# Keith Ellison and the Jefferson Koran



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

Keith Ellison would like to use his favorite book to take the oath of office. Here are two views:

https://www.townhall.com/columnists...des_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on

https://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4919339


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

One nation under GOD...'nuff said...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pcunite said:


> Keith Ellison would like to use his favorite book to take the oath of office. Here are two views:
> 
> https://www.townhall.com/columnists...des_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4919339


I agree with the latter view:

"Though quite a religious man, John Quincy Adams declined to take his presidential oath on a Bible. He thought a Bible should be reserved for religious purposes and took the oath of office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg swore on a Hebrew Bible.

"Attempting to force Ellison to swear on a Bible is absurd, un-American and would defeat the purpose of the oath. Furthermore, the episode is an example of Islam-bashing."

If Prager could manage to rub two brain cells together, he'd understand the difference between symbols and that which symbols are intended to represent. It's the same mental midgetry that e.g. causes people to introduce legislation to ban flag burning.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

*Idle chatter*

All this fuss is much ado about nothing. One man -- a native-born American, at that -- who practices Islam out of 435 members of the House of Representatives is nothing to worry about.

BTW, "under God" wasn't even in the Pledge of Allegiance (written by a Christian Socialist) until 1954.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

Whatever happened to separation of church and state anyway? I completely understand that the US has a majority Christian populace so I have no illusions about ridding sayings like "One nation under God" from our pledge or "In God we trust" from our currency, but the FACT remains that the founders had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into the country's structure. This clause is trampled on daily.

I agree with the John Adams approach (GREAT read, btw).


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Alternately, he could use this one:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

The townhall.com article says _"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."_

As a practicing Episcopalian who serves as a verger, I am offended by the above statement. I don't think it over the line to say that the author is truly sanctimonious. The man hasn't a clue as to the founding principles of America. It's just one more example of the all too many attempts of some Fundamentalist Christian to force their views on the rest of America.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

queueball said:


> Whatever happened to separation of church and state anyway?
> 
> , but the FACT remains that the founders had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into the country's structure. This clause is trampled on daily.
> 
> I agree with the John Adams approach (GREAT read, btw).


FYI, constitutionally, there is not "separation of church and state". It appeared in a letter by Jefferson and is not part of the Constitution. The First Amendment is designed to prevent the creation of a state religion (ala the church of England). It does not prohibit religious acts of the state on its face (swearing on a Bible etc.) only forcing citizens to join a state religion (given the rise of enforced secular humanism in this country, thanks to the ACLU and their ilk,it appears that a state religion is already being foisted on us by the courts). Additionally, there is the whole "free exercise" clause which is conveniently ignored there days.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Additionally, there is the whole "free exercise" clause which is conveniently ignored there days.


It would seem to me that it is the "free exercise" clause that is being ignored in the case made by townhall.com. The man should be able to use his Koran.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

This puzzles me. Some people would like Ellison to swear on a book he doesn't consider holy. If I were to swear on a copy of Dianetics, it would be a meaningless pledge because it is not a book I consider holy to me -- I might as well be swearing on a cookbook or a travel guide to Las Vegas. I'd rather have an elected official use the book he considers holy -- better chance he'd take the oath seriously. Isn't that the entire point of the oath?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This is Minnesota people. The state that elected Jessie 'the Body' Ventura governor on a platform including riding motorcycles without helmets, Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion still upset Jessie cut public funding and the profit margin of powdermilk biscuits. Minnesota, that held the largest mass hanging in U.S. history ( 38) of Lakota freedom fighters, who's people moved south and inspired by the horse and warm summers evened the score considerably before Wounded Knee. Minnesota, who gave native sons Mondale and 'the happy Warrior' Hubert Horatio Humphrey, AKA L.B.J.s Bud Abbot-esq V.P. And you all hammer us Californians for all that is wrong with the nation. Relax, maybe GOD will strike him down through the Paul Bunyan statue outside Brainerd falling on his car for being Muslim instead of Lutheran or Catholic- OH YA!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Kav said:


> OH YA!


You Betcha!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> FYI, constitutionally, there is not "separation of church and state". It appeared in a letter by Jefferson and is not part of the Constitution. The First Amendment is designed to prevent the creation of a state religion (ala the church of England). It does not prohibit religious acts of the state on its face (swearing on a Bible etc.) only forcing citizens to join a state religion .


Let's not forget this:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

An interesting side light is that in a trial I had last week my client was somewhat unhappy that there was no Bible used for the witnesses to be sworn in. I don't think I've ever seen a Bible used in any of the many courts I've practiced in, although my courtroom experience only goes back to the late 70's.

When I swear people in I just administer the affirmation to everybody: regardless of your religious beliefs, you are required to tess the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I wonder if anyone is tracking the changes in our society; the erosion of rights with the Orwellian sounding 'Homeland Security' the increase of prejudice against all things 'islam' and promotion of political platforms on the ruins of WTO by the religous right etc. We started out with what, a naval campaign with Tripoli pirates recounted in the Marine Corps hymn and overlook the equal payment of bribes. Then Lowell Thomas brought us T.E. Lawrence and gave an Italian gardener a career in Hollywood. The rise of oil over coal was conjoined at the hip with the Balfour Declaration and the Israel/ Arab and by extension world islam conflict. The Crusades and later expulsion of the Ottomans from Europe and then it's empire brought many changes to Europe, from spices and coffee to new defacto colonies. Is anyone recording who we were, who or what we are becoming?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

RSS said:


> . It's just one more example of the all too many attempts of some Fundamentalist Christian to force their views on the rest of America.


Actually Dennis Prager is Jewish.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Kieth Ellison had the political courage to let it be known prior to the election what his intentions were regarding this issue. The electorate in his district chose him as their representative. The Koran is not some screwball, wacked out novel that would be wholly inappropriate or in bad taste. Rather, it is a legitimate, religious text. What is the problem here...does someone feel threatened?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> We started out with what, a naval campaign with Tripoli pirates recounted in the Marine Corps hymn and overlook the equal payment of bribes.


