posted on March 28, 2001 04:40:56 AM new
krs - I apologize at my ignorance of such handy tools as you describe in your post to mentionthat my two points were not new points. I used them, and I still can't find either one of my points made anywhere else - perhaps you could direct my barbarian self there as I surely need guidance - feel free to post it so we can all learn from this mistake I made. I of course still can't find these points made elsewhere. Secondly I like how you put your phrase *Thus building a wall of separation betweeen church and state* in bold letters to draw attention away from the fact that the quote marks ended just prior. Hmmmm....
If you have not been able to detect that Thomas Jefferson applied marks when quoting the Constitution in the letter which he wrote in entirety, I'm afraid that I have no time for further discourse with you.
Additionally, as to using the search function, I gave you the tool and a little rudimentary guidance in the use of it, but I will not hold your hand throughout your experience. Note that the keywords which I supplied were but a suggestion of type. They were not intended as end all mechanisms for you to use in a monkey see, monkey do manner. I know that man has evolved far from such apeish needs through the development of a superior learning capability, though not each specimen yet shares that development in equal measure. Should I apologize for having overestimated you?
posted on March 28, 2001 07:21:27 AM new
reˇligˇion (r-ljn)
n. Abbr. rel., relig.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Idioms
--------------------------------------------
Okay, now that we've established that atheism is a religion only in your own unique interpetation of the word, surely we're free to do some constitutional interpretation ourselves. But I'm too lazy to do that, so I'll just quote Thomas Jefferson:
Here is Thomas Jeffeson responding to a letter sent to him by a religious group after his inauguration:
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 the 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Also, now that you've marginalized atheists as irrelevant, you've also invoked Jews and Muslims who supposedly don't find "God in schools" offensive. Tell that to all the Jews who had to play sheep or angels or Joseph in Christmas pageants in public schools or who had to recite [not their] Lord's Prayer every day.
Their are many fine parochial schools to send your child to if you wish them to be taught your religion. Do like the Catholics and religous Jews do; put your money where your mouth is if you feel your kid needs to be taught a system of beliefs in school.
posted on March 28, 2001 08:52:38 AM new
jamesoblivion allow me to qoute you to prove further prove my point(by the way thanks for grabbing the dictionary as I was getting to that:
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Is this not Atheism?
Thanks for helping me to prove one of my points. Allow me to move on, again with you jamesoblivion:
You correctly quoted a LETTER ( notice that as I stated earlier - THIS IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTON, AND JEFFERSON DID NOT WRITE THE CONSTITUTION!)that Jefferson wrote regarding his belief that the government should not impose a PARTICULAR religion on the people, in response to the addressee's earlier concerns that a PARTICULAR form of protestantism would be mandated ( this was due to there bad experiences with the Church of England). However, let's not forget that there was no such thing as a public school system at the time, so we can not infer how Jefferson or anybody else would have felt about banning the mere mention of God(ie imposing Atheism ) in a public school setting. That marginalizes the God fearing members of society (especially Muslims, Jews and Christians), NOT ATHEISTS. As you correctly pointed out(albeit inadvertantly) Atheism is the current State sanctioned religion, and the children in the public school system are being forced to accept it. Furthermore, I never mentioned Christianity in any of my previous comments(I don't happen to believe in Christianity) I mentioned GOD. There is a difference. Muslims and Jews offended by the mention of GOD in schools - I would gather they weren't truly either. Perhaps you mean Christ or Christianity in general. I wholeheartedly agree that one particular religion should not be stressed as it is today with Atheism. When I went on to college (publically funded I might add) There wass no shortage of God. I had 3 or 4 different classes on different religions(Where was the outcry then?) Where is the problem with that? Present the information to the chilren and let them decide. Is it because the State figures that after 12 years of State imposed Atheism in K-12, that by college you're probably brainwashed well enough?
Now for you krs. Allow me to first point out that once the name calling is stripped away, neither one of you has been able to refute my two simple points. A) That Atheism is not just a religion, but the only State sanctioned religion in the public schools & B) That there is no mention of The Separation of Church and State ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance or any of the founding Documents of this country.
