NationStates Jolt Archive

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?

Oh God,

This thread is going to get flooded, and I hope you feel like defending the ACLU.

If it weren't that there was a huge majority of Christians in the U.S., than I might say yes. As it is, there is only a war against the establishment of any religion in the government.

Oh God,

This thread is going to get flooded, and I hope you feel like defending the ACLU.
Yeah, I like the ACLU.

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?

I don't believe there is a formal war. There are certainly individuals who attack Christianity regularly and vociforously. Now if you are talking about behind the scenes, in the supernatural world, I believe very strongly that Lucifer will do anything in his power to subvert, distort or destroy any true Christianity.

If it weren't that there was a huge majority of Christians in the U.S., than I might say yes. As it is, there is only a war against the establishment of any religion in the government.
That's what I thought, but apparently we're at war with christianity.

I feel the ground tremble...

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?

It's a bit of a ploy by the Moral Majority to get some help. People will listen to you in America, but only if you're the Underdog, only if you're being victimized. When 75% of this country calls itself Christian, it takes a few more mirrors and a lot more smoke to sell your snake oil, but that doesn't stop Moral Majority from trying.

ignore any christians saying there is a war against christianity, they have a persecution complex

That's what I thought, but apparently we're at war with christianity.


A lot of it depends on how you define the word "war" as well. I'd say there is an ideological war going on, but that has been the case, well, since Christ was here.

A lot of it depends on how you define the word "war" as well.
Let's say an organized effort to stamp out christianity by persecuting it's proponents.

Now if you are talking about behind the scenes, in the supernatural world, I believe very strongly that Lucifer will do anything in his power to subvert, distort or destroy any true Christianity.
And that's how Evangelism and Christian Science got started, isn't it?

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?

Moral Majority? Isn't that Falwell's group?

Let's say an organized effort to stamp out christianity by persecuting it's proponents.

Then I'd have to answer no. There may be a few skirmishes here and there, but the counter is also true. There are some "Christians" who are at war with anyone who is not. By and large, I don't believe either side is genuinely at organized all out war.

Moral Majority? Isn't that Falwell's group?
This guy wasn't falwell, but he was one of the founders. I forget his name. He claims to have pioneered direct-mail as a political tool. Even wrote a book about it.

umm, maybe if you looked at his point of view you'd understand what he's talking about... and you already mentioned the MORAL MAJORITY.. that's a dead giveaway. of course the'yre going to think there's a war on their version of christianity with the increasing sex on tv :D and gay rights movement going on.

A lot of it depends on how you define the word "war" as well. I'd say there is an ideological war going on, but that has been the case, well, since Christ was here.

There have been ideological wars much longer than that. The ideological war that came with Christ was just a branch off of the ideological war between Jews and Gentiles (archaic word, is it still acceptable?) for a long time before that.

And that's how Evangelism and Christian Science got started, isn't it?

Depends on who you ask. I find Christian Science to be lacking in Bibliocentricity, but that is just the understanding of a lay person.

There have been ideological wars much longer than that. The ideological war that came with Christ was just a branch off of the ideological war between Jews and Gentiles (archaic word, is it still acceptable?) for a long time before that.

Certainly correct. We were just talking about Christianity specifically I thought.

Then I'd have to answer no. There may be a few skirmishes here and there, but the counter is also true. There are some "Christians" who are at war with anyone who is not. By and large, I don't believe either side is genuinely at organized all out war.

It's nice to hear someone who doesn't think that one side is trying to completely wipe out the other side. I was getting a little tired of the reactionary posters on both sides.

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?
lol, i WISH!

It's nice to hear someone who doesn't think that one side is trying to completely wipe out the other side. I was getting a little tired of the reactionary posters on both sides.

I do believe that it will eventually come to that, but I don't think its there at the present time. Of course, when it does happen, even people claiming to be "Christians" will be persecuting the faithful few for being different and actually keeping the commandments of God.

Depends on who you ask.
You mean there are actually some people who think that Evangelism and/or Christian Science is an attempt by Satan to eliminate "true Christianity"? Awesome!

I find Christian Science to be lacking in Bibliocentricity, but that is just the understanding of a lay person.
So you mean that Christian Scientists aren't focused enough on books? They need to read more? ;)

*Puts weapons away*

What? No... me? Never... nonono. I hate ALL religions.

The ideological war that came with Christ was just a branch off of the ideological war between Jews and Gentiles (archaic word, is it still acceptable?) for a long time before that.
Yes, gentile is still acceptable. At least to me.

*Puts weapons away*

What? No... me? Never... nonono. I hate ALL religions.

At least you're an equal opportunity warrior :p :p :D

I don't believe there is a formal war. There are certainly individuals who attack Christianity regularly and vociforously. Now if you are talking about behind the scenes, in the supernatural world, I believe very strongly that Lucifer will do anything in his power to subvert, distort or destroy any true Christianity.


There isn't any war against christianity expect possibly from christians themselves , who do more to subvert,distort amd destroy the teachiings of their supposed founder than anyone else.

You mean there are actually some people who think that Evangelism and/or Christian Science is an attempt by Satan to eliminate "true Christianity"? Awesome!


So you mean that Christian Scientists aren't focused enough on books? They need to read more? ;)

Yes there are many people who believe that. Just ask a Jehovah's witness about it, or a Mormon.

As for books, there is only one (granted it's a compilation) that I'm really concerned with.

Yes, gentile is still acceptable. At least to me.

