| Posted: 04 Oct 2006 00:47 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I just heard a short news snippet on Fox. Some girl at school was told by her principle she couldn't read her Bible at lunch. He told her it was against school policy when in fact school policy allowed for reading the Bible at lunch and even prayer before a test.
This is a first class example of the misunderstanding of the law by public school officials. They don't even understand their own policies.
I wish I could find an article on this on the net. I just heard it on TV a couple of minutes ago. Apparently the girl is going to sue the school. It's shame that public schools are so misinformed about the law they go on witch hunts for anybody carrying a Bible.
__________________
|
| Posted: 04 Oct 2006 04:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 591
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Those people are retarded. Why is the government so afraid to offend people? Captain America would not put up with this sh!t.
|
| Posted: 04 Oct 2006 11:37 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Nobody's perfect, Tim. He who has never screwed up at work before should cast the first the stone.
|
| Posted: 04 Oct 2006 19:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Nobody's perfect, Tim. He who has never screwed up at work before should cast the first the stone.
It's an example of the kind of mentality toward God and religious liberty that is being pushed by the ACLU to the point that public school officials in some cases actually think it's illegal for kids to pray or read their Bible in their own time at lunch or on school buses.
It's a symptom of a much bigger problem not just a innoccent goof.
Mistakes are one thing, but the question is would this particular principle back off on allowing the girl to read her Bible at lunch once he's been advised of the correct legalities? Probably not. More than likey he's convinced personally, that any type of religious activity on government property is somehow wrong and or illegal.
__________________
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2006 08:08 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
No, he probably just wants to keep his job just like anyone else, anywhere else. If he is unfamiliar with the law, well then he fits in well with the other 95% of America that doesn't know what is and isn't legal.
There is no giant concentrated effort to wipe out Christianity. Most people just don't care what other people think as long as it doesn't hurt them.
Now, apart from this incident, lets talk about the broader "War on Christianity" you seem to think some people are up to. Christianity has done fine without an endorsement from the state for a long time now. It has flourished when people actively tried to wipe it out. It was endorsed by states before and always caused trouble when this unholy union between church and state occured. Why does it suddenly need to be preached in every segment of our society on the public's dime?
I suspect the answer is that it is your thing, so you want to have other people get into your thing. That is a natural response, its human, but it ain't legal.
Coming from someone who spends a lot of time around educators, most of them just want to avoid the big dog and pony show that people get into over religion. First one preaches about Christianity, then someone goes on about atheism, then we get the muslims going... Pretty soon its no longer about school. Most educators with a job to do would just rather avoid all this showing off.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2006 19:32 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Basically, I'm not looking for an organized effort by the state. You read me very wrong. I'm looking for the government and the ACLU to just stay out of it. If a local city posts a Christian statement on a sign so be it. Don't make a fuss.
Don't tear it down, and don't condone it. Just get out of the way. That's all I'm saying.
But the ACLU wants every little insignificant mention of God or religion stamped out from public property. That's not what the Constitition was about.
If the Prez came out saying I want everyone to register as a member of the Holy Republican Church then that would be illegal,
but if the Prez said I'd like to ask everyone pray today please that would be cool.
The dang ACLU would love to kill even those innoccent type sentiments. Their working their way towards it anyway.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 04:12 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I don't read you wrong. I told you before, I understand your very human impulse to promote your side. You however, are ignoring those who disagree with your religious sentiments.
If you had to seek justice from a court displaying Muslim rules on the wall that you disagree with, then I'm sure you'd be making a fuss- as you should.
It was the same for black people who sought justice from courts with Confederate flags on the roof (less than 6 years ago). Oddly enough, the were not very assured justice would be done when they pulled into the parking lot and saw this flag.
You are not putting yourself in these people's shoes Tim, you just want what YOU want.
Well, not everybody else does.
So to ensure that everyone, even a presumably white, middle class male like yourself, can get justice and a fair education, displays of religion are not allowed public property.
This is in keeping with the first Amemndment since you have everywhere else to post what you like, (though you won't and harldy any businesses do because they want all kinds of customers with all kinds of money) and everyone who pays into the court system pays only for justice- not somebody else's monument.
Again, the Supreme Court and the American people keep coming to this conclusion as what the founders wanted. Its simple logic, a simple case and it isn't going anywhere. You should spend your time and energy on a more worthwhile cause.
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 18:50 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I discussed this one more in detail on one of the other recent posts, but like I say religion expression should be considered no less dangerous than expression of any other ideas.
