Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[alang1216]

And yet natural selection says you don't have the functional advantage that I have.

Exactly how have you been favored by evolution?

And you don't see your comment that you educate the ignorant as condescending? Again... I think you need to be honest with yourself.

No more so than your comment about outsmarting people. Just funnier.

 

[Donald H]

Too inside for me. I'll let you Christians fight it out in peace.

Meri and Ding can only envy Christians who maintain that their bibles are 100% the literal word of the god.

They dare not challenge them.

The Christian church is divided into three different groups of believers.

1. the literal believers who claim it's all or nothing. +-20%
2. the more modern Christians that are embarrassed by the literal bible. +- 20%
3. those who need to remain silent on what they really believe. +-60%

It's the 60% that need to struggle with atheists in an attempt to convince themselves on their acceptance of them being backsliders.

Rhetorically speaking, they live in the hope that modern science will prove that life in the belly of a big fish is possible?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the first a religious organization is not part of the federal government.

No one said it was.

Religious organizations are private entities at liberty to engage in political participation, as are individuals of religious organizations.

Private citizens pushing back against and opposing the racism, bigotry, and hate of religious organizations is not to deny religious organizations political participation.

The conflict manifests when elected officials, motivated by religious doctrine and dogma, seek to codify that doctrine and dogma into secular law contrary to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – in essence seeking to conjoin church and state, in violation of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

Using the authority of the state to promote religion – such as compelled prayer in public schools – or to discriminate against classes of persons perceived to be in violation of ‘god’s law’ – such as banning books with gay or transgender characters – is clearly un-Constitutional.

 

[Donald H]

Faith comes in all sizes and, like alcohol, a little is a good thing but too much is destructive. Only you know where you lie on that spectrum.

The truth is, Ding doesn't know where he lies on that spectrum of beliefs.

Being a literal believer embarrasses him and disagreeing on the literal interpretations of his bibles is sinful to him.

So they struggle on a political forum with stories such as the 'big fish' that only works for children being introduced to the lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you mean, exactly, by, "Speaks for God"? For example, people of the Mormon Church claim they speak for God in announcing the Catholic Church is in apostasy. Those who say they "speak for God" when they say vote for a particular candidate. Neither "speaks for God".

On the other hand, there are those who proclaim God's word--i.e., that sins are forgiven or that Jews were Chosen--i.e., set apart for a specific purpose. The Ten Commandments may be another example.



And here we get to the crux of the matter--and this reaches beyond religion/faith. Instead of opposition to "God", we can substitute any number of words here. Opposition to the government, to the Democratic Party, to the Republican Party, to Science to name just a few.

Any/all of those positions should be based on fact and logic, not on feelings, or the say-so of anyone, no matter how highly placed. First, go to the source. Who actually said it and what was the motivation behind it. If one supports the statement, what is the logic, facts for supporting it? Did God actually say to vote for a certain person? If he did not, then who said God said this, and what was the motivation for that statement?

I can point to any number of reasons I may not be in favor of Kamala Harris for President, much of it based on what is seen in the media and the positions she takes on various issues. However, I would not say anything against her personally for the sole reason I know for a fact when she was Senator she was kind and professional towards my daughter. She is not just a name to me, and nor should any candidate be to any of us.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists; religion and later ‘god’ are creations of man.

And as creations of man, they are imbued with man’s fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hate.

The Framers understood that, they witnessed the abuse and violation of human rights by theocratic, authoritarian regimes in Europe and resolved to not allow that to happen in the new Republic with the codification of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Citizens have the right to believe as they see fit, including to be free from religion altogether; theists are not at liberty to compel others to believe as they do using the authority of the state.

Tragically, the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate has never before been in greater jeopardy, with the Christo-fascist right’s campaign hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence becoming more bold and aggressive – such as Republican-controlled states compelling religious dogma in public schools – and a Supreme Court dominated by conservative ideologues who have contempt for settled, accepted precedent, including that of the First Amendment.

 

[alang1216]

The truth is, Ding doesn't know where he lies on that spectrum of beliefs.

Being a literal believer embarrasses him and disagreeing on the literal interpretations of his bibles is sinful to him.

So they struggle on a political forum with stories such as the 'big fish' that only works for children being introduced to the lies.

I try not to question anyone's beliefs, only their facts.

 

[Donald H]

I try not to question anyone's beliefs, only their facts.

You meant vice versa. Good luck with challenging facts!

 

[ding]

Faith comes in all sizes and, like alcohol, a little is a good thing but too much is destructive. Only you know where you lie on that spectrum.