Sure, it still has useful meaning. Particularly given the context you he used it in.

There isn't any war against christianity expect possibly from christians themselves , who do more to subvert,distort amd destroy the teachiings of their supposed founder than anyone else.

Sad, but all to often true.

Yes there are many people who believe that. Just ask a Jehovah's witness about it, or a Mormon.

As for books, there is only one (granted it's a compilation) that I'm really concerned with.

A Tale of Two Cities?

I am a Christian I believe that Christians are more readily attacked because

1) We spread our religion because our faith causes us to do so.
2) We are the majority and there's the general idea that attacking the underdog is bad so we attack the majority.

I don't believe there is an actual war against Christianity. There's just a war to keep Church and State separate. Truth is both sides have infringed on the other. I believe though when the Church does it there's more shaking of heads than when the State does it.

I believe that there is something going around to take the Christ out of Christmas. We have already seen the use of "X-mas."

Yes there are many people who believe that. Just ask a Jehovah's witness about it, or a Mormon.
I like Jehova's Witnesses simply because I like their name. YWHW and its derivatives should be used more often. The Rastafarians have Jah, which is a shortented form of Jehova, which I find pretty neat. And I don't really know much about the Latter-Day Saints either.

As for books, there is only one (granted it's a compilation) that I'm really concerned with.
Surely you read other books as well? Otherwise you're a heathen to me!

of course the'yre going to think there's a war on their version of christianity with the increasing sex on tv :D and gay rights movement going on.

If no one is asking them to have sex on TV or have gay sex, how could it be viewed as a war against their views?

My Psych teacher thinks that Christianity is being persecuted. He really couldn't prove it though. The Christians aren't being persecuted, its only the ones who feel they are high and mighty that feel persecuted. These are the Christians that have no security in their faith so they feel persecuted every time someone asks a question they don't like.

The Moral Majority - which is Falwell's grounp - constantly feels this way. Of course they also think that every has to be a Christian and anyone who isn't is a blasphemer going straight to hell. As soon as you start to question their hate-filled rhetoric, they feel like their faith is slipping away and they need a scapegoat I.E. a war on christianity.

I am a Christian I believe that Christians are more readily attacked because

1) We spread our religion because our faith causes us to do so.
2) We are the majority and there's the general idea that attacking the underdog is bad so we attack the majority.

I don't believe there is an actual war against Christianity. There's just a war to keep Church and State separate. Truth is both sides have infringed on the other. I believe though when the Church does it there's more shaking of heads than when the State does it.

I believe that there is something going around to take the Christ out of Christmas. We have already seen the use of "X-mas."
Who's trying to take christ out of christmas? People just use xmas as an abbreviation, or because they really dig malcom x.

There's just a war to keep Church and State separate. Truth is both sides have infringed on the other. I believe though when the Church does it there's more shaking of heads than when the State does it.
When has the state infringed upon Christianity? Except for keeping it out of government. I will believe you, I'm not challenging you, I just can't think of any examples.

I believe that there is something going around to take the Christ out of Christmas. We have already seen the use of "X-mas."
Actually, Xmas is not taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas". The "X" is representing a cross, which stands for Christ. It is merely a shortened form that's easier to write.

A Tale of Two Cities?
You too?

I think the idea that separation of church and state requires abolishing anything religious from the public square has no basis in the constituion. Reasonable people don't freak out one way or another.

A columnist named Kyle Williams has written the most insightful stuff on the subject that I've read. This is his latest:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41887

If no one is asking them to have sex on TV or have gay sex, how could it be viewed as a war against their views?

I don't know, I think it's because. Um. They think it's icky or something? There's also an answer out there that they care about the "souls" of others and don't want them to sin so they could get into heaven too. Other than that, I really can't give you a straight answer, you should ask someone with those beliefs.

I like Jehova's Witnesses simply because I like their name. YWHW and its derivatives should be used more often. The Rastafarians have Jah, which is a shortented form of Jehova, which I find pretty neat. And I don't really know much about the Latter-Day Saints either.


Surely you read other books as well? Otherwise you're a heathen to me!

I have to admit, I like their name and the Rasta word is cool to.

As far as the book goes, of course I read other books. But I do believe that everything else has to be tested against the Bible rather than the other way around. I believe it to be God's inspired and protected word. I know that there are folks here that have some pretty harsh things to say about it voracity. All I can say is that I am more apt to doubt my own and/or other's capacity to understand and figure out every nuance than I am to doubt the Bible.

Some would say that makes me a blind adherent. I have personally seen its effect in my own life and the lives of others and have sufficient grounds to believe it in spite of all the attempts to discredit it.

I think the media either has horrible judgement or a major bias. Some people want phrases including "God" removed from government buildings and such, and the media (Especially FOX News Channel) calls it a war on Christianity.

Or people want merry christmas removed from a walmart and they call it a war on christmas. They sure do blow things out of proportion.

"Hmmmm, this apple is rotten, I think I should throw it away..."

"OH MY GOD!!! IT'S DAN'S WAR ON FRUIT!!! THE ANTI-FRUIT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TAKE OVER OUR FRUITFUL COUNTRY!!! WHAT EVER SHALL WE DO???"

My Psych teacher thinks that Christianity is being persecuted. He really couldn't prove it though. The Christians aren't being persecuted, its only the ones who feel they are high and mighty that feel persecuted. These are the Christians that have no security in their faith so they feel persecuted every time someone asks a question they don't like.

