8-28-10
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=186565
Printed Date: 16 November 2025 at 3:15am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 8-28-10
Posted By: High Voltage
Subject: 8-28-10
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 1:34am
|
Where will you be when The Plan is unveiled? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 1:37am
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:24am
|
DC EDIT: Though, I should probably note that I'm not a big GB fan, and I don't like Palin at all. My friend just swore in, and he wanted to take the trip as a mini-vacation/celebration. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:28am
|
At home watching tv and not caring about Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin teaming up to make conservatives look crazy.
<.< |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 8:23am
|
Wherever the road takes me. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 9:35am
|
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-26-2010/i-have-a-scheme - I have a scheme
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:11pm
|
I hope that clip on the Daily Show is unedited from Glenn Beck. With the Iwo Jima scene.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:15pm
|
What did I miss?
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:50pm
|
Drinking (although not a whole lot). I turn 21 tomorrow, wheee! ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 9:31pm
I'll be cooking for USAF.... jerk.....  ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: PAINTBALL1
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 9:43pm
|
I'll be talking to my Dad at some point as he plans to attend the "rally". But before that, I'll be enjoying my quiet Saturday off wondering why everyone has their panties in a bunch over said rally.
Later that night I shall be at a local favorite watching UFC wahteverthefight enjoying a tastey cold beverage. ------------- USAF Special Weapons Technician. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 4:12pm
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 5:37pm
|
Is he really trying to pass off anything he does as apolitical? Also, inb4 lamestream media ignoring, intolerant left, or any other talking points from FOX news/breitbart/biggubment.com copy pasta'd by FE after telling others to think critically and for themselves. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 8:51pm
|
CNN covered it...
 Course... It is "Sarah" and she was the Vice Presidential candidate... And she is a woman... Clearly NOT Glenn Beck...
Guess the "most trusted name in news" wasn't worried about looking biased...
This was clearly a political event... With few that showed up...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
only 87,000 people.
Want to see what 87,000 looks like to CBS?
 ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:14pm
|
Glenn Beck is your role model isn't he?
-------------
|
Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:21pm
|
that does look to be about 87,000..
------------- 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:28pm
| As much as I don't like Glenn Beck, I lol'd at the hamster in the bank tube prank. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 10:45pm
|
The ignorance in this thread astounds me. I was there, as an observer more than anything, and I don't think a single political thing was said. It was promoting national unity, despite religion/race/etc. All of your ignorant statements were quite entertaining though.
The reflecting pool holds 200,000, the field adjacent to it holds 250,000. They were both full, PLUS the Lincoln Memorial, and back past the WW2 memorial. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
brave coward wrote:Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 1:17am
I lol'd. Go ahead and address them, usaf.
I've not read his speech yet, but we are talking about Glenn Beck here right? Why does he do the exact opposite on his TV show? -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 1:51am
I'm not a Beck fan. I've said that before. His TV show is incredibly sensationalized. Though I like some his anti-federalist views, and I think people would have a better idea of him if they heard his radio show. However, I went with a friend, because he asked me to go with him. I didn't see any of the horrible things everyone on this forum are always talking about. Sure, there was a Christian theme to it, though I'm sure that's enough for some people here to bash it, whatever. Guess how many times he mentioned politics at all? Once. To say that their message WAS A-political, because one of Obama's advisers was on stage. I get it though, anyone that's willing to let their faith show in their punditry is obviously an idiot worth making fun of, even if they were doing a non-denominational/cross-religion plea to better America. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 9:17am
Even if he didn't explicitly mention how he would improve the US, it's Glenn Beck, and therefore it's obvious how he would have it done (or at least how he wouldn't have it done and what he would complain about), and it is therefore hard for anyone who has watched his show or listened to his radio show to believe that his rally was just about improving America, without any ancillary political motives. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 9:37am
|
bias in... bias out. I liked this part...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 8:16am
|
Two rallies one day...
Let's look at what Martin Luther King actually said during his famous speech.
There were two events. One was promoted by the Government, telling its union members that they needed to attend... Here are some of the comments at the smaller government sanctioned event.
"“We will not stand silent as some seek to bamboozle Dr. King’s dream,” said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. “We reclaim the dream of Dr. King for the 21st century. We reclaim this dream because we are here to say we must be one nation. We stand on the shoulders of our fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers.”
Jaime Contreras, president of SEIU-32BJ, said those gathered at the Mall with Beck “represent angry white people and hate-mongering.” He added: “We will not let them stand in the way of the change we voted for!”  Avis Jones DeWeever, executive director of the National Council of Negro Women, drew thunderous roars when she challenged those gathered to stand up for their place. “Don’t let anyone tell you that they have the right to take their country back,” she said. “It’s our country, too. We will reclaim the dream. It was ours from the beginning.”"
"“They may have the mall, but we have the message. They may have the platform, but we have the dream.” Sharpton and other activists gathered to commemorate the 47th anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech, then joined hands and walked 3 miles to the site of King’s future memorial. “This is our day and we ain’t giving it away,” said Sharpton."
But... The words of Martin Luther King were so appropriate...
Then a second, larger rally... By "angry white people who were hate-mongering", who were labeled by the media as "conservatives" (interesting, as I have never seen a "liberal" event labeled as such by the media?... Why is that... I guess if it is liberal it is "correct", and conservative is the Baaaad group.)
Here are a few exerpts from that event.
