Topic awaiting preservation: What is your purpose? (Page 2 of 3)

MH

quote:

---

LOL! Ignorance and miseducation in its purest form. ^
At least you are not claiming that evolution unreal and creationism is truth.

---

Well, I may not be a scholar like you, but I can put 2 & 2 together to come up with thought that creationism could have worked thur evoultion. It dosen't have to be one or the other.

quote:

---

Maybe those who don't want to accept Jesus as the savior could get as educated as they can in scripture so they can know where christians are coming from.

---

And once again, I have to say - why don't *you* become educated in all of *our* beliefs so that you can know where *we* are coming from? Why must everyone else always learn what you want them to learn, but not the other way around?

Meta - simple solution for you: fill in your password each time you post.

Bugimus - celebrate their culture, sure. But build religious monuments in the court house? No. It's plain and simple - seperation of church and state. Yes, our laws may have a foundation in judeo-christian laws, but they are also basic values that stand quite seperate from any religion, and quite clearly omit the references to god or other religious observances. They are social in nature.

Posting the 10 commandments in the courthouse, complete with commandments speaking of how to treat god, is absolutely wrong. It implies that the court does not uphold the state's laws, but rather their own vision of "god's" laws.

And that is wrong in every possible way.


.

Gabriel - it's good to see that you do actually have some thoughtful insight to bring to this conversation. Good stuff!


[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-21-2003).]

Ok DL.

What is your argument for proof of no God? What is the athiesim creed you go by. I want to get educated on what athiest believe. Give me a list of points to draw on to believe a creator of all does not exist.

In regard to the ten commandemnts in keeping church and state separate, doesn't the president of the USA take his oath of office on a bible, which contains the 10 commandments?

In response to you, Gabriel.

What is your purpose?

- I have no 'purpose' in life, excpet to live it as long as possible, seeking as much fulfillment as possible, while harming as few people as possible.

Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies.

- I am not the one doing so. Any claim that one knows who God/Allah is, if God/Allah is at all, destroys God/Allah. I try never making such a claim.

Do you really wish to help others with this, with your secular humanism, or are you just trying to disprove something you dont understand.

- You do so successfully yourself.

Maybe some of you should try reading ALL of the Bible and living it, before you judge anything.

- I would agree with CFB's assertion above, with one difference: It is not up to me to judge anything more harshly than I would judge myself.

How will you ever learn what that Teacher says if you are always contradicting Him?

- The only good authority is the one that can prove his authority while being questioned, challenged or contradicted.

Is this a selfish, destructive action, or are you really trying to help anyone?

- It is neither selfish, nor destructive. I only seek to understand, and I cannot if I have no proof. I have no proof if I cannot question.

God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend.

- Then why are you so sure you can?

Maybe you should just try out the Bible..all of it....God works, whether you believe it or not.

- Are you certain of that? Are you certain of the Bible man-made interpretation?

Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered.

- Then, why did you post?

I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds.

- You do not know what an open mind is if you are not ready for a challenge to your beliefs..

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

I have one question for you Gabriel.

I have read your statement. It strikes me as biased, short-sighted, arrogant, and provocative. It has drawn quite a reaction, not all of it generous to other responders. Your post is entirely too well scripted.

Did you post this statement to demonstrate your own closed-minded beliefs, or did you post this so others can demonstrate their closed-minded beliefs?

I wish you peace.

Gabriel: My porpoise is a porpoise.

jade:

quote:

---

Well, I may not be a scholar like you, but I can put 2 & 2 together to come up with thought that creationism could have worked thur evoultion.

---

I suppose it would depend on what your definitions of 'creationism' and 'evolution' but as commonly expressed there isn't much cross over - if God created life on earth then this rather does away with the need for evolution.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

DL, the separation of church and state does *not* mean the elimination of religious symbols from government buildings, monuments, etc. I believe that is a distortion of original intent. The clause was meant to prevent a state religion from being established. Having the 10 commandments, a buddha, or anything else like that in a government building does not do that.

Emperor
Why is it so impossible to believe that God did work thur evolution for a purpose that you and I are limited in understanding of? Why does some mankind think they should be allowed to know and have all answers in order to explain the creative nature of the world? Our human limited minds could not fathom what pertains to the essence of the creators intent. They fact that no persons have all the answers about life here and whats out there speaks for itself.