Interesting that you mention this. Most people are unaware of it, but here is part of the treaty that ended the hostilities:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

https://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

I understand the Koran that will be used is the one that Thomas Jefferson donated to the library of congress. It seems ol' Tom had no problem with the book.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Here is what I find intersting:
Keith Ellison is openly saying that he intends to swear in on the Koran. In a mainly Christian nation, that in this time has some legitimate sensitivities to his doing so, that is a bold move. However we here on this board and others around the country are talking and arguing about it, and that's all! Try to imagine if a politician from a mainly Muslim nation were to swear an oath on the Bible. Imagine the eruption in untamed emotion that would cause and the violence that would likely ensue.

I don't have a problem with Rep. Ellison swearing in on his holy book. He was properly elected to represent the people of his district and as long as he does so properly he will keep his job.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> I understand the Koran that will be used is the one that Thomas Jefferson donated to the library of congress. It seems ol' Tom had no problem with the book.


"Know thy enemy."


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

queueball said:


> Whatever happened to separation of church and state anyway? I completely understand that the US has a majority Christian populace so I have no illusions about ridding sayings like "One nation under God" from our pledge or "In God we trust" from our currency, but the FACT remains that the founders had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into the country's structure. This clause is trampled on daily.
> 
> I agree with the John Adams approach (GREAT read, btw).


There is no separation of church and state. It is not in the US Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. The term was used in one letter, written by Thomas Jefferson. The First Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There was ample, justifiable fear in allowing a state-sponsored church, as was the case in Great Britain. There is, however, a huge difference between church and religion. The two are not mutually attached.

That Congress added "one nation under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, or "In God We Trust" to coinage and paper money, falls within the purview of their equality as branches of the government. That the Supreme Court sessions, sessions of Congress, and the President, regularly pray or cite God falls within the power of those branches of government. If you dont't like those references, then get elected or appointed to a position where you can ignore or change things.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

How can we allow our government servants to take their oaths of office on a book that accepts slavery, that requires disobedient children to be killed, that commands genocide, that advocates the murder of those who preach different religions, that condemns women to death who are not virgins on their wedding night, and that curses its enemies with, "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"?

In other words, how can we allow them to put their hands on the Bible?

Mixing religion and government is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is a great thread for a god-less heathen like myself as you are all wrong! :icon_smile_big: (kidding).

It is worth a million laughs for me though. I like the liberal bashing fundie Xtians in defense of a religion that relegates women to chattel. I like the ever predictable church/State arguments. I think the best point so far has been the very true statement that while this man will be allowed to swear in on the Koran in the land known as "The Great Satan", anyone wanting to use the bible in many muslim lands would probably be stoned to death. That certainly should quiet all the liberals wringing their hands over fundie Xtians. Was there not recently a capital punishment trail for two men that converted from Islam to Xtianity recently in the ME?

I say let him use the Koran and I think he is one shrewd puppy for thinking up using Jefferson's Koran.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> How can we allow our government servants to take their oaths of office on a book that accepts slavery, that requires disobedient children to be killed, that commands genocide, that advocates the murder of those who preach different religions, that condemns women to death who are not virgins on their wedding night, and that curses its enemies with, "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"?
> 
> In other words, how can we allow them to put their hands on the Bible?
> 
> Mixing religion and government is a recipe for disaster.


I'm afraid your attempt to be witty has fallen short as it is obvious you have little grasp of the provisions in Deuteronomy.

Those laws handed down by Moses were meant to be adjudicated by Judges of the Law, not by street mobs. Secondly to put things into a historical perspective it was a dire time for the tribes and strong laws and measures were needed to keep order and maintain cohesiveness. Much the same way as from time to time democratic countries have to declare martial law or as in the case of Lincoln suspend habeus corpus in times of emergency. I see very few people in this day and age being stoned to death in Israel, children begin killed for staying out passed curfew or Christian churches being burned.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pendennis said:


> There is no separation of church and state. It is not in the US Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. The term was used in one letter, written by Thomas Jefferson. The First Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


If religion is defined as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers" (at least that's how my dictionary reads), the Constitutional prohibition extends to government establishment of theism per se, not simply to established sets of religious traditions. In that case, "In God We Trust", etc are unconstitutional.

Personally (and I say this as a Catholic), I think the more we keep religion and government separated, the better. If history has proven anything, it's that the merging of the two always results in the eventual corruption of both.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If religion is defined as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers" (at least that's how my dictionary reads), the Constitutional prohibition extends to government establishment of theism per se, not simply to established sets of religious traditions. In that case, "In God We Trust", etc are unconstitutional.
> 
> Personally (and I say this as a Catholic), I think the more we keep religion and government separated, the better. If history has proven anything, it's that the merging of the two always results in the eventual corruption of both.


Then (as a Catholic taught by history), you should be able to explain the distinction between God and Church.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the Koran swearing is a non-issue. 

We have real problems in our country. Why do we allow the Al Sharptons and Pat Robertsons of the world to manipulate us like this?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why do we allow the Al Sharptons and Pat Robertsons of the world to manipulate us like this?


Because for the majority of people, it is much easier than actually thinking.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm shocked old Pat Robertson failed to predict this happening. HMMMMM, maybe Paul Bunyan can fall on him. Ohya!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Let's not forget this:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Please tell that to the Democratic Senators when vetting federal court judges.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We've failed Andy here, failed badly. Looking at those black suits on CSpan every new congresman, senator, C.I.A. Director and Judge should swear on, and receive his CD. We won't tell them about the forum tie.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Then (as a Catholic taught by history), you should be able to explain the distinction between God and Church.


Of course. I wasn't the one who confused those terms. The point is, if one takes a literal translation of the word "religion" in the Constitution, it refers to theism per se, not only to any particular church or set of religious beliefs.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Let's not forget this:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;* but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.*


Never having gone to law school, I can not quite twist my mind in the legal way of reasoning, but here is a thought. "No religious test". So does that mean using religion as a means of disqualification is also verboten? The wording does not specify if the test is to rule out the need for a certain religious orientation or lack thereof, so in my mind, excluding someone for say, being a fundie Xtian, would be equally unconstitutional. So using this as a rationale in vetting would be wrong.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer: It's been adjudicated to mean that membership in a particular religion or lack thereof can not be used to exclude a person from holding public office. The issue I mentioned above is where Charles Schumer has stated that he would not approve any pro-life Catholic for the federal bench.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Wayfarer: It's been adjudicated to mean that membership in a particular religion or lack thereof can not be used to exclude a person from holding public office. The issue I mentioned above is where Charles Schumer has stated that he would not approve any pro-life Catholic for the federal bench.


