didn't jesus get wood?

[hitekredneck]

not to piss off the fundies here, but i fail to see the problem with depicting christ with a woody...i mean, he was a human man, wasn't he?...and i'm sure he got the same "afflictions" as the rest of us..l..anyway, here's the story:
A CONTROVERSIAL piece of artwork has been blasted by a Christian group - because it depicts Jesus with an erect penis.

The statue is one of 74 plaster models in exhibition 'Gone, Yet Still' by Chinese-born artist Terence Koh, which features sculptures from Michelangelo’s David to ET.

The artwork is being exhibited by the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead which was earlier embroiled in controversy when it was at the centre of a child porn probe over one of its works.

Evangelical group Christian Voice expressed outrage at the work, calling it blasphemous and saying it had created a “storm” of protest.

Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green fumed: "It's the Lord Jesus Christ being humiliated, ridiculed and villified.

"It's just so disgusting, pornographic and offensive, it's hard to find words to express the outrage.

"I have written asking for the statue's destruction."

Mr Green was planning to protest outside the gallery this weekend.

But the arts centre still plans to keep the exhibition open until the end of its run on January 20.

A gallery spokesman said: “Koh is trying to explain all the things which have meant something to him.

“It is a sort of mausoleum.”
and the link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article677221.ece

[WhiteRaven]

Even if he didn't have any lustful thoughts at all he would have. I have had them without being horny before...

[Loseirdo]

Just about every guy gets morning wood. It's a common physiological response to more than just sexual thoughts or sensations.

Still, whether Jesus ever got wood or not isn't really the point. I don't think it's very respectful to display Christ in such a way, nor is it at all necessary. Though Christ was human, Christians are, for the most part, more interested in his Divinity than his Humanity (though his ability to experience physical pain and death is essential, among other things), and a statue like this would draw focus from this most important aspect.

[General Septem]

I don't see why it's disrespectful. Assuming Jesus is God, we can assume that he also created our bodies to work in this way. And depicting him with a woody shows that he is also human. Do you believe he was less human than us? Do you believe it is a sin to have an erection?

[Limbo]

Well, for one thing this demonstrates the difference between Christian fundies and Muslim fundies. Can you imagine if this depicted Mohamed with a woody instead?

This seems to be irrelevant to me. Of course God knows and understands human nature. That's why he set the bar so incredibly low. All you gotta do man is believe and accept it. Now that sounds really hard:rolleyes:. Actually for many, it does seem to be pretty hard.

[hitekredneck]

Well, for one thing this demonstrates the difference between Christian fundies and Muslim fundies. Can you imagine if this depicted Mohamed with a woody instead?

This seems to be irrelevant to me. Of course God knows and understands human nature. That's why he set the bar so incredibly low. All you gotta do man is believe and accept it. Now that sounds really hard:rolleyes:. Actually for many, it does seem to be pretty hard.

ummm........was this pun really necessary?:rolleyes::D

[Loseirdo]

Well, for one thing this demonstrates the difference between Christian fundies and Muslim fundies. Can you imagine if this depicted Mohamed with a woody instead?

This seems to be irrelevant to me. Of course God knows and understands human nature. That's why he set the bar so incredibly low. All you gotta do man is believe and accept it. Now that sounds really hard:rolleyes:. Actually for many, it does seem to be pretty hard.

And do good works, for faith without works is dead[1]. And be Baptized, for no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and spirit[2]. And receive the Eucharist, for unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life within you[3]. And do not die in a state of Mortal Sin, for there is sin that leads to death[4].

:D

1: James 2:20
2: John 3:5
3: John 6:53
4: 1 John 5:16

[Limbo]

ummm........was this pun really necessary?:rolleyes::D

no pun intended:D:D



And do good works, for faith without works is dead[1]. And be Baptized, for no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and spirit[2]. And receive the Eucharist, for unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life within you[3]. And do not die in a state of Mortal Sin, for there is sin that leads to death[4].



1: James 2:20
2: John 3:5
3: John 6:53
4: 1 John 5:16


To use an analogy, the way I see it, acceptance of God's free gift gets you a ticket in, what you do once you believe gets you a better or worse seat when you get inside.

[General Septem]

To use an analogy, the way I see it, acceptance of God's free gift gets you a ticket in, what you do once you believe gets you a better or worse seat when you get inside.

