New world most have a Religion? if yes,so what Religion?

Considering how this came up and what happened to the chicks left at the end of the day that had no silver, how do you define a nice guy?

 

It usually depends on the petty cash fund available to the nice guy; the more generous the better since that is when a nice guy can afford to have a girl friend relationship simply for the practice and the experience. I currently have to barter and am trying to find a double-coincidence; it may require twins.

I wouldn't mind if nice girls, bad girls, or massage junkies want to get heterosexual with me in exchange for letting me practice full body massage. Touch can be a very therapeutic experience and can help even if the relationship is platonic. Of course, it is always enjoyable with a friend with benefits.

 

So the nice guy would throw silver in the lap of the ugly chicks too, instead of a cute chick breeding program?

I once sat down next to my future lover and put my arm around her only to discover it was a mistake when my future lover got upset. If they had been wearing burkas or I had not switched math classes only to find the same chick in both classes, I would not have heard that horrible question, "which one?" Moving from one to the next in the same bed, eating a little of this and a little of that, playing with that and doing the other at the same time, usually precedes them arguing over what to make for breakfast, what to buy, what to wear, and the petty cash fund had better be under lock and key or quite large. Typically the hypocrite bigots who demand marriage be between man and man and woman and woman or man and woman usually get upset when one argues that the bisexual cannot marry just a man or a woman and fulfill their destiny under Lawrence v Texas.

Certainly, we have no single religion in any state with Lawrence v Texas nor a single philosophy of logic with typically bigoted LGBT hypocrites.

 

I agree that the abomination of hypocrisy can only be a detriment to the greater glory of our immortals souls. That is why I would like to be able to be more holy and more moral, by praying for true love and performing true love rituals at a temple to Aphrodite; as a spiritual opportunity cost and for the greater glory of our immortal souls.

 

Are you trying to convince the Iranian that we are all going to hell in a hand basket?

 

What is wrong with trying to be holy and moral?

 

Nothing, but according to Liberals one man's morality is another man's terrorist spreading a fruit loop virus.

 

Nothing wrong with trying to be "moral."

Trying to be "holy," well, aside from that being mildly vague, in it's simplest form it assumes far too much.

 

What if communion with the divine is better accomplished by being both holy and moral?

 

That can be said of the subjective moral values of any religion depending on circumstances. In my opinion, morals must be used for goodness and not badness to achieve any form of holiness through moral acts.

 

You must be more careful, as not all religions have any "subjective moral values" or a Golden Rule explicitly declared in the "word" of their god. The Golden Rule applied between States allows for the subjective moral values that allow for a Polytheistic State of Egypt to exist or a young and inoffensive US to exist without tribute to the pirates of the religion of "truth." ONE can believe a tyranny is moral to bring goodness and scary mouths are bad; the tyranny believes badness results from freedom of speech of the skeptic and god will not consent save to perfect His light, though the skeptics are averse.

I am interpreting "most" as a misspelling of "'must' have a Religion," and "if yes,so what Religion" as the question of which tyranny. Maybe you see the topic differently, but if you do prove me wrong.

A fruit loop virus is a virus that mutates in a living human fruit. Logic dictates that without a vaccine we need a spear, biblical quarantine, illogical abstinence, or the sanctity of marriage as the most likely course of action to prevent the spread of the fruit loops virus. There are many viruses: biological, spiritual, and political...; ideas do not need VISAS to cross borders, anymore than our bodies are always successful at stopping a sexual plague: morality needs condoms if all else fails.

In our government the condom is the State, and its Senate (advising and consenting not just finding Hitler is qualified to get the trains running on time), with the word "Congress" in the First Amendment.

As I stated in another topic I spent hours at The Wilds when I was there with the Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa making a guy flip pages to prove the existence of God. I was acting as the skeptic, trying to make him prove the book with the book, in the early morning hours of a sleepless night I stood there with the teachers in the hallway and we marveled at the scene of such devotion. I got an "A" in bible class that year. In some "Holy" books, there is no question, the communications are perfect, where who is more unjust than he who rejects them or tells a lie against them, and the right way is clearly distinct from any error.

"As the Holy Koran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.'" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html

Doubting Thomas adds a dimension to Christianity that seems to get lost in translation even for some Christians--the idea of inspired word being a proof a skeptic can accept is feeble in comparison to a Jesus special people can stick a finger into--and the whole concept of a skeptical disciple certainly does not seem to fit with a "HOLY" book that is totally revealed and clearly distinct from error. In the former the skeptics are either treated to a special visit from Jesus or allowed to go their way, in the latter they are only allowed to go their way if they bow down with those who bow down and pay the taxes in acknowledgement of superiority and are in a state of subjection.

 

I am only claiming that a non-well informed electorate may require more religion rather than less religion since a more well informed electorate would already have all the morals they need enumerated in our supreme law of the land; because our Founding Fathers did not neglect the influence of morals even if only accomplished via the rule of the common law.

If religion is a "requirement" does it really matter which religion is adhered to, as long as it it is adhered to for goodness and not badness.

In my opinion, believing that we can be holy and moral by praying for true love and performing true love rituals at a temple to Aphrodite is no worse than going anywhere else to pray to a divine being or performing rituals that may enable a communion with the divine. What should matter the most, is whether or not the subjective value of such morals work or not, simply for the greater glory of our immortal souls and temporal vessels that contain them on this plane of existence.

