BobbyMike
Member
Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049 |
quote:
Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand what I'm saying there. You seem to be letting some biases about what you think I believe get in your way. I'm saying that neither you nor any other religious extremist (including atheists) gets to determine what my state of belief is. We should be beyond binary thinking by now. Unfortunately, computers seem to be leading us the other way.
Yes I did and I agreed. You get to choose what and how you believe. God gave us the ability to choose what we believe in. We are all religious extremists. Including you and the guy at the convenience store down the block.
quote:
Because law is not just about passing a law via legislature. It's also about a court reviewing that law should it come up to review (like a lawsuit) to determine if it goes beyond the powers granted to that legislature. In the case of church and state, this was done in 1947 (not the 60s).
That is a recent interpetation of what was written a long time ago by men who would have stated that clearly if that's what they meant. How is it possible that they didn't live under that interpetation if they believed so fervently in it? Those Court decisions are no more than revisionism intended to 'right wrongs'. Christianity didn't graduallly work it's way into this nations government and public arena. It was there before the government and the government grew around it. It has been cut out generations later by people who don't like facing the fact that this nation was founded under Christian principles.
quote:
Because law is not just about passing a law via legislature. It's also about a court reviewing that law should it come up to review (like a lawsuit) to determine if it goes beyond the powers granted to that legislature. In the case of church and state, this was done in 1947 (not the 60s).
A liberal Supreme Court vs. a conservative Supreme Court. I predict that the law will be reinterpeted many times. I was writing about the original intent. You're talking about revisionism.
quote:
In effect, they are the same thing where the _state_ is concerned. You are free to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose (including none). Strange how some of the religious wish to uphold Jefferson's communications with the Danbury Baptists, and yet ignore things like his edited Bible and the things he said which led him to be mischaracterized as an atheist at various points.
What I am saying is that it is wrong to remove the Christian theology from it's rightful place in the history of our nation and from its place in its government. No person I know, religious or not, would say that any religion or doctrine can be viewed as the official religion of our country. Where the argument comes in to play is whether there should be any religion allowed in the government (or public schools, etc.). A very liberal Supreme Court has said "No!" effectively denying years of actuality. (Why do people swear on a bible when they testify in court? Just habit?)
I agree about Jefferson. People on both sides place too much on him for their own purposes, ignoring his conflicting statements when it suits them. Jefferson was a very prolific writer and had much to say about a great deal of things, some of it interesting and some of it not so interesting. He had many theories about how a great many things SHOULD work.
I am much more interested in what they Founders were talking about when they wrote the Constitution, not years later when they were looking back.
quote:
I'm not implying anything....None coming from this direction. Look elsewhere.
Sorry, my mistake.
quote:
Non-religious isn't the qualification. No vested interest in religion is. Most historians would fit the bill. AAMOF, there are even some _highly_ religious folk whose views dovetail quite neatly with mine.
I think that you are being a little naive if you think that there is anyone out there that is truly objective. Everybody carries their past. Historians are well noted for bringing their own baggage into their interpetations of what went on in the past. It is a human trait. That's why you always have to indentify the bias. There is ALWAYS a bias.
quote:
What's your source for thinking that Einstein believed in anywhere near the same sort of God which you imply? Have you actually ever read anything by him? Might I suggest Ideas and Opinions? There are several things he wrote which directly refute your assertion. AAMOF, my views on God and religion are quite close to his.
What I said was that he believed in God. I didn't imply any kind of God in particular. He said at various times that he was atheist and agnostic too. (I spent much of my twenties reading his less mathematical writings because I admire him.) I was replying to your comment about non-religious writers. I found the comment silly because everyone has religious beliefs. Because someone is more upfront about it doesn't preclude them from being any more truthful than someone who isn't upfront.
quote:
What's evolution have to do with this? I think it's a really cool car, though, and if I were in the market to upgrade, it would be on the top of my list. But seriously, what makes you think you grok what I think about the other evolution? That must be your 'science bias'.
Evolution has nothing particularly to do with this, other than most people already "know" that it's true or not because they believe it to be regardless of the scientific (or lack of) evidence. It was just an example. I don't have any idea what you believe in concerning evolution. I wasn't trying to imply that you thought anything in particular. (I do know that you think about the Evolution now )
I don't have a 'science bias'. Science is cool. Too many people view science as a way to prove what they believe and have done so for years, ignoring any data that conflicts with what they believe. So I guess I have a 'bad science bias'.
quote:
If they think that Einstein believed in the God of any organized religion, and think that quotes with false dichotomies mean much of anything, then yes, they're untrustworthy.
What does Einstein have to do with anybody else? He was my example of a person who professed a belief in a God (although his view of God is vastly different than my own). Lots of scientists believe in a God because they see that the universe is too ordered not to have a creator of some sort.
BTW I use religious to describe peoples view of reality, much as it's found in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster here):
Main Entry: 1re�li�gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re�li�gious�ly adverb
- re�li�gious�ness noun
quote:
What makes you think I'm closed minded? Let's have a little logic test. Which one of us can accept the possibility that there is a God? I can, and obviously you do. Of course, I also accept the possibility that there isn't one, or at least he/she/they/it is not worshipped/recognized by any organized religion. Can you? Which one of us is closed minded?