The Moral Majority - which is Falwell's grounp - constantly feels this way. Of course they also think that every has to be a Christian and anyone who isn't is a blasphemer going straight to hell. As soon as you start to question their hate-filled rhetoric, they feel like their faith is slipping away and they need a scapegoat I.E. a war on christianity.

Oh no, they're being persecuted, persecuted for being dumbasses. Just like any other religious group. Look at this crap about "majority", when 1/3 of the world is irreligious and another third isn't even monotheistic. It's their mental disability and superiority complex that's come to bite them in the ass.

I hope I live to see the end of Christianity, or at least Judaism.

I don't forsee any success with Islam though. New kid on the block's got a while to go.

If no one is asking them to have sex on TV or have gay sex, how could it be viewed as a war against their views?

Because it is propigating ideas in direct contradiction to what we believe and this is warfare in a sense. The thing is, for me at least, it isn't the Gov. place to handle that. If someone has a problem with whats on TV they have the freedom not to have one, create their own programing or invent something else.

I think the idea that separation of church and state requires abolishing anything religious from the public square has no basis in the constituion.
This is true. What the Constitution of the U.S. says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means that no government may not fund or endorse or even agree with any religion, but that it may not stop people from practising their own. Not sure how they intend to deal with Rastafarians and marijuana, but that doesn't seem to be a major issue, probably because there aren't many, and the ones that do exist just do it illegally.

A columnist named Kyle Williams has written the most insightful stuff on the subject that I've read. This is his latest:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41887
Huzzah! If there were more Christians like that, I wouldn't mind them at all!

To be honest I see war against any religion as good, i'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't have morals or standards. The most religious people in my community are Muslim. Not in the sense as they are portrayed by the U.S govt. (no offence) and my inane, weak govt. here in crappy London. over 2000 years people here worked out that eventually religion messes up the poor and takes for themselves. hopefully eventually all religion will become obsolete, just as many social institutions have and will done.

apologies for length

remember: he who fears death makes his god

When has the state infringed upon Christianity? Except for keeping it out of government. I will believe you, I'm not challenging you, I just can't think of any examples.


Particularly "blue laws" that protect some religious practices and in some cases even mandate chruch attendence on Sunday. For those of us Sabbatarians out here that is a direct infringement on our Christianity.

This is true. What the Constitution of the U.S. says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means that no government may not fund or endorse or even agree with any religion, but that it may not stop people from practising their own.

If the government funds a religious display, is that not an endorsement of that religion?

If the government funds a religious display, is that not an endorsement of that religion?
Yes. It clearly is unless they fund displays from each and every faith and a display that encourages atheism as well.

To be honest I see war against any religion as good, i'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't have morals or standards. The most religious people in my community are Muslim. Not in the sense as they are portrayed by the U.S govt. (no offence) and my inane, weak govt. here in crappy London. over 2000 years people here worked out that eventually religion messes up the poor and takes for themselves. hopefully eventually all religion will become obsolete, just as many social institutions have and will done.

apologies for length

remember: he who fears death makes his god

Wasn't too long and mostly just bull. Atheism claims to be freethinking, yet cannot be free enough to realize that religion has its pluses and negatives. Im not religious, Im agnostic, but the elitism displayed by some atheists is sickening.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41887

That is a good article, I have always wondered why some Christians had a need to validate their religion by associating it with patently unreligious things.

If anything they are dilluting their own values.

Wasn't too long and mostly just bull. Atheism claims to be freethinking, yet cannot be free enough to realize that religion has its pluses and negatives. Im not religious, Im agnostic, but the elitism displayed by some atheists is sickening.
A lot of things have their plusses and minuses. Religion is one of them, but the plusses from religion can be gotten elsewhere. The minuses too, I guess.

Particularly "blue laws" that protect some religious practices and in some cases even mandate chruch attendence on Sunday. For those of us Sabbatarians out here that is a direct infringement on our Christianity.
If one religious practice is permitted, anyone who wishes to do the same practice must be permitted to do so, in my opinion. If we premit Christian Scientists to not give medical attention to people, then no-one should have to. If we allow Rastafarians to smoke marijuana, everyone should be allowed to. Otherwise it is establishing a religion.

If the government funds a religious display, is that not an endorsement of that religion?
It is, and I think that is unconstitutional. If it is permitted on government property, I think that is unconstitutional, though I really don't care if anyone does without government funds as long as no-one complains.

If one religious practice is permitted, anyone who wishes to do the same practice must be permitted to do so, in my opinion. If we premit Christian Scientists to not give medical attention to people, then no-one should have to. If we allow Rastafarians to smoke marijuana, everyone should be allowed to. Otherwise it is establishing a religion.


I agree.

It is, and I think that is unconstitutional. If it is permitted on government property, I think that is unconstitutional, though I really don't care if anyone does without government funds as long as no-one complains.

Well, that is what people usually want to happen when they complain about their religious displays being "removed from the public square." They wish to be able to use public areas and public monies for affirmations of their particular religion.

A lot of things have their plusses and minuses. Religion is one of them, but the plusses from religion can be gotten elsewhere. The minuses too, I guess.

On both counts that depends on your perspective. Having a relationship with my Creator is not something I can do out side of faith/religion. That is a major plus for me that I can't rationally get anywhere else. I understand that you may have a different perspective on that based on what you believe to be true and it isn't my place to take that from you, but from my perspective that would be less than accurate.

I hope that doesn't sound to elitiest and if it does I apologize.

