Creationists

[newpolitics]

Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.

Did it ever occur to you that homosexuals are a minority group? That they are hated, by the likes of Christians mostly, who are a majority and have vast political power and majority sway in the united states? As such, homosexual are targeted by the exact kind of sentiment you are displaying here, in the form of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes, murders, etc... (mathew shephard ring a bell??). It is funny that you attribute their pleas for empathy for insecurity, when it is in fact for their physical safety and survival, something you take for granted because you are not gay. You have just illustrated EXACTLY why religious faith is so harmful: ignorance to yourself.

Did it ever occur to you that the "so-called" Christians that lash out at homosexuals are a minority group. That homosexual activists hate ALL Christians because of a few bad eggs. Did it ever occur to you that when your in it, you can't see it? That your worldview is totally skewed due to your self serviing or saliency bias?

Your twisted perception causes you to think that I was referring to homosexuals plea for empathy. I don't think that telling a business owner you are going to try and destroy his business because you disagree with his religious beliefs is a plea for empathy, do you? This is militant activism and its what I'm talking about. Homosexual activists are attempting to change the status quo. They are the ones fighting for change. Those that resist change because of a 4000 year old tradition are labeled intolerant and attacked. It is funny how the left is always preaching tolerance. But really, their idea of tolerance is accepting someone as long as they believe the same way. Do you see an issue with that?

So does your freedom to behave as you want trump my freedom of religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? The Bible teaches that adultery is sin. It teaches fornication is sin. It also teaches homosexuality is sin. The Bible also teaches we are all born into sin. So Lady Gaga is right, we are all born this way. But does that give us free reign to act on every impulse and urge? Most male urges are to copulate just about any woman with a pulse. But acting on this urge would most likely land you in jail and it wouldn't make for a very successful marriage. The same is true for the sin of homosexuality or alcoholism. Just because you have the urge, does not mean it is right. This is according to my religion. We live in a great country. You are free to behave as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't believe any Christian can pass judgement on any sinner. Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first stone. The issues come when social and traditional lines are crossed, when activists attempt to force their beliefs down someone else's throat, to force acceptance of a practice they are taught is immoral. This is where the clash occurs. I don't have to agree with your lifestyle to be your friend. I really think it goes back to my paragraph above. Gay activists know it is a touchy subject. A high percentage of gay males could care less about being marriage. But they seek it to aggravate the religious people, to attack the religious sacrament of marriage. And you know what it really boils down to? Government operating outside their sphere. If they weren't giving away so much free stuff and tax breaks, no one would care if they called it a union or a marriage. Your dramatic statement that it is about physical safety and survival just doesn't hold any water and is not based in statistical reality. Thousands more Christians die from persecution worldwide than do homosexuals from hate crimes.

Dan Cathy said he supported traditional family values and he was attacked for his religious beliefs. Chik Fil A then issued a statement, but do you think that mattered to the angry hate-filled activists? From Dave Bohon (New American): The resulting national backlash from the homosexual activist community — which, among other actions, encouraged a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants — prompted the restaurant chain to remind the public that it exists to sell chicken sandwiches, not fight political battles. In a July 19 statement the chain said that it would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” and that its restaurants would continue to focus on treating “every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.”

Who are the real bullies? This guy is a real idiot and shows a complete total lack of understanding of the Christian religion. The liberal left is so stupid it makes me sick. When was the last time a bunch of Christians got together and hung some homosexuals?? Yet Diane Sawyer sings the praises of Muslims everywhere, and in the same breath promotes same sex marriage. Islam calls for the beheading of homosexuals and over 4,000 have been executed in Iran in the last 10 years. But ABC tells us we must be tolerant of Islam and same sex marriage in the same breath. The left is so foolish. Christianity teaches everyone has value in God's eyes. It teaches we are all sinners in need of a Savior and that applies to adulterers, fornicators, murderers and homosexuals. Anyone teaching anything else and calling it Christianity is a liar.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXxsKLVofM]Dan Savage discusses bible at High School Journalism convention - YouTube[/ame]

What a bunch of hypocritical, blind christians leaving that talk. They can't take the truth about their own bible being full of shit.

Homosexuals are trying to change the status quo because the status quo leaves nothing for them. Just like any groups throughout history that found themselves being repressed by society. As far as Christians being discriminated against or persecuted in this discussion, WHERE in todays world are christians being persecuted in large numbers, or are you just pulling this from your ass? Throughout history, Christians have done more persecuting than anybody. The inquisition ring a bell? The witchhunts? Please, don't cry me a river for Christians being persecuted. It is right there in your bible to kill those who don't follow Jesus:

Luke 19:27
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before." - Jesus... wow, what an asshole.

1 Samuel 15
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."- Yahweh

Some god you have. Don't try to display christian morality as being even good. It's not. You're god is a monster, and nobody I would ever want to follow. He makes mistake after mistake which end in people being killed, as evidenced here. I don't want to here any more from you about this. You're a complete imbecile as far as I am concerned, because you are completely blind to your own ignorance and hate. I believe this is because you are forced to believe in a bible that is highly flawed in order to keep your faith. How sad.

As for the fact that there are only a few christians who are against gays or vocalize, so what? It is written in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. It's not like these people are making this up, they are just taking the bible more seriously, beacuse that is actually what it says!

I swear, religion is the most absurd notion.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for Holly's lies regarding our nation's history. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

I’m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.

The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.

That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

Seek the words "God", “Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech is free speech and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.

Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.

Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.



Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?

I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.

 

[UltimateReality]

Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for Holly's lies regarding our nation's history. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

I’m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.

The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.

That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

Seek the words "God", “Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech is free speech and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.

Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.

Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.



Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

I guess willful ignorance is bliss. I already disproved this Jefferson quote as a fundie atheist lie. But feel free to keep re posting it until someone actually believes it.

Nice try on the rebuttal. You didn't mention any of the false quotes you posted from your fundie atheist websites. All you did was state what we all already know about history and the first Amendment.

And while you are on the free speech kick, what about Dan Cathy's comments about supporting traditional marriage, between a man and a woman?

 

[UltimateReality]

What a bunch of hypocritical, blind christians leaving that talk. They can't take the truth about their own bible being full of shit.

I get it. You preach tolerance as long as it is for someone you share the same beliefs with. Do you not see a problem with that?

Homosexuals are trying to change the status quo because the status quo leaves nothing for them. Just like any groups throughout history that found themselves being repressed by society. As far as Christians being discriminated against or persecuted in this discussion, WHERE in todays world are christians being persecuted in large numbers, or are you just pulling this from your ass?

Actually, I know quite of few VERY SUCCESSFUL homosexual men that lead fulfilling lives mostly free from anything more than an occasional stare, especially if they live in areas where homosexuality is widely accepted and Christians are persecuted.

Actually, Christians ARE SITLL being killed throughout the world. I'm trying to show you grace but this is really an ignorant statement and shows you don't follow current events or study much history.

Throughout history, Christians have done more persecuting than anybody. The inquisition ring a bell? The witchhunts?

When does exaggeration become a lie?

Please, don't cry me a river for Christians being persecuted. It is right there in your bible to kill those who don't follow Jesus:

Luke 19:27
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before." -

Have you taken to Holly's mis quotes? Are you really putting this verse up as evidence? Jesus was telling a story about a king who entrusted 3 servants with some money. The last line is a quote of the king in the story. So what I am hearing is you could care less about Christians dying for their beliefs but you want fair treatment for your lifestyle choice????


The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

I don't want to here any more from you about this.

Then I suggest you don't frequent this forum. I will not be silenced but will continue to exercise my God-given right to free speech. I actually know quite a few homosexuals. One is friend of mine from high school who is now a Dr. at Stanford University. He doesn't get aggravated at other opinions of him because he is finally confident with the choice he has made. Typically it is the homosexuals that are still struggling with guilt and shame that lash out like you just did. If you really don't have a choice, why do you feel so much guilt??? I will tell you that forcing others to accept you through legislation or political correctness will not alleviate you of the shame you feel. That comes from the God you hate so much and what you know to be true in your conscience. We can see God's design in nature and infer that inserting your penis into another mans anus is not the intent of the design and can actually be dangerous, since feces can cause infections when coming in contact with genitals. This act cannot result in survival of the species.

As for the fact that there are only a few Christians who are against gays or vocalize, so what? It is written in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. It's not like these people are making this up, they are just taking the bible more seriously, because that is actually what it says!

Christ taught us to love. There is no condemnation in Christ. If anyone hates homosexuals because of the Bible, they are twisting Christianity. All I have stated is that homosexual behavior is sin. I said nothing about hating people who are struggling with that sin. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all sinners and that we are to love and minister to all, even the unlovable. Last Sunday, our church actually prayed for not just he victims of he Batman shootings, but for the shooter and his family. It should be every Christians hope that all come to Christ. That doesn't mean that the shooter still won't have to face earthly justice, but our prayer was that he finds God and his love.

I just don't think anyone likes being told what they are doing is wrong or sin. We all struggle with different sins but the movement in recent years is to blame genetics for being gay. This takes away the persons freedom to choose to overcome their sin.

Please don't mistake my words of declaring homosexuality as being immoral as hating the person trapped in it.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now. I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now. I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!

Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now. I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!

Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

 

[daws101]

Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for Holly's lies regarding our nation's history. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

I’m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.

The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.

That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

Seek the words "God", “Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech is free speech and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.

Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.

Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.



Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?

I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...

 

[The Irish Ram]

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

As for form, it was conducted on their knees.

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now. I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!

Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that God did not have a beginning!!! The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.

 

[Hollie]

Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that God did not have a beginning!!! The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.

God did not have a beginning!!! because I say so!

 

[UltimateReality]

I’m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.

The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.

That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

Seek the words "God", “Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech is free speech and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.

Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.

Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.



Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?

I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...

Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

There’s nothing inconsistent with the constitution as was already pointed out.

Let's look (again) at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

If you read the constitution drafted by the same men attending the first congress, you will notice that they explicitly excluded any reference to hey-zeus H. Christ or any other specific Deity.

The FF’s knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume the FF’s intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of them were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.


"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that God did not have a beginning!!! The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.

God did not have a beginning!!! because I say so!

And there's the rebuttal. So predictable. I would love to see you in a live debate. Without the ability to cut and paste, you would be frozen with terror.

 

[Hollie]

Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?

I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...

Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]

Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Hey-zeus H. Christ but I'm glad for the constitution as it protects me from christian fundies who would force their beliefs on others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that God did not have a beginning!!! The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.

God did not have a beginning!!! because I say so!

Your sarcasm is implying you don't require faith to believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...

Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]

Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Hey-zeus H. Christ but I'm glad for the constitution as it protects me from christian fundies who would force their beliefs on others.

Paranoia will destroy ya

 

[UltimateReality]

Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down.

Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.

 

[The Irish Ram]

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

There’s nothing inconsistent with the constitution as was already pointed out.

Let's look (again) at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

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

If you read the constitution drafted by the same men attending the first congress, you will notice that they explicitly excluded any reference to hey-zeus H. Christ or any other specific Deity.

The FF’s knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume the FF’s intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of them were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.


"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

And again:
I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.

 

[UltimateReality]

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...

Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]

Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.