The second after you die
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
First, a notice that the following rant may offend some of you. I am going to say what is on my mind and if you don’t like it … well, “tough poop”.

When you boil modern day religion down to its most basic elements, it’s all about one issue. That one issue is “what happens the second after you die”. All of the other trappings such as doctrines, councils, ceremony, costumes, sermons, sacraments, and sanctimonious attitudes are present to manage one’s behavior. That “behavioral modification” occurs by self-management or by pastoral management, or some combination of the two, so the participant can “achieve” their particular understanding of “what happens the second after you die” and make “certain” those devotee’s arrive at their purposed destination.

At first blush that might seem that such belief is harmless, (neutral) and maybe even good. However, if you take a deeper look you will see that it is extremely harmful and disruptive. As a participant in religion, you are choosing to live your life in a way that you believe will gain you entrance into a realm whose existence has not been proven. If it were possible for each person to keep their beliefs to themselves, it might be an acceptable practice. But, religion has always happened in groups, and that is where the conflict begins.

In my view, the height of human stupidity is that people kill other people over what happens the second after you die!

Stop… And… Let… That… Sink… In!


I’ll say it again, people are killing other people over what happens the second after you die. People are losing their lives because they have a different view of “what happens the second after you die” and how you ought to behave to “get there” in the first place, than the surrounding society.

And not all of the “killing” results at first in physical death. We all die, but there are billions of people who are the walking dead because they are casualties of verbal wars and hostile sanctimonious acts of intolerance and injustice. Perhaps some examples are in order.

First, there is war. Killing others because they don’t worship your god, they don’t believe in your version of “what happens the second after you die”. So you send them “there” or maybe to the antithesis place of “existence”, or maybe they are just dead and you’ve robbed them of the potential difference they could have made on the earth. Truth is, none of us really know, so why kill them? Why kill them because their “behavior management and modification” is different than yours? It’s really, really stupid to rob others of their life because they behave differently.

Secondly, the “walking wounded”. Those who are excluded from the fullness of life because their biological composition and/or behavior is different. They, because of their biology, prefer procreateing and loving others of their same sex. But because of what religion believes about “what happens the second after you die”, these people, through no fault of their own, are castigated as “deviants”, “sinners” and left for dead. The behavior of the walking wounded is “contrary” to what religion states is “necessary” to arrive at some mythological celestial port-of-entry. Again, people are killing people over what happens when you die. What is gained by such castigation and “killing”? Abso-procreateing-lutely nothing. The act of war against the walking wounded is completely about behavior modification and management and what happens “the second after you die”. What if religion is wrong? Is the verbal and physical killing and acting in a sanctimonious “we’re star-bellied sneetches” manner justified?

There are a multitude of issues where the seminal problem is religion implementing it’s behavior management and modification program because of what it believes about “what happens the second after you die”.

For instance, the manner it which women are controlled, manipulated, and abused through teaching about sexuality, submission to male authority, the need for chastity belts and other genitalia “modification”. The way religion controls our youth. The basic functions of a “youth pastor” are 1.) go on a mission trip and manipulate the youth to tell others through the provision of manual labor that, the target being helped, are not “doing it right” and need to change their behavior if they what to arrive at the proper portal; 2). keep the youth from breeding. Religion is an expert at telling youth to deny their biology and sexual need exists and wait until marriage. They’ve created “purity balls” and other rites and rituals that shame humans about their sexual biological needs. As a result, we have millions of screwed up angry males drinking tea and walking around with AK-47’s thanks to open carry laws.

Do you want to know WHY there are incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook? Two reasons: 1). Religion has procreateed up a lot of people with its teaching folks to ignore and deny their sexual need, so there is profound confusion about how to behave. The result is testosterone-laden males who become angry that their body is telling them one thing and the religious voices in their head are telling them something contrary. They attempt to solve the problem and seek release through violent behavior. Another result is females who feel ashamed of their bodies because religion shames the behavior of women who enjoy significant sexual passion, calling them sluts. 2.) The situation is compounded by the fact that many of the angry males have reading and comprehension issues, lack phonemic awareness and have undiagnosed conditions like dyslexia and dysgraphia. (This is a rant for another day). They have no critical thinking skills and can’t read to learn and resolve their problems.

