Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

So Dave, nothing to say on the sermon?

Hmm...I'm still waiting for the verse where Jesus tells his followers to go out and "tax" other people.

GePap -

I don't introduce any third party.

The theater owner who mysteriously disappears from the dispute.

The fact is that the Theater (not even meantioned as an individual, but as a institution) would not get involved, since there is no issue from their perspective (unless a crime begins to occur, a fight).

An "institution" which happens to be owned by someone. If two people have a dispute over a seat in his theater, it certainly is an issue from his perspective.

And on the second part: you are incorrect in your view of the situation. The item is left as a way to mark of the seat as property.

The item is the property, not the seat - that belongs to a third party.

The person leaving it is using a symbol to denote territory.

Territory that belongs to the theater owner and is "rented" on a temporary basis. If the theater owner doesn't care who sits there, then the person who left their property on the seat has the rightful claim, not the person who removed that property.

The man could in fact leave anyting in the seat, even something that he had not bought or aquired in some other binding way, to try to denote the territory. BUt the fact that the man is trying to claim a seat as his territory, even though it is not his property, hence the disctinction.

And what happens if the owner boots both of them out? Does their claim to this territory hold up? Nope, that's why your hypothetical is flawed.

What right do you have to exist?

Humans didn't create themselves, someone or something did. And life is a gift from this "creator".

YOU are a random result of two gamete having met up in your mother's uterus.

And?

Any set of gametes could have met, leading to a completely different individual being born.

Then that person would have the right to exist.

At any point in the pregnancy, any small event could terminate it. A disease could take hold of your mother and induce a miscarriage. The fact that you exist is an accident of the universe, basically pure luck.

If true, so what?

Do we call diseases murderers?

Rights are moral claims of sovereignty between humans, not immunities from disease.

It makes no sense to call a non-human entity a murderer for ending human life, becuase Murder is a legal definiton.

I agree, your question makes no sense. However, murder is not strictly a legal term. The act of murder can occur with or without laws or government since murder is the unjustified taking of innocent life (please read the thread, I've already addressed your line of argument).

Being a legal definition, the morality of murder is based solely on human-human interaction, and certainly not on the idea that you have any claim to your life, given the almost infinmite possible ways for your life to be snuffed out.

Humans can't interact without laws being in place?

You claim rights are not privaledges, but then were do they come from?

Rights or privileges? I've already explained where rights come from.

You seem to think they are inherent to your very being.

Yup, a gift from that which created us.

This is absrud really, without the notion of God.

Why?

Wat about a human being gives him rights? his sentience?

His existence, but sentience helped recognise them.

So does a braindead husk of a man not have rights?

Define "braindead husk".

And if "rights" are inherent to man, when did they first riginate?

With the first people.

if you believed man evolved, then from whence did "rights" evolve?

Doesn't matter if man evolved, rights didn't evolve.

Do chimps and other primates have a lesser version of rights that they evolved with?

Nope, rights are between people.

The very notion of rights 'evolving' sounds silly, and it is absurd

I agree, your question is silly.

but wihtout it, from whence can you, deovid of a greater creator or an extra-natural realm sperate from this can you possibly claim that something as ephemeral as "natural rights" could come from?

From that which created us.

Rights are a recognition of the universal desires and individual sovereignty resulting from and within creation.

[David Floyd]

Templar,

So God does not care how you conduct your public affairs? You must have a fairly limited conception of what 'political' means.

Obviously God cares about how you conduct yourself in public, as a Christian is a reflection of God. But this still doesn't mean God advocates forcing people to give to the poor, he cares what YOU PERSONALLY do.

The only evidence of which is you actions.

Not necessarily, which is precisely the point. Faith is what brings salvation, not actions. Ones good actions in public do not necessarily reflect a good heart, or a belief in God.

Taking an active role in the political sphere to give more and direct it to the poor is evidence of a good soul politically.

Actually, if you insist on combining God and politics - which is not Biblical, but I digress - I'd say that Jesus would be much more interested in teaching the poor how not to be poor, rather than just throwing money at them.

But in any case, God does not advocate forcing people to give to the poor, or to be good. This is precisely what taxes and social programs do - force people to give to the poor.

And the political right in Germany murdered millions of Jews.