When you say what if the judge was a hindu or whatever and posts his ideas. The knee jerk reaction is to freak out, but when one has time to think about it. It doesn't matter what I like. It matters what is right. If there were a rule saying a judge could not post anything, I mean anything. Then so be it. But if a judge can post news bulletins or an events calendar even, then he should be allowed to post religious material too. There should not be a distinction between one set of ideas and another set of ideas, facts, or personal opinions.
You can't shove religion in the corner and say it doesn't count the same as any other idea or philosophy.
And if worse case scenario somebody doesn't like the judges opinions or religious philosophy then the voters can vote him out, right.
Now what's better leaving it in the hands of the voters or having a small group of judges rule displays of ideas unconstitutional?
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2006 03:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Actually religion demands its own corner. They happily enjoy tax exempt status and likewise don't derive the state's endorsement (like you're asking for). This is the separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment at work.
Churches are one of the only institutions or entities we do not tax in this country. They don't contribute to the workings of the state through taxes as much as Ted Turner or Bill Gates do (both Democrats) so maybe we should let those guys post whatever they like in the courts. First up, "abortion is actually a woman's right". So they'll post that one on your local traffic court so you can see it every time you pass though. Wouldn't bother you though, you said yourself that whatever is posted there is no big deal.
Oops, you can't do anything about it! Most judges are appointed, not elected.
Tim, there is no logical connection to what you are saying with this whole "you can't throw out religion! Its a valid idea!" So is E=MC2. So is my grandmother's recipe for starwberry jelly. That doesn't mean we write it on the wall because I like the concept. If you're saying religion is no different than the other concepts of man then fine, we will treat it as such and not post it in courts unless it pretains to the legal system. It doesn't, so we don't. 
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2006 21:52 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
likewise don't derive the state's endorsement (like you're asking for).
No way dude, I'm talking about each person's individual right to post ideas regardless of their religion or where they are.
Quote:
They don't contribute to the workings of the state through taxes as much as Ted Turner or Bill Gates do (both Democrats) so maybe we should let those guys post whatever they like in the courts. Depends do they have their own spot to post stuff.
It all depends on one simple thing for me. Could the judge post a non religious plaque of personal interest in his court room? If the answer is yes, then no one has the right to say religious material is off limits. It's just another piece of personal expression.
So I ask you what is the answer. Can a judge post anything else he wants. Can a principle post anything he wants on a school bulletin board? If yes then it's wrong to stop them from posting religious stuff.
Quote:
If you're saying religion is no different than the other concepts of man then fine, we will treat it as such and not post it in courts unless it pretains to the legal system. It doesn't, so we don't.
You are just no fun, bud. Sounds like you want to live in a world with no free thinking or expression of ideas in government places. Honestly, I think all government officials could stand a few challenges in reasoning, philosophy, and logical thought processes, don't you? Couldn't hurt.
__________________
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2006 21:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I won't keep rephrasing the facts here. This is getting old.
Here:
1.) The founders could have written things your way in the constitution. They didn't, because they didn't like the government telling them what to believe about God.
2.) This is a dumb argument, and the Supreme Court thought so too. They ruled against your ideas Tim, and have been doing so for a looooooong time. Think both me and the court are wrong? Go to law school or get the ACLU to show how your rights are being violated. Best of luck.
3.) Enough whining about your rights being violated by the awful oppresive secular governemnt. You lay out all your nutty thoughts about Church and State on your own website for all to see ALL THE TIME. Please direct me to your website where you post the ten comandments, or did the man shut you down? You're just squabbling because preachers and pundits who want your money told you to be mad about this- so they can continue to make an easy buck off you. If you really cared so much about the actual message- you wouldn't be wasting time arguing to put more Jesus in the government- something Jesus himself did not pursue and the founders warned against.
4.) I do want free thinking in government. That is why I vote against the religious dogma that would put us back in the 14th century when there was no free thinking. Does that make me no fun? No, it just isn't fun for you. I can't apologize for that.
|
| Posted: 26 Oct 2006 20:53 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I found these quotes, very interesting, I suppose though you will just object to them actually being from those acknowledged as the author. I would love for you to disprove them if you could other than just say they are fake.
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.â€
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.â€
{Quote by Gunning Bedford, signer of the Constitution} I believe in reference to Washington
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." - Washington
"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country." {Quote by Nelly Custis-Lewis, Washington's adopted daughter}
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858 ) , p. 502. - Seems to me without this particular line of reasoning that there would be no freedom in America. What would Lincoln say today that we were all evolved equally?
