what's "dangerous" about wanting to do something that is not prohibited by the constitution?

REPUBLICANS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (book banning or not. bunch of over-controlling, big business loving, war-mongering, starched collar fakers)

You're right. Every election most of the dumb public believes the lying politicians and votes for one of the liars. Nothing really changes. same ole **** keeps burying us. This gov't started out good 200 years ago but gradually became fascist; ie they promote the good of big industry because that is who pays them under the table.
Our last chance of maintaining the original ideal was lost in the civil war. That was when States rights lost out and big centralized government won. I won't fly an "American flag" because to me, as a Southerner, is the flag of my oppressors. I'll fly a rebel flag, nothing else.
We southerners were a free country after breaking away from the Union. We had our own president and our own constitution. The constitution did not prohibit States from breaking away. Lincoln declared war on an independent country in order to absorb it into the federalist union.
Big centralized government sucks.
Only ancient Greece had a true democracy. The people voted directly on issues that came up. They didn't have representatives that could be corrupted by money.
We do not have a true democracy.
I think anarchy would be a nice change from this ****.

more electronic mundane dribble.
Yeah, that's what we all need! (sarcasm)

I'm serious about not being serious. Long term relationships are death traps! You just get bored with the same ole all the time. Life is only interesting when there is enough change!

Lonely, your multiple quotes by multitudes of brainwashed people means nothing to me. Jesus gave the concept that the majority is always wrong by saying "wide is the way that leads to destruction and many there be therein, but narrow is the way leading to life and few there be that find it".

I personally really like most all the teachings of Jesus and try to live by them but I really don't like religion because its so slick and false. Christian promotion began as soon as Jesus died by his own disciples, something Jesus didn't teach them to do (at least not in that way). Many stories were exaggerated or made up in order to compete with the worship of Greek gods. I believe that the story of Jesus being born of a virgin is a good example of this. Please take the time to read all of the following study of this before posting an opinion. thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------

The gospel writer, Matthew, overextended himself trying to show that Jesus fulfilled a multitude of old prophecies. He even tried to make Jesus competitive with the fabled Greek "son-of-god" Heracles, the son of Zeus (the chief god) and the human virgin Alemene. Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah (chapter 7) who had prophesied that Syria and Israel wouldn't succeed in invading Judah. The sign of their upcoming failure would be a child named Immanuel which means "God with us", as opposed to God being with the attackers. (see 8:10 "it shall not stand: for God is with us.") All this would occur in Isaiah's time*, centuries before the time of Jesus. Isaiah wrote that the boy would be born of a "young woman". That word can also be translated "virgin" because back then, amongst the Jews, most young women were virgins. But Matthew used "virgin" and said that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, therefore making him a "son of god" in the Greek sense. Anyway, Matthew totally pulled this verse out of context and said it was applicable to Jesus, which it wasn't.

Isaiah 7:
1. Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the ... king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. 7. Thus says the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 8. ...within threescore and five (65) years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. 10. Moreover the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz (king of Judah), saying, 11. Ask for a sign from the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 16. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings. (This chapter is about how the two mentioned kings would not prevail against Jerusalem and that Ahaz, the king of Judah, would see it in his time, the proof being that a child will be born and named Immanuel, and that before he reaches the age of reasoning that the kings would leave their own land. This is a prediction concerning his time, not for later centuries (the time of Christ). It was a sign for Ahaz. It is utterly ridiculous to think that God would promise Ahaz a sign but then not show it to him. Signs are to be seen, not just heard of. (v 14 "the Lord himself shall give you a sign"). Why would God promise Ahaz a sign that wouldn't show itself until hundreds of years later? He wouldn't. God promised Ahaz a sign to be seen by him soon. There is no way in the world that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy because it was fulfilled in the time of Ahaz. The sign that Ahaz saw was a young child named Immanuel, knowing that before the boy knew how to choose the good that the kings of Israel and Syria would leave their lands (probably forcibly by an invading force).

Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke asserted that Jesus was born of a virgin (though neither was acquainted with Joseph and Mary at the time of Jesus' birth). But all the writings of Paul never mentioned such an important fact. Also, none of the other New Testament writers asserted that, including Jesus' own brother James. You would think that such an astounding and important story would be in each of their writings. But it wasn't. Actually, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed around 90 A.D., whereas Paul and the other apostles writings were made in the first few decades after Jesus' death, around 50 A.D. which would precede the two gospels accounting of the virgin birth. How can it be that Paul and the other apostles didn't know about this amazing part of Jesus' life? If they did, they surely would of wrote about it because that happening alone would of verified that Jesus was the son of God. But instead, they asserted that Jesus was the son of God because in the beginning he had emanated from God as "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14). He had pre-existed (Phil 2:6-8) before coming to Earth and had served God the Father as the creator of all that is physical (Col 1:16). He didn't come into existence as the son of the Father when he was born of Mary. He had already been the son of the Father for millions, possibly billions, of years already. This "bible error" allowed the Catholic organization to say that Mary was the Mother of god, and the Queen of heaven. It was the Catholics, at the church council of Nicea (325 A.D.), that came up with the "apostles creed" which was a statement of basic "orthodox" Christian beliefs, one of them being the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. Whatever the Catholics approve of definitely needs to be reviewed and studied without any presupposed ideas.

