...and said that the ice storm was His punishment for not voting in the river tax. Or maybe it was for all of us dissin' Richard Roberts. I'm not sure. He was mumbling a bit.
But one thing he was absolutely clear about was the up-coming bill on religious freedom in the schools. If that's not approved, He said He'll use His Noodly Appendage to rain toads upon our heads.
Ramen.
You have the wrong God.
Mine uses locusts instead of toads.
My gods are sending a snow storm to punish those that have come to help the wicked.
So sayth the lord.
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
My gods are sending a snow storm to punish those that have come to help the wicked.
So sayth the lord.
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
yours still speaks in old english? Mine switched to pig latin, but said he will revert to english if they pass that Son of 1804 bill next year.
BTW, I have a load of toads in my backyard frozen solid if anyone needs something to burn in their fireplace.
I think it would be good PR if ORU would send their 900 ft Jesus around to pick up all the limbs.
You guys can be pretty funny when you are not beating peeps up.....
BTW, what bill on religious freedom?
http://www.okhouse.gov/okhousemedia/pressroom.aspx?NewsID=1351
Reynolds to File Religious Freedom Bill for Oklahoma Students
Contact: State Rep. Mike Reynolds
Capitol: (405) 557-7337
OKLAHOMA CITY (November 26, 2007) – State Rep. Mike Reynolds plans to file legislation creating a Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act that will create a level playing field for religious and secular expression in Oklahoma's public schools.
"Oklahoma families need to know their children will not be persecuted for exercising their constitutional rights and expressing religious beliefs at school," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. "While students and guest speakers can't use state resources to proselytize, they have every right to express their personal beliefs and should be given the same protections afforded non-religious or even anti-religious officials."
............
So the way I see it, it's a get-out-of-physics-class-free card if you claim that the results of an experiment were changed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's invisible Noodly Appendage.
They tried something like this in Pennsylvania years ago, and it met near-universal acclaim until someone pointed out that the Neo-Druid Dead Puppy Cult would get equal treatment in the schools. The fundies behind it were livid, but they never thought through the consequences.
This is truly fantastic news for my floundering religion...Futurenetics.
You have no idea of the discrimination I faced in those Futurenetics-less public schools... finally someone's gonna speak up for me & my mainstream views.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
http://www.okhouse.gov/okhousemedia/pressroom.aspx?NewsID=1351
Reynolds to File Religious Freedom Bill for Oklahoma Students
Contact: State Rep. Mike Reynolds
Capitol: (405) 557-7337
OKLAHOMA CITY (November 26, 2007) – State Rep. Mike Reynolds plans to file legislation creating a Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act that will create a level playing field for religious and secular expression in Oklahoma's public schools.
"Oklahoma families need to know their children will not be persecuted for exercising their constitutional rights and expressing religious beliefs at school," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. "While students and guest speakers can't use state resources to proselytize, they have every right to express their personal beliefs and should be given the same protections afforded non-religious or even anti-religious officials."
............
So the way I see it, it's a get-out-of-physics-class-free card if you claim that the results of an experiment were changed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's invisible Noodly Appendage.
They tried something like this in Pennsylvania years ago, and it met near-universal acclaim until someone pointed out that the Neo-Druid Dead Puppy Cult would get equal treatment in the schools. The fundies behind it were livid, but they never thought through the consequences.
I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. Therefore, when the issue of religious beliefs of candidates comes up I pay close attention. Frankly, I am not impressed with those who favor organized religious hocus-pocus over scientific theory and established fact.
If it comes down to it, I will vote for an atheist, a pagan, or a Wiccan over a Bible-believing Christian any day of the week. It is important that any leader who is worth their salt keep their personal religious beliefs out of their professional responsibilities. I don't want a president who thinks they need to proselytize to the masses. I want a president who adheres to a sense of values that exhibits respect and dignity for all others -- no matter their religion, their sex, their ethnicity -- and one who will promote the betterment of all humankind.
Who is more likely to do that? A secular humanist, an atheist or an adherent of organized religion? I'll place my bet on the humanist or atheist any day of the week.
Keep our public schools free from religious interference.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'll place my bet on the humanist or atheist any day of the week.
You can bet on these things?
Is it like a horse race or more like a bingo?
If you win, do you yell "Pagan!?"
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Frankly, I am not impressed with those who favor organized religious hocus-pocus over scientific theory and established fact.
I had a physics instructor long ago who was a very devout man. He saw the contradictions between science and faith, and said that to a man of faith, those contradictions were unimportant. Faith itself is a mystery and none of us should presume to know the mind of God. He was humble, never trying to press his beliefs on anyone.