Dr. Alveda King (Martin Luther Kings niece)
Sarah Palin
Glenn Beck
By watching the media coverage, you would not have heard any of the words at the Beck rally... But, now that you can see them for yourself, does it change your opinion on the focus of the rally? Does it bother you that the government told its people to attend one of the rallies? ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 9:30am
|
It really doesn't really change the fact that Glenn Beck is a retard of the ninth order, and needs to do us all a favor and jump off a cliff.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 1:42pm
And there it is... The perfect parroting of the media, in almost a lemming like fashion.
Why is Glenn Beck so threatening to the liberals in media and politics?
Because he can pull 500,000 people to washington by himself! Name one liberal that has that kind of power...
It is no wonder they attack him so often and with such vitriol.
Here he is on O'Reilly
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4325074/big-victory-for-glenn-beck/ - http://video.foxnews.com/v/4325074/big-victory-for-glenn-beck/
and Sharpton on O'Reilly for those without Fox news channel.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4325108/sharptons-take-on-becks-rally/ - http://video.foxnews.com/v/4325108/sharptons-take-on-becks-rally/ ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 3:23pm
|
So without sounding stupid, What was the rally meant to achieve? The way I see American politics(/whatever this was) as an outsider is that people talk a lot without really saying anything. Was this just an inspirational speech to make everyone passionate about the current situations? Was it a show of defiance to the government? Are there any tangible targets that this was meant to achieve? I'm sure I could look for myself and find the answers but I want it in plain English and from a supporter like you FE. |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 8:18pm
Hmm.... Didnt President Obama get something like 1.8 million people to attend his rally in Washington? Outdoor music festivals get crowds larger than that and they have to pay for the event. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 8:33pm
WRONG Being aware that Glenn Beck is an idiot is not parroting the media, it's watching the media and forming an opinion. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 8:44pm
|
Religion has no place in Politics. A man's relationship with what ever god he worships is a intimate thing between said person and his belief. To thrust a religion over another not only is unamerican it's against the Founding Father's ideal for a great Nation. If they had planned on America being a Christian/Catholic/Muslim state they would had put it in the frame work of the Constitution. But they clearly put lines between State and Religion.
Absolute Religion in a State leads to Taliban like states where the will of said God is perverted and bend to fit the agenda of those in power. America isn't turning away from God. America is turning away from Religious Institutions that while claiming to be righteous and Holy. Molest Children, Scam Member, Gossip, Stereotype and spread Fear in the name of God. Most Americans believe in some sort of Higher Power. They are just not drinking the Kool Aid. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 9:24pm
Tbh, I don't think anyone in the mainstream media has the balls to call Glenn Beck a retard, even though they all think it. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 9:51pm
I love you, this is perfect, and to hear it coming from a man such as yourself is good to see. This sums up my feelings on it nicely |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 11:16pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 8:36am
I wasn't there... I was helping my brother put in a concrete porch...
But, I have read a lot about it, and watched a ton of it online.
To me the rally was to focus people back on the founding principles of our country. Restoring honor and integrity in each one of us.
Our country (although many try to disagree today) was founded on Judeo Christian values. We have watched as athiestic values have permiated the American system (the best in history) and the destruction that follows.
Until we as a country get back to God, we can't expect things to get better.
That was the goal of the meeting, to show that there is still a large part of America that believes in God. And that belief guides their principles and integrity. Because all of the freedoms we were given were not given by man... but, by God. When we take those freedoms and put them in the hands of politicians instead of focusing on God... We all suffer the loss of those freedoms. Not to say athiests can't have those things too... But, looking at the large amount of corruption in politics/society and human behavior today and it is clear that the change to eliminate God from schools, and the humanistic focus has hurt the character and family units in our society.
I read an interesting study this morning that talks about exactly this idea, and how it breaks down the community, when certain people don't follow what is best and instead cheat the system. Typically because of a lack of a belief in God. And a focus on humanism (what is best for individual) instead of focusing on what is best for family units, or community.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&ft=1&f=1001 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&ft=1&f=1001
"In the history of the world, every culture in every location at every point in time has developed some supernatural belief system. And when a human behavior is so universal, scientists often argue that it must be an evolutionary adaptation along the lines of standing upright. That is, something so helpful that the people who had it thrived, and the people who didn't slowly died out until we were all left with the trait. But what could be the evolutionary advantage of believing in God?"
Very interesting read... (and NPR too)
But, to read media reports... That is only getting one world views version of what happened, and based on the past few years of posts I have showed you how the media is hugely biased in our country.
Glenn Becks show last night covered the media's vs what actually happened.
It is very enlightening if you decide to watch it, it is the event and the coverage wrapped up in 15 minutes. If you want to skip the first 8:30 of the first video that gets to the meat of the event.
I have a ton of friends who went. They said they waited for over 2 hours in line for the subway just to get there...
I went to the Promise Keepers event back in the late 90's and stood front and center to the stage... That was a massive crowd like this, and that event changed my life. I am sure that the people who attended will never forget, and this will impact their lives as well.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 8:56am
|
The American Dream is a lie. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 5:11pm
|
I have to say if this was based on religion and with Glenn Beck the way he is (political pundit) then it could have been a bit more tactful in it's approach. Sarah Palin probably should have steered clear of it. As to the Judeo Christian values. That's bollocks. Morality is not exclusive to the Christian church. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 5:39pm
All 3 major religions were actually included in the happenings. The true tenet behind it all was that anyone who is a follower of the main religions on Earth has one thing in common with everyone, their belief in the great and merciful God(no matter by WHAT name you call him), and that it is everything that we have in common we should be focusing on to bring us together, not the differences. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:19pm
|
What is an atheistic value?
