Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 30, 2004, 12:20:31 PM
-
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-730atheist,0,1213421.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
There are some who won't be happy until this country is the Christian equivalent of Iran or Afghanistan under Taliban rule. You know how you boil a frog, right? Degree by degree, the religious types are turning up the burner.
-
Sooooo, up till now Tampa has been living under a Christian Taliban?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-730atheist,0,1213421.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
There are some who won't be happy until this country is the Christian equivalent of Iran or Afghanistan under Taliban rule. You know how you boil a frog, right? Degree by degree, the religious types are turning up the burner.
Three people walked out because a declared atheist delivered the invocaton and you say Christians are "turning up the burner"? Whatever happened to free speech?
-
By far, I've noticed Christians and other parties of the Christian religion can sure be Jerks, and prettythang-Holes.
But, who isnt now adays?
-
I once had frog legs. They were delicious. Lightly fried in a seasoned butter mix that gave them the texture of a fried soft shell crab. Speaking of soft shell crabs, man, they are awesome. Nothing like a fried Maryland blue soft shell crab sandwich, tastes great and don't have to bother with taking the shell off. Oh, and crab cake sandwiches made from freshly caught Maryland blues - that **** bought in the store tastes like newspaper after you've made your own and eaten them. Delicious.
-SW
-
But, who isnt now adays?
Liberals. They are intelligent, wise and caring. If we could abandon our selfish ways they would lead us to a better world.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Three people walked out because a declared atheist delivered the invocaton and you say Christians are "turning up the burner"? Whatever happened to free speech?
Blessed are the Atheists for they can make a stink and expecteth not the same in return. :D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I once had frog legs. They were delicious. Lightly fried in a seasoned butter mix that gave them the texture of a fried soft shell crab. Speaking of soft shell crabs, man, they are awesome. Nothing like a fried Maryland blue soft shell crab sandwich, tastes great and don't have to bother with taking the shell off. Oh, and crab cake sandwiches made from freshly caught Maryland blues - that **** bought in the store tastes like newspaper after you've made your own and eaten them. Delicious.
-SW
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/Hawklore/meter.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/Hawklore/meter.gif)
Now you're just being redundant. ;)
-
Originally posted by ra
Liberals. They are intelligent, wise and caring. If we could abandon our selfish ways they would lead us to a better world.
-sneeze-
Sorry allergic to bull****, I use to call my self liberal, but, I'm extremely conservative in some things, and then Liberal in others.
I'm Pro gun, but very conservative when it comes to Old Glory, if I see a tatterd/faded one I rant and rave about it, cause I'm pissed.
-
I take it you've never eaten Maryland blue crabs then.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I take it you've never eaten Maryland blue crabs then.
-SW
No, I don't have crabs, nor will want to eat crabs, my lady gonna be crab free. :)
-
What is an "invocation"?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What is an "invocation"?
Traditionally it's an opening prayer.
Dictionary:
in·vo·ca·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nv-kshn)
n.
1. The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance.
2. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service.
-
Ah...
Then I believe the author of the first post in this thread is mistaken.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-730atheist,0,1213421.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
There are some who won't be happy until this country is the Christian equivalent of Iran or Afghanistan under Taliban rule. You know how you boil a frog, right? Degree by degree, the religious types are turning up the burner.
Where does it say they are christian?
Who's turning up the burner again? An atheist giving an invocation - ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I once had frog legs. They were delicious. Lightly fried in a seasoned butter mix that gave them the texture of a fried soft shell crab. Speaking of soft shell crabs, man, they are awesome. Nothing like a fried Maryland blue soft shell crab sandwich, tastes great and don't have to bother with taking the shell off. Oh, and crab cake sandwiches made from freshly caught Maryland blues - that **** bought in the store tastes like newspaper after you've made your own and eaten them. Delicious.
-SW
I've had alligator while in Baton Rouge. It, too, was delicious. And I must concure with the well-heeled palat of Mister SW when he waxes so eloquently on the virtues of Maryland soft shell crabs.
-
So now Chairboy is fighting for the atheist's right to lead a public prayer.
Interesting.
We need gays in Boy Scouts and atheists in church.
-
Thats just stupid. Im a Christian and what i say: Let the guy say the invocation, its not like it will spoil your faith for the rest of your life. Get over it. what people will do for attention these days...:rolleyes:
-
First, I really don't think a government meeting should begin with a prayer, but if that's the tradition, then the same respect should be given to all groups to avoid showing religious favoritism.
Would those of you disagree with me be as quick to praise a christian who walked out in protest during a Jewish prayer?
-
Atheists are like gays and feminists. It's not enough that you leave them alone and let them believe and do what they want.
They have to be in your face and thay have to force you to watch.
Tolerance is not good enough, they demand acceptance and full approval.
Why on Earth would an atheist be interested in delivering an invokation?
To stick it to the rest of of course and manifest his beliefs.
-
Originally posted by mietla
So now Chairboy is fighting for the atheist's right to lead a public prayer.
And somehow this equates to a christian offensive. :confused: :rofl
-
They were simply protesting (which is their right if not responsibility) the manipulation of a long standing tradition. When a person can't stand up publicly for what they believe in then our freedom is imaginary.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Why on Earth would an atheist be interested in delivering an invokation?
To stick it to the rest of of course and manifest his beliefs.
He was invited by another council member. From what I read he was doing it because he was asked, not because he wanted to. Now, there is definately more to the story than I understand, and he very well may want to stick it to Christians for all I know though.
-
I'm assuming that it was an effort to remove "God" from the traditional invocation. I could be wrong. Would like to see the transcript of this invocation.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
.Would those of you disagree with me be as quick to praise a christian who walked out in protest during a Jewish prayer?
Again, how do you know these guys were christians? I detect... prejudice.
Originally posted by Chairboy
First, I really don't think a government meeting should begin with a prayer, but if that's the tradition, then the same respect should be given to all groups to avoid showing religious favoritism
It shouldn't be an "official" part of the meeting. But being in government doesn't mean people have to give up their faith. If the members of the council agree to have a prayer that's their business.
Assuming they are going to have a prayer (a request to a divine being), is it not completely ridiculous to have the prayer led by someone who does not believe in a divine being? I think the actions of the two guys who walked were perfectly reasonable in that light. More power to them.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
They were simply protesting (which is their right if not responsibility) the manipulation of a long standing tradition. When a person can't stand up publicly for what they believe in then our freedom is imaginary.
Hear hear!
-
if he didn't believe in God, who or what did he "invoke"?
I'd walked out too ..
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think the actions of the two guys who walked were perfectly reasonable in that light. More power to them.
It was an act of drama. American adults should be more tolerant. IMHO they acted like a coupla premadonas.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Again, how do you know these guys were christians? I detect... prejudice.
I'm betting Chairboy is googling those that walked out to see what church/synagogue/mosque they attend. ;)
-
Chairboy thinks,I doubt it ,lets see judeo/christian values gave the world America......... muslims gave the world iran etc. Chairboy you are welcome to go anywhere you want,be my guest, but like it or not this country was founded on judeo/christian valus and we are not goin anywhere.
By the way there is still a little room left in heaven for secular jerk join us .If not hope you happy where your headed.
-
Alright this pigpile is getting deep.
Chairboy :D
-
Originally posted by ra
Liberals. They are intelligent, wise and caring. If we could abandon our selfish ways they would lead us to a better world.
-
Didn't you exchange your IQ for a pair of plums just yesterday, MT?
That was a COD delivery, you can't return it.
-
Just quoting one of my new conservative friends.
:D
-
wtf?
First of all I agree with Chair's opinion that any .gov should be devoid of all faiths. However, should a tradition exist where an 'invocation of a higher being', then fine, go nuts, but try to avoid favoritism and make it 'unofficial'.
As far as I'm concerned, athiesm is also a faith. Should equal air time be given, then I suppose an athiest would perform the anti-invocation.
To the three that walked out, neato. They excersized their right, as Iron mentioned.
-
Okay, not sure how religion got into this thread... but lets get back to talking about crabs and other delicious animals.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/Hawklore/meter.gif)
bet your mom and dad dont read the boards little boy.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Okay, not sure how religion got into this thread... but lets get back to talking about crabs and other delicious animals.
-SW
Just reach into your crotch... you can make a delicious crab sammich instantly :D
-
Your my new hero, I found my new avatar.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/Hawklore/meter.gif)
-
Originally posted by demaw1
but like it or not this country was founded on judeo/christian valus and we are not goin anywhere.
I disagree. If that was the case, democracy should have happened a long time ago. 600(?)-1800 AD Europe was Christian, but not American or anything like it.
And other values our country is based on existed before and after Christ, in many places.
That being said, I think those walk-out guys aren't jerks. They're whiners. Who cares if an athiest does the speech, let him do it and be secure in your own religious beliefs. Don't throw a tantrum.
"I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being"...that is intolerance.
"I think the invocation is a time for the council to start their day with an expression of faith."...that's perfectly fine, you can do that yourself even while an atheist is speaking.
-
Originally posted by phookat
That being said, I think those walk-out guys aren't jerks. They're whiners. Who cares if an athiest does the speech, let him do it and be secure in your own religious beliefs. Don't throw a tantrum.
I'll take "well said posts" for a hundred Alex.
-
I'd still like to hear how Chairboy knows these protesters were Christian. Or at least an acknowledgment that he doesn't and perhaps an apology for calling Christians jerks based on his kneejerk reaction.
-
Hmmmm, Skuzzilla must not have looked at the thread.
-
Montag, you're right. I found a new one too.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/52_1091216555_metergood.gif)
-
(http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics/kool1.jpg)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/Hawklore/meter.gif)
Says it all.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Montag, you're right. I found a new one too.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/52_1091216555_metergood.gif)
Lol, Im gona download some gif animat tools. I need a suckOmeter gage for my avatar.
-
Phookat[ disagrees]
You may disagree all you want.but it doesnt change the fact of truth,this country was founded on judeo/christian values,
. Mostly in the 600s the land where europe now is was barbaric in nature.Until the refermation and the spread of the king james bible people didnt know what christian was,they only knew what preist told them it was hence all the bad things that happened in the name of jesus.
At the time of the revolution europe was so steeped in the church of the state doctrine that if you didnt belong to the state church many bad things could happen to you. Therefore our founding fathers didnt want a church controled by gov.Hence freedom of religion any religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state until 1964. Freedom of religion was to protect the church from the gov not to protect the gov from the church. and to guarantee freedom of religion not from religion.
Look at the post from many here ,no prayer here, no God there,no ten comandments anywhere. Well I gaurantee you most of the christians in America are not like the ones in roman days,when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.We wont be sitting in an arena waiting to be eating by lions.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Look at the post from many here ,no prayer here, no God there,no ten comandments anywhere. Well I gaurantee you most of the christians in America are not like the ones in roman days,when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.
Thank you for helping me illustrate my point.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Look at the post from many here ,no prayer here, no God there,no ten comandments anywhere. Well I gaurantee you most of the christians in America are not like the ones in roman days,when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.We wont be sitting in an arena waiting to be eating by lions.
Wow.... you sure had to go back a long ways to make the Christians the victims... didn't ya?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Wow.... you sure had to go back a long ways to make the Christians the victims... didn't ya?
He needn't have. Christians are being murdered every day around the world for their faith.
-
Regarding the question as to whether White and Alvarez (the two that supported the motion to suppress the atheist's invocation) are Christian:
Kevin White said "These are sacred moments that refer to a supreme being and this speaker doesn't believe in God". He attends the Seminole Heights Baptist church.
Mary Alvarez said "I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being" and identified herself as a christian in this: http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBXZQLBOWD.html
Since you were suggesting that I apologize for not being able to show whether they are Christian, AKIron, I think it's fair to give you an opportunity to do the same to me now that I have.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Hence freedom of religion any religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state until 1964. Freedom of religion was to protect the church from the gov not to protect the gov from the church. and to guarantee freedom of religion not from religion.
Why should I be subjected to some belief system? Progression not regression please
-
Originally posted by AKIron
He needn't have. Christians are being murdered every day around the world for their faith.
'
so are people from every faith...
-
Isn't atheism a religion?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
'
so are people from every faith...
by whom? ... others of faith. Lookie at all the wars mommy! I dont see any agnostics running around annihilating religious folk.
[edit]: shuckins, yes.[/edit]
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Regarding the question as to whether White and Alvarez (the two that supported the motion to suppress the atheist's invocation) are Christian:
Kevin White said "These are sacred moments that refer to a supreme being and this speaker doesn't believe in God". He attends the Seminole Heights Baptist church.
Mary Alvarez said "I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being" and identified herself as a christian in this: http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBXZQLBOWD.html
Since you were suggesting that I apologize for not being able to show whether they are Christian, AKIron, I think it's fair to give you an opportunity to do the same to me now that I have.
Uh, are you quoting the original link that you posted are did you google them as I bet earlier. I reread that and I don't see your quote in that link. Admit it, you assumed they were Christians and bashed them before you even read it.
Do you really find it that hard to admit your prejudice?
Here's your posted link:
TAMPA -- Three Tampa city council members walked out of chambers rather than listen to an atheist give the opening invocation.
Council members Kevin White, Mary Alvarez and Rose Ferlita left their seats Thursday rather than listen to Michael R. Harvey, a member of Atheists of Florida who had been invited by council member John Dingfelder to offer the invocation.
Even before Harvey spoke, White was pushing to cancel the invocation. These are sacred moments that refer to a supreme being, White said, and this speaker doesn't believe in God.
``We have never had people of an atheist group represent Americans,'' White said. ``And I don't think it is appropriate in this setting.''
White's motion to cancel the invocation failed 2-4, supported only by him and Alvarez, who called White ``very brave'' for making the effort.
``I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being,'' Alvarez said.
Ferlita voted to allow the invocation go on, but also walked out.
``I think this is sending us in the wrong direction,'' Ferlita said.
Mayor Pam Iorio, who did not attend the council meeting, said later the invocation should be reserved for speakers who invoke God.
``I certainly don't agree with having an atheist come for the invocation,'' she said. ``I think the invocation is a time for the council to start their day with an expression of faith.''
Dingfelder said his invitation to Harvey started with a neighborhood talk. He often saw Ed Golly, president of Atheists of Florida, in South Tampa. Golly needled him that the invocation violated the separation of church and state.
``I agree you should have equal time,'' Dingfelder told him. ``I'll set it up.''
Dingfelder, who attends a Jewish synagogue, has also invited Baptist and Methodist preachers, as well as a chaplain from MacDill Air Force Base.
``I was honestly hoping it would not be a big deal,'' he said. ``Obviously, I am a little naive about that.''
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Isn't atheism a religion?
sure it is. And pretty aggressive too. They won't be able to sleep until they convert everybody. They just can't stand someone else having different beliefs.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Okay, not sure how religion got into this thread... but lets get back to talking about crabs and other delicious animals.
-SW
Mmmmmmm ... I love everything about fresh crab.
How about a chitload of cherry-stone clams freshly picked from a salt pond in Misquamicut RI with some real spicy cocktail sauce along with a mound of steamed mussels in white wine and butter with a touch of garlic.
Followed by some freshly caught stripped bass or bluefish cooked on the grill, all the while downing some good beer and/or wine.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.We wont be sitting in an arena waiting to be eating by lions.
ClassicMAW :rofl
-
Originally posted by Octavius
by whom? ... others of faith. Lookie at all the wars mommy! I dont see any agnostics running around annihilating religious folk.
[edit]: shuckins, yes.[/edit]
He wasn't saying that people from every faith is murdering, but people from every faith are being murdered.
-
I believe athiests are responsible for murdering more for their religion than any others. Not interested in looking it up just now so I ain't gonna argue this.
-
Originally posted by mietla
sure it is. And pretty aggressive too. They won't be able to sleep until they convert everybody. They just can't stand someone else having different beliefs.
Could you clarify, are you talking about the great Atheist Crusades? Or the Atheist Inquisition? Something else?