If that is true and verifiable, should not Chuckie be disallowed from participating on constitutional grounds? This would seem to be a pretty clear cut case of a Senator attempting to ignore the Constitution?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The abortion issue is both religious and secular. Sen. Schumer is not trying to deny Catholics per se but those who uphold the pro-life doctrine because he is pro-choice.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Schumer's response would be that he fears such a judge would ignore the constitution because of his religious beliefs.

It is sad that the left finds this kind of discrimination acceptable.

(There is plenty of discrimination related to abortion support, etc. going on on the other side, though.)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I haven't heard Chuck Shumer make any such remark, but assuming he did, isn't it obvious that it is based on the anti-abortion, not Catholic, perspective? There are pro-choice Catholics, and there are anti-abortion non-Catholics.

I don't see how it is discrimination to look at a judicial nominee who was selected because of his political views and to reject him or her because you find those political views abhorrent. Or are you saying that the President is entitled to use political criteria in choosing judicial nominees, but the Senate is not entitled to use political criteria in deciding whether to confirm them?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

pt4u67 said:


> Actually Dennis Prager is Jewish.


I stand corrected ... he is Jewish -- given his views he's not on my regular reading list -- but the premise of my statement still holds true. In this case it is more correctly a Judeao-Christian fundamentalism ... with a theocratic view to say the least ... no less dangerous due to his being Jewish. Still, it is a Christian Fundamentalism (and I differentiate between the Fundamentalist and the Evangelical) which traditionally -- although not exclusively -- heads the point of view at hand.

He says _"America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."_ That pretty much says it all ... a particular religious view -- specifically a conservative Judaeo-Christian one -- trumps freedom of religion ... and is certainly a religious test for holding office ... or is for anyone who takes their religion seriously.

I grew up in a Republican family ... back in the 50s and 60s ... when the Republican Party was the Republican Party ... not a power hungry group willing to use whatever the means to grab and hold power. The Republican party of today has betrayed American by pandering to the religious right.

In the not to distant past, I reached the point I simply couldn't take "my" party anymore ... so I registered as a Democrat. I now consider myself a "Truman" Democrat -- certainly a minority within the party -- one who crosses party line at will to vote for the candidate he feels will best serve the people. But, I feel the Republican party has been hijacked by a group of besuited hoodlums who have never known civility. And perhaps for this reason ... I'm actually considering rejoining the Republican party ... to afford me the chance to fight for its return to party worthy of respect.

As for religious fundamentalism -- no matter what the religion, the fundamentalist element within each is all too often a plague. It is the nature of fundamentalism to see only itself as the one true religion ... and therefore have no respect for any other view. It's a loose/loose situation at best.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

What most people today consider to be "Fundementalist Christians" were just Christians about 40-50 years ago. It's ludicrous to argue that there is suddenly some shift in America toward the religious right - or that "fundamentalists" are grabbing power - the shift has been to the secular left - leaving what was once mainstream America on the right.

It may be apocryphal but I was told that my granfather was arrested in New York back in the 40s for mowing his lawn on a Sunday with his shirt off. When I started college in Virginia in the 80s, store were required to be closed on Sundays - none of this stuff exists anymore - so much for the fundamentalist hegemony. Face it - the people you consider the scary "fundamentalists" were just plain average, decent folks not that long ago. And the only people in America really trying to impose their beliefs (i.e., foregoing elected representatives and bypassing other forms of republican governance) are the leftists who use the courts, over the will of the people, to assert their social vision.

That Being said - I could care less what book Ellison uses; we're all going to end up muslim in the long-run, anyway.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

You both are expressing the same worry: people of extreme views foisting their agenda on the majority, who prefer a rational approach to solving issues. The far right and far left have never grasped this. Either that or they just ignore us.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Schumer's response would be that he fears such a judge would ignore the constitution because of his religious beliefs.
> 
> It is sad that the left finds this kind of discrimination acceptable.
> 
> (There is plenty of discrimination related to abortion support, etc. going on on the other side, though.)


As long as the judge doesn't *ignore* the constitution, he can be as informed by his religious beliefs as he wants- that ol' free exercise clause again.
FWIW, Schumer equated a candidate's Catholicism with being anti-abortion, which is a _per se _violation of the prohibition on religious tests.
Funny, why isn't the media all over this one?- being such staunch defenders of our constitutional rights and all...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> What most people today consider to be "Fundementalist Christians" were just Christians about 40-50 years ago. It's ludicrous to argue that there is suddenly some shift in America toward the religious right - or that "fundamentalists" are grabbing power - the shift has been to the secular left - leaving what was once mainstream America on the right.


Christian fundamentalism and Mainstream Christianity are essentially two different religions ... and always have been. They were no more common 50 or even 100 years ago than they are today ... and to say otherwise avoids the truth, plain and simple.

Christian fundamentalism is essentially a new religion. It has no great past or history beyond a few hundred years. It is a relatively new invention. 
Fundamentalist Christianity arose mainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ... and has its roots within the conservative evangelical movement. It came about primarily in reaction to modernism and was established to affirm a number of more "fundamental" Christian beliefs such as 1) the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God, 2) the virgin birth, 3) the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, 4) the physical resurrection of Christ, 5) the imminent return of Christ, 6) the Rapture ... and the list continues.

While Christian fundamentalism was originally associated with conservative evangelicalism, during the early 1900s it became more separatist in its nature and more dispensational in terms of its theology.

While I don't always agree with him, I like the way Bruce Bawer puts it when he says, (to many) _"Protestant fundamentalism is just like nonfundamentalism, only more so."_ He continues, _"Protestant Fundamentalism is not a more 'extreme' version of mainstream Christianity, it is a different creature entirely."_ As he notes, _"If the"_ (mainline denominations were)_ "born out of longings for a Church of Love and not of Law,"_ (the Christian fundamentalists)_ "tended to be founded by legalists who, offended by the decrease in legalism among the mainline Protestant churches and terrified by evolution, the Higher Criticism, and other manifestations of modern life and modern science, sought to establish newer, stricter, Churches of Law -- churches whose walls, so to speak, were high and strong enough to protect them, in their doctrinal certitude, from a world full of ambiguity and doubt._

The "past" which Christian fundamentalists all too often hold in example -- the one wherein the founders of America "believed" just as they do now -- never existed. The past for which they long has been fabricated.

