God is Only a Theory

Quote Wrm:

"when you actually put reason to the equation religion falls apart.
while there might be a philosophical arguement for a creator, yours and don'tknows should heve physical evidence in favour of it. yet, there's nothing. all you have is a book. same as any other religion. a book and a tradition with it.
believing from a book with no evidence is the part that is stupid ks. running around telling everyone it's absolute truth even stupider.
when you have something to actually validate yours as being the truth and not one of the other hundreds to choose from, then come back and discuss this further."


I can see now why Joey suggested this thread. Thanks Joey... I get it.

Wrm,

As have said before,,, I don't follow religion... because it is man made. Whereas FAITH is GOD made. I dare you to ask GOD for FAITH! I triple dog dare you!!! What are you afraid of??? That God might prove you wrong,,, which will leave you with more unanswerd questions than a reasoning man may have answers for???

What are you blaming God for,,, that may have actually been caused by your own choices??? What has happened to you,,, that you blame God for... when it was caused by people in your own life,,, without any control of your own???

You see??? That's the problem!!! When something bad happens,,, the first thing a person wants to do... is blame God. The Bible is loaded FULL of those stories. I can name a few if you want.

I did that at one point. I blamed God for my mistakes,,, and blamed Him for the mistakes of others. In the end... I found peace by realizing which was which... and how God had looked after me despite of who made which choice I had suffered. While some of this may have been learned by reading the Bible... most of it was simply and honestly learned by having FAITH in the TRUE God.
 
Quote Bobsquatch:

"Well, I think I am done here. I do not see any effort by anyone to have a real conversation. I'm right, your wrong and stupid to boot seems to be the standard position here. I was kind of looking forward to an interesting and civil debate on a substantive issue. My goal here was to further my education on how my peers think and interact with each other. Goal achieved with much disappointment. I would have been very happy to have seen everyone put there best foot forward presenting their views and responding thoughtfully with differing opinions courteously and respectfully. Alas it was not to be."

Sorry if we have disappointed you Bob. Please stick around. Seems you may have something valuable to add to this discussion. Don't give up on God yet. BTW... I said it that way intentionally.
 
Quote Bobsquatch:

"The funny thing is KS, a lot of people read something like this and take sides immediately. It is too much work to re evaluate your position every time you engage in a tough subject. We all know however, hard work produces good results. One does not have to change their mind to benefit from the work. Just understanding yourself a little better after some reflection makes the effort worth while. I would guess at least half of the people who read post 80 were just skimming it and assumed I was being serious."

" It is too much work to re evaluate your position every time you engage in a tough subject."

That is a very good description of human nature. Stick around Bob,,, if you haven't left yet.
 
holy crap. this is funny. the difference between 04 and dono alone proves the problem with biblical crap.
you still haven't proven the bible as any more truth than the bhagavad gita.
trying to use biblical myth to prove itself doesn't work.
so, if somebody actually tried that praying thing, it didn't work.


you can march out whatever philosophical arguement you want. there is still no evidence of a supernatural being.
people watch too much effin hollywood and believe it just as much as the religious crazies runnin round spreadin their word.
majority just don't give a f***.
keep it outta my laws, outta my education system, and outta my face and you guys can proselytize and sodomize each other to all your hearts content. :)
 
Wrm,

Glad to see you are alive and well. What??? Were you holding back on responding to posts,,, hoping to see comments on your hopeful demise??? Nah... not gonna happen from anyone here.

Beyond that... ,,, ... Twice now you have touted the book of Enoch as the "be all - end all",,, and twice I have responded with verses from the Bible... that make reference to the book of Enoch. So you once again seem to accept an obscure Talmudic book,,, but deny the references in the Bible made to that same book. Maybe you need to spend some time educating yourself on what you are rejecting,,, because you reference a book that is referenced in the Bible!!!

I have also noticed,,, that you have not directly responded to any of the posts I have made... where I have challenged and refuted what you have said. If that isn't a "dodge and parry" on your part,,, I don't know what is!!! Seems that when you get caught in your own words,,, you just spew rejection of God without any knowledge of what you are talking about.

I've suggested more than once,,, that if you want to debate the Bible and GOD... that you become more knowledge-able about the Bible,,, and beliefs about God. I'm still waiting for you to refute any counter-evidence in the Bible,,, that disproves the book of Enoch... or vice-versa.

Point blank... in your attempts to disprove the bible,,, by using the book of Enoch... you have in fact proven the legitimacy of the Bible. So Wrm... YOU need to try harder,,, because you have failed in your own attempts. But then,,, this has been noticed... along with your diversion to other subjects and accusations.

