I have no problem with possibility of gods existence

[newpolitics]

The problem is that, in our society, it is generally Atheists who want to prohibit any public acknowledgment of religious viewpoints. Baptists don't complain about seeing an image of Mary with a halo or a star of David, for that matter. Only the Atheists want to prohibit all (other) religions from having any public acknowledgment. And radical Muslims, of course.

America is an overwhelmingly Christian country, by populous. Of course Christians aren't going to have problems with Christian religious adornments on public property, or even Jewish ones, since it is all the same god. It is similar enough to not provoke anger. The first amendment makes clear that govt shall not respect one religion over another, which implies that it can't endorse any religion by using public funds to pay for something religious. That is all atheists are saying. You are attempting to use an argument from popularity here, saying that because most people are Christian, the first amendment should be scrapped, and Christianity be respected by the state. At least, that's what it sounds like.

Actually that is a generalized misconception..........America is not an overwhelmingly Christian Nation. The majority of Americans are not Christian.......regardless of what "belief" they "identify" with. Simple truth is, one is not a Christian because they go to Church on Christmas and Easter.......nor is one a Christian because their grandmother was. Another sad truth is, the Churches across the Nation are full of non-Christians every Sunday Service.

Point two.........as for separation of Church and State, that IS NOT in the Constitution. This phrase was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a specific Church Congregation, and he wrote the letter to assure the Pastor and Parish that the Government WOULD NOT outlaw their denomination. The 1st Amendment was crafted to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT out of the Church, it was never intended to keep Christianity out of the Government...........any reasonable review OF THE ACTUAL ACTS of the Founding Fathers makes this perfectly clear. Jefferson himself, as President, ORDERED FEDERAL BUILDINGS to REMAIN OPEN on Sundays in the D.C. area so that ALL BELIEVERS would have a PLACE TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD should they NOT HAVE a building of their own.

The US Congress and the SCOTUS begins each session with a PRAYER! Both the House and the Senate have "CHAPLAINS." The 10 Commandments appear on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.............

The 1st Amendment simple meant THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT "establish" ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION/DENOMINATION as the "lawful" religion/denomination of the Nation............P=E=R=I=O=D ! This Amendment has been so severely corrupted by socialist liberal activist Jurists to the point it is no longer recognizable when considering the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.

To respond to your prior post and this one: Christianity is a religion, by the definition of religion. Your attempt at declaring it exempt from this definition is curious. I'm inclined to call it arrogant, but ill ask you: why is Christianity not a religion? I am guessing that you are presupposing the Christian god and its theology to exist and be entirely accurate. Therefore, you feel justified In removing the "religion" label. Is this accurate? The problem with this, is that Christianity can not be proven to be true. It requires faith, which is defined as belief without evidence. As long as this is the case, Christianity remains a religion.


As for the first amendment, again, you are incorrect. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how this idea started, it only matters what it says, and where it says it. It says it in the first amendment, not a letter written by Jefferson, and it is very clear. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

To make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is rather self-explanatory and refutes any notion that government can endorse a religion in any sense. It creates a wall of separation between church and state in disallowing the state to respect any religion over another. It's a subtle and politically correct way of making it impossible for religion to be endorsed by government, as this would constitute "respecting an establishment of religion."

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
- Justice Hugo Black, 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education


The "wall of separation" metaphor was found in a correspondence, but the first amendment still effects the same thing, without using metaphor. You seem to think that because this metaphor wasn't included in the first amendment explicitly, that the first amendment does not effectively create this "wall." You are incorrect. This correspondence more explicitly showed his intentions to create this "wall", while the first amendment creates this wall without explicitly using a metaphor. The first amendment implies such a metaphorical structure (the wall), however.


Your assertion that other Christians are not really Christians is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and is just an excuse to dwindle down people who don't fit Christianity according to your definition. You did not define Christianity, so while you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they are and are not. This nation is populated by mostly Christians, confirmed time and time by statistics and poll numbers and people who would call themselves Christians. Of course every sect of Christianity is going to believe they are right and everybody else is wrong, and that is exactly what you are doing.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

How can you honestly say that it is a misconception that most Americans are Christian when almost half believe in biblically inspired creationism?

 

[tipofthespear]

America is an overwhelmingly Christian country, by populous. Of course Christians aren't going to have problems with Christian religious adornments on public property, or even Jewish ones, since it is all the same god. It is similar enough to not provoke anger. The first amendment makes clear that govt shall not respect one religion over another, which implies that it can't endorse any religion by using public funds to pay for something religious. That is all atheists are saying. You are attempting to use an argument from popularity here, saying that because most people are Christian, the first amendment should be scrapped, and Christianity be respected by the state. At least, that's what it sounds like.

Actually that is a generalized misconception..........America is not an overwhelmingly Christian Nation. The majority of Americans are not Christian.......regardless of what "belief" they "identify" with. Simple truth is, one is not a Christian because they go to Church on Christmas and Easter.......nor is one a Christian because their grandmother was. Another sad truth is, the Churches across the Nation are full of non-Christians every Sunday Service.

Point two.........as for separation of Church and State, that IS NOT in the Constitution. This phrase was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a specific Church Congregation, and he wrote the letter to assure the Pastor and Parish that the Government WOULD NOT outlaw their denomination. The 1st Amendment was crafted to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT out of the Church, it was never intended to keep Christianity out of the Government...........any reasonable review OF THE ACTUAL ACTS of the Founding Fathers makes this perfectly clear. Jefferson himself, as President, ORDERED FEDERAL BUILDINGS to REMAIN OPEN on Sundays in the D.C. area so that ALL BELIEVERS would have a PLACE TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD should they NOT HAVE a building of their own.

The US Congress and the SCOTUS begins each session with a PRAYER! Both the House and the Senate have "CHAPLAINS." The 10 Commandments appear on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.............

The 1st Amendment simple meant THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT "establish" ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION/DENOMINATION as the "lawful" religion/denomination of the Nation............P=E=R=I=O=D ! This Amendment has been so severely corrupted by socialist liberal activist Jurists to the point it is no longer recognizable when considering the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.