__________________
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 06:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Hrm... You are correct. I am suspicious of your source. The reason is that George Washington was noted as using the term "Providence" in place of where we might use God so often, that it has fueled a great deal of speculation that he was a Deist, like many learned people of his time. So yeah, you're gonna hafta show me where you got that.
Before I get into the Washington bit- I'll say this about Lincoln. When the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, Lincoln was no doubt rather busy. The likelyhood that he made it though this long and boring book from '59 until his death is miniscule as he was probably more worried about the million Americans dying in a war that his election was the final straw in starting.
Moreover, if he HAD read the book, I'm sure it wouldn't have shaken his faith in God- not only because Darwin doesn't rule out the possibility of God even one iota, but also because Lincoln needed his faith prob more than any president until Kennedy had to worry if Florida would still be there in the morning.
So I don't think Lincoln had time to think about it, but the way he says "creator" doesn't stop HIM from being a Deist either. Of course, what the hell else would he have thought? The published discovery of evolution was only months old when he said that.
Getting back to Washington....
Now really, I wouldn't mind a bit if Washington felt that way, because he didn't govern that way. First of all, Washington had considerable pull within the Continental Congress, presiding over the second one. Had he wanted a more religious nation, he certainly could had his chance at it. Instead, the Constitution made no mention of God. The Bill of Rights only goes by the 1st amendment and we've had that conversation. Secondly on this same point- we brought up Reagan recently. Clearly he believed a lot of things he didn't legislate as well. He could have had 4 Scalia's on the Supreme Court, instead he picked Kennedy and O'Connor, partly because that is what the Senate elected by the people wanted. So lets say (ONLY for the sake of argument) that Washington actually did believe as you say. He wisely, either for political reasons or for reasons of good governance, did not endorse a pro-christian agenda in laws.
Now like I said, I doubt your sources and like you said- that doesn't suprise you. So just cite where you got this stuff from. It may be that Washington said plenty of things- thats how it usually goes with primary sources. Regardless, I've actually done some work on Washington, though not from a religious angle. I was suprised to read your quottions because everything I'd ever read painted him as a closet Deist. I suppose only Washington will ever know. Anyway, here's some of what I found him saying about Religion in politics:
"[In 1784, when attempting to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for Mount Vernon Washington remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...." He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, "a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118. According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)]"
"Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others." (George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28, 1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
This is a long one, but it makes me wish you would not try so hard to demonize the word "liberal" as it has had a long and noble tradition in the US. Generally, the founders were not fans of Edmund Burke.
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.(George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue Jews, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790." Found @ http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/hebrew/reply.html
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)
"In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." (George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)
NOW, all that being said, Washington ALSO said this in his farewell address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
From Washington's Farewell Address.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html
And from that passage I take this much: Religion can and usually is good for society and we should not try to do away with it. Hopefully, it will inspire people to do the right thing and without it- we really can't expect them to be good people.
Washington and I part company on that last part. I've known a lot of good atheists and I find you can't expect any more from Christians, Hindu's, Jews or Muslims than you can an Atheist or Agnostic. People are generally the same regardless, and that isn't nessecarily a bad thing. But in defense of the President, he probably didn't know as many Atheists and Agnostics as I do.
Finally, Washington also didn't say we could ever favor any of these religions. I'm religious too, and I certainly base many of my politcal views from there, but I would NEVER make a rule that asked people from another religion or no religion to see it my way on that point.
And I'm out of this discussion with one last passage, also from the farewell address (same website) :
"Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages wch might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"
Here he conspicuously mentions Providence instead of God, Jesus, Allah, Nobody, what have you. But that is hardly the point of this passage. Washington puts forth the idea that being an honest nation out for honest purposes is worth the experiment. Whatever Washington believes in, he believes it has connected our fate to how we act toward others. I couldn't agree more, and I hope everybody who reads this will think about that before they vote in November.
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 16:37 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
This does sort of prove one thing I've said in the past. Our forefathers thought of terms of other religions of speaking towards other denominations within the Christian faith. I don't think they even entertained the thought that America would not be based on anything else than Christian values.
Is he not asking for liberal policies within the Christian faith as to not attack one another over religious differences? That's what I got out of it. I think he's pointing out that religion has caused wars in the past, and in his day he thought that they should be past that at least within the Christian denominations present in America that day.
Quote:
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Key word here is National morality. The type of leaders we have, and the type of examples we follow tend to dictate our moral compass.
You see here is the tricky part that I see. If by today's standards we see a different morality from Washington's day. If the majority of folks suddenly said that shooting your dog on Sunday was ok, did it really become moral by the strictest definition, or did the perception of morality just change. Today's moral perception is all bent of shape, and if you judge by that then you will only be confused. First, one must try to find the actual and original definition of morality before they can judge matters. I think that's where political correctness comes in. It's not set in stone like true morality. It goes by the popular notion of the day.