An every last procreateing bit of it comes down to religion and its behavior management and modification programs directing people because of their beliefs about “what happens the second after you die”.

As a society, we need to decide that people killing others, whether it is physically or verbally, because of “what happens the second after you die” is flat-out wrong-assed thinking and needs to stop.

Ironically, if one rids themselves of the questions about an “after-life” and starts focusing on the here and now, the beauty and capacity of humanity, physically, emotionally, and mentally, shines forth. Life becomes more precious. The beauty of nature and its intricate detail captivates our imagination. The need to genuinely care for each other and our environment on this pale blue dot we call home becomes our most important mission. We need to focus on loving each other here and now and dismiss the question of “what happens the second after you die” and the associated behavior management and modification thinking brought to you by religious belief. The Beetles were abso-procreateing-lutly correct: “All we need is love”.

/rant

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/24/2014)]
Top
+1
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+811) 4 years ago
I was going to click the "like" button for this, but you misspelled Beatles.
Top
-1
founder
supporter
Posted by Tom Masa (+1676) 4 years ago
Same with me Steve
Top
-1
Posted by luvlife (+285) 4 years ago
Religion is such a difficult and complex subject. You made some great points, Richard and I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion and belief and freedom to speak.

Much has to do with the way one was brought up, too. As a young child being brought up in the Catholic Religion---I remembered being scared all the time about doing something "wrong" and having confession---it really turned me away from religion more then anything. Having it pushed on you at a young age it tough for some.ds

As I grew into my own person and did some research for myself--I have found myself as being "spiritual" or having "faith" in believing there is something more to our after life that awaits us---but, I don't see God anymore as a man to be feared---I see him more as a friend.

Lets face it--none of us will die without some type of sin---how could we? The "ten commandments" are really just golden rules of conduct to follow to help make our world a more loving planet.

I believe God loves everyone--that includes people that choose to love the same sex---I dislike the word "GAY". I believe, like you---our main purpose here on earth is to LOVE. I also believe like you--- that there is hatred in people's hearts and it is what is ruining our planet. Evil is what is killing our nation. I like to think of God as LOVE and the Devil as EVIL---but, more in a spiritual sense then actual man with horns and a pick fork.

I get what you are trying to say---it is sad to think people are destroying people in everyway--religion, politics, race, gender. It is very sad.

Some people that sit in church every Sunday and claim to have their golden ticket into Heaven's gates can and are the most judgmental and critical people I have known. Pretty sure if there is a "perfect" Heavenly wonder we will go to after death that there will be all kinds---black, white, rich, poor, democrats, republicans, gay, straight, fat, skinny, gorgeous to people with disfigurements. Its all about the soul and what lives in our hearts and how we treat people and love people is what I believe.

So, in ending this---you and I really don't differ much in comparison---people that throw the bible in your face and preach in your face are the ones that scare spirituality away from us. Why fear death? Live a life of love, compassion for others and be happy and try to be understanding and non-judgemental---we all have different paths we've been on since coming into this earth---different upbringings---no two are alike---just like religion. Its a personal belief.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+12202) 4 years ago
The second after you die, someone asks about it on mc.com, then someone else is horrified that the question was asked. Think about the families!

Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+381) 4 years ago
I don't fear death. I fear dying, though.

I am also in the 'group' that thinks of God as a friend. I believe in God and I believe he will take care of me after I die.

As Will Durst pointed out, it's not hard to believe in a higher power -- because it's not much of stretch to believe there's something smarter than humans.