Christian fundamentalism holds each individual's personal acceptance of substitutionary atonement critical to its theology. Most of mainstream Christianity doesn't subscribe to this view of atonement ... with many mainline Christian theologians understanding it to be a belief in the occult ... and therefore not Christian at all.

Many Christian fundamentalists hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. Much of mainstream Christianity sees the essence of that belief as idolatry ... in that it places man's understanding of God equal with God.

I could go on for hours ... but I have a meeting to attend.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

*RSS or anyone...*

Not being up on fundamentalist protestant theology, please explain "substitutionary atonement "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I haven't heard Chuck Shumer make any such remark, but assuming he did, isn't it obvious that it is based on the anti-abortion, not Catholic, perspective? There are pro-choice Catholics, and there are anti-abortion non-Catholics.
> 
> I don't see how it is discrimination to look at a judicial nominee who was selected because of his political views and to reject him or her because you find those political views abhorrent. Or are you saying that the President is entitled to use political criteria in choosing judicial nominees, but the Senate is not entitled to use political criteria in deciding whether to confirm them?


I bet no one writing the Constitution would ever have thought abortion would be "political".


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

Here Keith Ellison says that he does not understand why people would be concerned. And he thinks the president should be impeached. If there were only more people like this person, _maybe just maybe_ the *United States of America* could become nothing like it was when it started.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I bet no one writing the Constitution would ever have thought abortion would be "political".


Nope, just illegal..


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> What most people today consider to be "Fundementalist Christians" were just Christians about 40-50 years ago. It's ludicrous to argue that there is suddenly some shift in America toward the religious right - or that "fundamentalists" are grabbing power - the shift has been to the secular left - leaving what was once mainstream America on the right.


In some parts of the country, yes. Where I grew up, not at all. The born-agains were not so noticeable here or vocal until the late 1970s. There were greater regional differences 40-50 years ago than can be found in today's more mobile, rootless society.



Rocker said:


> And the only people in America really trying to impose their beliefs (i.e., foregoing elected representatives and bypassing other forms of republican governance) are the leftists who use the courts, over the will of the people, to assert their social vision.


The courts uphold our laws, or try to. Certainly you are not suggesting our elected representatives would even if they could -- they would selectively enforce only if it suited their political purpose, bending to whatever is popular at the moment rather than considering the greater vision of our Constitution. Considering those of your viewpoint are currently in the minority in both houses, would you really want the courts to be circumvented in favor of politicians? Right now it appears the "will of the people" is not what you'd want it to be.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The worry _is_ that the courts interpret the laws to suit their political agenda, which is often at odds with the will of the majority of the people.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

pcunite said:


> Here Keith Ellison says that he does not understand why people would be concerned. And he thinks the president should be impeached. If there were only more people like this person, _maybe just maybe_ the *United States of America* could become nothing like it was when it started.


This last sentence is a bit confusing to me.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

KenR said:


> The worry _is_ that the courts interpret the laws to suit their political agenda, which is often at odds with the will of the majority of the people.


The losing side in the case will always say that. But, as we saw in November, the "will of the people" is capricious. The court is supposed to be guided by less fickle standards.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

KenR said:


> The worry _is_ that the courts interpret the laws to suit their political agenda, which is often at odds with the will of the majority of the people.


Couldn't agree more- you mean cases like _Roe v. Wade? :idea: _( The case was filed only after abortion proponents found they could get no traction in the state legislatures)

Actually, according to Ms. Magazine ( who ran a large and recent poll on this) the majority of Americans (over 60%) are opposed to permissive abortion.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> The courts uphold our laws, or try to,


 They do MUCH more than that


> Certainly you are not suggesting our elected representatives would even if they could -- they would selectively enforce only if it suited their political purpose,.


 Representative don't enforce laws - they make laws and they do so for political purposes - I have no problem with that.


> bending to whatever is popular at the moment rather than considering the greater vision of our Constitution.


 There is no greater "vision" to the Constitution (if you want vision, go to the Declaration of Independence) - it means what is written. It's a contract/charter not a philosophical statement.


> Considering those of your viewpoint are currently in the minority in both houses, would you really want the courts to be circumvented in favor of politicians? Right now it appears the "will of the people" is not what you'd want it to be.


I'm not worried about legislative bodies. Living in a republic I've resigned myself to the fact that I must honor and abide by the will of the majority even when I disagree. What I don't like is having policy/law dictated by unelected judges who are accountable to no one. I don't worry about the elected because their excesses can be considered at the next election; I worry about judges/justices who view the Constitution as a "living" document which must be made to adapt to their social goals/vision outside of the amendment process - their excesses become oppressive laws at the expense of the rightful/Constitutional powers conferred to the legislature.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> The losing side in the case will always say that. But, as we saw in November, the "will of the people" is capricious. The court is supposed to be guided by less fickle standards.


Yes, but it isn't. The S. Ct's view on law changes with the political composition of its members - we all know this. It's now an unelected political body. Supreme Court nominations are now deadly serious political business for this very reason. A large percentage of the American people depend upon the courts to enforce and advance its political/social agenda.

Supreme Court nominations have rarely been so pivotal (historically) - and it's because we don't rely on them merely to decide on the Consitutionality/enforceabliity of a law passed by the legislatures, we now rely on them to pursue an agenda for the purpose of circumventing the legislature.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm afraid your attempt to be witty has fallen short as it is obvious you have little grasp of the provisions in Deuteronomy.
> 
> Those laws handed down by Moses were meant to be adjudicated by Judges of the Law, not by street mobs. Secondly to put things into a historical perspective it was a dire time for the tribes and strong laws and measures were needed to keep order and maintain cohesiveness. Much the same way as from time to time democratic countries have to declare martial law or as in the case of Lincoln suspend habeus corpus in times of emergency. I see very few people in this day and age being stoned to death in Israel, children begin killed for staying out passed curfew or Christian churches being burned.


[rant] You are clearly the one with the limited grasp of the significance of Deuteronomy and the other legislative nightmares of the Bible. Are you serious when you claim that the maintenance of slavery, the death penalty for non-virginal brides, the killing of anyone who insults his parents--oh, and the execution of people who (gasp!) collect sticks on the Sabbath--is necessary to "keep order and maintain cohesiveness" in _any _society? Tyrants throughout history have done what you're attempting to do: justify inhumane, draconian regulation by appeals to "national security." It works no better in China and North Korea than it does here.