I think the idea that separation of church and state requires abolishing anything religious from the public square has no basis in the constituion. Reasonable people don't freak out one way or another.

A columnist named Kyle Williams has written the most insightful stuff on the subject that I've read. This is his latest:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41887

There is indeed a war against Christianity in America and the West, led by Jewish propagandists worldwide. This is evidenced greatly by that idiotic commentary by a heretic looking to undermine the Christian Faith. (And being so moronic as to call Oklahoma City "the big town..." :p )

But I suppose what else we could we expect from a Zionist rag like WorldNetDaily?

The State cannot allow anything except Christian symbolism and religious doctrines within its borders as far as they may go. The public square must be dedicated to the One True God.

A lot of things have their plusses and minuses. Religion is one of them, but the plusses from religion can be gotten elsewhere. The minuses too, I guess.

Firstly I would like to say that athiesm can be considered a religion. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

The public square must be dedicated to the One True God.
Google?

Firstly I would like to say that athiesm can be considered a religion. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is LACK of a beleif in god.

On both counts that depends on your perspective. Having a relationship with my Creator is not something I can do out side of faith/religion. That is a major plus for me that I can't rationally get anywhere else. I understand that you may have a different perspective on that based on what you believe to be true and it isn't my place to take that from you, but from my perspective that would be less than accurate.

I hope that doesn't sound to elitiest and if it does I apologize.
No, it speaks to the basic difference between us.

Atheism is LACK of a beleif in god.

Religion probably isn't the best word to describe atheism, but is a dominant belief structure and has a psuedo-religious world perspective. It drives the way an adherent relates to the world and others in the same way religion does for its adherents.

Google?

Google? Are you saying that we should look up The One True God? You can't look right out there for The One True God. You have to find what seems most sensable to you. If you think there is no God, then that's what you think. Maybe you'll change, maybe you won't. But it's using sense and looking at things to see if they can be proven wrong or incorrect that I feel naroows things down. If someone wanted to prove the Dodo Bird was extinct, could he? No, but he stands a chance at proving it wrong by finding one. If he did then the Dodo bird wasn't extinct. If not, simply means he hasn't found it yet, but until then it is known to us to be extinct or no longer exisiting.

No, it speaks to the basic difference between us.

I'm glad we can both look at it that way. :)

The State cannot allow anything except Christian symbolism and religious doctrines within its borders as far as they may go. The public square must be dedicated to the One True God.

Now thats elitism. Personally the government should be independent of any one religion. Yes in some instances this may proove difficult, and then comes into question public holidays. You cannot choose people's religion for them, or whether they believe a God exists for that matter. If the government affiliates itself too strongly to a religion, members of other religions associate themselves with their faith, instead of the country and state they live in.

ignore any christians saying there is a war against christianity, they have a persecution complex

I totally agree, I am a Christian, have even worked in Christian ministry but I am sick and tired of wagon circling folk always thinking someone is against them.

If this were Roman times we Christ followers would have seen persecution as an honor. In some cases volunteered!

I wish we were known by what we are for instead of always what we are against.

Google? Are you saying that we should look up The One True God? You can't look right out there for The One True God. You have to find what seems most sensable to you. If you think there is no God, then that's what you think. Maybe you'll change, maybe you won't. But it's using sense and looking at things to see if they can be proven wrong or incorrect that I feel naroows things down. If someone wanted to prove the Dodo Bird was extinct, could he? No, but he stands a chance at proving it wrong by finding one. If he did then the Dodo bird wasn't extinct. If not, simply means he hasn't found it yet, but until then it is known to us to be extinct or no longer exisiting.
Google (PBUH) is the one true god.

I'm glad we can both look at it that way. :)

Aaaaaaawwwwwwwwww, atheists and Christians getting along!! =)

I guess it isn't just me and my boyfriend being weird then. =)

Now thats elitism. Personally the government should be independent of any one religion. Yes in some instances this may proove difficult, and then comes into question public holidays. You cannot choose people's religion for them, or whether they believe a God exists for that matter. If the government affiliates itself too strongly to a religion, members of other religions associate themselves with their faith, instead of the country and state they live in.

The only problem is that you cannot represent all religions equally in a government because they sometimes conflict with others. But yes that would work in a perfect world which we do not live in. Too bad. Kinda like communsim eh?

Aaaaaaawwwwwwwwww, atheists and Christians getting along!! =)

I guess it isn't just me and my boyfriend being weird then. =)

Hey anyone can get along with people of the opposite religion. Just some people get annoyed when a certain religion is thrust upon them which I feel tends to happen in the public school system in Ontario, Canada.

The only problem is that you cannot represent all religions equally in a government because they sometimes conflict with others. But yes that would work in a perfect world which we do not live in. Too bad. Kinda like communsim eh?

Lol. Yeah, which is what i conceded to - but i suppose it tends to be the state that decides (trivial) public holidays on religious festivals, and thus potential conflict. However there is very little conflict faced by the government, as far as im aware. Please give some examples where this isnt the case.

Google (PBUH) is the one true god.

How do you know? Google was created by imperfect beings. How can somewthing perfect come from imperfect? It can't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But still I can't stop you from believing what you want to believe. I can only give and support my opinion.

