NationStates Jolt Archive

Psst. The DoI is not the basis of our country. The DoI is a declaration. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with our country anymore.

The Declaration of Independence is a curio, now.

It's purpose was to declare Independence. That achieved, the purpose is served... and the DoI is now an attractive artifact, a reminder... a historical oddity.

You are entirely correct... it is no longer 'current'.

Psst. The DoI is not the basis of our country. The DoI is a declaration. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with our country anymore.


Apparently, for a good century, the Judicial Branch seemed to disagree.

Apparently, for a good century, the Judicial Branch seemed to disagree.
Source?

Apparently, for a good century, the Judicial Branch seemed to disagree.

Ok what case law do you have to back that up?

Violence does not prove the truth of a concept, it just proves the desire of society to adhere to that concept. You deny that God exists, yet if a large mob were to attack you in His name, would you then be forced to concede He does? Anyway, a Christian theocracy is good in concept but unattainable in practice. After all, it was attempted many times for a good 800 years or so, but nobody managed to pull one off that followed most tenets of Christian faith. Much like a communist society would be wonderful, but it wouldn't actually work.


Actually, a Christian theocracy is ONLY 'good in concept' if you happen to be a Christian.

If violence doesn't prove the truth of a concept, why did Manifest Destiny rely on the murder of the native?



Regarding the last two points in your third paragraph:

1. Then stop buying our products and learn to compete on your own. That is, assuming it's possible to compete with American ingenuity, innovation and resources.


You serious? Because the US invented everything, right? And, because the US is so self-reliant?


2. Riiiiiight, of course we want to conquer 1/3 of the world :rolleyes:

Ignorance is no defence. Try Googling "Pax Americana" and "PNAC".

Apparently, for a good century, the Judicial Branch seemed to disagree.

See - this is the problem with that religious mindset.... it gives you the illusion that things are 'true' just because you say them in tones of conviction....

Back it up?

Neo Rogolia: http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Violence does not prove the truth of a concept, it just proves the desire of society to adhere to that concept. You deny that God exists, yet if a large mob were to attack you in His name, would you then be forced to concede He does? Anyway, a Christian theocracy is good in concept but unattainable in practice. After all, it was attempted many times for a good 800 years or so, but nobody managed to pull one off that followed most tenets of Christian faith. Much like a communist society would be wonderful, but it wouldn't actually work.
What exactly is it you think we disagree about here? I'd concede my point, but you just made it, so if you want me to agree with you, I can't.
The only thing I mentioned was that "real" is open to interpretation.I totally, utterly & completely AGREE that rights are just something we have because we like the concept. No discussion.

Regarding the last two points in your third paragraph:

1. Then stop buying our products and learn to compete on your own. That is, assuming it's possible to compete with American ingenuity, innovation and resources.
Sorry honey, the world isn't quite that simple. Ever heard of Dollars, trade agreements & war? But it's waaay off-topic.
2. Riiiiiight, of course we want to conquer 1/3 of the world :rolleyes:
How does conquest have anything to do with it? It's much cheaper for your country to just retain control of the world economy & clubber all opposition. But again, it's waaaay off-topic. Still, I honestly meant that I'd love a US theocracy. I think a fair number of people (outside the US) find the idea appealing

Might as well end with asking for the 4th time: What religious education do you want to see in the public schools?

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.


Well, you see, there are lots of religions in the world. And I would be unhappy if I had to follow the laws of one that violated my religious belifes.

I think it's because religion is such a personal thing. How do you teach something right? Maths is easy, 1 + 1 =2. It's universal. But religion is more like God + x = A group of people with common ideas, where x is equal to infinity.... In other words they are so many outcomes, too many ideas to teach them all.


But maybe a religion descussion class would be good. Sort of like debate where you talk about all the different viewpoints... it could work if there were some stronge rules, like no personal attacks, ect.

I think it would be good for people to understand a little bit more abgout other people and their beliefs and cultures.

See - this is the problem with that religious mindset.... it gives you the illusion that things are 'true' just because you say them in tones of conviction....

Back it up?

What I want to know is how the Judical branch would use the DOI. I mean it really has no standing unless there was a case that had England involved in it.

Any of you out there that are advocating public prayer ask yourself what the purpose of prayer is?

Is the intent to cummincate with some god or higher power, or a public display of 'doing the right thing'?

And yet the Department of Justice recently declared the efforts of the FBI will deal with a new threat to this nation. It is not terrorism, kiddy porn, or even the drug trade. The new problem is obscinity.

After all Jenna Jameson poses a great risk to this nation.

So what was that about a theocracy?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441767&highlight=Jenna

A Christian moral is enforced: THE HORROR!!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE FUNDIES ARE GOING TO BURN US ALIVE!!!!!!!!

-.-

That doesn't make any sense.

For one to recognise rights, one must ONLY recognise those rights. In fact, those rights 'exist' only in the capacity in which we allow them to exist.

You are willing to believe in your 'higher power', if you wish - but doing so doesn't change your 'rights'.

*Sigh*... and you made such a good argument, previously....



I suppose you could recognize the existence of rights without a higher standard, but it wouldn't be very logical. After all, for something to actually exist, it must be apart from our minds alone and a reality.

A Christian moral is enforced: THE HORROR!!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE FUNDIES ARE GOING TO BURN US ALIVE!!!!!!!!

-.-
Did you read the article? This is being done at the expense of the investigations of child abuse and such.

I suppose you could recognize the existence of rights without a higher standard, but it wouldn't be very logical. After all, for something to actually exist, it must be apart from our minds alone and a reality.
Why? You mean to tell me that if your God died, you'd just go around killing people because y'know... hey, who cares?
What is illogical is that there is a being who created the entire Universe and actually cares that I like to see a breast now and again.

A Christian moral is enforced: THE HORROR!!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE FUNDIES ARE GOING TO BURN US ALIVE!!!!!!!!

-.-

Did you even read the article?

Religion belongs in church.

I wouldnt want any of my taxes paying someone to preach ignorance. If you want to be ignorant go right ahead and enter a shrine of yours paid by your money.

Religion should only be taught in History classes to show to how many wars it lead to.

Religion is personal so it should never give a benefit to anyone like extra credit for your religion studies.

Every one shd have freedom of cult as long as it is a personal choice and doesnt use taxpayers money.

Every democratic country should also accept every religious cult with equality.

I would also agree that religious studies should be substituted with classes on civil duties (like voting for instance or respecting everyone in your world regardless of anything, like sexual attitude, race, politic orientation, etc) and moral development (like it is wrong to steal, it is wrong not to pay your taxes, etc)

The society that did this would have done a great favour for religions and people alike being able to call itself developed.

Why? You mean to tell me that if your God died, you'd just go around killing people because y'know... hey, who cares?
What is illogical is that there is a being who created the entire Universe and actually cares that I like to see a breast now and again.


There's nothing illogical about it, the illogical thing is that the universe, time, energy, and matter originated without cause. Unless you want to get into string theory, which itself allows for 12 dimensions and, thus, evidence that cannot be verified empirically, would you care to explain that little issue? Especially considering chaos theory would work to its detriment?

There's nothing illogical about it, the illogical thing is that the universe, time, energy, and matter originated without cause. Unless you want to get into string theory, which itself allows for 12 dimensions and, thus, evidence that cannot be verified empirically, would you care to explain that little issue? Especially considering chaos theory would work to its detriment?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA a christian discounting an arguement because it cant be empirically verified. Oh thats a good one. :rolleyes:

Religion belongs in church.

I wouldnt want any of my taxes paying someone to preach ignorance. If you want to be ignorant go right ahead and enter a shrine of yours paid by your money.

Religion should only be taught in History classes to show to how many wars it lead to.

Religion is personal so it should never give a benefit to anyone like extra credit for your religion studies.

Every one shd have freedom of cult as long as it is a personal choice and doesnt use taxpayers money.

Every democratic country should also accept every religious cult with equality.

I would also agree that religious studies should be substituted with classes on civil duties (like voting for instance or respecting everyone in your world regardless of anything, like sexual attitude, race, politic orientation, etc) and moral development (like it is wrong to steal, it is wrong not to pay your taxes, etc)

The society that did this would have done a great favour for religions and people alike being able to call itself developed.


Yes, we all know the government should allow those Satanic types to sacrifice children to Lucifer ;)

Religion belongs in church.
You mean science should only be confined to laboratories and maths in the classroom and calculator?

I wouldnt want any of my taxes paying someone to preach ignorance. If you want to be ignorant go right ahead and enter a shrine of yours paid by your money.
It is those who are non-religious who are ignorant. Ignorant of the basic fact that there is someone out there higher than us.

Religion should only be taught in History classes to show to how many wars it lead to.
Surely you also mean that science should also be taken as inimical because while seemingly religious causes begin wars, science and technology actually causes the most deaths?

Religion is personal so it should never give a benefit to anyone like extra credit for your religion studies.
Art, politics, drama, music, anthropology and other human sciences are also subjective and personal. Shall we take them all out?

Every one shd have freedom of cult as long as it is a personal choice and doesnt use taxpayers money.
Then why is language mandotary and uses taxpayers money. Isn't it MY personal choice that I want to learn Swahili and not English?

I would also agree that religious studies should be substituted with classes on civil duties (like voting for instance or respecting everyone in your world regardless of anything, like sexual attitude, race, politic orientation, etc) and moral development (like it is wrong to steal, it is wrong not to pay your taxes, etc)
Religion is far more more more than just the way how one lives. It is also about how one should be.

There's nothing illogical about it, the illogical thing is that the universe, time, energy, and matter originated without cause. Unless you want to get into string theory, which itself allows for 12 dimensions and, thus, evidence that cannot be verified empirically, would you care to explain that little issue? Especially considering chaos theory would work to its detriment?
Who said it was without cause? There was an effect. There had to be a cause. I'm just saying its not intelligent.

Who said it was without cause? There was an effect. There had to be a cause. I'm just saying its not intelligent.

Will you please point to me any one causal-effect relationship without an intelligence involved?

It is those who are non-religious who are ignorant. Ignorant of the basic fact that there is someone out there higher than us.
.

This is the most single-mindedly silly statement i have heard all day. Your labelling of all non-religious as ignorant for not believing in an all powerful creator is ironic on an entirely new level.

Will you please point to me any one causal-effect relationship without an intelligence involved?
Effect: An acorn fell from a tree.
Cause: Wind.

No intelligence there.

Effect: An acorn fell from a tree.
Cause: Wind.

No intelligence there.
God did it!

Effect: An acorn fell from a tree.
Cause: Wind.

No intelligence there.


Where did the atoms comprising the acorn originate? Where did the energy in the moving wind originate? ;)

You mean science should only be confined to laboratories and maths in the classroom and calculator?

The difference is you don't have the scientists and the mathamaticians telling you to learn this stuff or face eternal damnation. They don't try to force what they know on you.


It is those who are non-religious who are ignorant. Ignorant of the basic fact that there is someone out there higher than us.

Ignornat of Religion? Maybe. Ignornat of life? Nope. Ignornat of Morality? Nope.

So if they don't belive you are they ignorant?


Surely you also mean that science should also be taken as inimical because while seemingly religious causes begin wars, science and technology actually causes the most deaths?


The worst acts of inhumanity have usually been in the name of God. How many Muslims died at the hands of the Christians?

Science and technology is whatever you make them to be. They can save lives as well as take lives. They are tools.


Art, politics, drama, music, anthropology and other human sciences are also subjective and personal. Shall we take them all out?

Strawman.

Never mind the fact said subjects don't expect everybody to live a certain "moral" code.


Then why is language mandotary and uses taxpayers money. Isn't it MY personal choice that I want to learn Swahili and not English?

Knowing a language is useful. Why do Christians learn languages for missionary work?


Religion is far more more more than just the way how one lives. It is also about how one should be.
Which is something you should learn and not be expect to learn.

The best followers are those that make the choice themselves rather then it made for them(ie you will burn in hell if you don't accept jesus).

This is the most single-mindedly silly statement i have heard all day. Your labelling of all non-religious as ignorant for not believing in an all powerful creator is ironic on an entirely new level.

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

Who said it was without cause? There was an effect. There had to be a cause. I'm just saying its not intelligent.


And yet there is untold order and harmony, despite the vast improbability of it being that way....seems to imply intelligence to me.

Because when you talk of religion, you talk of Chrisitianity. If school's taught Islam, Christianity (Protestantism, Catholicism, etc), Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Spiritualism, FSMism, etc in equal portions and without bias there would no problem at all. But they don't. So until God in School means Spirtual Freedom and Open Education in Schools, then God has no place inside school halls.

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

And so one all mighty all powerful being just created it? And where, might I add, did he or she come from then? You're playing a game that turns itself on you, since then anything of structure had to be created. So who created god?

Where did the atoms comprising the acorn originate? Where did the energy in the moving wind originate? ;)
What proof do you have of how it originated?

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

As opposed to the old guy in the sky saying "booogaboooga" and a man appears out of mud?

Tangent:
So how does perfection create imperfection?

The worst acts of inhumanity have usually been in the name of God. How many Muslims died at the hands of the Christians?


I'm going to go kill someone and say I did it in your name. Therefore, it will be your fault :p

Where did the atoms comprising the acorn originate? Where did the energy in the moving wind originate? ;)
It doesn't matter where they originally came from. We were asked for a nonintelligent cause, and I provided one. You're committing a logical fallacy. It's not shifting the goalposts, but it's related. Can't recall the name offhand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
Religion belongs in church.

You mean science should only be confined to laboratories and maths in the classroom and calculator?

No I am only saying that religion is not a part of everyone's knowledge that should be taught where people who want it can find it. There are other ways of learning moral stuff than church. The dont kill, dont steal, etc. Everyone should learn it regardless of church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
I wouldnt want any of my taxes paying someone to preach ignorance. If you want to be ignorant go right ahead and enter a shrine of yours paid by your money.

It is those who are non-religious who are ignorant. Ignorant of the basic fact that there is someone out there higher than us.

Sorry but most of the ones I know dont believe Darwin's scientific experiments. What could be more ignorant than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
Religion should only be taught in History classes to show to how many wars it lead to.

Surely you also mean that science should also be taken as inimical because while seemingly religious causes begin wars, science and technology actually causes the most deaths?

There is never a war without a reason. Technology in the hands of religion gets dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
Religion is personal so it should never give a benefit to anyone like extra credit for your religion studies.

Art, politics, drama, music, anthropology and other human sciences are also subjective and personal. Shall we take them all out?

Art, politics, etc .... They see themselves as subjective. Everyone gains from learning to appreciate them as they like. Never in one way or another. You should know about all religions from history but never be taught by religious on that aspect. I would be like having Michael Moore or G.W. Bush teaching politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
Every one shd have freedom of cult as long as it is a personal choice and doesnt use taxpayers money.

Then why is language mandotary and uses taxpayers money. Isn't it MY personal choice that I want to learn Swahili and not English?

English is your native language. You should learn it as well as 2 foreign languages. If you want to learn Swahili you would have to find someone willing to teach you that and write a paper on your higher learnings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitaniah
I would also agree that religious studies should be substituted with classes on civil duties (like voting for instance or respecting everyone in your world regardless of anything, like sexual attitude, race, politic orientation, etc) and moral development (like it is wrong to steal, it is wrong not to pay your taxes, etc)

Religion is far more more more than just the way how one lives. It is also about how one should be.

You can learn how you should be by the bill of rights from the french revolution. Never do onto other as you would not like done onto you.

I'm going to go kill someone and say I did it in your name. Therefore, it will be your fault :p

Then we will be in hell together! ;)

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.
So where did God come from?

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

Occam's Razor?

School is a place for science and proven rational ideas, Im not athiest, however i believe its easy to reconize the problems with teaching something that not everyonr agrees on in schools

If you want to learn about religion in school, go to a specialized religious school

As for politics, thats not even worth my time, its called separation of church and state, get used to it

Isnt blind faith an ironic gift to give to the creator of human intelligence?

If god wanted us to blindy follow the writings of some book written 2000 odd years ago he would have never given us free will

It is a fact that religion has killed more people than any other sourse (save perhaps disease)

There was a time when religion had full control, and everyone believed in god.... today we call this time the "Dark Ages"......... ever think theres a reason we call it that?