Let's be clear on the words we're using. Creationism (big C) implies that Evolution (big E) didn't happen. Believing that God created the world through evolution (little e) or some other method is not what is commonly referred to as Creationism (big C).

I personally find Creationism very problematic on a couple of different levels. 1) It insists on an extremely literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis and 2) it seeks to discredit legitimate scientific endeavors.

jade-

quote:

---

Maybe those who don't want to accept Jesus as the savior could get as educated as they can in scripture so they can know where christians are coming from.

---

By this statement you are assuming that those who have chosen not to accept Jesus as Savior have never experienced Christianity or given it a chance. I assure you there are plenty of us out there who have studied the faith, who were raised in it, have an intimate understanding of where Christians are coming from, and have still chosen to believe something else - or chosen to not believe at all.

{edit - to appease those who do not believe}




[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

Well Bugs it depends on how you interpret Genesis. Did God really make all in 7 days? Maybe, maybe not. The writers of the bible used 7 all over scripture to represent fullness and limitness. God made the world in all its fullness is how my faith interprets this. Doesn't mean the writer meant 7 days. But then again it could. The bible references sinning 7x77 times and God will forgive you. Bible story of even bridegrooms, seven lamp stands, seven deadly sins, seven scrolls, etc. You could interpret it like God made the existance as we know it in all its fullness. So how we can interpret creationism depends on how you view the scripture passages. I am open to the possiblity that God might of made mankind in his image, meaning spiritual image and bodily image came way before. God made man in his likeness by then concieveing a soul in him in its perfection. Genesis is story telling handed down like campfire stories till someone decided to write it down. I believe the writers wrote it in a way to make believers understand the essence of who God is thur Gods creative nature. It doesn't have to one or the other.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

Umm...if we're talking about 'and God did X in X amount of days'...shouldn't you try reading it first. It states 'and on the seventh day, He rested'. God didn't actually create the world in 7 days...he did it in 6. Like all good contract workers God has managed to get the work done ahead of time, take the next day off, but still get paid for it. ...heh...

ROTFL, Skarjj.

Good point, Bugs. I'll have to think on it some more. The basic problem is that this is going on a majority rules assumption. Just because the voices of other religions that want to be represented (if there are any) are drowned out by the majority doesn't mean those voices shouldn't be heard. I think that basically what I was trying to say before. In your cultural context, you can go other places and find other foods/music/etc. but you can still find your more familiar foods/music/etc. You don't find the other things to the complete exclusion of your familiar ways (at least not too often).



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-21-2003).]

GD, the way I see it, if I were a Xian living in a predominantly Buddhist county, I would not expect to be heard over the majority. I wouldn't feel persecuted, I wouldn't impose. It's that simple. In the cases where the majority oppress the minority, ah now that is a different matter altogether. That should not be allowed. But I do not accept the argument that merely viewing symbols that you don't accept on government buildings constitutes oppression. I go back to my original example about me not expecting my minority opinion to dominate the majority.

. . : slicePuzzle

Regarding the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse... normally, I wouldn't consider a religious symbol to imply a religious entanglement with government. However, in this particular case, the content is too similar. The courthouse is dedicated to enforcing the laws of Man; for it to have a monument proclaiming the laws of God is quite obviously (to my eyes) combining or confusing the secular and religious realms.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

Except it wasn't an opinion directed at removing the symbol. It wasan opinion directed at being equally represented. Taking nothing away from anyone. I agree that the minority shouldn't expect to stop the majority from doing things. But it is the majorities responsibility, by Constituional Law no less, to accept minority equality.

Your right Sk,

I think what I am trying to convey is that the writers are telling us the 7th day of rest gives us the message in regard to mankind 's completion of toil and labor and to reap what we have sowed and then take a rest and be glad and thankful is the story of creation. By offering up to God, we are imitating what God did like God is showing us what to do like a master plan. God worked to give us a good world, saw it, liked it, was content and glad it was done and took rest. We do that too every week. We thank God its Friday, clean, wash clothes, pay bills on Sat and relax on Sun. But how we give thanks is by meeting as a family of belivers praying and worshiping and most of all thanking in a communal way.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

Um, I go to sleep for 10 or so hours, and there's some 20 more posts... okay...

