BobbyMike
Member
Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049 |
Wow Toby, what a torrent. I'll try to work through your comments first.
quote:
You mean the doubleplus ungood double-speak? Sorry, but I'm loath to accept either belief extreme's terms to define what I think.
??? Don't quite understand what your saying here, unless that you plan on relying on yourself, not the Lord. OK fine. Thta's a choice he gave you.
quote:
You're missing the point. The context was separation of church and state, remember? When the state is not separated from the church, any person under the rule of the state has to abide by it. IOW, you can't say that unbelief wasn't persecuted, only heresy, since living in the state and not believing in the state's doctrine (if it became known) _was_ heresy.
No, you're missing the point. The original decision to NOT have an "official" religion had to do with the Christian's not wanting to have any doctrinal oppresion in the US. How that decision got changed into "no religion at all" is interesting. Since the term "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution how does it now have the force of law?
quote:
Strange how the state and religion can do that when they mix. Stranger still how you see this as _disproving_ the idea that church and state should be separated.
No it isn't. The Pilgrims, et al were fleeing from religious presecution. They were highly religious themselves, and the thought of removing that belief from any part of their lives was unthinkable. They didn't want that same kind of religious intolerance to occur here - so no official religion. It was about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
quote:
You may want to look up the difference between correlation and causation. One could quite accurately say that _my_ general principles are the same as the general principles of Christianity.
What? Are implying a correlation here? The quote doesn't seem to support that. I sense double-talk here. As to your belief I can't say.
quote:
I don't notice any non-religion-biased sources there.
Can you name anyone that's non-religious that spends anytime deeply researching this? Does it discount the work done. How about reading all that a person writes, identifying the bias (everyone has one) and making a decision based on the facts presented? Because Einstien believed in God, does that make his work any less cogent?
Here's some non-religious men quoting about evolution. Will it change your mind about evolution, probably not:
quote:
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleoanthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
and
quote:
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
and
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967)
What does the religious background of the scholar have to do with the research, unless that you're implying that religous scholars are untrustworthy....
quote:
If all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, why weren't the slaves freed the second the Declaration of Independence was signed?
The same reason that women couldn't vote, because man is weak and prone to sin. I didn't say that those Christians (or any) were perfect.
quote:
Yes, obviously because I don't buy into religion-biased interpretations, I must be ignorant.
No, ignorant is not a willful state. Your decision falls under closed minded. How about read the facts (ie. the original texts, writings) that he has researched and ignoring his "religion-biased interpretations"? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What you seem to be ignoring is that everybody has a religious bias. Including yourself.
quote:
Seems quite fair considering that it's in the context of a discussion about the beliefs of a religion (Christianity) being a de facto part of a nation (US). Do you think that the government of India is not made up of Hindus?
Since my original quote was about Jainism, which is very distinct from Hinduism, it's not fair, merely distraction. Since it's been pretty well documented that Judaism birthed both Christianity and the Islamic religion would it be fair to lump them all together? It's generalism.
quote:
If the government of the US was founded as a Christian government, and a Christian belief was that all slaves should be set free, ...well, draw your own conclusions.
Are there any slaves left/allowed?
quote:
Of course, when there is later a scientific explanation discovered, the scientist is called a heretic.
???? A scientist explained how a priest in Paris knew my first name although he had never met me, or anyone I knew, before?
A scientist explained how my friend Phil Herrick (he works in the hospital where he was to be treated) was cured of cancer (brain tumor disappears completely day before surgery)?
Shouldn't you have said "if a scientist...", or is your bias showing?
Hi John,
quote:
Fair comment, so I should clarify myself. I pointed out that there is no major pacifist religion. It was pointed out, correctly, that Jainism (the Quakers would also make a good example) are pacifist. However, the Jains and Quakers are relatively small sects which have had little, if no, effect on the defense policies of the countries they live in, which are both among the best-armed countries in the world. Both countries are democracies, and a shared consensus among Christians in the US or Hindus in India would be politically significant. I claim that no such shared consensus exists, in any religion.
and
quote:
This, incidentally, is not to deny that the New Testament is at the same time peaceful. There is a legitimate time for violence and there is a legitimate time for peace; no major religion flatly denies this, and there is no "Religion of Peace."
Your actually stating two different things. You originally finished off your quote saying there was no "Religion of Peace", later you state that there is "no major pacifist religion." Two different things. Neither correct, but still not the same things. Your interpetation of Christianity is more Jeffersonian than anything. It denies anything that Jesus stated about peace, love and mercy. To be Christian means to follow Christ. Again, find me one quote where Jesus says it's OK to kill, just one that's all I ask.
quote:
So which of the Creation accounts is correct?
um, the one in Genesis? If you're talking about Genesis 1 and 2, they both refer to the same events, and don't contradict each other. Unless you read them out of context.
quote:
You'd think divinely inspired writers would do better than that.
I wasn't commenting on the writings, but the ability for someone to get anything they want out of something, if they take it out of context. If I wanted to disprove the theory of evolution only using quotes from Darwin I could make a pretty good case (he was like most people and had a lot of doubts)- if I picked and chose quotes.
quote:
I notice that your definition of Christian appears to reject virtually every Christian who ever lived.
My definition? Please reiterate for me my definition.
Hi Toby again,
quote:
Actually, I wasn't speaking nearly as much to religious motivation as much as political motivation. I think regardless of how liberal or conservative one's interpretation of the bible is, that they'd think that prayer in the legislature falls under the categorization of Matthew 6:5, and can hardly be considered Christian of the majority of participants. I'd have thought such would be obvious to someone with Matthew 6:21 in their sig.
So, every US politician, who evere served, is venal and not capable of any true religious belief? How cynical and de-humanizing.
As I appear to be a little better read in the lives of our Founding Fathers, I will hold off commenting specifically. You keep saying you have read up on this subject Toby, but your comments make me think that you're not actually quite so well read. It's appears useless to discuss this with you right now, as I don't know what you have read. Once again I suggest you go to www.wallbuilders.com and use it for a stepping point to access more writings. I do believe that your smart enough to read it and find the Barton's bias, but it would certainly expose you to a more complete picture of what's these guys actually wrote while they were making the decision. Since Madison was consistentyl voted down is he a good source later? Have you read anything on Mason?
We were talking about the origin of the US. I'm quite aware that there are many who state(d) that they are Christian, and they don't(didn'y) even try to live as one, merely being content to keep up appearances. I'm also quite aware of the huge amount of people who claim to be Christian and do a pretty good job of following Christ.
Gotta go the Flu has me
Michael
__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
|
01-09-2003 07:15 PM
)
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]