The Hebrew Old Testament in Isaiah 7:14 used the word "almah" meaning "young woman" or "virgin" instead of "bethuwlah" which exclusively means "virgin". Matthew used the Greek version which used "parthenos" meaning "virgin". Later Greek translations (after the 1st century) corrected the error and used the word "neanis" meaning "young girl".

Jesus referred to himself as a "Son of Man" (Luke 19:10). How could he do that without an earthly father? He couldn't. He'd have to say he was a "Son of Woman" or "Son of God". Jesus never said he was born of a virgin. Jesus almost exclusively called himself the "Son of Man" (a phrase found 81 times in the gospels) which would necessitate that he had an earthly father. In the Old Testament this phrase was used to humble the person it identified, signifying the person was "just human". It was mostly used by God to address a prophet. So Jesus used this phrase to identify himself as an earthly prophet, born of man.

How could Jesus be the Son of David (Matt 1:1, 2Tim 2:8) if he didn't have an earthly father in the lineage of David? He couldn't, despite the bible apologists saying that Mary was probably in David's lineage which would place Jesus in the same lineage (although not really because lineage is reckoned thru the males). In Romans 9:4-5 it is said that Jesus was of the Israelites as concerning the flesh. Galatians 3:16 says Jesus was the seed (offspring) of Abraham. Lineage comes through the father, in this case Joseph who was descended from David.

Jesus couldn't of been the son of the Holy Spirit as Matthew asserted in 1:18 because in Luke we find Jesus saying "my Father" eight times. He was always referring to God as the Father, not the Holy Spirit.

It's so weird to even think of the "Holy" Spirit becoming naked male flesh to "overshadow" Mary (Lk 1:35) and impregnate her with divine sperm. The absolute absurdity of it all! "Overshadowing" is what men do to women when they have sex in the most common position. Some people say that it wasn't a physical act but an act of divine creation. If that was so then why did Luke use the word "overshadow"? And why couldn't the Holy Spirit just say a creative word from up in heaven? No, Matthew and Luke were talking of a scenario very similar to what happened in Greek myths of gods physically mating with women.

Jesus would of had to be named Immanuel in order to fulfill this prophecy. He wasn't. But that extremely important point isn't important to fundamentalists. They never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Jesus' original name in Greek was Iesous and in Hebrew was Yehowshuwa (Joshua or Jehoshua) which means "Jehovah is salvation". Immanuel means "God with us".

2 scripture writers believed Jesus was born of a virgin: Matthew, Luke.
6 scripture writers believed Jesus wasn't born of a virgin (due to their lack of stating such an important fact): Mark, John, Paul, James (brother of Jesus who surely should of known), Peter, Jude.
Bible scholars say that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are a combination of their own writings, most of the gospel of Mark, and a theorized collection of sayings named the "Q sayings" by bible scholars. Could it be that the Q sayings contained this mistranslation/ fiction of Jesus' virgin birth?

Historically there did exist Christian groups that believed Jesus was birthed of a normal father and mother. The Ebionites were one of those early Christian congregations that stuck to the truth.

Liberal bible scholars take the view that the virgin birth of Jesus was pure mythology based on other pagan religions of the time. In Greek mythology Zeus supposedly impregnated the virgin Danae by taking the form of a shower of gold, and the result was Perseus. He did the same with the virgin Semele using a bolt of lightning, and the result was Dionysius. Horus, a major god of the Egyptian religion, was born of the virgin Isis and coincidentally was also supposedly born in a stable. Mithra, the main god in Mithraism, which was a major religion of Rome, was conceived when god in the form of light entered a virgin. Myrrha was a virgin who gave birth to Adonis in Phoenician mythology. As you can see, the concept of a virgin birth was not new and its mythology permeated throughout cultures at the time.

I believe Jesus' "virgin birth" is one of the Christian "fables" that Paul the apostle was warning the Christians to be wary of;
1 Tim 1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith".

no way. from Dallas to Austin is wooded. western Texas is desert. Eastern Texas is wooded.

thanks. I'm an alternative person in a conservative town. Not much chance for me because I kinda hate being in crowds, don't drink, etc.

Beautiful. animals have souls just like people

Yeah, I'm stuck here in this darn desert for now. Maybe one of you incredible females will invite me down to be your live-in massuesse, cook, and companion. I'm starting on-line sales of ATV parts. Hopefully soon I'll make enough from it. Till then I'm still slaving away at the ole grindstone. Anyone else feel like this?