To respond to your prior post and this one: Christianity is a religion, by the definition of religion. Your attempt at declaring it exempt from this definition is curious. I'm inclined to call it arrogant, but ill ask you: why is Christianity not a religion? I am guessing that you are presupposing the Christian god and its theology to exist and be entirely accurate. Therefore, you feel justified In removing the "religion" label. Is this accurate? The problem with this, is that Christianity can not be proven to be true. It requires faith, which is defined as belief without evidence. As long as this is the case, Christianity remains a religion.


As for the first amendment, again, you are incorrect. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how this idea started, it only matters what it says, and where it says it. It says it in the first amendment, not a letter written by Jefferson, and it is very clear. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

To make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is rather self-explanatory and refutes any notion that government can endorse a religion in any sense. It creates a wall of separation between church and state in disallowing the state to respect any religion over another. It's a subtle and politically correct way of making it impossible for religion to be endorsed by government, as this would constitute "respecting an establishment of religion."

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
- Justice Hugo Black, 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education


The "wall of separation" metaphor was found in a correspondence, but the first amendment still effects the same thing, without using metaphor. You seem to think that because this metaphor wasn't included in the first amendment explicitly, that the first amendment does not effectively create this "wall." You are incorrect. This correspondence more explicitly showed his intentions to create this "wall", while the first amendment creates this wall without explicitly using a metaphor. The first amendment implies such a metaphorical structure (the wall), however.


Your assertion that other Christians are not really Christians is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and is just an excuse to dwindle down people who don't fit Christianity according to your definition. You did not define Christianity, so while you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they are and are not. This nation is populated by mostly Christians, confirmed time and time by statistics and poll numbers and people who would call themselves Christians. Of course every sect of Christianity is going to believe they are right and everybody else is wrong, and that is exactly what you are doing.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

How can you honestly say that it is a misconception that most Americans are Christian when almost half believe in biblically inspired creationism?

Wow! You didn't get a single point right............that takes some kinda talent............

1) Christianity is not a "religion." Religion(s) was/were created by man not God........Christianity was established by Jesus Christ........Christianity is a "faith," not a "religion." Now, for those who so choose to demean Christianity, this Truth doesn't work, so they deny it, and "lump" it into the vast number of "religions" created by man. Doesn't make them right, just makes them antichrists.....

2) As for the 1st Amendment...........you are being dishonest in that you have in this post changed your statement made in your other post........and I stated that "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution..........AND IT DOES NOT. The "Establishment Clause" certainly does, and I explained exactly what that means, was intended to do (the original intent of the Founding Fathers).

3) Given that it is an "assumed fact" here that atheists/antichrists know more about the Word of God, I did not think I had to define what it means to be a Christian to you. However since you seem to be ignorant in this area...............a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit into their hearts, and strives to live Christ-like........by being obedient to His Commandments.............A person IS NOT a Christian just because they "IDENTIFY" with a particular Christian Church/Denomination. I am in no way doing what you suggest, it is your ignorance of Christianity that compels you to attempt such a slur............you just don't get it.......but, then, sadly, you are not alone.

If you thing being a Christian is defined by a person believing that God created man, then the depths of your ignorance are as vast as the "great void."

How can I say such? The Devil and all his little demons believe that God is the Creator of all, certainly does not make them Christians does it? Do you not even understand how we came to be called Christians? Do some study of the Word of God, and then get back to me.

 

[newpolitics]

Actually that is a generalized misconception..........America is not an overwhelmingly Christian Nation. The majority of Americans are not Christian.......regardless of what "belief" they "identify" with. Simple truth is, one is not a Christian because they go to Church on Christmas and Easter.......nor is one a Christian because their grandmother was. Another sad truth is, the Churches across the Nation are full of non-Christians every Sunday Service.

Point two.........as for separation of Church and State, that IS NOT in the Constitution. This phrase was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a specific Church Congregation, and he wrote the letter to assure the Pastor and Parish that the Government WOULD NOT outlaw their denomination. The 1st Amendment was crafted to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT out of the Church, it was never intended to keep Christianity out of the Government...........any reasonable review OF THE ACTUAL ACTS of the Founding Fathers makes this perfectly clear. Jefferson himself, as President, ORDERED FEDERAL BUILDINGS to REMAIN OPEN on Sundays in the D.C. area so that ALL BELIEVERS would have a PLACE TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD should they NOT HAVE a building of their own.

The US Congress and the SCOTUS begins each session with a PRAYER! Both the House and the Senate have "CHAPLAINS." The 10 Commandments appear on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.............

The 1st Amendment simple meant THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT "establish" ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION/DENOMINATION as the "lawful" religion/denomination of the Nation............P=E=R=I=O=D ! This Amendment has been so severely corrupted by socialist liberal activist Jurists to the point it is no longer recognizable when considering the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.

To respond to your prior post and this one: Christianity is a religion, by the definition of religion. Your attempt at declaring it exempt from this definition is curious. I'm inclined to call it arrogant, but ill ask you: why is Christianity not a religion? I am guessing that you are presupposing the Christian god and its theology to exist and be entirely accurate. Therefore, you feel justified In removing the "religion" label. Is this accurate? The problem with this, is that Christianity can not be proven to be true. It requires faith, which is defined as belief without evidence. As long as this is the case, Christianity remains a religion.


As for the first amendment, again, you are incorrect. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how this idea started, it only matters what it says, and where it says it. It says it in the first amendment, not a letter written by Jefferson, and it is very clear. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

To make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is rather self-explanatory and refutes any notion that government can endorse a religion in any sense. It creates a wall of separation between church and state in disallowing the state to respect any religion over another. It's a subtle and politically correct way of making it impossible for religion to be endorsed by government, as this would constitute "respecting an establishment of religion."

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
- Justice Hugo Black, 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education


The "wall of separation" metaphor was found in a correspondence, but the first amendment still effects the same thing, without using metaphor. You seem to think that because this metaphor wasn't included in the first amendment explicitly, that the first amendment does not effectively create this "wall." You are incorrect. This correspondence more explicitly showed his intentions to create this "wall", while the first amendment creates this wall without explicitly using a metaphor. The first amendment implies such a metaphorical structure (the wall), however.