Now I do believe in god, I dont however believe in blindly following someone elses teachings religion and faith should come from your own heart, not from some old book

If god wanted us to blindy follow the writings of some book written 2000 odd years ago he would have never given us free will

If there is a god then there is no such thing as free will.

If there is a god then there is no such thing as free will.


correction, god gave us free will (check the bible) satan wanted to take it away (and rule heaven) and for this he was damned

However thats just according to the christian faith, you go beleive what you want to believe

"Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel."

A taco for anyone who can place it.

"Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel."

A taco for anyone who can place it.

Hitchhikers guide

and it does cast an interesting light on religion does it not?

correction, god gave us free will (check the bible) satan wanted to take it away (and rule heaven) and for this he was damned

However thats just according to the christian faith, you go beleive what you want to believe

I was just working with philosophical notions on determinism as an add-on to your point. Myself, not much of a believer on anything.

Isnt blind faith an ironic gift to give to the creator of human intelligence?

If god wanted us to blindy follow the writings of some book written 2000 odd years ago he would have never given us free will



Umm, no. He gave us free will to determine whether or not we love him and will choose to follow the commandments in "some book written 2000 odd years ago." He wanted sincere love, not forced love.

It is a fact that religion has killed more people than any other sourse (save perhaps disease)

There was a time when religion had full control, and everyone believed in god.... today we call this time the "Dark Ages"......... ever think theres a reason we call it that?

Now I do believe in god, I dont however believe in blindly following someone elses teachings religion and faith should come from your own heart, not from some old book



Do you have evidence to support this claim? It's a pretty big assertion, so I'd love to see the statistics you've gathered over the past 8000 years ;)

It doesn't matter where they originally came from. We were asked for a nonintelligent cause, and I provided one. You're committing a logical fallacy. It's not shifting the goalposts, but it's related. Can't recall the name offhand.


Dragons Bay asked that, not me :(

Umm, no. He gave us free will to determine whether or not we love him and will choose to follow the commandments in "some book written 2000 odd years ago." He wanted sincere love, not forced love.
He's God. He could have filled us all with sincere love. He made the rules.

He wanted sincere love, not forced love.

So long as it is unconditional, entirely devoted, and above-all-else type of love.

Sounds kind of selfish to me.

So where did God come from?

Noticed how I intentionally added "but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws?"

Umm, no. He gave us free will to determine whether or not we love him and will choose to follow the commandments in "some book written 2000 odd years ago." He wanted sincere love, not forced love.

Yes, and I use my free will to decide to believe the bible was the work of man, not god

I have no problem with others worshiping as they choose, if you wish to worship from a book, fine, I however will worship from my heart

Its when people begin pushing bibles in places they dont belong (schools) that I get angry

So long as it is unconditional, entirely devoted, and above-all-else type of love.

Sounds kind of selfish to me.


http://christianstudy.homestead.com/files/classes/defending_the_faith/lesson11.htm

Noticed how I intentionally added "but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws?"
Well, then your argument is pointless, since the universe did not exist before the Big Bang.

Yes, and I use my free will to decide to believe the bible was the work of man, not god

I have no problem with others worshiping as they choose, if you wish to worship from a book, fine, I however will worship from my heart

Its when people begin pushing bibles in places they dont belong (schools) that I get angry


I suppose it would be logically necessary to reject a book when it condemns the very practice where "every man did that which was right in his own heart." For me, however, I will take the infinite wisdom of God as written by men inspired by him.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? It's a pretty big assertion, so I'd love to see the statistics you've gathered over the past 8000 years ;)

On religion causeing deaths:

where should I begin.... ok well here goes nothing I just name a few of the major ones

The wars of religion is eurpope
WW2
The Crusades.
The Inquisition.
Witch trials in Europe and America.
The Divine right of Kings (valid until killed by another Divinely-appointed King).
Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions and cultures.
Religious Conflicts (selected)
Generally speaking, in most of the following cases, religion is both
the stated cause of the killing and the only substantive difference
between the two opposing groups. Obviously, there would be many
additional conflicts where religion is just one of several divisions.
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Responsibility generally (Is religion responsible for more deaths than ...?)
Christian culpabiltiy
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
In addition, here are a few noteworthy conflicts where dissimilar
ethnic groups fought for primarily religious reasons:
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

Well, then your argument is pointless, since the universe did not exist before the Big Bang.


And the Big Bang came about how? :)


First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can convert into different forms, but ultimately can neither be created nor destroyed.

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia ( I cant find the actual post so I copied it)

"He wanted sincere love, not forced love"


Well I suppose thats true..... oh wait, Worship me or burn forever in the fires of HELL

Yeah, thats not forced at all

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia ( I cant find the actual post so I copied it)

"He wanted sincere love, not forced love"


Well I suppose thats true..... oh wait, Worship me or burn forever in the fires of HELL

Yeah, thats not forced at all

Its like Carlin says. Were supposed to believe in some guy up in the clouds who has a list of 10 things that you cant do or you will burn in a place of fire and torment for eternty and he loves you.

Umm, no. He gave us free will to determine whether or not we love him and will choose to follow the commandments in "some book written 2000 odd years ago." He wanted sincere love, not forced love.

So worship HIM, or burn in hell? that doesnt sound a little forced to you?

Its like Carlin says. Were supposed to believe in some guy up in the clouds who has a list of 10 things that you cant do or you will burn in a place of fire and torment for eternty and he loves you.

dont forget according to the bible EVERY man woman and child born before christ is burning in hell

EVERY baby that died beofre baptism is BURNING IN HELL

EVERY person of another religion IS BURNING IN HELL

oh, and 90% of christians are going to hell anyways

hello???

anyone else here? Or have all you bible nuts gone off to erase what you have learned here today from your memories?

This is what commonly happens when someone is proven wrong, they storm off, say a bunch of angry stuff to themselves, come up with an illogical reason why they are still right, and put the matter behind them as quickly as possible

I still wonder...

What kind of religious education is it you hope to see in public schools Neo Rogolia?

I think the debate has kind of dried up as of right now.

And the Big Bang came about how? :)


First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can convert into different forms, but ultimately can neither be created nor destroyed.
You said it yourself. Physical laws only apply in the universe. There was no universe.

On religion causeing deaths:

where should I begin.... ok well here goes nothing I just name a few of the major ones

The wars of religion is eurpope
WW2 - Not religion
The Crusades. - Political reasons using fallacious religious justification
The Inquisition. - heresy
Witch trials in Europe and America. - heresy
The Divine right of Kings (valid until killed by another Divinely-appointed King). - This isn't a death, this is just a political ideology you happen to hate and I happen to support in theoryMissionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions and cultures. - Much like science "destroys" false theories? If you get this worked up over killing an idea instead of a person, I'd hate to know what you thought of actual murder.
Religious Conflicts (selected)
Generally speaking, in most of the following cases, religion is both
the stated cause of the killing and the only substantive difference
between the two opposing groups. Obviously, there would be many
additional conflicts where religion is just one of several divisions.
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49 -
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Responsibility generally (Is religion responsible for more deaths than ...?)
Christian culpabiltiy
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
In addition, here are a few noteworthy conflicts where dissimilar
ethnic groups fought for primarily religious reasons:
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s



Instead of single-handledly dealing with each thing on that list of yours, I will ask but one question: Where did Christ say "Verily, I say unto thee: You shall burn heretics at the stake." Hmm?

I still wonder...

What kind of religious education is it you hope to see in public schools Neo Rogolia?

I dont think hes here anymore, gone off to sulk

I dont think hes here anymore, gone off to sulk


Nope, I'm too hardy to let a few false doctrines get the better of me :)

I dont think hes here anymore, gone off to sulk
It's a she, but I wager you're right. Where's your sig from? Made me laugh :)

Instead of single-handledly dealing with each thing on that list of yours, I will ask but one question: Where did Christ say "Verily, I say unto thee: You shall burn heretics at the stake." Hmm?

He might not have said it but the ideals preached in christianity were a contributing factor in it. I mean if those people didn't have to worry about witch's and demons trying to kill their livestock and steal their kids I'm sure they wouldnt have burned all those people. :rolleyes:

Nope, I'm too hardy to let a few false doctrines get the better of me :)
Lovely! Would you mind answering what I've asked you 5 times now?

dont forget according to the bible EVERY man woman and child born before christ is burning in hell - False

EVERY baby that died beofre baptism is BURNING IN HELL False

EVERY person of another religion IS BURNING IN HELL Unknown

oh, and 90% of christians are going to hell anyways



Care for some scriptural citations for those first two? :)

Instead of single-handledly dealing with each thing on that list of yours, I will ask but one question: Where did Christ say "Verily, I say unto thee: You shall burn heretics at the stake." Hmm?

1) I notice you still have dodged the "no choice its him or hell" free will statment I made

2) WW2 was started through hatred of the Jews if there were no jew hitler would never have been able to gain support

3) THe divine right of kings is still a religious matter no matter what you believe

4) So what if its "heresy" thats still religion

did I miss any of your "arguements"

Instead of single-handledly dealing with each thing on that list of yours, I will ask but one question: Where did Christ say "Verily, I say unto thee: You shall burn heretics at the stake." Hmm?

Yes, because all Christians (let alone members of other religions) follow the teachings of Jesus.

Don't explain away the problems religion has created by saying, "Well, that's not my religious belief."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Council
dont forget according to the bible EVERY man woman and child born before christ is burning in hell - False

EVERY baby that died beofre baptism is BURNING IN HELL False

EVERY person of another religion IS BURNING IN HELL Unknown

oh, and 90% of christians are going to hell anyways

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Care for some scriptural citations for those first two?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Read a fricken bible, for someone who loves them so you seem to know very little about their own religion

The modern church is and has been attemting to hid the "less pleasent" parts of christianity

since it is a hell punishable crime to fool with the teachings we must look as far back as we can

i give you "dante's inferno"

http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/upper_hell.jpg

you will see the section marked "limbo" this is where unbatised childern and "virtious pagans" end up

Lovely! Would you mind answering what I've asked you 5 times now?


I don't know, other than basic moral principles, the risk of them having bias either towards one particular branch of Christianity or against Christianity as a whole is too great. I'll have to make up my mind.

You said it yourself. Physical laws only apply in the universe. There was no universe.

The Big Bang was the universe.

I don't know, other than basic moral principles, the risk of them having bias either towards one particular branch of Christianity or against Christianity as a whole is too great. I'll have to make up my mind.
:eek:

Ok... This is starting to freak me out... I believe this is the 3rd time I agree with you.. Maybe you really are human after all?

Oh well, just don't let it happen again. I like my prejudice against fundies. Don't ruin it :p

The Big Bang was the universe.
Correct. But whatever happened to bring it about was not.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Reasons:
1. Pat Robertson
2. Jerry Falwell
3. Fred Phelps
4. Don Wildmon
5. Pat Dobson
6. Jay Sekulow
7. So-called "religious" people to whom this stuff actually matters seek to take away our rights, our liberties, our freedoms, and our choices, and replace them with an Iran-style "christian" theocracy, which I would find completely intolerable.
8. No one is stopping GENUINELY religious people from practicing their faith in the churches, the homes, and even their own private schools. When a faction like the Religious Right...which is actually a hate group cloaking it's political agenda and message of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice in a mantle of religion...when such a group attempts to grab for political power with the express purpose of forcing thier brand of "christianity" onto people who do not share their values...then they must, in the name of freedom and liberty itself...be stopped in their tracks, and opposed at every juncture.

How's them for reasons?

1) I notice you still have dodged the "no choice its him or hell" free will statment I made.

That's about right. If he doesn’t intercede on your behalf, you won't earn it on your own.

2) WW2 was started through hatred of the Jews if there were no jew hitler would never have been able to gain support

That's a crock. Hatred of the Jews and the 'non-desirables' led to the atrocities of the holocaust but it didn't start the war, it's an absurd and uneducated opinion...

3) THe divine right of kings is still a religious matter no matter what you believe

The divine right of kings existed in every culture that ever had Kings. And every culture that ever had religion. And every culture that was inhabited with humans... How silly. You can just as easily blame them for being human, religion had nothing to do with it. Where’s the data to suggest that a people whom lack any religion would have produced better results than a religious people? Soviet Russia didn't do so well...

4) So what if its "heresy" thats still religion

Hearsay is a legal term meaning 'rumor.' It is not heresy, which is bad-religion, two different things entirely.

did I miss any of your "arguements"

Did you understand any of her arguments?

Actaully the big bang (and I fail to see how this matters) is no longer believe to be the start of existance

It is rather believed to be the start of this universe, not time itself

if you would like a discription behind the actual physics of the "bang" I would be happy to help

oh and also

I give you dante's inferno

http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/upper_hell.jpg

You will see a section marked "limbo" this is where unbaptised babies and "virtious pagans" end up

That's about right. If he doesn’t intercede on your behalf, you won't earn it on your own.



That's a crock. Hatred of the Jews and the 'non-desirables' led to the atrocities of the holocaust but it didn't start the war, it's an absurd and uneducated opinion...



The divine right of kings existed in every culture that ever had Kings. And every culture that ever had religion. And every culture that was inhabited with humans... How silly. You can just as easily blame them for being human, religion had nothing to do with it. Where’s the data to suggest that a people whom lack any religion would have produced better results than a religious people? Soviet Russia didn't do so well...



Hearsay is a legal term meaning 'rumor.' It is not heresy, which is bad-religion, two different things entirely.



Did you understand any of her arguments?

1) As for WW2 so we will say it only killed 6 million then shall we.... guess thats perfectly understandable

2) Its called "divine" right, also known as "mandate from heaven" in the east
It is the belief that a ruler, no matter how evil or unjust has the right to rule, because he has this "right from god" the number of deaths this caused in incalcuable

3) As for the inquisition being "hearsay" I guess I just assumed you wrote heresy, as that is the equilivent of saying the holocaust never happened

Actaully the big bang (and I fail to see how this matters) is no longer believe to be the start of existance

It is rather believed to be the start of this universe, not time itself

Well that's a bit oversimplification now isn’t it? As IF the astrophysicists in the world all suddenly decided to agree with each other about anything...


I give you dante's inferno

http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/upper_hell.jpg

You will see a section marked "limbo" this is where unbaptised babies and "virtious pagans" end up

It is called "The Divine Comedy" by the playwright who wrote it for a reason you know. It's not doctrine, it's entertainment.

1) As for WW2 so we will say it only killed 6 million then shall we.... guess thats perfectly understandable

Well, as a matter of fact, the Nazi doctrine was not a religious doctrine, it was a 'racial humanist' belief (I use that word in an attempt to not offend the neo-pagans nor anyone else, I refuse to call the Nazi party a religious party of any kind). I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was religiously motivated and not just racial discrimination.

2) Its called "divine" right, also known as "mandate from heaven" in the east
It is the belief that a ruler, no matter how evil or unjust has the right to rule, because he has this "right from god" the number of deaths this caused in incalcuable

And Humanity without religion is what? Do you have an example of how much better off humans are if they life in a totally non-religious society?

3) As for the inquisition being "hearsay" I guess I just assumed you wrote heresy, as that is the equilivent of saying the holocaust never happened

She never said the holocaust never happened, she said the atrocities of the Inquisition were hearsay...

(to my comment on the big bang

Well that's a bit oversimplification now isn’t it? As IF the astrophysicists in the world all suddenly decided to agree with each other about anything...


yes, this is a huge simplification, but would you like me to spend the next few days explaining why it is now generally the accepted theory?


It is called "The Divine Comedy" by the playwright who wrote it for a reason you know. It's not doctrine, it's entertainment.

Yet it was not listed on the catholic list of forbidden books (the first of which was the bible itself), and therefore as it pretains so much to religion yet was not censored the church as good as admitted its agreement with the subject discussed in its pages

Well that's a bit oversimplification now isn’t it? As IF the astrophysicists in the world all suddenly decided to agree with each other about anything...
Compared to Priests agreeing with each other on everything?

Yet it was not listed on the catholic list of forbidden books (the first of which was the bible itself), and therefore as it pretains so much to religion yet was not censored the church as good as admitted its agreement with the subject discussed in its pages

Calvin and Hobbes comic books aren't banned either, so you point proves nothing.