More to the point, do you really think these laws are such excellent examples for civilization in the 21st century that we should include them, implicitly if not explicitly, as part of the swearing-in ceremony of govt. officials?

The fact that people aren't stoned to death in Israel for such "crimes" is a point for my side, not for yours. Humanity has made progress, albeit lurchingly, in 2,000 years. Both Judaism and Christianity have developed traditions of ignoring much of the noxious content of the Bible, not as good instruction that for some reason is no longer applicable but because as a species we've grown beyond it, both intellectually and morally. That's one of the problems with Islam: a non-fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran is still in its infancy. But keep in mind that Islam is the youngest of the three so-called "Abrahamic" religions. Muslims apparently need more time.

The bottom line, though, is that in the context of an official governmental ceremony, this whole discussion is ludicrous. In the United States, _there is no religious test for office_. Govt. officials shouldn't be placing their hands on _any _religious text. We're a country of civil law, not (at least not yet) a theocracy. Let 'em put their hands on the Constitution, which governs our land, not on Deuteronomy or Revelation or the Holy Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Greek Mythology or the Lord of the Rings. [/rant]


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> What I don't like is having policy/law dictated by unelected judges who are accountable to no one.


That was (and still is) the entire point of an independent judiciary.

Thank God our founding fathers were smart enough to build this check and balance into our system. Popular opinion, the will of the majority and legislative proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of constitutionality. Otherwise it's entirely possible e.g. African Americans would still legally be considered chattel instead of human beings.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> That was (and still is) the entire point of an independent judiciary.
> 
> Thank God our founding fathers were smart enough to build this check and balance into our system. Popular opinion, the will of the majority and legislative proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of constitutionality. Otherwise it's entirely possible e.g. African Americans would still legally be considered chattel instead of human beings.


Your comment doesn't address anythig I said.

Sorry, the Court has clearly overstepped its bounds. I don't think the Founders comtemplated the Federal Courts running school ditsricts and mandating tax policy, for example.

The Supreme Court had nothing to do with chattel slavery excep to permit its expansion into free states in the Dred Scott Decision. It was the executive branch with the help of several hundred thousand men and the legislature through the 13th Amendment that ended slavery.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." --George Washington -Treaty of Tripoli

Xenophobia and hatred is deeply rooted in the American hearts. They have tortured, murdered killed native indians, Africans etc. The declaration of independence includes "These savages..." 

CHURCH supported slavery throughout it's entire course in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THANKS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES... We can practise any religion today. Otherwise muslims would have been ostracized and killed by the savages from KANSAS.

YA'LL DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Sorry, the Court has clearly overstepped its bounds.


According to you? Far right Republicans? Most Americans? All Americans?

That's tough. The system is working as it was intended to work. In the last six years we've seen the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch in U.S. history, and recent attempts by those who control the Republican Party to subvert the balance of power in our government (Justices O'Connor and Breyer recently did a tour across the U.S. about this very issue) are infinitely more egregious than anything the Court has done.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

bulla said:


> "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." --George Washington -Treaty of Tripoli
> 
> Xenophobia and hatred is deeply rooted in the American hearts. They have tortured, murdered killed native indians, Africans etc. The declaration of independence includes "These savages..."


The actual phrase employed is "the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

Some things never change: its always Indian Country somewhere . . .


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Lushington said:


> The actual phrase employed is "the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."
> 
> Some things never change: its always Indian Country somewhere . . .


INDIAN SHOULD BE REPLACED BY AMERICAN, because of bombing of iraq. maiming little babies and their pregnant mothers, kiling fathers, sons daughters. SHAME ON YOU!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

bulla said:


> INDIAN SHOULD BE REPLACED BY AMERICAN, because of bombing of iraq. maiming little babies and their pregnant mothers, kiling fathers, sons daughters. SHAME ON YOU!


Uh, you miss my point . . .


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Of course. I wasn't the one who confused those terms. The point is, if one takes a literal translation of the word "religion" in the Constitution, it refers to theism per se, not only to any particular church or set of religious beliefs.


I'm sorry, but you are confusing the terms.

You keep saying Religion and answering with Religion because of the text which is fine, but your logical leap is faulty.

Theism is not God. Theism is Religion. Your own definition uses the word "belief". ISMs only exist because of church. God is a not an ISM. God is whether there is belief or not.

Yes, there is separation of Church and State and "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with it. Church does.

God and Country. Church and State. One is ok, one isn't.

Originally Posted

by pendennis 
There is no separation of church and state. It is not in the US Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. The term was used in one letter, written by Thomas Jefferson. The First Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

by FrankDC: 
If religion is defined as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers" (at least that's how my dictionary reads), the Constitutional prohibition extends to government establishment of theism per se, not simply to established sets of religious traditions. In that case, "In God We Trust", etc are unconstitutional.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm sorry, but you are confusing the terms.
> 
> You keep saying Religion and answering with Religion because of the text which is fine, but your logical leap is faulty.
> 
> Theism is not God. Theism is Religion. Your own definition uses the word "belief". ISMs only exist because of church. God is a not an ISM. God is whether there is belief or not.


Talk about your logical leaps! You're saying God is, simply because you believe it to be so, and regardless of whether the claim happens to be true?

That's absurd even at face value. The truth is, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Theism and religion are either collective exercises in faith if a supreme being does exist, or grand collective delusions if it doesn't. Either way, it doesn't have the slightest relevance to the First Amendment.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

Ok this thread is going downhill... I just wanted to know what the people of Ask Andy would say because many on this forum are stanch supporters of American Trad, edict, and social graces. With the fact that someone is changing a very long standing tradition I thought everyone would seem to support the view of using the Bible only. Obviously looking at the poll the consensus is:

*Don't wear bluchers with suits, throw the Bible out the window...*

Moderators, please lock this thread...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'Church' whatever that is supposed to be hardly endorsed slavery in the United States. By America I presume you include the human rights violations against First peoples in the Caribean ( I'll give you $1000 if you can produce one Carib Indian) Central America and South America. Slavery was deeply devisive and many christian abolitionists actively opposed it. John Brown was hardly a student of Fidel and Che! I would also point out slavery as an industry was fueled by many african tribes selling their enemies, and the trade largely controled by- moslems. Rather ironic given the rise of the black muslims to repudiate the devil white man religon. I would close by mentioning the slave trade was suppressed largely due to the efforts of Sir Roger Casement. It's always fascinating to watch these threads meander. I would caution some posters to unwind a ball of twine lest you become hopelessly lost, not having looked back before presuming to step forward in argument.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thank God our founding fathers were smart enough to build this check and balance into our system. Popular opinion, the will of the majority and legislative proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of constitutionality. Otherwise it's entirely possible e.g. African Americans would still legally be considered chattel instead of human beings.