Christians are constantly trying to pass legislation making elements of their bible into law. THAT sounds pretty aggressive, especially people like demaw who talk about bloodbaths when the Christians rise up and take formal control of the country from the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
He wasn't saying that people from every faith is murdering, but people from every faith are being murdered.
I know, I said that. It's assinine to say that people of organized faith are only victims. They're victims and the instigators... duality.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
I know, I said that. It's assinine to say that people of organized faith are only victims. They're victims and the instigators... duality.
LOL ok. I'm saying that's what Vort said too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Could you clarify, are you talking about the great Atheist Crusades? Or the Atheist Inquisition? Something else?
Christians are constantly trying to pass legislation making elements of their bible into law. THAT sounds pretty aggressive, especially people like demaw who talk about bloodbaths when the Christians rise up and take formal control of the country from the rest of us.
How about China? How many do you suppose were persecuted and murdered in the former Soviet Union? We'll probably never know the full horror but if you think it didn't and isn't happening even today you're fooling yourself.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Could you clarify, are you talking about the great Atheist Crusades? Or the Atheist Inquisition? Something else?
Remember Lenin, Stalin and their commies?
As for attempts to put religion into law, I see the opposite. A pretty strong trend of removing all vestiges of religion not only from the government, but from the public view in general.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about China? How many do you suppose were persecuted and murdered in the former Soviet Union? We'll probably never know the full horror but if you think it didn't and isn't happening even today you're fooling yourself.
Wow.. good one.
-
Oh this is rich...
Chairboy..... only a moron would think I made your point after reading my whole text.
Mosgood: No where did I say anyone was a victim I gave a very small history lesson is all.
Octavius....Why should I be subjected to your belief system,it is being shoved down our throats.....answer....freedom of religion...what part of freedom dont you understand?
Chairboy....Listen up , what you said was totally un true,I think it is just because you dont know......COMMUNISM among others is a religion even marx said so. Arent they ,responseable for at least 80 million dead and counting since early 1900. There are no aeithist Chairboy, you worship something,God yourself moon trees something. The wars you talked about had nothing to do with christians,as the people only knew what the priest told them and they were heathen.Yes it was done in the name of jesus,but it was not of jesus. I could go kill 20 people in a mall shouting praise to Chairboy he told me to do this, well is it your fault or mine?
-
Originally posted by Octavius
by whom? ... others of faith. Lookie at all the wars mommy! I dont see any agnostics running around annihilating religious folk.
Laos, Vietnam, Nazi Germany.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Octavius....Why should I be subjected to your belief system,it is being shoved down our throats.....answer....freedom of religion...what part of freedom dont you understand?
What is my belief system again? I dont seem to recall having one!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Laos, Vietnam, Nazi Germany.
Agnostics? Negative.
-
Chairboy.....rise up and have blood bath
Chairboy you either can not read and understand or you are a trus idiot. I said nothing about christians riseing up and taking control.Now I know how it feels when people like you rise up and twist and turn and invent things against bush rumsfield et al.
When the christians were eatin by lions and when ceaser and the senate and noble men tied christians to poles and set them on fire at nite to light their patio parties were they rising up I think not. I said when the time comes ,and it is, this is the way it has always started in history,we christians will not just sit there and be eaten we will fight .got that do you understand.It will be people like those in the aclu that will start it not us .Is there any understanding?
-
Really?
Oh that's right... agnostics were harmless because they were non-commital. It was those damn athiests.
I believe Nazis could be considered agnostic. I don't recall any serious claims to atheism in their ranks... maybe at some level, but not an overwhelming doctrine. They simply saw an organized religion as a threat.
Same with Cambodia (oops... did I say laos) and Vietnam.
Ask an agnostic: "Is there a God?" He'll reply "I don't know and I don't care." I bet this is exactly how Pol Pot would have answered the question too.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Really?
Oh that's right... agnostics were harmless because they were non-commital. It was those damn athiests.
I believe Nazis could be considered agnostic. I don't recall any serious claims to atheism in their ranks... maybe at some level, but not an overwhelming doctrine. They simply saw an organized religion as a threat.
Same with Cambodia (oops... did I say laos) and Vietnam.
Ask an agnostic: "Is there a God?" He'll reply "I don't know and I don't care." I bet this is exactly how Pol Pot would have answered the question too.
Any totalitarian will see the religion as a threat, or at the very least as an obstacle that needs to be destroyed.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I believe athiests are responsible for murdering more for their religion than any others. Not interested in looking it up just now so I ain't gonna argue this.
Atheists, agnostics, believers...they can all go to hell.
The reason these kinds of people suck is because they suck...not because they're atheists or christians or muslims.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Really?
Oh that's right... agnostics were harmless because they were non-commital. It was those damn athiests.
I believe Nazis could be considered agnostic. I don't recall any serious claims to atheism in their ranks... maybe at some level, but not an overwhelming doctrine. They simply saw an organized religion as a threat.
Same with Cambodia (oops... did I say laos) and Vietnam.
[/b]
Whoa. (GODWIN'S LAW - hehehe)
First, agnosticism has other applications outside organized religion. Religion in the Third Reich can be descibed as a sort of side show. It wasn't a large part of Nazi doctrine, Hitler wasn't specific at all. He outlined what was to be opposed rather than what was to be embraced (aside from nietzsche's superman and wagner's domination ideologies). Dont think that can be used in this argument.
Ask an agnostic: "Is there a God?" He'll reply "I don't know and I don't care." I bet this is exactly how Pol Pot would have answered the question too. [/B]
^ "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya :D
"I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure-that is all that agnosticism means."
- Clarence Darrow. Scope's trial for teaching darwinism
Arthur C Clarke. In many of his books he calls religion a "disease of infancy". One quote that I really like:
"One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for god, if there is one," he says. "I have an open mind on the subject, if there's anything behind the universe. And I'm quite sympathetic with the views that there could be."- Arthur C Clarke
-
Originally posted by phookat
Atheists, agnostics, believers...they can all go to hell.
The reason these kinds of people suck is because they suck...not because they're atheists or christians or muslims.
You just summed up 99% of the planet's population.
Nihilists can chill out Big Lebowski style while the rest go to hell. Cool! :D
-
Originally posted by demaw1
There are no aeithist Chairboy, you worship something,God yourself moon trees something.
Actually, you're incorrect. I am an atheist, as is my wife. We don't believe in god, spirits, moon pixies, trees, or anything.
You're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Mostly in the 600s the land where europe now is was barbaric in nature.Until the refermation and the spread of the king james bible people didnt know what christian was,they only knew what preist told them it was hence all the bad things that happened in the name of jesus.
So Christians didn't figure out what Jesus *really* meant until 1776? Of course this is false. Guess what...what you know *now* is "only what the priest told" you. You are not immune from this.
The Greeks had democracy. Many many cultures around the world which had nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity had advanced morals and advanced ideas about spirituality and the afterlife. The fact that the founding fathers were Christian does not mean America was based on Christianity. In fact what made them great is that they could see beyond their little sectarian view of the world and create a new kind of country that is not tied down to any particular religious views. And look how well it has worked out for us. Do you think we would have such a rich culture and economy without that?
Originally posted by demaw1
Hence freedom of religion any religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state until 1964.
Freedom of religion implies separation of church and state, because religions (or human interpretations of religion) tend to be jealous of each other. That doesn't mean people who serve in government have to be atheists.
Originally posted by demaw1
Freedom of religion was to protect the church from the gov not to protect the gov from the church.
You are missing the plural. "Churches". When you include the plural, you will see that protecting chrches from the gov implies protecting the gov from churches.
Originally posted by demaw1
and to guarantee freedom of religion not from religion.
It guarantees both freedom from and freedom of. What do you want to do, arrest all the atheists?
Originally posted by demaw1
Look at the post from many here ,no prayer here, no God there,no ten comandments anywhere. Well I gaurantee you most of the christians in America are not like the ones in roman days,when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.We wont be sitting in an arena waiting to be eating by lions.
I don't know exactly what you're getting at here. I wouldn't like to assume you have a persecution complex, so I think I'll just ignore this.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Traditionally it's an opening prayer.
Dictionary:
in·vo·ca·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nv-kshn)
n.
1. The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance.
2. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service.
We like to use an invocation after we draw the pentagon. There is lots of chanting and a call for the dark Lord to come forward. Then a virgin is disembowled.
And then....the oral sex.
Afterwards we go for beer.
-
wow.....now imagine if I made a post saying any of the following:
"Blacks can sure be thugs"
"Arabs can sure be evil twisted people"
"Hispanics can sure be smelly"
"europeans can sure be trash"
or any of the following wich arnt usually related to being conservative you bleeding hearts would be all up an arms how offended you were and how I am such a bigot.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Nihilists can chill out Big Lebowski style while the rest go to hell. Cool! :D
LOL :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
or any of the following wich arnt usually related to being conservative you bleeding hearts would be all up an arms how offended you were and how I am such a bigot.
True, there's a double standard there, against the majority or the powerful. Political Correctness blows...but what're you gonna do.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, you're incorrect. I am an atheist, as is my wife. We don't believe in god, spirits, moon pixies, trees, or anything.
You're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about?
Heh ... you worship the internet. Oh mighty internet ... make the bad Christians go away. ;)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ask an agnostic: "Is there a God?" He'll reply "I don't know and I don't care." I bet this is exactly how Pol Pot would have answered the question too.
I'm agnostic and i disagree with that statement, so would others.
-
Originally posted by mietla
sure it is. And pretty aggressive too. They won't be able to sleep until they convert everybody. They just can't stand someone else having different beliefs.
Athiests think God is out to get them for being athiests...
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Montag, you're right. I found a new one too.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/52_1091216555_metergood.gif)
DIGGITY DIGGITY DIGGITY!
-
When given a choice between seafood and a steak, I will naturally choose a steak. Big-assed t-bone, grilled to perfection, yum yum. I could NEVAR be Hindu.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Any totalitarian will see the religion as a threat, or at the very least as an obstacle that needs to be destroyed.
That's very true. Now the question of the day: How many totallitarians are/were also agnostic?
And, yes octavious, I do know the meaning of the word. I believe people quickly hide "agnostic" atrocities behind other phrases such as "totallitarian" and "politics". I'm not saying agnostics are war mongers or evil, but I'm not dismissing them as non-violent either.
I think it's pretty much a stretch to assume that an agnostic never hunted someone down and killed them, or that every war throughout history was started by either someone religous or an athiest... but never an agnostic (even if the word didn't exist back then).
-
Chairboy....atheist
Than you worship your self,you are your own little god,dont get me wrong as you have all night ,I dont care ,I personally would judge you on how you act in sociaty, not who you worship.It is when you all start telling me what you, think I should do and not do ,where I should or should not pray within reason.Take the little tiny cross on the seal of LA off, but leave the picture of the goddess of love diana,arrest a little girl of 9 at school because she brought her little bible to read at recess.I am talking hand cuffs.I could go on and on about things like that little girl and yes we are winning most of the cases in court but why is it happening. Because of people like you and dont bother with the it aint me thing,it sure as hell isnt catholics or buddist doin it.I t may not be in my life time, but the time will come when we start loseing in court just like in nazi germany, then when you come for us we will see if there is a God wont we. Still doesnt matter to me, leave us alone and so long as you dont kill, rape, steal, plunder,or cause pain to anyone of any color, religion,education,or anything else like this we dont care what you do.
-
Phookat 1776
Man are all of you that are intolerant with religion such morans? You phookat could not possibly come up with [ christians didnt know the real jesus until 1776] and all the other garbage by reading what I wrote,yet you did.
Iwonder if anyone can inform phookat when the reformation was or when the king james was written. I am not going to because he would just read it upside down and say I said it was i 2002.
Hint phookat.........it was a hell af a long time before 1776
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Man are all of you that are intolerant with religion such morans?
When calling people morons, it's important to spell the word correctly.
-
Octavious agnostic
Well big words ,very good writing ,interesting books,honest when you are not pretending to be drunk you do well, but
If you were familier with what you were writing about ,the first and formost useage of agnostic is religious,meaning one who does not believe there can be proof of God, but does not deny the possibility of God.
what you were talking about is secondary,I can be agnostic about you turning right or left.
I only responded because I wanted iron to know he was right,but i am agnostic in your case.
He was also right about nazism you arnt but whats the use
-
Mini D morins
I had no desire to spell it right,furthermore if you had read an earlier post you would have noticed I did spell it right.Just my way of not getting to personal as so many others do here.
-
Ah... I see. You are a moran.
-
Mini-D is a NAZI.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Man are all of you that are intolerant with religion such morans?
Stop being so defensive. The whole thesis of my posts is tolerance, nay even acceptance, of all religions and atheism as well.
Originally posted by demaw1
Hint phookat.........it was a hell af a long time before 1776
No kidding. Then why did democracy not happen at that time? Your assertion is that Christianity was the cause of America as we know it today. But there were plenty of Christians before the founding of America, weren't there? Plenty even of the "right" Christians, in your eyes.
I see that you are ignoring the rest of my post BTW. I'll take that as an implicit agreement with my statements, but actually it is more probably just a case of you hearing just what you want to hear. Or not having anything to say, but that has not stopped you before.
-
Originally posted by SOB
When given a choice between seafood and a steak, I will naturally choose a steak. Big-assed t-bone, grilled to perfection, yum yum. I could NEVAR be Hindu.
So, in America its bad to eat a dog but its ok to eat a cow.
In india its ok to eat a dog but its bad to eat a cow.
Its bad for a Jew to eat a pig.
Cant we just eat what we want?
Demaw dont give me any of Apostle Paul saying its ok to eat everything either.
I think kitty cats are forbotten.
-
and dont turn a lobster on its back before you eat it.
It may ruin your appetite.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
It is when you all start telling me what you, think I should do and not do ,where I should or should not pray within reason.
Nope, wouldn't do that. And you don't tell me what to do either. Putting religion in government is telling me what to do.
Originally posted by demaw1
Take the little tiny cross on the seal of LA off, but leave the picture of the goddess of love diana
Did that act prevent you or anyone else from praying? Did it in fact hurt anyone at all in any way? I agree it was pretty silly to remove the cross and keep the Goddess of Agriculture, but that's the extent of it.
Originally posted by demaw1
arrest a little girl of 9 at school because she brought her little bible to read at recess.I am talking hand cuffs.
If this happened, then yes I agree this is a bad thing.
Originally posted by demaw1
I could go on and on about things like that little girl and yes we are winning most of the cases in court but why is it happening. Because of people like you and dont bother with the it aint me thing,it sure as hell isnt catholics or buddist doin it.
Atheism is not the cause of this. The reason people do bad things is because they are bad people...not because they are religious or not. Plenty of religious people have done bad things and so have atheists.
Originally posted by demaw1
It may not be in my life time, but the time will come when we start loseing in court just like in nazi germany, then when you come for us we will see if there is a God wont we.
I see you do have a persecution complex, caused by reading about the little girl and her Bible, and then magnifying that to represent a whole society. Hint: don't flatter yourself. No one is persecuting you.
-
Phookat......fine I will answer a few questions, but dont see the use as each of you have been intellectually dishonest in the reading of my posts.
1. Greek democracy: a couple of countries since beginning of time have had a form of democracy. America is the only republic that I know of, with a bill of rights,this is what gives the freedom.
2.The vast majority of the founding fathers were christians and tied us to the bible.They knew the dangers european style church/state relations and didnt want that.Therefore the idea of freedom of religion came into play, as no country had that.In that freedom they said America is founded on judeo/christian teaching and most of our laws came from english common law which had its start ready...from the bible.But others could worship as they saw fit.
3.plural churches. No where did they write of churchs as in many religions.It was singular church they were worried about.Such as england /protestant....russia/orthadox...spain/catholic...that is where the problem was....the guiding force for the u.s. was the bible not baptist, protestant, anything...I tell u this it sure wasnt secularism like it is today.
4. we would not have had the rich culture and economy without it.We probably would be like the balkins.
5. Freedom of religion implies nothing but what it says,FREEDOM of religion.You may try to twist it any which way you want but the three words have only 1 meaning.