Actually, the Nazis were fairly leftist in their social policies, but in any case, the point was that immorality exists on every side of the political spectrum. There is no perfect political system, no perfect person, which is why it is silly to associate God/Jesus with a political party.

Progressives in the US have pushed for successful social welfare programs.

What's your point? Forced social welfare programs aren't Biblical.

And the original progressives were politically liberal Christians.

And using some peoples' definition of "Christian", the Nazis were Christian. Again, this is the point - one's actions do not make one a Christian, and do not make one good in the eyes of God.

Are really suggesting Jesus only cares about what is supposedly "in your heart" even if that goodness never manifests in the social sphere?

Certainly not. Our goodness should manifest itself throughout every aspect of our lives. One part of that goodness and morality is charity and sympathy for the poor. Another part of that goodness and morality is a reflection of God's view that one should not be forced to be good.

Perhaps Jesus sees the value in overcoming the problem of collective action.

Eh?

Not the issue. I said true Christians would have left wing politics.

This is precisely the issue. True Christians would live their lives as best they could according to God's will, and Christian beliefs. Non-coercion is one of these beliefs derived from the Bible, and another of these beliefs is that one should refrain from stealing from others. This is a major reason why the social-welfare state is NOT Biblical.

True Christians would have the funds that are rendered unto Caesar used to help those in need.

No, true Christians would live their own lives in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.

Try reiterating something relevant.

I've already explained why this is relevant.

Look, property is nothing more than a government regulation for resouce distribution, and that entitlements can be geared in such a way that helps the needy.

If property is simply a creation of government, then why a Biblical prohibition against stealing? Obviously the Bible wasn't written for a single government, nor was it written to imply that only one type of government is Biblical. However, the Bible also clearly includes concepts of property and theft. This being the case, the Bible and God must support the idea that property exists outside of government. Those of you who don't believe in God won't find this a convincing argument, by the way, and I wouldn't use it outside of a Biblically-themed debate, however, if you DO believe in God/the Bible, then this argument is much more credible.

Which sort of social ordering would Jesus approve of? One that distributes wealth fairly or one that is more capitalist?

In part, one consistent with not stealing.

We are not talking about forcing people to be good (at least I'm not). We are talking about Christians selecting a political system.

And, in this case, selecting your political system ultimately involves forcing people to be good. Selecting mine does not.

How can Christians select an unChristian political system and still be Christians?

You just made a silly argument. Obviously, you consider the American system to be unchristian. Because you seem to feel that Christianity is dependent upon political beliefs, then you are saying that no Americans are Christians

The personal is political. How can you divorce your personal and political behavior?

Quite easily. I personally don't approve of, for example, sodomy, but I would never, ever, support a law against it.

You are saying that a good Christian believes in charity and helping others in private, but when it comes to public (i.e. political) behavior, a putative Christian may act in ways that are selfish or detrimental to implementing the teachings of Christ.

No, Christians should act in accordance with Biblical principles. As I have pointed out, a major Biblical principle is charity and goodwill towards others. Another major Biblical principle is that stealing is wrong.

Finally, the really funny thing about so-called "Christians" like Frist and Santorum are that they will not allow a divorce between the public and private spheres when it comes to sexuality. So a state may force Christian sexual mores down the throats of the vast ****ing majority of people who enjoy sex on their account. But the minute someone tries to impose a tax to help the poor suddenly we hear talk of "enforced altruism".

Why would you compare me to Frist and Santorum? They're both morons.

Again, I feel compelled to declare victory on the Jesus issue as well. On to other threads ..

OK, buddy. Word of advice, though: Don't try to debate Christianity or the Bible, at least not before learning a little more about either.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Taking an active role in the political sphere to give more and direct it to the poor is evidence of a good soul politically.

A liberal is someone so good they'd give me the shirt of someone else's back.

And the political right in Germany murdered millions of Jews.

The Nazis were politically right wing? That explains their free market system.

GePap -

It seems to me that your argument is that Rights are an inhrent part of all human beings; that al human ebings are born with them. OK: create an experiement (even a thougth experiment) to prove it.

Now, why an experiment: Becuase anything else that is 'inhenrent' to man, and man is born with can be tested and scrutenized (though doing so might terminate the subject, but it can be done still).