And as a matter of fact, yes, why don't you prove that the Big Bang in not regarded to have started time and the universe itself. I think you will find alternative theories to the big bang theory, not non-big-bang big-bang theories.

Compared to Priests agreeing with each other on everything?

He's the one that claimed 'accepted' theory. Not I.

Well, as a matter of fact, the Nazi doctrine was not a religious doctrine, it was a 'racial humanist' belief (I use that word in an attempt to not offend the neo-pagans nor anyone else, I refuse to call the Nazi party a religious party of any kind). I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was religiously motivated and not just racial discrimination.


ok.... so they jsut happened to go after the Jew the Roman Catholics the mormans etc....... Yes "race" was a large factor, so was religion

and furthermore I never said they were religious, i said they were anti-religious, if there was no religion, it would have been impossible for the nazis to preform genocide based MAINLY ON RELIGION



And Humanity without religion is what? Do you have an example of how much better off humans are if they life in a totally non-religious society?


1) Im not pressing a "non-religous society, I said I myself believe in God

What Im saying is until you people learn to stop pressing your religion above all others people will continue to die because of it



She never said the holocaust never happened, she said the atrocities of the Inquisition were hearsay...

1) it was an analogy

2) the inquisition was good enough to provide us with very well kept records (mush like the nazis) of jsut who they tortured and killed, its not hearsay, its fact

Calvin and Hobbes comic books aren't banned either, so you point proves nothing.

And as a matter of fact, yes, why don't you prove that the Big Bang in not regarded to have started time and the universe itself. I think you will find alternative theories to the big bang theory, not non-big-bang big-bang theories.

1) thats because the church discontinued the list (i beileve in the 1960s)

2) i SAID "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" of course you will find other theories

3) Im not going to spend the rest of the night explaining the expansion of space to you, this is a take about religon, if you really want to know i suggest you read "the elegant universe" or "the fabric of the cosmos" both by brian greene

Reasons:
1. Pat Robertson
2. Jerry Falwell
3. Fred Phelps
4. Don Wildmon
5. Pat Dobson
6. Jay Sekulow
7. So-called "religious" people to whom this stuff actually matters seek to take away our rights, our liberties, our freedoms, and our choices, and replace them with an Iran-style "christian" theocracy, which I would find completely intolerable.
8. No one is stopping GENUINELY religious people from practicing their faith in the churches, the homes, and even their own private schools. When a faction like the Religious Right...which is actually a hate group cloaking it's political agenda and message of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice in a mantle of religion...when such a group attempts to grab for political power with the express purpose of forcing thier brand of "christianity" onto people who do not share their values...then they must, in the name of freedom and liberty itself...be stopped in their tracks, and opposed at every juncture.

How's them for reasons?


Not that great. The day you learn to stop equating a moralistic democracy with a theocracy, is the day we can finally learn to get along.

Not that great. The day you learn to stop equating a moralistic democracy with a theocracy, is the day we can finally learn to get along.

The day you realize they are often the same this is the day the world becomes a better place

I ask you to name one country that is a theocracy (or moralistic democracy as you call it) and is actually doing well in the world today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Council
dont forget according to the bible EVERY man woman and child born before christ is burning in hell - False

EVERY baby that died beofre baptism is BURNING IN HELL False

EVERY person of another religion IS BURNING IN HELL Unknown

oh, and 90% of christians are going to hell anyways

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Care for some scriptural citations for those first two?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Read a fricken bible, for someone who loves them so you seem to know very little about their own religion

The modern church is and has been attemting to hid the "less pleasent" parts of christianity

since it is a hell punishable crime to fool with the teachings we must look as far back as we can

i give you "dante's inferno"

http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/upper_hell.jpg

you will see the section marked "limbo" this is where unbatised childern and "virtious pagans" end up


1. I've read it several times over, KJV, NKJV, and NIV....never a mention of the first two things you stated. Care to enlighten my oh-so-ignorant mind?

2. Oh...my....goodness..... :headbang: DANTE'S INFERNO IS A WORK OF LITERATURE, NOT SCRIPTURE!!!!!!! :mad:

The day you realize they are often the same this is the day the world becomes a better place

I ask you to name one country that is a theocracy (or moralistic democracy as you call it) and is actually doing well in the world today

According to some European standards, America is a ultra religious western country. It seems to be doing well, at least as well as the European countries overall.

According to some European standards, America is a ultra religious western country. It seems to be doing well, at least as well as the European countries overall.

ahahaha yea we are ultra religious. Legalized abortions, gay marriage in some states and legalized prostitution in Reno are all characteristics of a religious country. Oh those crazy europeans always make me laugh.

The problem is that religion has a very important political element.

Our system of government is based on the thought that man is born with certain rights, they come from God and cannot be taken away. In this way, man becomes superior to government, as government must be limited to God-given restrictions.

Without religion, rights are established to come from the government. Look at how many people said that the constitution was a list of what the government can't do, as if the rights of the people are granted only by government and can be taken away in an instant.

Some in government want to further the later, in the hope that it will grant them more power.

1. I've read it several times over, KJV, NKJV, and NIV....never a mention of the first two things you stated. Care to enlighten my oh-so-ignorant mind?

2. Oh...my....goodness..... :headbang: DANTE'S INFERNO IS A WORK OF LITERATURE, NOT SCRIPTURE!!!!!!! :mad:

I believe I already pointed out that the church never objected to the inferno, and at the time it was written considering its religious nature that is as good as supporting the writing

Ive said this before, your going back on past arguments

Honestly,

I think that America was founded upon Christianity. People who came into our country acknowledged the fact that they understood america was a christian society. (i mean this in the most passive way.) Therefore they should not be able to complain. We founded it. Its ours and if they dont like it then they should make thier own country without religion being a prime focus. Religion is a great thing. It gives hope. Why take that away from our children in school. The 20% of the world, i think, just wants everything they dont agree with censored so they can make more people the way they are and not be so different.

The day you realize they are often the same this is the day the world becomes a better place

I ask you to name one country that is a theocracy (or moralistic democracy as you call it) and is actually doing well in the world today



A government ruled by church leaders cannot simultaneously be ruled by the people or their elected representatives. Also, the fact that you're able to say some of the things you've said without me reporting you to the Inquisition is proof we're not in a theocracy. The day we become a theocracy, you will know it because you will find yourself in prison for blasphemy.

The problem is that religion has a very important political element.

Our system of government is based on the thought that man is born with certain rights, they come from God and cannot be taken away. In this way, man becomes superior to government, as government must be limited to God-given restrictions.

Without religion, rights are established to come from the government. Look at how many people said that the constitution was a list of what the government can't do, as if the rights of the people are granted only by government and can be taken away in an instant.

Some in government want to further the later, in the hope that it will grant them more power.

I dont think anyone here is disagreeing with the certain rights bestowed on man, by common decency or by god

This does not give people the right to make our government into a theocracy, no matter how badly some wish it were

Honestly,

I think that America was founded upon Christianity, with a select few prominent deists also having a say. People who came into our country acknowledged the fact that they understood america was a christian society. (i mean this in the most passive way.) Therefore they should not be able to complain. We founded it. Its ours and if they dont like it then they should make thier own country without religion being a prime focus. Religion is a great thing. It gives hope. Why take that away from our children in school. The 20% of the world, i think, just wants everything they dont agree with censored so they can make more people the way they are and not be so different.


I added the bold to make your statement immune to the deist crowd.

A government ruled by church leaders cannot simultaneously be ruled by the people or their elected representatives. Also, the fact that you're able to say some of the things you've said without me reporting you to the Inquisition is proof we're not in a theocracy. The day we become a theocracy, you will know it because you will find yourself in prison for blasphemy.

what the hell are you talking about! I never said we are a theocracy! I said you want to to become one

THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination.

Discrimination, huh. Why? Because it's not convenient for you?

What if a kid doesn't believe in science? What then?

A government ruled by church leaders cannot simultaneously be ruled by the people or their elected representatives. Also, the fact that you're able to say some of the things you've said without me reporting you to the Inquisition is proof we're not in a theocracy. The day we become a theocracy, you will know it because you will find yourself in prison for blasphemy.

Nobody expects the American Inquisition amirite. :p

According to some European standards, America is a ultra religious western country. It seems to be doing well, at least as well as the European countries overall.
It would be more accurate if you just called [us] EU. That said, I don't think anyone will try to dispute that America is one of the most religious fundamentalist nations on planet earth right now. Most of the populations in the hated theocratic regimes aren't nearly as religious as Americans.
There's no disputing that USA is the most powerful force on the planet, but...
Personally, I think it's far more apropriate to judge a country by it's most unfortunate individuals. If that's how we measure the US, then it's only moderately more successful than any random povertystricken dictatorship.

The problem is that religion has a very important political element.

Our system of government is based on the thought that man is born with certain rights, they come from God and cannot be taken away. In this way, man becomes superior to government, as government must be limited to God-given restrictions.

Without religion, rights are established to come from the government. Look at how many people said that the constitution was a list of what the government can't do, as if the rights of the people are granted only by government and can be taken away in an instant.

Some in government want to further the later, in the hope that it will grant them more power.
WHAT? No, the laws come from common sense. Last I heard there is no law against covetting another man's goods. Or wife.

I believe I already pointed out that the church never objected to the inferno, and at the time it was written considering its religious nature that is as good as supporting the writing

Ive said this before, your going back on past arguments


As I said earlier, care to cite any scripture?

If thats the case then they should take evolution out of schools as well since that offends people and its taught whether we believe it or like it or not.....

WHAT? No, the laws come from common sense. Last I heard there is no law against covetting another man's goods. Or wife.

Huh?

Huh?
I don't know. I'm tired. I think what I said made sense but now I'm not sure what you were saying. Go away. Let me sleep.

Not that great. The day you learn to stop equating a moralistic democracy with a theocracy, is the day we can finally learn to get along.

A "moarlistic democracy??" Based on WHOSE morals?? No thanks, I don't need someone else to decxide my morals for me...or to use the police power of the state to enfore THEIR moral code on me, thank you very much, that is a theocracy. call it whatever you want to, it is a theocracy, and a system under which I would refuse to live. I would die before I give up my right to choose.

Honestly,

I think that America was founded upon Christianity. People who came into our country acknowledged the fact that they understood america was a christian society. (i mean this in the most passive way.) Therefore they should not be able to complain. We founded it. Its ours and if they dont like it then they should make thier own country without religion being a prime focus. Religion is a great thing. It gives hope. Why take that away from our children in school. The 20% of the world, i think, just wants everything they dont agree with censored so they can make more people the way they are and not be so different.
Yes...religion gives hope. Hatred, bigotry and prejudice hiding under the cover of religion has been used to oppress GLBT people like me just about forever, and it TAKES AWAY our hope!
Those who seek to have THEIR religion, and THEIR morals enforced by the police power of the government...must, in the name of freedom, liberty and justice FOR ALL...must be opposed at every juncture.

Discrimination, huh. Why? Because it's not convenient for you?

What if a kid doesn't believe in science? What then?

Well, science can be PROVED. Religion can't.

Nobody expects the American Inquisition amirite. :p
Actually...I DO expect it...if the so-called "Christian" Right in this country gets it's way. I expect to be among the first to face the tribunal, because I am a transsexual. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people would "rounded up and summarily executed" if Pat Robertson, for example, had his way. don't believe me? Read his 1988 book, in which he actually suggested and advocated for that very thing to happen.

There are a bunch of so-called Christians who would love nothing more than to KILL ME and people like me...in cold blood...just because we are who we are.

And this is why religion must be stopped. Because we aren't stopping it in people's homes, churches, or even their own private schools. Truly religious people have plenty of opportunity to worship as they please...and they ought. And those people also do not seek to cram it down the throats of others, or advance an agenda of hate, bigotry, and prejudice, and cloak it and package it as religion...in effect, these people are throwing stones at us while hiding behind the cross!

They need to be stopped NOW, before they take everyone's freedom and liberty and justice away!

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion.
Untrue. You can do degrees (to the highest post graduate level), in theology.

In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.
Wow, a lot of people dont seem to know this, so many in fact that it might as well not be true...in fact I'm going out on a limb here and saying it isnt true. Religion comes up in politics too much rather than not at all.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.
Frankly I dont think you know what you are talking about, for instance both the points you have made are not true.

Without religion, rights are established to come from the government. Look at how many people said that the constitution was a list of what the government can't do, as if the rights of the people are granted only by government and can be taken away in an instant.
The prevaliance of religion is much greater than the prevaliance of 'rights'. You do realise that the absolute authority of kings (ie the right to not grant their subjects any right whatsoever) also came from God and religion?

Eh, not that it masters by this number of pages, but my two cents is this:

Religion is a personal life style choice with some foundations in genetics (i.e. a predisposition for believing in higher beings, spirituality, dogma, etc.) It's also a pretty incendiary issue. Ergo, much like something like political beliefs, or maybe I could go as far as comparing it to sexual orientation, it's usually most tasteful and pragmatic to keep displays of it to a minimum outside of your personal/political/religious life.

You don't want to see "Vote Republican" or "Vote Democrat" in stores, in schools, on currency, etc., just like you don't want bible verses, "In God We Trust", and all that other stuff in public places. And I'm sure many of you would find things relating to sexual orientation in public places obnoxious and tactless as well.

That's not to say you shouldn't have Jesus fishes or political party bumper stickers or LGBT flags on cars, or have religious, political, sexual orientation issues in the media, or discuss them in school. It just means, be reasonable about it, because it's not like arguing about something along the lines of music preference or favorite TV shows.

To be perfectly frank, there isn't much that's being done that's oppressive to religion. It's simply the fact that the status quo has been so pro-[Christian] religion that it seems that way. It's kind of how you feel when people have political protests or gay parades for no apparent reason, other than just to show off their views.

In short, the secularization of society isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes it a more open and relaxed forum so that religious issues, like political and sexual orientation issues, can be addressed in their proper place, as oppose to being inundated with superfluous displays.

I encourage you all to examine yourselves and take my poll on whether you believe in the separation between church and state. It's not just some rallying cry of an evil atheist-communist left; it's an integral part of a non-preferential democracy that differentiates this country from 3rd world theocracies. While about 80% of this country is Christian*, one in five is still a substantial portion of the populace that can't be ignored.

*Please refrain from IQ comments :D

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Discussing religion would be a good thing in schools, but there is a fine line between discussing and preaching.

Discussing religion would be a good thing in schools, but there is a fine line between discussing and preaching.

Discussing religion and informing on religions would be what I would opt for.
I don't know how the US handles it, but in German schools, the student gets to choose between two subjects : Religious education or Ethics.
Both will teach you about moral, about how they evolved and how they are being applied today. I believe that in Ethics, you will also get information on the large world religions.
In Religious Education, you get to know scripture, the structure of churches, Ethics, and all other world religions in detail.

I do believe that it is important to know about religion, and when living in Western society, to know about Christian religion, simply because it was an important factor in history and still plays a role in social life to some degree. Knowing the basics of it is simply part of education.

What I want to know is how the Judical branch would use the DOI. I mean it really has no standing unless there was a case that had England involved in it.

Is there even precedent of the DoI being used as basis of law? Besides the actual 'independence' thing, itself, I mean?

You realise that you argue VERY eloquently against the concept of 'god-given-rights'?

Dude, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I don't see how that argument isn't always true no matter where rights come from.

Thanks, although I was playing devil's advocate to prove that, following secular logic, these rights do not exist. For one to recognize rights, one must recognize a higher standard and/or God.

How does recognizing a higher standard or God change any of your argument? Can't I still take your stuff, your life, your freedoms? Can't you still get struck by lightning or eating by a gator? Your devil's advocate argument basically proved what? That rights require PEOPLE to protect them or they will cease to exist (or at least be honored or thought of). Great argument. Maybe you'll argue against God-given morality next.

Pick one.

Again, this is just the opinion of the author of the DoI. This is not a document on which our government is based. The creators of our country saw fit to hold the US Constitution to a higher standard and in the interest of religious freedom left the 'creator', 'Nature' and 'Nature's God' completely out of the US Constitution. What are you going to hold up next? The speech by Lincoln? How about using something that has a basis in law and the actually founding of our country rather than just our declaration of war with England?

