PDA

View Full Version : & in TEXAS



Marvin S
03-14-2010, 02:15 PM
The TX Board of Education is removing what they believe is the perceived slant from the textbooks that TX students read. This will also have an effect on what students around the country are exposed to. Is this a good thing?

subroc
03-14-2010, 02:51 PM
I just read two articles on this issue; one is published in the Houston Chronicle and the other in the New York Times.

I have no problem with the changes.

Correcting the left wings radical idea that the first amendment somehow means there is a separation of church and state will be a positive step.

Here are some links:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6910429.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6910429.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)

YardleyLabs
03-14-2010, 03:01 PM
I just read two articles on this issue; one is published in the Houston Chronicle and the other in the New York Times.

I have no problem with the changes.

Correcting the left wings radical idea that the first amendment somehow means there is a separation of church and state will be a positive step.

Here are some links:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6910429.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6910429.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)

You mean the radical separation noted by Jefferson in his letter to the Baptists in 1800 and upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court ever since?

Uncle Bill
03-14-2010, 03:16 PM
The TX Board of Education is removing what they believe is the perceived slant from the testbooks that TX students read. This will also have an effect on what students around the country are exposed to. Is this a good thing?


Some BODY is going to do it. I'd druther a few parents with US Constitutional beliefs making the suggestions than what's been foisted on us by the ACLU, assorted liberal/socialists, and environmental airheads.

Have you read what's being taught in public schools recently, Marvin? Or, what ISN"T included? Ever hear of a high school student talking about Econ 101...or Civics?

But I have seen references to "Sally has two mommies", and in our neck of the woods, the revisionists have excluded almost all mention of the pioneers getting killed by the Native Americans. Actually that part of American history is hardly taught at all, from any perspective.

I think the people of Texas have had enough of the revisionists and political correct crowd, and it's time to get back to teaching the foundational basics upon which this nation was established.

Plus it's also an attempt at taking away the power of the feds and the NTA unions that insert many of their views of not what it was, but how they thought it should have been.

You can bet the MSP, teachers unions, and all the atheists that want all mention of God removed from any US and state documents, money, the Pledge, and everything the founders thought important for a moral society to thrive, will be taken to court by their pawns in the ACLU. It's another attempt at corrupting this nation's foundations, so the socialistic oligarchy is in place for the eventual One World Government.

I for one applaud what the Texas board of education is doing. I'll take my chances with them way ahead of what has been in charge.

UB

subroc
03-14-2010, 03:16 PM
that be the one.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


the part I like best is that pesky "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You know the exact part the left attacks regularly.

YardleyLabs
03-14-2010, 03:24 PM
that be the one.



the part I like best is that pesky "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You know the exact part the left attacks regularly.
But "free exercise thereof" does not extend to using the trappings of government to promote religious activities, which is innately what is done when, for example, group prayer us conducted in public schools. In my mind, the appropriate test of whether or not an activity constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion" is whether you would support the activity equally if practiced in the same manner by a religious group that you found abhorrent.

Uncle Bill
03-14-2010, 03:35 PM
But "free exercise thereof" does not extend to using the trappings of government to promote religious activities, which is innately what is done when, for example, group prayer us conducted in public schools. In my mind, the appropriate test of whether or not an activity constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion" is whether you would support the activity equally if practiced in the same manner by a religious group that you found abhorrent.


What I find detestable is the PC crowd and the atheists can't allow a show of religion in ANY manner. Please explain to me how a silent prayer is so 'abhorrent'? According to the ACLU, even that form of prayer is unacceptable, opening the door for pure secularism, and promotes further lack of morality.

UB

Koolaid
03-14-2010, 04:06 PM
So lack of religion and lack of morality are the same thing?

YardleyLabs
03-14-2010, 04:15 PM
What I find detestable is the PC crowd and the atheists can't allow a show of religion in ANY manner. Please explain to me how a silent prayer is so 'abhorrent'? According to the ACLU, even that form of prayer is unacceptable, opening the door for pure secularism, and promotes further lack of morality.

UB
I have no problem with a moment of silence. If someone uses that opportunity to say a prayer, it is their business. I do have a problem with using the cloak of government to call for prayer, silent or not, because it implies that everyone should, in fact, be praying. But it never really stops there anyway. Next someone is saying "Let us bow our heads and give thanks", etc. When I was in school (not public), we stood behind our chairs until permitted to sit. When it was time, the teacher in charge would simply say "Quiet please." The room would become silent and stand still for about 30 seconds or so at which point the teacher would say "You may be seated." Undoubtedly some said silent prayers in the interval, while others simply settled down in anticipation of the meal to come. I don't think the ACLU would have problems with that as an activity. But somehow, those who want "silent" prayer still seem to want public acknowledgment that all should pray. That, in my belief and the belief of the Courts, is giving respect to an establishment of religion.

road kill
03-14-2010, 04:45 PM
I have no problem with a moment of silence. If someone uses that opportunity to say a prayer, it is their business. I do have a problem with using the cloak of government to call for prayer, silent or not, because it implies that everyone should, in fact, be praying. But it never really stops there anyway. Next someone is saying "Let us bow our heads and give thanks", etc. When I was in school (not public), we stood behind our chairs until permitted to sit. When it was time, the teacher in charge would simply say "Quiet please." The room would become silent and stand still for about 30 seconds or so at which point the teacher would say "You may be seated." Undoubtedly some said silent prayers in the interval, while others simply settled down in anticipation of the meal to come. I don't think the ACLU would have problems with that as an activity. But somehow, those who want "silent" prayer still seem to want public acknowledgment that all should pray. That, in my belief and the belief of the Courts, is giving respect to an establishment of religion.

Have you been on the planet for the last several years??

What "cloak of Government" is forcing prayer on any one??
(God knows we need it!!)

Quite the opposite.






rk

Marvin S
03-14-2010, 06:54 PM
I think it significant that the participants were elected. We'll see the reaction of the general TX population ;-).


Some BODY is going to do it. I'd druther a few parents with US Constitutional beliefs making the suggestions than what's been foisted on us by the ACLU, assorted liberal/socialists, and environmental airheads.

Have you read what's being taught in public schools recently, Marvin? Or, what ISN"T included? Ever hear of a high school student talking about Econ 101...or Civics?

But I have seen references to "Sally has two mommies", and in our neck of the woods, the revisionists have excluded almost all mention of the pioneers getting killed by the Native Americans. Actually that part of American history is hardly taught at all, from any perspective.

I think the people of Texas have had enough of the revisionists and political correct crowd, and it's time to get back to teaching the foundational basics upon which this nation was established.

Plus it's also an attempt at taking away the power of the feds and the NTA unions that insert many of their views of not what it was, but how they thought it should have been.

You can bet the MSP, teachers unions, and all the atheists that want all mention of God removed from any US and state documents, money, the Pledge, and everything the founders thought important for a moral society to thrive, will be taken to court by their pawns in the ACLU. It's another attempt at corrupting this nation's foundations, so the socialistic oligarchy is in place for the eventual One World Government.

I for one applaud what the Texas board of education is doing. I'll take my chances with them way ahead of what has been in charge. UB

UB - Having children & grandchildren there was/is always concern about what they are being taught.

The educational system has some fairly homogenous ideas about what is acceptable to present to impressionable young minds, unfortunately it is many times one sided :o. For example, the idea that everyone should line up to help those in perceived need without thought as to why they got there. & it's no different at one's place of employment. We step on these bandwagons, everyone rides, with the person who says "Why are'nt they helping themselves" being looked upon as heartless. Maybe there should be the subject that it's OK to have different views.

As for minorities, IMO many of them got a raw deal, but that's hopefully in the past, so they/we need to get along with life. But we still have bigotry, which is unfortunate, but again it's there & we need to move on. Insecurity will create bigotry quicker than anything!

It would be nice if our educators were well versed enough to present all sides to an issue, allow debate & establish why some things were acceptable, not acceptable or neither! Then the system would be teaching people the ability to reason through an issue.

But, similiar to what you are thinking, I to believe the pendulum has swung much too far to one sided presentations.


That, in my belief and the belief of the Courts, is giving respect to an establishment of religion.

Religion & religious zealots are an everyday fact of life, why is it wrong to acknowledge that religion is part of our/others being?

I can remember being taught of the Crusades, though there was considerable time spent on the subject, I remember none of the detail as to why or what. As I have gone further in life & become hopefully more literate, I find that what was presented was insignificant in world events but the actions were not!

Why is what Israel does not OK, while what Palestine & the Arabic nations do is OK? Which nations treat their citizenry better? Maybe that would make a good subject for a lesson plan.

But beyond this I hope that the discussion of what's being done in TX is less about religion & more about what children nationwide are being taught on all subjects relevant to everyday life.

Subroc - Thanks for the links :cool:.

Franco
03-15-2010, 09:47 AM
I think the people of Texas have had enough of the revisionists and political correct crowd, and it's time to get back to teaching the foundational basics upon which this nation was established.