6.ONCE AGAIN,The founding fathers, in all their writings never said anything except freedom of religion......not freedom from religion because anyone can see you cant have both.
7.both statements 1] persecution complex and arrest atheist are frankly stupid.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
It was an act of drama. American adults should be more tolerant. IMHO they acted like a coupla premadonas.
More tolerable? Your kidding me right? I look around and all the things that adults like myself "tolerate" on a day to day basis and your asking me to tolerate more? WTF dude, when is it your chance to sacrifice a bit of tolerance?
-
Ok Phookat the other questions.
1.Tell what to do....you all was generic it did not single you out.
I have said this several times I dont give a damn what you all[generic] do/ until you [generic] step on my freedoms given me by a creator as the founding fathers said.
2. Putting religion in gov.is no issue as you can not put 10 different religions in gov. Therefore freedom of religion means, the gov.can not pick a religion to be a state religion because then you would not have freedom of religion.
Ironic that is exactly what people with your beliefs are trying to do.You want your religion...secular humanism... to be the state religion.
3.Tiny cross...It is sad that is all you think it is,no it didnt stop me from praying, but we are not stupid,what it did do is chip away a little more of freedom of religion,to freedom from religion which would destory freedom of religion,that is when it will blow up in your face.[generic] by the way you are right she is the goddess of agriculture.
That is far from the extent of it when you add it to everything else that is happening. From youall [generic] trying to destory the boy scouts,to arresting 15 / 9th graders that held hands in a circle around a flag pole at their school opening day to ask God to bless the school and the teachers and to help them understand what the teachers are trying to teach during the school year.ya hand cuffs again.
4. Atheism,secular humanism ,communism,nazism, facism all the same and it is causing it all.and they all did and do 3 main things before or right after they take power....demonize christianity is one of them.
5. Persecution complex ,emm all I did was read about the little girl huh, oh and then I magnified it to represent society,how silly of me....Well you bet your bellybutton no one is persecuting me, hint...no one will.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Octavious agnostic
Well big words ,very good writing ,interesting books,honest when you are not pretending to be drunk you do well, but
If you were familier with what you were writing about ,the first and formost useage of agnostic is religious,meaning one who does not believe there can be proof of God, but does not deny the possibility of God.
what you were talking about is secondary,I can be agnostic about you turning right or left.
I only responded because I wanted iron to know he was right,but i am agnostic in your case.
Excuse me? You seem to think you know me. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Dont tell me what MY argument is. I presented it, and if you cant read and comprehend what I post, dont reply.
Yes, anyone can be agnostic in terms of believing proof of an omnipotent being cannot be obtained.
He was also right about nazism you arnt but whats the use
I beg to differ. Enlighten me, oh learned one. Why?
-
"2 billion" evil muslims, the chinese and the atheists are out to get you demaw. get your ammo and tinfoil ready :p
-
http://atheist.8k.com/irritate.html/
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I think it's pretty much a stretch to assume that an agnostic never hunted someone down and killed them, or that every war throughout history was started by either someone religous or an athiest... but never an agnostic (even if the word didn't exist back then). [/B]
The word wasn't coined until the 19th century, but the concept certainly existed. I agree it is a stretch to claim all wars are begun by those with belief systems. Thats why I tried to be careful not to use any extreme words when I made that assertion. My bad if it was read wrong.
And, yes octavious, I do know the meaning of the word. I believe people quickly hide "agnostic" atrocities behind other phrases such as "totallitarian" and "politics". I'm not saying agnostics are war mongers or evil, but I'm not dismissing them as non-violent either.
[/b]
You're being agnostic ;) Deny nothing, but doubt everything. :D
Lets iron this out first before we begin arguing different topics. Here's the definition I'll use...
ag·nos·ti·cism Audio pronunciation of "agnosticism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
[/size]
I disagree that Nazi ideology followed a strict agnostic (definition 1) doctrine. If we want to argue this point, then we might as well start a new thread. Even so, my original assertion, as mentioned above, was not intended to be read as "No agnostics were ever violent."
So, I agree that one can be agnostic (definition 2) with a belief system already in place. That said, agnostics are found on both sides of the fence. In my case, I try to stay unbiased and on neither "side". I haven't given my specific stance because I dont have one. I try to reserve judgement. Yeah, the weak, non-commital stance :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-730atheist,0,1213421.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
There are some who won't be happy until this country is the Christian equivalent of Iran or Afghanistan under Taliban rule. You know how you boil a frog, right? Degree by degree, the religious types are turning up the burner.
The classic example of intolerance by those that hold tolerance as the supreme virtue. I personally wouldn't have walked out but you had better believe that atheist would have been invited to discuss his views with me mano a mano on the spot. Generally speaking it has little effect on the atheist. It is however instrumental in exposing listeners to the traditional point of view from an eloquent and well grounded person of faith with strong convictions.
I can safely say that when the time comes to start feeding Christians to the lions in America Mr. Chairboy will be supportive of the move, afterall Christians are sooooooo intolerant!
How's the weight coming off?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Phookat......fine I will answer a few questions, but dont see the use as each of you have been intellectually dishonest in the reading of my posts.
Umm, no. But if you don't have the wit to understand me, I can see why you might think that.
Originally posted by demaw1
1. Greek democracy: a couple of countries since beginning of time have had a form of democracy. America is the only republic that I know of, with a bill of rights,this is what gives the freedom.
Which was great, but not caused by Christianity. If it were, America would have happened much earlier than it did. You keep ignoring this, but it doesn't make it less true.
Originally posted by demaw1
They knew the dangers european style church/state relations and didnt want that.Therefore the idea of freedom of religion came into play, as no country had that. In that freedom they said America is founded on judeo/christian teaching and most of our laws came from english common law which had its start ready...from the bible.But others could worship as they saw fit.
If America was truly based on Christianity, we would *not* have freedom of religion. Christianity alone does not espouse freedom of religion. No religion does, strictly speaking. Neither does Marxism, but that is beside the point. America broke away from any particular religion, but not from common societal morals--that is the only way freedom of religion could happen. Those morals were not Christian any more than they were Jewish or Buddhist.
You seem to think that freedom of religion in America was some minor advancement of contemporary European political thought. It was not. It was a hugely diffrerent way of looking at the world, one in which religion was made into a freely accepted individual pursuit rather than an enforced dogma. A way of looking, I might add, that has been hugely successful at many levels both spiritual and earthly, and has been emulated and adopted the world over.
Originally posted by demaw1
3.plural churches. No where did they write of churchs as in many religions.It was singular church they were worried about.Such as england /protestant....russia/orthadox...spain/catholic...that is where the problem was....the guiding force for the u.s. was the bible not baptist, protestant, anything...I tell u this it sure wasnt secularism like it is today.
If you introduce *uniquely* Judeo-Christian precepts into US law, then religions which do not agree with those particular precepts are outlawed and freedom of religion is defeated.
Originally posted by demaw1
5. Freedom of religion implies nothing but what it says,FREEDOM of religion.You may try to twist it any which way you want but the three words have only 1 meaning.
So let me get this straight. Should Americans be allowed to be atheists or not, in your opinion? If yes, then indeed you agree that Americans have freedom from religion as well as of.
Originally posted by demaw1
6.ONCE AGAIN,The founding fathers, in all their writings never said anything except freedom of religion......not freedom from religion because anyone can see you cant have both.
I think you are the only one that "sees" this. Please explain why you can't have both. It better be a pretty good explanation, because we clearly have both right now in America as well as many other places in the world.
Originally posted by demaw1
7.both statements 1] persecution complex and arrest atheist are frankly stupid.
Indeed they are, but you certainly seemed to imply them. Especially the former. Thrown to the lions? Get a grip.
-
Originally posted by Booky
More tolerable? Your kidding me right? I look around and all the things that adults like myself "tolerate" on a day to day basis and your asking me to tolerate more? WTF dude, when is it your chance to sacrifice a bit of tolerance?
America is built on many religions and beliefs. "The Great Melting Pot" and all that stuff. It's everywhere. And if you can't "tolerate" it as an adult in America and learn to have your own beliefs and see the next guy practice a different belief without feeling defensive or offended, than you're gonna live your whole life continually "offended".
So ya, if you can't take it and don't feel like you should have to "tolerate" some elses RIGHT to express their beliefs than YOU are the one that has the problem and are screwed until you get over it.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Putting religion in gov.is no issue as you can not put 10 different religions in gov. Therefore freedom of religion means, the gov.can not pick a religion to be a state religion because then you would not have freedom of religion.
Ironic that is exactly what people with your beliefs are trying to do.You want your religion...secular humanism... to be the state religion.
Look up "secular" in your dictionary.
Originally posted by demaw1
3.Tiny cross...It is sad that is all you think it is,no it didnt stop me from praying, but we are not stupid,what it did do is chip away a little more of freedom of religion,to freedom from religion which would destory freedom of religion
The government is not an indivudual citizen, and should not be treated as such. The government is unique in that it is the ruling authority and maintains a monopoly on the use of force. The "rights" of the government should therefore be severely restricted, so as not to trample the rights of individuals. That means that the government is not and should not espouse or be based on any particular religion. The cross was seen by some as a symbol of a particular religion, and was therefore objected to.
Personally speaking, I care about the laws and their enforcement, not about a picture on a piece of paper. And I think it was unfair to remove the Cross and not the Goddess, but I see that as simply an issue of "political correctness"; lame but harmless.
Originally posted by demaw1
From youall [generic] trying to destory the boy scouts,to arresting 15 / 9th graders that held hands in a circle around a flag pole at their school opening day to ask God to bless the school and the teachers and to help them understand what the teachers are trying to teach during the school year.
"We all" [generic] aren't.
Originally posted by demaw1
4. Atheism,secular humanism ,communism,nazism, facism all the same and it is causing it all.and they all did and do 3 main things before or right after they take power....demonize christianity is one of them.
If you think the current secular US government is "demonizing Christianity", then you need to come out of your apocalyptic retreat. Yes, there have been non-Christian governments that have sucked, as well as Christian governments that have sucked. BTW a guy named Martin Luther wrote something called "On the Jews and Their Lies". This is not about religion or the lack of it. It is about individuals and how they choose to behave.
Originally posted by demaw1
5. Persecution complex ,emm all I did was read about the little girl huh, oh and then I magnified it to represent society,how silly of me....Well you bet your bellybutton no one is persecuting me, hint...no one will.
Incidentally, what ever happened to turning the other cheek?
-
Originally posted by Booky
More tolerable? Your kidding me right? I look around and all the things that adults like myself "tolerate" on a day to day basis and your asking me to tolerate more? WTF dude, when is it your chance to sacrifice a bit of tolerance?
What exactly do you tolerate, and why do you find it so difficult to do so?
-
Phookat more questions....fine.
1. get a grip..Since many people have a idea of christians,romans and lions, I used this discription to encompass all forms of persecution. Also bout 2 weeks ago+ another thread said something about getting the lions ready because they didnt like something some christian did.Funny I havent seen any thread by any christian ever say anything about atheist or there beliefs.I have been around here 3 weeks+ and have seen 3 demeaning threads about christians from the tolerant got tired of it.
2.difference between[ from,]and[ is.].oh sorry[of..]..Of...belonging or connected to....Congress shall make no law....freedom of religion....to be free to worship God,free to belong to any denomination I so choose, in private or public, without threat of life or limb from any goverment agency or individual, whether national or local in nature.[ parapharse words of John Adams.]
This freedom extended to agnostic,athiest and even satanism,granted the people may not allow satanism but the courts would.simplisticly said.you put a sign at city hall saying there is no god,good fine more power to you.I put a sign at city hall that says God is alive and well,fine good, more power to me.
[ From]...separation,removal,exclusion.] freedom from religion= those that are religious must worship in private[not there yet] but it is being said...worship at home or church.
removal... of all things religious from any thing connected with gov.From nativity scenes to a loney cross on a deserted civil war battlefield, put there in memory of the fallen on both sides in1875 ,it was maintained by city funds all this time until the aclu and some a- hole atheist took it to court. In reality a movement is under way to exclude religion from everything, making sure christians are out of sight or in a darken corner some where. I realize you would call this freedom of religion, I dont and when it gets this far there will be civil war no matter what you say.
3.Judeo/christian precepts.....Again it is undeniable truth that America was founded on judeo/christian values[of course anyone can proclaim the world is flat]....I could go all the way back to Israel to show where our laws come from , not going to.I will however say our laws are based on the ten commandments and english common law.English common law is based on the judeo/christian bible.This is why you can have freedom of religion because these values are the only ones in the world to allow it.
4 particular religion.....Yes America was the first and only country to break away from a particular religion. Religion is a man made concept,the bible does not contain a religion,as a matter of fact the word church doesnt appear until near the end of it after Jesus ascinded to heaven,because man used it as a gathering place and it evolved from there.This is why America can have all its freedom it does, because the freedoms are givin to her from a higher power ,as the founding fathers said, and not by man.What is given by man can be taken by man.
The founding fathers knew this and America was founded on judeo/christian values based on the bible not on a religion.The founding fathers writings on this is very interesting and relays to the reader all their thoughts in an understandable way.[ not the revisionest crap of today] This should dispell the contemparary european polictical thought you said I had.
5.ignoring this.....democracy was not caused by judeo/christian teaching but it was a direct result of it. Nothing I have said or you have said would have any bearing on when America came to be,the world is as it is.
6. Fine...ok I dont have the wit to understand you,my shoulders are wide enough, I can take the disappointment.
-
Originally posted by ra
01001001001000000111010001100 00101101011011001010010000001 10111101100110011001100110010 10110111001100011011001010010 00000111010001101111001000000 11110010110111101110101001000 00011100110110100101100111001 01110001000000111000001101100 01100101011000010111001101100 10100100000011000110110100001 10000101101110011001110110010 10010000001101001011101000010 00000011101000101001000011010 0001010
-
01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100111 01100111 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101111 01100100 01111001 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100 00101110
.-- .... .- - / .- / ..-. ..- --. --. .. -. / -.. --- --- -.. -.-- / .... . .- -.. .-.-.-
-
Demaw, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why are you continuously using these "truths" with nothing factual to back them? You seem to think it's common knowledge and "everybody should know this." You probably never won a debate before. Make an assertion, defend it with facts and evidence. You have done nothing of the sort.
2.difference between[ from,]and[ is.].oh sorry[of..]..Of...belonging or connected to....Congress shall make no law....freedom of religion....to be free to worship God,free to belong to any denomination I so choose, in private or public, without threat of life or limb from any goverment agency or individual, whether national or local in nature.[ parapharse words of John Adams.]
This freedom extended to agnostic,athiest and even satanism,granted the people may not allow satanism but the courts would.simplisticly said.you put a sign at city hall saying there is no god,good fine more power to you.I put a sign at city hall that says God is alive and well,fine good, more power to me.
Agnosticism is NOT a religion. It lacks a rigid, unchanging belief system. Satanism, Christianity, athiesm, Hinduism, worship of cthulhu, etc ARE religions.
"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."
-
Phookat....................ag ain more answers.
1. Look up secular.......ok fine I know what secular humanism is but looked it up anyway
secular.....wordly rather than spiritual.....not related to religion......opposite of religion. yep dictionary is right.
2. Gov. not citizen.....The goverment is of the people...for the people...by the people.........I am not going to explain this ,but it is not as you said.
3.Gov maintains the monopoly on use of force......This gov, does not maintain the monopoly in use of force,[although with the growth of power of the gov in last 60 years has almost made your state ment true] still the ultimate power is in peoples hands.. Even further the power to overthrow this gov is still in the peoples hands.......[It is the God given right of every citizen in these united states,to own and carry a firearm, furthermore it is the responseability, nay, I say, it is the duty of every citizen to rise up and overthrow the gov. of the united states if that gov becomes tyrannical, by force if neccessary.......Andrew Jackson....president of the united states......OH MY, RIGHT TO BARE ARMS......GOD GIVEN RIGHT.......OPPS
4. Based in religion...........this gov is not and has not been based in a religion.
5. cross was seen by some........SO WHAT. the cross is the symbol of christianity, yes some dont like it, dont believe it, fine so dont look at it, turn the channel, what ever.The minority has no right .nor is it written anywhere that they have a right to take a constitusional right from the majority. The majority has no right nor is it written anywhere that they can take a constitusional right from the minority. If you remove by law that little cross from the seal of L. A. you have remove a part of our history ,which is the goal. And you have made a mockery of freedom of religion.Thus you have decided freedom from religion is your passion .you cant have it both ways.