Yes, because it was an army of Supreme Court Judges that fought the Civil War. I hear they swung a mean gavel.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

pcunite said:


> I just wanted to know what the people of Ask Andy would say because many on this forum are stanch supporters of American Trad, edict, and social graces. With the fact that someone is changing a very long standing tradition I thought everyone would seem to support the view of using the Bible only. Obviously looking at the poll the consensus is:


The Episcopal Church and its members, Episcopalians, are the ultimate in TRAD ... as WASP as WASP gets. However, the Episcopal Church will never take the view of using the Bible only in the case cited.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pcunite said:


> Ok this thread is going downhill... I just wanted to know what the people of Ask Andy would say because many on this forum are stanch supporters of American Trad, edict, and social graces. With the fact that someone is changing a very long standing tradition I thought everyone would seem to support the view of using the Bible only. Obviously looking at the poll the consensus is:
> 
> *Don't wear bluchers with suits, throw the Bible out the window...*
> 
> Moderators, please lock this thread...


Your opinion is not being validated by either left or right, so you'd rather not read anymore?

This is a good thread. People are managing to disagree on the nuances in a civil manner, for the most part, while basically agreeing on the issue in question. Progress here, I think.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

crs said:


> This is a good thread. People are managing to disagree on the nuances in a civil manner, for the most part, while basically agreeing on the issue in question. Progress here, I think.


Yes, it's a heated debate ... but is staying relatively calm for this day and age. It's almost a return to the civility practiced in the days of President Ford.

Let it continue. Please.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Talk about your logical leaps! You're saying God is, simply because you believe it to be so, and regardless of whether the claim happens to be true?
> 
> That's absurd even at face value. The truth is, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Theism and religion are either collective exercises in faith if a supreme being does exist, or grand collective delusions if it doesn't. Either way, it doesn't have the slightest relevance to the First Amendment.


You can't have it both ways. Yes, Religion and Church are exercises and that it is all the First Amendment is about, religion. Thus the interpretation of division of Church and State. Perhaps you didn't understand the linkage. You are making the leap that Church or Religion necessarily have anything to do with God. They do not.

The 1st Amendment likewise has nothing to do with God. The Bible is not an exercise of religion or a part of Church. It is God's word.

This is not a leap, it's simple fact. You just don't like the implication and your resulting position. That's fine. I wouldn't like it either, but revisionism isn't the answer. You could always move to a Godless country.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> [rant] The bottom line, though, is that in the context of an official governmental ceremony, this whole discussion is ludicrous. In the United States, _there is no religious test for office_. Govt. officials shouldn't be placing their hands on _any _religious text. We're a country of civil law, not (at least not yet) a theocracy. Let 'em put their hands on the Constitution, which governs our land, not on Deuteronomy or Revelation or the Holy Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Greek Mythology or the Lord of the Rings. [/rant]


+1...Bingo!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> I would close by mentioning the slave trade was suppressed largely due to the efforts of Sir Roger Casement.


I'm not sure what you are referring to. The transatlantic slave trade was long dead by the time Sir Roger arrived on the scene. His "Congo Report" created a tremendous stir in the early years of the last century, but this dealt primarily with the appalling conditions in the Belgian Congo under King Leopold's colonial rule. "The Heart of Darkness" and all that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> In the last six years we've seen the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch * in U.S. history.*


Oh really? I guess that's two things you were taught by history that you failed to remember! LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You can't have it both ways. Yes, Religion and Church are exercises and that it is all the First Amendment is about, religion. Thus the interpretation of division of Church and State. Perhaps you didn't understand the linkage. You are making the leap that Church or Religion necessarily have anything to do with God. They do not.
> 
> The 1st Amendment likewise has nothing to do with God. The Bible is not an exercise of religion or a part of Church. It is God's word.
> 
> This is not a leap, it's simple fact.


Your right to believe that stops at other people's right to not believe it, and it is certainly not our government's right or place to dictate this belief on those who disagree. If you feel otherwise, a few months in any theocracy (pick one, any one) should be enough to teach you what happens when the state presumes to become God's representative. If you want God, that's what churches are for.



ksinc said:


> You just don't like the implication and your resulting position. That's fine. I wouldn't like it either, but revisionism isn't the answer. You could always move to a Godless country.


No thanks, I'll be staying right where I am, to make sure the likes of y'all aren't successful in your bid to convert the "Land of the Free" into the "Land of the Free to Agree". And at least for the next two years my main concern is making sure your antichrist hero president doesn't manage to destroy civilization under the guise of religion and God.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Your right to believe that stops at other people's right to not believe it, and it is certainly not our government's right or place to dictate this belief on those who disagree. If you feel otherwise, a few months in any theocracy (pick one, any one) should be enough to teach you what happens when the state presumes to become God's representative. If you want God, that's what churches are for.
> 
> No thanks, I'll be staying right where I am, to make sure the likes of y'all aren't successful in your bid to convert the "Land of the Free" into the "Land of the Free to Agree". And at least for the next two years my main concern is making sure your antichrist hero president doesn't manage to destroy civilization under the guise of religion and God.


Wow, you're really a wacko!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Not being up on fundamentalist protestant theology, please explain "substitutionary atonement "


Because I have his book open ... let me quote from Bruce Bawer about substitutionary atonement, "Jesus, in some kind of cosmic transaction with God the Father, paid the price of his earthly life to redeem human beings who through their own sinfulness had forfeited salvation." In Fundamentalist Christian theology, each individual must accept this particular theory and believe Christ to be a personal savior in order to achieve "salvation."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Because I have his book open ... let me quote from Bruce Bawer about substitutionary atonement, "Jesus, in some kind of cosmic transaction with God the Father, paid the price of his earthly life to redeem human beings who through their own sinfulness had forfeited salvation." In Fundamentalist Christian theology, each individual must accept this particular theory and believe Christ to be a personal savior in order to achieve "salvation."