Plus it's also an attempt at taking away the power of the feds and the NTA unions that insert many of their views of not what it was, but how they thought it should have been.

You can bet the MSP, teachers unions, and all the atheists that want all mention of God removed from any US and state documents, money, the Pledge, and everything the founders thought important for a moral society to thrive, will be taken to court by their pawns in the ACLU. It's another attempt at corrupting this nation's foundations, so the socialistic oligarchy is in place for the eventual One World Government.

I for one applaud what the Texas board of education is doing. I'll take my chances with them way ahead of what has been in charge.

UB

I'm all for getting back to our foundation on which this Nation was founded. Since it was founded primarily by Deist (Jefferson, Washington, Payne, Adams etc.) their belief was not in the Christian god but Nature's god. Deism is founded on REASON and not superstition, enlightenment and not darkness.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
All the references to a god where not what the Founding Fathers intended. All the referenses to god were added much later by those wanting to change the intent of our founders. For instance, "In God We Trust" was not added to our currency until circa 1920'a.

In regards to the textbook; Just as long as they keep it real and not influnenced by religion.

twall
03-15-2010, 10:58 AM
This is a local, Texas, issue. Since the federal government does not choose the text book I'm not sure the US Constitution has jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution provides freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

If the voters in Texas do not like the decisions their school board are making they can vote them out of office.

Most of the uproar I have heard is not from Texas. I do not believe government school should be teaching religion, that should be done in the home.

Tom

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 11:13 AM
This is a local, Texas, issue. Since the federal government does not choose the text book I'm not sure the US Constitution has jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution provides freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

If the voters in Texas do not like the decisions their school board are making they can vote them out of office.

Most of the uproar I have heard is not from Texas. I do not believe government school should be teaching religion, that should be done in the home.

Tom
This is a popular catch phrase, but I am never quite sure what it means. The Constitution does not protect us from people wanting to celebrate their religious beliefs publicly. To do so would violate freedom to practice religion. This is true whether it is you wanting to put up religious displays at Christmas, or your neighbor wanting to put up a display saying there is no God or Santa at the same time. What it does prohibit is the government becoming an agent for publicizing religion. This limitation applies to Texas the same as it applies to the Federal government by virtue of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and a variety of Court cases based on it. However, the choice of textbooks would only become a Consttutional issue if the Board decides to purchase textbooks that incorporate religious teachings that violate the first amendment limits. I agree absolutely that the government should stay away from anything related to teaching religion. However, I have no objection to schools incorporating discussions about the historical role of religion (I do not how one could teach history while ignoring religion) as long as that teaching does not become a vehicle for suggesting that any particular religion is "preferred" or "correct".

BonMallari
03-15-2010, 11:17 AM
This is a local, Texas, issue. Since the federal government does not choose the text book I'm not sure the US Constitution has jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution provides freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

If the voters in Texas do not like the decisions their school board are making they can vote them out of office.

Most of the uproar I have heard is not from Texas. I do not believe government school should be teaching religion, that should be done in the home.

Tom

unfortunately its not just a local Texas issue...the textbook publishers turn to Texas because they are the largest purchaser of schoolbooks in the country, so some of the decisions that are contested there resonate in books used across the country

Leddyman
03-15-2010, 12:12 PM
You mean the radical separation noted by Jefferson in his letter to the Baptists in 1800 and upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court ever since?

Jefferson was against a STATE religion. If you read your history you will find out that state religions routinely exercised their power with the government to persecute people of different beliefs (churches other than the approved one were illegal). Kind of exactly like what the atheists are doing now. When Jefferson espoused separation he was for the free expression of all religions governed by the common sense of the people. What has happened in this country today is that the common religion of this country which is and always was Christianity has been confused with a state religion which is one in which the church enjoys protection by the state and benefits from taxes. In the early days of this country there were churches that got tax money to operate.

I don't believe that the state should give the church tax dollars to operate. I don't believe the church should be able to call up the sherriff and have another church burned or run out of town. Jefferson believed the same thing.

What is going on today is a complete perversion of the intent of Jefferson and the constitution. When the police show up to take the Ten Commandments out of the town square the state has just declared atheism as the state religion and is acting as the church guard.

The people are not the congress or haven't you noticed? Congress is prohibited from creating a state religion. The people are not prohibited from expressing their common beliefs. If the majority of people believe in the Christian God they have a right to express that and to live that way. If you believe in something else you have a right to express that and to live that way. You do not have a right to call the police and have the Christians thrown in jail for putting a cross in public view. That is exactly what is happening in this country. put up a cross and stand out to protect it and go to jail or get killed because it is not to be tolerated.

Jefferson had the Church of England firmly in mind when he penned his words. The current religious environment is a perversion of the constitution. Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. However that is exactly what they have done. Congress and the courts have established atheism as the state religion and have embarked on a campaign to prevent the people of this nation from expressing their belief in the God of Christianity and Judaism.

Send in the lions regards,

Leddyman
03-15-2010, 12:17 PM
This is a popular catch phrase, but I am never quite sure what it means. The Constitution does not protect us from people wanting to celebrate their religious beliefs publicly. To do so would violate freedom to practice religion. This is true whether it is you wanting to put up religious displays at Christmas, or your neighbor wanting to put up a display saying there is no God or Santa at the same time. What it does prohibit is the government becoming an agent for publicizing religion. This limitation applies to Texas the same as it applies to the Federal government by virtue of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and a variety of Court cases based on it. However, the choice of textbooks would only become a Consttutional issue if the Board decides to purchase textbooks that incorporate religious teachings that violate the first amendment limits. I agree absolutely that the government should stay away from anything related to teaching religion. However, I have no objection to schools incorporating discussions about the historical role of religion (I do not how one could teach history while ignoring religion) as long as that teaching does not become a vehicle for suggesting that any particular religion is "preferred" or "correct".

No it doesn't. It prohibits the government from establishing one religion and then criminalizing any other. If you think Jefferson intended that a high school football coach should be prevented by law from praying with his team before the game you are insane. If that coach disregards the court ruling he will loose his job, that is religious persecution. By the government which is what the constitution is supposed to prevent.

And if you are going to tell me that letting him pray with his team is religious persecution of anybody who isn't a Christian....well. I can;t help you with that sort of logic.

ducknwork
03-15-2010, 12:23 PM
When the police show up to take the Ten Commandments out of the town square the state has just declared atheism as the state religion and is acting as the church guard.


I have never thought about it in those terms, but you are exactly right.

Koolaid
03-15-2010, 12:25 PM
I'm gonna run for office as an atheist...I think with all that power we have I'm guaranteed a win.

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 01:37 PM
Jefferson was against a STATE religion. If you read your history you will find out that state religions routinely exercised their power with the government to persecute people of different beliefs (churches other than the approved one were illegal). Kind of exactly like what the atheists are doing now. When Jefferson espoused separation he was for the free expression of all religions governed by the common sense of the people. What has happened in this country today is that the common religion of this country which is and always was Christianity has been confused with a state religion which is one in which the church enjoys protection by the state and benefits from taxes. In the early days of this country there were churches that got tax money to operate.

I don't believe that the state should give the church tax dollars to operate. I don't believe the church should be able to call up the sherriff and have another church burned or run out of town. Jefferson believed the same thing.

What is going on today is a complete perversion of the intent of Jefferson and the constitution. When the police show up to take the Ten Commandments out of the town square the state has just declared atheism as the state religion and is acting as the church guard.

The people are not the congress or haven't you noticed? Congress is prohibited from creating a state religion. The people are not prohibited from expressing their common beliefs. If the majority of people believe in the Christian God they have a right to express that and to live that way. If you believe in something else you have a right to express that and to live that way. You do not have a right to call the police and have the Christians thrown in jail for putting a cross in public view. That is exactly what is happening in this country. put up a cross and stand out to protect it and go to jail or get killed because it is not to be tolerated.

Jefferson had the Church of England firmly in mind when he penned his words. The current religious environment is a perversion of the constitution. Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. However that is exactly what they have done. Congress and the courts have established atheism as the state religion and have embarked on a campaign to prevent the people of this nation from expressing their belief in the God of Christianity and Judaism.

Send in the lions regards,
Actually Christianity is a religion and, as it happens, Jefferson and a fair number of the most influential of our forefathers were not. The absence of mentions of God in the Constitution was intentional, not an oversight. Two of our first three Presidents rejected the notion of Christ as a manifestation of God or as being anything other than a very special man. How would they not have viewed a "Christian" nation as that term is now used be viewed as anything other than a state religion with all the tyrannical potential that you note? Everyone has an equal right to express their religious beliefs. What they do not have is the right to express religious beliefs in the name of the country or its government. That constitute "respecting an establishment of religion" and is prohibited by the Constitution.


No it doesn't. It prohibits the government from establishing one religion and then criminalizing any other. If you think Jefferson intended that a high school football coach should be prevented by law from praying with his team before the game you are insane. If that coach disregards the court ruling he will loose his job, that is religious persecution. By the government which is what the constitution is supposed to prevent.