Psst. The Constitution concerns law only, the rights contained therein are presupposed to exist based upon the statement in the DoI.

Based on what? Where does it say in the US Constitution without the statement in the DoI there would be no rights here? The authors of the Constitution felt it necessary to leave such nonsense out of the US Constitution. They felt it necessary to protect religious freedom and thus leave any and all mention of God or a higher power out of the document on which our country is founded, the supreme law of the land.

They did this because they, unlike you and others like you, recognized the need to leave religion in the churches, mosques, synogogues and homes where it belongs and secular law in the courts and government. This is why they didn't put "In God We Trust" on the money, some other idiot did that to get a largely Christian Nation to support a war. That's why they didn't put "one nation under God" in the national anthem, some other idiot did that to get people to not notice the rather large abridgement of rights during the Cold War. They created a secular government and fundamentalist Christians have been chipping away at that using war and strife as an excuse for doing so.

Now the courts are bringing the country right back to where it started in terms of a seperation of Church and State and the fundamentalists are crying foul because they are losing their stolen ground. And once again war and strife is upon us and once again we have someone in the White House trying to steal a little more ground from the seperation of Church and State pile, only us Christians who believe in equal rights for all have joined with everyone else who believes similarly and we aren't going to stand for it this time. Reasonable Christians aren't going to be bullied by fundamentalists this time. We're not letting you take rights away from people simply because we Christians outnumber them in this country. It's a discredit to my country and my faith that you would try.

I suppose you could recognize the existence of rights without a higher standard, but it wouldn't be very logical. After all, for something to actually exist, it must be apart from our minds alone and a reality.

Oh, look, more stuff you made up. Does love exist? Yep. Can it be held in your hand or does it exist outside of the minds of those involved? Nope. Does justice exist? Yes. Does honor? Yep. Does charity? Yep. Etcetera, etcetera.

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

But you're just transferring the something comes from nothing routine, unless you have a cause for God. In the end we have to land on something was always there and that something produced the universe. I believe, on faith, that this something was intelligent, God. However, it is no less logical to believe that there was a non-intelligent source. Your logic is spurious.

I'd like to give an oppinion in this thread and I'm also choosing my words very carefully.

I've never attended a school that had classes on religion but I've also never attended a religious based school. In my highschool there was a global history class. In this class, there was discussion and lessons on various countries throughout the history of the world. When we reached a new country in a new part of history we learn about how it formed and what have you. Now, this is the part that makes total sense, we also spent a time discussing that countries religious beliefs at the time. So, when we eventually reached a part of history where christianity was predominant, we learned about christianity. Now doesn't that make perfect sense? Learned about ancient Greece, greek mythology. Roman, Egyptian, The Druids, Islam, Judiasm, Bhudism, and just about every other religious belief you can imagine. The religion was neither taught as fact or fiction. Simply that, a religion. If you believe this, that's fine. If you don't, that's okay too. Just understand that this is a system of beliefs, and that this is how that population felt at that time. Were it applicable, the teacher would also add "...and is still a religion in such and such and place and what have you." I thought this was done very very well.

And wouldn't you know it, we never had anyone, of any religion, complain about a thing.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

..not so. at my school it is possible to chose a course where in you learn about religions christianity, hinduism, judaisim and buhdism (SP?) among many others, the course teaches the student about the simmilarities between the religions and some of the festivals and practises therein.

I got so caught up in what I was writing I completely forgot something.

The idea I was thinking, is that it would be very nice if everyone could think the way that teacher had. No strict religious types basing law or a way of life on their religion, and no one who isn't religious simply bashing other's beliefs. Those who believe need to understand that they can't force a poulation to believe the way they do, and that laws can not be made in a non-religious government based off of scripture, and non-religious people can't just knock someone for what they think, regardless of wether or not it's actually a good idea.

And in the case of law, isn't most of it in agreeance with your average religion? Don't kill, don't steal, don't be a dickhead basically. Only governments have made it practical. Instead of some deity punishing you in the afterlife, the government punishes you now. So using scripture for a basis of law could be a bad idea, but really, is it all that different?

They did this because they, unlike you and others like you, recognized the need to leave religion in the churches, mosques, synogogues and homes where it belongs and secular law in the courts and government. This is why they didn't put "In God We Trust" on the money, some other idiot did that to get a largely Christian Nation to support a war. That's why they didn't put "one nation under God" in the national anthem, some other idiot did that to get people to not notice the rather large abridgement of rights during the Cold War. They created a secular government and fundamentalist Christians have been chipping away at that using war and strife as an excuse for doing so.


Actually they left it out of the Constitution because religion was then considered to be in the individual State's jurisdiction, not the Federal jurisdiction. The funny thing about this is, I know you know it, but you seem to like to trick other people into thinking it means something else. I wonder why.

Actually they left it out of the Constitution because religion was then considered to be in the individual State's jurisdiction, not the Federal jurisdiction. The funny thing about this is, I know you know it, but you seem to like to trick other people into thinking it means something else. I wonder why.

Whether they reserved it to the states or to the individual they definitely left it completely out of the Federal government. More importantly, the fourteenth amendment came about and made certain that the bill of rights applied to the individual and not the state. Who am I tricking? The point is that they left all mention of God and the creator out of the federal government altogether, by intention, and they codified it in the first amendment. Fundamentalists have violated that intent and only recently have the courts set it right. You don't even dispute the point. You merely make a ridiculous claim that states USED to be allowed to abridge the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Oh, and your implication is what? That I like to trick people so I can protect the freedom of religion? I wasn't tricking anyone, but that sure would be evil, wouldn't it? I believe that each person should be allowed to worship God as they see fit and God will be the one to pass judgement on whether their way was correct. I'm weird like that.

Based on what? Where does it say in the US Constitution without the statement in the DoI there would be no rights here? The authors of the Constitution felt it necessary to leave such nonsense out of the US Constitution. They felt it necessary to protect religious freedom and thus leave any and all mention of God or a higher power out of the document on which our country is founded, the supreme law of the land.

They did this because they, unlike you and others like you, recognized the need to leave religion in the churches, mosques, synogogues and homes where it belongs and secular law in the courts and government. This is why they didn't put "In God We Trust" on the money, some other idiot did that to get a largely Christian Nation to support a war. That's why they didn't put "one nation under God" in the national anthem, some other idiot did that to get people to not notice the rather large abridgement of rights during the Cold War. They created a secular government and fundamentalist Christians have been chipping away at that using war and strife as an excuse for doing so.

Now the courts are bringing the country right back to where it started in terms of a seperation of Church and State and the fundamentalists are crying foul because they are losing their stolen ground. And once again war and strife is upon us and once again we have someone in the White House trying to steal a little more ground from the seperation of Church and State pile, only us Christians who believe in equal rights for all have joined with everyone else who believes similarly and we aren't going to stand for it this time. Reasonable Christians aren't going to be bullied by fundamentalists this time. We're not letting you take rights away from people simply because we Christians outnumber them in this country. It's a discredit to my country and my faith that you would try.


Hooray!! I have met another TRUE Christian!! A true christian, by the way, is not threatened by those of other faiths, races, religions, or lifestyles. They are comfortable enough with themselves, and strong enough in their own faith, that they do not feel the need to jam their faith down anyone else's throat.
http://www.christianalliance.org
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org
http://www.JesusNoRepublican.org

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.


But you're just transferring the something comes from nothing routine, unless you have a cause for God. In the end we have to land on something was always there and that something produced the universe. I believe, on faith, that this something was intelligent, God. However, it is no less logical to believe that there was a non-intelligent source. Your logic is spurious.

Can I add my own thought? Even if Neo is right (We all know she's NEVER wrong...:rolleyes: ) and God did create this Universe, and all that is in it, that still implies that, once upon a time, God was the ONLY THING in existence. Therefore, what did God use to create the universe? Where did He get the material? He STILL **created** the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing.)

Therefore, Neo has just invalidated her own argument.

Pwned!!

I'd like to give an oppinion in this thread and I'm also choosing my words very carefully.

I've never attended a school that had classes on religion but I've also never attended a religious based school. In my highschool there was a global history class. In this class, there was discussion and lessons on various countries throughout the history of the world. When we reached a new country in a new part of history we learn about how it formed and what have you. Now, this is the part that makes total sense, we also spent a time discussing that countries religious beliefs at the time. So, when we eventually reached a part of history where christianity was predominant, we learned about christianity. Now doesn't that make perfect sense? Learned about ancient Greece, greek mythology. Roman, Egyptian, The Druids, Islam, Judiasm, Bhudism, and just about every other religious belief you can imagine. The religion was neither taught as fact or fiction. Simply that, a religion. If you believe this, that's fine. If you don't, that's okay too. Just understand that this is a system of beliefs, and that this is how that population felt at that time. Were it applicable, the teacher would also add "...and is still a religion in such and such and place and what have you." I thought this was done very very well.

And wouldn't you know it, we never had anyone, of any religion, complain about a thing.


That is because a World History...or Global History, as you called it...class...IS an appropriate place for such discussion and teaching (and note I am NOT advocating PREACHING.) A World History class is an appropriate place for this...it is NOT appropriate in a science class...and the fundamentalist whackos who are pushing for this, they don't want it to stop at just teaching about various world religions...they want it to be PREACHING about THEIR religion, and no one else's. They are basically trying to turn our schools into "churches" of brainwash where they can teach our kids to become good little bigots.

Hooray!! I have met another TRUE Christian!! A true christian, by the way, is not threatened by those of other faiths, races, religions, or lifestyles. They are comfortable enough with themselves, and strong enough in their own faith, that they do not feel the need to jam their faith down anyone else's throat.
http://www.christianalliance.org
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org
http://www.JesusNoRepublican.org

There are many on this forum and around my country, like Ph33r, who need the government to validate their religion because the support of their peers and their church is not enough for them. I believe that Jesus was sent to act as a personal conduit to God, is my personal savior. Thus, I don't need to force my beliefs on others through the rule of law or to be supported by law or even a church. I offer up my beliefs to anyone who wishes to hear them, and there are many, and I offer them support in finding Jesus and God. I believe this is the way that Jesus intended it to be. For some odd reason, some Christians believe that if you're kind in your teachings of the Bible you are not a 'true' Christian. If you search this out you will see Ph33rdom and others here say specifically that to me. They believe it is their place to judge despite the direct condemnation of this by Christ. I tend to side with Christ in that little disagreement and that seems to leave them angry.

Lyric, I don't know what your path is or if it is right, but I do wish for you that you do not let those who would condemn you chase you away from finding faith. I very much wish for you to find peace. I see you in other threads and you have a lot of anger harbored. This can't be healthy for you. I promise you that not all conservatives wish to take from you, that not all Christians wish to condemn you and not all males wish to rape or otherwise mistreat you (as I am all those things).

That is because a World History...or Global History, as you called it...class...IS an appropriate place for such discussion and teaching (and note I am NOT advocating PREACHING.) A World History class is an appropriate place for this...it is NOT appropriate in a science class...and the fundamentalist whackos who are pushing for this, they don't want it to stop at just teaching about various world religions...they want it to be PREACHING about THEIR religion, and no one else's. They are basically trying to turn our schools into "churches" of brainwash where they can teach our kids to become good little bigots.

I completely agree with you. I'd like to use my previous post not only as a past experience, but an example in a way religion can be taught in school. A public school should not have a class on christianity or any other religion in the curriculum. A private, Catholic or Jewish or any other religious school, that's fine. That is the school.

That is because a World History...or Global History, as you called it...class...IS an appropriate place for such discussion and teaching (and note I am NOT advocating PREACHING.) A World History class is an appropriate place for this...it is NOT appropriate in a science class...and the fundamentalist whackos who are pushing for this, they don't want it to stop at just teaching about various world religions...they want it to be PREACHING about THEIR religion, and no one else's. They are basically trying to turn our schools into "churches" of brainwash where they can teach our kids to become good little bigots.

To be fair, I don't think their wish is to brainwash. The problem is that fundamentalists have an irrational fear of persecution and that a lack of Christianity is somehow brainwashing people to be Atheist. They are afraid that leaving God out of the pledge, the courts and off our money is somehow persecuting them and spreading Atheism rather just respecting all people's religious freedom. They are afraid that teaching scientific theories rather than their personal religious theories is somehow going to brainwash their children to be Atheist.

The problem with some Christians and some Atheists is that they are both equally afraid that it is the wish of one side to brainwash the other. The vast majority of Atheists and the vast majority of Christians simply want to be free to practice their faith or lack thereof.

Hooray!! I have met another TRUE Christian!! A true christian, by the way, is not threatened by those of other faiths, races, religions, or lifestyles. They are comfortable enough with themselves, and strong enough in their own faith, that they do not feel the need to jam their faith down anyone else's throat.
http://www.christianalliance.org
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org
http://www.JesusNoRepublican.org Didn't you know that Jocabia was like that? I thought you did.

On topic, I reckon teaching ABOUT religions in schools is a good idea (at least for the first few years), to prevent ignorance and hearsay (all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are murderers of gays, etc.).

Some groups of Christians just can't take it that Christianity
is losing its privalege of de facto state religion. (well actually
that's capitalism, but that's another story)

If a class about religion was made optional in schools, then it would have to substitute for other, useful classes that are also optional, such as carpentry, home education, etc., Also a class solely about religion would be taught in a way that would benefit one particular religion. I'll admit that religion does encourage kindness and tolerance, but it's manipulated, and always will be manipulated, by religious leaders who use it for their own good, thus causing intolerance, hate and wars among people. Religion is thus nothing more than an object of propaganda, and propaganda should not be taught in schools.

I learned some basic facts about four major religions in world history class, but the focus wasn't on these religions, it was about the impact of these religionson world history, which is the way religion should be taught.

There are many on this forum and around my country, like Ph33r, who need the government to validate their religion because the support of their peers and their church is not enough for them. I believe that Jesus was sent to act as a personal conduit to God, is my personal savior. Thus, I don't need to force my beliefs on others through the rule of law or to be supported by law or even a church. I offer up my beliefs to anyone who wishes to hear them, and there are many, and I offer them support in finding Jesus and God. I believe this is the way that Jesus intended it to be. For some odd reason, some Christians believe that if you're kind in your teachings of the Bible you are not a 'true' Christian. If you search this out you will see Ph33rdom and others here say specifically that to me. They believe it is their place to judge despite the direct condemnation of this by Christ. I tend to side with Christ in that little disagreement and that seems to leave them angry.

Lyric, I don't know what your path is or if it is right, but I do wish for you that you do not let those who would condemn you chase you away from finding faith. I very much wish for you to find peace. I see you in other threads and you have a lot of anger harbored. This can't be healthy for you. I promise you that not all conservatives wish to take from you, that not all Christians wish to condemn you and not all males wish to rape or otherwise mistreat you (as I am all those things).


As I said...those who feel the need for the government to codify their beliefs into civil law...and force their views onto others...are not comfortable enough...or strong enough in their own faith. They lack the ability to look within and find validation.

You, however, Jocaiba, are a prime example of what happens when someone DOES possess the strength to look within and find validation. You are clearly comfortable with, and stong in, your faith. I think that is terrific.

Personally, I am a self-identified Unitarian Christian. And I use the term "Unitarian christian" because I hold very different views from fundamentalist Christians, and I don't want to be confused with people like that! I, too, happen to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I need to man, or no church, nor any government, to validate my beliefs...and I will allow no man, no church, no man0-made institution, and no government to interpose itself into that personal relationship I have with Jesus.

For ten years, I let those who condemned me chase me away from God and Jesus, I alternated between Agnosticism and Athiesm, I alternated between apathy for...and rage against God and Jesus. Looking back, that is almost comical...an Athiest raging against God..."I don't believe in you, God, but I still hate you anyway!!" But that is how irrational I was made by who I now recognize were in fact servants of Satan who were tricked into believing they were servants of God.

Yes, I have a lot of anger harbored, and you would, too, if you were as oppressed as I have been. I grew up the youngest child of an alcoholic father, and nothing I could ever do was good enough. My brother was good kid, and I was bad kid. I got blamed for everything that ever went wrong in that house. My brother could break a plate...I'd get blamed for it, and punished, and that little bastard would sit there and watch ME get punished for what HE did, and not say a word. I hate the little fucker to this day!