6.generic.........Yes you are.
7. Martin Luther..........So what , who cares if he wrote an anti semitic book hundreds of years ago.In that sense , he was a product of his time. But what did he do.....he freed the christian world from the legalistic grip of the roman cath.church of that day,thus makeing the written word available to the masses which in time changed the thinking of the christian world to what it is today.Now the jews have no greater friend than christians.The world is as it is.
8.[ not about religion, it is about how people choose to behave..]...
Another rich but nieve statement. The secular humanism values of europe and 45 percent of America among others is almost but not quite wrapped up in your statement above. You cant judge a country, gov.,people or person.I hear it all the time in here, who are you to say America is better than france or russia etc. Secular humanist do not believe in a higher power,therefore you cant judge good from evil.
you say people choose to behave or not.....ok why? You personally might believe rape is wrong, where did that belief come from? from you? you may say sociaty, ok where did sociaty get thier belief and who is to say that belief is right. xyz comes rapes your wife, who are you or your sociaty to say he was wrong. His sociaty believes women are 3rd class citizens and it is right. If in general, sociaty believes there is a higher power that one day might judge everyone, than there is a little fear.[ I didnt say worship I said believe] Cant happen.....oh it happens all the time remember germany...It was legal to kill jews why? because they decided it was.
9.Turning the other cheek......So you think you know the meaning of that little part of scripture.....well you dont . it has nothing to do with what you were saying and the context you said it. Kinda like you going to keith black and instructing him on how to build a racing engine. I got one for you since you started quoting.....A man that does not protect his family is a coward and will be judged by God
-
Octavius......leg to stand on.....truths with nothing to back them
Yes I would think some of you would know some of this as a little used to be taught in high school. As I have said before , since I was in 6 th grade , I have been an avid reader, I am now 52 that is a lot of reading.
Whats this crap about proof, articiles and such. I am suppose to teach you all I have learned in many years in 10 min? The only reason I went in to all this is because I was tired of the christian bashing by people that know nothing.
If you erode 1 right such as freebom of religion and right to bear arms then freedom of assembly is next,freedom of speach after that.This country use to know that it was worth while to fight for all of the rights even the ones you didnt care for. Now half of us are doing nothing but sucking the hind tit of europe and digesting their values and closing our eyes to europes history.
Have you ever read something written by the founding fathers, lincoln, fdr, what about the red badge of courage.
Yet you all claim to know how they thought, what they said about guns,religion,freedom,speech. You still havent learned that 10 min news cast of talking heads teach you nothing.
Mosgood...you are a fool, nothing you said was right, nothing.If your life depended on something you said being based in historical fact, you would be proved wrong in 10 min ,and dead in 5 more.
We have raised half of our people to be fools and it is our fault,mine to, thank GOD for the other half maybe we will survive.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
If in general, sociaty believes there is a higher power that one day might judge everyone, than there is a little fear
So you're saying that Christians only do right because they're afraid they'll be sent to hell?
Does that mean that an atheist who lives a good life, does charity, and helps others, is morally superior to the christian who only does it under threat?
Puzzling.
-
Christian belief (the words of the New Testament) is that everybody is a sinner, even the most fervent believer, even an atheist who lives a "perfect" life. In the old days you would have to face the music for it. But Jesus made a sacrifice for you, and if you ask for his salvation, your sin can be forgiven and forgotten, and you can have eternal life. The atheist is doomed regardless of his acts in this world.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Octavius......leg to stand on.....truths with nothing to back them
Yes I would think some of you would know some of this as a little used to be taught in high school. As I have said before , since I was in 6 th grade , I have been an avid reader, I am now 52 that is a lot of reading.
Whats this crap about proof, articiles and such. I am suppose to teach you all I have learned in many years in 10 min? The only reason I went in to all this is because I was tired of the christian bashing by people that know nothing.
If you erode 1 right such as freebom of religion and right to bear arms then freedom of assembly is next,freedom of speach after that.This country use to know that it was worth while to fight for all of the rights even the ones you didnt care for. Now half of us are doing nothing but sucking the hind tit of europe and digesting their values and closing our eyes to europes history.
Have you ever read something written by the founding fathers, lincoln, fdr, what about the red badge of courage.
Yet you all claim to know how they thought, what they said about guns,religion,freedom,speech. You still havent learned that 10 min news cast of talking heads teach you nothing.
Mosgood...you are a fool, nothing you said was right, nothing.If your life depended on something you said being based in historical fact, you would be proved wrong in 10 min ,and dead in 5 more.
We have raised half of our people to be fools and it is our fault,mine to, thank GOD for the other half maybe we will survive.
Again, you're claiming to be above it all. You think 50 years of reading automatically makes your argument correct? Why is Mosgood a fool and automatically wrong? Because you say so? Thats not how a debate works buddy.
Damnit give me some proof, give me some facts here. I haven't seen ANYTHING from you other than "you're wrong because I say you're wrong... and I justify this because I read alot." No leg to stand on. You haven't even offered any proof, any sources, nothing. Your replies thus far discredit any argument you think you have.
You seriously don't believe everything you read just because it's in print, do you? I sure hope not.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Mosgood...you are a fool, nothing you said was right, nothing.If your life depended on something you said being based in historical fact, you would be proved wrong in 10 min ,and dead in 5 more.
Wow. Thanks for saying that. Everything is so clear now. Nothing i said was right..... hmmmm. btw.... wtf are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you're saying that Christians only do right because they're afraid they'll be sent to hell?
Does that mean that an atheist who lives a good life, does charity, and helps others, is morally superior to the christian who only does it under threat?
Puzzling.
You actually have to understand the born again philosophy. Fear may bring one to grace .... but as the song says .... grace your fears relieve. Salvation is attained by acceptance. Acts are done by a convicted heart. The acts are the result .... after the fact. Salvation comes from repentance, confession, declaration and conviction.
A simpler understanding is to understand love. If someone you loved (this is after giving the heart and accepting salvation) asked you to make a sacrifice ... someone who's already made the ultimate sacrifice for you .... would you?
The puzzling part is seeing non-believers angry and resentful over others making that choice. I see fear there, actually. Fear that the "evil Christians" may take over and force people to make a choice that Christians already know is a personal choice that can't be coerced.
Nobody here ... or on Capitol Hill ... or in St. Paul's Cathederal ... or the at the Vatican .... or on a Christian TV station can make you decide to drop Atheism for Christianity. Some may spread the message ... a message you don't want to hear ... or are tired of hearing. No need to fear it. Just keep tuning it out. Certainly there's no doubts you harbor deep inside if you're comfortable with your beliefs. You can rest easy that you're soul is safe since you don't believe you have one.
As for politics ... politics is politics. There's been rather idiotic battles between Athiest lobbyists and Christian lobbyists since O'Hare flipped her lid over the possibility that the strong Atheistic values she was trying to instill in her children were being threatened by the hearing other kids (or teachers) pray in school. It set the tone for a whole new way to waste tax dollars. But, like I said, that's an entirely different thing, really. :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you're saying that Christians only do right because they're afraid they'll be sent to hell?
Does that mean that an atheist who lives a good life, does charity, and helps others, is morally superior to the christian who only does it under threat?
Puzzling.
It's not about what good or bad you do. There is no cosmic scale to be used to determine whether you will go to heaven or to hell.
I have often stated here and other places that I'm a poor example of christianity. I'm supposed to love above all else and I truly don't. Some people just deserve the hell they are going to and I'm ok with that. But I shouldn't be. It should bother me. That is what is most wrong with me as a Christian. The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. I wish that I could say that in time I'll improve. Sadly time is leading me further into indifference.
Here is what I'm 100% certain about.
1. I was born.
2. I'm going to die.
3. I will be dead waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than I have ever lived.
4. I believe in insurance. I spend lots of money on insurance policies to protect temporal things.
5. Everything in my intellect tells me I'm the product of intelligent design.
6. The Bible is 100% inerrant in it's prophecies.
7. The Holy Spirit witnesses to my spirit the eternal truths of my creator.
I made a personal decision in 1980 at the age of 23 to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That affects no one negatively and in fact has been positive for the people around me in many ways both subtle and plainly.
When I die I will stand before the creator of the universe to account for my sins. But I won't need to pay for those sins because the price has been paid for me. When the creator of the universe casts his gaze upon me all he sees is the blood of Jesus.
The spilling of blood is universally accepted as the only payment for the remission of sin. I'm paid for, How 'bout you?
Eternity separated from God? Not for me! It doesn't have to be for you either. That's the most important insurance policy I hold and it's the free gift of God. I certainly didn't earn it and I certainly don't deserve it yet it's mine.
-
Octavius....above it all
I have never said I was above it all,I have said that a lot of you have been intellectually dishonest in reading my post on this issue.I said this was the third time all you tolerant people posted a thread demeaning christians.Yes I am a christian,I proclaim it to the world,so what. you still dont get it ,I would have taken the same route this time if you [generic] had said buddist sure can be jerks, because it was freedom of religion that was and is being attacked ..Could have been any of the other clauses being attacked under these circumstances I would have done the same
Nobody is automatically wrong,over the discourse of this so called debate,I have answered many questions and snotty replys the best I could in this setting,didnt want to , but was challanged by others to do so.In the end, I to have not been mr.manners all the time. It has been a very long time since I have discussed religion,and I had forgotten how fast atheist and secular humanist become vociferous.I have never understood it, you dont believe there is a God who cares,you are either right or wrong. We believe there is a God why do you care we are either right or wrong.But they go further and try to destory freedom of religion, that wont happen, with out a lot of bloodshed .I dont understand why you [generic] dont just leave it alone,you do your thing and we will do ours.
I have watched those that ask for proof in here reject it when they get it. It is either from a right wing rag,or he is just a conservative moron . And what do you want for proof,a left leaning person,newspaper,article from an elitist.
Well in this case I cant do that ,I dont have any proof in the format you want, that is all superfical stuff. You read my paraphased writings from andrew jackson and john adams .Hey do I talk that way,no body does in 2004.
If you want proof of what I have said,than the first thing you do
is read the bible cover to cover, Then find at least 1 book on english common law,that will be easy as they are everywhere. Find some books that were written by our founding fathers,or narrated by them.Include ben franklin. It would be better if you stay away from anything written[unless it is just a reprint] after 1925. After you feel comfortable that you have read enough then make up your own mind.
I am not going to qualify your cheap shot with a answer.
This is my main point: If I was to venture a guess I would say 65percent of Americans realize that we are in a so far bloodless civil war maybe more important than the last one. this war is for the hearts and minds of Americans, and the soul of America.. Many of Americans from all walks of life can see what is happening at this time. I said to several on this thread and I will say it again......JEWS will never again be led like sheep into gas chambers,
Christians will never again be led like sheep in to areanas or used as torches to light patios at night.
We may be wiped out even , so be it ,but many will go with us.
If you want to waste your time,feel free to call me all the names you wish.Need help just look at some of the previous post.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Octavius....above it all
I have never said I was above it all,I have said that a lot of you have been intellectually dishonest in reading my post on this issue.I said this was the third time all you tolerant people posted a thread demeaning christians.Yes I am a christian,I proclaim it to the world,so what. you still dont get it ,I would have taken the same route this time if you [generic] had said buddist sure can be jerks, because it was freedom of religion that was and is being attacked ..Could have been any of the other clauses being attacked under these circumstances I would have done the same
Nobody is automatically wrong,over the discourse of this so called debate,I have answered many questions and snotty replys the best I could in this setting,didnt want to , but was challanged by others to do so.In the end, I to have not been mr.manners all the time. It has been a very long time since I have discussed religion,and I had forgotten how fast atheist and secular humanist become vociferous.I have never understood it, you dont believe there is a God who cares,you are either right or wrong. We believe there is a God why do you care we are either right or wrong.But they go further and try to destory freedom of religion, that wont happen, with out a lot of bloodshed .I dont understand why you [generic] dont just leave it alone,you do your thing and we will do ours.
I have watched those that ask for proof in here reject it when they get it. It is either from a right wing rag,or he is just a conservative moron . And what do you want for proof,a left leaning person,newspaper,article from an elitist.
Well in this case I cant do that ,I dont have any proof in the format you want, that is all superfical stuff. You read my paraphased writings from andrew jackson and john adams .Hey do I talk that way,no body does in 2004.
If you want proof of what I have said,than the first thing you do
is read the bible cover to cover, Then find at least 1 book on english common law,that will be easy as they are everywhere. Find some books that were written by our founding fathers,or narrated by them.Include ben franklin. It would be better if you stay away from anything written[unless it is just a reprint] after 1925. After you feel comfortable that you have read enough then make up your own mind.
I am not going to qualify your cheap shot with a answer.
This is my main point: If I was to venture a guess I would say 65percent of Americans realize that we are in a so far bloodless civil war maybe more important than the last one. this war is for the hearts and minds of Americans, and the soul of America.. Many of Americans from all walks of life can see what is happening at this time. I said to several on this thread and I will say it again......JEWS will never again be led like sheep into gas chambers,
Christians will never again be led like sheep in to areanas or used as torches to light patios at night.
We may be wiped out even , so be it ,but many will go with us.
If you want to waste your time,feel free to call me all the names you wish.Need help just look at some of the previous post.
Ok.... I've read your post and I still do not see where you have explained why I am a fool. Or why I am wrong. The people that got up and left SHOULD be more "Tolerant".
No one was trying to throw them to the tigers or gas them. They were in a public assembly in america and had a problem with someone else expressing their view that was different then theirs and had to make a scene about it. Why leave? Just wait till they are done and stay for what you came for. Of course it was thier right to leave, I'm not saying that. But it was silly to do so and all it does is hint at thier fear of hearing a different opinion. Why... I have no idea.
This is America. We have a lot of different types of people here and no ones life was in danger in that meeting. They were just words that ment something to one person and didn't have to mean anything to others, if that's not their point of view.
btw.. demaw, I'm not an athiest and it doesn't take one to see that it was silly for this to happen.
Originally posted by demaw1
Mosgood...you are a fool, nothing you said was right, nothing.If your life depended on something you said being based in historical fact, you would be proved wrong in 10 min ,and dead in 5 more.
Originally posted by demaw1
If you want to waste your time,feel free to call me all the names you wish.Need help just look at some of the previous post.
demaw.... you are a confused man.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The puzzling part is seeing non-believers angry and resentful over others making that choice.
Nah, no one has a problem with that.
Originally posted by Arlo
I see fear there, actually. Fear that the "evil Christians" may take over and force people to make a choice that Christians already know is a personal choice that can't be coerced.
Do all Christians know that this is a personal choice? That would be great, since it imples keeping uniquely Christian principles out of our laws.
Originally posted by Arlo
Nobody here ... or on Capitol Hill ... or in St. Paul's Cathederal ... or the at the Vatican .... or on a Christian TV station can make you decide to drop Atheism for Christianity. Some may spread the message ... a message you don't want to hear ... or are tired of hearing. No need to fear it. Just keep tuning it out. Certainly there's no doubts you harbor deep inside if you're comfortable with your beliefs. You can rest easy that you're soul is safe since you don't believe you have one.
Does your statement apply to people who follow other religions as well, or is it just Atheists? ;) This is getting on a slightly different topic, but what I find strange about western religions is the idea that only their way is the right way. That includes Christianity and Islam, for starters...Judaism too I think. People may have a personal choice, but as far as Christians are concerned that choice can only be between the "right" religion and eternal damnation...and you pity the rest of us, and hope through prosetylizing that the rest of us will eventually see the light. Seems to me that this is a somewhat arrogant attitude. Is this fundamentally the Christian philosophy, or is it just the human interpretation of it?