So while you believe you can accept this gift and then go on and do whatever (nobody really cares about this life anyway, do they?), someone who's never even heard of God can't? I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Loseirdo]

So while you believe you can accept this gift and then go on and do whatever (nobody really cares about this life anyway, do they?), someone who's never even heard of God can't? I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

And he still didn't explain how dead faith, not getting into heaven, having no life, and sins that lead to death (notice how three of these refer to a lack of life?) will still save your soul. I'm curious as to how he justifies this.

I learned something interesting the other day. When Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he didn't use the word for "eat" -- he used a word that would be better translated as "gnaw". There were two words for eat: one that simply meant to take into you (one way or another), and one that literally meant to chew. Jesus specifically used the latter when referring to his flesh and blood. Whoopsie.

[Limbo]

So while you believe you can accept this gift and then go on and do whatever (nobody really cares about this life anyway, do they?), someone who's never even heard of God can't? I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

No, that is a reasonable question. In fact, this question is a weighty one that has been pondered (and argued over) since Jesus' time on earth.

For one thing, you have to believe it before you can receive it. So if you really believe what Jesus said, would you not try to follow his example and his teachings? If you make no attempt to do so, then do you really believe?I think not. OK, here is an admittedly fairly crappy illustration of this. Hopefully it will make at least some sense to you. If you are thinking about jumping out of an airplane, you have to really believe that the parachute will save you. If you won't jump, you obviously don't think it will.

Our actions are a result of what we believe. Works are a result of our faith and our salvation, not the root cause of it. Faith without works is no faith at all.

As for people who are ignorant of God, I always think about the following passages.

From Luke 12
[47] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

From James 3
[1]Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.


From Romans 2
[14](Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, [15]since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) [16]This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

We'll be judged on what we know. The more we know (of what God wants), the more God will expect of us. Romans says that everyone has a conscience and a sense of both God, and his law, so no one can claim total ignorance.

[Loseirdo]

No, that is a reasonable question. In fact, this question is a weighty one that has been pondered (and argued over) since Jesus' time on earth.

For one thing, you have to believe it before you can receive it. So if you really believe what Jesus said, would you not try to follow his example and his teachings? If you make no attempt to do so, then do you really believe?I think not. OK, here is an admittedly fairly crappy illustration of this. Hopefully it will make at least some sense to you. If you are thinking about jumping out of an airplane, you have to really believe that the parachute will save you. If you won't jump, you obviously don't think it will.

Our actions are a result of what we believe. Works are a result of our faith and our salvation, not the root cause of it. Faith without works is no faith at all.

As for people who are ignorant of God, I always think about the following passages.

From Luke 12
[47] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

From James 3
[1]Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.


From Romans 2
[14](Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, [15]since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) [16]This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

We'll be judged on what we know. The more we know (of what God wants), the more God will expect of us. Romans says that everyone has a conscience and a sense of both God, and his law, so no one can claim total ignorance.

Good on ya, mate. I have a few things to add, but that was really well done.

First, since claiming to have faith but not doing works means you don't really have faith at all, faith and works are inseparable and therefore both are required for salvation. We can argue about justification later (did you know that most protestants use the same definition of "justify" that the Catholic Church does? weird), but you can at least see this much is true, yes?

Second, the Luke passage is interesting in the following way: if our only two consequences after death are eternal damnation or eternal salvation, how could one man be beaten with many blows and another beaten with few blows? You have already used the passage to justify the fact that those ignorant of sin will not be as culpable (on which I totally agree), so how can one be beaten slightly and be in Heaven (eternal bliss) or Hell (eternal agony)?

And finally, I am still interested in what you have to say regarding my most recent post. Just hit me with whatever you got.

[General Septem]

Romans says that everyone has a conscience and a sense of both God, and his law, so no one can claim total ignorance.

The only problem is, science and history have shown time and time again that this isn't true. If it were, then most religions would be similar, since if God's rule is absolute, then all people would abide by the same law.

The only other explanation is that we all instinctively wish to do what is right, and that the religions that have sprung up in other cultures were right for them, even if not for everyone else.

[Limbo]

The only problem is, science and history have shown time and time again that this isn't true.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say science and history have disproved this. I think most people know the difference between right and wrong. Excluding people who are loony tunes, even people who commit horrible acts (like murder, rape, etc.) know what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care. There have been some corrupt cultures at times, but they still generally had rules and morals, it's just that they got perverted.