So I think it's possible for faith and scientific curiosity to co-exist in the same brain. Georgie Ann Geyer wrote something about it once, saying that faith, science, and the artistic process all share a common language, yet the same words seem to have differing meanings for each of them. Science cannot adequately describe art or faith, just as art cannot depict faith or science. Likewise, faith falls short at defining science and art.
An friend brought a date with her out to dinner one night. He was a research scientist for Pfizer and a baptist minister. When the topic of what he did came up he said both things - and I asked him how they related to each other...
He told me (essential, this was a few years back) science confirms that God is real because everything works out so perfectly. And God proves that he is superior to science because everything we learn only extends the vastness of things that we do not. Thus his scientific endeavors serve to both confirm his faith and respect for God.
I thought that was a very interesting and well thought out response, and neglected to raise the question of biblical scientific inaccuracy .[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
http://www.okhouse.gov/okhousemedia/pressroom.aspx?NewsID=1351
Reynolds to File Religious Freedom Bill for Oklahoma Students
Contact: State Rep. Mike Reynolds
Capitol: (405) 557-7337
OKLAHOMA CITY (November 26, 2007) – State Rep. Mike Reynolds plans to file legislation creating a Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act that will create a level playing field for religious and secular expression in Oklahoma's public schools.
"Oklahoma families need to know their children will not be persecuted for exercising their constitutional rights and expressing religious beliefs at school," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. "While students and guest speakers can't use state resources to proselytize, they have every right to express their personal beliefs and should be given the same protections afforded non-religious or even anti-religious officials."
............
So the way I see it, it's a get-out-of-physics-class-free card if you claim that the results of an experiment were changed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's invisible Noodly Appendage.
They tried something like this in Pennsylvania years ago, and it met near-universal acclaim until someone pointed out that the Neo-Druid Dead Puppy Cult would get equal treatment in the schools. The fundies behind it were livid, but they never thought through the consequences.
I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. Therefore, when the issue of religious beliefs of candidates comes up I pay close attention. Frankly, I am not impressed with those who favor organized religious hocus-pocus over scientific theory and established fact.
If it comes down to it, I will vote for an atheist, a pagan, or a Wiccan over a Bible-believing Christian any day of the week. It is important that any leader who is worth their salt keep their personal religious beliefs out of their professional responsibilities. I don't want a president who thinks they need to proselytize to the masses. I want a president who adheres to a sense of values that exhibits respect and dignity for all others -- no matter their religion, their sex, their ethnicity -- and one who will promote the betterment of all humankind.
Who is more likely to do that? A secular humanist, an atheist or an adherent of organized religion? I'll place my bet on the humanist or atheist any day of the week.
Keep our public schools free from religious interference.
Amen.
I thought that was a very interesting and well thought out response, and neglected to raise the question of biblical scientific inaccuracy
I wasn't aware of any scientific inaccuracies in the Bible ...
If one beleives that God is who he says he is, then the science of our realm (a speck compared to Him) shouldn't be too much for Him to alter at His will or override temporarily...
The law of gravity is not compromised in the least when the law of lift takes over and a massive jet plane that no man could lift flies seemingly effortlessly...
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
You have the wrong God.
Mine uses locusts instead of toads.
That's funny RM.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
You have the wrong God.
Mine uses locusts instead of toads.
Ed's God uses meatballs... And pirates...
Arrrrrrrrr....
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Quote
Ed's God uses meatballs... And pirates...
Arrrrrrrrr....
I completely forgot about meatballs and pirates!
"And lo, God did bring upon them a rain of meatballs, which did consume them utterly, sparing neither the husband nor the wife, the son nor the daughter, the antipasto nor the gelato, until they were sorely vexed and did cry out, enough already!"
Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.
Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?
Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...
My God says everything they sell at Quik Trip is OK, but the Kum and Go ain't kosher.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.
Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?
Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...
(http://blog.scottmgrizzle.com/uploaded_images/2081082592_295462295d-798595.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
It's because of the King James version of the Bible. On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century. In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation. However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory. Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years. More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations. But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
It's because of the King James version of the Bible. On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century. In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation. However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory. Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years. More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations. But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.
Tolstoy labeled it Churchianity.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.
Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?
Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...