Individuals can be nice people and not believe in God. I might find people who live their lives in what I consider a great moral decline as nice people to talk to. There is a difference between the two.
__________________
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2006 12:12 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Now wait a second. That quote doesn't prove the first thing about "other religions" only being other denominations of Christianity. With leaps in logic like those, I guess I can assume you think we should kick out everyone not of your religion. No? Then your logic here is invalid.
All the quote says is that he hoped at the very least that Christians could get along in such a society as ours, which eventually they did. Dude, stop putting words in his mouth.
As far as Washington and religious principle, well then one gets into what those religious principles ARE. I say picking on gay people violates the Golden Rule, but I'm sure you think we need rules to make sure they can't get the legal benifits of a married couple. I say you're pulling stuff out of the Bible to justify something contrary to the point of the Bible, but "TOE-MAY-TOE", "TOW-MA-TOE".
I say that people have NEVER agreed on morality, only now everyone gets their say. In Washington's time, it was perfectly moral to own slaves. This is the father of our country we're talking about here, and HE owned slaves. Nobody asked the slaves if this was moral enough for them.
Why are women steamed about the abortion thing? They say its their body, how dare we tell them what to do with it, that anyone who does so is immoral. I say, they chose once already to have sex- 90% of the time that it leads to a pregnancy is without the proper precautions, so they chose already and now it is immoral to violate the baby's rights. Who gets the final say on morality here? Either way, something immoral will be done. Maaaaaaybe the world is more complicated than that.
Don't believe me still? Okay, "thall shalt not kill". You can't support another war, ever again no matter what the circumstances- it would be IMMORAL to do so. But what if they attack you first? "Turn the other cheek", we are told. Again, morality is tricky.
Honestly, this is why I prefer matters of national security and economic to debates over social issues. The fact remains that we just have people, mostly belivers in some ill defined sort of God they cannot prove anything about, attempting to write laws that will be changed, to build as nice a society as they can, while the nature of the goal is also changing. Its ALL a moving target and to say things are black and white is just hiding from reality. The world is complex and we all do things at somepoint we think are right that we figure later were wrong. I say keep religion out of government so we can at least recognize the fact that we are not beholden to whatever kooky thing the rival factions of the God business have dreamed up this time.
|
| Posted: 30 Oct 2006 00:06 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Don't believe me still? Okay, "thall shalt not kill". You can't support another war, ever again no matter what the circumstances- it would be IMMORAL to do so. But what if they attack you first? "Turn the other cheek", we are told. Again, morality is tricky.
The actual meaning of Thou shalt not kill is Thou shalt not murder. In the New Testament in referring to the government the Bible says that they do not bear the sword in vain. The Bible clearly teaches that the government can for keeping order use violence where as individuals should not act lawlessly on their own for revenge or just for fun like a lot of crazy mad dog killers.
Morality isn't that tricky if you study the Bible long enough. Sure you'll eventually find stuff that confuses you, but if you keep studying over time you'll find the answer. Much better to be looking for and finding out what God says is good or bad than to just throw your hands up in the air and say I give up so let's go party.
Abortion is an example of misinformation the libs push. They never talk about the physical and emotional problems it causes women.
Quote:
rival factions of the God business have dreamed up this time. Dude, I believe in God, but I don't won't to make anybody believe. I just want the expression of religon to be ok as it is for public school kids to curse going down the hallways of school.
They can talk about sex and cuss and beat up nerds, but what the heck is wrong with encouraging a little discussion about Jesus or putting the 10 C's up. Don't you get it. The schools are battlefields bloody battlefields. Did you go to Catholic school or something back in the 40's or something. School is hell. It was back when I was a kid, and the current maniacs are going to be our leaders the next generation. You can paint beautiful liberal pictures all you want but we are in trouble with a capitol T.
Heck we might as well elect the Joker and the Red Skull for President in the next 20 years. Seriously, this kids will eat you alive. They need and I think the kids of America want somebody to say there is a clear morality. There is a God, and He does love them, and it's ok to believe in a higher power and forget about the survival of the fittest and all that monkey jazz. Otherwise why should they care. I don't know about you, but my teenage years are as fresh in my memory as if they were yesterday. Sometimes I think grownups completely forget about all of that stuff.