Can morality be measured and tested?

All emotions leave behind physiological signals we can look for, or one can always use psychiatrict test and so forth. IF rights are also inherent to man, then would we not be able to test such proposition? Can it not be proven?

Excellent! How do people react when others try to murder them? How do people react when others try to rob or assault them? What's that? We all react negatively? Hmm...we've just stumbled across a universal desire...

Now, why do it? well, when I say rights are based on law and come form the state, that provides a clear and simple (relatively) answer to the questions "what are rights, were do they come from?"

Hardly, did the millions slaughtered by the Nazis and communists have a right to live that was violated by their attackers? If not, then the Nazis and communists took nothing from their victims since they had no right to live anyway. If so, then how do you explain the laws and governments under which they were slaughtered allowing the slaughter?

All you guys seem to say is "they are natural", but that is an incomplete answer, and honestly, it is not anymore covincing than any other article of faith given as such. So, can any of you design for us a way in which this could be tested? Or do you guys admit that when you say "rights are natural", that what you are giving is an article of faith?

If all you've gotten is "rights are natural", then work on your literacy.

[Berzerker]

True Christians would have the funds that are rendered unto Caesar used to help those in need.

I see, so when Jesus said "render unto Caesar", he also advised Caesar on how to spend his money? Well, Caesar was using that money to wage wars all over the Roman empire, and some was even used to crucify Jesus.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -
The theater owner who mysteriously disappears from the dispute

An "institution" which happens to be owned by someone. If two people have a dispute over a seat in his theater, it certainly is an issue from his perspective.

The theatre owner is not there, and never was mentioned as being there. HOw many times have you gone to a movie theater and seen the Owner? Plus, given that the "owner" is most likely a publicly traded corporation, this is a non-issue, unless you decide to use a non-issue to avoid the implications.

The item is the property, not the seat - that belongs to a third party.

Territory that belongs to the theater owner and is "rented" on a temporary basis. If the theater owner doesn't care who sits there, then the person who left their property on the seat has the rightful claim, not the person who removed that property.

Since the item is being used as a marker, whether it actualy belongs to him or not is another non-issue. The man with the ticke could just as well have stolen said item and still used it as a marker, without any change to the scenerio.

As for your interpretation of the issue: A seat, not any seat, was rented. You claim rightfull claim, but no one in a movie theater has any claim to anything besides ONE seat, not any particular, unless seating is establshed on the ticket. Since neither party has aquired the right to any particular seat, the eonly way they can claim one is by thier very precense, and not by proxy. The man who put the things dwn to claim it has no right to that seat: at most, he had a societal understanding, but one not backed by anything other than concention and manners. He has no recourse in this case, as that particual seat is not his property in any way. The man may feel a territorial claim to it, but it is NOT hi property, ehnce you claim that property comes from a feeling of territoriality, one you made to counter Templar, is incorrect.

And what happens if the owner boots both of them out? Does their claim to this territory hold up? Nope, that's why your hypothetical is flawed.

Actually, it furthers the reality of it: you claim that the notion of property springs from the innate feeling of territoriality people feel: you claimed that territory= property. Both parties here may feel territorial claims to something they both intelectually know is not the property of either of them. So even knowing they are NOT the owners of the property, they can still feel and act territorialy within it.

Humans didn't create themselves, someone or something did. And life is a gift from this "creator".
And?
Then that person would have the right to exist.
If true, so what?
Rights are moral claims of sovereignty between humans, not immunities from disease.

So you do claim your notion of universal rights on religion. Must keep that in mind.

I agree, your question makes no sense. However, murder is not strictly a legal term. The act of murder can occur with or without laws or government since murder is the unjustified taking of innocent life (please read the thread, I've already addressed your line of argument).

Actually, no, murder is not "unjustified" but "illegal" killing, and innocence has no bearing on the issue either. It would be nice for you to look up the definitions.

Murder: from the ME murthir: the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another, also, any killing while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery (Websters" New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition pg. 893)

Humans can't interact without laws being in place?

They can interact by making norms and customs, which is what predates law. But murder, outside of either cutom and norms or law is a meaningless concept.

Rights or privileges? I've already explained where rights come from.