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:29pm
Well, if I only had you to judge from, I guess it would be that of being an elitist asshat and ignoring the point someone is trying to make, if only to justify your own feelings. Last time I checked, there wasn't a large public perception of Christians vs Atheists or Jews vs Atheists or Muslims vs Atheists, so I imagine that there wouldn't be much point in adding that group into a message trying to diffuse tension between the three aformentioned religions. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:31pm
|
I am not an elitist asshat. You don't even know me brother man. I don't see a point when the point involves Christian values vs. Atheistic values like not believing in god is bad. On that note, I still would like to know the answer to the question. What is an atheistic value? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:35pm
Either you don't understand what I'm saying, your point of contention is with someone other than me, or you're being difficult on purpose. It wasn't about one group's values versus the others. It was about the shared ground between the large groups outweighing the differences, and about how people should draw on their faith in a higher power, rather than the differences in a book. I assume that you are referring to part of FE's post, but he's not really explaining the concept of the rally very well at all. It wasn't about "America should be ruled by Christians" or "proving Christians still exist in America." I also think you're intentionally misinterpreting what FE said, because it's NOT that atheists can't hold the same values as Christians are SUPPOSED to, only that in an ideal situation, every Christian would have those values because of their religion, and an atheist could theoretically choose to value whatever they pleased. Now, if you are looking for a reason to be contentious, go right ahead, par for the course between you two, but you're reaching. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:39pm
USAF, I was not talking about your post. I was talking about this quote specifically.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 6:58pm
Yeah, I went in and edited my response, but FE did sort of redeem himself from that as well.
I think it was less an attack on people who hold an atheistic belief(or the lack of said belief), but a comment on a loss of what a Christian would consider ideals. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 7:10pm
|
But it is not "clear" that the change to eliminate god has any effect whatsoever on character. Why does it have anything to do with god? Just as many self described Christians, Muslims, whatever else have horrible character. Everyone is corrupt, it has nothing to do with atheism. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 9:37pm
|
Benji I am the American Dream. -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 9:51pm
[/QUOTE] Are implying that politicians back in the day were devoid of corruption? ------------- 
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 01 September 2010 at 10:28pm
I have removed the Christian church part but you could always replace it with religion in general. Surely anyone in American politics knows not to stir things up in the name of religion. (by major religions I assume it was Christian, Judaism(sp?) and Muslim?) |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 7:44am
Secular humanism... You know the religion being taught in schools today. "if it feels good, do it", as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else.
Aka "there is no "right or wrong" everything is relative...
Stuff like that.
further description?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values - http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values
Now, I know you glossed over this study I posted in the post that generated your question. But, you really shouldn't as it directly ties into this discussion, and it is quite interesting.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&ft=1&f=1001 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&ft=1&f=1001
"In one experiment, children between the ages of 5 and 9 were shown to a room and told to throw a Velcro ball at a Velcro dartboard. They were told that if they were able to hit the bull's-eye, they'd get a special prize. But this particular game had an unusual set of rules: The children were told that they had to throw from behind, they weren't allowed to throw the ball while facing the dartboard, and they had to use their nondominant hand — rules that basically made it impossible for any of the children to win the game unless they cheated.
The children in the study were divided into three groups. The first group was left alone and told to play the game as best they could. The second were told the same, with one difference — the children in the second group were told that there was someone special who was going to watch them. The experimenters showed the kids a picture of a very pretty woman — a character that Bering had made up whose name was Princess Alice. Princess Alice, the kids were told, had a magical power: Alice could make herself invisible. Then the children were shown a chair and were told that Alice was sitting in the chair and that Alice would watch them play the game after the researcher left. The third group of kids was told to play the game, but the researcher sat with them and simply never left the room at all. The question that Bering sought to answer was this: Which group of children was least likely to cheat? The children in the first group — the completely unsupervised kids — by far cheated the most. But what was surprising was the behavior of the second group. The children who were under the impression that Princess Alice was in the room with them were just as likely to refrain from cheating as those children who were actually in the room with a physical real-life human being. A similar study Bering did with adults showed the same thing — that they were dramatically less likely to cheat when they thought they were being observed by a supernatural presence." Answer these questions to yourself.
1. Presented with an opportunity to cheat on a test, that really matters, and no one would ever know... Would you cheat in order to get a better grade?
2. If lying would keep you from a difficult situation, would you lie, if it hurt no one, and no one would ever know?
Today, our society has removed God from everything we do... and made it OK to openly mock and degrade anyone who vocally believes in God. (we see examples of this from you guys towards me very often)
This attack on "God" isn't actually an attack on God, it is a personal struggle that you are dealing with, as you were born with an understanding that life couldn't just happen. Someone had to design it. We all know deep in our subconscious that there is a God that Created us and the world. But, as many have moved to a secular humanistic belief system, and eliminated the "need" for god... You have a constant internal conflict going on. Man has a sin nature, and we are always tempted with doing wrong. Belief in God forces us to realize that no matter what we do, God is watching, and that impacts our decisions. Unless you elminate God from your beliefs... Then you can do as you wish, without that deterrant. So you lash out, which if you studied psychology, you would understand that the things that most bother you about other people... Are the things that actually bother you about yourself... And seeing someone with a strong "God" foundation, would certainly force you to lash out because of your internal struggle.