The difference between Don and I,,, is not Biblical crap. It's the difference between "Religion" and "Faith". People of "religion" want to form GOD in their own image,,, rather than let God BE GOD. People of "faith" let God be GOD,,, and realize that they wouldn't have salvation... if it weren't for GOD.

So since your last attempts at diversion hasn't worked,,, you now throw out the "bhagavad gita". A simple Google search showed me that this is part of the Hindu "religion". Aren't these the people that worship cows in India,,, while at the same time people go starving in the streets??? They place so much importance on their "god", (cows), that they groom them,,, and adorn them with decorations??? and allow them to freely roam the streets??? A food source right in front of the pagan's eyes... but they don't see it!!! So people continue to starve and die.

Even worse... India is so into the pagan god of cows,,, that they have been injecting cows for the past decade or so,,, with antibiotics that prolong the life of their "god". When eventually the cows die,,, they are drug to a place outside of town,,, where the vultures eat the carcasses, (where the spirit is realeased). Thing is... in past years,,, the vultures have been dying off,,, allowing stray dogs and other canines, to eat the carcasses... spreading disease amongst villages.

In recent years... science has PROVEN,,, that the one thing that could kill vultures,,, is the anti-biotic that India was giving to their cows... to prolong the life of the cows. So it seems that the efforts of Hindu people... to prolong the life of their god,,, was causing the sickness within their own villages!!!

Wrm,

You started this thread... with the idea of science/evolution disproving "GOD"... and then went to the book of Enoch to attempt to disprove the Bible. So far you haven't proven "Jack SH!T"... so as far as I am concerned... YOU need to try harder to prove your point!!!

Chalk another point up for GOD AND SCIENCE!!!
 
What else you got Wrm??? Do we want to go into forbidden "politically correct" territory??? I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid to discuss recent tradgic events.
 
Come on Cammer,

Matthew 5:14-16

14“You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. 15No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.

Luke 11:33

33“No one lights a lamp and then hides it or puts it under a basket.k Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where its light can be seen by all who enter the house.
 
Let's take a look at human nature for a moment. People tend to gravitate toward whatever they prefer, that makes sense,,, and gives meaning to their existence. Look at cell phones as an example. While the I Phone is ubiquitous, there are still a mryiad of choices, that cater to a persons preference. Basically, whatever fits their needs, and strokes their ego, and makes them feel better about themselves having some control over their own lives. (while based on limited knowledge of how they function and operate). If you don't belive the part in parentheses... spend some time waiting in a Verizon store... and listen to the sevice people explain to "consumers", how to work their cell phone. (or fail to fix them when they f-up).

The same holds true for "beliefs". MOST people base their beliefs on whatever suits THEM best. When it comes to "religion",,, this holds especially true... because a person can then form God into their own image, and by doing that,,, make God into some sort of formula that can be manipulated. Some of the things mentioned in this thread should prove that.

However,,, at the same time.. some people choose not to acknowlege the existence of God. This is still a "belief" that suits a persons own ego,,, and helps them explain things that they don't have an understanding about. Lack of existance of God,,, explains what appears to be the randomness, chaos, and evil in this wold. Most of which is caused by human egotistical thought. Look at the history of Hitler for a moment for proof of that.

Evolution is a theory that does exactly that. It is a human rational thought process, that attempts to give order to what appears to be random and chaotic. This still comes down to human ego,,, in an attempt to explain and control circumstances that are beyond a persons contol. This can be described as a fatalistic attitude... or "fate". Also known as "determinism".

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=determinism

The same could be said about a belief in God. However, the basic primal concept of belief in God, (faith), does not stroke the human ego... because "faith" is reliance upon something outside of a person's ego. At the same time though,,, "religion" does stroke the ego. Looking specifically at Christianity for a moment... while there is a myriad of Christian "religions",,, many of them for centuries... have tried to reduce God to just a formula, (no different that many other "religions"). If you do this or that,,, then God will be happy with you and you will live a prosperous and happy life. In truth,,, this is no different than pagan religions that have a "belief" in god or gods. Some "religions" even believe that we become gods through "right works", proper living, and suffering... and attain perfection by" transcending" the human ego, (but in fact and truth, this is still human ego at work within the person).

The problem with this,,, goes back to the "human condition", (EGO), where most humans are self serving. Those of Christianity, are just as guilty,,, if not more so... for doing exactly that. Take a look at the "Crusades" for a moment if you don't belive me. A wrongful action against the Muslims of centuries gone by. At the same time... the Muslims had their own crusades against Christians. So no one "religion" is less guilty than the other.