Aaaaaaawwwwwwwwww, atheists and Christians getting along!! =)

I guess it isn't just me and my boyfriend being weird then. =)


:p :p :p :p :p BTW, most people think I'm weird in one way or another. Definitely not homosexual mind you, but I did once get referred to as a "sweet girl" :eek: by a blind old man in spite of the fact that I'm 6'1" 200+lbs and have a masculine voice... must be the long hair. :p

The only problem is that you cannot represent all religions equally in a government because they sometimes conflict with others. But yes that would work in a perfect world which we do not live in. Too bad. Kinda like communsim eh?

The government shouldn't be meddling at all in the issues where the only basis for a belief is religious.

Lol. Yeah, which is what i conceded to - but i suppose it tends to be the state that decides (trivial) public holidays on religious festivals, and thus potential conflict. However there is very little conflict faced by the government, as far as im aware. Please give some examples where this isnt the case.

Public school system teaching atheism or at least suggesting atheism through evolutiion and the big bang theory in science and geography at the least. A couple of World Religion classes compared to 4 madatory science courses. Muslims in Canada wanting to judge their own people or so I've heard. All that I can think of at the moment.

I am a Christian I believe that Christians are more readily attacked because

1) We spread our religion because our faith causes us to do so.
2) We are the majority and there's the general idea that attacking the underdog is bad so we attack the majority.

I don't believe there is an actual war against Christianity. There's just a war to keep Church and State separate. Truth is both sides have infringed on the other. I believe though when the Church does it there's more shaking of heads than when the State does it.

I believe that there is something going around to take the Christ out of Christmas. We have already seen the use of "X-mas."

The use of 'X-mas' dates back quite far, much before today's more secular society. The X is used in place of the Greek chi, the first letter of Christ's name in Greek.

The use of 'X-mas' dates back quite far, much before today's more secular society. The X is used in place of the Greek chi, the first letter of Christ's name in Greek.

But that could be the begining of the removal of all of the Christian perspective from it. Just a lim here.

Google (PBUH) is the one true god.

Wikipedia(PBUH) is God and Google is his prophet.

Wikipedia(PBUH) is God and Google is his prophet.

Who is Wikipedia? And how do figure Google could be a prophet since one Google is a search engine?

But that could be the begining of the removal of all of the Christian perspective from it. Just a lim here.

The X has been used for a long time as a shortform for Christ, including by Christian writers and philosophers, sorry to cut your limb.

Public school system teaching atheism or at least suggesting atheism through evolutiion and the big bang theory in science and geography at the least. A couple of World Religion classes compared to 4 madatory science courses. Muslims in Canada wanting to judge their own people or so I've heard. All that I can think of at the moment.

Glad you mentioned that. The syllabus does not require you to believe any of that; but it is at the front of scientific thinking - science is about prooving theories wrong or finding evidence to back it. Students need to understand these theories if they are to continue to study science. It doesn't necessarily conflict. The theories are not presented as fact but are given with evidence that supports it, not backs it. It is unlikely with our limited knowledge of the universe that the big bang theory is correct, but considered the most accurate given our current understanding. Im unaware of the situation in Canada, this could be a result as underrepresentation in the Candadian legal system, im not sure. In that instance - no. All those living in Canada, abide by Canadian laws and its legal system. The sitution at the moment are the consequences that could arise from strong government religous affilation. Sorry about the length

The X has been used for a long time as a shortform for Christ, including by Christian writers and philosophers, sorry to cut your limb.

Interesting. Never knew that. :) Thx.

Who is Wikipedia? And how do figure Google could be a prophet since one Google is a search engine?

www.wikipedia.com

The use of 'X-mas' dates back quite far, much before today's more secular society. The X is used in place of the Greek chi, the first letter of Christ's name in Greek.

Doesn't the X date back to Constantine's big battle which caused his conversion?

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?


as an american and as a christian i can answer this question truthfully, although im sure most will not like it.
first of all, separation of church and state is in the constitution as we all know. this nation was founded on the freedom to worship. but it seems the so called "christians" here in my country have a double standard. if you aren't one of them they condemn you as a heathen and worthy of death.
Jerry Falwell of The Moral Majority said earlier this month ,"We have to fight these terrorists! i dont care if it takes ten years! We should hunt every last one of them down and blow their heads off....in the name of the Lord!!"

war+in the name of the lord=holy war=jihad. the same as the "terrorists."
they should understand the ones they hate because they are just like them.
anywayz....
all this to say, there is no war being waged against christians here or anywhere else but in their own minds....aside from the simple fact that they are destroying themselves with their hypocrisy, blasphemy. and lies.

the name "christian" is just a name people wear today, like... a "goth" kid.
it doesnt mean a thing....at least not to the people who proclaim it the most.

so shoot me and call me self righteous if i see myself above these people, and if i separate myself as a REAL christian... somebody who actually believes in compassion.

- The Incomparable Goat

there will be more "christians" in hell than anybody else.

Public school system teaching atheism or at least suggesting atheism through evolutiion and the big bang theory in science and geography at the least.

Neither the theory of evolution nor the big bang theory have *anything* to do with atheism. So you are dead wrong here.

It's a bit of a ploy by the Moral Majority to get some help. People will listen to you in America, but only if you're the Underdog, only if you're being victimized. When 75% of this country calls itself Christian, it takes a few more mirrors and a lot more smoke to sell your snake oil, but that doesn't stop Moral Majority from trying.
I think the operant word there is "calls." Most so-called "Christians" in the US are either "cultural Christians" or "nominal Christians."

Cultural Christians are those who label themselves Christians because that's what their parents call themselves, or because they've attended the same christian church since they were born, or because they live in a community most of whose members call themselves Christians.