And I wish I could believe your assertion that not all conservatives want to take away from me...because their entire political agenda involves taking away from people...taking away their rights of free choice, and punishing those who fail to "conform to the norm." The "norm" is what conservatives are all about, and if you do not conform to it, they seek to try to FORCE you to. And if they can't, then they seek to punish you for failing to.

And No TRUE Christian seeks to condemn me. This I discovered for myself. Those who call themselves "Christian" and act in un-christian ways...are not Christian. It is much easier to SAY you are a Christian than to actually BE a Christian. God knows I fall short, because I do not love my enemies, and my oppressors, I find it impossible to love those who would oppress, persecute, and hurt me.

As to males...well, when you understand that I was abused...physically, emotionally, mentally, and verbally, without surcease, for 23 years by my no good, alcoholic, rotten, son-of-a-bitch of a father....and sexually abused by my brother for 5 years...you can well understand, perhaps, why I hold the attitudes I do towards men. Men have never given me a REASON to trust them. The ones I was supposed to be able to look to for guidance, support, and love...showed me nothing but abuse!

All this aside, though...people like Neo...they can take their Nathaniel Hawthorne inspired God of wrath, vengefulness, anger, fire, hell, damnation, and brimstone. I want nothing to do with a God like that, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to sit around idly while they try to get the government to codify that God into our laws, and then impose him on me.

No, thank you very much, I'll take the God written of in the Gospels...you know, the one full of love, joy, tolerance, mercy, understanding, forgiveness, peace, and patience. That is the God I will take. And I find I don't NEED to force that god on anyone. Given a choice between Neo's God...and my God...which would you pick??

As long as you see God as an auditor before whom your books never balance, a teacher whose class you dread, or a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you won't "come boldly." In fact, you probably won't come at all!

As I said...those who feel the need for the government to codify their beliefs into civil law...and force their views onto others...are not comfortable enough...or strong enough in their own faith. They lack the ability to look within and find validation.

You, however, Jocaiba, are a prime example of what happens when someone DOES possess the strength to look within and find validation. You are clearly comfortable with, and stong in, your faith. I think that is terrific.

Personally, I am a self-identified Unitarian Christian. And I use the term "Unitarian christian" because I hold very different views from fundamentalist Christians, and I don't want to be confused with people like that! I, too, happen to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I need to man, or no church, nor any government, to validate my beliefs...and I will allow no man, no church, no man0-made institution, and no government to interpose itself into that personal relationship I have with Jesus.

For ten years, I let those who condemned me chase me away from God and Jesus, I alternated between Agnosticism and Athiesm, I alternated between apathy for...and rage against God and Jesus. Looking back, that is almost comical...an Athiest raging against God..."I don't believe in you, God, but I still hate you anyway!!" But that is how irrational I was made by who I now recognize were in fact servants of Satan who were tricked into believing they were servants of God.

Yes, I have a lot of anger harbored, and you would, too, if you were as oppressed as I have been. I grew up the youngest child of an alcoholic father, and nothing I could ever do was good enough. My brother was good kid, and I was bad kid. I got blamed for everything that ever went wrong in that house. My brother could break a plate...I'd get blamed for it, and punished, and that little bastard would sit there and watch ME get punished for what HE did, and not say a word. I hate the little fucker to this day!

And I wish I could believe your assertion that not all conservatives want to take away from me...because their entire political agenda involves taking away from people...taking away their rights of free choice, and punishing those who fail to "conform to the norm." The "norm" is what conservatives are all about, and if you do not conform to it, they seek to try to FORCE you to. And if they can't, then they seek to punish you for failing to.

And No TRUE Christian seeks to condemn me. This I discovered for myself. Those who call themselves "Christian" and act in un-christian ways...are not Christian. It is much easier to SAY you are a Christian than to actually BE a Christian. God knows I fall short, because I do not love my enemies, and my oppressors, I find it impossible to love those who would oppress, persecute, and hurt me.

As to males...well, when you understand that I was abused...physically, emotionally, mentally, and verbally, without surcease, for 23 years by my no good, alcoholic, rotten, son-of-a-bitch of a father....and sexually abused by my brother for 5 years...you can well understand, perhaps, why I hold the attitudes I do towards men. Men have never given me a REASON to trust them. The ones I was supposed to be able to look to for guidance, support, and love...showed me nothing but abuse!

All this aside, though...people like Neo...they can take their Nathaniel Hawthorne inspired God of wrath, vengefulness, anger, fire, hell, damnation, and brimstone. I want nothing to do with a God like that, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to sit around idly while they try to get the government to codify that God into our laws, and then impose him on me.

No, thank you very much, I'll take the God written of in the Gospels...you know, the one full of love, joy, tolerance, mercy, understanding, forgiveness, peace, and patience. That is the God I will take. And I find I don't NEED to force that god on anyone. Given a choice between Neo's God...and my God...which would you pick??

As long as you see God as an auditor before whom your books never balance, a teacher whose class you dread, or a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you won't "come boldly." In fact, you probably won't come at all!

I've read many of your posts and I know of your abuse. I too was sexually abused though for me, it was by a young girl that I was not related to. I know what it means to have disappointing (yes, an understatement) parents and siblings. I know what it means to be angry about all of it. I also know that an important thing for you to find is that holding on to that anger is not to your benefit and certainly does not harm those it is aimed at. Anger can steal your faith, your life, your family, your friends and your love. It is probably the most important thing you can ever leave behind you in life. I hope one day you find a way to leave that behind you. It is then that you will find people that you can trust in. Sometimes you have to have faith in people as well, my friend. I hope you find that faith someday.

Didn't you know that Jocabia was like that? I thought you did.

On topic, I reckon teaching ABOUT religions in schools is a good idea (at least for the first few years), to prevent ignorance and hearsay (all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are murderers of gays, etc.).

I didn't realize my religious beliefs were so famous. Interestingly, one of the objections that some have to my beliefs is that they think if you don't force Christianity on people, people will never listen. I always find it interesting when others confirm that people are indeed more likely to listen when the message is tempered with respect and humility.

There are many on this forum and around my country, like Ph33r, who need the government to validate their religion because the support of their peers and their church is not enough for them. ...


Should I feel ashamed now :(


What a silly thing to say... :rolleyes:

Should I feel ashamed now :(


What a silly thing to say... :rolleyes:

I asked this question of another person in another thread. If you wanted to convert the US to a "Christian" country what would change besides a number of empty slogans (that do not apply to everyone) being required? Are those empty slogans so cruicial? Is it really so important that the 10 Commandments be displayed even though the very First Commandment contradicts the very First Ammendmant? (If they aren't displayed for everyone why should they be displayed on public land?) Looking at Western Europe we can get a good indication that one of the reason religions is so strong and vibrant in America is precisely BECAUSE we have a "hands off" policy. Do you honestly feel that God needs government handouts to survive?

A Christian moral is enforced: THE HORROR!!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE FUNDIES ARE GOING TO BURN US ALIVE!!!!!!!!

-.-

You don't even make the pretense of being open-minded about it, which, I suppose is a plus... at least it's not deceptive.

According to my moral code, it's no big crime for consenting adults to market their exploits in video form, if they so choose - but I consider it a form of abuse to brainwash a small child with a religion, before they have the cognitive ability to decide for themselves.

I wonder how you would feel if my moral paradigm were compelled upon you?

Looking at Western Europe we can get a good indication that one of the reason religions is so strong and vibrant in America is precisely BECAUSE we have a "hands off" policy. Do you honestly feel that God needs government handouts to survive?

I agree. If the churches of America were considered corporations, several would be in the top 10 gross earners of American companies. Microsoft and Walton Industries (Walmart) would be knocked out of the top.

And since they don't need handouts, or to be in our public schools (to refer to the thread topic) I say tax them.

I suppose you could recognize the existence of rights without a higher standard, but it wouldn't be very logical. After all, for something to actually exist, it must be apart from our minds alone and a reality.

How is it 'illogical'? Surely, the very fact that rights ONLY have impact WHEN they are recognised by society, is illustration that rights are an artifact OF society?

Seems perfectly logical to me.

Now, what seems illogical to me, is the assertion that there could be such things as 'god given rights' - when such is clearly not the case. As you illustrated yourself, it is hard to explain to a hungry tiger why it should respect your 'god given right to life'.

There's nothing illogical about it, the illogical thing is that the universe, time, energy, and matter originated without cause.

That's ONE theory. In others, the 'cause' issue is irrelevent.

Honestly,

I think that America was founded upon Christianity. People who came into our country acknowledged the fact that they understood america was a christian society. (i mean this in the most passive way.) Therefore they should not be able to complain. We founded it. Its ours and if they dont like it then they should make thier own country without religion being a prime focus. Religion is a great thing. It gives hope. Why take that away from our children in school. The 20% of the world, i think, just wants everything they dont agree with censored so they can make more people the way they are and not be so different.

The native americans were Christians? :eek:

Please don't tell me you are talking about the myth of the pilgrims.

The native americans were Christians? :eek:

Please don't tell me you are talking about the myth of the pilgrims.



It's not a myth, but a historical fact. Very few of the founders were Deists, and even they had more quotes favoring Christian morals than opposing them.

Yes, we all know the government should allow those Satanic types to sacrifice children to Lucifer ;)

I wonder if you've ever actually met any Satanists? Or have ANY idea about their religion that isn't pure Christian propoganda?

Will you please point to me any one causal-effect relationship without an intelligence involved?

How about Hurricane Katrina, who happily engaged in acts of geographical intercourse, with New Orleans as her blushing bridegroom....?

Unless, of course - you believe the idea that hurricanes are gods? Or that God sent Katrina as a specific punishment against New Orleans' wickedness?

If not - then the 'effects' of Katrina are CLEAR examples of 'effects' with no 'intelligence' at cause.

Where did the atoms comprising the acorn originate? Where did the energy in the moving wind originate? ;)

Irrelevent.

How is it 'illogical'? Surely, the very fact that rights ONLY have impact WHEN they are recognised by society, is illustration that rights are an artifact OF society?

Seems perfectly logical to me.

Now, what seems illogical to me, is the assertion that there could be such things as 'god given rights' - when such is clearly not the case. As you illustrated yourself, it is hard to explain to a hungry tiger why it should respect your 'god given right to life'.



An abstract human construct has no true existence as anything other than an idea. It is merely a conception of how things should be, rather than how they actually are. The only essence they have is in the force manifested when society renders justice. However, what if someone else didn't want to play by those rules? The only deterrant would be societal repercussions, and if they got away with it then there would be no repercussions at all save a little guilt which could easily be rationalized away. One's rights only go so far as they are enforced, therefore it can be said that a victim of a crime that was not punished had no rights, because nobody recognized that right and exacted justice. This is why a divine standard is imperative to the existence of rights, because if you violate them you do not get away with it in the afterlife, even if you do in this life. That is what allows for actual rights to exist.

It's not a myth, but a historical fact. Very few of the founders were Deists, and even they had more quotes favoring Christian morals than opposing them.

The Pilgrims were not the first ones here and they didn't practice Religious freedom as the myth said they were searching for. Never mind the fact they had that freedom in Holland.....

If this country was founded for Christianity then Jefferson would not have taken the Generic route on the DOI.

I would quote you Adams, Jefferson, Madison and even Washington but I know you would ignore them.....

No, actually it's correct. Which is more logical: To believe something comes from something or something comes from nothing? I'm sorry, but when we're referring to a physical universe with certain laws, I'm not going to buy the whole "it just happened" routine.

And yet, you blindly accept the illogical assumption (by your own admission) that nothing 'caused' God?

Irrelevent.


Why do you keep downplaying the issue of universal origins? Is it because you know that any logical explanation following the current laws of physics cannot exist and that extra-dimensional forces would be necessary for our origin?

correction, god gave us free will (check the bible) satan wanted to take it away (and rule heaven) and for this he was damned

However thats just according to the christian faith, you go beleive what you want to believe

How very non-scriptural of you.

Ah well, I've noticed most Christians have this polytheistic approach to Christianity... I wonder why it continues to surprise me.

Why do you keep downplaying the issue of universal origins? Is it because you know that any logical explanation following the current laws of physics cannot exist and that extra-dimensional forces would be necessary for our origin?

I'm not downplaying origins here. Dragons Bay asked for examples of cause-effect relationships that were not shaped by intelligence.

Several were offered, and you brought up 'origins'.

Origins are irrelevent to the subject - i.e. the intelligence (or lack of it) involved in cause-effect relationships.

So - I write "irrelevent", because it IS irrelevent.

Sorry, is there a word you would have preferred?

Why do you keep downplaying the issue of universal origins? Is it because you know that any logical explanation following the current laws of physics cannot exist and that extra-dimensional forces would be necessary for our origin?
Why do you downplay guilt? Guilt can be a tremendously powerful motivator for good, and a tramatic blow if not properly identified and dealt with.

Not "extra-dimensional" but forces existing outside of existence, i.e. supernatural.

And yet, you blindly accept the illogical assumption (by your own admission) that nothing 'caused' God?



God exists outside of time, space, and observable reality. God has no cause and needs no cause for God is eternal. God is the quintessence of true sentience and thus can cause acts to occur, whereas anything lacking instinct or conscious thought relies upon energy from some source to change it's time/place/state. If the material for the Big Bang was eternal, which is not the case, then it would still need a force or agent to act upon it and cause it to expand.

Care for some scriptural citations for those first two? :)

Haven't you read the Bible? There is only one way to salvation, no?

How very non-scriptural of you.

Ah well, I've noticed most Christians have this polytheistic approach to Christianity... I wonder why it continues to surprise me.



It would only be polytheistic if it placed Satan on the level of a god....and yes, there is no scriptural basis for that assertion. Given the prevalence it has in the Christian world, it seems that it might have originated in Catholic dogma?

God exists outside of time, space, and observable reality. God has no cause and needs no cause for God is eternal. God is the quintessence of true sentience and thus can cause acts to occur, whereas anything lacking instinct or conscious thought relies upon energy from some source to change it's time/place/state. If the material for the Big Bang was eternal, which is not the case, then it would still need a force or agent to act upon it and cause it to expand.
The universe needs no origins if the universe is eternal.

The universe needs no origins if the universe is eternal. The Big Bang theory is generally accepted over the Steady State theory, due to things like background radiation and other such things which point to a single rapid expansion of matter.

God exists outside of time, space, and observable reality. God has no cause and needs no cause for God is eternal. God is the quintessence of true sentience and thus can cause acts to occur, whereas anything lacking instinct or conscious thought relies upon energy from some source to change it's time/place/state. If the material for the Big Bang was eternal, which is not the case, then it would still need a force or agent to act upon it and cause it to expand.


Read Stephen Hawking's hypothesis on the Big Bang (Brief History of Time Chapter 8 - The Origin and Fate of the Universe). Remember time is an aspect of our Universe and it may exist differently or not at all outside of it. Thus our Universe may be a static and unchanging when looked at from without. Another way to look at it taking an example down a couple dimentions. Freeze Earth and everything on it (except you) at a given moment. Walk around, and as you walk the scenery changes thus giving the appearance of change even though the earth is indeed static. That may be what is happening with our Universe. (the jury is still out)

Haven't you read the Bible? There is only one way to salvation, no?



Through Christ alone. However, there is a passage that comes to mind casting doubt on whether or not God will condemn all unbelievers to the same fate:

12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

An abstract human construct has no true existence as anything other than an idea. It is merely a conception of how things should be, rather than how they actually are. The only essence they have is in the force manifested when society renders justice. However, what if someone else didn't want to play by those rules? The only deterrant would be societal repercussions, and if they got away with it then there would be no repercussions at all save a little guilt which could easily be rationalized away. One's rights only go so far as they are enforced, therefore it can be said that a victim of a crime that was not punished had no rights, because nobody recognized that right and exacted justice. This is why a divine standard is imperative to the existence of rights, because if you violate them you do not get away with it in the afterlife, even if you do in this life. That is what allows for actual rights to exist.

In your mythology.

I would say this was an eloquent and reasonable post, right up until the "This is why a divine standard" claptrap kicked in. Up until that point it was all pretty much observable, and capable of being supported by evidence.

There is no evidence of an afterlife, much less one that punishes or rewards.