NO, you have made immense claims that you have never explained further than just making them. If I say the sky is orange becuase the sun is 2 feet away, that is an explination: not a valid one, and it doesn;t mean I have becked it up wth anything either.

Rights are a recognition of the universal desires and individual sovereignty resulting from and within creation.

Given that your source for rights is religious in nature, what do you make of the scriptures and thier porflegate bannings of many things, many of which you seem to believe attack those basic rights? It was "our" creator that calls for the death penalty for adultery. I assume you belieev this to be wrong, but since you claim rights come from this creator, who can you square this and that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GePap -

Can morality be measured and tested?

The task is yours, not mine.

Excellent! How do people react when others try to murder them? How do people react when others try to rob or assault them? What's that? We all react negatively? Hmm...we've just stumbled across a universal desire...

Yes, but it is up to you to make the case or how this leads to the notion of rights. The same person who might fight back when trying to be murdered can just as easily be the one tryoing to murder: if I can show that someone under rgeat suress may whish to strike out violently towards another, isn't that a universal desire, and perhaps, by your view, a right?

Hardly, did the millions slaughtered by the Nazis and communists have a right to live that was violated by their attackers? If not, then the Nazis and communists took nothing from their victims since they had no right to live anyway. If so, then how do you explain the laws and governments under which they were slaughtered allowing the slaughter?

I am sorry, but you keep bringing this point up, and it is a non-point. Why the killing of Jews and other by the Nazi's could be considred illegal is based on the whole complex of law built up over millenia by humanity, including laws governming the behaviors of parties during wars. So yes, in a system built solely on the premise that somehting is wrong becuase it is illegal, I can still denounce all these deaths that you speak off. That you refuse to accept the arguemnt does not mean it is invalid, it only means you refuse to accept it an deal with it.

If all you've gotten is "rights are natural", then work on your literacy.

That is all I have to go by, since that is all yo rovide. (by saying that rights are a manifestation of universal desires and so forth, that still leaves it as, in the end, "natural"), ans this is what you are left to prove in some way, if even by a thought experiement,

[David Floyd]

Still waiting, Templar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, David, instead of saying 'bump' you decided to be as ******* . You do realize it's the 4th, right? And people go out and stuff?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, David, instead of saying 'bump' you decided to be as ******* . You do realize it's the 4th, right? And people go out and stuff?

There comes to a point when any thread on any subject becomes too long-winded.

Let this one die.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

The theatre owner is not there, and never was mentioned as being there. HOw many times have you gone to a movie theater and seen the Owner? Plus, given that the "owner" is most likely a publicly traded corporation, this is a non-issue, unless you decide to use a non-issue to avoid the implications.

The owner hires people to manage his property. And it's not a non-issue, you've introduced a third party, the actual owner of the property, into your hypothetical and ignore him when a dispute arises.

Since the item is being used as a marker, whether it actualy belongs to him or not is another non-issue. The man with the ticke could just as well have stolen said item and still used it as a marker, without any change to the scenerio.

Then someone ought to turn him in to the police. But since you don't seem to think the actual owner of the property - marker - matters, my answer is still the same.

As for your interpretation of the issue: A seat, not any seat, was rented.

Were we talking about any seat?

You claim rightfull claim, but no one in a movie theater has any claim to anything besides ONE seat, not any particular, unless seating is establshed on the ticket.

Wow! Talk about non-issues.

Since neither party has aquired the right to any particular seat, the eonly way they can claim one is by thier very precense, and not by proxy. The man who put the things dwn to claim it has no right to that seat: at most, he had a societal understanding, but one not backed by anything other than concention and manners.

Would that be the social understanding that by placing his property on the seat to serve as a marker, he has laid claim to that seat? I haven't seen your resolution to the dispute, what is it?

He has no recourse in this case, as that particual seat is not his property in any way. The man may feel a territorial claim to it, but it is NOT hi property, ehnce you claim that property comes from a feeling of territoriality, one you made to counter Templar, is incorrect.

Hmm...I've already said the theater owner owns the seat and it is his "territory" regardless of what the two movie watchers may feel. Like I said, what happens to their perceived sense of "territory" if the owner boots them both out?

Actually, it furthers the reality of it: you claim that the notion of property springs from the innate feeling of territoriality people feel: you claimed that territory= property.