And if you are going to tell me that letting him pray with his team is religious persecution of anybody who isn't a Christian....well. I can;t help you with that sort of logic.
And how would you feel if that coach were a Muslim cleric and his prayer was said to Allah? When I was a kid, I attended a summer camp. On the first night, the counselor said "Since we're all Christians here, Jeff why don't you say the prayer." When I told him I was not Christian, he asked if I were Jewish. When I said no, he said I must be Christian. I told him again that I was not and he said the prayer himself, calling on Jesus to protect us all. He did not handle it badly, but it was still uncomfortable for me and I was subject to a fair amount of ridicule the next day before things settled down. There was no problem with that since it was a private camp. However, the same situation in a public school would be illegal. Then, however, my public school was an extension of the central baptist church and my 5th grade teacher made Jewish children read from the new testament regularly to help them find Jesus.

That, in my mind, is exactly the type of tyranny of religion that our forefathers sought to prevent. However, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the first amendment did not apply to states, and state governments were free to establish their own official religious preferences just as they were free to restrict ownership of guns. Only with passage of the 14th amendment and subsequent Court cases was it determined that states were bound by the first amendment. A similar decision might or might not be made by the SCOTUS with respect to the second amendment soon, and then it too would apply to the states.

The notion that the Courts have somehow established atheism as the state religion is ridiculous. Less than 10% of the population describe themselves as atheists and the electorate is pretty clear that they would never elect an atheist to a major political office. Eisenhower actually stated that he did not believe that anyone who was an atheist was fit for public office, although that may have been affected by the fact that his opposition for the Presidency was a Unitarian who never professed belief in God. Teachers are no more permitted to deny the existence of a God in schools than they are to profess the truth of any particular religion. In fact, despite court restrictions, expressions of religious beliefs in public schools happen routinely. What is prohibited is using the trappings of government to further a particular religious belief (including theism as opposed to atheism, or atheism as opposed to theism). That prohibition applies equally to the religious and the non-religious.

Franco
03-15-2010, 02:21 PM
Actually Christianity is a religion and, as it happens, Jefferson and a fair number of the most influential of our forefathers were not. The absence of mentions of God in the Constitution was intentional, not an oversight. Two of our first three Presidents rejected the notion of Christ as a manifestation of God or as being anything other than a very special man.



That is correct! And, a hard notion for the Christians to get their heads around. That the one man that penned The Declaration Of Independence and the major contributor to The Constitution was an educated open-minded public servant that saw the destructive forces of all religions in relationship to a free society. One in which its peoples can observe the religion of thier choice or not to observe any organized religions at all.

Jefferson, Washington, Payne, Adams and others were grounded in the Enlightenment and sought reason more than myth.

Uncle Bill
03-15-2010, 04:14 PM
That is correct! And, a hard notion for the Christians to get their heads around. That the one man that penned The Declaration Of Independence and the major contributor to The Constitution was an educated open-minded public servant that saw the destructive forces of all religions in relationship to a free society. One in which its peoples can observe the religion of thier choice or not to observe any organized religions at all.

Jefferson, Washington, Payne, Adams and others were grounded in the Enlightenment and sought reason more than myth.


Sorry, Franco, but you must have read a different history of Washington than I did. Methinks he wasn't using much 'logic' in his prayers while crossing the Potomac. Try reading some of his letters from Valley Forge...didn't have many 'myths' invoked.

As far as Jefferson is concerned, it would do you good to read more of his history as well. While being a Deist, it had nothing to do with his seeing "all religions as destructive forces." He saw a religious faith or denomination becoming a state sponsored program as being anathema to the new nation. This view was based on what he saw this new countries citizens leaving in England, and wanted to make sure that wasn't part of our original Constitution.

You may not be in favor of the nation's founders as being God-fearing humans, but please don't try to re-write history to fit that personal belief.

UB

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 04:29 PM
Sorry, Franco, but you must have read a different history of Washington than I did. Methinks he wasn't using much 'logic' in his prayers while crossing the Potomac. Try reading some of his letters from Valley Forge...didn't have many 'myths' invoked.

As far as Jefferson is concerned, it would do you good to read more of his history as well. While being a Deist, it had nothing to do with his seeing "all religions as destructive forces." He saw a religious faith or denomination becoming a state sponsored program as being anathema to the new nation. This view was based on what he saw this new countries citizens leaving in England, and wanted to make sure that wasn't part of our original Constitution.

You may not be in favor of the nation's founders as being God-fearing humans, but please don't try to re-write history to fit that personal belief.

UB
I agree with your comment on Jefferson not being anti religious per se. However, he never joined any church himself, although he said that if he did it would be as a Unitarian. He was by no means "God fearing" in his beliefs. He did believe that Jesus was a man, not a manifestation of God, and rejected descriptions of biblical miracles as historic distortions. In his own version of the Bible, Jefferson deleted all references to miracles allegedly performed by Jesus or others to get at what he viewed as being Jesus, the man. Washington's religious views are much more prosaic, although some have claimed him as a deist (i.e. rejecting the notion of Christ as a manifestation of God). However, as a Mason, he was certainly a supporter of broad religious freedom (Masons required members to assert belief in a higher being, but many were not Christian in the modern sense).

Koolaid
03-15-2010, 04:48 PM
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


I've always thought Mr. Jefferson was quite hostile to the notion of the church to be honest. Maybe he just had an angry streak in him when saying such things.

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 05:22 PM
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


I've always thought Mr. Jefferson was quite hostile to the notion of the church to be honest. Maybe he just had an angry streak in him when saying such things.
I tend to thin that he was more anti-authoritarian than anti religion. He was somewhat secretive about his own religious beliefs with good reason, as was evident in Adam's attacks on him during the 1800 Presidential campaign. It is ironic that, in later years, Adams became one of his strongest supporters in completing the Jefferson Bible. Just as Adams exaggerated Jefferson's "atheism" during the campaign, Adams also exaggerated his own religious beliefs to provide contrast.

It was typical of the age that both men questioned orthodoxy in any form. The distinction that gets lost today is the difference between accepting Jesus as an important moral leader and accepting Jesus as a personal savior and manifestation of God. Virtually all of our founding fathers would have accepted Jesus the man as an important religious and moral figure. Many, however, rejected the notion of Christ the Savior.

Franco
03-15-2010, 05:25 PM
Well, we all know the heathen that Jefferson was so, lets take a look at Washington.;-)



George Washington and Deism

Deists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.
Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society. In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."..


On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.
George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."
Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.

Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.
Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death.

"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he.
"About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"
Like other Deists such as Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Franklin, and Allen, Washington did not fear death but looked at it as just another part of nature. Though he didn't speculate much on an after-life, he was comfortable to look at his own death as part of God's design.
George Washington offers us a tremendous example of altruism and positive action. His actions tell us stronger than any words could possibly do to persevere in the face of all obstacles. To never give up and to always combine our sincerely held beliefs with action.

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 05:41 PM
I love the part about the three days wait before entombing him. Unfortunately, there were few true tests of death at the time and wise men feared being buried alive.

From my reading of history, most of our notions of an evangelical country stem from the mid- and late-19th century and represented a rejection of the more open explorations of religion and philosophy found among our 18th century fore fathers.

Clay Rogers
03-15-2010, 10:05 PM
Here's a question, are we not stepping on the coachs civil liberties but not allowing him to pray with his team? I mean, couldn't the players that didn't want to pray just stand there while the coach prayed with the team members that do want to pray? I am not a church goer, but I do believe in God, and when my pts want me to pray with them I do, no matter their religion. And that includes muslims. If they ask it of me, I do it.

dnf777
03-15-2010, 10:16 PM
I love the part about the three days wait before entombing him. Unfortunately, there were few true tests of death at the time and wise men feared being buried alive.

How bout when sailors are buried at sea, as they're being laced up in their shroud, the last stitch goes through the nose, to be absolutely sure they're dead before their weighted sac is pushed overboard.

YardleyLabs
03-15-2010, 10:38 PM
Here's a question, are we not stepping on the coachs civil liberties but not allowing him to pray with his team? I mean, couldn't the players that didn't want to pray just stand there while the coach prayed with the team members that do want to pray? I am not a church goer, but I do believe in God, and when my pts want me to pray with them I do, no matter their religion. And that includes muslims. If they ask it of me, I do it.
The issue is that a teacher (including a coach) is in an authoritative position and by leading a group prayer or calling for it to be done as part of an official school function is effectively saying "This is something I expect you to do." By way of example, look at the reaction to the NJ school that had kids singing a song about Obama, the first black President, as part of a school function celebrating black achievements during Black History Month (ignore whether or not you believe there should be such an official designation). Members of this forum compared that event to the indoctrination of the Hitler Youth in Germany. What is the purpose of group prayer other than to coerce group belief. Does anyone seriously believe that God won't hear their prayer unless others join in? Students are free to pray on their own or together under current law. Teachers are free to pray on their own or to be part of a student led prayer, but they may not call for the prayer or lead it. With all the laws and court cases that have transpired since my days in fifth grade, the latitude that remains is still abused and violated on a regular basis. I would hate to see it extended further.

road kill
03-16-2010, 07:21 AM
The issue is that a teacher (including a coach) is in an authoritative position and by leading a group prayer or calling for it to be done as part of an official school function is effectively saying "This is something I expect you to do." By way of example, look at the reaction to the NJ school that had kids singing a song about Obama, the first black President, as part of a school function celebrating black achievements during Black History Month (ignore whether or not you believe there should be such an official designation). Members of this forum compared that event to the indoctrination of the Hitler Youth in Germany. What is the purpose of group prayer other than to coerce group belief. Does anyone seriously believe that God won't hear their prayer unless others join in? Students are free to pray on their own or together under current law. Teachers are free to pray on their own or to be part of a student led prayer, but they may not call for the prayer or lead it. With all the laws and court cases that have transpired since my days in fifth grade, the latitude that remains is still abused and violated on a regular basis. I would hate to see it extended further.