(http://blog.scottmgrizzle.com/uploaded_images/2081082592_295462295d-798595.jpg)
In the delicious for Chanukah tag....those are latkes, potato pancakes....not ham. The internet helps promotes lies as well as truths. Duh. God made the internet.....no, it was the Devil. One or the other one....does it matter anyway?
btw, some Jewish people eat pork and do not believe in following strict 5000 year old laws written prior to refrigeration.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
In the delicious for Chanukah tag....those are latkes, potato pancakes....not ham. The internet helps promotes lies as well as truths. Duh. God made the internet.....no, it was the Devil. One or the other one....does it matter anyway?
btw, some Jewish people eat pork and do not believe in following strict 5000 year old laws written prior to refrigeration.
That was sign stock used for lots of tags in the store. Some stockperson wasn't smart enough to know not to put it on certain items.
The internet is full of porn, so it, like "the foosball," is of the devil.
You don't know that....god could be into porn. He hatched Eve didn't he?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You don't know that....god could be into porn. He hatched Eve didn't he?
That was more of a "Waterboy" movie reference than a personal opinion..
I subscribe to the Ron White precept... Once you see one woman naked, you want to see them all naked...
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
It's because of the King James version of the Bible. On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century. In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation. However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory. Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years. More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations. But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.
It was kind of a rhetorical question as 18 years of catholic schools and an inert (yes inert) interest in religion has me well versed. Nonetheless, thank you for the *very* well worded response. Which is, incidentally, exactly what I was thinking.
What's in a translation anyway, nothing important. Kill, murder, what's the difference? Jesus' has literal brothers in Aramaic and vague "brothers" as friends in English. Not important! Details. Just little details lost in translation (Aramaic/Hebrew - Greek - Latin - Middle English - Modern + hand transcription and political editing by certain monarchs/deities). [;)]
- - -
quote:
In2neaon said
I wasn't aware of any scientific inaccuracies in the Bible ...
If one beleives [sic] that God is who he says he is, then the science of our realm (a speck compared to Him) shouldn't be too much for Him to alter at His will or override temporarily...
The law of gravity is not compromised in the least when the law of lift takes over and a massive jet plane that no man could lift flies seemingly effortlessly...
1. Airplanes operate within the laws of our realm utilizing the principle of lift. Essentially a high pressure system created above the wings surface pulls the wing upward. In short, a plane uses air pressure to fly (like you didn't know that).
I really do not see how this is applicable to rabbits being ungulates, mustard seeds being the smallest, whales being a fish, the Earth being flat or having corners, etc. etc. etc. Unless God created a perfect world in which such was true and then decided to change his mind - which would be odd for an infallible being to change his mind.
or, that it was of paramount importance for a 5 sentence lecture to make hares chew their cud. Makes more sense that either the speaker, translator, or scribe made an error.
2. Your argument is guilty of begging the question:
Whatever the bible says is truth because God says so.
The bible says God is all powerful.
There God is all powerful.
Under such an argument, the book "cannon_fodder is Never Wrong" should hold the same perfection that the bible has. For cannon_fodder clearly states in it that he is always correct. It also says his god can beat up your god. Since both books are clearly always correct; what happens what an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?
/move to politics in 3, 2, ...
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
PS. why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English? I knoweth not why that 'tis done.
It's because of the King James version of the Bible. On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century. In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation. However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory. Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years. More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations. But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.
That's actually middle English. None of us would understand Old English. It is something like this: Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
An friend brought a date with her out to dinner one night. He was a research scientist for Pfizer and a baptist minister. When the topic of what he did came up he said both things - and I asked him how they related to each other...
He told me (essential, this was a few years back) science confirms that God is real because everything works out so perfectly. And God proves that he is superior to science because everything we learn only extends the vastness of things that we do not. Thus his scientific endeavors serve to both confirm his faith and respect for God.
I thought that was a very interesting and well thought out response, and neglected to raise the question of biblical scientific inaccuracy .[;)]
Steven Hawking takes that exact same position in his book "A Brief History of Time". I'll see if I can find the passage, because it's very profound.
Sorry FOTD, we will never have your atheist president. . . but I do hope that you use this as your basis for choice. [:P] Keeps me from having to worry abut your vote.
I find that atheists are typically very angry people, willing to take outlandish positions. I see it as some form of arrested development that takes place during that time in their youth when the big question "who am I" cannot be satisfied adequately.
It's not that they don't believe in anything spiritual, but that they require their answers to come from direct existential exposure.
For these people, "faith" in anything is ridiculous. Reliance on science is comfortable, because science is a mechanism for change. These folks love constant change though they cope with it very poorly when it is not in their favor.
The atheist mind tends to carry this position into every facet of their lives. They offer poor friendships, weak marriages, and bad business decisions. The very concept of "Love" is based on faith. Faith in another person, but faith none the less.