Your assertion that other Christians are not really Christians is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and is just an excuse to dwindle down people who don't fit Christianity according to your definition. You did not define Christianity, so while you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they are and are not. This nation is populated by mostly Christians, confirmed time and time by statistics and poll numbers and people who would call themselves Christians. Of course every sect of Christianity is going to believe they are right and everybody else is wrong, and that is exactly what you are doing.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

How can you honestly say that it is a misconception that most Americans are Christian when almost half believe in biblically inspired creationism?

Wow! You didn't get a single point right............that takes some kinda talent............

1) Christianity is not a "religion." Religion(s) was/were created by man not God........Christianity was established by Jesus Christ........Christianity is a "faith," not a "religion." Now, for those who so choose to demean Christianity, this Truth doesn't work, so they deny it, and "lump" it into the vast number of "religions" created by man. Doesn't make them right, just makes them antichrists.....

2) As for the 1st Amendment...........you are being dishonest in that you have in this post changed your statement made in your other post........and I stated that "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution..........AND IT DOES NOT. The "Establishment Clause" certainly does, and I explained exactly what that means, was intended to do (the original intent of the Founding Fathers).

3) Given that it is an "assumed fact" here that atheists/antichrists know more about the Word of God, I did not think I had to define what it means to be a Christian to you. However since you seem to be ignorant in this area...............a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit into their hearts, and strives to live Christ-like........by being obedient to His Commandments.............A person IS NOT a Christian just because they "IDENTIFY" with a particular Christian Church/Denomination. I am in no way doing what you suggest, it is your ignorance of Christianity that compels you to attempt such a slur............you just don't get it.......but, then, sadly, you are not alone.

If you thing being a Christian is defined by a person believing that God created man, then the depths of your ignorance are as vast as the "great void."

How can I say such? The Devil and all his little demons believe that God is the Creator of all, certainly does not make them Christians does it? Do you not even understand how we came to be called Christians? Do some study of the Word of God, and then get back to me.

I am not going to concede any of your points, because none of them are valid.

1.) I anticipated your response, and preemptively responded to it, which you ignored. No one is demeaning Christianity by calling it religion. Christian IS a religion, because religion has a definition, and Christianity falls within that definition. Its that simple. Christianity needing "faith" does not exempt it from religious classification. You are simply try to claim exemptions. As I already said, which you just confirmed, this is because you are so convinced of Christianity's truth, that you find it offensive to call it a religion. Well, this is a debate. This isn't your church or your household. We have concepts and definitions so we can discuss things and understand each other. I am not a Christian. I don't believe anything about the bible, or Jesus, or god. You trying to convince me that Christianity is not a religion is a little presumptive, to say the least. You can not show that Christian is true. Therefore, you are required to have faith, just like every other religion.

2. Again, I already fully addressed this in my post. So Again... It is inconsequential that the metaphor of "the wall of separation between church and state" does not appear explicitly in the first Amendment. The first amendment communicates this idea effectively without the use of the "wall" metaphor.

3. "Atheists/antichrists"? I'm not sure why you'd think I'd find this offensive, since I don't believe in Christ's divinity or Christ at all. If this makes me the anti-Christ, so be it.

I never gave a definition for Christianity, so while the stats I posted don't demonstrate that any of those people are "true Christians" according to your arbitrary standard, this is again inconsequential, since your standard is completely subjective, you being the standard creator and evaluator for your own term. There are thousands of Christian sects, who all think they are "correct", perhaps even by your own definition. You are in no position to qualify someone else's subjective experience of their own faith, and what it means to them, or how they see themselves. However, what the statistic about creationism DOES prove, is that people believe in the Christian bible enough to believe the genesis account. While this doesn't guarantee they will behave like "Christians" according to your Subjective standard, it does mean they believe in the Christian bible to a significant enough degree to have created their historical world view around it. Are we splitting hairs? I think so, although Im sure you don't.

Most importantly, you are contradicting the bible, which isn't your fault... The bible contradicts itself. It posits, as a way to salvation, two different paths: 1) faith alone (sola fide) 2) faith and works.

If you consider sola fide, then your definition of a Christian is incorrect, since it incorporates behavior, and according to the bible, this standard of salvation of acting "Christ-like" is not necessary for salvation." Instead, faith alone is necessary for salvation. Here, you are at an impasse, since the bible explicitly offers two distinct but supposedly equally viable routes to salvation. I will quote them if you contest this. Anyway, this is a contradiction, and is one reason I know the bible is not divine, or the word of god, and is not to be trusted as a source for any kind of truth, other than an interesting reflection on human behavior and gullibility.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am SOME KIND OF BELIEVER.

Like you, however, I have no problem that most people are SOME OTHER KIND OF BELIEVER.

It's not until those other kinds of beleivers want to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, (ie., make their beliefs the law of the land) that I actually CARE about their beliefs.

I want to live in a SECULAR society BECAUSE I am a BELIEVER.

Are you curious as to the number of religions existing on planet earth at any given moment in time?

Count the Monkeys and divide by 1.

Beliefs are like nipples... every Monkey has a set and no two sets are identical.

 

[AVG-JOE]

To the Author of the OP........You certainly have the God given right not to believe.....however I would suggest that it takes far more "faith" to NOT believe in Intelligent Design ie. God than to believe. It requires a great deal of "faith" to believe that all that exists/ever existed/will exist is/was the result of some "cosmic oops." Given the highly specific "order" of the universe, and the need for that "order" to remain in place for the universe to remain........the "oops" theory is far more suspect as "truth" than "Intelligent Design" is it not?

QUOTE FROM THE OP: I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep. END QUOTE.

First, you must understand that Christianity and "religion" have little if anything in common.......once you can distinguish the difference, you will better understand Christianity.

Second, any who act as you describe in the quoted comment are not true Christians in my opinion. In fact, the type of actions/display of emotions you describe are in direct disobedience to the Commandments of Jesus Christ.

As well, those who are not Christians should refrain from expecting/demanding that Christians be "perfect." Christians are not perfect, nor will they ever be on this earth. In the life to come is when "perfection" is obtained. Just saying........as well, in my experience non-believers seize on any and every opportunity to find a fault in the life/actions of a Christian, so as to validate their own imperfect lives..........the VERY REASON Jesus came to earth was to provide a way for man to be reconciled with God, for you are completely correct.........no man, Christian or otherwise is perfect............thus Jesus had to provide atonement for the imperfections of mankind.