If it were, then most religions would be similar, since if God's rule is absolute, then all people would abide by the same law.


I would say most are quite similar. Few religions reward bad behavior, and most reward good in one way or another. Many believe in souls, afterlife, judgment, etc., but there are differences as well.



The only other explanation is that we all instinctively wish to do what is right, and that the religions that have sprung up in other cultures were right for them, even if not for everyone else.

You yourself said that all religions have an element of truth in them, and I agree. That doesn't mean that we have to jump to the extreme conclusion, as many do, that all truth is relative.

[WhiteRaven]

"That doesn't mean that we have to jump to the extreme conclusion, as many do, that all truth is relative."

All truth? No. A lot of it? Yes.

[General Septem]

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say science and history have disproved this.

Basic psychology shows that our morality is a product of our upbringing. For example, as Americans we are individualists, and we see collectivism as being "socialist". I personally would not want to live in a collectivist society, but for people brought up in this environment it's the only way they'd want to live.


I think most people know the difference between right and wrong.

Science isn't based on what you "think". Maybe they know when it comes to things like murder, but then again maybe not. Of course, most know now, but were they born with this knowledge or was it learned?

In any case, if you consider premarital sex to be wrong, then absolutely we are not born with this knowledge. Quite the opposite in fact; we instinctively want to father as many children as possible.


I would say most are quite similar. Few religions reward bad behavior, and most reward good in one way or another. Many believe in souls, afterlife, judgment, etc., but there are differences as well.

First, their ideas of good and bad behavior differ significantly. This is what I mean by them being different, because if we were born with the knowledge of God's law, then his law must be practiced differently in different environments.

But religions like Buddhism are entirely different. I don't know if there's a concept of right and wrong as it were. It's more complex than that.


You yourself said that all religions have an element of truth in them, and I agree. That doesn't mean that we have to jump to the extreme conclusion, as many do, that all truth is relative.

Of course it isn't. I'm not saying that truth is relative, I'm saying it encompasses more than any one religion, or even every religion collectively, has taught. The thing about religion, though, is that more often than not, any rational thinking that exists outside the realm of the faith itself is looked down upon, e.g., evolution, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the earth isn't flat, etc.

[WhiteRaven]

"we instinctively want to father as many children as possible."

I don't, I don't want kids. I just want to have an enormous amount of sex.

[hitekredneck]

"we instinctively want to father as many children as possible."

I don't, I don't want kids. I just want to have an enormous amount of sex.

hell, wr...that's just practice, didn't ya know that?:D

[Limbo]

Basic psychology shows that our morality is a product of our upbringing. For example, as Americans we are individualists, and we see collectivism as being "socialist". I personally would not want to live in a collectivist society, but for people brought up in this environment it's the only way they'd want to live.

Science isn't based on what you "think". Maybe they know when it comes to things like murder, but then again maybe not. Of course, most know now, but were they born with this knowledge or was it learned?

In any case, if you consider premarital sex to be wrong, then absolutely we are not born with this knowledge. Quite the opposite in fact; we instinctively want to father as many children as possible.

First, their ideas of good and bad behavior differ significantly. This is what I mean by them being different, because if we were born with the knowledge of God's law, then his law must be practiced differently in different environments.

But religions like Buddhism are entirely different. I don't know if there's a concept of right and wrong as it were. It's more complex than that.


Ever heard of Karma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma)?


(from wiki)
According to karma, performing positive actions results in a good condition in one's experience, whereas a negative action results in a bad effect. The effects may be seen immediately or delayed. Delay can be until later in the present life or in the next. Thus, meritorious acts may mean rebirth into a higher station, such as a superior human or a godlike being, while evil acts result in rebirth as a human living in less desirable circumstances, or as a lower animal. Some observers have compared the action of karma to Western notions of sin and judgment by God or gods, while others understand karma as an inherent principle of the universe without the intervention of any supernatural Being. In Hinduism, God does play a role and is seen as a dispenser of karma; see Karma in Hinduism for more details. The non-interventionist view is that of Buddhism and Jainism.


I don't believe Paul meant that we have an inborn knowledge of God's laws that is detailed and complete, but rather a sense of right and wrong on the big things. Positive, constructive acts will be rewarded (ones that are beneficial to others) and negative, destructive acts will result in some form of punishment.