RSS, Are you reading _Stealing Jesus_?

These are somewhat better explanations IMHO than "some kind of cosmic transaction" (Bawer's poetic license not withstanding):

https://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0902BloodOfJesus.html

https://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0903OfferingForUsAndHimself.html

https://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0904JesusOurRepresentative.html

https://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Couldn't agree more- you mean cases like _Roe v. Wade? :idea: _( The case was filed only after abortion proponents found they could get no traction in the state legislatures)


Or perhaps _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co, _decided way back in 1886, in which the Supreme Court, in a bizarre dictum, bestowed the constitutional rights of persons upon corporations - an act of huge political and economic significance. This outcome was largely the work of Justice Stephen Field, a tool of the railroad interests, who had earlier held, in his concurrent role as justice of the Ninth Circuit, that corporations were persons entitled to the same 14th Amendment rights as "natural" persons. You want naked ideology? Read some of Field's opinions from his thirty-three years on the court in the latter part of the 19th Century. He was typical of the era. The idea that the Supreme Court has only recently become politicized is ludicrous. It has always been politicized. It is, after all, part of the third branch of government. It's role, despite what many romantics may believe, is not advisory. By the way: challenging the constutionality of a statute once legislative efforts to repeal or amend it have failed is precisely what the Supreme Court is for. In that respect _Roe_ is no different than, say, _Brown v. Board of Education._


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> RSS, Are you reading _Stealing Jesus_?
> 
> These are somewhat better explanations IMHO than "some kind of cosmic transaction" (Bawer's poetic license not withstanding):


I read it years ago ... but opened it tonight to get a particular comment about the differences between protestant fundamentalism and mainstream Christianity. While I was looking through it I came across the "cosmic transaction" comment ... and thought that it partly answered the question.

I must however confess that I feel Bruce could have been more respectful in they way he put it. And frankly, I should have used better judgement. If I want the other side of Christianity to respect my version ... I should show more respect for their version.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> The Bible is not an exercise of religion or a part of Church. It is God's word.
> 
> This is not a leap, it's simple fact.


Fortunately, that is just an opinion. In my opinion, the Bible is one of man's attempts to understand that which cannot be understood.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Wow, you're really a wacko!


So much for the earlier reference to civility. Civility All Gone!

EDIT: The personal attack is most typically used when one's argument can't hold water.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> Because I have his book open ... let me quote from Bruce Bawer about substitutionary atonement, "Jesus, in some kind of cosmic transaction with God the Father, paid the price of his earthly life to redeem human beings who through their own sinfulness had forfeited salvation." In Fundamentalist Christian theology, each individual must accept this particular theory and believe Christ to be a personal savior in order to achieve "salvation."


Gee. how very different from the Catholic belief on justification. although Christ did atone for the sins of all in the sense of original sin, each is still responsible for their own salvation or damnation based on their behavior during their life. It seems that the fundamentalists really hang their hat on the necessity of belief as being the necessary (and sole?) precondition for salvation.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Lushington said:


> . In that respect _Roe_ is no different than, say, _Brown v. Board of Education._


Or _Dred Scott?_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> So much for the earlier reference to civility. Civility All Gone!
> 
> EDIT: The personal attack is most typically used when one's argument can't hold water.


I could let this go. Probably should, but did you read any of his posts? It was personal attack after personal attack while he refused to justify his "One Nation Under God" is Un-Constitutional claim which was debunked by his own definition of Religion. He refused to confront his statement.

Somehow you think I'm making a personal attack because 'my argument' doesn't hold water?

What argument? I asked a question about a clearly erroneous position by a "Catholic" "taught by history" that is neither in line with Catholic or Historic positions.

I can't get a legitimate answer from this troll who ended up frothing at the mouth something about "my antichrist president."

Please don't pretend * I * am *the one* breaking with civility when some yellow dog says "the likes of y'all" to me and all I do is finally and begrudgingly accept the reality that I'm trying hold a legitimate conversation with a real wacko and not just a pretend one. I call that quite civil.

And frankly, anyone using the words "the likes of y'all" should know better than to test the limits of civility in that way.

If he used the "N" word would it be ok to call him a 'wacko' then? Is it only certain 'protected' classes that it is important to be civil to? Or to wholesale reject any extreme attempts at ridicule and marginalization of? I say not.

I'm sorry if you were embarassed by using a Bawer quote to answer a legitimate religious question. I didn't hold it against you and I agree Bawer could be more respectful about a lot of things.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Somehow you think I'm making a personal attack because 'my argument' doesn't hold water?


No ... but "you're really a wacko" is a personal attack ... albeit a rather modest one. In response to his last post, you did not make an arguement ... you resorted to personal attack. For that reason, I assume you did not have an adequate response.



ksinc said:


> I could let this go. Probably should, but did you read any of his posts? It was personal attack after personal attack ...
> 
> ...I can't get a legitimate answer from this troll


I agree that Post 76 verges on an attack ... but most of his posts seem to express nothing more than strong opinion. Calling him a troll is unfair ... and frankly is another personal attack.



ksinc said:


> If he used the "N" word would it be ok to call him a 'wacko' then? Is it only certain 'protected' classes that it is important to be civil to?


 He did not. Were he to do so ... it would not be "okay" to call him a wacko in a public forum. It would be okay to inform the forum moderator who would most certainly let him know of his violation. Civility is for all ... there are no "protected" classes.



ksinc said:


> I'm sorry if you were embarassed by using a Bawer quote to answer a legitimate religious question.


You infer far too much from my apology. I'm not embarrassed to quote Bawer in answering legitimate religious questions. I personally consider him to be a better source than the one you cite ... but that is just my opinion. However, I do think Bawer could have used more tact in his definition of substitutionary atonement. But it did get a point across ... a point which is not an accepted mainstream Christian belief.

Opinion shouldn't be confused with fact. One of the greatest faults I find with fundamentalist religion is its attempt to make fact of opinion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> No ... but "you're a wacko" is a personal attack ... albeit a rather modest one.
> 
> I agree that Post 81 verges on an attack ... but most of his posts seem to express nothing more than strong opinion. Calling him a troll is unfair ... and frankly is another personal attack.