Originally posted by Arlo
As for politics ... politics is politics. There's been rather idiotic battles between Athiest lobbyists and Christian lobbyists since O'Hare flipped her lid over the possibility that the strong Atheistic values she was trying to instill in her children were being threatened by the hearing other kids (or teachers) pray in school. It set the tone for a whole new way to waste tax dollars. But, like I said, that's an entirely different thing, really. :D
Indeed. We all just need to live and let live. But "letting live" is something we need to consider in government, since the government is our ruling authority and its whole purpose to *not* to let live.
Demaw-- Octavius is right. We try to respond to your arguments logically, and you come back with the same stuff again just louder and longer. "I am right because I said I'm right." Fine, you're entitled to your delusions I suppose. But if you want a meaningful discussion, it's time to remove the fingers from your ears and stop yelling "LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU".
-
Originally posted by mosgood
btw.. demaw, I'm not an athiest and it doesn't take one to see that it was silly for this to happen.
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
http://atheist.8k.com/irritate.html/
LOL, I just saw this. Some good stuff here. Demaw, take a look.
-
Originally posted by storch
It's not about what good or bad you do. There is no cosmic scale to be used to determine whether you will go to heaven or to hell.
OK. Say you murder someone. Will you go to hell, despite accepting Jesus as your savior?
01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01000010 01001100 01001111 01001111 01000100 01011001 00100000 01000110 01010101 01000011 01001011 01001001 01001110 01000111 00100000 01001000 01000101 01001100 01001100 00111111 00111111
-
Originally posted by phookat
Do all Christians know that this is a personal choice? That would be great, since it imples keeping uniquely Christian principles out of our laws.
Not everyone that CALLS themself a Christian does .... but as far as your own assertion, what a horrible misconception. Christian principles have been an integral part of the western world's laws since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as IT'S state religion. Jefferson's ideology of seperation of church and state cannot avoid such ... nor was it ever intended to. His letter to a Baptist congregation was simply to assure them that the government would not impede their religious freedoms.
Does your statement apply to people who follow other religions as well, or is it just Atheists?
Which specific statement in my post are you attempting to refer to?
This is getting on a slightly different topic, but what I find strange about western religions is the idea that only their way is the right way. That includes Christianity and Islam, for starters...Judaism too I think. People may have a personal choice, but as far as Christians are concerned that choice can only be between the "right" religion and eternal damnation...and you pity the rest of us, and hope through prosetylizing that the rest of us will eventually see the light. Seems to me that this is a somewhat arrogant attitude. Is this fundamentally the Christian philosophy, or is it just the human interpretation of it?
First you mention three religions then you finish up with the arrogance of Christians. But let's start at the beginning. You find it strange that Christianity, Judaism and Islam (all of which claim to worship the same God yet have fundimental differences on what they believe God's will is) all claim to be the true way. How is that strange to you? Even a superficial knowledge of the writings of each can divulge why each of these major religions believe it's way is the only way. And out of the three, Christianity allows for the most freedom and latitude. All it requires is acceptance of the Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, acknowledgement that he died for sin and a committment to follow his teachings as best as one can (even then it acknowledges that we're only human and we have failings). It does not require forced coercion of non-believers (though some in history have tried that ... in the name of God and Jesus, even).
And of course Christianity teaches that it's the right way. So does Judaism, Islam and any other religion. So if that's a major issue someone has with Christians which leads them to dislike Christianity specifically (and perhaps all religion, in general), then they have their own intolerance to live with which thinly conceals it's own unique arrogance.
Indeed. We all just need to live and let live. But "letting live" is something we need to consider in government, since the government is our ruling authority and its whole purpose to *not* to let live.
Our government is still primarily comprised of elected representatives of the people (exception being the Judicial branch which is appointed by elected representatives). Granted, federal government attained greater authority after the Civil War but we still have a government of the people. If government's "whole purpose" is to not let live then it's by mandate of the people. In other words, in spite of special interest groups that choose to interpret the Constitution to fit their specific desires, the majority of the people still has a greater influence (or should) and, as such, will probably let their own desire on any issue brought up by said special interest groups known. Be the SIG Christian, Athiest or anything else.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
But Jesus made a sacrifice for you, and if you ask for his salvation, your sin can be forgiven and forgotten, and you can have eternal life. The atheist is doomed regardless of his acts in this world.
Which of course applies to both atheists and other religions as well. Nice setup. ;)
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK. Say you murder someone. Will you go to hell, despite accepting Jesus as your savior?
Accepting Jesus as your savior involves repentance of sin. All qualify ... murderers, prostitutes, pedophiles, thieves, liars, tax collectors. That's how it works.
Now, if you're refering to someone who's already accepted Christ as their savior committing a murder, then I suppose it involves whether they actually accepted Christ as their savior or they just gave lip service to join a social club their parents or business associates belong to. Even if it truly ended up being someone who accepted Christ falling prey to passion (crime of passion) ... they are saved from eternal damnation (though they most likely wouldn't be saved from worldly punishment).
Surely you knew this already. This is a key element to the widespread prosetylizing going on.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Which of course applies to both atheists and other religions as well. Nice setup. ;)
Not a setup. I've yet to see a religion ... any religion ... say "Hey ... we're not the only way, yaknow. Those Satanists down the road got a good racket. So do the Jews and Christians. It doesn't really matter what road you take. It all goes to the same place. But we've got some cool chants and our places of worship are really old and look cool. So support us, ok?" Anyone who's using THAT as an excuse to dis Christianity just doesn't understand the nature of religion in general. Yes, there's one that's right (including Atheism) ... it's your call to decide which one. Don't blame the doors for leading or not leading where you want them to.
-
whoopsie
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Christian principles have been an integral part of the western world's laws since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as IT'S state religion. Jefferson's ideology of seperation of church and state cannot avoid such ... nor was it ever intended to. His letter to a Baptist congregation was simply to assure them that the government would not impede their religious freedoms.
The *only* way to not impede religious freedoms is to make sure that principles unique to *any* religion are not made a part of the law. Note the use of the word *unique*. I am not saying our laws have nothing to do with Christianity. I am saying that the law should be based on a minimal set of common moral principles, and certainly those have some overlap with Christianity. They also overlap other religions and atheism as well.
What I am trying to get at is this: the claim that America is based on Christianity is illegitimate when it is used to justify the inclusion of uniquely Christian values into the law. Here are some examples of uniquely Christian laws: No sex before marriage, no condoms, no drinking. Note again the use of the word unique.
Furthermore, what makes America different is that they went beyond any particular religion, unlike all the rest of the western governments. Something new happened here, and it was a good thing. If the idea of freedom of religion is Christian, then once again I ask why did it not happen before?
Originally posted by Arlo
It does not require forced coercion of non-believers
I did not say it does. But it does maintain that those who do not believe in this particular faith are damned, does it not?
Originally posted by Arlo
And of course Christianity teaches that it's the right way. So does Judaism, Islam and any other religion. So if that's a major issue someone has with Christians which leads them to dislike Christianity specifically (and perhaps all religion, in general), then they have their own intolerance to live with which thinly conceals it's own unique arrogance.
Hey relax, I don't dislike Christianity specifically, or any other religion. I focused on it because I figured that's what people would know about. But, as I said, it does seem strange to me. It conflicts with what I know about Jesus, who by all accounts in addition to being a great person was also a nice guy. Now, a nice guy doesn't say "believe in me or go to hell". He says "believe in me and you'll be saved".
But I think perhaps some of his followers take that a step further, adding a statement about the rest of the world that was never intended.
Originally posted by Arlo
Our government is still primarily comprised of elected representatives of the people (exception being the Judicial branch which is appointed by elected representatives). Granted, federal government attained greater authority after the Civil War but we still have a government of the people. If government's "whole purpose" is to not let live then it's by mandate of the people. In other words, in spite of special interest groups that choose to interpret the Constitution to fit their specific desires, the majority of the people still has a greater influence (or should) and, as such, will probably let their own desire on any issue brought up by said special interest groups known. Be the SIG Christian, Athiest or anything else.
Absolutely.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I did not say it does. But it does maintain that those who do not believe in this particular faith are damned, does it not?
Yes it does.
Look at it this way. First ... all religions believe their way is the right way. Not all religions believe in hell but the big three you mentioned (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) do. Christianity and Islam task their followers to spread the faith. Judaism doesn't. THE motivation for Christians to spread the faith is to keep non-believers from going to hell. When Jesus said "No man goes to the Father but by me." he's not saying "If you don't choose to follow me you may hafta enjoy the afterlife in a different way." He's saying if ya wanna make it to heaven, folks, follow me.
But if you believe that's not true, it shouldn't really bother you.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Accepting Jesus as your savior involves repentance of sin. All qualify ... murderers, prostitutes, pedophiles, thieves, liars, tax collectors. That's how it works.
Now, if you're refering to someone who's already accepted Christ as their savior committing a murder, then I suppose it involves whether they actually accepted Christ as their savior or they just gave lip service to join a social club their parents or business associates belong to. Even if it truly ended up being someone who accepted Christ falling prey to passion (crime of passion) ... they are saved from eternal damnation (though they most likely wouldn't be saved from worldly punishemnt).
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. In that case though, there *is* a scale of good and bad despite what the previous poster said. You can't repent sin unless sin exists.
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. In that case though, there *is* a scale of good and bad despite what the previous poster said. You can't repent sin unless sin exists.
Sin exists. And the scale is "all have fallen short of the glory of God." From a Christian perspective, the good news is there's redemption.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not a setup. I've yet to see a religion ... any religion ... say "Hey ... we're not the only way, yaknow. Those Satanists down the road got a good racket. So do the Jews and Christians. It doesn't really matter what road you take. It all goes to the same place. But we've got some cool chants and our places of worship are really old and look cool. So support us, ok?" Anyone who's using THAT as an excuse to dis Christianity just doesn't understand the nature of religion in general. Yes, there's one that's right (including Atheism) ... it's your call to decide which one. Don't blame the doors for leading or not leading where you want them to.
Yes, I think you're correct. Some religions are more tolerant than others perhaps, but all to one extent or another claim that they are the correct path.
But I don't think that we should take that to mean that there is in fact only one right path. I believe the exclusivity of religion is a human overlay. If there is a universal supreme being, surely he will not manifest himself only to a single geographic location on a tiny planet in a forgotten corner of a lonely galaxy.
Why is it impossible to think there might be more than one correct path? You're statement "Don't blame the doors for leading or not leading where you want them to." Do you think you knocked on the "right" door, and what basis do you have for believing that? For that matter, what basis does *anyone* have to choose a door, on which choice blame can be assesed? Is it not more sensible to think that there are different doors amenable to different peoples?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
But if you believe that's not true, it shouldn't really bother you.
Yep, that's true.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Is it not more sensible to think that there are different doors amenable to different peoples?
Only if the creator suffers from mpd.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Only if the creator suffers from mpd.
I notice, my good Arlo, that with great care you have ignored my other questions. ;) And surely different cultures are amenable to different personalities.
-
ARLO.........thank you
I realize I am what you would call a blue collar kind of guy,and admit the only reason I went to collage was to play baseball.I am not well versed in the subties of writing or debate,I just say it, which of course brings about more conflict and tension.
I greatly injoyed reading your post and the knowledge behind them. They were soothing and reasonable.
I cant name them all, but there are a few others that have showed much courage in what they have written,I also thank them.
thank you demaw.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
They were soothing and reasonable.
Yeah, none of that bothersome "thinking" involved. :D
-
Phookat.......logical arguments,proof
I am not right because I said I am right, I am as right as a normal human being can be after some research and study on the writings of the founding fathers on religion. I actually started a study on the right to keep and bear arms
I gave octavious the format I used to study our forefathers,not a foremat a pro would use but effective. Why isnt that enough for you? It would at least prove what they said no matter what your conclussion is.
I have been answering your questions which puts me behind the eight ball, since you ask/ or say the same things all the time I must respon the same. what you call louder is only a more indepth response. I believe you know this and are being intellectually dishonest.
You have said: The claim that America is based on judeo/christian values is, illgitimate ............................p rove it
You have said: Christians are constantly trying to pass legislation making elements of their bible in to law.....prove it.
You have said: America is based on other values that existed before and after christ....................... ....................prove it
You have said :....if Amercia was based on christianity we would not have freedom of religion..........prove it.
You have said:most of the laws of this country are not based on Judeo/christian values..........Prove it ...and if not where did they come from.
You have said that Jesus was a great person and nice guy..........
I have a question for you.........
Jesus said: ,If you have seen me you have seen the father.
[ meaning he is God]
I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, NO man shall see the father except thru me.
[ meaning if you do not believe in me you will spend eternaty in hell]
Now if some one said that, I would figure either he was a demented fool and a lier of the first degree.........Or he was who he said he was.
[ How can you say he was a great person,and a nice guy? ]
Either he is who he says he is ..which means you are the fool...or he is a lier and perpertrated the largest hoax the world has ever seen. Which means I am the fool.
I have notice my good Phookat, that with great care you have ignored and twisted and taken out of context most of what I have said....Why?
-
Repent, or this thread will be struck by lightning.......or Greencloud.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I notice, my good Arlo, that with great care you have ignored my other questions. ;) And surely different cultures are amenable to different personalities.
If such is the case, great care wasn't used to get there. AAMOF, I've done my best to directly and completely address all you've had to say on the matter. If I didn't address it, I either thought it was a redundant part of your argument or that it was rhetorical on your part (though biased) and required or desired no answer other than what you already choose to believe.
As far as different cultures are concerned, Christianity is a "product" of a different culture. It hails from the same region as Judaism and Islam. Buddists and Hindi aren't that far away. Ethiopia had a church within Paul's lifetime. Jesus, himself, possibly spent time as a youth in Egypt. Modern missionaries span the globe.
The beliefs of the various religions around the world aren't designed to be interchangeable nor do they promote the same truths. You actually have to choose what to believe and believe that the faith you've chosen will keep it's promises. If you choose poorly, you suffer for it.
You may ask, "And what of the people in remote regions who've never heard of Christ or of the people that lived before Christ? How unfair is it that they shall never receive the opportunity to accept him as their savior?" The Christian faith assures that all will have the opportunity to accept or deny. How this comes to pass is not for me to know but I have faith that the Creator of the universe and master of all including time can accomplish this. But that's neither here nor there (ptp). I know that you know that I know that you know who Jesus is and at least the basic premise of what his existance here on Earth was all about. God does not suffer from MPD. It's up to you, or anyone, to determine which path leads to him (or even if there's a path at all).
To demaw: You're welcome but all I've done is chime in.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Here are some examples of uniquely Christian laws: No sex before marriage, no condoms, no drinking. Note again the use of the word unique.
Only one of the three was addressed via an amendment to the Constitution and it was repealed. I think you've no reason to fear the other two will be incorporated.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Only one of the three was addressed via an amendment to the Constitution and it was repealed. I think you've no reason to fear the other two will be incorporated.
Indeed. Which proves my position as regards to the causes of freedom of religion on America.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Indeed. Which proves my position as regards to the causes of freedom of religion on America.
Not really. Your position was that the people need protection from the church. This proves they don't. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The beliefs of the various religions around the world aren't designed to be interchangeable nor do they promote the same truths. You actually have to choose what to believe and believe that the faith you've chosen will keep it's promises. If you choose poorly, you suffer for it.
What did you base your choice on? What makes you think that you didn't choose poorly?
Originally posted by Arlo
You may ask, "And what of the people in remote regions who've never heard of Christ or of the people that lived before Christ? How unfair is it that they shall never receive the opportunity to accept him as their savior?" The Christian faith assures that all will have the opportunity to accept or deny. How this comes to pass is not for me to know but I have faith that the Creator of the universe and master of all including time can accomplish this. But that's neither here nor there (ptp).
Actually, that is very much here. I have a reasonable explanation of it. You choose to ignore it...
Originally posted by Arlo
God does not suffer from MPD.
How do you know? My "MPD" explanation makes sense and is reasonable. You have no explanation except to say "I am right".