It's innacurate to characterize Jeffeson as having been for the Separation of Church and State as YOU see it, based on a letter he wrote IN RESPONSE to an earlier letter - Do you know the content of that earlier letter? I didn't figure you would. Well I do, and I can assure you that before you make assumptions on the meaning of someone's words, there is a little nuance called CONTENT (Maybe Jamesoblivion can give you a few of the dictionary definitions of the word - he was a big help to me!)You need to understand the content of the subject being discussed in order to understand accurately, somebodys words. However as you so eloquently mentioned(although you used just enough big words to make US dummy's realize just how smart you are, without actually saying anything of relevance)I shouldn't have to do the footwork for you. As for what I asked you for earlier - don't bother I looked, and It isn't there. These are points not mentioned elsewhere and for good reason. They are irrefutable.
My statements are an open challenge to anyone, but come correct or don't waste our time.
posted on March 28, 2001 12:33:22 PM new
Guess someone ought to teach him how to open a link, James. Don't look at me, whacked out theism is your lunchmeat.
Oh, give him a few nuances of the word "context" too, so he can figure out the content of the links.
[ edited by krs on Mar 28, 2001 12:35 PM ]
posted on March 28, 2001 12:46:50 PM newjlpiece:4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Is this not Atheism?
No, it's not. I am an athiest. I do not "pursue it with zeal"..I just *am*. It's not something that I think about on an everyday basis or even on a frequent one. I do not proseletyze nor do I attend weekly meetings about atheism. I do not believe that I am inherently a better person because I am an atheist--nor do I believe that *you* can not possibly be a good, moral person because you *aren't* an atheist.
posted on March 28, 2001 12:46:53 PM new
rantback;
To prove the non-existence of god we first need to define the word "god". When christians talk
about god they mean an almighty being. This, I think, is the only god that holds, since it is the only
god that can be logically justified.
I think it makes most sense if god is female, because only women can give life. Something that even
people in the Stone Age understood. Later when wars affected the cultural evolution, and men took
control of society, god became male, but the female god still lives on in the expression "Mother
earth". It should also be pointed out that an omnipotent god must be either androgyne or sexless.
However, in most religions god is male so I will refer to god as 'he', 'him' etc.
Some people (Einstein for instance) believe in a god who is not a personal god, but a Spinozan kind
of god. I claim that this god is not a god! To say that god is universe - by getting knowledge of the
universe we get knowledge of god - is to redefine the meaning of the word god. This has nothing to
do with the word god as it was defined by the "primitive" cultures which preceded our present
civilization. He can be excluded with Occam's razor, and most important: Such a god does not hear
prayers.
If god is not omnipotent there is nothing that prevents him from being a product of the universe. If
that is the case, what makes god divine? Then god would only be an alien, a being of matter;
probably containing flesh, blood and DNA like all life we know of. Everything god is able to do
would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge
we will also achieve. In fact humans would be gods, which should lead to some strange kind of
humanism!
Many people justify their faith with god as an explanation. What is the meaning of life? Where does
time and space come from? Who created the physical constants? et cetera. Because we lack
knowledge of these things - and maybe never will, since they are questions like "what is the color of
a second?" or "how does sound taste?" - god is there as an explanation.
Let's say that god is the meaning of life, what then is the meaning of god? If god has a nature, who
created that nature? If god created time and space, how can god exist without it? Since creation is
an event in time, how could god create time? and who created god? To answer these questions god
must be almighty, or else you can't explain them. In fact you can if you say god stands above time
and space and so on (which he indeed does if he is almighty), but to be able to prevent god from
being tied to future phenomena, you must give him the quality of omnipotence so he can stand above
everything.
The qualities of an omnipotent god
If god is almighty there are several qualities he must have. They are as follows:
He must know everything. Everything that is, everything that has been and everything that will
be. To be able to know everything that will be he must know every position and every
momentum of every particle in cosmos (Laplace's "World Spirit".
He must be worth our worship. A being that is not worth worshipping is no god.
He must be able to do anything. If there are things that god can't do, he certainly is not
omnipotent.
He must be above time. Something that even St. Augustine deduced. But not only that, god
must stand above all possible dimensions.
He cannot be 'good' or 'evil' or, indeed, have any subjective characteristica. If god is all
good, he cannot do evil things and cannot be almighty. Most people would object and say
that good can do evil but chooses not to do it. Well, if god is all good he can't choose to do
evil things, can he?
The theodicé problem
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume:
If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not
almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none
that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can
create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one
know that god, and not Satan created the universe?