I don't what you say, it's better to take a chance and error on the side of morality and religion than to error on the side of a what a Godless society might hold for us. You disagree, I get that. You just remember these convo's in the next 20 years and let's see if you still disagree then. Ok, so when the next generation of kids is breaking down your door with a machine gun and your too old to fight back, lets see what you think then pal.
Thank you and good day. 
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2006 21:01 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Oh i'll never be too old to sic the hounds on some goofball teenager. I'm looking forward to it.
Are the liberals in any highschool the problem? I don't remember any fights with the theater club, the hippies or the "students for responsible government". I think the problem starts and ends with the egos of the basketball team, and I say this as a former basketball player.
Most of the "moral outrage" over those gosh darned teenagers is nothing new. Have you ever noticed that they say that about EVERY generation? Sure there are some bad apples, but most kids I meet today are fairly intelligent and somewhat better decision makers than those of previous generations. A number of the ones in this generation feel they are going to spend a lifetime mopping up their parents mistakes (i agree).
Was being that age ever easy? Were people that age ever encouraged to play nice? In centuries past, people this age were on the front lines of somewhere killing others for reasons most people can't remember now. They were being worked to death for the greater glory of whatever rich person had taken over their area.
Kids these days have got it great and are giving great results. It isn't old people dying in Iraq because they love their country. It isn't old people coming up with new companies to make the internet and economy thrive. its folks who went through the American highschool expereince sometime in the past 30 years.
As far as kids wanting moral authority, really Tim... you need to teach- just for one day. If anything, teenagers have an overdeveloped sense of justice that comes from a lack of life experience. Of course, they seldom recognize anyone else's sense of justice- hence the horrific high school experience you describe. So saying, "I'm right, because there is right and there is wrong and you are in the wrong" usually makes a problem a lot worse. Teenagers are acutely aware of the wheeling and dealing of uman relationships, it is the only thing they truly study in their day at school. Clear rules are one thing, but making rules for yourself about how you deal with each one is a recipe for disaster. If you don't believe me, try it- I'm sure they need teaching subs in your area.
What kids will get from learning evolution is a better understanding about how life works that will benifit the ones that go on to become doctors and scientists every day of their lives. For the rest, they'll remember about %10 of it and use it to justify their whatever their beliefs are on message boards for a lifetime. Not great, but better than we've had for the rest of human history. Maybe we can avoid some of the hairbrained theories that are tossed around about things that go bump in the night this way.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2006 01:31 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
What kids will get from learning evolution is a better understanding about how life works that will benifit the ones that go on to become doctors and scientists every day of their lives.
I'm not sure I follow, Danny so it's better for kids to learn a lie than the truth?
So kids are happier believing they came from monkeys, and that there is no actual solid standard for good anywhere? I mean there can't be any absolutes if there is no God so who makes the rules, and what is right and wrong.
I'll be honest I've always had a huge problem with authority. If it weren't for my belief in God, I probably wouldn't listen to anybody. I'd probably be on America's top wanted fugitives for spray painting Ted Kennedy's house pink with blue purple dots or something crazy like that.
I mean you got to have rules or the world would be in chaos, and if there is no God, whose rules do we follow? The 1st monkey-man?
So I can see how kids can get pretty mixed up in school today because I know who I'd be if it weren't for my belief in God. If I really believed I came from a monkey, I'd be meaner than a striped snake. I'd probably be boozing it up right now looking at porn on the pc, and then for run around knocking over mailboxes with a baseball bat, after I called up my dad and cussed him out for no good reason.
But that's just me, I guess you find it comforting believing you came from a monkey. I just don't understand how someone can make it in the world like that. Without any kind of hope.
Now that I've really made you mad, I'm glad your back. I was beginning to think I needed to post some really mean political stuff on the board to get you to post again.
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2006 13:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
If it weren't for my belief in God, I probably wouldn't listen to anybody.
Well, I guess some things must even be tough for God to change.
This is pointless. I can only repeat myself so many times before things get really tedious. So you don't think evolution is true- so what else is new. I heard you the first 100 times.
Look, I have no idea if you just don't understand evolution, or if you try to project an innacurate view of it because you're backed into a corner with regard to your logic. If its the latter, then I've made my point and people can see for themselves how warped your analysis is.
If its the former, then a good place to start would be Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" available on Amazon.com. This book is about 10-15 years old so it is a bit dated, but it is still a brilliant work.
Untill you demonstrate a better understanding of what evolution is- I'm done arguing with you about it.
As far as how I'm getting through life, I've got it great thank you very much. The things I've learned over the years have only allowed me to see how beautiful the world really is, and how lucky we are in this particular spot in in history, in this particular location.