Christians believe Jesus filled in the blanks and gave us a detailed revelation of the nature of God, and the nature of our current and future existence. He put the meat on the bones, so to speak. But of course, some questions linger because Jesus spoke mostly in parables rather than directly.



Of course it isn't. I'm not saying that truth is relative, I'm saying it encompasses more than any one religion, or even every religion collectively, has taught. The thing about religion, though, is that more often than not, any rational thinking that exists outside the realm of the faith itself is looked down upon, e.g., evolution, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the earth isn't flat, etc.

I dunno exactly how God will judge people, but I think Jesus was a reliable witness when he spoke about God, so I believe what he said and that's good enough for me.

Science has thrived within traditionally Christian societies, and has confirmed many things in the old and new testaments. Some Christians stubbornly cling on to outdated notions of things that they have "read in" to the bible, but even atheists can be guilty of bias. As for what people in other religions believe, well that says nothing about me as a Christian.

I see few real areas where Christianity and science conflict and contradict each other. I see lots of areas where science conflicts and contradicts other religions. For example, most eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe has existed forever and is in an endless cycle of contraction and expansion. This completely contradicts what we have learned recently in science where the universe came into existence out of nothing and will expand forever.

Another example, look at Mormonism. Modern science has completely contradicted many of it's teachings. The book or morons, oops, I mean the book or Mormon says American Indians are the direct ancestors of a lost tribe of Israel known as the Lamanites. Genetics has proven this to be pure bullshit (read more about that controversy here) (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0111az-mormonbook11-on.html). The B of M also talks about Camels being in North American and such, again proven to be bullshit by science.

Not all religions are created equal obviously.

[Loseirdo]

C'mon, Limbo, quit ignoring me. :( Or is it perhaps that I have stumped you? :cool:

(I'm trying to provoke you into a response. :D)

[Limbo]

C'mon, Limbo, quit ignoring me. :( Or is it perhaps that I have stumped you? :cool:

(I'm trying to provoke you into a response. :D)

What, about the works vs. faith thing? Or the gnawing of bread? Been there, done that. No point flogging a dead horse:D

[Loseirdo]

What, about the works vs. faith thing? Or the gnawing of bread? Been there, done that. No point flogging a dead horse:D

I had hoped that I had reanimated it somewhat. Do you still believe works are unnecessary? Or that we can be saved without eating Christ's flesh and blood? Or that deadly sin does not exist? I'm not trying to make you believe what I believe. I'm just trying to make you renounce everything you've ever held sacred. :D (Just kidding.)

[WhiteRaven]

"Positive, constructive acts will be rewarded (ones that are beneficial to others) and negative, destructive acts will result in some form of punishment."

Except that they aren't always, at least not until heaven and hell and purgatory and whatever else come into play.

[bullfighter]

[QUOTE=WhiteRaven;45199]"Positive, constructive acts will be rewarded (ones that are beneficial to others) and negative, destructive acts will result in some form of punishment."

TKU ,as a nation the same thing applies

[WhiteRaven]

Uh... bullfighter, that was a quote from an earlier post, a quote that I disagreed with...

Note what I said afterward: "Except that they aren't always, at least not until heaven and hell and purgatory and whatever else come into play."

[bullfighter]

Uh... bullfighter, that was a quote from an earlier post, a quote that I disagreed with...

Note what I said afterward: "Except that they aren't always, at least not until heaven and hell and purgatory and whatever else come into play."

you left alittle room there ,when you said aren;t always.....BUT IF YOU study your own life there is a cycle of fruits and dismays.and testing.acording to core beleif in your character..and the principals that you live by..you may be afected by those around you also.what is the difference between a innocent bystander and the guilty one beside them when they both get shot.. WHO GETS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL OR BREED THEN,THE BIGGEST AND STRONGEST...I feel there must be a higher reason we go threw this experience other then to live fuck and die.heaven and hell may have different levels,one level here on earth

[WhiteRaven]

"you may be afected by those around you also.what is the difference between a innocent bystander and the guilty one beside them when they both get shot.. WHO GETS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL OR BREED THEN,THE BIGGEST AND STRONGEST...I feel there must be a higher reason we go threw this experience other then to live fuck and die.heaven and hell may have different levels,one level here on earth"

everything affects everything on some level, a butterfly flapping its wings in a forest could cause a sandstorm in a desert 2,000 miles away.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Of course he did. Of course he can depict that. Why shouldn't he? Don't we have freedom of expression?