For a good look at the Theodicé problem try The problem of natural evil
Reasons not to believe in god
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
I have refuted this argument myself. See Refuted proofs for an explanation
The ontological evidence
Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping
there cannot be a god.
Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no
undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried
to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence
against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence
of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After
that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three
reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3)
God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are
not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no
god.
The meaning of the word existence
What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it
relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that
means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in
which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive.
But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just
explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.
Occam's razor
Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda
pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a
principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few
explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which
stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own
cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space,
moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a
nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a
nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of
physics are what they are, without a cause?
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from
non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for
something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our
shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it
happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we
cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions
than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the
world.
Some things are impossible to do
There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional
surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the
numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy
barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If god were to be
almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.
Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it
logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically
possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything
which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically
impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from
non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no
objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.
Omnipotence is impossible due to paradoxes
Another way to disprove the almighty god is that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a
rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?
Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not
necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence.
Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will
god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must
act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands
above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!
Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't
know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.
The void creator
If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god is not
created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?
Besides this argument has another leap. If everything has a source and god is that source, then god
must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live
outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is
god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If moral must come from god, god lacks moral. If logic
comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from
god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void
We would never notice god
This is not an evidence against god, but rather describes the lack of sense in praying to a god who
stands above time.
If god stands above time and created time and space he can not be the first link in a time dependent
chain of events. Rather he would affect every step in all chains, and we would only see god in the
laws of physics (Davies, 1983, chapter 4). This god is an unnecessary entity to describe the world
and should be removed with Occam's razor
If somebody would pray to god and god would listen, the laws would change to achieve the desired
result. Thus the world would be different and the prayer would never have been said. Besides god
would already (in an "above time" sense of view) know that you would pray, and already have
changed the world. Prayers would be totally meaningless. We would already live in the best world
possible, and any prayer would be to doubt the wisdom of god.
Even worse: For every prayer said, god has not acted, or else the prayer had been undone. This
means that the more people have prayed, the more bad things in the world have persisted.
Therefore, the more you pray, the more evil persist (provided god exists and stands above time).
A much better way to change the world is to do it yourself. Then you would know that it was you
who made the world better. The effect of prayers are not scientific provable, whilst the effect of
actions are. Instead of praying you should set to work at improving your situation. This is what
humanism is about.
Nobody really believes in god
Schopenhauer once said something like:
"Man can do anything he wants, but he can not want whatever he wants."
My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in
god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their
eyes to evidence against the existence of god. The christian view is well expressed by Cardinal
Ratzinger:
"Religious liberty can not justify freedom for divergence. This freedom does not aim at
any freedom relative truth, but concerns the free descicion for a person to, according
to his moral inclinations accept the truth." (The times, June 27 1990, p9) [Translated to
Swedish in the Swedish version of (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991) and then translated back to
english by me]
It's as clear as it can be! For a christian you accept the "truth" according to your moral, and then
have to be strong in your faith to keep your believes. You decide a priori what to believe and then
try to convince yourself and others that it is true. But theists don't really believe, because to believe
something is to take it for true, and just like in Nazareth's song Sold my soul there is no sign of god
in the world. When you have the evidence for and against something your sub-conscious works on
it and makes a conclusion. The process can't be affected by your will, only delayed or suppressed,
which will lead to psychoses, and those are far more common among (catholic) priests than
any other group..
I have personal experience of this believing what you want to believe. When I was a child I believed
in a lot of crazy things. I thought my stuffed animals were intelligent. I believed in Santa Claus. I
thought there were monsters under my bed at night. I even believed in god after I heard some of the
tales from the old testament. Then I became older and realized that these things weren't true. When
I look back I don't understand how I could believe in them, it must have been that I wanted to do
so. (Except for the monsters, which had to do with fear of the dark)
When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or
agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles
Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic
modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh,
1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the
Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person
will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities.
Note: This is not the "Plead to authority" fallacy. I'm talking people here, who were trying to prove
the existence of god and turned atheists. They did not want to do this, but had to after reading a lot
of books and doing a lot of thinking on the subject.
Epilogue
I have tried to define the only god that can be philosophically justified and show some examples
why this god cannot exist. After reading this document you may object and say that god is beyond
human understanding and can't be defined in scientific terms. This is the view of agnosticism.
