Forums | MacLife

KingFred wrote:

imagine someone like Ernest Ainsley shoutin' it

You mean Ernest Angley?

HEAL!!!!

NAG wrote:

I do hope that is some sort of parody.

Nope, I had it wrong, that actually is the real preacher dude. He's one of those "Put your ha-yand on the teevee screen..." sort of preacher.

So can anyone explain what the deal is with evangelical preachers and the bad, fake hair?

Last edited by KingFred (2005-04-14 7:16 pm)

KingFred wrote:

NAG wrote:

I do hope that is some sort of parody.

Nope, I had it wrong, that actually is the real preacher dude. He's one of those "Put your ha-yand on the teevee screen..." sort of preacher.

So can anyone explain what the deal is with evangelical preachers and the bad, fake hair?

The hand on the earth and demonic smile is what I find odd. I think there are lots of people with bad, fake hair.

jerwin wrote:

Interesting. The use of all caps is in deference to some alleged scribal method of preserving the exact wording, but  resedit merely provides us with a paraphrase. Consistency is overrated anyway.

Huh?
LORD was not used to preserve exact wording - YHWH was.
And actually YHWH was not used in order to preserve exact wording, it was used because it was the most holy name for God - the preservation of the text was a byproduct of the fear of scribes - not wanting to use the most holy name of God in a substandard copy.

LORD is not Hebrew, it can not be used to preserve exact wording.
LORD is simply how we indicate that YHWH - the most holy name for God - is the word that was used in the text, while Elohim is usually just translated as God.

Last edited by resedit (2005-04-15 1:29 am)

mo' ron wrote:

That guy single-handed represents the reason people here are bitter towards Christians. It's amazing (not really) that someone like that could get so rich.

That's a rediculous reason to dislike Christians - it's stereotyping the lot of us based upon the actions of a few that many us Christians do not agree with.

It would be like me pointing to Stalin as a reason to hate Athiests (or Communists).

smurf wrote:

Religion(s) is/are the largest examples of memes. Proselytizing like flies cling to smurf.

Do you believe in freedom of speech and the inherent write to express your beliefs and opinions openly?

I don't think even the most venemous atheists really hate Christians.  What they hate on the whole is the un-Christian arrogance of many Christian traditions as practiced.  In other words, Christianity has become like unto the Pharisees, a lot of lip service but very little demonstration of understanding Christ.

stoned wrote:

EDIT: the most holy name for god has no vowells.... lynyrd skynyrd has no vowells.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Yeah - old hebrew did not have vowel points.
Since Jewish custom was to never pronounce YHWH, no one knew what it sounded like when they added vowel points - so no one knew what vowel points to add to YHWH. Being the most holy name for God, they didn't want to get it wrong, so it has no vowel points today.

I think we are pretty sure what the first part of YHWH sounded like because of names like Elijah and Joshuah and Micah and Hannah - the ah at the end is the first part of YHWH (just like the el at the end of Michael is representative of Elohim) - but I don't think we have any way of even semi-acurately guessing what the last part of YHWH is suppose to sound like.

Life is a LARP.

smurf wrote:

Knocking on people's doors asking them if their son masturbates

OK - when the hell has that ever happened?
I've had plenty of people knock on my door wanting me to go to their church, never ever did any kind of sexual talk come into it.

Every time I have told them I don't have the time, they respect that and go on.
When I do have the time, I share my faith with them (Mormons and JW's) - and while we have theological differences, it never is a painful experience - maybe because I choose to see them as people, and not "those danged prosteltizers"

, bugging people at work is harassment, especially threatening them with fire in an imaginary location.

And there are laws specifically about doing it at the work place.

Spreading rumors, for instance the Proctor & Gamble one which has been debunked by theists. Displaying ten commandments on government property, saying under god in the pledge (since 1954), are a violation of the Treaty of Tripoli and the First Amendment.

I don't know about the proctor and gamble one, but displaying the ten commandments at a court house is not a violation of the first amendment. Our legal system comes directly from the judeo christian system - we have latin on lots of buildings for the same reason.

Now if a judge required someone to agree with them or bow to them or pray to them or acknowledge them as having been written by the hand of God - then there is a problem.

Separation of church and state is the only principle that can ensure religious and philosophical freedom for all Americans.

Can you tell me how many times the term "Separation of Church and State" is in the constitution?
I'd like you to tell me.

Church-state separation does not mean hostility toward religion. Rather, it means that the government will remain neutral on religious questions, leaving decisions about God, faith and house of worship attendance in the hands of its citizens.

Can you tell me where in the constitution it says that?
What I read (paraphrased) is that the state will not establish or forbid a religious institution from operating, which is quite different than what you are saying - but what you are saying is based upon an interpretation of the phrase "separation of church and state" which actually is not in the constitution.

If you think it should be, the constitution clearly states the method by which you can get it included.

Americans come in different flavors

Yes, we do.

: atheist, many flavors of xians, Buddhists, Native American religion, cults like Scientology, and many more. Dominionism threatens to establish a monotheistic government.

Who is being doministic here?
It's the first group in the list you listed.

resedit wrote:

smurf wrote:

Knocking on people's doors asking them if their son masturbates

OK - when the hell has that ever happened?
I've had plenty of people knock on my door wanting me to go to their church, never ever did any kind of sexual talk come into it.

resedit wrote:

Every time I have told them I don't have the time, they respect that and go on.
When I do have the time, I share my faith with them (Mormons and JW's) - and while we have theological differences, it never is a painful experience - maybe because I choose to see them as people, and not "those danged prosteltizers"

Mormons came to our house (back in 1984), my mom answered the door and they asked that question verbatim. This has happened to others too.

resedit wrote:

I don't know about the proctor and gamble one, but displaying the ten commandments at a court house is not a violation of the first amendment. Our legal system comes directly from the judeo christian system - we have latin on lots of buildings for the same reason.

Wow your ignorance to church / state separation shows. This nation's founders were deists - Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, among others. Displaying the ten commandments violates the separation of church and state principle, ergo the efforts of dominionists to display this religious monument have been defeated in courts.

resedit wrote:

Can you tell me how many times the term "Separation of Church and State" is in the constitution?
I'd like you to tell me.

Read principle, I never said the words -Separation of Church and State- was stated verbatim.

resedit wrote:

Can you tell me where in the constitution it says that?

Are you an idiot? I never said that was stated in the Constitution, learn to read.

resedit wrote:

What I read (paraphrased) is that the state will not establish or forbid a religious institution from operating, which is quite different than what you are saying - but what you are saying is based upon an interpretation of the phrase "separation of church and state" which actually is not in the constitution.

If you think it should be, the constitution clearly states the method by which you can get it included.

Yes THE  STATE WILL NOT ESTABLISH! Tu comprendes mendes?

smurf wrote:

atheist, many flavors of xians, Buddhists, Native American religion, cults like Scientology, and many more. Dominionism threatens to establish a monotheistic government.

resedit wrote:

Who is being doministic here?
It's the first group in the list you listed.

You are truly ignoramus, try studying logic a subject you xians need to learn. Maybe you never heard of http://www.theocracywatch.org

smurf wrote:

Interesting to see the intellectual level of some users on these forums.

I think this comment qualifies you for a "shut the smurf up".

I think the government should get out of the business of movie promotion--but then, I never did care much for de Mille.