[WhiteRaven]

Of course he did. Of course he can depict that. Why shouldn't he? Don't we have freedom of expression?

yes, but Xians also have the right to express their opinion that this is disgusting, they just can't really do anything else about it without screwing up the first amendment, which has already been plenty screwed up.

[General Septem]

yes, but Xians also have the right to express their opinion that this is disgusting, they just can't really do anything else about it without screwing up the first amendment, which has already been plenty screwed up.

They have their opinion, which is fine. Then they want to impose that opinion on the whole country, which is not.

[Limbo]

They have their opinion, which is fine. Then they want to impose that opinion on the whole country, which is not.

So whose opinion should be imposed on the whole country then, yours? We need to base our laws on something, I could say it is wrong for you to want to impose your opinion on the whole country. We kind of end up chasing our tails on that one.

And BTW White Raven, I didn't mean that people get their comeuppance in this life necessarily, although many do. Some bad dudes and dudettes do thrive in this life though, you are right about that.

[General Septem]

So whose opinion should be imposed on the whole country then, yours? We need to base our laws on something, I could say it is wrong for you to want to impose your opinion on the whole country. We kind of end up chasing our tails on that one.

Nice try, except the only difference is, my opinion, even were it enforced to the fullest extent of the law, wouldn't prohibit you in the least bit from living your life the way you wish, which makes it very much not an "imposition". I'm not saying that Christians can't say whatever they want about something they don't like.

The difference here is that Christians are calling for this piece of art (I use the term loosely) to be destroyed. While they are entitled to this opinion, they are not entitled to impose it on others, because it would constitute an unjustified violation of property (i.e., theft).

Unless you consider it your God-given right to enforce your beliefs on others, in which case you need some concrete evidence.

[Loseirdo]

Nice try, except the only difference is, my opinion, even were it enforced to the fullest extent of the law, wouldn't prohibit you in the least bit from living your life the way you wish, which makes it very much not an "imposition". I'm not saying that Christians can't say whatever they want about something they don't like.

That's not really the problem, though. We're not talking about whose opinion is more intrusive or invasive, we're talking about whose opinion is better for society. You think yours is better for society because you see society benefiting from absolute liberty. We think ours is better because we see society benefiting from laws that reflect civil and moral correctitude. Whose actually benefits society more can only be seen through implementation.

[General Septem]

That's not really the problem, though. We're not talking about whose opinion is more intrusive or invasive, we're talking about whose opinion is better for society. You think yours is better for society because you see society benefiting from absolute liberty. We think ours is better because we see society benefiting from laws that reflect civil and moral correctitude. Whose actually benefits society more can only be seen through implementation.

It is not yours or anyone else's position to make the world a better place by telling everyone else how to live. This is where it becomes an imposition. The ironic thing is, it's impossible to benefit society in this way because nobody wants someone's opinion of morality fed to them with a silver pistol.

It's not the responsibility of the government to make America a beautiful place to live. It's the responsibility of the citizens. This is what freedom means. Liberty is not granted by the government, and it can never be taken away from a nation of people who understand it. Clearly, you do not. Clearly, your idea of heaven is everyone conforming to a strict moral code, only "free from temptation", which sounds a lot like being doped up to me.

[Limbo]

It is not yours or anyone else's position to make the world a better place by telling everyone else how to live. This is where it becomes an imposition. The ironic thing is, it's impossible to benefit society in this way because nobody wants someone's opinion of morality fed to them with a silver pistol.

It's not the responsibility of the government to make America a beautiful place to live. It's the responsibility of the citizens. This is what freedom means. Liberty is not granted by the government, and it can never be taken away from a nation of people who understand it. Clearly, you do not. Clearly, your idea of heaven is everyone conforming to a strict moral code, only "free from temptation", which sounds a lot like being doped up to me.

Ah G.S., you are a very idealistic person. Your vision of a "free" country sounds good on paper, sort of like communism, but doesn't work in the real world. Honestly if I had to chose between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton I would pick Hillary. Why you ask, since she is such a moron? First they are both liberal on social issues, so no difference there. However, on fiscal issues, I feel the gov't has an important role to play in regulating the economy. It is the government's role to keep the playing field level for everybody. If, for example, the gov't had played a more active role in regulating the lending industry, we would not be in the mess we are in now with millions of people losing their homes and the economy going in the tank. Lenders were basically allowed to lie and deceive people while the gov't did nothing.