And, if the ONLY reason you obey order is because you are fearing a cosmic-spank-job in the here-after, I don't think much of your understanding of the Golden Rule.

Through Christ alone. However, there is a passage that comes to mind casting doubt on whether or not God will condemn all unbelievers to the same fate:

12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. My view on this is twofold: firstly, God doesn't, I think it's safe to say, punish people for things that aren't their fault unless it's for a greater good (Israelites killing aggressive, violent tribes of Nephilim descent, for example), and that I trust ultimately in God's judgement, to be whatever is right. So God will make the right decision.

God exists outside of time, space, and observable reality. God has no cause and needs no cause for God is eternal. God is the quintessence of true sentience and thus can cause acts to occur, whereas anything lacking instinct or conscious thought relies upon energy from some source to change it's time/place/state. If the material for the Big Bang was eternal, which is not the case, then it would still need a force or agent to act upon it and cause it to expand.

Why is the material for the big bang not eternal?

I doubt you were there, so this is just your idle rhetoric, yes?

I can think of two origin stories that do NOT agree with you.

First - if the universe is cyclical, the material for the big bang, is the same material in the PRIOR incarnation of the universe... and from the one before that, and the one before that, ad infinitum.

Second - the Universe existed in 'potential'. At some point (the point which defines our understanding of time), that 'potential' was realised, and became 'kinetic'.

The same as a book on a shelf has potential energy to fall, which becomes kinetic when you give it a little ndge.

The Big Bang theory is generally accepted over the Steady State theory, due to things like background radiation and other such things which point to a single rapid expansion of matter.

However, even in that case it expanded from a singularity that could in and of itself be eternal.

It would only be polytheistic if it placed Satan on the level of a god....and yes, there is no scriptural basis for that assertion. Given the prevalence it has in the Christian world, it seems that it might have originated in Catholic dogma?

Part of it may be traced to the Egyptian stories, where the Seth and Apepi characters seem to have been gradually inducted into the Biblical mythology.

In Job - Satan is not a name, but a rank of angel. The Satan (look at the Hebrew, HaSatan) is the adversary of man in the judgement of god. Hence, Satan is instructed by God to prove the weakness of Job's faith.

By the time the Nazerites appeared, the story was polluted with late-Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology.

Of course, it wasn't until Milton re-imagined the story, that Satan becomes the adversary, and equal, of god. Like it or not, popular Christian Mythology is partially an artifact of Milton.

Should I feel ashamed now :(


What a silly thing to say... :rolleyes:

Wow, I wrote all that I wrote and all you could come up with is this. I'll take that as an admission of your blind fear of a Christian that truly believes in humility and compassion over judgement and force-fed ideologies.

Through Christ alone. However, there is a passage that comes to mind casting doubt on whether or not God will condemn all unbelievers to the same fate:

12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

So - what you are saying is: God CAN forgive the sinner, even without the sinner coming to him through faith?

Are you sure that's an avenue you want to be arguing?

An abstract human construct has no true existence as anything other than an idea. It is merely a conception of how things should be, rather than how they actually are. The only essence they have is in the force manifested when society renders justice. However, what if someone else didn't want to play by those rules? The only deterrant would be societal repercussions, and if they got away with it then there would be no repercussions at all save a little guilt which could easily be rationalized away. One's rights only go so far as they are enforced, therefore it can be said that a victim of a crime that was not punished had no rights, because nobody recognized that right and exacted justice. This is why a divine standard is imperative to the existence of rights, because if you violate them you do not get away with it in the afterlife, even if you do in this life. That is what allows for actual rights to exist.

Although most people, even us Christians believe in respecting rights not because we fear reprisal in this life or in the afterlife but because we would have them treat us in exactly the same way. I find it amusing when other Christians suggest the only possible explanation for respecting rights and for morality is a fear of punishment. My compassion for humanity is not a result of someone or something punishing me for a lack thereof.

God exists outside of time, space, and observable reality. God has no cause and needs no cause for God is eternal. God is the quintessence of true sentience and thus can cause acts to occur, whereas anything lacking instinct or conscious thought relies upon energy from some source to change it's time/place/state. If the material for the Big Bang was eternal, which is not the case, then it would still need a force or agent to act upon it and cause it to expand.

So basically your argument is that your source can be eternal because you say so, but their source cannot be... because you say so. Makes perfect sense if you like leaps of logic.

Although most people, even us Christians believe in respecting rights not because we fear reprisal in this life or in the afterlife but because we would have them treat us in exactly the same way. I find it amusing when other Christians suggest the only possible explanation for respecting rights and for morality is a fear of punishment. My compassion for humanity is not a result of someone or something punishing me for a lack thereof. Indeed. Laws are intended for criminals, to use a metaphor.

Wow, I wrote all that I wrote and all you could come up with is this. I'll take that as an admission of your blind fear of a Christian that truly believes in humility and compassion over judgement and force-fed ideologies.


If you are so humble, as you suggest of yourself, why would you want other Christians to fear you?

If you are so humble, as you suggest of yourself, why would you want other Christians to fear you?

Where did I suggest I want anyone to fear me? I would prefer that you recognize the need to practice your religion privately and without government support and leave it at that. I suspect that the reason for fear and the reason fundamentalists so fear Christians that are quite content practicing their religion privately and without government support is that it kind of blows their case for persecution by Atheists particularly when the majority of people in power are not, in fact, Atheists. Hard to make a case for the persecution of Christianity when the vast majority of Christians agree with those that would keep Christianity out of the government.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I stated that I believe in humility and compassion not that I unfalteringly practice it.

Although most people, even us Christians believe in respecting rights not because we fear reprisal in this life or in the afterlife but because we would have them treat us in exactly the same way. I find it amusing when other Christians suggest the only possible explanation for respecting rights and for morality is a fear of punishment. My compassion for humanity is not a result of someone or something punishing me for a lack thereof.

You don’t really want your reward for charity repaid here on earth do you, a sort of recompense of concern? Of course not. A gift given with a payment expected in return is not a gift at all.

You keep suggesting an advocacy of compassion for the world, but no compassion for other members of your own family, the church... go figure.

I find the most interesting threads on this forum.

anyway, I to think that it is important to be secure in your religion and not have to push it on others to feel safe. Religion should only be spread thru a sense of sharing.

First of all, I'm Buddhist. While i believe in "God", it is not the traditional Christian "God" of the Bible. My God is more diffuse and all-encompassing. God didn't create the universe, God IS the universe and everthing in it is a manifestation. Therefore, my values come from what I know is right deep in my heart, where my connection to "God" exists.

Back to the topic, I think Religion should be taught in schools, but it should include all major religions, covering histories, beliefs, and divisions(Catholic/Protestant, Shia/Sunni, Thevada/Mahayana etc).

You don’t really want your reward for charity repaid here on earth do you, a sort of recompense of concern? Of course not. A gift given with a payment expected in return is not a gift at all.

You keep suggesting an advocacy of compassion for the world, but no compassion for other members of your own family, the church... go figure.

I don't want a reward for charity at all. Not on earth. Not anywhere. This is quite simply not why I do it. What point are you trying to make?

Where am I not showing compassion for the church? I'm protecting the church from being damaged by a blurring of the line between Church and State. Where is this lack of compassion you speak of? Are you upset that I point out the fallacy of claiming that God can be the only source of morality and rights? I didn't realize that engaging in discussion and expressing my beliefs was showing a lack of compassion. I guess it depends on whether or not you consider freedom of thought dangerous. I don't.

You don’t really want your reward for charity repaid here on earth do you, a sort of recompense of concern? Of course not. A gift given with a payment expected in return is not a gift at all.

You keep suggesting an advocacy of compassion for the world, but no compassion for other members of your own family, the church... go figure.

I'm still waiting to see some sort of argument or contribution to the topic. Did you just enter the thread to attack me? What is so scary about my beliefs that you can't allow them to be uttered with attacking me personally?

I don't want a reward for charity at all. Not on earth. Not anywhere. This is quite simply not why I do it. What point are you trying to make?

Where am I not showing compassion for the church? I'm protecting the church from being damaged by a blurring of the line between Church and State. Where is this lack of compassion you speak of? Are you upset that I point out the fallacy of claiming that God can be the only source of morality and rights? I didn't realize that engaging in discussion and expressing my beliefs was showing a lack of compassion. I guess it depends on whether or not you consider freedom of thought dangerous. I don't. Oh no… not the "you can only be moral if you're religious" argument AGAIN. Quite simply it's a lie (as you say), easily disproved by empirical evidence such as moral agnostics and suchlike.

Also, separation of Church of State is indeed a good idea. The Church's moral authority and independence are severely undermined by melding the two.

Oh no… not the "you can only be moral if you're religious" argument AGAIN. Quite simply it's a lie (as you say), easily disproved by empirical evidence such as moral agnostics and suchlike.

Also, separation of Church of State is indeed a good idea. The Church's moral authority and independence are severely undermined by melding the two.

Exactly to both parts. The seperation of Church and State is as much to protect the Church as it is the State.

I'm still waiting to see some sort of argument or contribution to the topic. Did you just enter the thread to attack me? What is so scary about my beliefs that you can't allow them to be uttered with attacking me personally?


You used me as a reference of what is wrong with Christians... what would you have me do in return?

Oh no… not the "you can only be moral if you're religious" argument AGAIN. Quite simply it's a lie (as you say), easily disproved by empirical evidence such as moral agnostics and suchlike.


I think a lot of people misintepret this point. The point of God being the source of morality does not mean that only religious people are moral. What it means is that because humans are created by God, God built morality into them and that its origins cant be explained without God.

I think a lot of people misintepret this point. The point of God being the source of morality does not mean that only religious people are moral. What it means is that because humans are created by God, God built morality into them and that its origins cant be explained without God.

Here is the old Buddhist response to this: Either 1) the morality of God is based on reasons, and thus those reason decide what is moral not God. 2) The morality of God is abitrary and thus murder and rape would be moral if God said so. (I think the second one is clearly ridiculous which leaves the first)

You used me as a reference of what is wrong with Christians... what would you have me do in return?

I referenced a set of beliefs that I disagree with and that you hold and pointed out that many on this forum hold those beliefs including you (as you had appeared recently in the thread). I used you as an example of Christians I disagree with. I don't think there is anything universally wrong with Christians.

Meanwhile, you haven't contributed anything to the conversation except to point out that I am not universally humble or compassionate, something I've admitted myself. So I ask again, do you intend to add to the discussion or simply to continue to attack me? Wouldn't supporting and defending your beliefs better benefit your cause, particularly since you believe in evangalizing?

Here is the old Buddhist response to this: Either 1) the morality of God is based on reasons, and thus those reason decide what is moral not God. 2) The morality of God is abitrary and thus murder and rape would be moral if God said so. (I think the second one is clearly ridiculous which leaves the first)

I agree, the second point is redicoulous. As for the first, Christianity says that the reason that morality is the way it is is because its to be God like. Thus the reason can be said to be God.

I think a lot of people misintepret this point. The point of God being the source of morality does not mean that only religious people are moral. What it means is that because humans are created by God, God built morality into them and that its origins cant be explained without God.

It's origins can be explained by the fact that man is a social animal. Dolphins have been seen to teach their young to be kinder to one another (teaching their young to not steal food from other young dolphins or to not play so roughly, etc). Apes and other social animals can be seen enforcing similar constructs. This suggests that rights and morality can be explained through social origins. To suggest a divine source is necessary is to attempt to PROVE God, which can't be done. If it could, it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called knowledge.

I think a lot of people misintepret this point. The point of God being the source of morality does not mean that only religious people are moral. What it means is that because humans are created by God, God built morality into them and that its origins cant be explained without God.

Really. So what happens if I say morality is a human construct. Thats an explaination of morality without god involved.

Really. So what happens if I say morality is a human construct. Thats an explaination of morality without god involved.

You would have to attempt to prove it, which most philosphers for the last several centuries have failed to do so. Immanual Kant eventually surrenderd to that problem.

You would have to attempt to prove it, which most philosphers for the last several centuries have failed to do so. Immanual Kant eventually surrenderd to that problem.

Ok, then so would you. You have failed to do so as well. It can be equally explained a dozen different and natural ways.

I agree, the second point is redicoulous. As for the first, Christianity says that the reason that morality is the way it is is because its to be God like. Thus the reason can be said to be God.

I know I am argumenting scematics here but when you say "built" that implied God had a choice to make morals how they are or some other way (with murder and rape being moral things). I am saying that God did not have this choice (I know, I have effectively cast myself into the hearasy of removing free-will from the Almighty) since there was only one way to make morals moral.

The point is those reasons exist and are able to be determined regardless of the existance of God. Personally speaking, I would go as far to say that all math and logic is the way it is because God is the way She is. However, we can look at logic and math independantly from God (2+2 = 4 (base 10) whether I'm right or wrong about my theology). True the existance of logic and math can't be explained, but the existance of God can't be explained either. Eventually we are left with an eternal source, being God or math; morals or God. The only observable effect adding God into the equation does is move the string up a notch.

You would have to attempt to prove it, which most philosphers for the last several centuries have failed to do so. Immanual Kant eventually surrenderd to that problem.

So by failing to prove one view of something your side wins by default? I dont think so. Even if you say that the attempt to show morality as a human construct has not yet been proven neither has the attempt to classify it as some absolute made by a diety.

I have to admit first and foremost that I haven't read this entire thread - it is way too long and I have to get to class eventually. That being said, I wanted to state my opinion on the original question in this thread: Why isn't religion taught in school? Well, maybe I went to a completely weird high school, but religion WAS taught where I went. We just didn't make "value judgements;" instead, we discussed the history of the religion and how it relates to other topics like politics, sociology, psychology, etc. I mean, that kind of discussion is totally cool in my eyes, and it really is happening in schools around the nation. You just have to take the right classes.

ALSO. I am a religious studies student at KU, so I am continuing my education in religion at a public school. I am, in fact, posting this in the library DEVOTED to religious texts. Sooooo... I guess my point is: It is happening, and it's awesome. :)

Read Stephen Hawking's hypothesis on the Big Bang (Brief History of Time Chapter 8 - The Origin and Fate of the Universe). Remember time is an aspect of our Universe and it may exist differently or not at all outside of it. Thus our Universe may be a static and unchanging when looked at from without. Another way to look at it taking an example down a couple dimentions. Freeze Earth and everything on it (except you) at a given moment. Walk around, and as you walk the scenery changes thus giving the appearance of change even though the earth is indeed static. That may be what is happening with our Universe. (the jury is still out)



That puts it on the same level as theological views: speculation. To believe either requires faith.

So by failing to prove one view of something your side wins by default? I dont think so. Even if you say that the attempt to show morality as a human construct has not yet been proven neither has the attempt to classify it as some absolute made by a diety.

I actually dislike this argument as it makes theists look illogical. If it can't be explained any other way, in fact not just explained but proven, then it must have divine source. Then these same people get upset when people refer to religion as mythology. Everything that hasn't yet been defined is not automatically a result of a divine being. Can't figure out why it rains then it must be angels crying. Argh!

Note: this is directed at the poster you are replying to.

That puts it on the same level as theological views: speculation. To believe either requires faith.

Absolutely... but my point was the ideas are not cut and dried (hence the remark that the Jury is still out). Any complaints about the eternal Universe can be leveled against the Eternal God and the agnostic position is actually the most logical. (Eh... I don't know, I'll get back to you in a bit.)

I have to admit first and foremost that I haven't read this entire thread

Yeah, me either.

- it is way too long and I have to get to class eventually. That being said, I wanted to state my opinion on the original question in this thread: Why isn't religion taught in school? Well, maybe I went to a completely weird high school, but religion WAS taught where I went. We just didn't make "value judgements;" instead, we discussed the history of the religion and how it relates to other topics like politics, sociology, psychology, etc. I mean, that kind of discussion is totally cool in my eyes, and it really is happening in schools around the nation. You just have to take the right classes.

I would say that such classes aren't teaching religion, but teaching about religion. I have no problem at all with public schools teaching about religion, so long as they do so fairly, and give time to more than one religion. I had a mini-class in a public school in which we discussed the larger religions - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a little on Taoism. I found it to be a really good experience - even for a 5th grader (which is, IIRC, when I had the class).