Here's another one. Say there's intelligent life on another planet, so different from us that the idea of a bible or even using books as a form of communication is unimaginable to them. Surely God would reveal their path to heaven? And surely that method would be different from Christianity. You can't say "I don't care", because if it is true, or if it is even possible that it is true, then immediately your idea that "there is only one correct path" is invalidated.
Take Funked's example. Say a buddhist is living a very proper and charitable life in his dealings with other people. If you say "he's going to Hell anyway"...certainly that doesn't affect the buddhist, but it is still not a very nice thing for *you* to say or think, is it?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not really. Your position was that the people need protection from the church. This proves they don't. :D
Incorrect. It proves that they *had* that protection all along. The whole "unconstitutional" thing. ;) And the fact that prohibition came into being proves the need for that protection.
-
So, chocolate covered Cicadas. People seemed to enjoy them this year during the infestation that occured due to the 17 year cycle. Personally, I think that seems extremely disguisting... seriously, chocolate. Blech.
Your thoughts? Any other delicious animals you can think of?
-SW
-
I see you've caught your third wind.
What did you base your choice on? What makes you think that you didn't choose poorly?
What part of faith and conviction confuses you? Like I said. I've made my choice. You're free to make yours. Don't try and make a conspiracy over it.
Actually, that is very much here. I have a reasonable explanation of it. You choose to ignore it...
No I didn't. I provided a reasonable explanation myself. Difference being, mine is based on the writings of an established faith as well as my own feelings and yours is based on just your own feelings. You feel God suffers from MPD and you think that's a good and comforting thing. I don't. Why does that make you feel like you're being ignored? Because I don't see your pov as a rational one? Well then, you must be ignoring me too. ;)
How do you know? My "MPD" explanation makes sense and is reasonable. You have no explanation except to say "I am right".
Actually, the inverse applies. You made yours up and it feels good to you. I didn't make mine up and there's scripture to back it. If what you want to do is start a new faith, get to writing it down and promoting it.
Here's another one. Say there's intelligent life on another planet, so different from us that the idea of a bible or even using books as a form of communication is unimaginable to them. Surely God would reveal their path to heaven? And surely that method would be different from Christianity. You can't say "I don't care", because if it is true, or if it is even possible that it is true, then immediately your idea that "there is only one correct path" is invalidated.
Now you're really reaching. If it's possbile that Danebian Space Slugs from a galaxy far far away cannot conceive of Christ then Christianity is invalidated? Would you like to try to come back to Earth, now?
Take Funked's example. Say a buddhist is living a very proper and charitable life in his dealings with other people. If you say "he's going to Hell anyway"...certainly that doesn't affect the buddhist, but it is still not a very nice thing for *you* to say or think, is it?
No .... it's not a certainty. It's a possibility. It's a choice. Nice thing to say (or think)? So Christians trying to save lost souls because it is their belief that Christianity is the only salvation from hell is not nice? Interesting theory. If you truly had the open and broad mind you seem to think you do, I don't think it would offend you nearly as much.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Incorrect. It proves that they *had* that protection all along. The whole "unconstitutional" thing. ;) And the fact that prohibition came into being proves the need for that protection.
How does "Doesn't need" and "Had all along" conflict again?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I see you've caught your third wind.
??
Originally posted by Arlo
What part of faith and conviction confuses you? Like I said. I've made my choice. You're free to make yours. Don't try and make a conspiracy over it.
It doesn't confuse me. That's the answer I was expecting, because it is the only possible answer. Your choice and your conviction is based on your belief...and so is anyone else's. Step back a bit and think objectively. Both claims of rightness are *equally valid*, thus it is impossible for one choice to be the "right" one--without also believing that God forsakes people arbitrarily.
Conspiracy? Not sure where that's coming from.
Originally posted by Arlo
No I didn't. I provided a reasonable explanation myself. Difference being, mine is based on the writings of an established faith as well as my own feelings and yours is based on just your own feelings.
No. My assertion is based on logic, and it makes sense. Your assertion is based on your interpretation of scripture--which is the same as saying "I am right because I believe I'm right". Not all Christians think they are the only right ones. Perhaps they choose to interpret scripture in a different way, a way that makes sense or is logical.
Originally posted by Arlo
You feel God suffers from MPD and you think that's a good and comforting thing. I don't.
Not "good and comforting" but logical. Where's the logic in your assertion? That's right, you don't have any. You can only point to your illogical interpretation of scripture.
Originally posted by Arlo
Why does that make you feel like you're being ignored? Because I don't see your pov as a rational one? Well then, you must be ignoring me too. ;)
No, I thought we were debating something logically and objectively. If you aren't, then anything goes. "God flies an X-wing on the Planet Zorg. My scripture said so."
Originally posted by Arlo
Now you're really reaching. If it's possbile that Danebian Space Slugs from a galaxy far far away cannot conceive of Christ then Christianity is invalidated?
Did you really miss the point that badly? Where did I imply Christianity is "invalid"? My point is that it is not the only right way.
Originally posted by Arlo
So Christians trying to save lost souls because it is their belief that Christianity is the only salvation from hell is not nice?
The saving part is fine. But the belief that only you are right is the part I am saying is not all that nice. Offended? LOL. I'm just arguing with ya. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
How does "Doesn't need" and "Had all along" conflict again?
They don't conflict. We need it (the existence of prohibition proves that, along with religious persecution all over the world), *and* have had it all along. Read the whole post, it was only three sentences. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
How does "Doesn't need" and "Had all along" conflict again?
Hey Arlo this guy phookat is a mental midget. To quote Mark Twain "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you and annoys the pig".
-
Originally posted by bigsky
http://atheist.8k.com/irritate.html/
-
No. My assertion is based on logic, and it makes sense. Your assertion is based on your interpretation of scripture--which is the same as saying "I am right because I believe I'm right".
Actually, that's about as false a claim as one can make. Adherance to scripture is not at all like saying "I am right because I believe I'm right." Making up something and calling it logical because it sounds good is much more akin to that.
Not all Christians think they are the only right ones. Perhaps they choose to interpret scripture in a different way, a way that makes sense or is logical.
Really? What Christian denomination claims that there is another path to heaven other than accepting Christ as their savior?
Not "good and comforting" but logical. Where's the logic in your assertion? That's right, you don't have any. You can only point to your illogical interpretation of scripture.
First of all, how have you disproven Christian scripture or even my interpretation of it so far? Second, again ... your belief has what foundation other than "sounds cool to you?"
No, I thought we were debating something logically and objectively. If you aren't, then anything goes. "God flies an X-wing on the Planet Zorg. My scripture said so."
You're the one who decided science fiction was a valid method of defending your theorem, not me.
Did you really miss the point that badly? Where did I imply Christianity is "invalid"? My point is that it is not the only right way.
Here ... let me help ya out. Rather than riding the merry-go-round that keeps claiming that your pov is more logical than my pov because you made yours up and I didn't .... why not just become a follower of Baha'i? It pretty much mirrors what you thought you logically invented on your own but you'll have to give up drinking (if you drink). That way, at least, we can claim equal footing of being adherants to established religions and not do the "I'm more logical than your faith" thang. I still won't agree with your belief and you won't agree with mine but at least neither of us will be making it up as we go along.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Really? What Christian denomination claims that there is another path to heaven other than accepting Christ as their savior?
I had a friend who was a catholic priest, a devoted follower of Christ but believed as I say that Christ is not the only path. He died a few years ago; he was part of the "Liberal Catholic" church. Just did a google, they have a website: http://www.liberalcatholic.com/
As for the rest of your post, you're pulling a demaw (except thankfully you're not as long-winded as he is). Simply go off on a tangent or outright ignore all my arguments and say "you're wrong" without providing any reasoning. Could have been an interesting discussion. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I had a friend who was a catholic priest, a devoted follower of Christ but believed as I say that Christ is not the only path. He died a few years ago; he was part of the "Liberal Catholic" church. Just did a google, they have a website: http://www.liberalcatholic.com/
As for the rest of your post, you're pulling a demaw (except thankfully you're not as long-winded as he is). Simply go off on a tangent or outright ignore all my arguments and say "you're wrong" without providing any reasoning. Could have been an interesting discussion. Oh well.
1: Missed the part on the website that said Liberal Catholics think Islam, Judaism or any other religion other than Catholicism is as valid a path to heaven as Catholicism itself.
2: I've not ignored a single thing you've claimed. I've challenged it. I've given you my belief, my reasoning and my foundation. I've even gone so far as to acknowledge that you're free to believe anything you want to with no foundation whatsoever (which addressed religious freedom in this nation ... even from a Christian perspective).
You've not backed up any of your arguments with anything other than "I'm logical and you're not" so far. Well ... with the possible exception of space slugs not being able to understand the Bible. If you wanna step it up, I'd be more than happy to take you seriously.
-
Arlo when you get done with this dung heap [sorry Lord]
just ask it to PROVE some of its statements ,youll never hear from it again.
Remember when flying of into the sunset, to first shake the dust from your feet.
-
It's ok, demaw. We're having a logical debate.
-
A crutch for the weak.
-
Originally posted by Torque
A crutch for the weak.
A hope for the libertine. You had better be right. Go buy some asbestos panties u will need them.
-
Torque,
What you're inferring is that you are one of the stronger, better, individuals in the world because you don't lean on the crutch of religion.
Does that about sum it up? How elitist.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
1: Missed the part on the website that said Liberal Catholics think Islam, Judaism or any other religion other than Catholicism is as valid a path to heaven as Catholicism itself.
Hmm, OK. Maybe it was just him then.
Originally posted by Arlo
2: I've not ignored a single thing you've claimed. I've challenged it. I've given you my belief, my reasoning and my foundation.
Nope, you didn't. What you have done is to "respond" with witty but tangential and irrelevant one-liners on one hand, and to quote scripture on the other--without showing how that scripture addresses the logical inconsistencies that I raise. The only thing you can say is that it "sounds good", as if this is a counter-argument. I presented you with a logical argument; in what way is my argument logically flawed? You have not answered this, and I am beginning to get the feeling that you simply don't know the answer.
Originally posted by Arlo
I've even gone so far as to acknowledge that you're free to believe anything you want to with no foundation whatsoever (which addressed religious freedom in this nation ... even from a Christian perspective).
Well, I am glad we agree at least in this. I suppose this is the important thing after all, as far as society and government is concerned
Originally posted by Arlo
You've not backed up any of your arguments with anything other than "I'm logical and you're not" so far. Well ... with the possible exception of space slugs not being able to understand the Bible. If you wanna step it up, I'd be more than happy to take you seriously.
What is your definition of "backing up"? Do you want me to quote scripture? Isn't presenting a logical argument "backing it up"? Taking me seriously...I guess you have a superweapon hidden up your sleeve there? Out with it, then! :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
.....Christians are constantly trying to pass legislation making elements of their bible into law.....
as opposed to those that will try to make a point by taking god out of everything. Its a 2 sided coin.
Christians feel they have rights to pray..when and where they want...so on and so on...
Atheists...think they have a right to say no when and where ever they want...and so on and so on.
"In God we trust"......Tough to say huh? Puuuhleeaseeeee:rolleyes:
-
Arlo:
Let me restate my scenario. Tell me directly if you think this is the way it works.
There are two religions, A and B. Both claim to be the exclusively correct paths to God. Both have essentially the same moral codes, but one says "follow prophet 1" and the other says "follow prophet 2". In truth, only one of these religions is correct, and if you follow the other one you will not be saved.
Now someone wants to join a religion with the goal of being saved. There is no possible way he can "figure out" or reason a choice. He chooses one by "faith and conviction" as you said. There is no possible way he can know for sure that he made the right choice, except he believes with all his heart that religion A is unquestionably the right one. There is no reason behind this...he just knows.
Am I correct so far? Please make *specific* corrections where you think I'm wrong. To be continued after you are finished reviewing.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Nope, you didn't. What you have done is to "respond" with witty but tangential and irrelevant one-liners on one hand, and to quote scripture on the other--without showing how that scripture addresses the logical inconsistencies that I raise. The only thing you can say is that it "sounds good", as if this is a counter-argument. I presented you with a logical argument; in what way is my argument logically flawed? You have not answered this, and I am beginning to get the feeling that you simply don't know the answer.
Tangental? I'm on your six in this. You've been leading and I've been asking where you're going with it. Your answer to that has been, for the most part, "You're ignoring my logic." What logic? That you believe that all religions, all faiths, all philosophies serve the same purpose equally well and that all adherents to them make it to a rewarding afterlife? Funny, none of those religions, faiths and philosophies tend do agree with you (Baha'i the exception). So all you've offered is your opinion versus my opinion yet you call yours logic and mine not. Are you sure that's where you want to leave it? Fine by me, if you do. But it doesn't sound like you have anymore of an answer than you expect from me.
What is your definition of "backing up"? Do you want me to quote scripture? Isn't presenting a logical argument "backing it up"? Taking me seriously...I guess you have a superweapon hidden up your sleeve there? Out with it, then! :D
Quote it if you will. I'm pretty sure you'll be hard pressed to find Christian scripture ... or Judaic ... or Islamic ... or anything other than Baha'i writings to back you up on this. And if it comes to that, it's certainly not proving that Christians should not believe and state their belief that Christ is the only way to the Kingdom of God. Again, you've not once presented a logical argument. You've stated, "This is what I feel and it's logical" and CALLED it a logical argument but it falls short by the definition of such. I suggest you drop that altogether and concede that your argument is based on nothing more than your personal belief, as well, and you'll come off at least not looking like you're trying to be intellectually superior when you're not (so far).
Taking you seriously is a superweapon? And here I thought it may have been something you would have preferred.
Now, if you really have nothing more to add other than I'm still ignoring your irrefutable logic, and, in return, not giving you the "logical proof" you require to believe that Christians have not only the right to believe the teachings of Christ without throwing in some aspect that makes his teachings a bit more pc as to not offend those who aren't Christians but the responsibility to do so, I'll put this logical philosophical debate on hold. Let me know if you come up with something less redundant, brother. :D
-
Originally posted by phookat
Arlo:
Let me restate my scenario. Tell me directly if you think this is the way it works.
There are two religions, A and B. Both claim to be the exclusively correct paths to God. Both have essentially the same moral codes, but one says "follow prophet 1" and the other says "follow prophet 2". In truth, only one of these religions is correct, and if you follow the other one you will not be saved.
Now someone wants to join a religion with the goal of being saved. There is no possible way he can "figure out" or reason a choice. He chooses one by "faith and conviction" as you said. There is no possible way he can know for sure that he made the right choice, except he believes with all his heart that religion A is unquestionably the right one. There is no reason behind this...he just knows.
Am I correct so far? Please make *specific* corrections where you think I'm wrong. To be continued after you are finished reviewing.
If one is Christianity, there is indeed a way one can know he made the right decision. This is the "mystical" side of Christianity. It's called "The Holy Spirit" and it's mentioned quite frequently in Christian writings. Christianity involves a personal relationship with God. It's somewhat unique in that.
Now, if someone picks the other religion, as is their right, and they place all their faith and conviction in it, which can be expected, in what have they actually put their faith and conviction in? Mohammed? Budda? The Jews can claim to be God's chosen people and Christians adhere to this, as well, but their covenant involves a continued blood sacrifice that is no longer required since the ultimate sacrifice of the Messiah. Many will convert in the end times.
Did you expect my answer to not involve my faith?
-
Scary. Enough said.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Atheists are like gays and feminists. It's not enough that you leave them alone and let them believe and do what they want.
They have to be in your face and thay have to force you to watch.
Tolerance is not good enough, they demand acceptance and full approval.
Why on Earth would an atheist be interested in delivering an invokation?
To stick it to the rest of of course and manifest his beliefs.
I take it you don't know a lot of atheists, gays, and feminists. Or maybe you do and just don't know it.
-
Lets go back to the original topic.
Lot of people talking and lots of people talking.
Some Christians can sure be jerks! Yes, some are.
Some Non-Christians can sure be jerks! Yes, some are.
Everyone happy now?
:aok <<< I hate this little guy!
-
Originally posted by Ozark
Lets go back to the original topic.
Lot of people talking and lots of people talking.