George Carlin once said that if people really lived by the commandments, it would be a completely different world -- but it would ruin the economy and cost millions of jobs.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
It is in the nature of Human Beings, to believe that life has some purpose. Accordingly, it's the root of belief in a continuance after death. If you can change that, perhaps things would be different. Not necessarily better.

What you proselytize for in your rants, is morality controlled by the State, followed by a black hole at the end of the trail.

What a wonderful existence that would be.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
I didn't really see anywhere in there where Richard mentions the state controlling anything.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1916) 4 years ago
Why can I not control my own morality? Must I be threatened with punishment from an invisible being after death to make me behave nicely while I am alive? Or can I find it within myself to be good and kind without being afraid of what happens once I am dead?
Top
+1
Posted by Juan Agular (+40) 4 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
What you proselytize for in your rants, is morality controlled by the State, followed by a black hole at the end of the trail.

Dear Gabacho oddjob, My English is not all that it should be but I found Mr Bonines posting succinct and articulate. I found nothing about state control. Mind control and manipulation? Yes but no government interference. The manipulation coming from whomever has the fairy tail that one chooses to subscribe to. Why do you think they refer to a congregation as a flock, followers or believers.

As for your quote, Governments don't stop wars. Whats the fun or profit in that? Controlling or dictating Morality? Do you know who these pendejos thieves are?
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
He's a proud supporter of them Juan, as long as the guns are pointed at people of the proper hue.
Top
+1
Posted by Juan Agular (+40) 4 years ago
Ah, a good Gringo, with Jesus on his side. "Onward Christian soldiers marching off to war, (everybody sing) with the cross of Jesus going on before."
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
It is in the nature of Human Beings, to believe that life has some purpose. Accordingly, it's the root of belief in a continuance after death. If you can change that, perhaps things would be different.

The notion that life does not have "purpose" without believing in a god in some other realm is USDA Grade Prime Bull Poop. The idea to "live for the future" can be accomplish through the progression of our species as a whole. The belief that we need some never ending second life in order to live as good people is flawed in many ways and implies that the only reason for living this life is purely for selfish reasons.

Frankly, life now has more meaning, beauty, and is more precious than when I believed in god. The focus is on the here and now and extracting every ounce of joy that comes my way. Not enjoying things now because there is some religious prohibition that some sky daddy will disapprove is a lousy way to live.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/25/2014)]
Top
+1
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
Human morality is not innate to the species. It is a learned trait. A "civilized" society requires a code of morality to exist or it will descend into anarchy. Because Humans are fallible, "morality" necessarily has to be defined and enforced by sanctions. My question is, who will dictate and control what is moral and what is not? In a godless society, the only thing left is the State. Both are deeply flawed, but those are the choices.

"All you need is Love" is a ridiculous fantasy when your belly is empty.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
I think a large part of Europe would be puzzled by your statements.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
The golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love your neighbor as you love yourself are all the moral code we really need.You don't need religion to be moral. Plenty of cultures that have a moral system without religion or a state mandate. As Alan Huxley once said "men do not learn very much from history is the most important lesson that history teaches."

Here is an interesting study that validates my thoughts. The countries least impacted by religion scored the best.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/co.../best.html

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/27/2014)]
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Sunny (+372) 4 years ago
You do know that the golden rule and "Love your neighbors as yourselves" both came from the Bible, don't you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
Nope,"study to show yourself approved",Sunny. Those are ideas the Bible plagiarized. The golden rule is found in the Babylonian Talmud from which the book of Leviticus was copied. The golden rule is also found in Confucianism ,Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism,Janeism, and the rest of the world's major religions which all pre-date the B-I-B-L-E, oh that's the book for me.
Top
+1
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
Richard. We are all glad that you have thrown off the shackles of religion and have achieved a State of Enlightenment. But when I read your stuff, I just can't help but think of the guy, who after smoking his first joint, has now become utterly fascinated by his hand.