>> [Bugimus said...] metahuman, before you throw around insults like that you may want to do a little introspection. I'm sorry but I think you are generalizing to the point of inaccuracy. Some of the founders were most certainly deists and many were christians. Nearly all of them based their views on Judeo-Christian teachings. I think if you look into it you will find that is the case. Keep in mind that having a foundation on Judeo-Christian concepts does not mean you are an overtly religious person or for that matter religious at all.

[reply from a 2001 discussion]
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 7).

If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so? In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

[in addition...] http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_founders.html http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm

Need I say more?

>> [DL-44 said...] Posting the 10 commandments in the courthouse, complete with commandments speaking of how to treat god, is absolutely wrong. It implies that the court does not uphold the state's laws, but rather their own vision of "god's" laws.

[my reply]
Yes, they might as well post Lollipop Lust Kill's lyrics to "Knee Deep in the Dead."
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/lollipoplustkill/mysocalledknife.html#5

>> [Jade said...] What is your argument for proof of no God? What is the athiesim creed you go by. I want to get educated on what athiest believe. Give me a list of points to draw on to believe a creator of all does not exist.

[my reply]
An atheist is one who lacks god-beliefs of any kind. The following article ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm ) gives a basic rundown on the meanings of "agnostic" and "atheist", the definition of atheist used by Christians, and the definition of atheist that is used by nontheists. It is obvious that communication cannot exist between two entities if each entity uses separate definitions. I urge you to use the nontheist definition as it is less prejudicial than the Christian definition. Many people (including atheists) are miseducated on this issue and some atheists are fanatic in their attempts to dissuade Christians from their faith, to answer the question of "God's" existence, or to bash the "Heaven" out of religionists. This is not the way that many atheists, agnostic or not, advocate, and unfortunately, most of the attacking atheists were former Christians. The pattern is clear.

I would also point out that by using the Christian definition of atheism while we use our accurate definition of atheism is equivalent to skinheads defining blacks and blacks defining themselves. Recently, the Atheist Coalition in San Diego (CA) marched in the Gay Pride parade to send the message, "The Boy Scouts hate us too!" Photos

>> [Emperor said...] I suppose it would depend on what your definitions of 'creationism' and 'evolution' but as commonly expressed there isn't much cross over - if God created life on earth then this rather does away with the need for evolution.

[my reply]
Commonly expressed, this statement is accurate. However, there is a difference between biological evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, and evolution. Religionists tend to see evolution as a competing religion (evolution isn't even a science!) so they resort to creationism or the watered-down version named "intelligent design." Talk.Origins is a good site on both evolution and creationism.

>> [Jade said...] Why is it so impossible to believe that God did work thur evolution for a purpose that you and I are limited in understanding of? Why does some mankind think they should be allowed to know and have all answers in order to explain the creative nature of the world? Our human limited minds could not fathom what pertains to the essence of the creators intent. They fact that no persons have all the answers about life here and whats out there speaks for itself.

[my reply]
Your statement relies on the prejudicial definition of atheism. Your assertions also rely on the existence of a "God", which has also been logically "crucified". And again, your lack of knowledge of the various sciences does not prove your point.

>> [Moon Dancer said...] I assure you there are plenty of us out there who have studied the faith, who were raised in it, have an intimate understanding of where Christians are coming from, and have still chosen to believe something else.

[my reply]
As all belief is irrational... rationalists, humanists, and many atheists would reject to the idea that the majority of humans (which includes themselves) believe in anything. I do not have any beliefs whatsoever.

>> [Jade said...] Well Bugs it depends on how you interpret Genesis. Did God really make all in 7 days? Maybe, maybe not. The writers of the bible used 7 all over scripture to represent fullness and limitness. God made the world in all its fullness is how my faith interprets this. Doesn't mean the writer meant 7 days. But then again it could. The bible references sinning 7x77 times and God will forgive you. Bible story of even bridegrooms, seven lamp stands, seven deadly sins, seven scrolls, etc. You could interpret it like God made the existance as we know it in all its fullness. So how we can interpret creationism depends on how you view the scripture passages. I am open to the possiblity that God might of made mankind in his image, meaning spiritual image and bodily image came way before. God made man in his likeness by then concieveing a soul in him in its perfection. Genesis is story telling handed down like campfire stories till someone decided to write it down. I believe the writers wrote it in a way to make believers understand the essence of who God is thur Gods creative nature. It doesn't have to one or the other.