But I don't accept that analogy. It's a horrible analogy. I can never have too much faith. With faith comes peace. Can you have too much peace? I can't. He transforms me. I'm a new person. He turns on all the learning centers of my brain. Comparing that to an alcoholic or a heroin addict is ridiculous.

Lastly, you - a person who has no faith - telling me about faith is kind of dumb. Same goes for you telling me pretty much anything about the accounts of the bible. I would never assume I knew the religion that was not my own better than a person who practiced that religion. That would be illogical and arrogant.

You don't read these passages for meaning. You read these passages to confirm your bias. You can't even imagine the level of depth required to gain understanding of what you are reading. You've never studied the parables like I have. Not even close. You have no idea what they are saying.

 

[ding]

How is your view of religion different from that of Ayatollah Khomeini?

No idea. What's his view of religion? Is there some well known quote he made like Karl Marx made when he said, "religion is the opiate of the masses?" You compared people of faith to alcoholics and heroin addicts. Do you see the similarity in your belief and Karl Marx's belief? Does that give you pause for concern?

 

[ding]

Exactly how have you been favored by evolution?

Haven't we already had this discussion? Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. If belief in a higher power provided no functional advantage it would have died out long ago. The reason belief in God has existed in overwhelming numbers in every civilization since the beginning of man is that it provides a functional advantage. And that functional advantage is hope, peace, love, truth and virtue.

 

[ding]

No more so than your comment about outsmarting people. Just funnier.

I wasn't making a joke. I was being honest. I don't believe you were making a joke either. I think you were being honest too. That's exactly how you see us. Ignorant. Often times ignorance is insolent. This is especially true for ignorance that thinks it knows such as yours. And for the record it wasn't 1/10th as funny as mine.

 

[ding]

The truth is, Ding doesn't know where he lies on that spectrum of beliefs.

Being a literal believer embarrasses him and disagreeing on the literal interpretations of his bibles is sinful to him.

So they struggle on a political forum with stories such as the 'big fish' that only works for children being introduced to the lies.

I don't have words for your idiocy.

 

[alang1216]

But I don't accept that analogy. It's a horrible analogy. I can never have too much faith. With faith comes peace. Can you have too much peace? I can't. He transforms me. I'm a new person. He turns on all the learning centers of my brain. Comparing that to an alcoholic or a heroin addict is ridiculous.

I think we can agree that overdoing alcohol or heroin is a very destructive thing but what would you say about someone whose faith has them drink poison or sell everything they own in the expectation that Jesus is coming on a specific day.

Lastly, you - a person who has no faith - telling me about faith is kind of dumb.

Or unbiased and objective.

Same goes for you telling me pretty much anything about the accounts of the bible. I would never assume I knew the religion that was not my own better than a person who practiced that religion. That would be illogical and arrogant.

Actually that is generally my experience. Not the theology, just the history of the Bible. I have a good evangelical friend who didn't know which gospel was written first or that some gospel passages were inserted well after the gospel was first written.

You don't read these passages for meaning. You read these passages to confirm your bias. You can't even imagine the level of depth required to gain understanding of what you are reading. You've never studied the parables like I have. Not even close. You have no idea what they are saying.

I read them to understand their context, NOT their theology.

 

[ding]

I try not to question anyone's beliefs

That's not entirely true. I believe in the historicty of the events of Jesus Christ because of the 24,000 written manuscripts, the behaviors and actions of the early Christians/Apostles and my own personal experiences. If I understand your argument it's that the authors of the 24,000 written manuscripts, the early Christians and the apostles were either bamboozled by a conspiracy of epic proportion or were co-conspirators. You aren't questioning the existence of the manuscripts or the behaviors of the early Christians and apostles. You are questioning my believing these facts at face value.

Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

Because I don't believe you have any evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[ding]

I think we can agree that overdoing alcohol or heroin is a very destructive thing but what would you say about someone whose faith has them drink poison or sell everything they own in the expectation that Jesus is coming on a specific day.


Or unbiased and objective.


Actually that is generally my experience. Not the theology, just the history of the Bible. I have a good evangelical friend who didn't know which gospel was written first or that some gospel passages were inserted well after the gospel was first written.


I read them to understand their context, NOT their theology.

Right now I don't believe we can agree on anything. You don't know the first thing about my faith. The kingdom of heaven is now. I experience the Father, Son and Holy Ghost... now. It's not some conceptual thing that is far off into the future. It's a relationship I am in now. There is nothing it doesn't influence. It's part of the fabric of my identity.