As for freedom and Christianity, I think you backsliders are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up:D. Have a look at this story:

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Paper Against Islam (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324666,00.html)

We are plenty free compared to the vast majority of Muslims.

[hitekredneck]

Ah G.S., you are a very idealistic person. Your vision of a "free" country sounds good on paper, sort of like communism, but doesn't work in the real world. Honestly if I had to chose between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton I would pick Hillary. Why you ask, since she is such a moron? First they are both liberal on social issues, so no difference there. However, on fiscal issues, I feel the gov't has an important role to play in regulating the economy. It is the government's role to keep the playing field level for everybody. If, for example, the gov't had played a more active role in regulating the lending industry, we would not be in the mess we are in now with millions of people losing their homes and the economy going in the tank. Lenders were basically allowed to lie and deceive people while the gov't did nothing.

As for freedom and Christianity, I think you backsliders are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up:D. Have a look at this story:

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Paper Against Islam (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324666,00.html)

We are plenty free compared to the vast majority of Muslims.

sorry limbo, but yer wrong about the government being able to stop calamities like the current mess with the lending industry...what happened here is simple...too many idiots borrowing more than what they can afford, and too many lenders giving credit where they shouldn't have...if government regulates the economy, we turn away from the free market system, which would be a horrible mistake imho....as for voting billary over ron paul?....not on yer life....i'ld vote her husband back in before i let that hag in office, and there's just about as much chance....you can't really guarantee where she stands on any issue, as her stance changes with the polls...not that it's any different from any other liberal out ther, mind, but i trust her about as far as i can push my truck...loaded :cool:

[Limbo]

sorry limbo, but yer wrong about the government being able to stop calamities like the current mess with the lending industry...what happened here is simple...too many idiots borrowing more than what they can afford, and too many lenders giving credit where they shouldn't have...if government regulates the economy, we turn away from the free market system, which would be a horrible mistake imho....as for voting billary over ron paul?....not on yer life....i'ld vote her husband back in before i let that hag in office, and there's just about as much chance....you can't really guarantee where she stands on any issue, as her stance changes with the polls...not that it's any different from any other liberal out ther, mind, but i trust her about as far as i can push my truck...loaded :cool:

I don't mean a planned type economy. All I mean is that the government should have been forcing these lenders to disclose in plain, simple terms the nature of the loans and the risks involved. Many lenders were leading these poor suckers to the slaughter because all they cared about was their commission. No one was holding these assholes accountable and many people had NO idea how their payments would adjust over time. Mortgage brokers are right up there with attorneys and used car salesmen Some basic form of consumer protection is a legitimate role of government IMO.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

As for freedom and Christianity, I think you backsliders are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up. Have a look at this story:

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Paper Against Islam

We are plenty free compared to the vast majority of Muslims.

You think this is funny?

[Limbo]

You think this is funny?

Of course not. It just shows the difference between Christianity and Islam as far as freedom is concerned. The smiley was about the term backsliders, which apparently some people around here don't like too much.

[General Septem]

Ah G.S., you are a very idealistic person. Your vision of a "free" country sounds good on paper, sort of like communism, but doesn't work in the real world. Honestly if I had to chose between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton I would pick Hillary. Why you ask, since she is such a moron? First they are both liberal on social issues, so no difference there. However, on fiscal issues, I feel the gov't has an important role to play in regulating the economy. It is the government's role to keep the playing field level for everybody. If, for example, the gov't had played a more active role in regulating the lending industry, we would not be in the mess we are in now with millions of people losing their homes and the economy going in the tank. Lenders were basically allowed to lie and deceive people while the gov't did nothing.

As for freedom and Christianity, I think you backsliders are getting Christianity and Islam mixed up:D. Have a look at this story:

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Paper Against Islam (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324666,00.html)

We are plenty free compared to the vast majority of Muslims.

Yeah, liberty is a lot like communism, except that it's the exact opposite. No libertarian would ever support the redistribution of wealth, nor government regulated employment. Oops!