Getting back on the Christianity/Bible track for a moment,,, umm... umm...

So where did the first idea of God come from. To find that answer,,, a person would have to dig back through history for a few thousand years... possibly with in the history of man,,, that the first 12 books of Genesis, (in the Bible), don't go into detail about.

Obviously,,, by the time Abram, (Abraham), was walking the earth... many people had created their own "religion" of pagan gods,,, and were sacrificing to them. But there is more to the Talmud,,,that is truthful history... buried in the stories of the bible.
But let's... for a moment,,, venture into the Jewish Talmud once again. Same place where the Book of Enoch came from... along with the "strayed" Jewish tradition about God having a wife, (during the time the Israelites were worshipping pagan gods). It is all part of factual Jewish history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=asherah+pole+bible

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=ashtoreth+poles

Let's dig a little deeper into where the idea of pagan gods came from:

Content of the Midrash[edit]

According to Genesis Rabbah 38.13 R. Hiyya, a first generation Jewish sage, tells the following story:

Abraham cast into the fire

Terah was an idol manufacturer who once went away and left Abraham in charge of the store. A man walked in and wished to buy an idol. Abraham asked him how old he was and the man responded “fifty years old.” Abraham then said, “You are fifty years old and would worship a day old statue!” At this point the man left ashamed.

Later, a woman walked in to the store and wanted to make an offering to the idols. So Abraham took a stick, smashed the idols and placed the stick in the hand of the largest idol. When Terah returned he asked Abraham what happened to all the idols. Abraham told him that a woman came in to make an offering to the idols. Then the idols argued about which one should eat the offering first. Then the largest idol took the stick and smashed the other idols.

Terah responded by saying that they are only statues and have no knowledge. Whereupon Abraham responded by saying that you deny their knowledge, yet you worship them! At which point Terah took Abraham to Nimrod.

Nimrod proclaims to Abraham that we should worship fire. Abraham responds that water puts out fire. So Nimrod declares they worship water. Abraham responds that clouds hold water. So Nimrod declares they worship clouds. Abraham responds that wind pushes clouds. So Nimrod declares they worship wind. Abraham responds that people withstand wind.

Nimrod becomes angry with Abraham and declares that Abraham shall be cast into the fire, and if Abraham is correct that there is a real God, that God will save him. Then Abraham is cast into the fire and is saved by God.

Abraham’s brother Haran sees what happened and says that he believes in the God of Abraham, is thrown into the fire, and is not saved by God. Hence the verse in Genesis 11:28 “And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” [7] The Midrash is not the only mention of this story - the Quran discusses the story in great depth.[8]

This can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_and_the_Idol_Shop

Notice that the reference mentions that the story can ALSO be found in the Quran. So now we have two related but diverse people/nations stating the same history... feuding over a "birthright". Regardless of the feud,,, it doesn't take away from the accuracy of the parallel history. It actually to a point... proves Bible accuracy. If then... the bible is accurate,,, when the full history of the bible is included... (including the Talmud and Quran that is historically and archaeologically PROVEN... by two groups of people that despise each other),,, that God exists. Doesn't mean that they are both right... but it does prove GOD as more than a theory.

It's obvious... by Jewish tradition and history,,, that the Jews had some sort of experience... and relationship with GOD, (THE ONE TRUE GOD),,, and then strayed because of their ego. If one were to read the Quran,,, they would find the same existential beliefs as Jewish history... with the only division between them,,, being a matter of who was first born.

So... neither side has refused to "lay down their swords".

Wrm,

Hopefully I have given you something to think about. Maybe I haven't exactly proven God as more than a theory... but hopefully I have proven that "FAITH" is MORE than based on superstition, (in contrast to "religion"). If I have done nothing to persuade you in any direction... sorry to disappoint you.

If you want a better understanding of Faith and Religion... I suggest you read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. But be warned,,, it is very "heady" and may be hard to follow. It goes beyond Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... and also talks about Hinduism, Buddism,,, and other "religions".

If you want a better understanding of Jewish history... read "Jews, God, and History by Max I. Dimont . My copy is an early edition, signed by a memeber of the Braun family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Dimont

If you want to go deeper into Christianity... look at The Desire of Ages by E.G. White. I have a family copy,,, first edition, from 1898.