I do have a problem with a public school teaching religion - that one religion or other, or one set of religions, is correct or more correct than another. Such teachings generally also lead to a completely skewed view of other religions, and a lack of understanding of all concepts involved.

I know I am argumenting scematics here but when you say "built" that implied God had a choice to make morals how they are or some other way (with murder and rape being moral things). I am saying that God did not have this choice (I know, I have effectively cast myself into the hearasy of removing free-will from the Almighty) since there was only one way to make morals moral.

Hmm... this goes back to the old question, "Can God make a rock he cannot move?" Obviously he should be able to, because he can do anything, but then as soon as he makes the rock that he cannot move, he has restricted himself, thus making him NOT almighty. Morals are just that: restrictions. And if God cannot be restricted, then how can he be bound by morals? He CAN'T. Thus, following this arguement to its logical end, God becomes amoral and BEYOND the restrictions of human beings. Morals are not for God, morals are Godly restrictions created for imperfect humanity.

And: What makes you think that god "created" morals in the first place? Why couldn't they have been there since the dawn of time? Why couldn't they have been created with God, for that matter? (Of course, then we get into the idea of "who created the creator).

Oh, and I used "he" instead of "he/she/it" because it's easier.

That puts it on the same level as theological views: speculation. To believe either requires faith.

Some theories are speculation. The difference is that in science, we do not ascribe characteristics to a source unless it is necessary to the explanation. There as of yet has been no explanation that required the source to be intelligent. At the same time, science never says that the source can not be intelligent. That particular decision is outside the realm of science. For example, evolution is a process that resulted from natural forces but science does not claim to know if those natural forces were not intelligently designed to cause the evolutionary process to develop. Thus evolution does not speak to the construct of a deity in any way. Science only speaks to religion when religion contradicts emperical evidence.

As far as Hawkings theories, all currently collected evidence has supported them. In the realm of science, this suggests that he is correct.

Oh no… not the "you can only be moral if you're religious" argument AGAIN. Quite simply it's a lie (as you say), easily disproved by empirical evidence such as moral agnostics and suchlike.

Also, separation of Church of State is indeed a good idea. The Church's moral authority and independence are severely undermined by melding the two.



It depends on what type of morality you're referencing: Ethical philosophy as defined by humans, or morality as defined by God. As God requires the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to purify the soul, one cannot be heathen and moral under that version. If you are referring to ethical philosophy, it varies depending on which standard you accept. If immorality is to cause unjust harm to another individual, then certainly agnostics and some atheists will have no problem being moral in that sense.

Some theories are speculation. The difference is that in science, we do not ascribe characteristics to a source unless it is necessary to the explanation. There as of yet has been no explanation that required the source to be intelligent. At the same time, science never says that the source can not be intelligent. That particular decision is outside the realm of science. For example, evolution is a process that resulted from natural forces but science does not claim to know if those natural forces were not intelligently designed to cause the evolutionary process to develop. Thus evolution does not speak to the construct of a deity in any way. Science only speaks to religion when religion contradicts emperical evidence.

As far as Hawkings theories, all currently collected evidence has supported them. In the realm of science, this suggests that he is correct.


His evidence supports an unverifiable conclusion, as science relies on certain laws and the empirical method to determine its truths. Also, I'm not aware of any of his sources leading to that conclusion alone. It's simply a possibility. We would have to add a metaphysical branch to science to study that which occurs outside of time and which is not subject to physical laws. Perhaps a unification of philosophy and science, to reason that which we cannot observe?

Christian "God" :sniper:

Religions are restrictive and separative. Almost all organized religions on Earth today teach people to "do god's will." If you take a look at what most "gods" want from "their" creations, it goes against almost everything that is natural for humans. Lust, which is natural human sexual attraction, is shunned. Pride, simply being confident in one's abilities, is a sin. Murder is a grave sin, but murder in war is acceptable if it goes along with "god's will." At the same time, the faithful are supposed to convert everyone that does not believe. Now, how can you convert someone you're shooting? Tell me, those of you that put your faith in something that's not going to take an active part in your everyday life, why would you believe in and idolize a "god" that so obviously contradicts itself and has such disregard for humankind?

That, right there, is why religion is outdated and should be removed from schools. We were all born atheists, and no religions should ever be forced upon us. One of my favorite quotes is as follows, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Chew on that, all you faithful. :)

It depends on what type of morality you're referencing: Ethical philosophy as defined by humans, or morality as defined by God. As God requires the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to purify the soul, one cannot be heathen and moral under that version. If you are referring to ethical philosophy, it varies depending on which standard you accept. If immorality is to cause unjust harm to another individual, then certainly agnostics and some atheists will have no problem being moral in that sense.

Really so you have to accept Christ to purify your soul do you. So what makes your thought here more valid then the Catholic belief that good works alone are enough to get into heaven?

Hmm... this goes back to the old question, "Can God make a rock he cannot move?" Obviously he should be able to, because he can do anything, but then as soon as he makes the rock that he cannot move, he has restricted himself, thus making him NOT almighty. Morals are just that: restrictions. And if God cannot be restricted, then how can he be bound by morals? He CAN'T. Thus, following this arguement to its logical end, God becomes amoral and BEYOND the restrictions of human beings. Morals are not for God, morals are Godly restrictions created for imperfect humanity.

If I may be so bold, I think the problem is we are still stuck with the old theist idea of God. She (I use She just cause it ticks off the religious right) has come a long way from the Old White Man motif, but I think we (at least I) still get trapped into thinking of Her as a 'person' when "The Ground of Being" or "That is made manifest in Love" would be more appropriate.

And: What makes you think that god "created" morals in the first place? Why couldn't they have been there since the dawn of time? Why couldn't they have been created with God, for that matter? (Of course, then we get into the idea of "who created the creator).

Yeah that was my point that observationally there is no difference and the God argument just pushes up the unkown a rung on the ladder. I can only speak of my personal experience with the Divine (which is just that: my personal experience) is that morals are a fundamental aspect of God (not "created by God'). I guess I would say that if an action is moral, God is present when you do it. (So maybe I acutally got it reverse and God was created by morality... hmm... I sense a posibility of a philosophy thesis here)

Religions are restrictive and separative. Almost all organized religions on Earth today teach people to "do god's will."
Actually, only one does.

His evidence supports an unverifiable conclusion, as science relies on certain laws and the empirical method to determine its truths. Also, I'm not aware of any of his sources leading to that conclusion alone. It's simply a possibility. We would have to add a metaphysical branch to science to study that which occurs outside of time and which is not subject to physical laws. Perhaps a unification of philosophy and science, to reason that which we cannot observe?

Scientific theory does no include unverifiable conclusions. Hawking decided to include philosophical beliefs in his explanations surrounding his theories but there are no unverifiable conclusions in his scientific theories. You are mixing the two. When it comes to philosophy or religion the position of science is quite simply "I don't know".

You still have not addressed the fact that when talking about origins you have only moved the mystery up a step. You say we can't explain the origin of the universe and that it must be explained. So you say there must be a God and that is the only solution that makes sense. So where did God come from? Oh, he was always here. That just converts from one mysterious origin to another and thus complicates the matter.

The other point is that there can be no explanation of the origin of the universe that doesn't violate the laws of physics unless God created the universe, but while they can't be verified it has been several times shown to you that there are possible natural explanations for the origin of the universe, which again means injecting God simply complicates the matter.

None of this suggests there is no God, just that there is no need for a deity in order to satisfy some hole in the fabric our knowledge.

It depends on what type of morality you're referencing: Ethical philosophy as defined by humans, or morality as defined by God. As God requires the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to purify the soul, one cannot be heathen and moral under that version. If you are referring to ethical philosophy, it varies depending on which standard you accept. If immorality is to cause unjust harm to another individual, then certainly agnostics and some atheists will have no problem being moral in that sense.

Where does the Bible say that one cannot be moral and a heathen? In fact, look up the word morality. Where does it say that morality requires God? Morality as defined by God is to be sinless and has nothing to do with our salvation. In that sense, we are all to some degree immoral. You try to make some specious argument that human-defined morality is not morality at all but 'ethical philosophy' instead. Sorry, but Christians do not corner the market on the term, morality.


Morality -
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Actually, only one does.

Um, I'm pretty sure it's more than one.

Hmm... this goes back to the old question, "Can God make a rock he cannot move?" Obviously he should be able to, because he can do anything, but then as soon as he makes the rock that he cannot move, he has restricted himself, thus making him NOT almighty. Morals are just that: restrictions. And if God cannot be restricted, then how can he be bound by morals? He CAN'T. Thus, following this arguement to its logical end, God becomes amoral and BEYOND the restrictions of human beings. Morals are not for God, morals are Godly restrictions created for imperfect humanity.

And: What makes you think that god "created" morals in the first place? Why couldn't they have been there since the dawn of time? Why couldn't they have been created with God, for that matter? (Of course, then we get into the idea of "who created the creator).

Oh, and I used "he" instead of "he/she/it" because it's easier.




Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless"


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

Also:

Whether God is omnipotent?
Objection 1. It seems that God is not omnipotent. For movement and passiveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with God, for He is immovable, as was said above (2, 3). Therefore He is not omnipotent.

Objection 2. Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.

Objection 3. Further, it is said of God that He manifests His omnipotence "especially by sparing and having mercy" [Collect, 10th Sunday after Pentecost]. Therefore the greatest act possible to the divine power is to spare and have mercy. There are things much greater, however, than sparing and having mercy; for example, to create another world, and the like. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

Objection 4. Further, upon the text, "God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor. 1:20), a gloss says: "God hath made the wisdom of this world foolish [Vulg.: 'Hath not God', etc.] by showing those things to be possible which it judges to be impossible." Whence it would seem that nothing is to be judged possible or impossible in reference to inferior causes, as the wisdom of this world judges them; but in reference to the divine power. If God, then, were omnipotent, all things would be possible; nothing, therefore impossible. But if we take away the impossible, then we destroy also the necessary; for what necessarily exists is impossible not to exist. Therefore there would be nothing at all that is necessary in things if God were omnipotent. But this is an impossibility. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

On the contrary, It is said: "No word shall be impossible with God" (Lk. 1:37).

I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent. Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways.

First in relation to some power, thus whatever is subject to human power is said to be possible to man.

Secondly absolutely, on account of the relation in which the very terms stand to each other. Now God cannot be said to be omnipotent through being able to do all things that are possible to created nature; for the divine power extends farther than that. If, however, we were to say that God is omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible to His power, there would be a vicious circle in explaining the nature of His power. For this would be saying nothing else but that God is omnipotent, because He can do all that He is able to do.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on which its active power is founded; for instance, the power of giving warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of being warmed. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being. Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active power, not to passive power, as was shown above (1). Whence the fact that He is immovable or impassible is not repugnant to His omnipotence.

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible--as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.

Reply to Objection 3. God's omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. For it is not for one who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate effect of the divine power. Or because, as was said above (21, 4), the effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it pertains the first foundation of all good things.

Reply to Objection 4. The absolute possible is not so called in reference either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it belongs to God alone to do immediately--as, for example, to create, to justify, and the like--are said to be possible in reference to a higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity, as was shown above (14, 1, ad 2). Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.

Where does the Bible say that one cannot be moral and a heathen? In fact, look up the word morality. Where does it say that morality requires God? Morality as defined by God is to be sinless and has nothing to do with our salvation. In that sense, we are all to some degree immoral. You try to make some specious argument that human-defined morality is not morality at all but 'ethical philosophy' instead. Sorry, but Christians do not corner the market on the term, morality.


Morality -
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE



No, you're making the erroneous assumption that there can only be one concept of morality. There are many definitions, with God's infinitely wise version being the final and absolute one. I was using the term "ethical philosophy" to differentiate between to two forms of morality. God's morality, as perfect and flawless, is the one True infallible type of morality. There is also human morality, or that which is necessary to our survival and propagation as a species. This also includes secular views on how one ought and ought not to act.


Also, one cannot logically be moral following God's standard and yet a heathen. God's morality is comprised of unerring perfection, and one of the tenets of said morality is to believe in and worship God. Unbelief, therefore, is a sin. Of course, I'm certain Aquinas can do a better job than I:



Objection 1. It would seem that unbelief is not a sin. For every sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). Now unbelief seems not to be contrary to nature; for Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. v) that "to be capable to having faith, just as to be capable of having charity, is natural to all men; whereas to have faith, even as to have charity, belongs to the grace of the faithful." Therefore not to have faith, which is to be an unbeliever, is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, no one sins that which he cannot avoid, since every sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's power to avoid unbelief, for he cannot avoid it unless he have faith, because the Apostle says (Rm. 10:14): "How shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Therefore unbelief does not seem to be a sin.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (I-II, 84, 4), there are seven capital sins, to which all sins are reduced. But unbelief does not seem to be comprised under any of them. Therefore unbelief is not a sin.

On the contrary, Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is a virtue, and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief is a sin.

I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Is. 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."

Reply to Objection 1. To have the faith is not part of human nature, but it is part of human nature that man's mind should not thwart his inner instinct, and the outward preaching of the truth. Hence, in this way, unbelief is contrary to nature.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument takes unbelief as denoting a pure negation.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory."

It might also be replied that just as the theological virtues are not reduced to the cardinal virtues, but precede them, so too, the vices opposed to the theological virtues are not reduced to the capital vices.

Scientific theory does no include unverifiable conclusions. Hawking decided to include philosophical beliefs in his explanations surrounding his theories but there are no unverifiable conclusions in his scientific theories. You are mixing the two. When it comes to philosophy or religion the position of science is quite simply "I don't know".

You still have not addressed the fact that when talking about origins you have only moved the mystery up a step. You say we can't explain the origin of the universe and that it must be explained. So you say there must be a God and that is the only solution that makes sense. So where did God come from? Oh, he was always here. That just converts from one mysterious origin to another and thus complicates the matter.

The other point is that there can be no explanation of the origin of the universe that doesn't violate the laws of physics unless God created the universe, but while they can't be verified it has been several times shown to you that there are possible natural explanations for the origin of the universe, which again means injecting God simply complicates the matter.

None of this suggests there is no God, just that there is no need for a deity in order to satisfy some hole in the fabric our knowledge.


Nobody has posited a natural explanation to universal origins that adheres to the basic tenets of science, namely the laws of physics. It is pure speculation. To make undeterminable assertions equates scientific theory with theology. Therefore, such theories are in no observable way superior to that of a Creator.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory."

Really? I always thought my unbelief was because there was no conclusive proof for or against a supernatural diety and not pride.

Really? I always thought my unbelief was because there was no conclusive proof for or against a supernatural diety and not pride. I'd say the pride which can possible result from unbelief is the sin. That is the danger of unbelief; it leaves the soul as a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded. Of course, I'm not saying that all atheists are weak and bound to Lucifer, not by any means. But it can be like going into a battle unarmed and unarmoured.

I'd say the pride which can possible result from unbelief is the sin. That is the danger of unbelief; it leaves the soul as a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded. Of course, I'm not saying that all atheists are weak and bound to Lucifer, not by any means. But it can be like going into a battle unarmed and unarmoured.

Oddly enough, that is how I look at the faithful. As unarmed and unarmored against the physical realities of the world.

Really? I always thought my unbelief was because there was no conclusive proof for or against a supernatural diety and not pride.

Pride is what makes one think oneself so grand that one's feeble human logic is capable of discerning eternal truths such as God. One's pride in human reasoning forbids one from accepting God on faith.

Pride is what makes you think yourself so grand that your feeble human logic is capable of discerning eternal truths such as God. Your pride in human reasoning forbids you from accepting God on faith. No. Just no. Trust me on this, just no. Really, you're wide of the mark by a long shot.

Oddly enough, that is how I look at the faithful. As unarmed and unarmored against the physical realities of the world. In what ways? I can't think of any.

I'd say the pride which can possible result from unbelief is the sin. That is the danger of unbelief; it leaves the soul as a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded. Of course, I'm not saying that all atheists are weak and bound to Lucifer, not by any means. But it can be like going into a battle unarmed and unarmoured.