So how can someone make it in the world "like that"? I've was fortunate enough to have the courage to challange my own beliefs. Its the only way I could live, sheltering myself from difficult truths is not an option. In the long run however, life has only gotten easier and more fun with each new thing that I've learned. I've also found a more concrete and realistic hope than any preacher could ever recite for cash in the collection plate. No other human being can get me to "take his word for it", so I've arrived at my conclusions on my own. There's nothing more spiritually satisfyng than that.
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2006 18:41 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'm sorry dude, I just don't get where your coming from. It's not about what preachers say. I try to get you to question your beliefs but you seem stuck on them.
You think the world is beautiful, well
just imagine, if you will, a beautiful painting. It sits there by itself with no one around. You can't see the artist that painted the picture so do you assume that it must have appeared from nowhere?
Further, if you take the time to study the painting you might even see the painter's personality or philsophy of life shine through.
Now what are the odds that a bomb in a paint factory could explode a bunch of paint cans onto a canvas creating a beautiful painting?
Now assume that after a billion years and a billion bombs go off that finally a beautiful painting is created of a mountain. You are still left with the question of where did those paint cans come from and the bombs for that matter. Like your mysterious gases that explode to begin the big bang.
Of course I'm not talking about modern art where all they do is throw paint onto a canvas.
Could evolution create miraculous things like vision for instance? Isn't a little silly to think because we needed eyes to get around that evolution provided it for us? Does evolution have an intelligence? Is it a god?
__________________
|
| Posted: 19 Nov 2006 19:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I've actually changed my beliefs over time. I don't believe the same stuff I was born into as a result of research and life expereince. Stop pretending you want me to "question my beliefs". What you want is for me to not question yours.
With regard to evolution, you are still approaching the question from the wrong angle which tells me you still have no interest in reading up on the subject.
Like I said- I'm done talking with you about evolution until you have a better understanding of the topic.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2006 18:46 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'm just taking an angle from the beginning and asking myself some very simple questions the way any detective might approach any other mystery.
You know you like to argue, so why not completely engage in this evolution vs creation discussion. 
I'm completely open to any logical explanation of where it would be possible for the building blocks of creation (gases, one celled organisms, or whatever) to simply exist by themselves. Tell me please. I'm listening. Here's your chance to prove evolution. Prove this one argument, and you win. You have to explain the origin of the very first building block though. Don't tell me the gas came from x,y, or z without telling me where x,y, or z came from.
__________________
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2006 12:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
You know you like to argue, so why not completely engage in this evolution vs creation discussion.
Because you aren't even asking the right questions. You have your conclusion and will do, say or convince yourself of anything to get there- sooooooo why am I going to waste MY valuable time trying to educate you on it?
READ A BOOK ON EVOLUTION.
Besides, I have NEVER said that God didn't exist, didn't have a hand in the creation of the universe or that scientists knew where everything came from. YOU tried to put those words in my mouth.
What I have said is that schools need to teach observable science and the observable science backs up the big bang. It backs up evolution.
Part of the reason the "Big Bang Theory" is the normal starting point for history through science is because nothing is observable beyond that. I don't know what happened before that and neither do you. Science is trying to figure that out, while you are telling people that you already know- based on something religious people told you.
When do YOU plan on revealing how you know more about where God came from than a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist?
I mean, forgive me for being blunt but the only reason you think what you think is because you were born where you were, at this point in history.
You live and probably grew up in Tennesse, which is a state that has always been primarily Baptist. Although plenty of religious people around the world and from a varitey of faiths have no problem with evolution, enough people in TN had enough of a problem with it to spark the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Saying what you've been taught to say is fine. Just leave me out of it unless want to give this more effort. When you claim to have researched your ideas and advocate me opening my mind like you have... I have my doubts.
I can only type the same thing but so many times. Thank you at least for bringing up my words per minute speed.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2006 17:54 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
You mean you can only ignore the same thing so many times.
Quote:
Part of the reason the "Big Bang Theory" is the normal starting point for history through science is because nothing is observable beyond that. I don't know what happened before that and neither do you. Science is trying to figure that out, while you are telling people that you already know- based on something religious people told you.
Here's the thing, I know my limitations, but I have faith enough in my own judgement and sense of rationality to know that in the known physical laws of nature nothing equals nothing every time.
Therefore there could be no big bang. There was nothing around to create the conditions for a big bang. If there were it would have been a supernatural occurrence. Which means it takes faith to believe in evolution, which puts evolutionist in the same spot I am.
I can look at creation and come up with all kinds of rationale for it being created by God, and evolutionist claim the same thing. The only difference is they won't admit they base their beliefs on their faith on Darwin. Faith being the key word here.