I suggest you study what you despise the most. When you become educated on the subject,,, then... if you have a leg to stand on... make issue with it. I personally,,, will make issue with evolution,,, because I know it's "beliefs". I made issue at one point with Islam,,, but then realized that not all of that "faith" are out to kill Christians. Only the "radicals" are. In fact... if study is done properly,,, Christians are called "People of the Book" in the Quran... and are given special acceptance as brothers and sisters of faith. It's only radical Islam that wishes to kill anyone that doesn't align with their "religion".

That's all I have to say for now.
 
Quote Wrm:

"people watch too much effin hollywood and believe it just as much as the religious crazies runnin round spreadin their word.
majority just don't give a f***.
keep it outta my laws, outta my education system, and outta my face and you guys can proselytize and sodomize each other to all your hearts content."

In case you have forgotten Wrm... this country was founded on Christian principles,,, based on belief in God and the Bible. If you do the reaserch,,, you will find that most of "founding fathers" of this nation... were Christian. Along with many signers of The Declaration of Independence , and the Constitution... as well as the Bill of Rights. A big part of whay this country has done so well for so many years,,, is that is was meant to be a refuge and defense for the country of Israel.

And contrary to what is now being taught,,, and believed by many people... Thomas Jefferson's idea of Separation of Church and State... ,,, ... was NOT meant to keep religion out of government,,, but to keep government out of religion.

It seems that you are unhappy with this country... and what it stands for. If you don't like it,,, you are always welcome to leave. If you want to keep religion out of government... go move to a socialist country,,, where the government dictates and finacially supports religion.

I have plenty more waiting to talk about Wrm. I'm just waiting for you to respond.
 
Here is the basic premise of Separation of Church and State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Notice that this shows that the idea was based on Christian principles and ideas. While I do feel that other non-Christian religions,,, and people of no faith should be allowed to exercise their freedoms in this country... they in no way should be allowed to influence how the country is run,,, or what laws should be passed according to their own beliefs.

"Billary"... as one example,,, has twisted and misused the TRUE idea of "Separation of Church and State"... for a long time now,,, just to get votes.
 
"Separation of Church and State" was a phrase Jefferson used to describe his understanding of Religious clauses in the First Amendment. As he understood it, the "wall" separated the national government from the state governments and religious institutions. The Federal government was, essentially, secular. the State governments had no such restrictions. If they had, then the states would not have been able to have official state religions and religious tests for state level offices. the fact that they did shows that the religious clauses in the 1st amendment had no bearing whatsoever on the states. Only on the Federal government.
 
Glad to see someone else join the fray.

SD,,,

First of all... I really like your sig. Maybe it will shed some light for Wrm,,, if he comes back around here.

Next... I will agree with you to a point,,, but at the same time disagree strongly about other things. Yes... when the 13 colonies were being founded,,, many people of the same beliefs settled in the same area,,, to be with "like minded" people. This was because of the protectionist views that people had from what they suffered in England/Europe... before moving to this continent. The same was true centuries later,,, as people migrated to this country. Thus the Irish, Germans... and other nationalities all settled together as they came here. It's a part of human nature.

However,,, the "State" that Jefferson was talking about... was a "Nation state". I.E. "unified country".... and Jefferson was guarenteeing,,, that each individual branch of Christianity was going to be allowed to practice their faith. Some thing that was not allowed under the tyrannical rule of England at the time.

I have some e-mails to a friend from back around June of 2015, (after a surpreme court decision),,, that talk about this I will try to dig those up.

Back to the "Nation State" thing for a moment. Germany was founded as a "Nation State" back in 1871.... known as the German Empire. While it was not as relgiously diverse as the early U.S. was,,, it did have more than one religion. Israel became a Nation in 1948,,, but it wasn't until recent years,,, that Netanyahu declared legislation for Israel to become a "Nation State" of the Jewish people,,, even thought there are several differnet forms of practicing Judaism, (not unlike the many forms of Christianity being practiced in this country during it's founding years... and even today).

So the idea of a "State",,, was not about individual states,,, but that of a "Nation State",,, and Jefferson was ensuring the different Churches of the same "faith" would be allowed to practice their "faith" in their own way... without the controlling government of the U.S. deciding and choosing/forcing a national religiion, (like England did at the time).

However,,, the early established Federal U.S. government did still have legislation over the whole country,,, and had the right to interfere,,, when religion commited heresies similar to those commited by the church of England.
 