No, I said even some animals recognise property by their behavior, Templar tried to change that to territory so for the sake of argument, I allowed his attempt to equate the two. But in my example of dogs and how they behave on the property of their owner compared to venturing off onto foreign property, territory and property are the same. When our dog is on our property (territory according to Templar), he behaves differently than when he wanders onto someone else's property guarded by their dog. How you guys can deny this is beyond me, but I suspect y'all have ideological blinders on.

Both parties here may feel territorial claims to something they both intelectually know is not the property of either of them.

And as I said, the one who got their first and left a marker has the rightful claim, not the one who physically moved the property of the first person.

So even knowing they are NOT the owners of the property, they can still feel and act territorialy within it.

You're still ignoring the fact that neither has a territorial claim if the actual owner boots them out. Now, if you walk into a theater and see someone's coat on a seat, do you really feel that seat is your territory? I certainly don't.

So you do claim your notion of universal rights on religion. Must keep that in mind.

Religion? Why? Are you suggesting someone or something didn't create life and that acknowledging the opposite is a religious view?

Actually, no, murder is not "unjustified" but "illegal" killing, and innocence has no bearing on the issue either. It would be nice for you to look up the definitions.

Ah, so Hitler and his cronies never murdered any Germans?
If you look at the thread, I said murder can occur with or without government, and it can. So using only a definition that recognises that most governments have, more or less, outlawed murder and ignoring that the broader definition applies to all human affairs is silly. And since you can intentionally kill someone in self-defense, the matter of innocence does matter... innocence is implied.

Murder: from the ME murthir: the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another, also, any killing while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery (Websters" New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition pg. 893)

Here is the broader application of the word:

Cambridge Dictionary of American English)

the crime of intentionally killing a person

Of course, that definiiton wouldn't make sense if the innocence of the victim wasn't a given. Now, if you want to argue that a "crime" can only occur when a government has outlawed an act, consider that Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam were/are guilty of crimes against humanity for what they did to people living in those countries as well as other peoples. The greatest mass murderers ran governments.

They can interact by making norms and customs, which is what predates law. But murder, outside of either cutom and norms or law is a meaningless concept.

Can the recognition of property qualify as a "norm" or "custom?
You know, like when the first groups of people bumped into each other and began bartering? If so, tell Templar because he thinks such a recognition came into existence only after government invented it with laws. As for the second part, no one intentionally took the life of an innocent before government invented murder with a law?

NO, you have made immense claims that you have never explained further than just making them. If I say the sky is orange becuase the sun is 2 feet away, that is an explination: not a valid one, and it doesn;t mean I have becked it up wth anything either.

Whether or not you accept my explanation for the origin of rights, I have given that explanation.

Given that your source for rights is religious in nature, what do you make of the scriptures and thier porflegate bannings of many things, many of which you seem to believe attack those basic rights?

Why is my explanation religious in nature? You make that claim but don't back it up.

It was "our" creator that calls for the death penalty for adultery.

Did your creator tell you this?

I assume you belieev this to be wrong, but since you claim rights come from this creator, who can you square this and that?

Simple, I dismiss somebody's written perception of some god as that which created us. It would be nice if you could debate this issue without trying to drag someone else's religion into it.
The fact is we don't know who or what created life or the universe. My position needs no answer to that question since we're here anyway.

The task is yours, not mine.

Your task is coming up with a "logical" thought experiment, my question shows it isn't logical. Not everything that is inherent to man can be measured or tested, but we do know that no one wants to be murdered - that is "inherent".

The same person who might fight back when trying to be murdered can just as easily be the one tryoing to murder: if I can show that someone under rgeat suress may whish to strike out violently towards another, isn't that a universal desire, and perhaps, by your view, a right?

The desire to not be murdered is universal, the desire to murder is not.

I am sorry, but you keep bringing this point up, and it is a non-point. Why the killing of Jews and other by the Nazi's could be considred illegal is based on the whole complex of law built up over millenia by humanity, including laws governming the behaviors of parties during wars.

So now you're reaching beyond the government that sanctioned mass murder? Nice, so we've gone from rights emanating from government to rights emananting from human history? Gee, you're getting close to my position.