This is their choice, and the only way they feel that they can ground themselves. For the atheist, it is very powerful to feel that their is nothing greater than the self. (You can imagine the subconscious decision making that comes from that.)
If you spend enough time as a student of life, you begin to learn that your faculties are in no way capable of comprehending it. What we know of time and space is meaningless and humbling. It would be far to arrogant to dismiss the existence of an architect.
Tulsascoot: thank you for the correction. I always want to call Shakespeare olde English too, knowing full well it is not. Old English = before the great vowel shift = no way I can understand it. More like Celtic, is that accurate? Anyway, I'm a poor linguist, so thanks.
- - -
Spoonbill:
My moral treatise in 2 minutes...
I would consider myself an agnostic (or possibly even an atheist as I do not rule out the non existence of gods). Not that I do not believe in spirituality, but I have difficulty with the notion of any individual have the gods figured out - or their gods being better than yours.
While i give credence where due to the teachings of Mosses, Jesus, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohamed, Moroni, the Llamas and many other spiritual entities - I have confidence that none of them have it figured out (yes that means I do not think they were divine). And even if THEY did, it is unlikely their followers have it pegged. I come to this conclusions as an individual very well educated and immersed in religion.
However, for me at least, the conclusion is that no one has it figured out. That includes me. The self is certainly not the height of existence. But I do feel obligated to justify by beliefs and moral code with logic, not faith. I refuse to eat Kosher, wear tassels, or pray towards a certain city. Logically, so long as my beliefs and actions harm no one else they are neutral. If they aid someone else, the deeds are good. Pretty simple, I don't behave to appears my gods but purely out of a feeling of self worth (if I do something I feel is bad I feel negative, and visa versa).
The notion that gods have sent messengers, prophets, or sons to Earth to appease our need to self righteousness is extremely egotistic. God made everything for us, we are what is important, and s/he spends all her/is time worrying about what we are doing. We are the end game, it stops with us. Every cultures creation myth has that culture being the chosen one, their gods being supreme, and their way of life sanctioned. Lucky for you us our culture hit the geographical jack pot and conquered most everyone else.
Thus, it is not my ego that dismisses a grand architect. It is my inability to comprehend such a notion that leads me to dismiss my knowledge of it. Therefor, I do not pretend to know that which is divine.
and incidentally, I agree with Sinclair Lewis when he said that "when fascism comes to the United States it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." I tend to look at people who claim to have everything figured out with great skepticism. And no... that doesn't mean Ron Paul gets my vote.
/rant should have been more structured. Oh well, nothing ya'll haven't heard before.
I consider myself an orthodox evangelical heretic universalist singer.
I believe in strict interpretation of my faith expressed through potluck dinners, yet publically dissent from all those who need salvation from the choir.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tulsascoot: thank you for the correction. I always want to call Shakespeare olde English too, knowing full well it is not. Old English = before the great vowel shift = no way I can understand it. More like Celtic, is that accurate? Anyway, I'm a poor linguist, so thanks.
- - -
Spoonbill:
My moral treatise in 2 minutes...
I would consider myself an agnostic (or possibly even an atheist as I do not rule out the non existence of gods). Not that I do not believe in spirituality, but I have difficulty with the notion of any individual have the gods figured out - or their gods being better than yours.
While i give credence where due to the teachings of Mosses, Jesus, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohamed, Moroni, the Llamas and many other spiritual entities - I have confidence that none of them have it figured out (yes that means I do not think they were divine). And even if THEY did, it is unlikely their followers have it pegged. I come to this conclusions as an individual very well educated and immersed in religion.
However, for me at least, the conclusion is that no one has it figured out. That includes me. The self is certainly not the height of existence. But I do feel obligated to justify by beliefs and moral code with logic, not faith. I refuse to eat Kosher, wear tassels, or pray towards a certain city. Logically, so long as my beliefs and actions harm no one else they are neutral. If they aid someone else, the deeds are good. Pretty simple, I don't behave to appears my gods but purely out of a feeling of self worth (if I do something I feel is bad I feel negative, and visa versa).
The notion that gods have sent messengers, prophets, or sons to Earth to appease our need to self righteousness is extremely egotistic. God made everything for us, we are what is important, and s/he spends all her/is time worrying about what we are doing. We are the end game, it stops with us. Every cultures creation myth has that culture being the chosen one, their gods being supreme, and their way of life sanctioned. Lucky for you us our culture hit the geographical jack pot and conquered most everyone else.
Thus, it is not my ego that dismisses a grand architect. It is my inability to comprehend such a notion that leads me to dismiss my knowledge of it. Therefor, I do not pretend to know that which is divine.
and incidentally, I agree with Sinclair Lewis when he said that "when fascism comes to the United States it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." I tend to look at people who claim to have everything figured out with great skepticism. And no... that doesn't mean Ron Paul gets my vote.