But, having many in our society with similar "lack" of God beliefs... Then it becomes a group thing, and we all know that a group is much more easily "led" around than grounded individuals with strong moral convictions. Hence the reasons liberal groups tend to riot so quickly... As individuals they probably wouldn't. But as a group... they go off the deep end... because of their secular humanism world view, or "atheistic values". ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 8:14am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 8:18am
|
nice try...
http://www.secular-humanism.com/ - http://www.secular-humanism.com/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 8:58am
|
Here is a confrontation at the rally...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 9:12am
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 12:32pm
That reads like someone like you wrote it. AKA: Someone who is saying it is being taught in school so they made a website to "prove it" ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 12:53pm
|
Sad... Here is another by the national center for science education (NCSC)
Are they credible enough for you?
http://ncse.com/media/voices/council-democratic-secular-humanism - http://ncse.com/media/voices/council-democratic-secular-humanism
You are a product of this indoctrination as you parrot it often.
"Defending the constitutional separation of church and state, secular humanists deplore the efforts of biblical fundamentalists or so-called scientific creationists to invade science classrooms and pressure textbook publishers with their religious myth and political agenda. We reject the teaching of religious fundamentalism as a viable alternative to organic evolution in science texts and biology classes. In fact, all religious beliefs and practices have evolved throughout human socio-cultural development. Clearly, a strict and literal interpretation of Genesis is merely a religious account for the origin of life that is not subject to testing by evidence, experience and experimentation. Consequently, biblical creationism is an ongoing and serious threat to science education, responsible research, critical thought and free inquiry. Authority and revelation are not reliable substitutes for the scientific method and logical procedure. In short, rigorous scrutiny shows evolutionary science and scriptural literalism, with its appeals to miraculous causes, to be opposing explanations for the appearance of all life forms on this planet. "
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:00pm
|
Please tell me what indoctrination I parrot? Ready? Go ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:18pm
This is your post, so I assume this is your beliefs. Clearly you don't see the similarites between "science" and what is described in the secular humanism beliefs I posted, but they match up perfectly, as you clearly adopted the indoctrination as your own. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:27pm
|
What is the point of the highlighted parts of my post? What are you trying to say? I do not believe in god, therefore I do not believe in creationism. Creationism is religious, science is not religious no matter how many times you and OS say "NO RELIGION IS RELIGION" Also, you are far more indoctrinated in your beliefs than I will ever be. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:41pm
|
I see why he's back on his indoctrination rant: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009010042 -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:43pm
I dunno FE, it sounds reasonable enough to me. In short, they're stating that they don't wish our children to be force fed erroneous beliefs from over 500 years ago. Furthermore, being the staunch defender of the constitution that you make yourself out to be, I'd think that you'd stand by their efforts to prevent the mingling of church and state. If you want your children to grow up not understanding the scientific nature of our universe and be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead for humanity, go ahead and home school them or tell them to forget all the "nonsense" that they're being taught in school. But that wouldn't work for those who want creationism, rather than verifiable scientific fact, taught in the classroom because they know that their children will ultimately decide for themselves what is true and what is not, and they want to stack the deck so that their children will wind up as ignorant as themselves. People can believe in both God and the laws of science. I do. How has my faith been tainted by the supposed evils of our education system? It hasn't. To quote one man who was almost burned at the stake for professing that the earth is indeed round, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:44pm
|
I don't know the point of you highlighting your post. You did that, not me. I think you need to do some serious
Guess Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
The difference between us is one of us knows who they are and what they believe. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:48pm
I pretty much can't see anything wrong with this. Maybe they could have refrained from the terms "myth, invade" etc so that they didn't piss off the religious folks. On a semi related note I don't think religion should be taught as fact anywhere that a child is required to go by law like school. (Perhaps with the exception of RE where all religions are covered equally as a way to promote tolerance and never taught as fact) Religion is entirely optional. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:48pm
|
Oh I highlighted it? Probably because you were on some rant about creationism and evolution and I found that to say exactly what my post says. You don't even know my beliefs to call them secular humanism. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ArthurBignose
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 1:54pm
No, it wasn't. Read the Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article 11. It can be found here (the links library of congress, arguably the best source you could possibly have): http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=341 - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=341 This was signed by one of the founding fathers, John Adams, in 1797. Here is his signing statement: This is just just one piece of evidence and is probably the easiest to understand. Most of the founding fathers were in fact Deists, meaning they believed in a higher power, but did not subscribe to a religion. There is a great book by Richard Dawkins called The God Delusion. The point that you would get out of it is that one does not need God to be moral. Then, you should read God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins by Thomas Crean so you can see points from both sides of the isle. I have read both and I think you will learn a lot from them. Advancement of knowledge is never a bad thing, right? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:00pm
I hate to discuss anything with you because of the way you degrade me in every post. I have a
bachelor of sciences degree from a university, and I understand how to look at something and compare it with current concepts and beliefs. Do I really need to bust out a list of scientists who believe in Creation? For example you say you believe in the secular humanistic evolutionary belief system.
So how old is the earth according to them? I am not sure today as it gets older so often it is hard to keep track... Last I remember it was billions of years old.
So if this earth is billions of years old. Then nothing from the beginning of time would still exist undisturbed... Right? I mean the earth is constantly rocking and shaking, and volcano's as well as floods, and meteors have messed it up plenty over the past billions of years...
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-earth-rock-lava.html - http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-earth-rock-lava.html
"Chunk of Original Earth Found
A piece of pristine, hot rock from the earliest years of Earth's formation is found in northern Canada.""That pocket survived for 4.5 billion years under Baffin Island without being mixed by plate tectonics or erupted onto the surface."
According to the same "science" we are all studying... There is NO WAY that could happen... Unless the earth is younger than originally thought...