Nominal Christians are those who label themselves Christians because, in a so-called Chrisitian society, that's what "everyone" is, or because they believe in some of the teachings of the christian church.

The Bible itself says that "narrow is the gate and strait is the way and few there be who find it." My personal estimate is that no more than 3% of those in the US calling themselves "Christians" are in fact Christians in the primitive, biblical sense of the term.

Glad you mentioned that. The syllabus does not require you to believe any of that; but it is at the front of scientific thinking - science is about prooving theories wrong or finding evidence to back it. Students need to understand these theories if they are to continue to study science. It doesn't necessarily conflict. The theories are not presented as fact but are given with evidence that supports it, not backs it. It is unlikely with our limited knowledge of the universe that the big bang theory is correct, but considered the most accurate given our current understanding. Im unaware of the situation in Canada, this could be a result as underrepresentation in the Candadian legal system, im not sure. In that instance - no. All those living in Canada, abide by Canadian laws and its legal system. The sitution at the moment are the consequences that could arise from strong government religous affilation. Sorry about the length

Thats okay about the length but still the fact remains that they continuously refer to evolution or the big bang theory. These can be affiliated to a religion (my opinion) which is atheism. Since these courses are mandatory and they do not usually express that this is just a theory which may be proven wrong, I am given the impression that they are trying to tell us that this is true when as you said it might be proven wrong. Now allow me to appologize about the lenght.

Screw Christians, I have bigger fish to fry.

Etrusca, I'm looking at you. :mad:

there will be more "christians" in hell than anybody else.

"Christians" by whoms definition? The Bible's or the world's? The world's definition will probably have the most. Born again Christians I believe will be in heaven. Believe is the key word.

Thats okay about the length but still the fact remains that they continuously refer to evolution or the big bang theory. These can be affiliated to a religion (my opinion) which is atheism.

You cannot call something that is a factual statement an opinion. You state that atheism is necessarily affiliated with scientific theories. You are wrong.

Since these courses are mandatory and they do not usually express that this is just a theory which may be proven wrong, I am given the impression that they are trying to tell us that this is true when as you said it might be proven wrong.

If your science teacher doesn't make it clear that *every* theory in science may eventually be disproven, he/she is a poor teacher and should be fired.

Screw Christians, I have bigger fish to fry.

Etrusca, I'm looking at you. :mad:
Heh! Why are you looking at me? I don't consider myself a "Christian" in the modern sense. I realize that I'm a pretty good looking guy, but ...! :D

Thats okay about the length but still the fact remains that they continuously refer to evolution or the big bang theory. These can be affiliated to a religion (my opinion) which is atheism. Since these courses are mandatory and they do not usually express that this is just a theory which may be proven wrong, I am given the impression that they are trying to tell us that this is true when as you said it might be proven wrong. Now allow me to appologize about the lenght.

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from. But arguably the two theories neither challenge the existence of God directly. A 'force' is likely to have caused the big bang (very vague there) its whether you think that force was a concious being or, just.. a force. If you believe in evolution, at the end of the day life was 'created' or 'occured' depending on your belief. In the instance of christianity, i think im right in saying that most Christians undestand that parts of the bible could be symbolic, such as Adam and Eve.

Neither the theory of evolution nor the big bang theory have *anything* to do with atheism. So you are dead wrong here.

Indicates the belief that there is no God or a lack of faith in the existance of a God or spiritual being.

If your science teacher doesn't make it clear that *every* theory in science may eventually be disproven, he/she is a poor teacher and should be fired.

Would that all science teachers thought like that. In my experience, very few actually do. But you are a breath of fresh air.

Indicates the belief that there is no God or a lack of faith in the existance of a God or spiritual being.

And this demonstrates that you do not understand science in the least.

The existence or non-existence of a God is irrelevant to science - but science takes no stance on it either way.

No theory in science indicates *anything* about faith (or lack thereof) in God.

Now thats elitism.
Ignore Defensor Fidei. He's a nazinoob.

The use of 'X-mas' dates back quite far, much before today's more secular society. The X is used in place of the Greek chi, the first letter of Christ's name in Greek.
Really? I thought it was a substituting X for the cross. I'd wager it's a little of both.

Thats okay about the length but still the fact remains that they continuously refer to evolution or the big bang theory. These can be affiliated to a religion (my opinion) which is atheism. Since these courses are mandatory and they do not usually express that this is just a theory which may be proven wrong, I am given the impression that they are trying to tell us that this is true when as you said it might be proven wrong.
Aww, damnit. Are we going to get into the whole "evolution is just a theory" thing? The big bang is more of a theory than evolution, as physicists are changing their minds all the time, but evolution has been proven. It has been proven on macro and micro levels. It just isn't a law. There are incredibly few things in science that are actually considered "law". Evolution is not something that can be proven wrong. And atheism does not require a belief in evolution, nor does religion exclude belief in evolution. It just so happens that most atheists believe the truth.

And this demonstrates that you do not understand science in the least.

The existence or non-existence of a God is irrelevant to science - but science takes no stance on it either way.

No theory in science indicates *anything* about faith (or lack thereof) in God.

Science should be anything that doesn't contradict a religion. Gravity doesn't, atoms don't, evolution does.

Ignore Defensor Fidei. He's a nazinoob.


Really? I thought it was a substituting X for the cross. I'd wager it's a little of both.