I'm not a god-damned "idealist". I just don't tolerate religious dickheads telling people what kind of sculptures they can and cannot create and/or look at. Do you get the picture? It's not your right or anyone else's to impose this opinion on everyone. You can voice your opinion and I respect that, but when people start trying to shut the guy down, we need a fucking time-out. Someone comes up in my face and tells me to stop something I'm doing because they don't like the fact that I'm doing it, they'd goddamn well better have a real good reason why it affects them.

"Both liberal on social issues, so no difference there"? Honestly, do you know a goddamn thing about Ron Paul? He's as different from Hillary on social issues as George fucking Bush is. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade for Christ's sake. Even the things he could be called a "liberal" for, Hillary doesn't support. Like smaller government. Hillary's position? "Who will take care of the jobless [read: who will take your money away and give it to lazy pieces of shit]?"

Yeah, Christianity is a little less wound up than Islam... not owning a major country tends to do this to religions. Example? When Judaism was driven out of their land, all they had left was bagels and bar mitzvahs. So over a course of a few years, decades, whatever, they were turned from a ruthless, judgmental people into a religion of traditional family gatherings, food, and money. This is all conjuncture of course, and none of it really matters. What does this have to do with why Christianity is no longer as wound up as Islam? Hell if I know.

[hitekredneck]

I don't mean a planned type economy. All I mean is that the government should have been forcing these lenders to disclose in plain, simple terms the nature of the loans and the risks involved. Many lenders were leading these poor suckers to the slaughter because all they cared about was their commission. No one was holding these assholes accountable and many people had NO idea how their payments would adjust over time. Mortgage brokers are right up there with attorneys and used car salesmen Some basic form of consumer protection is a legitimate role of government IMO.

they're already required BY LAW full disclosure of the terms, mang...believe me, most of the problem is cause by morons borrowing too much more than they can afford...not that i'm backing up the banking institution, mind you....they are, after all, the ones that approve of these loans....who the fuck came up with sub-prime interest, anyway?

[Limbo]

Yeah, liberty is a lot like communism, except that it's the exact opposite. No libertarian would ever support the redistribution of wealth, nor government regulated employment. Oops!


Communism and Libertarianism are only similar in that they don't work in the real world, although libertarianism is a fairly vague term so it's kind of hard to make any absolute statements about it.



I'm not a god-damned "idealist". I just don't tolerate religious dickheads telling people what kind of sculptures they can and cannot create and/or look at. Do you get the picture? It's not your right or anyone else's to impose this opinion on everyone. You can voice your opinion and I respect that, but when people start trying to shut the guy down, we need a fucking time-out. Someone comes up in my face and tells me to stop something I'm doing because they don't like the fact that I'm doing it, they'd goddamn well better have a real good reason why it affects them.


I agree that people should be able to make whatever sculptures they want. I could really care less. Some exceptions may apply though. Sculptures used to promote or display themes related to racial hatred, genocide, violence, sex with little children, etc, are some examples where we as a society have a right to intervene. Also, I don't want my tax dollars being used to support such useless crap. If they wanna do it on their own dime, they can knock themselves out. It's no skin off my nose.



"Both liberal on social issues, so no difference there"? Honestly, do you know a goddamn thing about Ron Paul? He's as different from Hillary on social issues as George fucking Bush is. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade for Christ's sake. Even the things he could be called a "liberal" for, Hillary doesn't support. Like smaller government. Hillary's position? "Who will take care of the jobless [read: who will take your money away and give it to lazy pieces of shit]?"


He claims to be pro-life, but he also thinks the feds should have no role in abortion policy. Pro-life libertarian seems like a contradiction on terms. You kinda need some way of enforcing stuff if it is to have any meaning at all. Honestly I think Hillary would be tougher on national defense issues than him (which is sad to say). Isolationism is not good, as it just allows things to fester until they are bigger problems.

That being said I think we better get used to the idea of president Hill-Billy. The republicans are way too divided. That old geezer McCain doesn't have a snowballs chance, and neither does Huckabee or even Romney. They are shooting themselves in the foot by not choosing Giuliani IMHO.

[Limbo]

they're already required BY LAW full disclosure of the terms, mang...believe me, most of the problem is cause by morons borrowing too much more than they can afford...not that i'm backing up the banking institution, mind you....they are, after all, the ones that approve of these loans....who the fuck came up with sub-prime interest, anyway?