But, wait, that wouldn't fit the story of the "science of evolution"...
"But the new discovery could change those models and their predictions. "It turns everything on its head."" ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ArthurBignose
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:11pm
If the universe is not billions of years old, how do you explain something such as the galaxy cluster Abell 370, which is about 6,000,000,000 light years away? As you know from your science degree, it would take 6,000,000,000 years for the light from that cluster to reach earth, which means it had to have been sent out at least 6,000,000,000 years ago in order for us to see today. Perhaps God created the photons a few thousand years ago already traveling towards earth in hopes to confuse future scientists and provide evidence against his own creation? Not likely. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:11pm
And with science, if that happens then it happens. Creationists just cover their ears and say "NUH UH GOD MADE IT" ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:14pm
|
Isn't the treaty of Tripoli sometimes dismissed as questionable in translation? Seems like I read that somewhere.
Though, the point is still correct-this nation was likely not founded on Christian Judeo values...I'd say at best it shares some ideas. But the Bible hardly endorses slavery, or the notion of devoting white male landowners. Not the mention the Bible can be a tad socialistic in practice. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:15pm
| Meant favoring white male landowners...my iPhone doesn't like the edit button today... |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 2:36pm
Read the god delusion, and the other as well, as I love to learn.
Problems with Dawkins book include the kalam cosmological argument aka Nothing comes from nothing.
yet the universe is here... So it must have come from something, and had cause to be here. Just like you and me. To ignore this would mean ignoring science.
But, since you brought up John Adams, and a treaty the US made with a non Christian nation... AT WAR WITH CHRISTIANITY (hmm muslims again... what a coincidence) Let us look at some facts.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
"That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.
Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) " "The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 19 This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product2.html - Original Intent ), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them. This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
To say that the founders were deists is laughable...
Have you read any of their works... Not current "history" books but the originals? I have a ton of them... They don't say what you think they say, if you think the founders were deists.
David Barton (another friend of mine) wrote a great article about this almost 10 years ago... And yet, the fallacy that the founders were deists still exists...
As you said, "Advancement of knowledge is never a bad thing"... Right?...
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=113 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=113
"None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.
The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights. Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven." And since you brought up John Adams...
Lets look at some of his quotes.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN1 - 1 The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN2 - 2 Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN3 - 3 The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN4 - 4 Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be! http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN5 - 5 I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755#FN6 - 6 " http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755 ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 3:11pm
 ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 5:26pm
|
FE, whether or not the founding fathers were deists, atheists, etc etc,, the point is that the founding fathers were attempting to escape a country that endorsed its laws with religion. Whatever was on their mind at the time, we now realize that religion + politics = disaster. As has been made the point before, assuming the nation was founded on Christian morals, which version of Christianity was it? I can almost guarantee that you and I, both claiming Christianity, would find much to disagree about on the subject. While I don't practice my beliefs, I come from a very hard line of Christianity. I believe that Christianity is a far more disciplined, strict belief set than what is practiced by the vast majority of those claiming to be Christians today. And even if we agree on strict beliefs, I'm sure we differ in ideologies. I know Christians that are evolutionists, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, anti gun, blah blah, so on and so on. Religion is too varied and too relative to be used in the foundation of a legal system. No matter how you shape it, and even in your own religious sect, someone is going to feel imposed upon. Government has no business establishing moral precedent. Government exists for the protection of the society infrastructure, nothing more, nothing less. They establish the order and safety that we enjoy, but they don't decide our moral outcomes. That's my mini rant on why I feel religion and politics shouldn't exist within a mile of each other. Much like the Simpson's episode, I believe church and state should have a restraining order placed on them. And even if separation of church and state isn't mentioned or implied in the Constitution, it's a good principle to live by. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 9:11pm
|
*Cough* actually the bible does condone slavery *cough*
Just not the new testament, which in all reality, is all that matters if you're a Christian. You know, the whole "died for our sins, do this in rememberence of me, with this the covenant is broken and made anew" kinda tells us that everything else is just bunk, especially the part where Jesus is asked what commandment is the most important and he then tells us that our love of God is most important followed shortly thereafter with our love of our neighbors and really, if we treat our neighbors as we'd wish to be treated, then everything else would fall right in line. (note that I'm paraphrasing there) I find it silly that people will argue the immutable fact of radio-decay and the constant of the speed of light in an effort to defend a poorly translated scripture which has been re-worked so many times that it's virtually impossible to tell if any of it actually says what the original did. One only needs to look at the problems Jesus faced in his time with the desecration of the scripture by the pharisees and sadducees and draw parallels to the desecration of the gospels by the RCC in the middle ages (and even today). I still stand by the argument that the old testament has nothing to do with being a true Christian. Oh, and by the way: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/ - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/ ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 9:23pm
|
The New Testament doesn't render the Old Testament bunk, in the slightest. The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.
While it may seem complicated to figure out what is rendered null in Old Testament, it's actually pretty simple. The sacrificial system is done away with, and the need for God to work through middle man commandment systems is nonexistent because of the communication afforded by the Holy Spirit. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 9:31pm
Surely this in itself shows that no organised religion is to be trusted. It absolutely boggles my mind how people can still follow a religious dogma. Surely changing the practice of a religion for any reason completely nullifies the religion both before and after the change. With all these religions and different sects of the same religion kicking about how can you be so daft/ messed up in the head to believe one over any other as absolute fact. /tangent |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 10:07pm
|
Scotchy, what I described was not organized religion, but rather the core beliefs of Christianity.
