL yep, even have it memorized!

I won't agree with you on this debate since I am a firm believer in not having religion in public schools in any way except for how religion has impacted history but I do want to applaud you for bringing up very good points and the passion you have presented them

 

[Howie'81]

Well, you do have Osama Bin Laden and David Koresh on your side. Not to mention, zero evidence.

I'm quite certain that Osama bin Laden and David Koresh have little in common with my beliefs. I'll tell you a few who are on my side: Mother Theresa of Calcutta who went through the streets caring for people nearly dead with festering, smelly flesh and worms in their wounds, that society had discarded, just to give these souls some dignity in death. Or how about Pope Saint John Paul II who led the way in ending that devlish, murderous, godless regime known as the Soviet Union. Or lets talk about Mother Cabrini who left her home in Italy to come and open orphanages in the United States. Or maybe we can talk about Saint Francis of Assissi, who left a wealthy family and gave his belongings willingly to thieves and robbers. People like these are definitely on my side.

 

[Michael.Felli]

I've got no beef with that....but they do concede to the notion of some kind of divinity. it may be the combined consciousness of all mankind. it may be the "force" like in Star Wars. It may be in "the collective" like the Borgs in STTNG. Regardless, it concedes that there is a higher consciousness.

That does not counter the notion of "The Father" in Jewish, Christian and/or Muslim religions. In fact, it is possible that they are one and the same.

its also possible that we pray to an alien that impregnated mankind to create "the division bell".

Do you have any idea just how primitive we are as a species? Time, for example, is the 4th dimension. We humans can only sense time incrementally. There may be many higher dimensions and multi-universes.

Why is it that people like yourself can't fathom that ancient man did the best they could do? If you were a tribal leader, 2500 years ago, how would you get a bunch of adults with no better than a 3rd graders understanding of things to behave? How do you keep one man from banging his neighbors wife, for example? How do you get kids to behave?

Why is this simple concept so lost with you people? Read ALL the laws of Moses and when you think like an ancient man, it makes sense back then. Doesn't mean it is correct, just that it was a way that worked to separate order from chaos. There weren't police; there weren't Universities; there weren't hospitals. They were tribes trying to do the best they could.

Why don't people like you follow their nutritional advice or medical advice. Why do you follow 21st Century technology, medicine and nutrition, but follow peoples (ahem) religious advice from 2500 years ago?

THis is insanity!

 

[Aoshiro]

But you are saying he cant practice with other believers/spiritual people on the team bc that would be excluding some... so effectively you are saying that he and others can't

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's wrong for a person in authority to coerce people under his supervision to participate in his religious rites.

 

[Howie'81]

Do you have any idea just how primitive we are as a species? Time, for example, is the 4th dimension. We humans can only sense time incrementally. There may be many higher dimensions and multi-universes.

Why is it that people like yourself can't fathom that ancient man did the best they could do? If you were a tribal leader, 2500 years ago, how would you get a bunch of adults with no better than a 3rd graders understand of things to behave? How do yo keep one man from banging his neighbors wife? How do you get kids to behave?

Why is this simple concept so lost with you people? Read ALL the laws of Moses and when you think like an ancient man, it makes sense back then. Doesn't mean it is correct, just that it was a way that worked to separate order from chaos.

Why don't people like you follow their nutritional advice or medical advice. Why do you follow 21st Century technology, medicine and nutrition, but follow peoples (ahem) religious advice from 2500 years ago?

THis is insanity!

Okay, let's read ALL the laws of Moses, or just a few anyway. Thou shall not kill. Wow, that one's really antiquated, isn't it. Thou shall not steal your neighbors goods. Just doesn't work these days, does it? Thou shall not commit adultery. So what if you cheat on a spouse? No biggie in this modern day and age now, is it. Thou shall not covet your neighbors goods. That doesn't work today either. Today it's okay to envy everything from the hottest car to penis size.

So, you're way off base AGAIN!

 

[cronk]

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's wrong for a person in authority to coerce people under his supervision to participate in his religious rites.

in a public school, I agree completely...if it is a YMCA league or a Private religious based school, then I would not agree

 

[Michael.Felli]

I'm quite certain that Osama bin Laden and David Koresh have little in common with my beliefs. I'll tell you a few who are on my side: Mother Theresa of Calcutta who went through the streets caring for people nearly dead with festering, smelly flesh and worms in their wounds, that society had discarded, just to give these souls some dignity in death. Or how about Pope Saint John Paul II who led the way in ending that devlish, murderous, godless regime known as the Soviet Union. Or lets talk about Mother Cabrini who left her home in Italy to come and open orphanages in the United States. Or maybe we can talk about Saint Francis of Assissi, who left a wealthy family and gave his belongings willingly to thieves and robbers. People like these are definitely on my side.

Too funny. That your kind can only do good if its for a God. You even go as far as creating a make believe bad guy (aka The Devil and hell) just to coerce people to do good. You know, the angel that tried to overthrow God. War in a make believe Heaven. Now, that's rich!

 

[Michael.Felli]

Okay, let's read ALL the laws of Moses, or just a few anyway. Thou shall not kill. Wow, that one's really antiquated, isn't it. Thou shall not steal your neighbors goods. Just doesn't work these days, does it? Thou shall not commit adultery. So what if you cheat on a spouse? No biggie in this modern day and age now, is it. Thou shall not covet your neighbors goods. That doesn't work today either. Today it's okay to envy everything from the hottest car to penis size.

So, you're way off base AGAIN!

Such the zealot, you are. If we listened to your leader, aka Jesus, he who has not sinned, can throw the first stone.

Then...No one could ever serve on a Jury, or sentence a man to prison or go to war.

So much for the (ahem) wisdom of your God, huh?!?