So yes, in a system built solely on the premise that somehting is wrong becuase it is illegal, I can still denounce all these deaths that you speak off. That you refuse to accept the arguemnt does not mean it is invalid, it only means you refuse to accept it an deal with it.

Denounce based on what? Right and wrong? Morality?

That is all I have to go by, since that is all yo rovide. (by saying that rights are a manifestation of universal desires and so forth, that still leaves it as, in the end, "natural"), ans this is what you are left to prove in some way, if even by a thought experiement

Ah, so I have said more than "rights are natural". Why do I need to prove that unversal desires exist? Rights are merely an acknowledgement and expression of these universal desires.

Mr Fun - You're no fun, we're finally getting somewhere with this debate.

[GePap]

Bezerker:

I am truly amazed at your intepretation of the theater example. I really am. I thought it was a simple one...

Would that be the social understanding that by placing his property on the seat to serve as a marker, he has laid claim to that seat? I haven't seen your resolution to the dispute, what is it?

The point is Berz. that property, as Templar said, is a LEGAL concept, and the feeling of territoriality has little to do with it. The societal understanding is in place simply to avoid possible conflict, which may spring from the feeling of territoriality. BUt again,this has no bearing on the notion of property.

Ah, so Hitler and his cronies never murdered any Germans?

This old canard? Newsflash Berz, there is more than one code of law, and at this stage in mans hisotry, there are many old codes of law, many of which cut across state borders. Nazi killings were illegal, as were Nazi actions. Get over it.

And since you can intentionally kill someone in self-defense, the matter of innocence does matter... innocence is implied.

Incorrect. If you went out and shot a man wanted by the state for the crime of robbery, you have shot someone who is not innocent, but you have still commited murder, since you did not have the lawfull authority to do it.

Can the recognition of property qualify as a "norm" or "custom?
You know, like when the first groups of people bumped into each other and began bartering? If so, tell Templar because he thinks such a recognition came into existence only after government invented it with laws. As for the second part, no one intentionally took the life of an innocent before government invented murder with a law

Only to a limited extent can it recognize the notion of property, and sicne custom and norm are both human products that vary with time, this in no way helps you little theory. As for the second part: what you seem not to admit is that not all killing is murder, even intentional killing (soldiers kill intentionally, but only in some cases are they guilty of murder). Norms and customs and then the state defined murder (as they did manslaughter, another felony about killing people, but not murder) as a way to establish and keep social order. theya ssinged different punishments to the act, punishments that the whole of society was to accept as valid and just, and the whole aso agreed that only the state or those deputized by the state could rightfully punish anyone.

Religion? Why? Are you suggesting someone or something didn't create life and that acknowledging the opposite is a religious view?

Yes I am. A brand new chemical reaction can;t not grant rights. If you believe rights coem from a "creator", that can only work if said creator is sentient, or has a design of some sort, not is the something happened to be an accident of the universe that could keep multiplying.

Your task is coming up with a "logical" thought experiment, my question shows it isn't logical. Not everything that is inherent to man can be measured or tested, but we do know that no one wants to be murdered - that is "inherent".

Actually, anything inherent to man can be measured or tested, one way or another. As for people wanting to be murdered? Would that not be another form of suicide? People do commit suicide.

So now you're reaching beyond the government that sanctioned mass murder? Nice, so we've gone from rights emanating from government to rights emananting from human history?

Human legal history, as the modern state is itself a legal definition that does not have absolute sovereignty.

Denounce based on what? Right and wrong? Morality?

Both, depending on how you care to define either of those ideas.

Why do I need to prove that unversal desires exist? Rights are merely an acknowledgement and expression of these universal desires.

man has a universal desire for power, which human history clearly shows. Does man have a universal right to it? For every slaev that wanted to go free, there was a slavemaster who wanted to keep is slaves. What you fail to provide is a reason why the salve is correct and the slavemaster wrong, if all rights are simply manifestations of universal desires.

[David Floyd]

Bumping for Templar...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mr Fun - You're no fun, we're finally getting somewhere with this debate.

Stop lying!

[David Floyd]

If Templar was serious about not wanting to continue this "What Would Jesus Do?" debate, anyone else wanna take his spot, or have I trashed his arguments enough already?

[GePap]

Anyone who says heaven is for the poor is not a huge advocate of anything like capitalism or liberterianism.