Not includion the person's name I was talking to at the time, (just over a year ago),,, the following is a driect "copy and paste" of an e-mail to a friend:

Take a look at this, and read the whole thing.



http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123



About halfway down the article,,, you will read this:




So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:


And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case - the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:


Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]



That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":


[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]



With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which - if perpetrated in the name of religion - the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" - whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
 
2nd e-mail to my friend as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state



2 sections you will find in this link:



I highlighted the red part below ... (and since I can't highlight in red on this forum,,, I will put triple quotes and arrows around tha part that was originally highlighted in red)




Reformation

At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[11]

In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Catholic Church's refusal (Pope Clement VII) to annul his marriage with his wife Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, the Anglican Church, ending the separation that had existed[citation needed] between Church and State in England.[12] The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab. This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.

>>>" " " One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain in the hopes of religious freedom. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress. " " " <<<



Jefferson and the Bill of Rights

Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause





In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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.[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of theCitizen in 1789).

End of e-mail to friend:
 
So CONTRARY to what we have been taught by the liberal media and schools, (including "higher" education), over the last 20-30 years... the idea of "Separation of Church and State",,, was not meant to keep religion out of government,,, but to keep government out of religion... unless religion overstepped its bounds.

And CONTRARY to current popular teaching,,, Jefferson was not an atheist. AND... the federal government was NOT secular at the time Jefferson penned these writings,,, because the founding fathers of THIS country... were "God fearing people", (go ahead Wrm,,, have fun with that notion), and knew that they existed only because of the Grace and Will of God. Give the Founding Fathers of this country a little credit for having some brains... and knowing that what they left behind,,, is what they were trying to protect this "Nation State" from becoming.

Take a look at where we are now! What was once clear,,, has now become very "muddied waters". Right is no longer right,,, and wrong is no longer wrong... and right is now wrong,,, and wrong is now right. Do whatever you please,,, and it doesn't matter... because there is no God.

A little over 400 year after the first settlers came to this country,,, much of this Nation has turned it's back on God. If one were to take a look at just the historical facts of the Bible, (ignoring any possibily of God for a moment),,, one could STILL see that this country is still heading on a downward spiral. This nation is in decline from waht it was. The recent happenstances talked about on the news over the last few years... should at the very least,,, point to that.
 
To re-quote Jefferson from post #166:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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.

Notice this part above??? :

" that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions."

Where are we now??? Most of the current legislation in this country is being decided by "popular opinion"... rather than what is right or wrong. We are now in the age of "man"... where opinion matters more than Truth.

As the bible says:

1st Timothy 4:1-2

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

2nd Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Cam... you sill around???
 
Wrm has been a troll on this form for longer than you have been a member. He and I have gone round and round countless times. It's not worth the effort in beating your head against a brick wall.

As to the issue of separation of church and state; David Barton (and Wallbuilders) is an awful source. I say this as someone who has, embarassingly, used them in the past. On this forum, even. I have since done more research and found much better sources. Barton is looking to make the facts fit an agenda. Same with Glenn Beck on this matter, and even Ted Cruz. You want a good source, look to actual historians. Tom Woods, Kevin Gutzman, and/or Brion McClanahan are all great sources and certainly don't buy into the marxist revisionist history we were all taught in HS civics and undergraduate history. Society is far more complex than can ever been seen by filtering through the narrow lens of race, class or gender.

I agree with you that Jefferson wasn't an atheist. Maybe a diest or a unitarian. However, he was feared as a supposed "godless" president when he was elected.

It is also worth noting that Jefferson really wasn't involved in the drafting or ratification of the Constitution. He was in France at the time. However, Madison was involved in the drafting of the Constitution. He is often refered to as the "father of the Constitution".

To understand the Constitution you do what Barton, Beck and the like do not do, but what Jefferson and Madison recommended; look to the ratifying conventions.

Jefferson said that the Constitution should be interpreted in ““the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends.” Jefferson also said, "The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible."

James Madison also claimed in numerous writings that the ratification conventions, in particular, where were the understanding of the Constitution was to be derived. In a letter to Thomas Ritchie, Madison wrote, “the legitimate meaning of the [Constitution] must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the Authority which it possesses.”

But even this is really unnecessary, given the clear text of the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The wording makes clear that the 1st Amendment, like all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is a restriction only on the Federal government, alone. As Jefferson explained it in the very Danbury Baptist letter where he coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State", this creates a religionless Federal government, but the states are free to treat religion however they like.

To ignore the Federalism inherent in the Constitution is to misconstrue it.