/rant should have been more structured. Oh well, nothing ya'll haven't heard before.
Well said. I agree with your point that no one has it figured out.
Organized religions simply offer a set of stories designed to guide individuals along whatever path they choose. Oddly, at the heart of most religions is the same basic message and moral code. That is what is transcendent and necessary for people, civilization and society to prosper.
When you subtract that foundation, society begins to collapse as our definitions of right and wrong begin to grey. In our society generally people understand the difference between right and wrong. But don't mistake this "sociology" that guides your behavior as universal. Wether you like it or not, CF, your decisions and behavior are guided by Judaism and/or Christian philosophy.
You obey these Judeo-Christian moral laws.
If you were raised in Saudi Arabia, China, Africa, or many other cultures, you may not feel any guilt killing a child that has disgraced you, or stealing from your neighbor. You may still call yourself agnostic or atheist in these cultures, however you will still bear the mantle of the moral code passed through the accepted religious doctrine.
It is simply human nature. We are genetically predisposed to adopting a form of spiritual morality.
FOTD can rail on religion all day, but until he makes it a personal quest to disobey the 10 commandments, he is subject to the moral code that his evil Christians have forced him to live by.
My favorite Commandments are "do not commit adultary" and "don't covet thy neighbor's wife".
Don't do it and don't even think about it.
I agree spoonbill, it is impossible to not be influenced by such codes... but I chose which parts to accept (though shalt not kill) and which ones to ignore (stone adulterers).
and good call RM, I too am a big fan of thought crime. [;)]
There are three groups of people in Tulsa. Church goers, bar goers, and everyone in between.
Agnostic not atheist. Big difference.
Atheists are angry because they seem to be a minority who follow our founders constitution regarding seperation of church and state and atheists as others do not like it when hucksters throw their religious views at them by lobbying lawmakers.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
There are three groups of people in Tulsa. Church goers, bar goers, and everyone in between.
Agnostic not atheist. Big difference.
Atheists are angry because they seem to be a minority who follow our founders constitution regarding seperation of church and state and atheists as others do not like it when hucksters throw their religious views at them by lobbying lawmakers.
Amendment I
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 grievances.
I guess that's the decree of the Atheist? Sounds fair to me. Your semantics are at fault. It's "Separation of church
from state" that Mr. Ben Franklin discussed in his writings.
The constitution charges the government to allow the free exercise of religion.
So to refute whatever point you were making (which seems to be my goal of late). It is unconstitutional to in any way prohibit a candidate, citizen, or lobbyist for that matter, from the free practice of his or her religion.
For the liberal dogs to scream that a candidate should not be elected on the basis that he or she engages in the practice of a religion is exactly what the framers were trying to prevent.
Ben Franklin predicted this. . .As we slouch forward towards socialism (it is inevitable, all we can do is attempt to slow the process) we will see the three pillars of our society chipped away. Religious freedom will be the first. The right to bear arms the second, and the right to educate our children in the traditions of our fathers will be the last.
As I think I've said before, FOTD your side will eventually win, all we can do is slow the process.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." --Alexander Tyler writing about Athens.
The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion. "Make no Law Respecting the Establishment of Religion" has been interpreted as such. What's more, the writings of the founders are decidedly less religious than most modern statesmen (on a national scale) but shared the same public bravado for religion when seeking office.
GW, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson - decidedly not Christian. For as much as Franklin predicted a loss of many freedoms as a government aged (he had little concern for religious freedoms for himself), Jefferson predicted that religion would be used by government as a tool to take them away. Lets see... gay marriage, bigamy, blue laws, prostitution, abortion, gambling. Yep, seems like government is using religion to justify telling me what to do.
Jefferson's tombstone even brags about his creation of the separation of church and state. Referring both to an institutional basis (COE, Vatican) and a spiritual one (only Christians in Whitehouse). Not that I am at present particularly concerned with such a thing, and int he long term hope religions themselves see that institutionalizing their faith negates it.
And while the attribution of the quote is dubious (it is doubted it was an original quote), I could not agree more with it's content.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion.
I am not an extremely religious person, nor a constitutional scholar.
But as I remember, at least the way I was taught in my constitutional law class, the affiliation with religion is not the sticky point. Establishment is. Our government has always been affiliated with religion, as long as it does not impose the establishment of a religion as a matter of state.
Perhaps it's just semantics as sbill pointed out.