There's not as much contradiction as it seems-in reality, the Olld Testament was unfinished, with the unfulfilled prophecy of the messiah.The changes that Christ brought were not only perfectly inime, they were predicted. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 02 September 2010 at 11:58pm
|
Strato,
Here's my question, why do the core beliefs of Christianity go beyond Love God and love thy neighbor as you love thyself? Jesus himself said
Or, if you prefer a little Luke to accompany and confirm your Matthew:
He literally tells us that on those two commandments hang the law and the word of the prophets. And if you think about it, that's all it really boils down to doesn't it? You should love God for giving you what he has given and treat others how you would want to be treated, and that really, honest to God, takes care of every other law or mandate ever handed down by prophets, kings, or supreme court justices. How can anyone say that there's any more to the core beliefs of Christianity than those two beliefs right there? ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 7:47am
By a HUGE majority the founders were Christians, and many were ministers as well. As I proved above, the treaty of Tripoli was NOT an instance of John Adams saying that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation. Anyone who reads what I posted will see that.
Furthermore, the attempt to manipulate the facts about our countries history is a perfect example of bias in our education system. They ignore the writings so that you don't know what these men were like.
U. S. Department of Education history researcher Dr. Paul Vitz:
Bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion. . . . Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship. Off the top of your head, name 10 people involved with the Constitution... Not easy is it... Why is that? If this were the most important document in the history of the world, you would think they would cover the authors a little bit more...
Lets look at some quotes as they tell us what they were thinking... Without being muddled up by others "telling" us what they were thinking... We can read their own words.
John Adams. (remember this is the guy posted as a "deist" by bruce above)
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.) [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.) The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.) How about John Quincy Adams (6th President)
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.) There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy. (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.) Samuel Adams Signer of the Declaration of Independence [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. (Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.) Fisher Ames Framer of the First Amendment Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.) Charles Carroll of Carrollton Signer of the Declaration of Independence Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.) Oliver Ellsworth Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court [T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion. (Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut) Benjamin Franklin Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence [O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. (Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. (Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
Thomas Jefferson Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.) The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.) I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.) Richard Henry Lee Signer of the Declaration of Independence It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people. (Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.) James McHenry Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.) Jedediah Morse Patriot and "Father of American Geography" To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them. (Source: Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.) William Penn Founder of Pennsylvania It is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's. (Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.) Pennsylvania Supreme Court No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. (Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).) Benjamin Rush Signer of the Declaration of Independence The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.) We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism. (Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.) By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18] (Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.) Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful. (Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.) Joseph Story Supreme Court Justice Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. (Source: Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442.) George Washington "Father of Our Country" While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support. (Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.) Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.) [T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people. (Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.) * For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=12 - click here . Daniel Webster Early American Jurist and Senator If we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity. (Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.) Noah Webster Founding Educator The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts. (Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.) James Wilson Signer of the Constitution Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. (Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.) Robert Winthrop Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. (Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.") Unlike many who post vast generalizations of deceit. These are all cited actual quotes from our founding fathers. Reading them, it would be impossible to pretend that our country wasn't founded on Christian principles as a Judeo Christian government. Now that you know these things, let's stop repeating the lie that the founders were "deists, or atheists"...
The list above, as well as the others I posted above prove otherwise, and if you want more evidence visit wallbuilders.com. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 12:26pm
|
And yet the first amendment still forbids the government from respecting the establishment of a religion so anything you've posted really doesn't matter. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 12:32pm
The Bible really does boil down to loving thy neighbor...the entire New Testament is built around the idea that our responsibility in life lies in our relationship with God, and projecting that relationship on our fellow man. For instance Christ's statement of "Greater love hath no man...". Jesus equated almost everything on a level of friendship, even above that of earthly family. So to answer your question, there is nothing above those two commandments. But Jesus hung alot of responsibility on the claims of loving God. I'm about to leave, so I don't have time to reference exact Scriptures, but they're all four Gospel quotations. For instance, Jesus referred to love being synonymous with obedience. So without obeying God's commandments, you couldn't possibly claim to love him. This is also addressed when Jesus talked about those on judgement day claiming they had cast out demons and worked in the name of Christ, yet He tells them He never knew them. In short, I think that obedience is the highest form of love. And the Bible does outline a very specific lifestyle that a Christian lives. Now mankind, especially in the South / Bible belt, has added to that with his own standards, and attached religious stigmas to things that the Bible really doesn't reference (drinking, smoking, swearing, TV, video games, etc etc) in a degree high enough to really provide concrete foundation, but there is still a lifestyle that separates the Christian from the sinner. Let me make this clear though-I'm talking about what I've formed as an opinion from years I spent in Church studying the Bible. I left Church a while ago, and I don't live the life of a born again believer. So I don't want anyone here thinking that I'm preaching how to live your life, or trying to degrade your religious beliefs. My purpose in this whole thing is trying to show that the modern far right wing neocon's desire to see a Christian centered government is misguided at best. Christianity isn't easily defined, we could all argue for eternity (lawl) on the intricacies that make up the Christian doctrine, and I don't see how someone endorsing that political ideology defines a "Christian government." And responding to FE's post, I appreciate the effort you put into your replies. For real, I don't know anyone else on this forum that spends that much time working out quotes and references, so in all seriousness, props for your dedication. But again, the individual beliefs of the founding fathers isn't my concern. My concern is that I don't feel that the government should be guided by God's Law, but rather the minimum set of regulations needed to keep peace and safety in society. That's my legal doctrine, my ideology on the government. The least amount possible to get the job done. That doctrine applies to my feelings on regulation of the private sector, abortion laws, marriage laws, gun laws, seatbelt laws, media censorship, etc etc etc. I feel that's the idea this country was founded on, from the debates on the federalist papers, to the compromise that was the Constitution, we exist in a struggle between states' rights and bloated government. I feel like it's irresponsible to answer questions of legality with responses of morality. The government doesn't dictate moral character, but rather legal restraint. That's not saying that laws can't line up with Biblical principles-I've always said, the Bible is primarily common sense. So it's bound to create some similarities with common sense legislation. Thou shalt not kill, for instance. That's a principle that easily translates to a legal precedent. But thou shalt not commit adultery...notsomuch. So the tl;dr....I don't understand the push to equate the legal system with Biblical principles. I don't see why it's relevant, and I don't see what's accomplished in it. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 1:09pm
|
Strato, to piggyback on your post about gov't and religion, Theocracies have never worked. We simply need to look at our own past of Judeo-Christian theocracies to see this as well as the current iteration of Islamic theocracies around the world, a prime example being Iran. When the Arabian nations were at the height of world culture and reasoning back in the middle ages, it was distinctly due to their tolerance of other religions as well as their kings' abilities to separate their actions as head of state from their religious beliefs. In fact, the Crusades were far more religious on the Christian end than they were on the Arab end of things.