[my reply]
So many assertions, so little evidence of truth... By the way, interpretation of the Bible is a requirement to gain any information of relevant importance to your life. If you read the Bible objectively, rationally, and critically, you'll find that the Bible holds no value. The Unspoken Bible: What the Church doesn't want you to hear

>> [Bugimus said...] GD, the way I see it, if I were a Xian living in a predominantly Buddhist county, I would not expect to be heard over the majority. I wouldn't feel persecuted, I wouldn't impose. It's that simple. In the cases where the majority oppress the minority, ah now that is a different matter altogether. That should not be allowed. But I do not accept the argument that merely viewing symbols that you don't accept on government buildings constitutes oppression. I go back to my original example about me not expecting my minority opinion to dominate the majority.

[my reply]
The issue is far more complex than the mere viewing of inappropriate symbols and doctrines on government property. Nontheists are oppressed in the USA to some level. That level is described on many sites, which if you had researched beforehand you would not be making such blatantly false statements. As for the majority to dominate over the minority, in the future, please keep in mind the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights when laying your fingertips to the keyboard.

>> [Jade said...] I think what I am trying to convey is that the writers are telling us the 7th day of rest gives us the message in regard to mankind 's completion of toil and labor and to reap what we have sowed and then take a rest and be glad and thankful is the story of creation. By offering up to God, we are imitating what God did like God is showing us what to do like a master plan. God worked to give us a good world, saw it, liked it, was content and glad it was done and took rest. We do that too every week. We thank God its Friday, clean, wash clothes, pay bills on Sat and relax on Sun. But how we give thanks is by meeting as a family of belivers praying and worshiping and most of all thanking in a communal way.

[my reply]
...and now I'll just ignore Jade as he/she seems to be uninterested in discussion, but would rather use this thread as a podium to promote his/her irrational dogma.

Edited: Forgot URL to article on agnosticism.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

Metahuman-

quote:

---

As all belief is irrational... rationalists, humanists, and many atheists would reject to the idea that the majority of humans (which includes themselves) believe in anything. I do not have any beliefs whatsoever.

---

To defend my statement regarding believing something else, I'm going to quote one of your own sources...

"Atheism:" Belief in no God, and no belief in God" From Religious Tolerance.
You will note that nowhere in my statement did I say anything about belief in another deity or believing in anything else. The "chosen to believe something else," was an all encompassing statement. Whether one has chosen to believe in a different deity(ies) or believes that none exist at all was not a distinction that was made.

The word belief has many definitions: (From Mirriam Webster Online)
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive senses
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>
- be·liev·er noun

Note that one of those definitions is to hold an opinion. Are you trying to say that you hold no opinions? Or, that you have nothing that you consider or hold to be true? I'm sorry, but you will have to pardon my skepticism on that front.

{edit - spacing paragraphs for aesthetic sake}

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth.

By the way, About.com is in the wrong about a lot of issues, however, they are right to note that Christians and atheists differ in their definition of atheism, which is the reason I cited the source. Dictionaries also define many words wrongly. For instance, the American Heritage dictionary defines atheism as: "1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality." which is incredibly prejudicial. The entry was written by a religionist.

OT comment on Webster's: "Webster's doesn't even use Webster's!"

[from an earlier newsgroup discussion...]
> Peter wrote:
> I'd say illogical more than irrational (for the generalisation on belief).
> For example, it is not logical to be sure that, say, the sun will rise in
> the morning. Considering the odds of it not happening though, it is quite
> rational.

<inclusion of the "all belief is essentially" statement above>

Like Mr. Lee said, part of the problem is vocabulary usage. We accept, not believe, that the sun
will rise in the morning given the evidence (events, etc.) we had acknowledged in the past.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

Metahuman: this could turn into a long discussion on semantics and connotations thus at this time I am going to refrain from continuing debate. The point of my statement was to clarify that not everyone who is non-Christian has been such since birth and is not entirely ignorant of Christian doctrine, dogma and philosophy. I rarely paint with broad strokes as to avoid speaking for "the masses" in attempt to prevent the resulting misunderstanding above. Obviously this time I erred, and will modify my statement accordingly.

jade-

quote:

---

In regard to the ten commandemnts in keeping church and state separate, doesn't the president of the USA take his oath of office on a bible, which contains the 10 commandments?