Sbill, I too like Franklin and his writings on the establishment of Democracy. I recognize the paraphrase but I don't think he used the word "socialism" I think it was "destruction" but it is the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion.
I am not an extremely religious person, nor a constitutional scholar.
But as I remember, at least the way I was taught in my constitutional law class, the affiliation with religion is not the sticky point. Establishment is. Our government has always been affiliated with religion, as long as it does not impose the establishment of a religion as a matter of state.
Perhaps it's just semantics as sbill pointed out.
Sbill, I too like Franklin and his writings on the establishment of Democracy. I recognize the paraphrase but I don't think he used the word "socialism" I think it was "destruction" but it is the same thing.
Oh! my apologies. I was not quoting Franklin, but upon re-reading my little rant, I see it looks like it. It is a paraphrase I have use quite often. I just don't have my little Ben Franklin toilet book with me here at the office.
You are correct, where did you go to school? The truth is a brave position for a professor of constitutional law these days. Are you a lawyer?
quote:
You are correct, where did you go to school? The truth is a brave position for a professor of constitutional law these days. Are you a lawyer?
TU and no.
TU and yes. [;)]
The amendment prohibits the official establishment of religion, but the Court has held that significant affiliation IS the establishment of religion. Thus, public schools cannot require students to pray before school, courthouses must allow Wikan symbols along side Christmas trees, and a prohibition of discrimination based on religion. Simply prohibiting an official declaration of a state religion would fall woefully short of actually protecting religious freedoms.
It is akin to the reconstruction amendments declaring an end to slavery and all men equal. That large declaration was meaningless until the 1960's when black men were allowed to sit at the same counter as whites. Even though the amendment did not specify such, it was the day to day activities that matters. And with religion, it is not the large declaration that really matters, it is ensuring on a day to day basis even the appearance of an official religion is prevented.
I can try to go over old notes and dig up case law if you would be interested. I'm sure I have a Con-Law outline somewhere.
You guys are great! It's wonderful to see how a thread that began somewhat tongue-in-cheek turned into a serious discussions of personal beliefs regarding religion and the intent of the establishment clause. You have agile minds and it's truly a pleasure to know you.
The best part for me Ed, is thus far it has been a rational and calm while passionate discussion; completely devoid of personal attacks. Proof that hot topics can be discussed with reason on the internet.
My God(s) will smite you for your comments.
Ed W and cannon fodder are false idols.
"I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. "
"The best part for me Ed, is thus far it has been a rational and calm while passionate discussion; completely devoid of personal attacks. Proof that hot topics can be discussed with reason on the internet."
With the exception of the above - you are correct. Interesting discussion and reading so far.
However - place any other group into the above statement where it says "Bible-believing Christians" and it is an intolerant statement. I appreciate the candor and understand that it is just one person's perception and opinion, but it is offensive nonetheless to that particular group.
It may be a sign of tolerance and acceptance from those on this forum who happen to be "Bible-believing Christians" that no one has taken exception, or made the discussion "unfriendly".
Merry Christmas!
Good point, I tend to glaze over posts from AOX.
I will take mild exception to the insinuation that I would somehow find the statement more offensive if it was directed at another group Though I get what you are saying (picking on a majority is often seen as less intolerant). Generally I would agree that religious people seek to be more controlling than non-religious when their doctrine tells them they are right and everyone else is wrong. I would not, however, often phrase the behavior as oppressive.
Unless we are talking about alcohol sales on Sundays. That's oppressive. [:)]
"I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. "
as:
"I have found over the years that Jews are oppressive and generally control freaks. "
Offensive? I would think that statement would qualify as offensive for most people. What is different about the first statement?
I'm not being argumentative - at least I'm trying not to be - just wanted to clarify what I meant.
That may be true of some "Bible-believing Christians" - and Jews, and Muslims, and whatevers.
Some people are controlling and gravitate towards a philosophy of life or theology easily warped and manipulated - it's not the theology, just the person's emphasis on certain aspects of the theology or philosohy that they naturally like because of their own personal idiocy or "warts".
Religion should not be a force of politics - only conscience. That's where American Christianity has effed up. Simple answer to a complex problem - but that's how I roll.
Alcohol sales on Sunday? WWJD? [;)] No wine? Gimme that pot of water!
I understand perfectly what you are saying restored. If I was an agnostic in Israel I would probably identify with your second statement, or god forbid in Saudi Arabia. As it is, I simply have not found that to be true and coupled with the holocaust such statements hit a guttural reaction as offensive.
Though in my little mind neither statement is horribly offensive if the author really has come to that conclusion. They may not be politically correct, but assuming the author truely has had experiences to draw that conclusion from I do not find it overtly offensive.