What I find interesting is you state that you have never seen logical/scientific proof/evidence that God exists.............and based on this, you reject His existence..........could you provide me with logical/scientific evidence that God DOES NOT exist?

As I said in another comment...........

If you are right and I am wrong, hey, no harm, no foul...........for living Christ-like is a good way for all mankind to live is it not?

However, if I am right, and you are wrong............that is ONE HELL of a mistake on your part is it not?

And there is no guarantee that you will have the opportunity to change your mind before the end comes, so don't hold out for an "epiphany moment," or you might discover you have lost........

I don't hate you, nor do I hate atheists, agnostics, however I do hate that within your grasp is everlasting life and you/they choose to reject it...........beats me why.............

God bless and keep you and yours.........and if you will ONLY BELIEVE when the Eastern Sky splits, and the Lion of Judah returns...........well, unfortunately that will be too late don't you see?

How do you figure?

Take the ancient stories from Abraham to Mohammad off the table as 'evidence' and the three major religions have nothing BUT faith.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

He did in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, you still don't believe. No, you weren't there to see it yourself, but many eyewitnesses were and have left accounts of what they saw. Yet, you don't believe them either.

If you're so open to the possibility, why not? You didn't see Aristotle either, or Napolean or Charles Darwin, yet you believe the evidence of their existence. What's the difference?

Just remember that the first time those stories were committed to paper was 70 years after the event, during a period of political unrest.

70 years AFTER the events.

That would be like writing about Martin Luther King in 2038, comfortable that no one will ever ask you for a link. Which do YOU think prevailed... accuracy or agenda?

 

[AVG-JOE]

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

He did in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, you still don't believe. No, you weren't there to see it yourself, but many eyewitnesses were and have left accounts of what they saw. Yet, you don't believe them either.

If you're so open to the possibility, why not? You didn't see Aristotle either, or Napolean or Charles Darwin, yet you believe the evidence of their existence. What's the difference?

I have no problem with the historical existence of a Monkey named Jesus of Nazareth... I simply question the stories about him that claim his deity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually that is a generalized misconception..........America is not an overwhelmingly Christian Nation. The majority of Americans are not Christian.......regardless of what "belief" they "identify" with. Simple truth is, one is not a Christian because they go to Church on Christmas and Easter.......nor is one a Christian because their grandmother was. Another sad truth is, the Churches across the Nation are full of non-Christians every Sunday Service.

Point two.........as for separation of Church and State, that IS NOT in the Constitution. This phrase was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a specific Church Congregation, and he wrote the letter to assure the Pastor and Parish that the Government WOULD NOT outlaw their denomination. The 1st Amendment was crafted to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT out of the Church, it was never intended to keep Christianity out of the Government...........any reasonable review OF THE ACTUAL ACTS of the Founding Fathers makes this perfectly clear. Jefferson himself, as President, ORDERED FEDERAL BUILDINGS to REMAIN OPEN on Sundays in the D.C. area so that ALL BELIEVERS would have a PLACE TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD should they NOT HAVE a building of their own.

The US Congress and the SCOTUS begins each session with a PRAYER! Both the House and the Senate have "CHAPLAINS." The 10 Commandments appear on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.............

The 1st Amendment simple meant THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT "establish" ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION/DENOMINATION as the "lawful" religion/denomination of the Nation............P=E=R=I=O=D ! This Amendment has been so severely corrupted by socialist liberal activist Jurists to the point it is no longer recognizable when considering the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.

To respond to your prior post and this one: Christianity is a religion, by the definition of religion. Your attempt at declaring it exempt from this definition is curious. I'm inclined to call it arrogant, but ill ask you: why is Christianity not a religion? I am guessing that you are presupposing the Christian god and its theology to exist and be entirely accurate. Therefore, you feel justified In removing the "religion" label. Is this accurate? The problem with this, is that Christianity can not be proven to be true. It requires faith, which is defined as belief without evidence. As long as this is the case, Christianity remains a religion.


As for the first amendment, again, you are incorrect. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how this idea started, it only matters what it says, and where it says it. It says it in the first amendment, not a letter written by Jefferson, and it is very clear. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

To make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is rather self-explanatory and refutes any notion that government can endorse a religion in any sense. It creates a wall of separation between church and state in disallowing the state to respect any religion over another. It's a subtle and politically correct way of making it impossible for religion to be endorsed by government, as this would constitute "respecting an establishment of religion."

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
- Justice Hugo Black, 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education


The "wall of separation" metaphor was found in a correspondence, but the first amendment still effects the same thing, without using metaphor. You seem to think that because this metaphor wasn't included in the first amendment explicitly, that the first amendment does not effectively create this "wall." You are incorrect. This correspondence more explicitly showed his intentions to create this "wall", while the first amendment creates this wall without explicitly using a metaphor. The first amendment implies such a metaphorical structure (the wall), however.


Your assertion that other Christians are not really Christians is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and is just an excuse to dwindle down people who don't fit Christianity according to your definition. You did not define Christianity, so while you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they are and are not. This nation is populated by mostly Christians, confirmed time and time by statistics and poll numbers and people who would call themselves Christians. Of course every sect of Christianity is going to believe they are right and everybody else is wrong, and that is exactly what you are doing.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

How can you honestly say that it is a misconception that most Americans are Christian when almost half believe in biblically inspired creationism?

Wow! You didn't get a single point right............that takes some kinda talent............

1) Christianity is not a "religion." Religion(s) was/were created by man not God........Christianity was established by Jesus Christ........Christianity is a "faith," not a "religion." Now, for those who so choose to demean Christianity, this Truth doesn't work, so they deny it, and "lump" it into the vast number of "religions" created by man. Doesn't make them right, just makes them antichrists.....

2) As for the 1st Amendment...........you are being dishonest in that you have in this post changed your statement made in your other post........and I stated that "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution..........AND IT DOES NOT. The "Establishment Clause" certainly does, and I explained exactly what that means, was intended to do (the original intent of the Founding Fathers).