---

Constitutionally, taking oath on the Bible is not a requirement. Here is what the US Constitution has to say about procedures when the president takes office...

quote:

---

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

---

Theodore Roosevelt has been the only US president to not take the oath of office on the Bible. Franklin Pierce did not swear the oath of office, but affirmed.

{edit - fixing tags}



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

I wonder if we'll ever see Gabriel again...

Speaking of oaths, wasn't the penalty under perjury oath "recently" modified to discard the question, "Do you swear upon the Bible to..."?

I have my doubts, counterfeitbacon.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

holy crap.... (hm, no pun intended...)

Bugs - getting back to this:

quote:

---

The clause was meant to prevent a state religion from being established. Having the 10 commandments, a buddha, or anything else like that in a government building does not do that.

---

In this case I strongly disagree.

This is more than just a 'symbol' in a government building.

This is a building where LAWS are enforced. To be perfectly clear, the laws of MAN are enforced. Upon entering this edifice of American, Human, Law, we have a monument to RELIGIOUS law. A monument that is obviously intended to declare the righteousness and holiness, and - the part that gets problematic - the applicability of that religous law on the people who come before that court.

It has NO place there. Period.

Jade - I believe I have actually explained a great deal of my views to you on this issue. Number one being, there is no such thing as an 'atheist creed' that I follow. There is no lump sum of what an "atheist" is. An atheist is not something you are so much as a term to describe what the person is *not*. As in, they are *not* someone who beleives in god(s).
I have also never claimed to be able to prove that there is no god. I have simply stated that you cannot prove there *is*. And yes, I know, you "know" there is. And that's all well and good. But you can't prove it any more than I can prove you wrong.

As for the bible issue - yes, you are right. And that is also something that shouldn't be. As is "in god we trust" on our money. As is "one nation, under god" in our pledge of allegience...
But just because there are things that are wrong, doesn't mean that they justify the further addition of wrongs in other governmental areas. That's like saying it's ok to steal something because your friend did it too....



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

metahuman, the page you linked about the bible's "uselessness" is about as neutral as you are, entertaining reading tho. whatever the case, the broadness of your comments (God having already been logically crucified, the bible being useless) makes you look about as open-minded as gabriel. its really sad to me when i see people so set on intellectual thinking and reasoning that they miss the opportunity to believe in anything.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

It's unfortunate that you came to such an idiotic conclusion. If cannot argue the arguments, don't argue the person.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

DL: I beg to differ:

quote:

---

There is no lump sum of what an "atheist" is. An atheist is not something you are so much as a term to describe what the person is *not*. As in, they are *not* someone who beleives in god(s).

---

An atheist believes there is no god (or gods). As the existence of some mythical super being can't be disproved even if it seems increasingly unlikely that they do exist (there are always shadowy corners where such an entity may lurk) then to actually think there is no god (or gods) is an act of faith. In the same way I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness Monster and in fact there is probably more proof for Nessy than there is for God .

I have probably listed myself as an atheist a time or two in the past but I'm really an agnostic.

[edit: I do agree with you about the removal of the Bible - if it stays I demand the right to pin up some wisdom of Alisair crowley - pos written in blood on human skin.]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

metahuman, i don't have the energy or the time to go thru everything you stated, nor the desire for that matter, you've already made your conclusion so its rather pointless. you have your beliefs and i have mine, and it is probably unfair of me to generalize you and for that i apologize, after a while one simply tires of over-intellectualizing everything.

i'll go off to live my "value-less" life now...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Emperor - well sure. But my point was not whether or not an atheist beleives anything.

My point was that being an atheist is not like being a "christian" in that christianity is a specific religion, with specific beliefs beyond simply the belief in a god.

Atheism, on the other hand, simply means not believeing there is a god (whcih can also be called believing in no god...), and does not impyl anything further about the person in question.

In fact I also stated that it can't be proven that there is no god. =)

The statement was meant to illustrate that atheism is not a religion or an organization, but rather a simple disbelief in deities. An atheist's beleifs beyond that are just that: beyond the scope of the term.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

metahuman,

quote:

---

Need I say more?