Pretty sure we are on the same page.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
My God(s) will smite you for your comments.
Ed W and cannon fodder are false idols.
'False idol'? Dunno about that, but I do resemble a happy, smiling, somewhat rotund Buddha with a piece of pie in one hand and a milkshake in the other.
I could ask Mary if she idolizes me, but I suspect I already know the answer. Besides, she's already fed the dogs. I have no idea when MY dinner is coming.
gotta go...She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed calls...
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
My favorite Commandments are "do not commit adultary" and "don't covet thy neighbor's wife".
Don't do it and don't even think about it.
Deuteronomy always put things in perspective for me-not that I always went along.
http://arcticdharma.blogspot.com/2007/12/solstice-quote.html
"Within an enormous vacuum, an enormous space, enormous outer space, you begin to experience the dawn of enlightenment - just the dawn. You get the message that the sun is going to shine, purely because there is a little glow in the east. The dawn of enlightenment in the Buddhist tradition cannot take place unless first there is a sense of desolation, meaninglessness, and being a fool, to begin with. Then the dawn of enlightenment can actually take place properly.
"You begin to experience what we might call, from a traditional Western reference point, the Star of Bethlehem. The birth of something is taking place. There's a star in the midnight sky. The sky is black, deep blue, but there is a star shining in that sky. There is hope in the positive sense. There is something taking place. Such a thing cannot happen unless there's nightfall and darkness......We have already understood that there's no me, no self, no ground. That nonexistence begins to make sense. That nonexistence of self, of ego, becomes the Star of Bethlehem, and the dawn of enlightenment begins to take place."
From "The Dawn of Enlightenment," Talk Five of MEDITATION: THE WAY OF THE BUDDHA, July 8, 1974, Naropa Institute. Edited from the transcript.
There have been plenty stars, plus a full moon in the past week: Venus, the big dipper, Orion's belt - all seen from the middle of the frozen lake near my place. We did a solstice/full moon ceremony there & all was brilliant."
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I agree spoonbill, it is impossible to not be influenced by such codes... but I chose which parts to accept (though shalt not kill) and which ones to ignore (stone adulterers).
and good call RM, I too am a big fan of thought crime. [;)]
When I was taking my basics aat what was then TJC, I had a course in Psychology, and for extra credit, I went to some seminars and workshops, one of them led by some Christian therapists. I remember that their approach to issues regarding the family unit was so mean-spirited and vengeful, that I got chills just listening to them.
Brad Stine's 'GodMen': Promise Keepers on steroids....
by Bill Berkowitz Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:52:14 PM EST
topic: All Topics section:Dominionism in the military
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/26/145214/53/Dominionism_in_the_military/Brad_Stine_s_GodMen_Promise_Keepers_on_steroids
"Christian men need to embrace their 'table-tipping' side, says Christian comedian and 'GodMen' founder Stine
Christian music brings in big-time money; the release, and subsequent box office successes of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ," and "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," has made Hollywood sit up and take notice. There are Christian dating services, Christian investment companies, Christian real estate brokers, a Christian MySpace, Christian comic strips, Christian bloggers and even Christian comedians.
And, there are many Christian men's groups.
How about a Christian men's group headed by a conservative Christian comedian?
He's a raunchy, raw Republican devoted to stamping out "political correctness," and he's got the chutzpah to claim on his website that he's "America's favorite conservative comedian" (quiet as it might be kept, there are a number of other conservative comedians out there). In 2004, he performed for "R: the Party," an event hosted by Jenna and Barbara Bush during the Republican National Convention in New York City.
Brad Stine is a Christian comedian who heads up "GodMen," a ministry that encourages men to let their manhood hang out.
`I'm very pro-America, very patriotic,' says Stine
In 2004 Stine told the Fox News Channel that he was "a conservative comedian -- one of two known to exist in the Western hemisphere. I'm very pro-America, very patriotic. I use my time on stage to say how great the country is as opposed to saying how bad it is."
According to OneNewsNow, a news service sponsored by the American Family Association, Stine, who is an oft-featured speaker at Promise Keeper conferences, "states he is on a 'mission' to free his fellow Christians from 'the chains of political correctness.'" "In a country with guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, its citizens are constantly trying to make faith in public spheres illegal. I am offended by that contradiction and want to talk about it as a comic," Stine told OneNewsNow.
Stine, born and raised in Bremen, Indiana, founded "GodMen" in 2006 and has since held events called "GodMen" conferences in Nashville and Franklin Tenn. They are designed to be "absolutely honest and unconstrained in dealing with the real and difficult issues men face daily that are not being addressed in church," states the website. Issues, according to Stine, that would be less likely to be addressed at a Promise Keepers event.
