Maybe they should try a Rain Dance instead?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

It is, I agree.On a personal leve, probably not. But, on a legal/moral level, yes. I know of no law against killing a goat properly (within health codes, etc.).

But, I missed the answer to these questions:

If Ed feels his religious rights are being trounced on, then he must feel atheism is a religion. If it is a religion, then he has no right to push it on anyone else. If it's NOT a religion, then how could his religious rights be trounced on (if he has no religion)?

Ed didnt say it was his religion, I stated that Ed didnt feel his religious views, i should have said he didnt feel his Beliefs were recognized.

YOU introduced other feeling their religions was trounced. But then the Governor (a Government entity) prayed to one God, without representing the other Gods of his constituents.

Now since i answered your question, can you answer two i've asked many times :

• If the errors are due to translation, and there are errors (Jesus and the Mustard seed are a great one, that is ignored by faithers), how can you trust the trustworthiness of the Book if the translation isnt trustworthy?
• If my misintepretation of the bible is due to laguange barriers, then why didn't people who spoke and read the languages it was written in, immediately believe in it?

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

If the errors are due to translation, and there are errors (Jesus and the Mustard seed are a great one, that is ignored by faithers),

Faithers. Cute.


The fact is, it's not ignored by faithers. I, personally, have answered you directly.


That you choose not to accept my answer does not mean it's been ignored, nor remains unanswered.

[~mellabella~]

You have a freedom OF religion, but you do NOT have a freedom FROM religion. You have an expectation of tolerance. You don't like it, don't participate. If you want to try something else to make it rain that fits your beliefs, go ahead. But don't whine because a group of people believe differently than you!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Ed didnt say it was his religion, I stated that Ed didnt feel his religious views, i should have said he didnt feel his Beliefs were recognized.

YOU introduced other feeling their religions was trounced. But then the Governor (a Government entity) prayed to one God, without representing the other Gods of his constituents.

Not everyone's beliefs need to be equally recognized by the government. Indeed, it's best if none of them are. And, while he's the head of a state's executive branch, he's not a government entity. He's a citizen, who was not establishing a religion. Not all of the constituents need to have their god "equally recognized".

Now since i answered your question, can you answer two i've asked many times :

• If the errors are due to translation, and there are errors (Jesus and the Mustard seed are a great one, that is ignored by faithers), how can you trust the trustworthiness of the Book if the translation isnt trustworthy?
• If my misintepretation of the bible is due to laguange barriers, then why didn't people who spoke and read the languages it was written in, immediately believe in it?

I'll leave Toxick's answer to the first question, but for the second, I believe this can be discussed through free will. You have the God given right not to believe in God. He provides tools, not magical belief.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Toxick

Faithers. Cute.


The fact is, it's not ignored by faithers. I, personally, have answered you directly.


That you choose not to accept my answer does not mean it's been ignored, nor remains unanswered.

Actually you didnt answer it, you agreed that there could be a translation that was off.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Think maybe the translation is off?

and then tried to circumvent the next question above with

Originally Posted by Toxick

The IDEA was accurately conveyed in the translation.

So you actually didnt answer it, you admit that there could have been a mistranslation, and then excused the translation when it was pointed out.

Still doesnt answer being able to trust the trustworthiness of a book when you admit there are mistranslations in it. Should make you wonder about the infallabity of a document you KNOW is rife with errors.

Interestingly you did come back with this

Originally Posted by Toxick

If an author cannot express himself in a way that his readers can understand it, the problem doesn't lie with the readers.

Which then begs, if an author can not express himself in a way without obvious errors, the problem doesnt lie with those pointing it out.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by ~mellabella~

You have a freedom OF religion, but you do NOT have a freedom FROM religion. You have an expectation of tolerance. You don't like it, don't participate. If you want to try something else to make it rain that fits your beliefs, go ahead. But don't whine because a group of people believe differently than you!

So in your twisted fantasy world secular beliefs are not as valid as theocratic?


ok

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Not everyone's beliefs need to be equally recognized by the government. Indeed, it's best if none of them are. And, while he's the head of a state's executive branch, he's not a government entity. He's a citizen, who was not establishing a religion. Not all of the constituents need to have their god "equally recognized".I'll leave Toxick's answer to the first question, but for the second, I believe this can be discussed through free will. You have the God given right not to believe in God. He provides tools, not magical belief.

As head of the States Executive branch he is a Government Entity (same as the President).

The "Issue" is that Government Entity (Governor) gathers other Government Entities (State Representitives) together to hold a religious ceremony at the State Capital, under the guise of committing an act for the State, unless he equally represents other Faiths he is violating the establishment clause.

He is no different than Roy Moore with the Ten Commandments (and only the Ten Commandments). And equally wrong

[~mellabella~]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So in your twisted fantasy world secular beliefs are not as valid as theocratic?


ok

I never said that. But I find you very judgmental of those who believe different than you. And for the life of me, I don't understand why you chose to pick fights the way you do. Don't twist my words into something they aren't.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Actually you didnt answer it, you agreed that there could be a translation that was off.

and then tried to circumvent the next question above with

Actually what I said was, the concept being conveyed is what's important, not the ####ing seed, and the concept is conveyed. So, focusing on such semantic terms like "mustard seed" when the obvious point is "SMALL" is useless pedantry.

Emphasis on useless.

Call it a side-step if you like, but picking nits is ultimately pointless.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by ~mellabella~

I never said that. But I find you very judgmental of those who believe different than you. And for the life of me, I don't understand why you chose to pick fights the way you do. Don't twist my words into something they aren't.

Are you sure?

The only thing you'll find is i will post hypocrisy when a believer posts a negative thread about another Belief. When the original posters own beliefs have the VERY SAME examples in his own faith.

And debate whether innacuracies that are in the Bible actually make it an infaliable document.

Posting that some nutjob decided to pray to a sky pixie for more rain, is only offensive to those that follow the same sky pixie as the Governor.

If you dont believe in that same sky pixie, the Governor is no different than Indians dancing for Rain, or a Mayan sacrificing a virgin. Seems to be a concept thats hard for some to follow.

The intolerance is with the sky pixie followers not me (i'm just a target for pointing it out)