---

Other than addressing my point adequately? I guess that's your call. My replies to you are specific and I am not interested in generalizing as much as I am interested in getting our facts straight. I am not suggesting that this is a christian nation founded specifically on christian ideals for christian people as some of the info you cite argues against. That is *not* my point and please don't assume too much about my position before you know it.

You said that:

quote:

---

The founders of the USA were Deists not Christians. They abhorred Christianity.

---

I agreed with you that *some* were deists, but *some* were xians and most were quite ok with xianity. But this is very dependent on how you are defining xianity of that I will agree. A strict definition would leave many of them out, but I wasn't using a strict definition. It would also help to know what *kind* of xianity some of them did have a problem with and that was the dogmatic and unthinking version that was prevalent at the time -- the kind that sought to establish state run religions and require religious tests to hold public office.

What I am hoping we can stipulate is that the Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts are the *foundation* of our legal system and most of the founders were more than supportive of them. *That* is the point I am trying to convey. Some of the material you cite supports this. In fact, Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospels! He said this:

quote:

---

I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man. --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824

---

I also find it curious, if not ludricrous, to read another quote from Jefferson after reading your point about the "uselessness" of the bible:

quote:

---

The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson

---

One more point for you. You said:

quote:

---

Nontheists are oppressed in the USA to some level. That level is described on many sites, which if you had researched beforehand you would not be making such blatantly false statements. As for the majority to dominate over the minority, in the future, please keep in mind the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights when laying your fingertips to the keyboard.

---

Did I not say that the majority oppressing the minority should not be allowed? Where did I say nontheists are not under attack from theists? Words are important and we should use them according to their meaning. I stand by my point that a nontheist simply *seeing* a religious symbol in public does *not* constitute *oppression*. That was my point. As to exactly what "blatantly false" statements I made, you're going to have to tell me what those were please.


DL, I am going to have to still disagree too. A couple of things, you stated ealier:

quote:

---

Yes, our laws may have a foundation in judeo-christian laws, but they are also basic values that stand quite seperate from any religion, and quite clearly omit the references to god or other religious observances. They are social in nature.

---

It is precisely because of that foundation that these are *not* separate. They were not meant to be completely and utterly separated to the point of revising history. Think about it, it is almost like we are ashamed that our set of social/secular laws partially intersect with the 10 commandments. We need to accept what has come before, and even celebrate it. However it does not mean that we are enforcing religion by recognizing its contribution to who we are.

This monument does have specific commands about how to treat God. It also has commands consistent with our own law. Having it there does not mean that those specific commandments are the law of the United States that the civil authority will be enforcing. It simply states that we recognize our cultural heritage.

Please let me be very clear about this. You know me well enough I hope to appreciate that I am making the case for what I think it *should* be and I do NOT represent nor do I speak for the protesters or that judge. They may very well, I am sure some do, go too far in what they want. But my point is that just having this monument is not a problem and only when the actions of that court over step the boundaries of our law should we act. The higher court says it must come down and they should comply with its ruling, but they should also do everything within legal limitations via appeals and such like to keep the monument there.


Emps, I use the same definitions you do regarding atheists vs. agnostics. But I am also flexible depending on who is involved in the discussions since these definitions seem so fluid sometimes.


GD,

quote:

---

Except it wasn't an opinion directed at removing the symbol. It wasan opinion directed at being equally represented. Taking nothing away from anyone. I agree that the minority shouldn't expect to stop the majority from doing things. But it is the majorities responsibility, by Constituional Law no less, to accept minority equality.

---

I want to make sure I'm clear. Are you saying that everyone must be equally represented in all districts? If not, then we have a problem with having monuments on public property. If that is your point, then isn't that virtually impossible to attain? I would prefer to have the local community's stuff up and then accomodate people that come in and request represtation progressively.

[edit] poor wording and spelling [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-22-2003).]

nicely stated bugs. i personally have had issues with this as i find myself realizing the need to separate my personal beliefs from certain aspects of how government should work based on the idea of freedom of religion. i think the historical context of this is very important tho, good stuff.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

I want to make sure I'm clear. Are you saying that everyone must be equally represented in all districts? If not, then we have a problem with having monuments on public property. If that is your point, then isn't that virtually impossible to attain? I would prefer to have the local community's stuff up and then accomodate people that come in and request represtation progressively.