Here's a interesting thing to ponder. Most ancient civilizations have stories of global floods. Your average evolutionist would say see that proves the Bible is just a bunch of made up stories passed down from other ancient civilizations, but it also shows that a lot of seemingly unconnected civilizations believe the same thing happened. So a good detective might assume that there was actually a large global flood. Otherwise why would all these different groups of people who don't even believe the Bible have their own tale of a giant flood?
__________________
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 14:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Your big problem is that you are either trying to insist that the big bang means no God or you don't understand how the two are not mutually exclusive.
I personally think there is a God, so don't bother trying to prove it to me. The existence of God is not a scientific question. For more on that- do your own reading.
Now despite all that, the problem with your amazing analysis is that the same logic applies to God. Even if God IS supernatural (which I do, personally disagree with) then what came before Him? Right, He's magic.
Something isn't created from nothing, you say.
Correct, nothing doesn't turn into something- except when it does. If that happened to create the universe, be it God, gas or both that appeared, then it IS a yet to be observed part of nature and science. Show it happened or is still happening (as in observable increasing space between atoms, like we see now) and it is fair game.
But that is WHY God (for most people) is faith. No one has shown physical evidence of Him yet. That is WHY the Bible makes so much of Revelations, because at that promised point- we all get some proof.
Just saying something happens "becuase of magic" is not science. If you REALLY want to know why it doesn't show up in school, then there ya go.
Now caution with this next part- we're getting into deep territory. I would not teach this in a school or ask you to believe me- but to me here's how it works. (I am not as articulate about this as a trained scientist would be- I wish I was.)
Personally, I think a part of understanding God is that He or She or It is the sum of all natural law. Gravity could be called magic, especially if you don't understand it. Then one learns about weak and strong forces, and STILL comes up with "well, thats just the way it is, otherwise we wouldn't exist".
The Bible doesn't cover gravity, but we must assume that it is a rule of this universe, this reality. If there are infinate multiple realities (currently the prevailing theory) then we are here in this one- observing gravity as it happened to allow us to be here observing.
But even a multi-reality infinite number of possibilities universe has rules (namely that it is infinite and multi-realitied) that govern how things go down. Thats natural law. So if natural law is the ultimate rule and nothing is more all encompassing than God, then God= natural law. You might call it magic, but I say even magic is a part of natural law that can be observed by science- once we know a lot more.
By the way, nothing in the Bible contradicts this stuff, especially if you see it as the poetry and musings of the ancients, which has been selected for correctness over thousands of years. When people find something blatantly contradictory to observable reality, they tend to "retranslate" or reinterpret, or simply omit. I bet Jonah gets a lot less press than he once did! You even had to invent a Cain's wife explanation. Jefferson cut out all the divinity of Christ refrences from his Bible. Times change and so will this document, but most of it stays wise because of this process.
People are currently looking into some evidence that a comet caused the flood you speak of- because flood myths ARE common. Does this take God out of the equation? Not according to my theory detailed above. The way I see things, it HAD to happen and you might say it was God's plan. But I guess thats why they say personal realtionship with God. Your feelings toward the event are your own to determine.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 23:25 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well let me back up and say one more time for the record.
1. I admit my belief in God is based on faith
2. I simply want you or any other evolutionist to admit that belief in evolution takes just as much faith, just due to the fact you can't explain where the building blocks of creation came from.
It's remarkable for me when I watch some of these specials on TV that try to explain away miracles of the Bible. Their explanations are usely so far fetched that it would take another miracle for it to happen the way they scientifically explain them like Israel crossing the Red Sea.
Scientifically, I believe like in the case of the Flood, if you need a scientific explanation that God didn't just use rain, but opened up reservoirs beneath the Earth's surface, but God doesn't need a scientific explanation when all he has to do is speak the universe into existence.
If you believe in God, and if you think He used evolution for his means of operation then aren't you going the long away around to get to the same point. And if God did use evolution to create the world then wouldn't you have to include Him in scientific discussion. Wasn't it Einstein that said God doesn't play dice with the universe. So didn't even Einstein use his belief in God to help him with his theories? Don't get me wrong I'm not an expert on Einstein and don't claim to know absolutely what his religious standing was. It would seem by that statment that he must have believed in God in some regard at least.
You see I don't have any problem believing the story of Jonah and the Whale because I believe that if God created all things by his words then he could bend the rules of science most easily to his will when necessary.
You got to have an imagination. You have to be able to understand that there is so much more out there than can be seen with the mortal eye.