I'm sure that they have to disclose, but if it is buried in the fine print in a mountain of documents, what good does that do anybody? Many of these mortgage brokers were absolute shysters. The disclosure should have been clear about future payments with example payments, etc., so that people knew what they were getting into. Many of these brokers were not even explaining what an ARM is and nobody cared or enforced anything. Some people didn't know that their payments were going to increase until they got notice of it. A bad combination of stupid, gullible people and unscrupulous lenders.

[hitekredneck]

I'm sure that they have to disclose, but if it is buried in the fine print in a mountain of documents, what good does that do anybody? Many of these mortgage brokers were absolute shysters. The disclosure should have been clear about future payments with example payments, etc., so that people knew what they were getting into. Many of these brokers were not even explaining what an ARM is and nobody cared or enforced anything. Some people didn't know that their payments were going to increase until they got notice of it. A bad combination of stupid, gullible people and unscrupulous lenders.
i'll be honest with ya mang...my first mortgage was an arm, but i refi'ed as quick as i could and got a decent fixed int rate that i plan on keeping...and i agree that some of the lenders were unscrupulous, but you gotta be sure to put some of the responsibility on the borrowers as well

[General Septem]

Communism and Libertarianism are only similar in that they don't work in the real world, although libertarianism is a fairly vague term so it's kind of hard to make any absolute statements about it.

Communism is a system of mass control. Libertarianism is a system in which everyone takes care of themselves and respects each other. Communism doesn't work because nobody wants to be enslaved. Libertarianism does not currently work, but will eventually. Libertarianism is not a system of government, it is a way of life. Liberty isn't granted by the government, it is taken by those who desire what it rightfully theirs. This is why I'm not an idealist, there's no system I'm advocating, I just do not stand for others trying to restrict my liberty.


I agree that people should be able to make whatever sculptures they want. I could really care less. Some exceptions may apply though. Sculptures used to promote or display themes related to racial hatred, genocide, violence, sex with little children, etc, are some examples where we as a society have a right to intervene. Also, I don't want my tax dollars being used to support such useless crap. If they wanna do it on their own dime, they can knock themselves out. It's no skin off my nose.

No, they don't have a right to intervene. It's art. Art is subjective. You may look at a piece of art depicting racial hatred and think that the artist is an asshole, others may look at it and use it as proof that racial hatred is a bad thing, and others may get a boner from it. You do not regulate freedom of expression, PERIOD.

Who's using your tax dollars?


He claims to be pro-life, but he also thinks the feds should have no role in abortion policy. Pro-life libertarian seems like a contradiction on terms.

I'm a pro-life libertarian. It's quite simple, just because one is pro-life does not mean they have to believe abortion should be illegal.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

I agree that people should be able to make whatever sculptures they want. I could really care less. Some exceptions may apply though. Sculptures used to promote or display themes related to racial hatred, genocide, violence, sex with little children, etc, are some examples where we as a society have a right to intervene.

Why? Art can't possibly harm anyone. Why should we regulate things that doesn't harm anyone?


Also, I don't want my tax dollars being used to support such useless crap. If they wanna do it on their own dime, they can knock themselves out. It's no skin off my nose.

No question there, but I don't think any art should recieve any public founding.

[WhiteRaven]

"No question there, but I don't think any art should recieve any public founding."

I strongly disagree. Art is everything.

[Limbo]

Who's using your tax dollars?



I remember in my hometown, the local art gallery bought artwork called the "piss pope" and the "piss Christ". They were just artistic images (made out of clay or something) of the pope and Jesus (although no one knows what he looked like) suspended in large container full of the artist's urine. Since the gallery was the city art gallery, they were being subsidized with tax money, meaning my tax dollars were used to pay for this stuff. That's where I draw the line. If the guy wants to do stuff like that, he better look for a private buyer.

[hitekredneck]

I remember in my hometown, the local art gallery bought artwork called the "piss pope" and the "piss Christ". They were just artistic images (made out of clay or something) of the pope and Jesus (although no one knows what he looked like) suspended in large container full of the artist's urine. Since the gallery was the city art gallery, they were being subsidized with tax money, meaning my tax dollars were used to pay for this stuff. That's where I draw the line. If the guy wants to do stuff like that, he better look for a private buyer.

i agree, limbo....and it should be that way for all art....i don't believe art of any type should be subsidized...hell, i don't think anything should be subsidized with my tax money