You fail to see the hypocrisy in your argument. You declare that all religion is evil and must be eradicated, and your battle cry is:

"The golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love your neighbor as you love yourself are all the moral code we really need.You don't need religion to be moral."

The moral code which was uniquely rooted in, and promulgated by.....religion.

You admit this yourself..

"The golden rule is found in the Babylonian Talmud from which the book of Leviticus was copied. The golden rule is also found in Confucianism ,Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism,Janeism, and the rest of the world's major religions"

And as far as your promotion of "non-religious societies" as Utopian, perhaps this gentleman explains it best...

"At one point, he queries Jens, a 68-year-old nonbeliever, about the sources of Denmark’s very ethical culture. Jens replies: “We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”

http://www.nytimes.com/20...d=all&_r=0

Religion was the root of morality. Not the State; which evolved from the original moral concepts. It's not the other way around, and the State will never be able to provide any fitting guide as to what makes a person, a moral person. The State is inherently prone to corruption.

I have no love for religion either, but I do recognize it's one beneficial impact on civilization.

Being a rational person, I don't promote any blind adoration for some invisible sky entity, nor do I believe that my ultimate disposition is in the hands of such. But I do believe that I am a moral person who didn't become that way because of government class or some inherent kumbaya gene.

You can run, but you can't hide from what makes you the person you become.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
We are the state. jesus.
Top
+1
Posted by Juan Agular (+40) 4 years ago
Richard, Mi hermano, perlas delante de los cerdos.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
Acordado!
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
En primer lugar, uno debe tener perlas.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
You are one confused dude, mr. Oddjob, particularly when you consider that throughout the vast bulk of recorded history, the title of High Priest and King often went hand in hand.
Top
+1
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
"consider that throughout the vast bulk of recorded history, the title of High Priest and King often went hand in hand."

The relevant part of your statement is exactly what I would expect from a dedicated student of Drunk History. All it shows is that you still don't understand (or choose to ignore) the question.

You have however, unbeknownst to you, pointed out the problem, which is; what happens when the State usurps the role of moral authority?

Lot's of people die..
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
The modern state does not exist without "people". It is the beliefs of "people" that reflect the "morality" of that state.

Here in the USA, the christian belief system is frankly based on a book full of contradictions and events that didn't happen. It is a "morality" based on fairy tales. It is a classic "The Emperor Has No Clothes" and I think that fact needs to be exposed.

In the last 40 years, those "moral" beliefs have become intertwined and embraced by one political party who is implementing laws and policy based on a belief system that is fraudulent.

For example, our policy toward Israel, is deeply rooted in the current belief of the pre-millennial return of Jesus, the rapture of the church, and the acceptance by the Jews of Jesus as Messiah, where he will reign for a 1000 years over a new kingdom. Prior to 1830, NOBODY had ever heard of the "rapture". It was not a part of church doctrine. Origen, Eubustus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Luther never mention the "rapture". Again, people are losing their lives over "what happens the second after you die" on a false premise. We have people in power who want to create an "Armageddon" that does not need to happen. Those people who embrace this doctrine unknowingly have their hopes built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Bible Press. It's fraudulent doctrine. Why would we want to base our public policy on such nonsense, that purposefully, kills people because they don't believe our version of "what happens the second after you die? It's stupid!

Forty plus years ago, women had the right to abortion. To that point, protestants had little interest in the subject. The bible is remarkably rather silent on the issue. Most opponents of abortion will say that their opposition to it is more biblically than scientifically based, but they apparently don't know that the Bible really says nothing directly about abortion. What it says indirectly about the subject, however, indicates that those who wrote the Bible had an entirely different view of embryos than do modern opponents of abortion. One such indication can be seen in a passage in Exodus.

Exodus 21:22 "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe".