---

No. I'm not. What I'm saying is that any portion of the community that requests representation in this sort of sense is endowed with the right to have it via the constitution. In other words, There is a monument in the court house. There are people protesting it. Instead of bitching about not being represented (or only a group they don't agree with being represented), they should ask to BE represented. I used to have big issues with religiously directed monuments/postings in schools and government buildings, especially since there are non-religious ways to say pretty much the exact same thing, but not so much anymore... providing that the minority gets represented if they ask to be. If they don't ask to be represented... fine. If they do ask, it better happen. I'm not expecting that once a singular monument goes in someplace that thousands of monuments get added to represent people who aren't there to appreciate it. The point is that there are other people that may want to be represented and I have the feeling that they will be ignored because they aren't the majority. It's just flat out goes against what the constitution says this country should be like.

A point I'd like to make. I don't see our laws as being religiously driven. Nor do I see morality as being relgiously driven. People don't need God to tell them what is right and wrong. Just because God's laws were written 2000 years ago doesn't mean that every law since then has been patterned after the Ten Commandments. Things overlap because, barring the purely religious commandments, the rest just make sense in every context not just religious ones.

[EDIT]Clarification... and typos[/EDIT]


[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-22-2003).]

I think a distinction can be made regarding the foundations of the US laws... The Constitution in and of itself is a purely secular document. In several places where oaths are mentioned, the taker of office is given the choice between a religious oath or a secular affirmation. The creators of this document left room to accomodate both points of view.

However, many of the creators were religious men. They based our laws off of what they felt were fair, just and moral guidelines that came from their varying religious backgrounds (be they Christian, deist, etc...). I agree that secular mores and religious ones overlap. I don't believe however that in the development of the principle laws of this country religious backgrounds were ignored in the spirit of separating Chruch and State.

I don't find this problematic as a non-Christian. It doesn't even bother me so much that the cash in my pocket says In God We Trust. Where my issue comes in is when any one faith tries to exert it's influence in the public sector to forward it's own cause. I don't appreciate only Christian doctrine posted in public schools and a non-Christian teacher is ostracized and criticized for her faith. I would feel the same way were the reverse the case where (take your pick of religion) doctrine is dominant and a Christian teacher driven out.

I feel that education about religion is important. I think that all students should learn (in an objective setting about as many religions as they can to encourage better understanding. The history of religion is inextricably intertwined with the history of the world; learning about them only brings greater understanding to where we have come today.

GD, I an in complete accord with your first paragraph

On the second, I don't quite agree. I think the difference in our opinions would be that in your case right and wrong are wholly defined by MAN and are subject to change. In my view, that is the way it works on our level BUT what we, MAN, decide to be right and wrong may or may not be so as compared to the ultimate judge of right and wrong. That ultimate judge cannot be one of us. It absolutely must be an outside standard AND one with authority to decide. That can only be a creator god.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well... I don't define "right" and "wrong" in my life. It either fits with my Rede or it doesn't. I do see your meaning though. In that aspect however connecting that which connot be of man to mankinds judicial structure seems imprudent. Emulation is one thing but if man's bastardization of the 'outside' judge's intent causes such trouble, and doesn't matter anyway, why do people insist on trying to join the two? Isn't that what is at the heart of the separation of church and state? To allow life to go on without causing strife of this kind? Those who believe that our laws, as far as they go, don't matter because God is the greater judge, don't need to associate the two together because they already believe it doesn't matter. For those who don't believe that, it matters a great deal because the connection has been made between the Ten Commandment and social law. It raises the feeling of persecution those following minority religion feel, even if that isn't the intent of the monument (in this case). Such things start out small and grow into things they ought not to have become. Can you honestly say that you believe this won't start a wave of such connections in the minds of the people in that community? Is it so unreasonable to fear that those connections will apve the way for a 'moral majority' propaganda movement that results in a 'morality court' instead of a 'legality court'? The idea raises dangerous questions, and lots of fear. People get stupid when they are scared. Hence all of the protests about something that makes no sense to protest.

[EDIT]MD - Religiously influenced, yes. But not religiously enforced or mandated. That was my meaning.[/EDIT]



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-22-2003).]