"We are a little bit more raw about how we approach some of these subjects," Stine explained. "We also are really trying to find this unity of our faith that can be maintained in the community as we leave -- that you're the tribe of Daytona or of Des Moines or wherever it is that we happen to be."
Getting men to 'act like men'
Stine's "GodMen" conferences aim to get men to "act like men": According to OneNewsNow, "Stine argues that many men are tired of what he calls a 'sugar-coated and watered-down' Christianity. To counter that, he says, the one-day 'GodMen' events challenge men to embrace the full character of Christ. He cites the example of what he describes as the 'table-tipping Jesus.'"
"[That's] the strong Jesus that really deals with masculinity, [an aspect] that men are oftentimes not taught," Stine explained. "We're taught one side of Jesus. He was merciful and gracious and loving and sweet and kind -- and he was all those things, and we don't deny that; we need that desperately. But there was a table-tipping Jesus," he continues. "There was a time when the season was more aggressive and that you were allowed to be angry and sin not."
Paul Coughlin, the author of "No More Christian Nice Guy" and a keynote speaker at a GodMen event in Nashville, Tennessee last year said, "I believe that being a guy is a reason to be proud -- not a problem to be fixed. Unfortunately, most Christian men have been ordered to emulate 'Gentle Jesus Meek ands Mild,' a false caricature of Christ that has robbed the church of its vital masculine energy."
At TheNewsBeasts.com -- "News-Commentary-Research/From a Christian Perspective" -- David Dansker writes: "In response to the feminization of churches a new men's movement has been gaining brawn ... Founder Brad Stine explains that a goal of GodMen is to produce 'a man who believes in honesty and integrity and strength and leadership and the knight in shinning armor.'"
GodMen is "a place where men can discuss real issues such as passivity, isolation, and pornography 'in a safe environment.' The events, which include worship, have powerful sound systems and huge video screens showing he-man videos like martial arts displays and car chases."
'Cartoonish distortion of masculinity,' says Al Mohler
In a December 2006 piece commenting on the "GodMen" movement, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world -- wrote that "The Christian church is experiencing a crisis with men... The church has been feminized in style and the manly virtues are depreciated. Christianity -- a faith predicated on truths for which brave men were willing to die -- has been transformed into a spirituality of mere feeling."
In many liberal Protestant churches the pews are filled with females, many of them aging. Sermons are vapid and boring. Feminist ideologies have taken hold and the context is ideologically hostile to the XY chromosome. Men stay away and boys see the church as something men avoid.
While Mohler believes that "Christian men need ... a robust and challenging theology of manhood," he is critical of the "profanity-fest of adolescent immaturity." "The movement is largely correct in its identification of contemporary Christianity as feminized and feminine. The problem is their apparent adoption of a cartoonish distortion of masculinity as the answer."
`Wussification'
Given Stine's mission it is no coincidence that his new CD is called "Wussification." Stine states, "The wussification of America is killing us by teaching us to censor ourselves from what we believe. That's why I want to see political correctness die in my lifetime, but first...I want to watch it suffer."
Recorded live at The Clarion at Brazosport College in Lake Jackson, TX., his website describes the CD as "a no-holds-barred laugh riot that attacks political correctness at every turn. From lambasting witches for being over-sensitive to Brad's frustration with Christianity's own form of political correctness, Stine once again infuses his one of a kind style of comedy with equal inspiration for his Christian tribe in an album that is guaranteed to become a classic."
One of his DVD's, "Put a Helmet On" was taped during a live performance at the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, in Lynchburg, Va, in January, 2003.
According to the bio on his website, the comedian "models his approach to comedy after legendary practitioners that he has known and loved over the years," including George Carlin. "I always enjoyed Carlin for turning the tables on culture. He is an excellent writer that has endured for decades." Other comedic "touchstones" include Brian Reagan, Paula Poundstone, Jim Gaffigan and Monty Python.
Stine has appeared on several stand-up comedy shows including A&E's "Evening at the Improv" and MTV's "Half Hour Comedy Hour," and has been a guest on a number of news programs including FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes," CNN's "Paula Zahn NOW" and "Glenn Beck," and the NBC Nightly News. He has also been interviewed on National Public Radio and has been featured on FOXNews.com and in Newsweek, the New Yorker, USA Today, and several other newspapers nationwide."
I wonder if they read the "turn the other cheek" part much. Jesus was a revolutionary for social change...not for social oppression...