3) Given that it is an "assumed fact" here that atheists/antichrists know more about the Word of God, I did not think I had to define what it means to be a Christian to you. However since you seem to be ignorant in this area...............a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit into their hearts, and strives to live Christ-like........by being obedient to His Commandments.............A person IS NOT a Christian just because they "IDENTIFY" with a particular Christian Church/Denomination. I am in no way doing what you suggest, it is your ignorance of Christianity that compels you to attempt such a slur............you just don't get it.......but, then, sadly, you are not alone.

If you thing being a Christian is defined by a person believing that God created man, then the depths of your ignorance are as vast as the "great void."

How can I say such? The Devil and all his little demons believe that God is the Creator of all, certainly does not make them Christians does it? Do you not even understand how we came to be called Christians? Do some study of the Word of God, and then get back to me.

So Christianity is correct because it's YOUR faith and the rest are bullshit because they are not?

​

It's a damn good thing you have definitive proof that the ancient story you hold dear is THE inspired one, otherwise your life is currently wasted.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The problem is that, in our society, it is generally Atheists who want to prohibit any public acknowledgment of religious viewpoints. Baptists don't complain about seeing an image of Mary with a halo or a star of David, for that matter. Only the Atheists want to prohibit all (other) religions from having any public acknowledgment. And radical Muslims, of course.

Live and raise your family however you see fit, just let Civil Law trump Religious Law each and every time the two come in to conflict.

Ass-u-me liberty for your neighbors even when their behavior is sinful according to YOUR preferred ancient story. If enough Monkeys of all beliefs agree that something is wrong or dangerous, Civil Law will attempt control - if nobody but you and the folks filling your pew give a shit, let freedom reign.

 

[tipofthespear]

To respond to your prior post and this one: Christianity is a religion, by the definition of religion. Your attempt at declaring it exempt from this definition is curious. I'm inclined to call it arrogant, but ill ask you: why is Christianity not a religion? I am guessing that you are presupposing the Christian god and its theology to exist and be entirely accurate. Therefore, you feel justified In removing the "religion" label. Is this accurate? The problem with this, is that Christianity can not be proven to be true. It requires faith, which is defined as belief without evidence. As long as this is the case, Christianity remains a religion.


As for the first amendment, again, you are incorrect. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how this idea started, it only matters what it says, and where it says it. It says it in the first amendment, not a letter written by Jefferson, and it is very clear. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

To make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is rather self-explanatory and refutes any notion that government can endorse a religion in any sense. It creates a wall of separation between church and state in disallowing the state to respect any religion over another. It's a subtle and politically correct way of making it impossible for religion to be endorsed by government, as this would constitute "respecting an establishment of religion."

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
- Justice Hugo Black, 1947, Everson vs. Board of Education


The "wall of separation" metaphor was found in a correspondence, but the first amendment still effects the same thing, without using metaphor. You seem to think that because this metaphor wasn't included in the first amendment explicitly, that the first amendment does not effectively create this "wall." You are incorrect. This correspondence more explicitly showed his intentions to create this "wall", while the first amendment creates this wall without explicitly using a metaphor. The first amendment implies such a metaphorical structure (the wall), however.


Your assertion that other Christians are not really Christians is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and is just an excuse to dwindle down people who don't fit Christianity according to your definition. You did not define Christianity, so while you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they are and are not. This nation is populated by mostly Christians, confirmed time and time by statistics and poll numbers and people who would call themselves Christians. Of course every sect of Christianity is going to believe they are right and everybody else is wrong, and that is exactly what you are doing.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

How can you honestly say that it is a misconception that most Americans are Christian when almost half believe in biblically inspired creationism?

Wow! You didn't get a single point right............that takes some kinda talent............

1) Christianity is not a "religion." Religion(s) was/were created by man not God........Christianity was established by Jesus Christ........Christianity is a "faith," not a "religion." Now, for those who so choose to demean Christianity, this Truth doesn't work, so they deny it, and "lump" it into the vast number of "religions" created by man. Doesn't make them right, just makes them antichrists.....

2) As for the 1st Amendment...........you are being dishonest in that you have in this post changed your statement made in your other post........and I stated that "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution..........AND IT DOES NOT. The "Establishment Clause" certainly does, and I explained exactly what that means, was intended to do (the original intent of the Founding Fathers).

3) Given that it is an "assumed fact" here that atheists/antichrists know more about the Word of God, I did not think I had to define what it means to be a Christian to you. However since you seem to be ignorant in this area...............a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit into their hearts, and strives to live Christ-like........by being obedient to His Commandments.............A person IS NOT a Christian just because they "IDENTIFY" with a particular Christian Church/Denomination. I am in no way doing what you suggest, it is your ignorance of Christianity that compels you to attempt such a slur............you just don't get it.......but, then, sadly, you are not alone.

If you thing being a Christian is defined by a person believing that God created man, then the depths of your ignorance are as vast as the "great void."

How can I say such? The Devil and all his little demons believe that God is the Creator of all, certainly does not make them Christians does it? Do you not even understand how we came to be called Christians? Do some study of the Word of God, and then get back to me.

So Christianity is correct because it's YOUR faith and the rest are bullshit because they are not?

​

It's a damn good thing you have definitive proof that the ancient story you hold dear is THE inspired one, otherwise your life is currently wasted.

Christianity is Truth because the Word of God states that it is the One Truth......people have the right to believe or not...........It's my faith because after considering all other possibilities, it was the ONLY faith that held Truth throughout, and I willingly chose to believe, I was not forced to believe as are so many people of various "religions."

I suppose you have one shred of proof that the Word of God is not Truth? If so, you would be the first in all of recorded History......no, wait, all you have to cling to is your misguided faith in the antichrist, and you serve him well........and speaking of a "wasted life," I looked it up in the Dictionary, and THERE YOU WERE!

 

[PratchettFan]

Belief informs action. Agreed? How you hold the world to be true will effect how you interact with it. It is the action I have a problem with. Therefore, it is not people I have a problem with. It is the action tied to very specific theistic beliefs.

Nor is it a problem with religion, itself, but again, people's actions as a result of subscribing to the beliefs contained in that religion. That is a choice, because skepticism is always available as a methodology. People choose to remain in the comfort of familiar or soothing beliefs, because they are familiar and soothing. However, that doesn't make those beliefs true. And if action is based on errant belief, then it the belief needs to be changed to correct the action. The goal here should be truth, not personal comfort. I have yet to meet a hell-believing theist who believes they are going to Hell. Only those who don't believe are.