Aww, damnit. Are we going to get into the whole "evolution is just a theory" thing? The big bang is more of a theory than evolution, as physicists are changing their minds all the time, but evolution has been proven. It has been proven on macro and micro levels. It just isn't a law. There are incredibly few things in science that are actually considered "law". Evolution is not something that can be proven wrong. And atheism does not require a belief in evolution, nor does religion exclude belief in evolution. It just so happens that most atheists believe the truth.

But atheism could be considered a religion and quite honestly evolution still has flaws and cannot acxtually be proven since evidence can be corrupt or misinterpreted.

Science should be anything that doesn't contradict a religion.

Science should be separate from religion.

And this was a silly statement, as the idea that other planets had mooons, the moon had craters, and the Earth revolved around the sun *all* contradicted a religion at the time they were proposed. Should we go back to teaching that everything in the heavens revolves around the Earth and is completely unflawed?

Gravity doesn't, atoms don't, evolution does.

Evolution does not contradict any religion. It contradicts a few people who want to take a creation account that was (a) meant to be metaphorical and (b) meshed together from at least two very different creation accounts to be literal and historical truth, but does not contradict any of the main tenets of *any* religion.

But atheism could be considered a religion and quite honestly evolution still has flaws and cannot acxtually be proven since evidence can be corrupt or misinterpreted.

Nothing in science can ever be proven. Period.

And a theory with flaws (aka. all of them) is the perfect tool for teaching science to students, as it is important to demonstrate the scientific process - which requires that the theory change with new evidence.

Nothing in science can ever be proven. Period.

And a theory with flaws (aka. all of them) is the perfect tool for teaching science to students, as it is important to demonstrate the scientific process - which requires that the theory change with new evidence.

Prove it. Lol.

Here lies the problem. We can only make scientific judgements on what we know. But we will never know what we do not know and so we can never know when our theories are proven right as there may be an incidence that prooves it wrong we are not aware off.

Prove it. Lol.

Here lies the problem. We can only make scientific judgements on what we know. But we will never know what we do not know and so we can never know when our theories are proven right as there may be an incidence that prooves it wrong we are not aware off.

And this is the very basis of science. We continue to look for new evidence. If it contradicts the old theory, the theory is changed. If it backs up the current theory, we say cool, let's try some other stuff.

And this is the very basis of science. We continue to look for new evidence. If it contradicts the old theory, the theory is changed. If it backs up the current theory, we say cool, let's try some other stuff.

Exactly. Well i better be going, its 1 in the morning over here. Its been very interesting though.

Ignore Defensor Fidei. He's a nazinoob.

Now that's judaization.

But atheism could be considered a religion and quite honestly evolution still has flaws and cannot acxtually be proven since evidence can be corrupt or misinterpreted.
I could probably agree with that. I believe that agnosticism is really the only belief that can ever claim to be right, since all it claims is to not know. Skepticism in proper amounts is always a good thing.

Now that's judaization.
My point exactly.

Eh. You're probably right about the "X-Mas" deal.

Doesn't negate the fact that many people do take the "Christ" out of Christmas.

I don't know, I think it's because. Um. They think it's icky or something? There's also an answer out there that they care about the "souls" of others and don't want them to sin so they could get into heaven too. Other than that, I really can't give you a straight answer, you should ask someone with those beliefs.

The whole "saving souls" arguement doesn't mesh with Fundamentalist Christian belief though, which states that the only way for a soul to be saved is by faith in Jesus. This faith and love for God and Jesus is supposed to give them strength to avoid sin, and they avoid sin because of this love, but if they do sin, the faith saves their souls.

On the other hand, whether or not a non-Christian sins is entirely besides the point, as neither sinning or avoiding sin has anything to do with salvation. A non-Christian could lead an entirely sin-free life and still be damned. So "removing sin" isn't going to save anyone's soul.

Any (well most, I don't know the beliefs of all the demoniations of Christianity) Christian of the Falwell, Robertson, moral majority type who says they are trying to save your soul by stopping you from sinning is either a)unaware of thier own doctrine and acting illogically or b)hoping that you aren't aware enough of their doctrine to detect the bullshit that they are trying to use to control you.

"Christians" by whoms definition? The Bible's or the world's? The world's definition will probably have the most. Born again Christians I believe will be in heaven. Believe is the key word.


the term "born again christian" is a farce. first of all....mainstream religion is the devil's greatest tool. if you name any mainstream religion i can tell you something about them that goes totally against the bible. and i believe the only christians are those that are defined by the bible. religion feeds people lies, and people are willing to believe what they are told. so we have masses of congregations praising the lord for the benefit of satan...backwards isnt it?

for example, it is commonly believed among baptists, holiness, pentacostals, and several other denominations that if you say the "sinner's prayer" and accept jesus into your heart you will be saved. but the bible clearly states in John 9:31 and in several other places that god doesnt even hear sinners. NOT EVEN WHEN THEY ARE SORRY!
if you go by clear biblical definition, the only name of a church ever found in the bible is entitled The Church of Christ(Romans 16:16). They also think that simply believing can save them...when according to the bible again they are wrong. (Mark 16:16- he that believeth AND IS BAPTISED shall be saved./Acts 2:38- repent and be baptised.)
yet these "christians" view baptism as an unneccesary and symbolic thing....an outward sign of an inward dedication they say. so how can someone contradict the bible and claim to be "born again"?

you can look all this up for yourself, im not trying to preach...i am neither liberal nor conservative, im just a moderate graphic designer/ bible scholar.
i take the words for what they say...not for what i want them to mean.
and thus...my reason for believing that most christians will burn in hell.

my proof of knowing that most people who think they follow god and do his will are still going to hell lies in (Mathew 7:21-23) read it for yourself as it is too long to type...to paraphrase it says, not everyone that calls on the lord and does work for him and sacrifices things for him will be saved. only the ones who do all those things exactly the way he tells them to will attain heaven. it says that many will cry and say "haven't we prophesied in thy name? haven't we cast out devils? haven't we done many wonderful works?" and he will tell them, " i never knew you, depart from me."
so next time you go to church save your money.....cause the bible ALSO says that the gospel should be preached free of charge. if you want scripture for that too let me know....