So.....you are equating Obama to God?

Unbeleivable!!



rk

YardleyLabs
03-16-2010, 08:34 AM
So.....you are equating Obama to God?

Unbeleivable!!



rk
No, I am equating proselytizing to proselytizing. There are actually no legal restrictions on proselytizing to promote a person, so the Obama situation is more defensible legally than the teacher leading a prayer.

Buzz
03-16-2010, 09:09 AM
So.....you are equating Obama to God?

Unbeleivable!!



rk

Are you equating singing a song as part of a school function celebrating black achievements during Black History Month, with prayer?

Unbelievable!!;)

Leddyman
03-16-2010, 10:01 AM
The issue is that a teacher (including a coach) is in an authoritative position and by leading a group prayer or calling for it to be done as part of an official school function is effectively saying "This is something I expect you to do." By way of example, look at the reaction to the NJ school that had kids singing a song about Obama, the first black President, as part of a school function celebrating black achievements during Black History Month (ignore whether or not you believe there should be such an official designation). Members of this forum compared that event to the indoctrination of the Hitler Youth in Germany. What is the purpose of group prayer other than to coerce group belief. Does anyone seriously believe that God won't hear their prayer unless others join in? Students are free to pray on their own or together under current law. Teachers are free to pray on their own or to be part of a student led prayer, but they may not call for the prayer or lead it. With all the laws and court cases that have transpired since my days in fifth grade, the latitude that remains is still abused and violated on a regular basis. I would hate to see it extended further.


Students are free not to pray, to walk away, or not to show up.
Unfortunately they don't have the same freedom when it comes to Al Gore's religious mother earth propaganda.

You are confusing the coach with congress. The constitution says congress shall make no law. The coach is not making a law he is leading a prayer. If the standard were applied equally which is what the constitution requires, students would not be forced to watch Al Gores religious propaganda film. Students who are made uncomfortable by sex talks in grammar schools would be exempted. You simply want to suppress religious expression because you disagree with it. The current state of affairs is a corruption of the constitution and would sicken the men who wrote it. You happen to have activist judges legislating from the bench who hold the same humanist views as you giving you cover. Plessy v. Ferguson I believe shows how right the courts always are. Good old Dewey had it right. Get control of the courts, the media, and the universities and we will take over society. He was a communist by the way not a Deist, and an educator. Dewey Decimal System for those of you not familiar.
You are seeing the fruition of the plan. It isn't a new plan, Caesar was worshipped as a god. Bow down before your government and worship the earth goddess. God must be removed. You are doing to our theoretical coach the same thing China wants to do to the Dali Llama.

Opiate of the masses regards,

Buzz
03-16-2010, 10:13 AM
The current state of affairs is a corruption of the constitution and would sicken the men who wrote it.

I find it interesting how many claim to know how the writers of the constitution would feel today. My guess is, you would have a hard time getting a consensus.

My parents had a simple solution to the school prayer thing. Then sent us to Catholic School.

Leddyman
03-16-2010, 11:28 AM
I find it interesting how many claim to know how the writers of the constitution would feel today. My guess is, you would have a hard time getting a consensus.

My parents had a simple solution to the school prayer thing. Then sent us to Catholic School.

Read what they wrote. They believed in morality and personal responsibility.

The schools have certainly improved under the current model of morality.

ducknwork
03-16-2010, 11:45 AM
No, I am equating proselytizing to proselytizing. There are actually no legal restrictions on proselytizing to promote a person, so the Obama situation is more defensible legally than the teacher leading a prayer.

To a muslim, jew, or atheist, wouldn't Jesus just be considered another person and not God? If so, why would they be offended if the coach is just 'promoting a person' in their eyes? How can you be offended by something that you don't believe even exists?

Just a little food for thought...

Koolaid
03-16-2010, 01:02 PM
To a muslim, jew, or atheist, wouldn't Jesus just be considered another person and not God? If so, why would they be offended if the coach is just 'promoting a person' in their eyes? How can you be offended by something that you don't believe even exists?

Just a little food for thought...

I'm not saying you would be offended, but in all honesty how would you feel if it was a prayer involving Muhammad.
I've been in the situation many times personally and I deal well with it. While people are doing something like praying or saying grace I zone out and just stare off into space. It's no big deal to me. The thing is you're dealing with children. Being excluded or being singled out is a whole lot different to a child than a grown man.

road kill
03-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Are you equating singing a song as part of a school function celebrating black achievements during Black History Month, with prayer?

Unbelievable!!;)
How incredibly CLEVER!!
Did YOU think that up all by your self?
That is a great comeback!!
I wish I would have thought of that, oh....wait....I did!!:D


Plagerist!!;-)



rk

YardleyLabs
03-16-2010, 01:27 PM
Students are free not to pray, to walk away, or not to show up.
Unfortunately they don't have the same freedom when it comes to Al Gore's religious mother earth propaganda.

You are confusing the coach with congress. The constitution says congress shall make no law. The coach is not making a law he is leading a prayer. If the standard were applied equally which is what the constitution requires, students would not be forced to watch Al Gores religious propaganda film. Students who are made uncomfortable by sex talks in grammar schools would be exempted. You simply want to suppress religious expression because you disagree with it. The current state of affairs is a corruption of the constitution and would sicken the men who wrote it. You happen to have activist judges legislating from the bench who hold the same humanist views as you giving you cover. Plessy v. Ferguson I believe shows how right the courts always are. Good old Dewey had it right. Get control of the courts, the media, and the universities and we will take over society. He was a communist by the way not a Deist, and an educator. Dewey Decimal System for those of you not familiar.
You are seeing the fruition of the plan. It isn't a new plan, Caesar was worshipped as a god. Bow down before your government and worship the earth goddess. God must be removed. You are doing to our theoretical coach the same thing China wants to do to the Dali Llama.

Opiate of the masses regards,
The coach, as a public school teacher, is an agent of government acting in accordance with law. Nothing in the Constitution says that schools should only teach subjects in ways that parents approve or in ways that do not challenge students' comfort levels. In fact, I would say that challenging students and their assumptions about how the world operates is a requirement for a good teacher. Otherwise, no one learns to think. I ultimately pulled my son out of public school and sent him to a Quaker school not because I am a Quaker (I am not and neither were 80% of the kids there), but because they pushed him to challenge himself and others while honing his own talents and beliefs.

Franco
03-16-2010, 01:46 PM
Read what they wrote. They believed in morality and personal responsibility.

The schools have certainly improved under the current model of morality.

What does school prayer have to do with morality? Some of the least moral people I know consider themselves religious.

The problems in the schools has to do with the parents and students and nothing to do with religious affliation.


This morning, I attended a breakfast meeting and the speaker is a headcoach(manager) of a successful college baseball program.

He started out talking about how the ethnic profile of America’s Game has changed and that within 5 years, the majority of MLB players would be foreign born. He cited the USA with 300 million population compared to the Dominican Republic with a population of 9 million. Yet, 28% of the players in MLB are from the Dominican Republic.

He told the story of attending a 12-13 year old baseball league game. He witnessed a father rolling his son’s bat bag while the son walked behind him text messaging someone. The kid had a $300. Baseball bat, $200 glove, and an expensive pair of batter’s gloves and his bat bag had wheels!
The problem as the college coach saw this is that our kids today can not handle failure. Instead of learning from failure, our kids are so weak-minded that they just quit when they don’t hit homeruns with that $300. bat. As parents we pamper our kids, protect them from failure and promote the, “everyone wins, no one is a loser” mentality. Rather than having our children learn from failure and mature from its lessons.
Whereas, the kids aspiring to play baseball in the Dominican Republic play because they want to play for the sake of the game! They play with whatever bats and gloves they can find! No one is there picking their asses off the ground when they fail. They learn to work through the rough spots in life and are willing to do what it takes to succeed!

dnf777
03-16-2010, 02:30 PM
What does school prayer have to do with morality? Some of the least moral people I know consider themselves religious.

The problems in the schools has to do with the parents and students and nothing to do with religious affliation.


This morning, I attended a breakfast meeting and the speaker is a headcoach(manager) of a successful college baseball program.