Gabriellll... say hello to your newww assholeeee

>> [Emperor said...] An atheist believes there is no god (or gods). <snip> I have probably listed myself as an atheist a time or two in the past but I'm really an agnostic.
An atheist is simply one without god-beliefs. Your definition of atheist as well as the definition from American Heritage is wrong, but true for some atheists who think it is their duty to trounce religionists, etc. Anything that is provisionally true is at least theoretically falsifiable. Since the existence of gods (or "God") can neither be proven true or false, it is not a truth. In addition, the question of such an existence is also irrelevant (even though many fanatical atheists will disagree with me). Agnosticism is a concept and it regards how one thinks. Most people who consider themselves agnostic also consider themselves atheistic which is a valid consideration. You can be an agnostic atheist, but you cannot be an agnostic theist since agnostics do not hold god-beliefs either. However, agnostics, like some groups of atheists, are open to the possibility of the existence of gods (or "God"). I know the reason why many agnostic atheists would separate themselves from typical atheists and I also separate myself. In case you didn't read it, I'm an atheistic humanist-rationalist.

OT >> [Fig said...] you've already made your conclusion so it's rather pointless.
Ditto.

>> [DL-44 said...] The statement was meant to illustrate that atheism is not a religion or an organization, but rather a simple disbelief in deities. An atheist's beleifs beyond that are just that: beyond the scope of the term.
Correct.

>> [Bugimus said...] Other than addressing my point adequately? <snip> <insert a bunch of rubbish about Judeo-Christian foundations> <snip> It simply states that we recognize our cultural heritage. <snip> Emps, I use the same definitions you do regarding atheists vs. agnostics. But I am also flexible depending on who is involved in the discussions since these definitions seem so fluid sometimes.
Your point was incorrect and addressed accordingly.

[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379

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 toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78 (this relates to the posting of the commandments on GOVERNMENT property)

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787. (original capitalization of the word god is retained per original)

It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to N. G. Dufief, April 19, 1814 (read Alvin Platinga's Theism, Atheism, and Rationality)

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814, referring to the University of Virginia (this also applies to current issues regarding the exclusion of science and the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design))

I've archived Nettelhorsts' Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State.

>> [GrythusDraconis said...] I don't see our laws as being religiously driven. Nor do I see morality as being relgiously driven. People don't need God to tell them what is right and wrong.

It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

>> [Moon Dancer said...] <insert a bunch of good stuff>
I'm going to quote you on that.

OT >> [Sanzen said...] Gabriellll... say hello to your newww assholeeee


>> [Fig & Bugimus said...] <insert something about a statement that the Bible is useless>
I never said that the Bible is useless. I said it holds no value (inherent worth, importance, merit, or usefulness) if reviewed in a objective and critical manner. In this case, "usefulness" is scientific usefulness which is entirely different than the common definition of "useless".

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

A little obsessed with Thomas Jefferson there aren't we? I count 14 seperate quotes from him in that one post...a record I think, for quoting from the one historical source.

Please, I must ask, for the purposes of clear reading and understanding, don't quote that many sources at one time, one after another...boring to the eye, doesn't capture the reader, kinda makes them switch off and it makes it harder for you to get your point across.

Plus the fact that if it is in fact your point...please make it yourself...you don't need to quote one person a million times to make a personal point.

*shrugs*

ADD?

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Ok, what am I to conclude with all those quotations? Was that supposed to be a review of many of the things I already knew about Jefferson? I don't see how those quotes either support or deny anything I was trying to say. Jefferson was a deist and held the bible and God in the utmost regard. What he hated was all of the superstition that he believed was added to true belief in God via the apostles and later followers. In fact, I would partially agree with that, excluding the apostles though . Certainly other followers went astray in all sorts of ways.

But anyway, perhaps we can take a step back and define exactly what you think I am saying compared to what I'm actually typing with this keyboard. Quotes are great but quotes without your thoughts leave me guessing. You said:

quote:

---

Your point was incorrect and addressed accordingly.

---

It is quite possible you already consider yourself more intellectually gifted than someone whose name begins with b-u-g, so go ahead and spell out exactly what I said originally that was incorrect since I thought I was the one correcting you.

. . : slicePuzzle

Honestly, only 3-4 of those quotes related to this thread. I just couldn't help myself.

As for what you said, well, I cannot find your initial message to which I responded.

By the way, your site is very purple. That's the first purple site I've seen.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-23-2003).]