No. Not agreed at all. At best, belief is used to justify action after the fact. There have been major instances of violence at sporting events. Do athletics cause violence?

If the goal is the truth, then let us deal with the truth. Humans are everythng you described, all on their own. They do not require any particular belief for that. Those beliefs are not the source of the behavior, the behavior is the source of the beliefs. So, what you seem to be doing is to remain in the comfort of familiar and soothing beliefs, i.e. that belief is the problem and not us. If we can just dispose of the beliefs all will be rosy and nice. The problem, however, is entirely us.

If you think action causes belief, then we can't have a debate. You have your casual relationship reversed.

If I believe someone is a threat, based on what I believe to be evidence, I will treat them as such. My belief informs my actions and behavior, because beliefs create our perceptions.

How do you explain action without some kind of underlying belief?

It is common statement that we are all born atheists. I think that is incorrect, we are instead all born as a blank slate. But the idea is the same. What beliefs we have are taught to us. That is an action. Our beliefs arise out of action. We then react in accordance with those beliefs and there are reactions to our actions, which modify the beliefs. But it is always action which precedes belief - even if the beliefs then modify subsequent action. But no belief makes us do anything which we would not do otherwise.

There is no action you can point to that I cannot find in someone else with an entirely different belief. Show me a religious zealot willing to kill and I'lll show you a soccer zealot willing to kill. The key here is that both of them are human, and you can always find a human zealot willing to kill. The belief isn't the source of the violence, it is just the excuse given.

 

[tipofthespear]

Not really........

Innate Knowledge

(excerpt from article linked above)

Throughout history it has been suggested that man is born as a tabula rasa (Lat., “blank slate”), a concept with roots reaching back to Aristotle, developed by Aquinas, and later popularized by John Locke in an Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). According to this perspective, man’s mind is a blank at birth and is filled with data through the experiences of life and the information received via sensory perception. Empirical information becomes the building blocks of knowledge and the means by which man reflects upon the knowledge communicated from that which surrounds him. As a core of information is gained from experiences, some sort of framework develops that is used to process additional information. The universals, therefore, are developed by the individual from the particulars.

Contrary to the above thinking, man is endowed with an intellectual or rational structure which makes learning and reasoning possible. Man is gifted by virtue of his manhood, the Imago Dei, with this intellectual and rational composition, which enables him to assimilate knowledge and to critique the knowledge that is gained. This framework is composed of the universals or intellectual concepts that are valid and are utilized in everyday life, whether one realizes they exist or not.

Also see:

Are Humans Born with Innate Ideas? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[PratchettFan]

Not really........

Innate Knowledge

(excerpt from article linked above)

Throughout history it has been suggested that man is born as a tabula rasa (Lat., “blank slate”), a concept with roots reaching back to Aristotle, developed by Aquinas, and later popularized by John Locke in an Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). According to this perspective, man’s mind is a blank at birth and is filled with data through the experiences of life and the information received via sensory perception. Empirical information becomes the building blocks of knowledge and the means by which man reflects upon the knowledge communicated from that which surrounds him. As a core of information is gained from experiences, some sort of framework develops that is used to process additional information. The universals, therefore, are developed by the individual from the particulars.

Contrary to the above thinking, man is endowed with an intellectual or rational structure which makes learning and reasoning possible. Man is gifted by virtue of his manhood, the Imago Dei, with this intellectual and rational composition, which enables him to assimilate knowledge and to critique the knowledge that is gained. This framework is composed of the universals or intellectual concepts that are valid and are utilized in everyday life, whether one realizes they exist or not.

Also see:

Are Humans Born with Innate Ideas? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[newpolitics]

No. Not agreed at all. At best, belief is used to justify action after the fact. There have been major instances of violence at sporting events. Do athletics cause violence?

If the goal is the truth, then let us deal with the truth. Humans are everythng you described, all on their own. They do not require any particular belief for that. Those beliefs are not the source of the behavior, the behavior is the source of the beliefs. So, what you seem to be doing is to remain in the comfort of familiar and soothing beliefs, i.e. that belief is the problem and not us. If we can just dispose of the beliefs all will be rosy and nice. The problem, however, is entirely us.

If you think action causes belief, then we can't have a debate. You have your casual relationship reversed.

If I believe someone is a threat, based on what I believe to be evidence, I will treat them as such. My belief informs my actions and behavior, because beliefs create our perceptions.

How do you explain action without some kind of underlying belief?

It is common statement that we are all born atheists. I think that is incorrect, we are instead all born as a blank slate. But the idea is the same. What beliefs we have are taught to us. That is an action. Our beliefs arise out of action. We then react in accordance with those beliefs and there are reactions to our actions, which modify the beliefs. But it is always action which precedes belief - even if the beliefs then modify subsequent action. But no belief makes us do anything which we would not do otherwise.

There is no action you can point to that I cannot find in someone else with an entirely different belief. Show me a religious zealot willing to kill and I'lll show you a soccer zealot willing to kill. The key here is that both of them are human, and you can always find a human zealot willing to kill. The belief isn't the source of the violence, it is just the excuse given.

It makes little sense that action precedes belief. Then, what causes the action? Are you saying action just happens, for no reason? We take in information using our five sense, asses that information, and react to the situation. The assessment is where beliefs are "consulted," in order to know what to do, or referenced against a "database" of prior experience and knowledge. What you are implying is that we are automotons who have no idea why we do anything. We simply do something, turn around and go, "well, I believe this now." Beliefs about ourself form our perceptions of ourself, and subsequently the world. If I truly believe I am a piece of shit, I am going to act that way. If I believe I am an awesome, funny person, I will act that way. If I believe the person sitting next to me has a bomb because I see a bomb on their lap, I am going to act in accordance with what I belief I see coming in through my five senses. Belief precedes action. Always. The only possible exception are instinctive reactions which bypass certain parts of the brain in order to allow a quicker reaction time in emergency situations. Even then, there is an implicit acknowledgement (however superficial) that a threat exists, and based on this awareness on whatever level, action must be taken.

 

[Granny]

I think I have a different outlook on religion than many others. It's not all that complicated.