He started out talking about how the ethnic profile of America’s Game has changed and that within 5 years, the majority of MLB players would be foreign born. He cited the USA with 300 million population compared to the Dominican Republic with a population of 9 million. Yet, 28% of the players in MLB are from the Dominican Republic.

He told the story of attending a 12-13 year old baseball league game. He witnessed a father rolling his son’s bat bag while the son walked behind him text messaging someone. The kid had a $300. Baseball bat, $200 glove, and an expensive pair of batter’s gloves and his bat bag had wheels!
The problem as the college coach saw this is that our kids today can not handle failure. Instead of learning from failure, our kids are so weak-minded that they just quit when they don’t hit homeruns with that $300. bat. As parents we pamper our kids, protect them from failure and promote the, “everyone wins, no one is a loser” mentality. Rather than having our children learn from failure and mature from its lessons.
Whereas, the kids aspiring to play baseball in the Dominican Republic play because they want to play for the sake of the game! They play with whatever bats and gloves they can find! No one is there picking their asses off the ground when they fail. They learn to work through the rough spots in life and are willing to do what it takes to succeed!

What a sad, but illustrative story! There are lessons I remember today from my LL days in the 70s, like they were yesterday. Those were the days when if you struck out too many times, you got to warm the bench!

ducknwork
03-16-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm not saying you would be offended, but in all honesty how would you feel if it was a prayer involving Muhammad.


I honestly wouldn't care. I can respect the fact that other people have different beliefs and not raise a big stink so they are no longer allowed to pray to Muhammad. Muhammad means nothing to me, so why would it bother me?

Why is this point of view so difficult to understand for the anti-Christian crowd?

Koolaid
03-16-2010, 03:34 PM
Why is this point of view so difficult to understand for the anti-Christian crowd?

I went on to say I also wouldn't care.............not exactly having a hard time here........
What I'm saying is it's a whole lot different for a grown person who is already set in their beliefs (obviously not gonna be a whole lot of converting going on in here) than it is for a child who hasn't had the chance to develop their own yet.
When I was a young boy I was forced to church on a weekly basis. Forced to hang out with other church kids. Forced into church camps. It wasn't for me, but there wasn't another option. School, thankfully, was a place I didn't have to be indoctrinated. Being the only guy at a table of friends not to bow your head in prayer is a lot different than being the only kid on a high school sports team to do the same.

Koolaid
03-16-2010, 03:44 PM
This isn't the best example, but it's the first that comes to mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Kids are assholes...all of us were probably bullied or bullied people at some point in school...anything that makes you stand out is gonna be bad.

dnf777
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
I honestly wouldn't care. I can respect the fact that other people have different beliefs and not raise a big stink so they are no longer allowed to pray to Muhammad. Muhammad means nothing to me, so why would it bother me?

Why is this point of view so difficult to understand for the anti-Christian crowd?

I don't think anyone is "anti-Christian" here?? I'm anti-push-your-beliefs-on-others, if that's what you mean. I'm against someone telling others that they should walk away from their Church because they say something you misinterpret or disagree with. I'm against making children feel excluded because they don't participate in group prayers or are asked to leave the room. A friend of mine in grade school had that happen to him by a group of well-intentioned Christians, myself included. We were praying in our Alabama elementery school, and when we noticed he wasn't, we asked him to leave, so he would not be offended. I think that hurt him more than any of us realized at the time. A few of us felt very badly and invited him back in, he felt very singled out and hurt. I don't think that was necessary. Especially knowing that he has grown up and led his life in a much more "Christian" way than most of the yahoos who asked him to leave the room. (One is in jail, one was shot, and the rest I have no idea what happened to them)

YardleyLabs
03-16-2010, 05:43 PM
At a certain level, it comes down to good manners. Few of us would consider it appropriate to walk into a crowd of strangers and immediately launch into a discussion of religion, politics or sexual preferences. Most of us understand that these are areas where people may have strongly divergent beliefs that they may not care to discuss. For that reason, discussions of these topics tend to occur more in pre-designated contexts (ergo, POTUS) where people can easily stay away if they do not care to participate.

If you stand up on a public bus and begin spouting your political beliefs, people will rightly recognize that as an aggressive act because you are abusing the confined environment to impose what you want to talk about on everyone else, whether or not they have any interest. You are invading their space. Similarly, if you stand up and begin urging everyone on the bus to join you in group prayer, that is an act of religious aggression.

In a classroom environment, engaging in such behavior is even more aggressive because classrooms are an authoritarian environment where you cannot readily tell the person speaking to shut up -- especially if the person is the teacher. Because the classroom is also an instrument of government -- a public school which students are required to attend by law unless they are attending and can afford a private school -- that act of aggression becomes an act of government promoting the teacher's religious beliefs. That, happily, is illegal.

Marvin S
03-16-2010, 06:07 PM
At a certain level, it comes down to good manners. Few of us would consider it appropriate to walk into a crowd of strangers and immediately launch into a discussion of religion, politics or sexual preferences. Most of us understand that these are areas where people may have strongly divergent beliefs that they may not care to discuss. For that reason, discussions of these topics tend to occur more in pre-designated contexts (ergo, POTUS) where people can easily stay away if they do not care to participate.

If you stand up on a public bus and begin spouting your political beliefs, people will rightly recognize that as an aggressive act because you are abusing the confined environment to impose what you want to talk about on everyone else, whether or not they have any interest. You are invading their space. Similarly, if you stand up and begin urging everyone on the bus to join you in group prayer, that is an act of religious aggression.

In a classroom environment, engaging in such behavior is even more aggressive because classrooms are an authoritarian environment where you cannot readily tell the person speaking to shut up -- especially if the person is the teacher. Because the classroom is also an instrument of government -- a public school which students are required to attend by law unless they are attending and can afford a private school -- that act of aggression becomes an act of government promoting the teacher's religious beliefs. That, happily, is illegal.

For example the person who is on their cell in a crowded environment, say like the checkout counter & won't give up the phone long enough to do their business. :(, but common.

ducknwork
03-17-2010, 08:03 AM
Why is this point of view so difficult to understand for the anti-Christian crowd?

Koolaid and DNF, calm down. I wasn't referring to anyone on here. Rather, I was referring to all the anti's who force others to remove God from every facet of life every chance they get.

ducknwork
03-17-2010, 08:07 AM
I'm against making children feel excluded

I don't want to start an argument based on this point, but how is this statement any different than that story about baseball that koolaid posted? Do you think that it benefits children (or adults, for that matter) to tailor the world specifically so that they are never uncomfortable or confronted with something that they may not necessarily agree with or exposed to something different than what they are used to (as long as it is not harmful, of course)?

What's your sig line mean again, dave?;)

sinner
03-17-2010, 08:40 AM
1.Is it the TRUTH?
2.Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3.Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4.Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

dnf777
03-17-2010, 08:52 AM
[QUOTE=dnf777;584268]I'm against making children feel excluded [QUOTE]

I don't want to start an argument based on this point, but how is this statement any different than that story about baseball that koolaid posted? Do you think that it benefits children (or adults, for that matter) to tailor the world specifically so that they are never uncomfortable or confronted with something that they may not necessarily agree with or exposed to something different than what they are used to (as long as it is not harmful, of course)?

What's your sig line mean again, dave?;)

Merit-based success or failure, or inclusion or exclusion based on performance is a very different thing from being excluded because of one's heritage, religious beliefs or ethnicity. THAT's the difference.

YardleyLabs
03-17-2010, 09:00 AM
1.Is it the TRUTH?
2.Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3.Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4.Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Not to argue with your sentiment, but this is the 4th thread that you have posted this same comment on in two days. Does that help build goodwill?:rolleyes:

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 11:16 AM
What does school prayer have to do with morality? Some of the least moral people I know consider themselves religious.
[/FONT]

I know a lot of people, both religious and irreligious and that which you wrote sir, is bullshit of the highest magnitude.

As a general rule it is the religious people who make things better.

All those gang bangers and murderers in church on Sunday morning are giving us a bad name! Oh wait...the really bad parts of society are not there every day. With the exception of politicians and a few holier than thou backsatbbers it is a pretty good crowd.

Just because you have a moral problem with God doesn't mean religion is bad.

Koolaid
03-17-2010, 11:32 AM
Just because you have a moral problem with God doesn't mean religion is bad.

I don't think anyone has a "moral" problem with God. I personally have a logic and reason based problem with God.
He clearly wasn't saying that Religious people are bad. I think the point being made is that morality and religion are not tied together in some way. As in you don't need to be religious to be moral. Just as those who are religious aren't always moral.

Franco
03-17-2010, 11:46 AM
I don't think anyone has a "moral" problem with God. I personally have a logic and reason based problem with God.
He clearly wasn't saying that Religious people are bad. I think the point being made is that morality and religion are not tied together in some way. As in you don't need to be religious to be moral. Just as those who are religious aren't always moral.



Exactly! And Leddyman's post is a prime example of Religious Intolerance, that if you don't believe in what he does, then you are wrong. That if one does not buy into a bunch of ancient myths than they are immoral according to whichever sect he belongs to.

