casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Welcome to Poobama's Shartmerica.

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.

If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.

No, by God botherers I mean the Fundys and the Dominionists. The ones who are in your face, believe this is a Christian country and that you are bad for not believing on Jesus too, and in exactly the same way as them. You know, the ones who totally ignore Matthew 6:6 IIRC. I sorta meant exactly what it sounded like with botherers... the ones that bother you about their faith and what they think of you and yours. The ones who want our laws to reflect their beliefs

thisisarepeat: OK congrats, you can find a logic flaw in a Rush show. You do realize that if you ignored him completely, no matter how obscene his shiat gets, that he will end up on satellite radio and you can forget about him. Or do you need him?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.

And this is why I need to learn to refresh before posting. Please, don't take my last post as accusing you of proselytizing, that was completely unconnected to this post. Yours was a much better post than I could muster at this point (insomnia, wee). I try to not be one of those old testament, strangely not always easy. It certainly is an easy way out of an argument you may not be comfortable with.

No worries Bud, I made two posts addressing two separate issues. You have done nothing wrong.

It is an easy way out of an argument, because there is quite a disconnect between understanding what Jesus said, and actually living it in today's world. Frankly, being like Jesus is impractical at best and impossible at worst. Naturally we rationalize that as long as we do the best that we can it'll probably be enough; but that enters into a whole host of thorny theological issues where in you need to analyze your motives for your behaviors and that involves a lot of uncomfortable introspection. Jesus sure was a tough act to follow.

The most common cop-out that I see, and I see it all the time, is people who claim that simply saying that they have accepted Jesus as their savior is sufficient. I wholly and completely disagree 100%. If that belief isn't reflected in one's actions and just as importantly in one's motives for their actions I think that person is boned. At the end of the day I believe salvation is found through hearnestly

fiddle sticks...
earnestly loving one's follow men and woman and acting on that love for the sake of caring for them. Anything short of acting out of love, and demonstrating you believe in Jesus and love him through your actions is insufficient. They will know you are a Christian by the way that you act, and they reasons that you act that way.
You don't do the right thing because you are trying to do the right thing to be saved. You do the right thing because you love your fellow man and can't help but do everything in your power to help and comfort and care for and love them.
I'm sure this view point is quite odd coming from someone who is pretty damn sure there is no God, but still wonders quite a bit about it. I was a good Catholic until College, when I really started looking at the Catholic doctrine and asking questions that my priests didn't have sufficient answers for.Twas even an altar boy. I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat. I think that you are judged on how you acted and why, and if learning about Jesus and his message of peace and love is what got you on that track, great. If you act the exact same way but have never heard of Jesus, or you subscribe to Islam or Buddhism, that's great too.

Well, shiat.....

And not a single mention of farking a dead dog in front of a day care center. You'll are slippin'.

and has anyone seen |X|Jim|X| in the past while?

better?
Can't we talk about obscenity and theology? I mean, I already gave my opinion that this shouldn't be a surprising ruling. Aggravating yes, but it's not out of the blue.What else is there to say?

I thought the obscenity-meister looked like Commander Adama

Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Ok probably. My fault.

's all good.

I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

bacchanalias and consequences: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

So much this. If freedom of speech protects Westboro and the KKK how does it not protect to this.

Apparently, POOP THREADS are also verboten in the justice system, too. A 4-year bannination. Dayum.

DemonEater: Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed

Were they mistrials? I didn't see it in TFA, but that doesn't mean I might've missed it...

Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.

xanadian: Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.

Of course, with that all being said, all you need is a super genius prosecutor to go after WBC and claim that their radically-religious public displays also are a form of "obscene."

xanadian: Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.

All I can think is what does this say about our society where in order to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend this guy?