As for the obedience end of things on the scriptures. I find it convoluted to believe that Jesus tells us to hang all the laws and the prophets on the commandments of love of God and love of thy neighbor, but still hang onto the individual laws and commandments of the old testament. For one, the commandments all fall under loving God and loving thy neighbor anyway. As for the laws, I think it negates virtually all of Leviticus which is what the hate mongers quote so often (and hypocritically) when decrying homosexuals, women's rights, etc. Furthermore, doesn't Jesus say that the old covenants are broken and a new one is made with his sacrifice for our sins? If a covenant is broken, then it no longer applies. The new covenant still covers the tenants of the old covenant, but without the confusion. So, yes it means that the old testament is still relevant in a sense, but following it as law rather than the idea that it is important to do Gods will by treating your fellow man with respect and kindness is counterproductive at best. Also, I think this brings into light a big elephant in the room. Jesus says that only through following him will the kingdom of heaven be found. Does he mean an eternal ethereal heaven? Or does he mean a literal kingdom of Heaven on earth where everyone treats each other the way they should be, free of crime, hunger, poverty, and humans generally hurting other humans. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 1:47pm
Actually, everything I posted does matter... It was omitted from your education for a reason, so that you wouldn't know your history and rights, and from whom those rights come from...
Here is a hint, the freedom we enjoy isn't from our government. It is from God, as you were endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights...
let's look at the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No where in that statement is a "separation of church and state" that phrase came from a letter and has been propoganded into public thought, even though it is in ZERO founding documents. That letter was between Jefferson and the Baptist church...
The goal of which you can read if you read the actual letter (don't take my word for it, or anyone elses for that matter... LOOK for yourself at the original, as that is a "true" education instead of an indoctrination). "Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."
Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
Why did he write this letter? Well obviously you have to look at what was going on during that time... Context is everything.
David can say it much better than I so I will post his thoughts on how a personal letter written by someone not even associated with the writing or congressional debates became the voice and new interpretation of what was "meant" by the first amendment...
"In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor." Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123#FN10 - [10] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference. So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor." That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc. Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy. One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant." http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
And that is a perfect example of bias manipulating the public and changing the intent of the founders... To appease a certain ideology (secular humanism...) Which according to many of you is the proper
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ArthurBignose
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 3:46pm
Ooh, a quote war sounds like fun. I'll add these to the battle:"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John AdamsYou'll really like these next three: Here is a real heavy hitter about separation of church and state. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CTAnd some comedic relief: "What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas PaineWhat I'm really interested in though, is your answer to my previous question:
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 4:13pm
|
Well, since I was talking about the age of the earth... and not the universe.. But what is a strawman between friends...
I will answer your question with a question...
When Jesus was born, history (as well as the Bible) tells us that a brand new star showed where he was born...
How could the light from that star appear at the exact moment Jesus was born? Since we know it had to be many light years away...
Oh, and quotes only have real relevance when the source that they came from can be verified... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 4:30pm
|
OK FE, I'll play a little if you do. Hypothetically God would have known when Jesus was to be born since he is omniscient and would have created the star however-many years before for the light to reach Earth then. That, or it was a comet or something. This is of course, assuming the the Bible is an accurate source of historical and astrological events. Now it's my turn for a question: Was Aquinas wrong when he stated that God cannot be a deceiver because that would make him imperfect and then not God? Would God, which if we can agree on some of his believed qualities, who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and otherwise perfect, intentionally plant bad data to cause skeptics to damn themselves by believing evidence( which by your belief was created by God, just like everything else) or are we just to stupid to interpret said evidence (Carbon-14 data, the speed of light, physics, fossils, geology, genetics etc)? Please explain your understanding and opinion of Aquinas' evidence for God. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 5:55pm
|
FE, my question still stands. Why is it relevant to call America a Christian country? What does it change? The laws we have are based around an ideology of individual freedom / protection. Calling it Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, etc doesn't change anything because we're not a theocracy. Otherwise, if this were truly a Christian country, fornication and adultery would be illegal.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 7:32pm
In the Bible it tells us to study what God Created as it will show us more about God.
I think that is the true point of science. But, when you look at science without the truth of God being involved you start going down a path that will lead to silly interpretation.
Is that Gods fault?