If god is so mysterious, how can we know anything about him? Through the Bible? How do we
know that the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedha books, for example, are the words of god? (or
the bible if you believe in any of the other two books). Considering the cruelties that have been
made in the name of god, how do we know that not all religions are made by Satan?
If there is no way to know this but to trust people who claim they have had "divine experiences"
there is no way to tell true from false prophets. One has to give up his free mind and follow the
authority of a dictator. Remember also that it is the person making a positive claim who has to prove
it.
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which
may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in
question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no
ground whatever for supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell
"We shall not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe
that it is true" -- Ingemar Hedenius
...we can not infer how Jefferson or anybody else would have felt about banning the mere mention of God(ie imposing Atheism ) in a public school setting.
However, considering...
Factors to Consider About School Prayer:
This topic generates a great deal more heat than light. A number of points are might be considered concerning prayer and other religious activities in public classrooms:
Contrary to generally held belief, prayer is not forbidden in public schools. A student can come early to class, sit quietly, and pray silently. Similarly, with some discipline, a student can pray upon rising, as a family before leaving home, even (if they can concentrate over the noise) in a school bus, in the cafeteria, etc.
Students can organize prayers on school property outside the classroom. e.g. they can conduct group prayer meetings at the school flagpole.
Students can carry Bible or other religious texts to and in school. They can pray before eating. A student can pray on the school bus, in the cafeteria, in classrooms before and after class, in the corridors, in the washrooms, etc. They can wear T-shirts with religious text. They can wear religious jewelry (buttons, symbols). They can hand out religious materials. They can freely talk about religion to fellow students, outside of class. These are well-known freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Yet not everyone is aware of these forms of protected speech.
would you possibly be willing to provide some evidence that "the mere mention of God(ie imposing Atheism )" has, in fact, been enforced, and found under challenge to be legal, in a public school setting?
posted on March 28, 2001 01:54:55 PM new
>>WHEW!<< I obviously overslept and missed most of the excitement! A Real-Life Conservative in AW's Round Table, actually posting their nonsense! Heee-he-he-he-heee! >cackle!<
First, let there be a reminder that we shouldn't rip this one apart in too much of a frenzy! Yes, it's been slim-pickings for Progressive types here of late and we've been needing fresh meat, but let's not chase this one away by showing him/her how absolutely wrong his/her beliefs are. How many times have we sent some typically undereducated conservative screaming away to cry into their pillows because we only told them verifiable proofs? Remember, these same people who are much too lazy to do their own research and simply let themselves be programmed with incorrect propaganda from sources that they thought that they could trust also have feelings too! We must cultivate this conservative, enjoy each rebuttal as he/she allows us to respond to, and not be too harsh on him/her. Simply present the facts, make a short point, then let them rant some more . . . hahahahahahaaaaaa!
The only other thing that I'd like to point out is the fallibility of dictionaries. The purpose of any dictionary is to explain current usage only, not how "correct" the word is being used. Certainly, if it is a slang word, it will usually denote that it is. However, one can not rely upon a dictionary for grammatical correctness; i.e. the King's English. Then, if a word has more than one usage, then each definition is listed in descending order of usage, from most popular to least likely.
So, to pick out the last use of a word that may only be spoken by an elderly rural lady who sits on her front porch all day long cackling and carving voodoo dolls for fun does not constitute proper use of a word!
Lastly, with this controversy about Separation of Church and State. It is unfortunate that to fully understand how REAL it is, how STRONG and TALL a barrier it is between the two that one would have to either go to law school to learn the reasoning and arguments that apply, or be lucky enough to watch a television program where some educated and articulate constitutional professor could explain it thoroughly. I have been so fortunate on a number of occasions. No amount of malarkey and "unreasoning" will be able to sway educated people and courts (this is why most conservatives hate educated people and the courts).
BEING A CONSERVATIVE IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL OF OTHERS.
posted on March 28, 2001 01:59:42 PM newjlpiece sez: ". . . AND JEFFERSON DID NOT WRITE THE CONSTITUTION!"
>>COUGH<<
>>GAG<<
Dear jlpiece:
Please, PLEASE go back to school and take a few courses in American History, particularily about the American Revolution and the history of the writing of the U.S. Constitution before you make any more remarks like this!
posted on March 28, 2001 07:04:42 PM new
This saying that God must have conflicting qualities to be omnipotent is based on a warped silly definition of omnipotent.