Some Christians can sure be jerks! Yes, some are.
Some Non-Christians can sure be jerks! Yes, some are.
Everyone happy now?
I am, I think it's compatible with the spirit of my original post.
-
Yeah...Intolerance really ticks me off.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeah...Intolerance really ticks me off.
Especially when rebuilding an engine!
:p <<< I hate this little guy too!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If one is Christianity, there is indeed a way one can know he made the right decision. This is the "mystical" side of Christianity. It's called "The Holy Spirit" and it's mentioned quite frequently in Christian writings. Christianity involves a personal relationship with God. It's somewhat unique in that.
OK, now I think we are *finally* getting to the crux of the matter. It is not just a matter of faith and conviction, then, as you mentioned earlier.
My scenario is incorrect in that I have left out the fact that he will mystically know to the core of his being that he has chosen the right path, because he feels a personal relationship with god. Is that correct?
-
The Christian is convicted in his heart by the Holy Spirit and feels a personal relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ, correct.
The second choice, whatever it is, doesn't have that option.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The second choice, whatever it is, doesn't have that option.
Why not? A personal relationship with God is very definitely a part of other faiths. Hinduism is one I know of, for example.
-
You know of? Go on. :D
-
That'll do to start with. ;)
-
Ah, as I thought. You throw out "Hinduism" yet you weren't prepared to follow up.
I'll just save time and do a quick cut and paste here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion.
Religions which recognize the existence of multiple deities have traditionally been among the world's most religiously tolerant. Hinduism remains arguably one of the most tolerant of such religions. However, during the past few years, a Hindu nationalistic political party has controlled the government of India. The linkage of religion, the federal government and nationalism has led to a recent degeneration in the separation of church and state in India. This, in turn, has decreased the level of religious tolerance in that country. The escalation of anti-Christian violence is one manifestation of this linkage. *
Hindu beliefs and practices:
Categorizing the religion of Hinduism is somewhat confusing:
Hinduism has commonly been viewed in the west as a polytheistic religion - one which worships multiple deities: gods and goddesses.
Some have viewed it as a monotheistic religion, because it recognizes only one supreme God: the panentheistic principle of Brahman, that all reality is a unity. The entire universe is seen as one divine entity who is simultaneously at one with the universe and who transcends it as well.
Some view Hinduism as Trinitarian because Brahman is simultaneously visualized as a triad: Brahma the Creator who is continuing to create new realities
Vishnu, (Krishna) the Preserver, who preserves these new creations. Whenever dharma (eternal order, righteousness, religion, law and duty) is threatened, Vishnu travels from heaven to earth in one of ten incarnations.
Shiva, the Destroyer, is at times compassionate, erotic and destructive.
Strictly speaking, Hinduism is a henotheistic religion -- a religion which recognizes a single deity, but which recognizes other gods and goddesses as facets or manifestations or aspects of that supreme God.
Most urban Hindus follow one of two major divisions within Hinduism:
Vaishnavaism: which generally regards Vishnu as the ultimate deity
Shivaism: which generally regards Shiva as the ultimate deity.
However, many rural Hindus worship their own village goddess or an earth goddess. She is believed to rule over fertility and disease -- and thus over life and death. The priesthood is less important in rural Hinduism: non-Brahmins and non-priests often carry out ritual and prayer there.
Hindus believe in the repetitious Transmigration of the Soul. This is the transfer of one's soul after death into another body. This produces a continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth through their many lifetimes. It is called samsara. Karma is the accumulated sum of ones good and bad deeds. Karma determines how you will live your next life. Through pure acts, thoughts and devotion, one can be reborn at a higher level. Eventually, one can escape samsara and achieve enlightenment. Bad deeds can cause a person to be reborn as a lower level, or even as an animal. The unequal distribution of wealth, prestige, suffering are thus seen as natural consequences for one's previous acts, both in this life and in previous lives.
Hindus organize their lives around certain activities or "purusharthas." These are called the "four aims of Hinduism," or "the doctrine of the fourfold end of life." They are: The three goals of the "pravritti," those who are in the world, are: dharma: righteousness in their religious life. This is the most important of the three.
artha: success in their economic life; material prosperity.
kama: gratification of the senses; pleasure; sensual, sexual, and mental enjoyment.
The main goal for the "nivritti," those who renounce the world. is: moksa: Liberation from "samsara," the This is considered the supreme end of mankind.
Meditation is often practiced, with Yoga being the most common. Other activities include daily devotions, public rituals, and puja, a ceremonial dinner for a God.
*Hinduism has a deserved reputation of being highly tolerant of other religions. Hindus have a saying: "Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti," which may be translated: "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism2.htm
Again, if Hinduism appeals to you, by all means. But no, it doesn't believe in a personal relationship with God just like Christianity does.
P.S. ... gonna let this one drift until Blammo's son is home safe.
-
So-called "Bhakti Yoga" in Hinduism is the path of loving devotion to God, and God accepts your love and saves you. That is a personal relationship to God. I refer you to http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/chapter-12.html
Now, back to my scenario. Here it is again, with your amendment Arlo. Tell me if anything else is wrong.
There are two religions, A and B. Both claim to be the exclusively correct paths to God. Both have essentially the same moral codes, but one says "follow prophet 1" and the other says "follow prophet 2". In truth, only one of these religions is correct, and if you follow the other one you will not be saved.
Now someone wants to join a religion with the goal of being saved. There is no possible way he can "figure out" or reason a choice. He chooses one by "faith and conviction" as you said. He mystically knows to the core of his being that he has chosen the right path, because he feels a personal relationship with god.
-
"In chapter twelve Lord Krishna extols the glory of devotion to God. Along with this he explains the different forms of spiritual disciplines and discusses the qualities of the devotees who by performing their activities in this way become very dear to Him. Thus this chapter is entitled: The Path of Devotion."
Actual sanskrit translation:
"Knowledge is superior to practice, meditation is considered better than knowledge; renouncing the results of actions than meditation, verily by such renunciation comes tranquility."
Sorry, that is not the same as the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I'm sure you're anxious to prove your point, so let's continue.
Now, bearing in mind that you possibly want to prove that nobody can claim that their way is the right way without it involving a leap of faith (which I've stated already). And bearing in mind that one who does not choose Christianity may indeed have what can be called a deeply religious experience (not entirely unlike Christians ... but not identical, either), how will this exercise prove that you're right about all religions and beliefs being valid when it comes to the path to God? The only thing I see this leading to is faith and conviction, and I thought I covered that already (with an addendum that Christian conviction intimately involves the Holy Spirit). There are many who are convinced that their spiritual decision was the correct one who aren't Christians. That doesn't make it a true statement. That doesn't make it logic. That merely makes it a choice.
BTW ... though a slight tangent, this is still related. IF there was no other choice but Christianity (or any other religion or philosophy) there would be no use for faith. Between "no choice" and "no wrong choice" lays actual "choice." The first makes man out to be a robot, the second makes God out to be a fool, the third makes sense.
And that STILL leaves the heart, mind and soul of the decision process up to you. So, there you have it. There are right decisions and wrong decisions. Secularly and spiritually. It's up to us to determine the correct path.
Sorry .... you probably were going somewhere else with this. You were saying?
-
When people stop believeing in God
They begin to believe in anything.
-
God is dead, and no one cares.
-
I blame Walmart.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Phookat[ disagrees]
You may disagree all you want.but it doesnt change the fact of truth,this country was founded on judeo/christian values,
. Mostly in the 600s the land where europe now is was barbaric in nature.Until the refermation and the spread of the king james bible people didnt know what christian was,they only knew what preist told them it was hence all the bad things that happened in the name of jesus.
At the time of the revolution europe was so steeped in the church of the state doctrine that if you didnt belong to the state church many bad things could happen to you. Therefore our founding fathers didnt want a church controled by gov.Hence freedom of religion any religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state until 1964. Freedom of religion was to protect the church from the gov not to protect the gov from the church. and to guarantee freedom of religion not from religion.
Look at the post from many here ,no prayer here, no God there,no ten comandments anywhere. Well I gaurantee you most of the christians in America are not like the ones in roman days,when you make your move,and someday you will,there will be a blood bath.We wont be sitting in an arena waiting to be eating by lions.
Sorry guy, but the BS flag must come out..
If this country was founded on these values you speak of, why is it not evident in the Constitution?? Clearly John 3:16 is all over the Declaration of Independence... Many in this country might hold the values that you speak of, but so do many in China, Taibet, Japan, Turkey, Iraqi, and even in Iran. Values are not defined by your particular religion...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"In chapter twelve Lord Krishna extols the glory of devotion to God. Along with this he explains the different forms of spiritual disciplines and discusses the qualities of the devotees who by performing their activities in this way become very dear to Him. Thus this chapter is entitled: The Path of Devotion."
Actual sanskrit translation:
"Knowledge is superior to practice, meditation is considered better than knowledge; renouncing the results of actions than meditation, verily by such renunciation comes tranquility."
Sorry, that is not the same as the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I'm sure you're anxious to prove your point, so let's continue.
OK, we'll move on...but did you read the whole chapter?
Back to the scenario. In your last post, I did not detect any disagreement or further corrections. Let's continue.
It turns out the person was wrong. He picked the wrong religion. When he dies, he boils in hot oil for eternity.
That ends the scenario.
Now for a couple discussion questions.
1) Is God fair and just?
2) Was this outcome fair or just?
3) Coming from an external viewpoint, how would one avoid this awful disaster?
-
Could Jesus Christ be convicted in a court of law for having risen from the dead? Could the evidence be brought forth and support a conviction?
-
SOB.......than why did you capitalize the G.
DUDE DE VANT......
All values come from God...values do not come from man made religion.
Please show me your proof that the founding fathers did not base this country on Judeo/Christian values.
If you want proof they did,..... than please seek former post,if you do what is suggested you will find out some really neat things about this country.
-
Because it was at the beginning of a sentence?
-
Good point.
-
sop......ok reasonable.......many dont......hope all is well with you 80 years from now ....good luck.
-
It couldn't be bad, I'll be dead.
-
200! Thank you, Jesus!
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK, we'll move on...but did you read the whole chapter?
Back to the scenario. In your last post, I did not detect any disagreement or further corrections. Let's continue.
It turns out the person was wrong. He picked the wrong religion. When he dies, he boils in hot oil for eternity.
That ends the scenario.
Now for a couple discussion questions.
1) Is God fair and just?
2) Was this outcome fair or just?
3) Coming from an external viewpoint, how would one avoid this awful disaster?
Of course I did.
IF all religions (or even just the two generic ones you mention) were identical except for the "prophets", then maybe you'd have some basis for claiming that such a scenario would reflect an unjust outcome and an unjust God. But they're not. You can claim some similarities. You can claim similar values. You can claim common origin. But you can't claim that any two religions are identical except for the names of the "prophets" involved. So the premise you set for the outcome you desire is flawed to begin with.
Claiming a close correlation between Hinduism and Christianity was an interesting theory. I'm sort of surprised you didn't shoot for a correlation between Judaism or Islam and Christianity, given their relationship and origins. Christianity has it's firm roots in Judaism and Islam was Mohammed's interpretation of Christianity (excising the divination of Christ which he didn't particularly care for).
We touched on an individual's spiritual awakening or their religious experience that brought them to their conviction over their faith. You mentioned a specific form of Hindu meditation/yoga that you felt served as an identical example of a Christian's experience with the Holy Spirit. Why don't we explore the differences expressed in spiritual awakening between Eastern and Western religion and Hinduism and Christianity specifically?
In most Eastern religions we see an individual attempting to become enlightened spiritually through forms of physical and mental meditation techniques that supposedly trigger a spiritual awakening. It's quite understandable how one can feel such techniques lead to spiritual oneness with a higher being or with nature or with the universe. I felt it myself, once, at a Shinto meeting. It really isn't much difference from John Denver's "Rocky Mountain High." Truth be told, even Christians use prayer and meditation to become more attuned to that still, small voice they have within. So don't think I'm knocking it, in the least. But the next day, after having been a guest at the Shinto meeting and participating in their ceremony (and experiencing the high associated with meditation techniques and chanting as well as the euphoria that exists when being surrounded with others experiencing a similar euphoria), it evaporated as easily as dew in the sun.
The difference in Christianity is when one takes the step of faith and reaches to God, God reaches back. And familiarity with the Holy Spirit sticks with you. I know, you claim that God reaches back in Hinduism, as well.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe07/sbe07099.htm
1. Sitting with the feet stretched out and crossed so as to touch the thighs, with the right hand (stretched out and) resting upon the left, with the tongue fixed in the palate, and without bringing the one row of teeth in contact with the other, with the eyes directed to the tip of the nose, and without glancing at any of the (four) quarters of the sky, free from fear, and with composure, let him meditate upon (Purusha), who is separate from the twenty-four entities,
2. He who is eternal, beyond the cognisance of the senses, destitute of qualities, not concerned with sound, tangibility, form, savour, or odour, knowing everything, of immense size,
3. He who pervades everything, and who is devoid of form,
4. Whose hands and feet are everywhere, whose eyes, head, and face are everywhere, and who is able to apprehend everything with all the senses.
5. Thus let him meditate.
6. If he remains absorbed in such meditation for a year, he obtains the accomplishment of Yoga (concentration of the thought and union with the Supreme).
7. If he is unable to fix his mind upon the being
8. In this way let him arrive at meditation upon Purusha.
9. If unable to follow this method also, he must meditate on Purusha shining like a lamp in his heart, as in a lotus turned upside down.
10. If he cannot do that either, he must meditate upon Bhagavat Vāsudeva (Vishnu), who is adorned with a diadem, with ear-rings, and with bracelets, who has the (mystic mark) Srīvatsa and a garland of wood-flowers on his breast, whose aspect is pleasing, who has four arms, who holds the shell, the discus, the mace, and the lotus-flower, and whose feet are supported (and worshipped) by the earth.
11. Whatever he meditates upon, that is obtained by a man (in a future existence): such is the mysterious power of meditation.
12. Therefore must he dismiss everything perishable from his thoughts and meditate upon what is imperishable only.
13. There is nothing imperishable except Purusha.
14. Having become united with him (through constant meditation), he obtains final liberation.
15. Because the great lord pervades the whole universe (pura), as he is lying there (sete), therefore is he denominated Puru-sha by those who reflect upon the real nature (of the Supreme Spirit).
16. In the first part and the latter part of the night must a man bent on contemplation constantly and with fixed attention meditate upon Purusha Vishnu, who is destitute of (the three) qualities (sattva, ragas, and tamas) and the twenty-fifth entity.
17. He (or it) is composed of the entities, beyond the cognisance of the senses, distinct from all the (other) entities, free from attachment, supporting everything, devoid of qualities and yet enjoying (or witnessing the effect of) qualities.
18. It exists without and within created beings (as being enjoyed and as enjoyer), and in the shape both of immovable things (such as trees or stones) and of movable things (such as water or fire); it is undistinguishable on account of its subtlety; it is out of reach (imperceptible), and yet is found in the heart.
19. It is not distinct from creation, and yet distinct from it in outward appearance; it annihilates and produces by turns (the world), which consists of everything that has been, that will be, and that is.
20. It is termed the light of the sidereal bodies and the enemy of darkness (ignorance), it is knowledge, it should be known, it may be understood (by meditation), it dwells in every man's heart.
21. Thus the 'field,' knowledge (or meditation), and what should be known have been concisely declared; that faithful adherent of mine who makes himself acquainted therewith, becomes united to me in spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whew! 21 steps in a year-long (or likely more) struggle to attain a level of meditation that allows the adherant to become united in spirit with Vishnu (the preserver and one of the pantheon of Hindu Gods).
Versus
Acts 2
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
or
Acts 11
15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
or
Romans 5
5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
(All NIV)
A wonderous and miraculous God who desires that all his children, created by him, would accept his grace.
There's a definate, clear-cut difference between what each of these two religions perceives as spiritual awakening and a personal relationship with God.