 

It is my position that "a non-well informed electorate may require more religion rather than less religion" is dangerous to the well informed electorate's supreme law of the land.

If the State cannot teach, and States have their own house Senate, then the State cannot defend their preferred cultural State's Rights through public education. The argument for a Gay State's rights, to preserve it against claims of abomination, or an Aphrodite worshiping State's rights, is only as good as the argument for another State's rights.

If religion is a "requirement," IT does really matter which religion is adhered to in the majority of States, as goodness and badness can be defined by religion "dangerous to the well informed electorate's supreme law of the land."

The Federalist position that the First Amendment was not needed, and no religous test was sufficient, assumes that the melting pot can teach anything or defend a preferred cultural state through education; having no borders or walls to ideas is like not needing a Trojan Horse (they just spread without challenge by the State's educational system).

A party without States able to teach their values, and respecting the guarantee of a Republican form of government, can result in the very destruction of any future minority State of Aphrodite.

The simple fact is a religion of hate, admired by Hitler, made HOLY by the ONE, can spread more rapidly after a Bible Belt State's Public School English teacher is prevented from writing a proverb on the black board.

More of this should be read, but for brevity I quote little:

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

"This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support." (ibid)

I submit that the phrase "of our own choice" does not simply mean a popular electorate but the State's choice too.

Attempts to obtain the State of Aphrodite in all States through the rule of nine appointed for life Platonic Philosopher Kings, is asking for the crushing of the Bible Belt State, the Gay State, the State of Aphrodite, and the State of Deseret until all are imagined as ONE to have their skull's attitude measured by some Grand Mufti's SS calibrated calipers.

Considering history can you truly be certain that the imagined state of ONE would be sympathetic to your State of Aphrodite? Can you be certain the right way is clearly distinct from error in a Federalist approach opposing the First Amendment word "Congress," when 1.2 billion people would crush your State of Aphrodite without a tear?

The battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist rages to this day.

 

I do not make your logical "leap of faith" to create States from religions. The Roman republic had polytheism and no wars of religion within or without that State and republic.

Being able to be holy and moral by praying for true love and performing true love rituals at a temple to Aphrodite or Venus could only lead to the greater glory of our immortals souls.

Any War of Religion can only engender more hellish conditions on Earth instead of a more moral and more ethical, Heaven on Earth by simply promoting and providing for our general welfare.

 

I do not think the Roman Republic ever faced monotheism, but the Roman Empire certainly did and lost twice just to name a few; the first time they lost with Constantine, the second time when the Polytheist Christians lost Palestine and later Constantinople (because East and West could not agree on their polytheisms or something or other that does not quite pop into mind at the moment).

It is one monotheism across the majority of States that pretty much made any State of Deseret impossible, and made the Sun Dance illegal.

"The full ceremony has been legal in Canada since 1951, and in the U.S. since passage of the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Dance

Monotheism has never played well with others.

Creating states from religion is about the only way to keep from seeing Peyote dealers, palm readers, John Edwards talking to the dead, or Temple followers in every neighborhood temple garden giving it up to the horny dudes.

I do not think conflict can be avoided by making all one big happy polytheistic Rome, because when in Rome do as the Romans do means nothing if everywhere there is Rome.

Anyway, where is the Iranian?

PS. Will Aphrodite temple chicks do full body charity work for us old farts who look like a cross between Edward G. Robinson and a mangy Sasquatch?

 

In my opinion, our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It would have been nice if we could bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land, simply for the sake of morals.

It could depend on any immediate spiritual needs of the moment. A tithe always helps.

 

I agree. Only in America can you go to one city and gamble. Another the chicks dance in the window. Another they are hidden from view and they do not sell alcohol on Sunday.

Once had a chick in California try and get me to join her commune. That was back when I did not look like I had the mange. Chicks are my weakness.

Iranian chicks are cute, no wonder they cover them up.

Yep, no one religion here.

 

Peeerrrrrrrrsians... Like candy....

 

What is that music I hear, ohh, I know, the theme song from THE TWILIGHT ZONE!!!

 

The Constitution was great, nearly 250 years ago. Today it is outdated and quite foolish in places. Time to toss it out, hold a new constitutional convention and write a new one.

 

I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers may have invented object orientation for political purposes, before the Information Age defined the term.

In my opinion, we simply don't have what it takes to do a better job with what we currently have at our (political) disposal.

 

i like what the forefathers wrote

what i dont like is the loss of virtues to the 'invisible hand'

(kind of funny, the docs were born in the same year)

ie... both poles of each extreme

 

27 amendments, some reversing previous ones. Billions of dollars, millions and millions of man-hours wasted on arguing what is constitutional and what is not. Nope, sorry, the constitution is outdated, and it is time for it to be changed. Thomas Jefferson even said there should be violence ever 20 years to rewrite the govt and make it new again. we have outlived that 20 year period by nearly 13 times. The time to remake a modern, understandable, accurate constitution fit for current society is NOW!!!

 

My whole point is that the Posterity that our Founding Fathers mention in our social contract, simply slacked. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights was sufficient; we didn't need to "water it down" with those subsequent amendments. That is not the fault of our Founding Fathers.

 

The founding fathers wrote something that was OK for 250 years ago but is so outdated today as to be nearly worthless, time to move on.