One final point; the USA was not established as a nation-state. It was a union of nation-states. It may seem like a minor thing, but it is a very important distinction as we are not a homogenous people across the country. Certainly the typical Californian doesn't hold the same values as the typical Kansan. Going back to the time of ratification, the very Danbury baptist letter was, at least in part, a response to Danbury Baptists being a religous minority in Connecticut, which, IIRC, established Congregationalism as the state religion.
 
I'm here and I want to STRONGLY thank both 04 and Shag for their contributions here. By the way, 'worm' is a Canadian. He snarks from outside of the US borders.

KS
 
There you are Cam. Glad to see you are still around. I think the "problem" has left. I tried to get LS4 in on this,,, but he had had enough in past threads. I will try again to get LS4 on here... and would like to see some of the eary posters of this thread,,, come back. This could be a good discussion,,, if a constructive dialog is maintained.

I saw Wrm's location,,, and knew he comes from the socialist country of Canada. Doesn't matter. I stilll meant what I said... leave any time. THIS country HAD other values at one point. Don't know about CA.

I actually value your opinion and experience... and would appreciate some input from you about certain topics discussed, (both in this thread and the other). I understand getting burned out,,, and have been there myself a few times. It's easy to get frustrated when people don't see the light... or walk away from it,,, or ridicule you for your faith.

Me myself??? I am a bit more stubborn than most... and will beat my head up against a wall longer than I should. The "Fire" inside of me,,, will not go out. That doesn't mean that I have not walked away from some battles... but have become more "selective" as to who I talk to face to face. My work is a hard line of work,,, and I have lost jobs, time,,,and money because of what I believe. When I find someone asking questions... or is open to talking about GOD,,, then I do so. Other than that... no one can hurt me on the internet,,, so I speak freely.

Please contribute your thoughts here. To some of us... they are greatly valued.
 
SD,

I had something typed halfway,,, and the internet locked up on me... so I lost it. I will try to reconstruct it from memeory in a day or so. Right now,,, it's getting late... and i have other things to deal with beforew the work week starts. I'll get back to this as soon as i can.
 
What??? Were you holding back on responding to posts
Click to expand...
just waiting on your evidence or epiphany.
when you actually post something, or convince it to come visit me personally, i'll respond further. your just wasting my time otherwise.

By the way, 'worm' is a Canadian.
Click to expand...
so?
you have a problem with that?
we have religious spastics here too. no difference between any of them.

he seems confused in his attack. he puts up still religious meanderings, yet as i said in my last post, hasn't proven it any truer than the bhagavad gita. or even any issue of any comic. or green eggs and ham, sam i am. :lol:
it makes no difference who believed it. at the written time of jesus there were many beliefs.
although outside of the bible, there is scant to no evidence for his existence either.
the biggest question is not if jesus is devine, (that's for religious nuts who really care) but that he existed at all.

you can make all the arguements you want, but i'm done til i see some real evidence. you just make the case for me of how thick people have been through the centuries.
call it what it is 04. BLIND belief. you believe in it because others around you do. there is nothing anywhere you can point to and say god.
so, til evidence or your epiphany, i won't reply.
i'm not wasting my time further arguing over your imaginary friend. prove him.
have a nice day.:)
 
Quote Wrm:

" when you actually post something, or convince it .... , i'll respond further. your just wasting my time otherwise."

Right back at ya Babe! This discussion can continue,,, with or without you... since it seems that there are other people willing to discuss this with an OPEN mind.

I had many people to mention that throughout HISTORY,,, can prove the existance of Jesus. However,,, in a simple search... it seems that someone else has done the homework for me... Found here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Ignoring the initial religious BS, (from your perspective),,, you will find a list of people, (historians and otherwise)... that were around almost 2 millennia before you.

Copied and pasted from the above link:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

Time to put on your thinking cap Wrm... and your big boy pants,,, and do the homework for yourself. If you don't,,, then anything you have to say at this point is irrelevant... and based on ignorance. Like the video I posted a while back, (Everything is Spiritual), the guy says: "Whatever you look for you will find."

So... if you look for no existence of God,,, then that is what you will find. If you look to evolution for answers,,, then that is what you will find. However... if you ignore historical fact,,, then all you will find is ignorance.

I will help a bit more... and point out that Josephus was a JEWISH historian,,, and did not follow Jesus... or what has become the Christian FAITH,,, but was most likely a Jewish Pharisee. However... in this link:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Flavius-Josephus.html

You will find the following from the writings of Josephus :

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”

Again... get your big boy pants on... and research what you despise the most. What are you afraid of??? That you might be wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 91 (members: 1, guests: 90)
Back
Top