99.999% of the people who think they are doing good and who go to church all the time are going to hell.
and don't EVEN let me get started on those catholics!! and them Jehovah's Witnesses are creapy.

werd.
The Incomparable Goat

[QUOTE=Violets and Kitties]The whole "saving souls" arguement doesn't mesh with Fundamentalist Christian belief though, which states that the only way for a soul to be saved is by faith in Jesus. This faith and love for God and Jesus is supposed to give them strength to avoid sin, and they avoid sin because of this love, but if they do sin, the faith saves their souls.


the fundamentalist christian beliefs are about as valuable as my toiletpaper.
(James 2:26- For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.) faith doesnt remove sin... faith alone doesnt save anyone. and anyone who preaches that it does is a hellbound liar. howz that for some fire and brimstone, Jerry Falwell?

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from. But arguably the two theories neither challenge the existence of God directly. A 'force' is likely to have caused the big bang (very vague there) its whether you think that force was a concious being or, just.. a force. If you believe in evolution, at the end of the day life was 'created' or 'occured' depending on your belief. In the instance of christianity, i think im right in saying that most Christians undestand that parts of the bible could be symbolic, such as Adam and Eve.

Evolution/Big Bang cannot even *disprove* a literal biblical reading of creation. Who is to say that God didn't cause both to happen in separate yet co-occuring timelines. Come on, what is even the point of God being an Omnipotent diety if he couldn't pull off a trick like that? ;)

Science should be anything that doesn't contradict a religion. Gravity doesn't, atoms don't, evolution does.

No. Science should be and is a study of the natural world using the Scientific Method. There is no way that it can contradict religion. It is impossible for it too.

Science does not promote atheism. If a teacher says specifically that there is not God, then that is promoting atheism. Remaining silent regarding the existance of God is just that: remaining silent.

Certain religious leaders have tried to define remaining silent about God as atheism and then call such remaining silent a 'religion' in attempt to get said 'religion' removed from the classroom. But silence is a NULL SET. There is no way to remove a null set without filling it with something. Whatever the silence regarding God is filled with would then be teaching a 'religion' - in which case all of them would have to be taught in a science classroom as equally valid theory in order to avoid teaching one religion as superior to any others.

On NPR last night I heard an interview with one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He said that in the US there is a war against christianity. Does anyone in here beleive that, and why?

Of course they are correct but in any war there is an aggressor and they are the euphemisticly named "moral majority" and allied demagogues.

There is no war, many of these Christians simply have persecution complexes or wish to get a silly religious point across.

On taking Christ out of Christmas, he never was in Christmas, if you read your bible, like I'm sure many of you have, it points to sometime in Autumn.
More than likely, Christmas was of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia at the winter solstice.

Also, I've heard this, though I can not verify it.
X-MAS
The X stands for the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter in Christos, the Greek word for "Christ," and a commonly used symbol to represent the name of Christ in religious writings.

Taking the christ out of christmas? Dears, christ was never in christmas.

Hey, Jesus was born nowhere near December. You should be honest and celebrate Mithras birthday like the rest of us normal folk :D

Ignore Defensor Fidei. He's a nazinoob.


Really? I thought it was a substituting X for the cross. I'd wager it's a little of both.


Aww, damnit. Are we going to get into the whole "evolution is just a theory" thing? The big bang is more of a theory than evolution, as physicists are changing their minds all the time, but evolution has been proven. It has been proven on macro and micro levels. It just isn't a law. There are incredibly few things in science that are actually considered "law". Evolution is not something that can be proven wrong. And atheism does not require a belief in evolution, nor does religion exclude belief in evolution. It just so happens that most atheists believe the truth.

I have to say that nothing in science is considered a law. All 'laws' come from a time that science was believed to provide absolute truths. I modern times however, this belief has been falsified. That's why more recent work in science is refered to as a theory, and not a law. I think that if evolution was thought up earlier, we would be speaking about the 'laws of evolution' and not about 'evolution theory'. The word 'theory' does not refer to the validity of the theory in modern day an age. It just means that it is something we came up with to describe our world.

I have to say that nothing in science is considered a law. All 'laws' come from a time that science was believed to provide absolute truths. I modern times however, this belief has been falsified. That's why more recent work in science is refered to as a theory, and not a law. I think that if evolution was thought up earlier, we would be speaking about the 'laws of evolution' and not about 'evolution theory'. The word 'theory' does not refer to the validity of the theory in modern day an age. It just means that it is something we came up with to describe our world.

"Law" was always a term (and still is, really) only used to describe those theories which have stood the test of time and many, many experiments. However, even laws were always "just theories" which were known to be ideas that could be falsified later down the line. Even Newton's laws - once the very basis of physics were eventually falsified and are now only used because they give a good enough approximation in the large scale without having to deal with the hairy equations involved in quantum mechanics.