Old Testament law mandated the death penalty for anyone who killed another person, even if the death was unintentional (Deut. 4:41-43; Deut. 19:10). As these passages show, Hebrew law provided for "cities of refuge," where those who had unintentionally killed other persons could flee and be safe from the "avengers of blood," who were entitled under their laws to exact an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. Such laws indicate that the ancient Hebrews considered the killing of another person to be a serious offense that warranted death, but the passage quoted above from Exodus 21 provided only for a monetary fine when someone injured a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry. Evidently, then, biblical authors, who fundamentalist Christians believe wrote by divine inspiration, did not consider the killing of an embryo to be as serious as the killing of an actual person.

A passage in the book of Numbers is even less friendly to the pro-life view. It is long, but it needs to be quoted in its entirety to present adequately the problem that it poses for those who believe that God considers abortion immoral.

Numbers 5:11 "Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; 17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you," 21 --let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman--"Yahweh make you an execration and an oath among your people, when Yaheh makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22 now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!" And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen."

23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before Yahweh and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29 This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before Yaheh, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.


This passage describes a trial by ordeal, which was a primitive way of determining guilt or innocence. As the article linked to explains, this type of "judgment" usually involved fire or water. An accused person, for example, would have to walk through fire or retrieve a stone from boiling water or experience some similar trial. If the "ordeal" caused no injury or just slight injury or if the injuries healed quickly, the accused was judged to be innocent. Otherwise, he was considered guilty. The premise of the trial by ordeal was a superstitious belief that the gods would protect the innocent from harm during trials by ordeal. That the Bible contains an example of trial by ordeal commanded by the Hebrew god Yahweh should be proof to rational people that it is not the inspired, inerrant "word" of an all-knowing, loving, merciful deity but is instead a collection of writings that simply reflected the beliefs of the primitive, superstitious times in which it was written.

Enlightened people today would understand that the reaction of women to a trial by ordeal like the one described above would depend on the individual strengths and weaknesses of their immunity systems and not on their actual guilt or innocence. No doubt, many innocent wives were condemned by the results of this trial by ordeal, and likewise many guilty wives with stronger immune systems were "exonerated" by it. Christians today, then, who demand that "biblical principles" be imposed on society at large, are really crusading to turn the clock back to a time when morality was determined by cultural superstitions and taboos rather than by rational considerations.

We could also imagine that in at least some of those cases, the accused wives were pregnant, either from sexual intercourse with their husbands or from the adulterous relationships they had been accused of, so just think seriously and, if possible, unemotionally for a moment. If pregnant women were subjected to an ordeal that could cause "bitter [abdominal] pain" or "discharge from the womb" or a fallen uterus, they would surely have aborted the fetuses they were carrying. If, then, abortion is the horribly immoral act that Christians believe their god is so opposed to, why would hehe ever have commanded a trial by ordeal that would have resulted in the abortion of at least some unborn children?

Back to 1972, Along comes Bob Dole, Jack Kemp and Francis Schaffer who convince Jerry Falwell to preach a series of sermons against abortion, how it is against god's will, and create the "moral majority". Why? Because it's an issue that helps their party win elections after the Watergate scandal. In 1973, Roe-vs-Wade happened. The "moral majority" gain a foothold and in 1980 they were successful in getting St. Ronny elected. If anybody bothers to look, much of the Tea-Party is the offspring of the Moral Majority.

Now the issues are subjects like should employers have to pay for birth control. At the heart of the issue is a theological belief ( the Full Quiver movement) that doesn't like birth control because women can enjoy sex without fear of pregnancy. Religion can't have women out there feeling empowered and sexy, enjoying such pleasure. After all, sex is for procreation. Religion is busy inserting itself into the private lives of people where it has no business. Pull a couple of scriptures out of your pocket and have your own personal baby-boom. Be sure and "verbally assassinate" those who disagree with you and your interpretation of your iron age book. Gain some momentum, and in 15 years you can have your point of view become the Supreme Courts' decree as the law of the land... all based on faulty interpretation of your holy book. The Dugger's are a prime example, currently being lauded as role models. ( i've wondered which kids in that family put the "fun" in dysfunctional. There has to be a couple. I know a thing or two about large families).