As a little background, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, spent about 4 or so years of my life in a Presbyterian orphanage. I do not attend church today except for weddings or funerals. Do I believe in God? Yes. I saw the hypocrisy in my own family, I saw (and had) bloody bruising beatings in the orphanage while I heard "God is love." Oddly enough, in the orphanage the one Bible verse we were not allowed to say (because it is the shortest verse in the Bible and required no thought) was "Jesus wept."

Still, I look at religion as a necessary thing. Belief in God, Buddha, or whatever is based in faith. Rather than a building, a congregation, I think that faith is a thing inside us - our soul. A private sort of thing - our bodies being the temple of God, if you will. If this faith, or belief, is something that gives a person peace, comfort, strength against life's storms ... who is someone else to deny that?

Some churches are really hard core in their teaching/interpretations of the Bible. Others not so much. Some think every single word in the Bible was spoken by God or Jesus. Realistically thinking, I don't know how many centuries ago man started putting language down in words, but in the case of the Bible as we know it today, history tells us that as the Bible was translated from one language to another words were changed. There were words in Hebrew for which there was no matching word in another language, so interpreters had to sort of "punt" (for lack of a better word). We also have to consider that some things, rather than being absolute, are likely analogies.

I essentially think that all we need to know about how to live our lives are found in the Ten Commandments. They are all good rules and ring very, very true when one really thinks about it. Are we going to screw up sometimes and break those rules? Yes. Absolutely. We are not perfect beings. We have choices and those choices dictate our behaviors: right versus wrong; good versus evil.

I have issues with what I call the Jesus thing. I've never quite gotten my head wrapped around the Holy Trinity thing. I keep having this thought in my head that, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." It seems to me that in Christianity it is Jesus who has become the central point of worship, with God taking a second seat as a part of this Holy Trinity. I may be wrong about that. I have my relationship with God and it works for me, no matter how screwed up it might sound to someone else. No one has to answer for me and I don't have to answer for anyone else when it comes down to sins and omissions.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you think action causes belief, then we can't have a debate. You have your casual relationship reversed.

If I believe someone is a threat, based on what I believe to be evidence, I will treat them as such. My belief informs my actions and behavior, because beliefs create our perceptions.

How do you explain action without some kind of underlying belief?

It is common statement that we are all born atheists. I think that is incorrect, we are instead all born as a blank slate. But the idea is the same. What beliefs we have are taught to us. That is an action. Our beliefs arise out of action. We then react in accordance with those beliefs and there are reactions to our actions, which modify the beliefs. But it is always action which precedes belief - even if the beliefs then modify subsequent action. But no belief makes us do anything which we would not do otherwise.

There is no action you can point to that I cannot find in someone else with an entirely different belief. Show me a religious zealot willing to kill and I'lll show you a soccer zealot willing to kill. The key here is that both of them are human, and you can always find a human zealot willing to kill. The belief isn't the source of the violence, it is just the excuse given.

It makes little sense that action precedes belief. Then, what causes the action? Are you saying action just happens, for no reason? We take in information using our five sense, asses that information, and react to the situation. The assessment is where beliefs are "consulted," in order to know what to do, or referenced against a "database" of prior experience and knowledge. What you are implying is that we are automotons who have no idea why we do anything. We simply do something, turn around and go, "well, I believe this now." Beliefs about ourself form our perceptions of ourself, and subsequently the world. If I truly believe I am a piece of shit, I am going to act that way. If I believe I am an awesome, funny person, I will act that way. If I believe the person sitting next to me has a bomb because I see a bomb on their lap, I am going to act in accordance with what I belief I see coming in through my five senses. Belief precedes action. Always. The only possible exception are instinctive reactions which bypass certain parts of the brain in order to allow a quicker reaction time in emergency situations. Even then, there is an implicit acknowledgement (however superficial) that a threat exists, and based on this awareness on whatever level, action must be taken.

So what you are saying is much what the other poster is saying. That belief simply comes into being. That poster claims it comes from God. Where do you say it comes from?

Human nature is not much different than it was when the species first evolved. Beliefs have changed, but not how we react to conditions or the violence we exhibit. Our beliefs merely justify the behavior. As I have already said, there is not a single human behavior you might relate to one belief that I can't give an example of in another. There is no human action which is created by any given belief. I believe I kill because it is for "God" or "Mom and Apple Pie" - but the reality is that I kill because I am told to.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think I have a different outlook on religion than many others. It's not all that complicated.

As a little background, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, spent about 4 or so years of my life in a Presbyterian orphanage. I do not attend church today except for weddings or funerals. Do I believe in God? Yes. I saw the hypocrisy in my own family, I saw (and had) bloody bruising beatings in the orphanage while I heard "God is love." Oddly enough, in the orphanage the one Bible verse we were not allowed to say (because it is the shortest verse in the Bible and required no thought) was "Jesus wept."

Still, I look at religion as a necessary thing. Belief in God, Buddha, or whatever is based in faith. Rather than a building, a congregation, I think that faith is a thing inside us - our soul. A private sort of thing - our bodies being the temple of God, if you will. If this faith, or belief, is something that gives a person peace, comfort, strength against life's storms ... who is someone else to deny that?

Some churches are really hard core in their teaching/interpretations of the Bible. Others not so much. Some think every single word in the Bible was spoken by God or Jesus. Realistically thinking, I don't know how many centuries ago man started putting language down in words, but in the case of the Bible as we know it today, history tells us that as the Bible was translated from one language to another words were changed. There were words in Hebrew for which there was no matching word in another language, so interpreters had to sort of "punt" (for lack of a better word). We also have to consider that some things, rather than being absolute, are likely analogies.

I essentially think that all we need to know about how to live our lives are found in the Ten Commandments. They are all good rules and ring very, very true when one really thinks about it. Are we going to screw up sometimes and break those rules? Yes. Absolutely. We are not perfect beings. We have choices and those choices dictate our behaviors: right versus wrong; good versus evil.

I have issues with what I call the Jesus thing. I've never quite gotten my head wrapped around the Holy Trinity thing. I keep having this thought in my head that, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." It seems to me that in Christianity it is Jesus who has become the central point of worship, with God taking a second seat as a part of this Holy Trinity. I may be wrong about that. I have my relationship with God and it works for me, no matter how screwed up it might sound to someone else. No one has to answer for me and I don't have to answer for anyone else when it comes down to sins and omissions.