The problems with troubled youths today has everything to do with personal responsibilty and parenting(or lack of it). Not the lack of faith in whatever Leddyman THINKS is the true religion!

YardleyLabs
03-17-2010, 11:46 AM
I know a lot of people, both religious and irreligious and that which you wrote sir, is bullshit of the highest magnitude.

As a general rule it is the religious people who make things better.

All those gang bangers and murderers in church on Sunday morning are giving us a bad name! Oh wait...the really bad parts of society are not there every day. With the exception of politicians and a few holier than thou backsatbbers it is a pretty good crowd.

Just because you have a moral problem with God doesn't mean religion is bad.
If only that were true. I have witnessed too much evil being done by religious idiots in the name of God. I have nothing against religious people, but I have no tolerance for those who somehow believe that it is somehow OK to do bad things in God's name. Examples include Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. Tiller, or James Charles Kopp (aka the Atomic Dog) assassin of Dr. Barnett Slepian, or even Osama bin Laden. When I was growing up the local ministers preached that segregation was God's will. Religious belief does not make you bad, but it certainly doesn't make you good.

Buzz
03-17-2010, 12:38 PM
Whenever I hear anyone profess their religiousity, it always reminds me of this:



Matthew 6: 1 - 6, 16 - 18
1 "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5 "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
16 "And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 12:39 PM
I don't think anyone has a "moral" problem with God. I personally have a logic and reason based problem with God.
He clearly wasn't saying that Religious people are bad. I think the point being made is that morality and religion are not tied together in some way. As in you don't need to be religious to be moral. Just as those who are religious aren't always moral.

Dude you spend way too much time sucking on your bong. I read your posts, you are logic and reason impaired and it has nothing to do with God.

Your problem with God is moral and you won't admit it.

He was too saying religious people are bad. Morality and religion ARE tied together. What happens when you exclude God? You start killing unborn and next, when this bill passes, the aged.

It is no secret that Hitler was totally stoked about Darwinism (which is the no-God philosophy).
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

Since religion teaches morality, if you are not moral, then you are not religious. You can attend church, but that does not make you religious or moral. If it does then don't spend too much time in your garage or you'll become a car.

Buzz
03-17-2010, 12:43 PM
You start killing unborn and next, when this bill passes, the aged.


Pure and unadulterated BS.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 12:50 PM
Whenever I hear anyone profess their religiousity, it always reminds me of this:

It reminds me of this.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

1John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

The passage you quote was Jesus talking about pharisees who sounded trumpets before putting their money in the offering box so that people would look and see.

You missapply it to mean we can't discuss the merits of Christianity.

But what would you expect?

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 12:59 PM
Pure and unadulterated BS.

Sorry your grandma is too old to justify this surgery. We can't afford to spend this money on someone who may not recover.

Dude if you don't see that coming you are really hypnotized.

I know a 96 yo lady who had surgery three months ago and is back home now. She had an obstruction. It was horribly expensive, and we weren't sure it would work, but she's home and her old self. Realistically it gave her another year or eighteen months. No way they spring for that once the government is paying for it.

Why do people who are disabled have to have a lawyer to get benefits? Because there is a bureaucrat somewhere who denies all the claims in order to justify his job. He is saving the government money so they need him. I had a man tell me that his lawyer said the judges automatically deny the claim to keep themselves in a job. This lady didn't have time to get a lawyer and sue to get the surgery. She would have died while waiting for it.

You may believe that the government doesn't work that way, but the welfare system, the medicare system, the government housing system, the education department, et al, put the lie to that.

Franco
03-17-2010, 01:27 PM
Dude you spend way too much time sucking on your bong. I read your posts, you are logic and reason impaired and it has nothing to do with God.

No constructive counter-point so, you are going to use personal attcks? Koolaid made referenece to reason & logic, which I agreed with. Where is your reason and logic?

Your problem with God is moral and you won't admit it.

Which God are we talking about, civilization has several?

He was too saying religious people are bad. Morality and religion ARE tied together. What happens when you exclude God? You start killing unborn and next, when this bill passes, the aged.

Providence happens.

It is no secret that Hitler was totally stoked about Darwinism (which is the no-God philosophy).

Lets toss old Hilter into the discussion, that should scare a bunch of folks.

Since religion teaches morality, if you are not moral, then you are not religious. You can attend church, but that does not make you religious or moral. If it does then don't spend too much time in your garage or you'll become a car.

Good! But, lets don't forget thay one doesnt have to be religious to be moral. Or, do you disagree with that?

Koolaid
03-17-2010, 01:31 PM
I loved the Hitler reference. One of my favourite things is to watch Hitchens or Dawkins salivate when someone they are debating brings him up.

ducknwork
03-17-2010, 01:41 PM
Whenever I hear anyone profess their religiousity, it always reminds me of this:

So you think that we should not speak of religion at all, just to save our very selves? How thoughtful of you.:rolleyes:

Nobody is doing any preaching on here...like it would do any good anyway...

I get so tired of hearing people who don't practice or approve of 'Christianity' say that some of the worst people they know are 'religious'. Some of the worst people I know of are not 'religious'. Guess what? That ignorant statement goes both ways and doesn't prove a damn thing. Some of the best people I know are Christian and some aren't. Whoopdy doo. It is ridiculous for you to lump anyone into the category of hypocrites and 'bad Christians' as soon as someone professes to be a Christian, before you even know them. That is a bunch of BS. Simply going to church does not make you a good person and not going to church doesn't make you automatically a bad person. I think that is blatantly obvious, yet non-Christians are ALWAYS quick in discussions such as this to throw every Christian in the hypocrite pile. Why is that?

BTW, nice examples, Yardley. Shall I compile a list of some of history's more infamous people who were not religious? I might need a couple days...

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Dude you spend way too much time sucking on your bong. I read your posts, you are logic and reason impaired and it has nothing to do with God.

No constructive counter-point so, you are going to use personal attcks? Koolaid made referenece to reason & logic, which I agreed with. Where is your reason and logic?

He hasn't said what his so called logic is so I can't refute it. I was just amusing myself while waiting for a substantial argument

Your problem with God is moral and you won't admit it.

Which God are we talking about, civilization has several?

This is just my point. Your premise is juvenile. There can by definition, be only one God. Mutually exclusive assertions can not both be correct. Either there is one God or no God. The evidence, both scientific and philosophical, points strongly to a God. If different cultures, (your use of the word civilization here is incorrect civilization does not apply, cultures have Gods) espouse Gods that are mutually exclusive, then someone is wrong. Your subscription to the post modern belief that there is no objective truth is a fallacy.

He was too saying religious people are bad. Morality and religion ARE tied together. What happens when you exclude God? You start killing unborn and next, when this bill passes, the aged.

Providence happens.

Asinine and meaningless phrases are not arguments. Do you know the meaning of the word providence without google?

It is no secret that Hitler was totally stoked about Darwinism (which is the no-God philosophy).

Lets toss old Hilter into the discussion, that should scare a bunch of folks.

It won't scare anybody. It is a historical fact that the cleansing Hitler did was Darwinism taken to its complete conclusion.

Since religion teaches morality, if you are not moral, then you are not religious. You can attend church, but that does not make you religious or moral. If it does then don't spend too much time in your garage or you'll become a car.

Good! But, lets don't forget thay one doesnt have to be religious to be moral. Or, do you disagree with that?

Depends on your definition of morality.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 01:48 PM
I loved the Hitler reference. One of my favourite things is to watch Hitchens or Dawkins salivate when someone they are debating brings him up.

Ah, so you've heard of Hitchens and Dawkins. Go ahead let it fly. Don't hold back. Elucidate the rational arguments for your atheism.

ducknwork
03-17-2010, 01:48 PM
Some of the least moral people I know consider themselves religious.


I have a quote for you...Guess who said it...I'll give you a clue, he has posted on this thread...


Personal experience isn't statistically significant.

Koolaid
03-17-2010, 02:11 PM
Ah, so you've heard of Hitchens and Dawkins. Go ahead let it fly. Don't hold back. Elucidate the rational arguments for your atheism.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow as I'm busy studying for an Inorganic Chemistry Exam, but one question before I do.

How old do you think the earth is?

Buzz
03-17-2010, 02:15 PM
So you think that we should not speak of religion at all, just to save our very selves? How thoughtful of you.:rolleyes:


Seems like we have a difference of opinion on what it means to bear witness.:rolleyes:


So you think that we should not speak of religion at all, just to save our vI think that is blatantly obvious, yet non-Christians are ALWAYS quick in discussions such as this to throw every Christian in the hypocrite pile. Why is that?



So, are you assuming that I'm not a Christian?

Not saying that I'm a good one regards...


Sorry your grandma is too old to justify this surgery. We can't afford to spend this money on someone who may not recover.

Dude if you don't see that coming you are really hypnotized.