Long story short, given the current trajectory, religion will continue to impose it's dark ages, flat-earth mentality on us, unless we actually invest the time in uncovering and debunking the sources of their belief.
I'd actually encourage/challenge people to truly read their bible in a critical manner for what it really says. Read the New Testament in the order it was actually written. Note that Paul says very little about the Jesus presented in the gospels and is at odds with the other apostles. Think about what it is saying. Be sure and consider the historical/political environment. Most christian preaching ignores the historical/political context, which is important to understanding the probability of occurrence. If you do these things, I believe you will come to a conclusion that is similar to my own. Ridding ourselves of Fred Flintstone stone-age thinking, is the way forward.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (9/1/2014)]
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+12202) 4 years ago
A great prophet once said

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What ?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done ?"
God says. "Out on......


Richard and OJ, I will leave it to you to divine the insightfulness of its meaning.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
Student of drunk history

Please elaborate.
Top
+1
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+811) 4 years ago
It's a television show. It asks historical questions of drunk college age students.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
Oddjob's state, enforcing morality:

Top
Posted by Diane Emeney (+491) 4 years ago
I've been reading all the comments, all intelligently worded and mostly in favor of there not being a Creator in our Universe...and I was just wondering this one thing- What if you are wrong?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+12829) 4 years ago
Hellfire and damnation, Diane.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2561) 4 years ago
Christians always say, "What if you are wrong?" about god. Too bad most of them don't use that same logic on climate change.
Top
Posted by Diane Emeney (+491) 4 years ago
You mistake me, I'm not here to argue with you on your beliefs against mine, that's free choice. It was an honest question. I try to be open minded, realize that as a human, I certainly don't have all the answers and am almost always puzzled by those who think they do I don't feel the need to attack those who think differently from me and can't understand why others do. Truth is you will believe what you do, and I will believe what I do.I don't believe it's okay to argue and put down people who believe differently from me.....or you.

[This message has been edited by Diane Emeney (9/3/2014)]
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
"Please elaborate."

It would be a pointless waste of time. Find a library. Overcome the urge to read "Salon" and start in the section marked "History".

As far as the video, thanks for that. I would have thrown his disrespectful ass out of the meeting as well. Sue me.

In a Country where countless thousands have shed their blood so you can sit on you ass during a prayer, you should at least respect the Liberty they afforded you.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8143) 4 years ago
Find a library. Overcome the urge to read "Salon" and start in the section marked "History".


Oh sweet oddjob, you are truly the dumbest procreate I think I know. I would love to discuss 'history' with you, any period or era of your choosing.

I would drink your procreateing milkshake, all the way down.
Top
+1
Posted by Erin Timrawi (+53) 4 years ago
What exactly is the problem with atheism? A lack of morals and/or a lack of historical knowledge? Any other deficiencies that I should know about?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+156) 4 years ago
Yes, Bridgier. You're the smartest guy in the room.

We are all in awe of your creative use of profanity and implied labeling.
Top
-1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
I've been reading all the comments, all intelligently worded and mostly in favor of there not being a Creator in our Universe...and I was just wondering this one thing- What if you are wrong?



I have carefully considered that question. It's actually part of Pascal's wager. Show me tangible evidence and I will gladly change my mind. Life for me would be simpler if there really was a creator. I'm not going to believe without evidence. The Bible is not evidence, it's a claim.
Top
+1
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+381) 4 years ago
Reading this thread, it's easy to see why wars start over religious beliefs.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 4 years ago
If you don't believe in God and it turns out you're wrong, what of it?

If you believe in God and it turns out you're wrong, what of it?
Top
+1
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+12829) 4 years ago
Hellfire and damnation, Wendy, that's what of it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13743) 4 years ago
Except that we can point to a time in history when the concept of hell did not exist.
Top
+1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1416) 4 years ago
Right before you said "I do."

FH
Top
+1