Choices? Of course. As I stated before, if there were no choices then neither faith nor grace is neccesary. I'm sure some here hold to that very belief. There are many choices.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
IF all religions (or even just the two generic ones you mention) were identical except for the "prophets", then maybe you'd have some basis for claiming that such a scenario would reflect an unjust outcome and an unjust God. But they're not. You can claim some similarities. You can claim similar values. You can claim common origin. But you can't claim that any two religions are identical except for the names of the "prophets" involved. So the premise you set for the outcome you desire is flawed to begin with.
They are identical *enough* that the questions I raise are still valid--and you have not answered them. In other words, my proof does not rely on both religions being absolutely identical except for the prophets. They are identical to the extent described in the scenario explicitly...beyond that they may be the same or different. If there are any other differences that are relevant to the discussion, please raise them.
In both these generic religions, the believer feels to his core that he is right, becuase he has a personal relationship with God. Despite your below arguments between Hinduism and Christianity specifically (which I will get to in a sec), I do know people who are not Christians but who sincerely feel a personal relationship with God. This scenario based on your hypothesis leads to the closure of my "Proof by Contradiction", which is manifested in my questions. Can you answer them directly?
1) Is God fair and just?
2) Was this outcome fair or just?
3) Coming from an external viewpoint, how would one avoid this awful disaster?
Originally posted by Arlo
In most Eastern religions we see an individual attempting to become enlightened spiritually through forms of physical and mental meditation techniques that supposedly trigger a spiritual awakening.
This is not what I'm talking about when I say "personal relationship with God". You are incorrect to think that all eastern faiths are based on meditation. The word "Yoga" does not mean meditation at all, in fact. "Yoga" is the sanskrit word for "union". That union can be reached in different ways; meditation, personal relationship with God, etc.
Hinduism specifies several different paths to God realization, i.e. good works, meditation, knowledge, and devotion. The last one, the path of devotion, is called "Bhakti Yoga", and is the path of having a personal relationship with God. The path of meditation (which you quote both above and below) is called "Raja Yoga".
Here is a quote from the scriptures pertaining to "Bhakti Yoga", which I linked to above (Chapter 12):
"But those who, surrendering all their activities unto me, being attached to me, meditating on me with exclusive worship by the science of uniting the individual conciousness with the ultimate consiousness in devotion; O Arjuna, of these persons whose minds are absorbed in thoughts of me, I become their Deliverer without delay from the ocean of death in material existence."
Originally posted by Arlo
The difference in Christianity is when one takes the step of faith and reaches to God, God reaches back. And familiarity with the Holy Spirit sticks with you. I know, you claim that God reaches back in Hinduism, as well.
Yep. That's exactly what the above quote is saying.
-
Originally posted by phookat
They are identical *enough* that the questions I raise are still valid (opinion)--and you have not answered them. (Perhaps because you're attempting to lead the discussion on the basis of a premise that I see as flawed and false?) In both these generic religions, the believer feels to his core that he is right, because he has a personal relationship with God (opinion). Despite your below arguments between Hinduism and Christianity specifically (which I will get to in a sec), I do know people who are not Christians but who sincerely feel a personal relationship with God (I never said they were insincere. I'm sure they're as sincere as can be. I'm sure you are too. That doesn't mean I have to take your opinion as fact anymore than you do mine.). So the scenario (which is based on your belief, reviewed and approved by you) (Not really.) is still valid (opinion)and the two religions are identical enough for the purposes of our discussion (opinion, repeatedly challenged with the challenge ignored by you while you object at my ignoring your assertions though in actuality I challenged them and you repeated them over and over which supposedly effectively countered my challenge and validated your claim). If there are any other differences that are relevant to the discussion, please raise them. (Done but arbitrarily dismissed by you as invalid.) This scenario based on your hypothesis leads to the closure of my "Proof by Contradiction", ( No, it leads to you sticking with your opinion and me sticking with mine) which is manifested in my questions. Questions which you pretended to formulate based on "my hypothosis") Can you answer them directly?
Cut to the chase!
1) Is God fair and just?
Yes.
2) Was this outcome fair or just?
Yes.
3) Coming from an external viewpoint, how would one avoid this awful disaster?
By choosing wisely.
This is not what I'm talking about when I say "personal relationship with God". You are incorrect to think that all eastern faiths are based on meditation. The word "Yoga" does not mean meditation at all, in fact. "Yoga" is the sanskrit word for "union". That union can be reached in different ways; meditation, personal relationship with God, etc.
Sanskrit meaning "union" does not make Yoga no longer a form of meditation.
Hinduism specifies several different paths to God realization, i.e. good works, meditation, knowledge, and devotion. The last one, the path of devotion, is called "Bhakti Yoga", and is the path of having a personal relationship with God. The path of meditation (which you quote both above and below) is called "Raja Yoga".
Here is a quote from the scriptures pertaining to "Bhakti Yoga", which I linked to above (Chapter 12):
"But those who, surrendering all their activities unto me, being attached to me, meditating on me with exclusive worship by the science of uniting the individual conciousness with the ultimate consiousness in devotion; O Arjuna, of these persons whose minds are absorbed in thoughts of me, I become their Deliverer without delay from the ocean of death in material existence."
Yep. That's exactly what the above quote is saying.
Yoga and meditation so one can live a life free of material needs is not identical to baptism by the Holy Spirit. Though you're certainly free to have that opinion.
Sorry but I don't see your argument as a logical reasoning that leaves no room for opinion. As a matter of fact, I see is precisely as your opinion versus my opinion. I know that logic alone does not dictate my stance here. You, apparently, think yours is entirely dictated by such. It may appear so if everyone allows you to set up the train of logic to run by your rules and on your schedule.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If there are any other differences that are relevant to the discussion, please raise them. (Done but arbitrarily dismissed by you as invalid.)
I have not seen them. Please explicitly list these differences, in a consice manner.
Originally posted by Arlo
2) Was this outcome fair or just?
Yes.
So it was just to claim that this person, who has done exactly the same things as yourself (remember, we haven't named the religions) is being condemned to boiling in oil for eternity?
Originally posted by Arlo
3) Coming from an external viewpoint, how would one avoid this awful disaster?
By choosing wisely.
How would one do that? What thought processes go into that decision?
Originally posted by Arlo
Sorry but I don't see your argument as a logical reasoning that leaves no room for opinion. As a matter of fact, I see is precisely as your opinion versus my opinion. I know that logic alone does not dictate my stance here. You, apparently, think yours is entirely dictated by such. It may appear so if everyone allows you to set up the train of logic to run by your rules and on your schedule.
Please point out to me specifically and concisely where in the scenario my logic broke down, or where I inserted my opinion into the scenario I described.
-
A quick aside, I'd like to give great kudos to the participants in this thread. I wrote my original post that started this while annoyed (as may be apparent when reading the title), but everyone here has done an admirable job at preventing this from turning into a shriekfest.
-
Originally posted by phookat
So it was just to claim that this person, who has done exactly the same things as yourself (remember, we haven't named the religions) is being condemned to boiling in oil for eternity?
Remember when you were making a big deal about having points ignored? Remember my saying that no two religions believe the exact same thing and that they aren't actually interchangable? I didn't think so. :D
But then, that falls right in with attempting to lead a discussion by forcing it to have no other option other than concurring with your preconceived "logical" answer, even if it involves ignoring challenges over the premise being flawed. And to top it off you attempted to turn it into "using the opponents hypothesis against him" when in fact I've stuck with challenging YOUR hypothesis that all religions are equally valid and all reflect multiple personalities of one god so there is no such thing as a wrong choice."
So here we go ......
Again, no, I do not concur that all religions, faiths and philosophies are equally valid based on the premise that all supposedly entail the same basic values and beliefs and all forms of worship, meditation, prayer as well as all scripture from all sources supposedly point to their having been directly or indirectly inspired by the same God who supposedly tells one group that this is the true path to salvation and tells another something different. You have failed to make a convincing argument that even causes me to make the slightest concession in regards to your premise. The "space monkeys can't conceive of the Holy Spirit" one didn't work. The "It's not fair that people can make wrong decisions and go to hell" one didn't work.
BUT ... that doesn't mean you have to stop trying.
-
Whoops again. Them buttons are right next to each other. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So it was just to claim that this person, who has done exactly the same things as yourself (remember, we haven't named the religions) is being condemned to boiling in oil for eternity?
Remember when you were making a big deal about having points ignored? Remember my saying that no two religions believe the exact same thing and that they aren't actually interchangable? I didn't think so.
Yes, I do remember that. I also remember asking you to specify what exactly the differences were, that you thought would invalidate this scenario or my proof. You have not answered this question. I think you are going to continue not to answer this question, because you can't. You also cannot show me where my logic is flawed or how it is "opinionated", despite the fact that I asked you point blank for the reason.
At this point I have proven your hypothesis wrong; your hypothesis being "only Arlo and other Christians are on the correct path, all others will boil in Hell."
If you think differently, answer the specific questions I raised in my last post.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Yes, I do remember that. I also remember asking you to specify what exactly the differences were, that you thought would invalidate this scenario or my proof. You have not answered this question. I think you are going to continue not to answer this question, because you can't. You also cannot show me where my logic is flawed or how it is "opinionated", despite the fact that I asked you point blank for the reason.
At this point I have proven your hypothesis wrong; your hypothesis being "only Arlo and other Christians are on the correct path, all others will boil in Hell."
If you think differently, answer the specific questions I raised in my last post.
Oh boy! You, my friend, are a hypocrit. You accuse others of ignoring your points (right, wrong or otherwise), you accuse others of not actually addressing or arguing the point when you, yourself, are unable to do so. You read into and edit what others say to suit your prejudices.
1: I provided specific quoted examples from an unbiased source showing EXACTLY the differences existing which you decided weren't differences at all ("close enough" was the term you used, I believe).
2: And no. At no time during this discussion did I EVER even IMPLY "Only Arlo and other Christians are on the correct path, all others will boil in Hell." I challenged your premise that all adherants of all faiths, religions and philosophies are not going to hell so Christians are bad people for claiming otherwise. I said it was a flawed premise based on nothing but opinion. You, in return, have offered nothing but more opinion and claimed such opinion was flawless logic.
3: My claim was that there is indeed only one path and it's up to the individual to ascertain what that path is. I also said that my claim is no less a matter of opinion than yours.
In other words. YOUR hypothesis challenged. YOUR hypothesis unsupported. YOUR reasoning for considering Christians (and specifically so) as being unfairly prejudiced due to their belief that their way is the only way to Heaven is nothing but rationalization to have prejudices of your own.
Now it's YOUR turn to prove anything I've just said as incorrect. Good luck. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
1: I provided specific quoted examples from an unbiased source showing EXACTLY the differences existing which you decided weren't differences at all ("close enough" was the term you used, I believe).
I asked you before, and I'm going to ask you again. In what way do these differences break the logic and conclusion of my proof? If the difference is that one prohibits apple pie and the other doesn't, that doesn't affect my proof.
Originally posted by Arlo
2: And no. At no time during this discussion did I EVER even IMPLY "Only Arlo and other Christians are on the correct path, all others will boil in Hell."
1) Arlo says there's only one right way, and all other ways are wrong.
2) Arlo is a Christian.
3) Therefore, Arlo believes that Christianity is the only right way, and all other ways are wrong.
Any of these statements false?
Originally posted by Arlo
I challenged your premise that all adherants of all faiths, religions and philosophies are not going to hell so Christians are bad people for claiming otherwise. I said it was a flawed premise based on nothing but opinion. You, in return, have offered nothing but more opinion and claimed such opinion was flawless logic.
This was not my premise. My premise was and is that any single religion (including Christianity) is not the only correct path. There are many correct paths. Nowhere did I say that *all* philosohies were correct. Furthermore, my scenario does *not* prove that all philosophies are correct, nor was it intended to. My scenario is a proof by contradiction, which disproves your hypothesis (that there is only one right way), and thereby proves the opposite (that there is *not* only one right way).
Originally posted by Arlo
3: My claim was that there is indeed only one path and it's up to the individual to ascertain what that path is. I also said that my claim is no less a matter of opinion than yours.
My proof is logical and complete, until you can demonstrate otherwise. You have not done so yet.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I asked you before, and I'm going to ask you again. In what way do these differences break the logic and conclusion of my proof? If the difference is that one prohibits apple pie and the other doesn't, that doesn't affect my proof.
No. It specifically shows that each faith's GOAL is even different, not to mention it's philosophy of the soul and of the afterlife.
Originally posted by phookat
1) Arlo says there's only one right way, and all other ways are wrong.
2) Arlo is a Christian.
3) Therefore, Arlo believes that Christianity is the only right way, and all other ways are wrong.
Any of these statements false?
A classic example of the strawman argument. Let me help you.
1) Phookat says Christians are bad for believing that their way is THE way to salvation (which raises the obvious question: If they didn't think this, why would they be Christians?) and that such prejudices are unacceptable.
2) Arlo says, of COURSE they feel this way as do most religions in the world. There is a right and wrong choice and it's up to the individual to make it.
3) Phookat says he believes that all religions, faiths, philosophies and cults are equally valid and that there are multiple paths that lead to salvation or eternal reward and they are manifestations from the same source.
4) Arlo says that's preposterous since the differences between the religions, faiths, philosophies and cults conflict with their being inspired by anything short of a diety with a severe case of multiple personality disorder.
5) Phookat says space aliens would have a hard time understanding Christianity.
6) Arlo says he's having a hard time understanding Phookat.
7) Phookat says that's because he's using flawless logic.
8) Arlo says ... riiiiiight.
9) Phookat says Hinduism and Christianity are the same thing.
10) Arlo posts examples proving otherwise.
11) Phookat says "Eh, close enough" and persists in the claim and asks why no proof was offered to counter the claim.
12) Arlo says he's having a hard time taking Phookat seriously now.
13) Phookat says Arlo is ignoring his flawless logic.
14) Arlo says "What logic?!"
15) Phookat says he's now successfully disproven Arlo's claim that only Christians will be spared from burning in oil.
16) Arlo shakes his head in amazement at Phookat's "flawless logic."
Originally posted by phookat
This was not my premise. My premise was and is that any single religion (including Christianity) is not the only correct path. There are many correct paths. Nowhere did I say that *all* philosohies were correct. Furthermore, my scenario does *not* prove that all philosophies are correct, nor was it intended to. My scenario is a proof by contradiction, which disproves your hypothesis (that there is only one right way), and thereby proves the opposite (that there is *not* only one right way).
Which you've yet to prove (not that I asked you to prove it) and to which I offered an equally valid opinion. The only "hypothesis" I offered was that there is indeed one correct choice which you've not disproven by any method whatsoever including your claimed "proof by contradiction." Where's the contradiction other than your repeating that you believe differently than I do? You've proven nothing to me. I doubt you've proven anything to anyone else but yourself here.
Originally posted by phookat
My proof is logical and complete, until you can demonstrate otherwise. You have not done so yet.
Your opinion of yourself in this matter is a bit overrated. But, there too, you have the freedom to believe and express.
Now ... if you're just going to keep repeating how perfectly you've proven your point and how well you've disproven MY "hypothesis" I think I'll do the dust kicking thang like Brother demaw suggested. Peace! :D :aok
-
Heh what a thread....on a BBS of a game where everyone pretends to kill each other.
You're all Gay!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No. It specifically shows that each faith's GOAL is even different, not to mention it's philosophy of the soul and of the afterlife.
OK. Thank you for finally being specific and concise and answering the question directly. Please try to continue to do so.
Let me make sure I am inderstanding your statement. If the religions' goals and philosophies of the soul etc are different enough to contradict each other, then they can't both be right at the same time. Is that what you are getting at?
Next question. It appears to me that neither of these issues you raise helps the external observer choose between religions, using reasoning. Choosing is still a matter of pure faith. Is this correct?
What I am trying to do is include in the scenario all the things besides pure faith by which an external observer can make a choice between two religions.
Originally posted by Arlo
A classic example of the strawman argument. Let me help you.
Let me make sure both of us understand our positions. Please just answer with agreed or disagreed in both cases.
My position is that there is not only one correct path.
Your position is that there can only be one correct path.