I know a 96 yo lady who had surgery three months ago and is back home now. She had an obstruction. It was horribly expensive, and we weren't sure it would work, but she's home and her old self. Realistically it gave her another year or eighteen months. No way they spring for that once the government is paying for it.



Guess what? Grandma is on a government plan now, and will continue on the same government plan the day after HCR passes.

YardleyLabs
03-17-2010, 02:58 PM
I have a quote for you...Guess who said it...
Personal experience is not statistically significant.I'll give you a clue, he has posted on this thread...It's a brilliant comment and one I agree with completely.:D However, it has nothing to do with my comment concerning examples of people who did evil things in the name of religion. As I noted in my comments, religious people come in all flavors: good and not good. The same is true of non religious people. Leddyman seems intent on saying:

Good things happen because of religious people
Only religious people are moral because all morality stems from religion. If the person is bad they are irreligious by definition.
All this makes sense once you accept that there can be only one truth and it is the one Leddyman believes in.Actually, I have no problems with this logic as long as no one pretends that it has any logical foundation. However, Leddyman continues to claim that all science and philosophy points to the truth of his beliefs.

All I can say is that is the type of religious intolerance that our forefathers sought to keep out of the hands of government.


Dude you spend way too much time sucking on your bong. I read your posts, you are logic and reason impaired and it has nothing to do with God.

Your problem with God is moral and you won't admit it.

He was too saying religious people are bad. Morality and religion ARE tied together. What happens when you exclude God? You start killing unborn and next, when this bill passes, the aged.

It is no secret that Hitler was totally stoked about Darwinism (which is the no-God philosophy).
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

Since religion teaches morality, if you are not moral, then you are not religious. You can attend church, but that does not make you religious or moral. If it does then don't spend too much time in your garage or you'll become a car.
I would love to see where you find anything in Darwin suggesting that there is justification for annihilating people in the manner of Hitler. Roederer claiming his religious beliefs tells me nothing about religion and doesn't change the fact that he is a terroristic murderer. Osama bin Laden claiming Allah as his justification for terror attacks killings thousands around the world tells me nothing about Allah or Islam. It simply tells me about a terroristic mass murderer.

There are six billion people in the world. Almost a third of them define themselves as Christian, but very few would meet Leddyman's definition of Christian. Almost as many call themselves Muslim, but almost none would call themselves supporters of bin Laden.

Personally, I am not religious. I was not raised in any creed based religion. I have attended services from many religions and have studied religion in a variety of contexts. I have tremendous respect for most of the great religious leaders for they shared a common belief in and reverence for the miracle of life. However, even in those moments when I consider what ype of God might exist, I cannot conceive of a jealous God, or a God that is wildly concerned with how he is worshiped, or a God that would be concerned with the details of creedal orthodoxy. A God capable of creating the universe with all of its diversity would not be so small minded.

Buzz
03-17-2010, 03:07 PM
It is no secret that Hitler was totally stoked about Darwinism (which is the no-God philosophy).
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm




This is a classic example of why I don't want the teaching of religion anywhere near the public schools. Darwinism - the no-God philosophy?

I happen to be Catholic. My wife was Lutheran when we got married. When we had a baby, she decided to become Catholic, and has since sponsored others who have come into the church and attended classes with those she sponsored. During class one night, the topic came up, what are we to do with the schools teaching evolution? They were shocked to find out that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the teaching of evolution. The teacher had to actually call the priest down to explain the church's position. He said that, we believe that God created the universe. How he went about it, we cannot say.

I want my daughter learning religion at classes, at our church on Wednesday nights, taught by people who I want teaching her. I have no control over what she would be taught in the public school system. If I don't like what the Catholic Church is teaching her, I have the choice of going somewhere else.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 03:20 PM
It's a brilliant comment and one I agree with completely.:D However, it has nothing to do with my comment concerning examples of people who did evil things in the name of religion. As I noted in my comments, religious people come in all flavors: good and not good. The same is true of non religious people. Leddyman seems intent on saying:

Good things happen because of religious people
Only religious people are moral because all morality stems from religion. If the person is bad they are irreligious by definition.
All this makes sense once you accept that there can be only one truth and it is the one Leddyman believes in.Actually, I have no problems with this logic as long as no one pretends that it has any logical foundation. However, Leddyman continues to claim that all science and philosophy points to the truth of his beliefs.

All I can say is that is the type of religious intolerance that our forefathers sought to keep out of the hands of government.


I would love to see where you find anything in Darwin suggesting that there is justification for annihilating people in the manner of Hitler. Roederer claiming his religious beliefs tells me nothing about religion and doesn't change the fact that he is a terroristic murderer. Osama bin Laden claiming Allah as his justification for terror attacks killings thousands around the world tells me nothing about Allah or Islam. It simply tells me about a terroristic mass murderer.

There are six billion people in the world. Almost a third of them define themselves as Christian, but very few would meet Leddyman's definition of Christian. Almost as many call themselves Muslim, but almost none would call themselves supporters of bin Laden.

Personally, I am not religious. I was not raised in any creed based religion. I have attended services from many religions and have studied religion in a variety of contexts. I have tremendous respect for most of the great religious leaders for they shared a common belief in and reverence for the miracle of life. However, even in those moments when I consider what ype of God might exist, I cannot conceive of a jealous God, or a God that is wildly concerned with how he is worshiped, or a God that would be concerned with the details of creedal orthodoxy. A God capable of creating the universe with all of its diversity would not be so small minded.

The first is NOT what I said.

All this makes sense once you accept that there can be only one truth and it is the one Leddyman believes in.
That is exactly what I have been saying. Will you explain how there can be two truths simultaneously please? And it ain't MY truth ... simply truth. If you can prove yours have at it. I* present evidence if the argument is scientific, I argue philosophy if it is metaphysical. I take all comers.

I didn't find justification, Hitler did. Here is HIS logic.
We are an accident of goo and lightening. Therefore we have no meaning or value above natural selection.
There are organisms in various stages of evolution. Nature has decreed that some are more valuable than others through natural selection. The more valuable ones survive. We think that we are more valuable than others who are less evolved. If we anniahlate those less evolved they won't be contaminating the gene pool. Kill the Jews.

Hitler said that. He got the idea from Darwin. So by the way did Marx. He LOVED Darwin. You love Marx. presto chango.

Leddyman's definition of Christian

Which is what? It ain't my definition it is the Bible's definition.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 03:22 PM
This is a classic example of why I don't want the teaching of religion anywhere near the public schools. Darwinism - the no-God philosophy?

I happen to be Catholic. My wife was Lutheran when we got married. When we had a baby, she decided to become Catholic, and has since sponsored others who have come into the church and attended classes with those she sponsored. During class one night, the topic came up, what are we to do with the schools teaching evolution? They were shocked to find out that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the teaching of evolution. The teacher had to actually call the priest down to explain the church's position. He said that, we believe that God created the universe. How he went about it, we cannot say.

I want my daughter learning religion at classes, at our church on Wednesday nights, taught by people who I want teaching her. I have no control over what she would be taught in the public school system. If I don't like what the Catholic Church is teaching her, I have the choice of going somewhere else.

Well then professor, you explain where God comes in to Darwinism.

The Catholic Church, one might think would start with the first two chapters of Genesis.

The Bible says that man was created by God from the dust of the earth. That does not leave the Catholic Church or any other church room for evolution. Unless they forsake the Bible in favor of Science Fiction.

If life is an accident there is no God.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 03:26 PM
I'll have to get back to you tomorrow as I'm busy studying for an Inorganic Chemistry Exam, but one question before I do.

How old do you think the earth is?

Been there done that. Why do atheists always think Christians believe the earth is six thousand years old?

The earth is prolly about 4 billion give or take years. Your point?

BTW I already graduated and I had environmental microbiology with an honest to God Russian scientist.

Buzz
03-17-2010, 03:27 PM
Well then professor, you explain where God comes in to Darwinism.

The Catholic Church, one might think would start with the first two chapters of Genesis.

The Bible says that man was created by God from the dust of the earth. That does not leave the Catholic Church or any other church room for evolution. Unless they forsake the Bible in favor of Science Fiction.

If life is an accident there is no God.

You're not worth my time. Have a nice day.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 03:30 PM
You're not worth my time. Have a nice day.

If it quits raining, I'm going to train my dog.

YardleyLabs
03-17-2010, 03:51 PM
The first is NOT what I said.

All this makes sense once you accept that there can be only one truth and it is the one Leddyman believes in.
That is exactly what I have been saying. Will you explain how there can be two truths simultaneously please? And it ain't MY truth ... simply truth. If you can prove yours have at it. I* present evidence if the argument is scientific, I argue philosophy if it is metaphysical. I take all comers.

I didn't find justification, Hitler did. Here is HIS logic.
We are an accident of goo and lightening. Therefore we have no meaning or value above natural selection.
There are organisms in various stages of evolution. Nature has decreed that some are more valuable than others through natural selection. The more valuable ones survive. We think that we are more valuable than others who are less evolved. If we anniahlate those less evolved they won't be contaminating the gene pool. Kill the Jews.