Playing word games does not change reality.
The less foundation an idea has the more words someone always uses to try to shore it up.
posted on March 28, 2001 09:58:29 PM new
No krs, I believe word games explaines the liength of your posts.
Borella: and what is being liberal, if not controlling others to make us believe what you feel is right.
james: Hello friend, then what is athiesm? Belief in unbelief? Unbelief in belief? How sad....
So sad, that the people of this forum do not realize the true heritage of this country, that they do not want to face the facts that it was founded on CHRISTIANITY, and if you would take the time to really read the statements of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, Revear and the rest of our founders, you would realize that. I guess that means that we must deny our heritage, not teach it in public school (but teach the acceptance of homosexuality, darwinism, revised history and other LIBERAL IDEAS) that this Great Nation. Boy, mayhap we should change the verses of GOD BLESS AMERICA or BATTLE HYMM OF THE REPUBLIC or THE STAR SPANGALED BANNOR. Then you all can feel right at home. Oh well, I guess that is why early books, written before this revisionism, are best.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on March 28, 2001 10:06:26 PM new
I have learned though experience (thank you KRS) that it is better to open the sardine can...and then get the heck out of the cathouse.
posted on March 28, 2001 10:29:03 PM new
If those of you who follow Christian faiths would only realize that the objections are to the imposition upon non Christians of your beliefs by law you'd suffer far less stress. No one wants to interfere in your practice of any faith. No one, as Borillar correctly points out, cares if your children pray at school, or what words they chose or are persuaded to use in those prayers or pledges of allegiance which they do privately amongst others who share the beliefs.
The restrictions under the constitution apply when government facilities are provided in law, or when religious practices are required in schools of every child by law in accordance with any predominant faith system.
No one would ever object if your children holy roll around the playground and on the way home, so long as they adhere to traffic laws enacted to protect their safety.
But acceptance is not good enough for you, is it? You are driven to impose your faith on all and sundry around you wherever you are.
I know that Jesus was not so arrogant and wonder at all the pretend followers of him who are.
It seems to me that many of you Christians are not followers of Christ at all but rather are followers of the will of the particular preacher of who's congregation you become.
posted on March 28, 2001 11:17:00 PM new
krs - they will never understand we accept their right to worship as long as they don't try and shove it on us. It doesn't matter how long or short, how nice or flippant the posts are.
The main problem is they are blind follower's. They are incapable of an independent thought.
posted on March 28, 2001 11:17:38 PM new
No krs, I am not "preaching", attempting to "force my faith" upon you, or any such thing. I am stating facts, the likes of which you and other liberals cannot face. We do not "drive to force" it upon anyone, we state the Word as it is written. But you can take scripture out of context, make absurd statements, and they stand because you and all of your wonderful knowledge made them. If you took the time to study Scripture, you would understand where I, and others like me, are comming from. We know we cannot "force" you or anyone else to become followers of Christ and enter into a relationship with Him, but we are supposed to spread His word everywhere we go, to all corners of the world. And the net, with all of it's boards, is part of that world. You, and anyone else, can accept Him or deny Him, and it is your choice. If you deny Him, then for yourself there is no worry, for as He has said, "My sheep know My voice". But why can't you refute what I have said? You (and I mean this generally now) speak of our early framers of the country, and yet ignore what they have said, or twist it to fit your own needs. This country was founded on and for the pourpose of freedom to worship God, by people driven out of Europe because thier belief's were closer to Martin Luther then the Church of Rome or the king. I see no mention of that by anyone else here. I see no mention of the faith of Wahsington, or Adams, or Lincoln, or any of our leaders like that. How about this, from the book:"American Biography; Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence" 1832. I will note pages:
page 69: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General congress assembled, appealing to the Supream Judge of the world.....with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Provence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour." HHMMMmmmm, where is that found?
pg 78, Hancock speaking;"who, for the addition of one penny a day to thier wages, would desert from the Christian cross....these are the men whom sceptred robbers now employ to frustrate the designs of God, and render vain the bounties which His gracious Hand pours indescriminately upon His creatures."
pg 94, John Adams speaking;"Let us see delinated before us, the true map of man-let us hear the dignaty of his natur, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God."
I could go on, and will if asked, but for right now my fingers are tired, and it is late. The "wall of seperation" is only in the mind, not in the heart and history of our great nation.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