First that's not exactly a good refutation of you being closed minded about scientists/writers/historians that you perceive as being religious. In fact you side stepped the question.
Moving on to your logic test and my belief.
Well, I believe in my view of God because of what I have experienced in my life, certainly not because I was raised in a certain belief system. I came to my belief by being very open minded and doing a lot of research into many different viewpoints. I have belief in the Bible as a source of truth because it has been documented as being historically accurate by many (non-christians, christians, etc.).
Hmmm. I believe in Jesus because the evidence is there and has not been successfully refuted.
Hmmm. If I believe in Jesus as the only way a person can be redeemed (because that's what he said, as written down by several different sources), can I believe that there is another possibilty?
(Well isn't that kinda of like saying I believe in gravity because I slipped off a ladder and got hurt because I fell to the ground, but maybe the next time I fall off the ladder I might not fall and get hurt- I'll just float?)
I can imagine it, just like I can imagine anti-gravity - but I can't believe it because I haven't seen/experienced anything else that makes any rational sense.
Is that close(d) minded?
quote:
Sorry, but my bias is apparently not what you think it is. Nearly all of the actual writings at wallbuilders, I've seen before. They still don't support the contention that there wasn't a desire for a wall between church and state. AAMOF, the Danburys were overjoyed because of Jefferson's election because they figured he'd keep one there.
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State
The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson
Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.
On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
Read again carefully and repeat after me "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," (my emphasis). That quite clearly states to me that not only is there to be no state religion, but you cannot also prohibit, by law, someone from freely exercising their own religion. If a child prays out loud in school, how does that inhibit someone else from enjoying their own religion? There has been quite a bit of loud teeth gnashing by non-christians about Christians practicing their religion openly and many lawsuits specifically aimed at removing all traces of Christianity from public life.
That's bias.
quote:
No, but it took a _very_ non-Christian act by the government to acheive it, didn't it?
How was the Emancipation Proclamation a "very_non_Christian act?
quote:
I'm sure one could. After all, John Edwards does similar things all the time. So do tent revivalists.
You've seen this, or have you watched it on TV? Actually neither of those disprove the teachings of the Bible. They both can support it. My 'miracle' in Paris was solely for me and simply answered for me whether or not God knew me personally.
quote:
God plays favorites? Must suck to be one of the countless people who don't deserve to have their cancer go into remission. Of course, I suppose the possibility that it was a misdiagnosis (along the lines of the woman who made the news recently because she received a double mastectomy when she had no breast cancer due to a lab mixup) probably wasn't considered since it miraculously disappeared. Did they cut him open before discovering it?
If you don't believe in him, how can you ask for His help? Jesus quite clearly stated that everyone is worthy of being saved, no exceptions. Don't blame God for not healing people, that sounds like that really whiney XTC song (Dear God ).
Gee I suppose it could have been a misdiagnosis. There were only three doctors involved. They didn't cut him open. They did xrays, MRIs, blood tests. They scheduled surgery and found that it had disappeared when they took the pre-op xrays. Then they took another MRI. They re-took blood tests also.
quote:
Nope. I've got history on my side.
Nope, you've got opinion on your side, different thing.
quote:
Sorta like saying that Einstein believed in God?
Well He used the word God, not god, many times to describe something. Was he talking about my God? No. Did I try to quantify his God? No. I simply said that he believed in God.
quote:
No, I didn't say that. I said that prayer in that setting would be contrary to the sentiment behind Matthew 6:5. It's quite human.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Prayer in what setting? He didn't say prayer was bad in any setting. He was talking about praying simply to be seen praying was not right. Your contention seems to be that they pray simply to be "seen of men". That must be your 'Political bias'.
I don't believe that's why they chose to start each session off with a prayer. My contention is they did so because they prayed before undertaking any endeavor because they believed that to be the right thing to do before their God.
The Bible is also quite clear on the necessity of praying together, in unison.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
quote:
I could say the feeling's mutual at this point.
Boy I get cranky sometimes when I'm under the weather. That was mean spirited. Sorry Toby. 
quote:
It probably is useless, but not because of that.
I actually have to disagree (I think I know why you think it's useless) simply because I enjoy debating with you. Because we hold differing views and I like you (at least the side I see here) I have to sharpen my thoughts into more coherent and logical order so I may communicate them. We may never change each others minds about where we are going separately, but we can enjoy (mostly) civil discourse and both be exposed to a differing view. You happen to be preety (I'm in Texas now, not a spelling mistake) good at this kind of thing.
Wrong, but good.
quote:
Hope you're feeling better by now.
I am. It's 10-20 degrees below zero in Austerlitz right now, and I'm in Houston (50-60 degree difference).
__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Last edited by BobbyMike on 01-29-2003 at 05:05 AM
|
01-13-2003 11:05 PM
Re: More Unilateralism
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]