We all have free will. And that free will enables us to decide to ignore God and pretend that he doesn't exist. When you have that world view then you will make incorrect assumptions based on the evidence.
A devout evolutionist will see billions of years, even when the evidence says otherwise. Is that Gods fault? He gave the devout evolutionist free will to choose on his own...
As a Creationist, I see all man as the same as you and me. So if I see a super old man, he was just as intelligent as we are today. He used tools and built things.
Evolutionists think he could be "pre-evolved" and not as smart.
That type of thinking is very degrading as it shows that they believe some haven't evolved as much and are therefore dumb...
when mental capacity can be developed in anyone without deficiencies. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 10:56pm
El oh el. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 11:54pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 03 September 2010 at 11:56pm
Major LOL but the possible interpretations are quite disturbing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 04 September 2010 at 12:05am
As intended.  -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 04 September 2010 at 10:56pm
I lol'd hard at this. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 8:52am
It changes the world view...
Look at the quotes from our founders that I posted (unlike the ones that bruce posted where they aren't referenced... Typical of the left to invent quotes that fit their world view... They probably came from athiest.com or something similar)
Look at our society when it was founded. NO one had locks on their doors... ever.
Could you do that today?
Church was a MAJOR part of society. Most legislators attended. Shoot the biggest church in the US was the church that held services in the CAPITAL building! During the time of Jefferson...
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90 - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90
Hmm. Isn't Jefferson the guy that started the whole "separation" of church and state... Yet, he participated in the very services that today are banned...
Was he being hypocritical... Or maybe today's "brilliant" minds are actually changing his words to fit their world view eliminating church.
Another thought. Why does America have the best healthcare (before Obamacare) in the history of the world?
Look back at how hospitals started in the USA... Most still carry the names of the churches that founded them.
They weren't founded because of atheistic or deist supporters, as they typically only care about themselves if you look at their impact on society.
Instead they were started by believers in God and their help for their neighbor.
Without morality, and ethics our system falls into ruin. The government spends too much and overtax (enslave) our supposed "free" residents. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 9:22am
|
You do realize the world changes and it has nothing to do with religion right?
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 9:40am
|
Has anyone talked about the lizard species in Aussie-land that is moving towards live birth?
------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 9:45am
"Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,”" "That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care."
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 3:51pm
|
Wait wait wait, does FE think America actually has the best healthcare in the world? Or had?
That's insane. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 4:21pm
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 8:09pm
I beg your pardon? If you actually believe this you are truly blind to what happens in your own country. According to the CDC, in 2009 15.4% of Americans had no health insurance. That's over 46 million. More Americans have no health insurance than there are people living in many developed countries. I friggin' dare you to tell me that they have (or had, before OMGFMLOBAMA!) the 'best healthcare in the history of the world') Those Americans with good, comprehensive coverage do indeed have fantastic health care. They can get among the best of what modern development has to offer. But no state with 46 million people lacking healthcare can be called the 'best in the history of the world'. Add to that the lack of emphasis on prevention - as evidenced by America's staggering obesity rates, for instance - and any claim to a spot on the healthcare podium for the United States is informed only by arrogance and hubris, not fact. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 06 September 2010 at 6:09pm
I can appreciate your stance, however, your post highlights my main problem with the Christian labeling dilemma.
Not labeling something 'Christian' doesn't change a thing.
I don't blame the decline in morals on the subtraction of the word 'Christian' from the nation. In fact, I'd say Christianity is far more prevalent in a form (not necessarily my form, but being fair here) now than ever in history. How many TV shows or movies do you see from the 40's, 50's, or 60's that bring up religion in a good light? How often did Lucy go to Church? How often did Dick van Dyke reverence Christ?
Yet now, it seems like Church is freely mentioned. And as far as morals go...I go back to the original dilemma. Up until the mid-60's (and much later in other places), segregation was a going rate. The south in particular was very racially heated.
And the only difference between movies and media then and now is that then they talked about fornication, murder, and all else you can imagine, now they're allowed to show it. I find the former more offensive-murder in particular had a very glossy coat put over it. How many people died ever episode of Gunsmoke or Bonanza? Yet, it was just a drop to the ground rather than the violent, bloody death that we (accurately) see now.
Moving away from media, how about the corruption in the government and law enforcemernt of the 50's and 60's? They may have worn their hair tidier and been more strict on how they spoke in front of ladies, but it didn't stop them from being woefully corrupt and biased.
I think that immorality has always been just as prevalent as it is now. I think that we're just more exposed now, thanks to everyone being so connected with the media and technology. I think that, if anything, we've moved to a spot where you can be openly Christian and not ridiculed by your classmates, coworkers, and family.
Again, I think it boils down to exposure. I just don't buy into the whole...the world is so much more evil now than back in the day...ideology.
I believe that evil is the same whether it be kept bottled up, or whether it presents itself. In God's eyes do you think the fact that people are openly evil is different from when they hid it in shame? It's all evil.
Do you think that a hospital that promotes God on its sign yet harbors corruption and lies on the inside is really glorifying to Him?
I don't think so. I don't think that slapping a Christian label on a corrupt government full of lies and almost every abomination imaginable would elevate this nation's status in the eyes of God.
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 06 September 2010 at 6:28pm
| But wont the other God's get jealous? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 September 2010 at 7:58pm
Insurance structure aside, if you are going to make a claim that America has the "Best healthcare in the world" you should at least try and back it up with something. I'm hard pressed to find a health care ranking list on any positive tangible that doesn't have France at No.1. What they lack in shaving they make up for in knowing how to structure a health care system.
|