On God being a woman possibly, that's just not Biblical. God is always referred to in masculine terms in scripture.
Here's one more thing for you to comtemplate, I think I've said this before, but here goes again.
I think time doesn't really exist outside of God. He knows all things as if they are happening all at the same time. The same way a painter can reach down on any spot on a painting and make a touch up. He can reach down and effect the events of any time any place he wishes. The rules of time and space are made for our benefit like the way we create clocks that operate on the exact same principles every day. One wheel turns another wheel inside the clock etc.
We could take that clock and throw it across the room if we wish, and so God could bend or break scientific rules any time he chooses.
As far as alternate realities, I love the idea, and any show or comic book with an alternate reality story in it, I'm going to read. But I just don't think there is any evidence or even Scripture to support such an idea.
I love time travel stories, but it may be that no matter how long God allows man to live on this earth that we may never figure out how to go back in time. It's interesting Einstein figured out it was possible to go forward in time given there was a possible faster than light vehicle, but to my knowledge never came out with an idea for traveling backwards in time.
Could it be that God would simply not allow this. We get one chance and one chance only. To go back in time for do overs would make us too powerful.
For a deep mystery read the early part of Genesis
GE 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
GE 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
GE 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Quote:
and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. I often wonder was civilization possibly more advanced at this time? What about all the talk of advanced ancient civilizations?
And what was life like before the flood? Could civilization been extremely advanced then? It took only 100 years or so to go from wagon trains to space exploration. With all the thousands of years in between our world and theirs is it impossible to think there could have been something beyond our current idea of ancient cultures?
Of course I can ask myself these types of questions because I believe that the words in the Bible aren't just fairy tales. You might not even consider these type of possibilities. You really miss out on a lot of amazing things by not taking the Bible literally.
These verses are really interesting.
GE 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
GE 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
GE 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
GE 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Well got to go to wally world. I hear they are having a sale on Smallville dvds.
__________________
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2006 14:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ya know, there's just nothing better than about 4 hours of Smallville after a Turkey binge. Well, maybe 4 hours of Quantum Leap.
Anyway, this post does not bother me. We belive in different things, that is fine. You have some interesting ideas.
As far as this:
Quote:
2. I simply want you or any other evolutionist to admit that belief in evolution takes just as much faith, just due to the fact you can't explain where the building blocks of creation came from.
Can't do that. First, I'm not an "Evolutionist". I have never heard anyone ever refer to themself with this term- i have only heard it directed at scientists from the Christian right. The implication, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Evolution is a religious concept. That is not true.
Just because we don't have all the answers does not invalidate what scientists have found. There are plenty of unexplainable things (thus far) out there. that doesn't invalidate science, that is what separates us from religion, which goes ahead and asserts an answer for the unknown. Maybe thats why there is this disconnect- because you are so used to seeing everything through religion. Thats fine, but realize that Evolution is something else.
Again, the difference is that scientists are just looking for the answers and could be forced to change their minds any minute now depending upon the data. If God shows up and says he created everything, they would STILL be skeptical. But if God rationally proved how he did it- then they'd drop whatever ran counter to His research/lifestory.
As far as God being a woman, i always thought that was dumb too- I'm just making a point that God is not limited to one perception. Other people and cultures see this different ways and all are great, but equally baseless. We're all essentially agnostics if we're honest- we just hope that God is what people have told us He is. Science goes a different route- it shows us step by step how this could have taken place and why, given our evidence, it is pretty much the only thing that could have happened.
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2006 18:54 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
you are so used to seeing everything through religion. Thats fine, but realize that Evolution is something else.
Can't do it and I will try to explain the best I can.
I believe in starting from the beginning for one before I go forward in scientific theories or deductions as much as possible. Because if a scientist believes in Darwin's theory mainly because that's what he was taught in school, everything else he comes up with concerning creation is tainted.
That's why in court rooms, you throw out jury members who have gotten hold of biased information like news reports, etc. They are supposed to take only the evidence that is presented before him to make their decision.
A scientist taught to believe in evolution makes tests and interprets the evidence he finds through the lenses of someone taught to believe evolution as fact. They aren't really given an option to seek out other answers or face persecution by their humanist liberal buddies. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably end up doing the same thing if it meant not excelling in the profession I chose to make a living at, but then again I hate being told what to believe when I think it's wrong. I don't think I'd believe in evolution even if I wasn't a Christian. Honestly I don't.
The point being though, once a scientist has a biased opinion on creation and evolution it becomes much too difficult to question it from a new perspective. It's human nature, and it part of the stupid political correctness that controls everything in today's society.
__________________
|
|
|