A valid approach. Personally, I have always seen right vs wrong, good vs evil, as purely theoretical. What you actually get in life - at least for the decisions which really matter - is the choice between wrong and more wrong, evil and more evil. Not, how do I do good but how do I do the least harm.

 

[tipofthespear]

Not really........

Innate Knowledge

(excerpt from article linked above)

Throughout history it has been suggested that man is born as a tabula rasa (Lat., “blank slate”), a concept with roots reaching back to Aristotle, developed by Aquinas, and later popularized by John Locke in an Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). According to this perspective, man’s mind is a blank at birth and is filled with data through the experiences of life and the information received via sensory perception. Empirical information becomes the building blocks of knowledge and the means by which man reflects upon the knowledge communicated from that which surrounds him. As a core of information is gained from experiences, some sort of framework develops that is used to process additional information. The universals, therefore, are developed by the individual from the particulars.

Contrary to the above thinking, man is endowed with an intellectual or rational structure which makes learning and reasoning possible. Man is gifted by virtue of his manhood, the Imago Dei, with this intellectual and rational composition, which enables him to assimilate knowledge and to critique the knowledge that is gained. This framework is composed of the universals or intellectual concepts that are valid and are utilized in everyday life, whether one realizes they exist or not.

Also see:

Are Humans Born with Innate Ideas? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

I seriously doubt you visited the two links provided to read the entire articles....otherwise you would know, even though you may deny, that the articles directly contradict your idea of man being "born a blank slate." Given that they do an excellent job of disproving your idea, it is no surprise you would suggest they have nothing to do with what you posted.

Still, others will probably see the connection/contradiction.....and that is the purpose.

 

[Granny]

I think I have a different outlook on religion than many others. It's not all that complicated.

As a little background, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, spent about 4 or so years of my life in a Presbyterian orphanage. I do not attend church today except for weddings or funerals. Do I believe in God? Yes. I saw the hypocrisy in my own family, I saw (and had) bloody bruising beatings in the orphanage while I heard "God is love." Oddly enough, in the orphanage the one Bible verse we were not allowed to say (because it is the shortest verse in the Bible and required no thought) was "Jesus wept."

Still, I look at religion as a necessary thing. Belief in God, Buddha, or whatever is based in faith. Rather than a building, a congregation, I think that faith is a thing inside us - our soul. A private sort of thing - our bodies being the temple of God, if you will. If this faith, or belief, is something that gives a person peace, comfort, strength against life's storms ... who is someone else to deny that?

Some churches are really hard core in their teaching/interpretations of the Bible. Others not so much. Some think every single word in the Bible was spoken by God or Jesus. Realistically thinking, I don't know how many centuries ago man started putting language down in words, but in the case of the Bible as we know it today, history tells us that as the Bible was translated from one language to another words were changed. There were words in Hebrew for which there was no matching word in another language, so interpreters had to sort of "punt" (for lack of a better word). We also have to consider that some things, rather than being absolute, are likely analogies.

I essentially think that all we need to know about how to live our lives are found in the Ten Commandments. They are all good rules and ring very, very true when one really thinks about it. Are we going to screw up sometimes and break those rules? Yes. Absolutely. We are not perfect beings. We have choices and those choices dictate our behaviors: right versus wrong; good versus evil.

I have issues with what I call the Jesus thing. I've never quite gotten my head wrapped around the Holy Trinity thing. I keep having this thought in my head that, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." It seems to me that in Christianity it is Jesus who has become the central point of worship, with God taking a second seat as a part of this Holy Trinity. I may be wrong about that. I have my relationship with God and it works for me, no matter how screwed up it might sound to someone else. No one has to answer for me and I don't have to answer for anyone else when it comes down to sins and omissions.

A valid approach. Personally, I have always seen right vs wrong, good vs evil, as purely theoretical. What you actually get in life - at least for the decisions which really matter - is the choice between wrong and more wrong, evil and more evil. Not, how do I do good but how do I do the least harm.

And that choice whether to do right or wrong, or do good or evil is what is called conscience. Without a conscience people just don't give a damn - they do wrong, wrong and more wrong and evil, evil and more evil. They don't care about consequences, don't see consequences. They perceive themselves as "smarter than ..." Once caught, or moreover tried and convicted, have you ever noticed how some of these people don't want the death sentence for themselves? The life of someone else never crossed their mind or even mattered until that life was their own life.

The same holds true with other choices. Without conscience people can live their lives in wanton rebellion, wild promiscuity, and whatever it is they want to do without the "threat" of consequences. My opinion is that this is part of the war against religion whether anyone wants to admit to that or not. I'm not exactly sure how to state this, but conscience I think could be equated as a sort of "cause and effect" or "action and reaction" type of thing. Religion tends to bring conscience into a situation where conscience is not wanted or welcomed.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not really........

Innate Knowledge

(excerpt from article linked above)

Throughout history it has been suggested that man is born as a tabula rasa (Lat., “blank slate”), a concept with roots reaching back to Aristotle, developed by Aquinas, and later popularized by John Locke in an Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). According to this perspective, man’s mind is a blank at birth and is filled with data through the experiences of life and the information received via sensory perception. Empirical information becomes the building blocks of knowledge and the means by which man reflects upon the knowledge communicated from that which surrounds him. As a core of information is gained from experiences, some sort of framework develops that is used to process additional information. The universals, therefore, are developed by the individual from the particulars.

Contrary to the above thinking, man is endowed with an intellectual or rational structure which makes learning and reasoning possible. Man is gifted by virtue of his manhood, the Imago Dei, with this intellectual and rational composition, which enables him to assimilate knowledge and to critique the knowledge that is gained. This framework is composed of the universals or intellectual concepts that are valid and are utilized in everyday life, whether one realizes they exist or not.

Also see:

Are Humans Born with Innate Ideas? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

I seriously doubt you visited the two links provided to read the entire articles....otherwise you would know, even though you may deny, that the articles directly contradict your idea of man being "born a blank slate." Given that they do an excellent job of disproving your idea, it is no surprise you would suggest they have nothing to do with what you posted.

Still, others will probably see the connection/contradiction.....and that is the purpose.

It still has nothing to do with what I posted.