Pride of what? Because I don't necessarly believe in one supreme being does not mean that I believe I am the highest life form out there. I'd say there would be more pride resulting from the belief in the christian god because of the famous he created the world for us to rule/have/use. And what battle are you talking about. By choosing to abide by logic instead of making a guess on something how are you leaving yourself weak and bound. I'd say its the reverce. By educating yourself in religion you are either strengthening yourself in your belief or you are making an informed decision instead of making a guess.

No. Just no. Trust me on this, just no. Really, you're wide of the mark by a long shot.

I don't think so, you'll have to show me how.

No, you're making the erroneous assumption that there can only be one concept of morality. There are many definitions, with God's infinitely wise version being the final and absolute one. I was using the term "ethical philosophy" to differentiate between to two forms of morality. God's morality, as perfect and flawless, is the one True infallible type of morality. There is also human morality, or that which is necessary to our survival and propagation as a species. This also includes secular views on how one ought and ought not to act.


Also, one cannot logically be moral following God's standard and yet a heathen. God's morality is comprised of unerring perfection, and one of the tenets of said morality is to believe in and worship God. Unbelief, therefore, is a sin. Of course, I'm certain Aquinas can do a better job than I:



Objection 1. It would seem that unbelief is not a sin. For every sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). Now unbelief seems not to be contrary to nature; for Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. v) that "to be capable to having faith, just as to be capable of having charity, is natural to all men; whereas to have faith, even as to have charity, belongs to the grace of the faithful." Therefore not to have faith, which is to be an unbeliever, is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, no one sins that which he cannot avoid, since every sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's power to avoid unbelief, for he cannot avoid it unless he have faith, because the Apostle says (Rm. 10:14): "How shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Therefore unbelief does not seem to be a sin.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (I-II, 84, 4), there are seven capital sins, to which all sins are reduced. But unbelief does not seem to be comprised under any of them. Therefore unbelief is not a sin.

On the contrary, Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is a virtue, and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief is a sin.

I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Is. 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."

Reply to Objection 1. To have the faith is not part of human nature, but it is part of human nature that man's mind should not thwart his inner instinct, and the outward preaching of the truth. Hence, in this way, unbelief is contrary to nature.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument takes unbelief as denoting a pure negation.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory."

It might also be replied that just as the theological virtues are not reduced to the cardinal virtues, but precede them, so too, the vices opposed to the theological virtues are not reduced to the capital vices.

I didn't make the mistake that there is one kind of morality. You did. You made up a definition of morality and then decided that people you don't agree with can't be moral. By God's definition none are moral and you seemed to miss that. Because none are without sin. Accepting Christ does not make you moral, it makes your immorality immaterial. Your feet are not held to the fire, so to speak, for your immorality. That's the point. You ignored it. So speak to the point rather than preaching and cutting and pasting.

As far as multiple types of morality, if you accept that point, then you accept that one can be moral without believing God, which was the point.

I don't think so, you'll have to show me how.

First you have to prove god's morals exist. Which is right after you prove that god exists.

I didn't make the mistake that there is one kind of morality. You did. You made up a definition of morality and then decided that people you don't agree with can't be moral. By God's definition none are moral and you seemed to miss that. Because none are without sin. Accepting Christ does not make you moral, it makes your immorality immaterial. Your feet are not held to the fire, so to speak, for your immorality. That's the point. You ignored it. So speak to the point rather than preaching and cutting and pasting.

As far as multiple types of morality, if you accept that point, then you accept that one can be moral without believing God, which was the point.


No, by accepting Christ's sacrifice, you are removing immorality from yourself and are thus becoming moral. Those who have been baptized into Christ no longer possess the sins they once had, unless they choose to sin again. Remember: God will not allow any morality to dwell with Him, therefore if we are still immoral there could be no hope for heaven. However, there is a hope for heaven, therefore Christ's sacrifice cleanses sin. Also, you are seeming to forget that God has a standard of morality seperate from secular morality. Just because none of us manage to adhere to it, doesn't mean it's existence is negated.

And of course, that's what I was saying. I wasn't even arguing in the first place, you were just making the presumption that heathen can be moral. I was stating that they can be moral according to man's standard, but not according to God's standard. I was just trying to clarify Ph33rdom's statement for you.

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless"

Question, what determines if something is impossible or not? (edit: I see that here you say when something is mutually exclusive, but what determines if something is mutually exclusive. I might as well warn you I'm leading you into a trap)

Neo I wish you'd stop pasting stuff from random sites. The rest of us aren't attatching pdf files or pasting webpages, are we?

Anyways...

Back when I was a child, I wondered about all that ethics/morals stuff too. Oddly, it didn't take me very long to come to a conclusion, but then, I knew nothing about philosophy, and Christianity was something Christmas related to me. The nice thing about it, is that the conclusion I arrived at stands largely uncontested now - a good 20 years later - and I've discovered that I'm far from the only one who've come to this conclusion.

Basically, Jacobia already explained it. As have I done elsewhere in the forum, and I'm certain plenty of others have.

What can morals be? If you discount gods and altruism, there pretty much just remains one possible explanation, namely natural social development.
Many species are empathic. Many species have social rules. Many species largely live by the golden rule.
If you look at those species & couple it with evolution, morals or ethics becomes self explanatory. More social species have more advanced brains, and evolved later. Lucky for us & my argument, more & less socially evolved species exists in this day & age. So we can and have observed both.
As to be expected, highly socially evolved species display a greater sense of empathy, and live in more complex social structures.
Some species of apes act like mini-kingdoms. The royal family gets away with pretty much anything, while strict social & moral rules govern the rest of their societies. A dominant male's youngest sister can simply take the food it wants, while anyone else attempting the same, willl be severely punished.
A young male will be dissuaded from trying to mate with a female by it's family. And if it does so regardless, will be treated like a social pariah, and likely beaten severely. The same goes for the unfortunate it mated with.
Family units stick together, but units of families will stick together as well, and often have longstanding squabbles with other factions.. And the dominant male will only interfere if the factions run out of control...
Likewise, social structures will care for eachother and protect eachother when the need arises. It's not at all uncommon for an individual to take a beating for another, though the two aren't actually family. Nor is it uncommon for these factions to care for eachother's offspring.

Basically, apes living in large communities of a few hundred individuals, are eerily familiar in their conduct. It's like watching a bunch of violent, uneducated savages. And hey, those guys love eachother, protect eachother, laugh & cry just the same as we do.
Dolphins are a bad example of this, because there's no observable evolutionary context to veiw them in, but evolutionary context abounds with species like apes and monkeys.
Who knows? Perhaps if we haven't laid waste to the planet, we'll start seeing ape shrines & organised worthship in 500000 years.

What I don't understand is this: why do so many of you feel a need to skip the obvious explanation, and think up your own instead? Not that I mind. Do whatever you want. I just don't understand why?

Oh, you may want to consider that we know and can prove, that a sense of morals is completely dependent on having a sense of empathy. Humans are born without one on a regular basis, and several people have lost theirs through braindamage. None of those people can live a normal life, because their sense of morals vanishes.
Without any kind of indication of how our actions impact our sorroundings, we constantly mess things up. Taking things without considering how that might impact the rightful owner, becomes perfectly natural. Being an all-round asshole & possibly violent, is a natural consequence of not being able to put ourselves in other people's shoes. But don't take my word for it. Read up on mentally handicapped children and braindamaged adults.

First you have to prove god's morals exist. Which is right after you prove that god exists.



I can't, which is why faith is required. One cannot rely on logic alone to believe in God, nor can one rely on logic alone to believe God is not. This is where pride arises, in that one will not submit one's own intellect to the faith and instead relies on empirical reasoning alone.

Nobody has posited a natural explanation to universal origins that adheres to the basic tenets of science, namely the laws of physics. It is pure speculation. To make undeterminable assertions equates scientific theory with theology. Therefore, such theories are in no observable way superior to that of a Creator.

False. Hawkings has. As have many others. That explanation cannot be verified since we were not there and can't go back and look, but they do fit completely and entirely within the realm of verifiable physics and thus are more than pure speculation and are certainly not in the realm of theology.

Theology requires no such adherence to anything observable and in fact injects an aspect to the theory that is unnecessary. Religion says, there is a source to the universe. Science agrees. Religion says, that source must be intelligent. Science says, how do you come to that conclusion? Religion says, faith.

Science makes no suggestion about intelligence or non-intelligence of a source, because intelligence is an unnecessary component and thus complicates the matter. All positing done in the scientific realm only includes components that are a logical requirement. Intelligent sources are never a logical requirement.

Every way religion can come up with for the origin of the universe science can subtract out the intelligence of that origin and it is still possible. For example, religion says, poof, the universe popped into existence because God wanted it to. Science says, sure, the universe popped into existence, but there is no reason to speculate why. And that is the fundamental difference.

Question, what determines if something is impossible or not?


The first qualifying factor that comes to my mind is if the statement contradicts itself.

I don't think so, you'll have to show me how. Well, I know quite a few atheists and agnostics. Some of them are actually quite prideful, it is indeed a greatly dangerous pitfall - but others don't put themselves above God, because they don't believe in God! It's not pride that's causing the unbelief. Also I remember very well being an atheist, and I really didn't like God at all (atheism does not discount the possibility of God) - it wasn't for reasons of pride, as unless you follow an Abrahamic religion, you do not perceive God as perfect - therefore it's ignorance, not pride.

I can't, which is why faith is required. One cannot rely on logic alone to believe in God, nor can one rely on logic alone to believe God is not. This is where pride arises, in that one will not submit one's own intellect to the faith and instead relies on empirical reasoning alone.

So what do you call someone who acknowledges their own falubility and says, "I don't know"? How is this pride to admit a shortcoming and acknoweldge your own limitations?

The first qualifying factor that comes to my mind is if the statement contradicts itself.

What makes the statement contradict itself (Heck, I don't have all day, I'll spring the trap now), the only thing that makes this is Logic. Thus by saying that God is bound by the Rules of Logic you have elevated Logic above God. So is God bound and controlled by the rules of Logic?

False. Hawkings has. As have many others. That explanation cannot be verified since we were not there and can't go back and look, but they do fit completely and entirely within the realm of verifiable physics and thus are more than pure speculation and are certainly not in the realm of theology.

Theology requires no such adherence to anything observable and in fact injects an aspect to the theory that is unnecessary. Religion says, there is a source to the universe. Science agrees. Religion says, that source must be intelligent. Science says, how do you come to that conclusion? Religion says, faith.

Science makes no suggestion about intelligence or non-intelligence of a source, because intelligence is an unnecessary component and thus complicates the matter. All positing done in the scientific realm only includes components that are a logical requirement. Intelligent sources are never a logical requirement.

Every way religion can come up with for the origin of the universe science can subtract out the intelligence of that origin and it is still possible. For example, religion says, poof, the universe popped into existence because God wanted it to. Science says, sure, the universe popped into existence, but there is no reason to speculate why. And that is the fundamental difference.


False, all observable time/space/matter eventually reduces to a singularity. Prior to a singularity, if such is possible, there can be no verifiable physics, as Hawking claims that is outside the dictates of physics. The premise for Hawking's theory is that time was created by the Big Bang, therefore the Big Bang could not have resided within time. This cannot be proven and therefore requires faith.

No, by accepting Christ's sacrifice, you are removing immorality from yourself and are thus becoming moral. Those who have been baptized into Christ no longer possess the sins they once had, unless they choose to sin again. Remember: God will not allow any morality to dwell with Him, therefore if we are still immoral there could be no hope for heaven. However, there is a hope for heaven, therefore Christ's sacrifice cleanses sin. Also, you are seeming to forget that God has a standard of morality seperate from secular morality. Just because none of us manage to adhere to it, doesn't mean it's existence is negated.

And of course, that's what I was saying. I wasn't even arguing in the first place, you were just making the presumption that heathen can be moral. I was stating that they can be moral according to man's standard, but not according to God's standard. I was just trying to clarify Ph33rdom's statement for you.

False. You haven't removed immorality from yourself. You have absolved yourself of paying for your immorality. You didn't erase the fact that it occured. More importantly, you continue to sin throughout your life whether you struggle to avoid it or not. We are sinful creatures. God realized we could not possibly obey the law at all times and sent Jesus to replace the law. This is why we may dwell with God. We are prideful. We are angry. We are judgemental. We are sinful. Period. You cannot sit down now and choose to never sin again. It won't happen. We are imperfect beings. You can only choose to live as well as you can. To do your best to be guided by Christ. Christ judges you upon your death and this is when you are cleansed of all of the sin of your life.

Also, I am 'forgetting' nothing. I know of it's existence. I was pointing out that accepting Christ doesn't change our ability to adhere to that code. It only changes the results of slipping up.

The point is that if you arguing with a bunch of people who don't believe in God, how can one argue that it is logically impossible for morality to exist if God doesn't and then base that fact on the requirements of God. It's a ridiculous argument and explains nothing of the logic of the statement. The only way to make the argument that morality cannot exist if God does not is to argue that there is only one kind of morality which we both agree is untrue. Thus the statement that morality must logically have a divine source is false.

False, all observable time/space/matter eventually reduces to a singularity. Prior to a singularity, if such is possible, there can be no verifiable physics, as Hawking claims that is outside the dictates of physics. The premise for Hawking's theory is that time was created by the Big Bang, therefore the Big Bang could not have resided within time. This cannot be proven and therefore requires faith.

No, Hawking holds that at the beginning there was no singularity and thus the laws of physics hold all the time. (it is known that time is a dimention just like the 3 space ones) All observable time/space/matter does not reduce to a singularity we have not looked that far back. Hawking's hypothesis does make testable statements about the make-up of the Universe and the preliminary tests are in favor of him (of course it needs more to evidence to be considered a theory) Read the chapter again.

False, all observable time/space/matter eventually reduces to a singularity. Prior to a singularity, if such is possible, there can be no verifiable physics, as Hawking claims that is outside the dictates of physics. The premise for Hawking's theory is that time was created by the Big Bang, therefore the Big Bang could not have resided within time. This cannot be proven and therefore requires faith.

Nothing in science can be proven. The Big Bang can and has been supported through measurements and experimentation. It is the qualities of the singularity that cannot be measured or experimented against. The Big Bang is a disproveable theory and is thus scientific. The singularity is just a word for the thing the universe expanded from. It has no defined qualities.

What makes the statement contradict itself (Heck, I don't have all day, I'll spring the trap now), the only thing that makes this is Logic. Thus by saying that God is bound by the Rules of Logic you have elevated Logic above God. So is God bound and controlled by the rules of Logic?


Aquinas stated the answer in one of my posts like a page ago.

Nothing in science can be proven. The Big Bang can and has been supported through measurements and experimentation. It is the qualities of the singularity that cannot be measured or experimented against. The Big Bang is a disproveable theory and is thus scientific. The singularity is just a word for the thing the universe expanded from. It has no defined qualities.



I shouldn't have said prove, I should have said "empirically evidenced." We cannot make judgements outside of our own laws of science using our laws of science.

I can't, which is why faith is required. One cannot rely on logic alone to believe in God, nor can one rely on logic alone to believe God is not. This is where pride arises, in that one will not submit one's own intellect to the faith and instead relies on empirical reasoning alone.

Of course I do neither. See the problem here is that believing in God with faith is all fine and dandy. Its perfectly reasonable for someone to make that leap of faith to believe in a diety. However the problem comes in when we introduce the part about believing in god carries the bag of social, moral and numerous other codes and conducts. To justify the limiting of someones right like the right for gays to marry based on your faith in a being that may or may not be true is in itself a horrible thing. If I were to say my god is telling me to kill everyone who isnt a twin and back it up by a belief that cannot be proven logically we have a serious problem here. You can believe in god all you want with faith but once the social implications come in that shit goes out the window.

Nobody has posited a natural explanation to universal origins that adheres to the basic tenets of science, namely the laws of physics.

It is logically impossible, with the scientific method, to determine what came before the exact instant at which the universe began (if it began at all). The scientific method only applies within the realm of the universe itself.

It is pure speculation. To make undeterminable assertions equates scientific theory with theology.

I don't think you read what Jocabia said. He quite clearly pointed out that some of what Hawkings says is more philosophy that science. Those portions, however, are not considered scientific theory - they are in the realm of philosophy.

Therefore, such theories are in no observable way superior to that of a Creator.

Philosophy and theology are not mutually exclusive, but you are right that neither is superior to the other.