Hitler said that. He got the idea from Darwin. So by the way did Marx. He LOVED Darwin. You love Marx. presto chango.

Leddyman's definition of Christian

Which is what? It ain't my definition it is the Bible's definition.
I would love to now the source of your Hitler "quote" since I can't find it anywhere.With respect to the Bible, many people read the same material and come away with many different meanings.Why is your betters than theirs? The Bible has many inconsistencies, which is not surprising given the number of people involved in authoring different components over the course of a couple of centuries, as well as differences in translations and interpretations. So yes, I mean your definition of Christianity which varies widely from that held by most self described Christians.

Leddyman
03-17-2010, 06:52 PM
I would love to now the source of your Hitler "quote" since I can't find it anywhere.With respect to the Bible, many people read the same material and come away with many different meanings.Why is your betters than theirs? The Bible has many inconsistencies, which is not surprising given the number of people involved in authoring different components over the course of a couple of centuries, as well as differences in translations and interpretations. So yes, I mean your definition of Christianity which varies widely from that held by most self described Christians.

It isn't a quote, it is a paraphrase. I'll get you a source in a bit.

Many people read the tax code and get different things. Some of them go to jail because they are full of crap. Name some inconsistencies in the Bible. Tell me where your interpretation differs from mine. I don't remember laying out my take on what it means to be a Christian Biblically. You assume things.

The Bible can only mean what it meant. You understand that right? When it was written it meant something. That meaning never changes. What changes is how people twist it to their own ends. I try my best to live my life according to what God says and what He meant when He said it. I try my best not to twist scripture to my own ends. Sometimes I do it anyway. When I discover the error, I repent and try to get it right from there on.

I could say I play the banjo, I could even carry one around, If you forced me to demonstrate actual ability to play it you would find out that my banjo was only a prop. This holds true with many people and the Bible.

YardleyLabs
03-17-2010, 08:04 PM
I've been down the road of detailed biblical discussions before and don't plan on doing it again. It's not worth the pain given that I fundamentally view the Bible in the same way that I view other religious texts. I will simply assume that you live your life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of Leviticus since I don't remember any part of the New Testament, or even any Supreme Court decisions that rewrote those original rules.

Leddyman
03-18-2010, 11:27 AM
I've been down the road of detailed biblical discussions before and don't plan on doing it again. It's not worth the pain given that I fundamentally view the Bible in the same way that I view other religious texts. I will simply assume that you live your life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of Leviticus since I don't remember any part of the New Testament, or even any Supreme Court decisions that rewrote those original rules.

I live my life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of the Bible (to the best of my extremely limited ability). To which specific text in Leviticus are you referring? Since the Law was given to the Israelites through Moses, and since Jesus fulfilled some parts of it, and since I am not an Israelite, except by adoption, I obey the old testament as it applies. For instance I don't sacrifice goats for my sins, I don't obey the Jewish dietary laws, I don't stone adulteresses (although I have seen some stoned adulteresses that got my attention, but that is another topic for another day), I do pay pretty close attention to the Ten Commandments. So to which Levitical mandate were you irrelevantly referring?

I find it quite amusing that when it finally comes down to road meet rubber, people start throwing out the ballast. Old testament law is pretty desperate. What's next? The crusades? The inquisition? I know Salem witch trials!

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 11:52 AM
I live my life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of the Bible (to the best of my extremely limited ability). To which specific text in Leviticus are you referring? Since the Law was given to the Israelites through Moses, and since Jesus fulfilled some parts of it, and since I am not an Israelite, except by adoption, I obey the old testament as it applies. For instance I don't sacrifice goats for my sins, I don't obey the Jewish dietary laws, I don't stone adulteresses (although I have seen some stoned adulteresses that got my attention, but that is another topic for another day), I do pay pretty close attention to the Ten Commandments. So to which Levitical mandate were you irrelevantly referring?

I find it quite amusing that when it finally comes down to road meet rubber, people start throwing out the ballast. Old testament law is pretty desperate. What's next? The crusades? The inquisition? I know Salem witch trials!
I actually have no issues with the Bible. I accept the wisdom of its moral teachings, but view it no differently than other religious and philosophical texts other than the fact that its importance is defined by the sheer number of people who consider it to be important and sacred. I am not the one who said "The Bible can only mean what it meant. You understand that right? When it was written it meant something. That meaning never changes..... I try my best to live my life according to what God says and what He meant when He said it." Given that, I have difficulty understanding why any part of the Bible would be considered more or less important than another. I asked about Leviticus because few Christians consider it to be applicable -- particularly with respect to things like sanitary laws which arguably had their foundation in historical conditions more than religious need. However, the laws are purportedly those of God and, in your words, "never change". I would say that Jesus might be considered to have proposed an "amendment" in suggesting that he without sin be the first to cast a stone. However, I didn't see the amendment that made pork and shell fish okay to eat. Leviticus is routinely used to justify discrimination against homosexuality, but seldom followed by the same people with regard to sexual abstinence and ritual cleansing related to menstruation. You make the distinction that these laws only apply to Israelites (Jesus being one). If the word of God is unchanging, I fail to see the basis for your distinction.

subroc
03-18-2010, 12:02 PM
...The Bible says that man was created by God from the dust of the earth. That does not leave the Catholic Church or any other church room for evolution. Unless they forsake the Bible in favor of Science Fiction.

If life is an accident there is no God.

Is it possible that the dust of the earth is a reference to or the same as the primordial sea?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_sea

Leddyman
03-18-2010, 02:39 PM
I actually have no issues with the Bible. I accept the wisdom of its moral teachings, but view it no differently than other religious and philosophical texts
See, now we are getting somewhere. You don't believe it, and thus it is irrelevant to you other than as a religious artifact. I say you don't believe it because it makes claim to be the inspired Word of God. So if you view it to be the same as any other writing then you don't believe it. I further realize that there are other writings (Koran) Which claim the same thing. So it comes down to faith. I started this whole discussion with a couple other people who said they were Christian, but who support and claim justification for wealth redistribution on the basis of a misinterpretation of the Bible. They are supporting people that in the view of the Bible are killing unborn children. All while claiming to believe the book. You make no such claim so all I can say to you is I hope we maintain enough of a majority to outvote you.
other than the fact that its importance is defined by the sheer number of people who consider it to be important and sacred.
I believe its importance is defined by its being the Word of God. So we differ there.
I am not the one who said "The Bible can only mean what it meant. You understand that right? When it was written it meant something. That meaning never changes..... I try my best to live my life according to what God says and what He meant when He said it." Given that, I have difficulty understanding why any part of the Bible would be considered more or less important than another. I asked about Leviticus because few Christians consider it to be applicable -- particularly with respect to things like sanitary laws which arguably had their foundation in historical conditions more than religious need. However, the laws are purportedly those of God and, in your words, "never change".
Right. They never change, if I was a Jew in the old testament those, laws would apply to me. If you picked up a letter, written to me, promising me something, and you went and tried to claim it you would be wrong. Some of the scripture is that way. It was written to particular groups of people at specific times and it only applies to us as it informs our understanding of what God did through Jesus. For instance the sacrificial system as it points to the sacrifice of Christ. It does not apply to us, but it does help us to see where God was going with respect to the cross. The new testament explains that the law was given so that men would know that they could not produce their own righteousness and knowing that they would be more inclined to accept righteousness in Christ. So I don't go back and try to recreate a righteousness from the old testament which was never good enough in the first place. God never intended that.
Heb 7: 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for kthe law made nothing 5perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.


I would say that Jesus might be considered to have proposed an "amendment" in suggesting that he without sin be the first to cast a stone. However, I didn't see the amendment that made pork and shell fish okay to eat. Leviticus is routinely used to justify discrimination against homosexuality, but seldom followed by the same people with regard to sexual abstinence and ritual cleansing related to menstruation. You make the distinction that these laws only apply to Israelites (Jesus being one).
Some of the laws don't apply. I would say the ten commandments are still in force.
If the word of God is unchanging, I fail to see the basis for your distinction.

O.K. see if this works for you.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 8:13


That is a quote from the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament. Even then God was trying to tell them this was coming.

“Behold, the wdays are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that xI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, 
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Je 31:31-32

Leddyman
03-18-2010, 03:08 PM
Is it possible that the dust of the earth is a reference to or the same as the primordial sea?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_sea

I really don't think so. Spontaneous generation of life has been proven to mathematically impossible.

http://www.reasons.org/origin-life/primordial-soup/fork-road-part-1-2

The word “formed” (yāṣar) is used of a potter’s activity and the making of wooden images.

Dust [ʿāpār] from the ground” is the raw material from which the physical properties of the man and beast had their source. The term may refer to the loose surface dirt of the ground (Exod 8:16–17 [12–13]) or the powder of something pulverized (Deut 9:21)


“Dust” as constitutive of human existence anticipates 3:19, where the penalty for the man’s sin is his return to “dust”


Mathews, K. A.: Genesis 1-11:26. electronic ed. Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995 (Logos Library System; The New American Commentary 1A), S. 195