FrankDC's first post to the thread a full page before I confronted his erroneous claim:
Post #3 If Prager could manage to rub two brain cells together
Post #3 It's the same mental midgetry that e.g. causes people to introduce legislation to ban flag burning

A spade is a spade.

Please extend me the civility of quoting me accurately.  I said "*Wow, * you're * really * a wacko" expressing both my previous disbelief and reluctant conviction that it was not just an act after his previous post, repeated non-sequitors, and his antichrist comment in post #81 which you kindly mentioned.

You clearly are well read enough to discern some difference between "Wow, you're really a wacko" and "You're a wacko" in response to the proposition W might be the antichrist.

I was presented a logical choice between A) Troll and B) that he was serious, but really a bit wacko. Or maybe both.

I actually agree with you that he appears to not be just a troll. In lieu of the tone and language used towards me - specifically "the likes of y'all" - being overly gracious had run it's course. For that, I do apologize to the rest of the forum participants.

Cheers!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Post #3 If Prager could manage to rub two brain cells together. Post #3 It's the same mental midgetry that e.g. causes people to introduce legislation to ban flag burning.


Neither comment is about you personally ... it is about Prager.

EDIT: His comments are very strongly expressed ... extremely passionate ... and they could have been expressed with more civility. And yes, the Antichrist comment is IMHO over the top ... but why not call him on that? By saying "you are really wacko" you loose credibility.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Neither comment is about you personally ... it is about Prager.


I quite understand that. I was not even in the conversation at that point. It's just a pattern and it did not begin with me. Still, is that ok with you? When does it become un-civil and when is it ok? I ask you only since you were playing civility cop (police officer) with me. Did you object, but remain silent to his attack on Prager? W? Me? But, only spoke up when I finally responded? That doesn't seem very intellectually honest does it? 

I don't think I lose credibility, but if I do with you then I am saddened. I consider it good discerning judgement. Why that would cause me to lose I do not agree. However, we do not have to agree.

I have to let you go. It's time for bed here and I certainly won't wake up and do this again tomorrow! LOL

Cheers, RSS! You seem like a very decent fellow that just backed the wrong horse here. IMHO.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I could let this go. Probably should, but did you read any of his posts? It was personal attack after personal attack


Oh brother. That claim speaks for itself.

BTW thanks for the defense, RSS. You better believe I'm passionate about the current state of our federal government: the relentless six year terror and fear campaign waged by our Executive Branch, the stories we're hearing nearly every day of Mr. Bush's circumvention and ignoring of our Constitution and law.

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Just yesterday he issued yet another "signing statement", this one related to our First Class mail:

Bush has issued at least 750 "signing statements", more than all previous U.S. presidents COMBINED. He considers all laws passed, court rulings etc to be only conditionally binding on him. This is a sure-fire recipe for global catastrophe, and for the sake and safety of this country I hope he's removed from office. And soon.

https://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Or _Dred Scott?_


Or many others.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Gee. how very different from the Catholic belief on justification. although Christ did atone for the sins of all in the sense of original sin, each is still responsible for their own salvation or damnation based on their behavior during their life. It seems that the fundamentalists really hang their hat on the necessity of belief as being the necessary (and sole?) precondition for salvation.


Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?

Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?
> 
> Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


No, no, yes. Good works are wholly irrelevant to salvation. "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven," you know. Not only that, but once "saved" you're always "saved," and can't be "unsaved." This kind of "relationship with Christ" has always struck me as an inexpensive form of therapy, which goes a long way towards explaining its contemporary popularity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> No, no, yes. Good works are wholly irrelevant to salvation. "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven," you know. Not only that, but once "saved" you're always "saved," and can't be "unsaved." This kind of "relationship with Christ" has always struck me as an inexpensive form of therapy, which goes a long way towards explaining its contermporary popularity.


That has always been my understanding of the most accepted Xtian dogma. One of my favorite pass times in undergrad (at a school with a sizable Muslim population) was to watch the Xtian proselytizer in the Quad get into arguments with Muslims. In cases like Manson, they would always ask, "Where is the responsibility if he gets to go to Heaven?" I always thought it was a pretty good question.

I do seem to recall though some verse where Christ got asked about what happens to good people that do not believe and he answered that there was a spot in Heaven for them. I could have a false memory of this, but it's persistent.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I do seem to recall though some verse where Christ got asked about what happens to good people that do not believe and he answered that there was a spot in Heaven for them. I could have a false memory of this, but it's persistent.


There are some passages that might be interpreted in such a way, but the consensus is that without faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ it's eternal damnation for you. Seems a bit harsh, but there it is. Christian theology is a fascinating and confusing subject, especially from an historical perspective. I suppose this stems in large part from its syncretic nature, which includes many contrary elements. Chrisitianity's Judaic and Greek foundations sit uneasily with one another.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Not being up on fundamentalist protestant theology, please explain "substitutionary atonement "


Sure.
Substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ was crucified so that the wrongs/sins of others might be forgiven. In essence that we we all deserved that kind of punishment but Jesus took our punsihment on him to atone for our sins. He was a substitute for the rest of mankind.

It is an idea held by many Christians, but by no means all. 
It forms a large part of the fundamentalist belief system.

Personally I am an Episcopalian (about as far from fundamentalist as one can get) I have know priests who believe in it passionataly and those who reject it as barbaric.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> There are some passages that might be interpreted in such a way, but the consensus is that without faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ it's eternal damnation for you. Seems a bit harsh, but there it is. Christian theology is a fascinating and confusing subject, especially from a historical perspective. I suppose this stems in large part from its syncretic nature, which includes many contrary elements. Chrisitianity's Judaic and Greek foundations sit uneasily with one another.


Guess I'm going to hell. Wonder if I'll meet anyone interesting there? Better yet, I opt out, I'm headed to Valhalla.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

What Wayfarer, no 72 virgins?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?


Speaking generally, yes. There is a whole analysis in Catholic theology concerning what is called "the virtuous pagan" Christ's redemptive sacrifice makes heaven _possible_ for all but assured for none. This is a big divergence between Catholic and calvinist theologies: Grace saves as no work in itself is acceptable but works offered through Christ are sources of grace. Conversely, faith without works is dead. To modernize: you can't be an a**hole who accepts Jesus as his personal savior and be saved (catholic) in calvinism ( and evidently fundamentalism) you can



> Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


If he were truely repentant for his sins, he'd avoid hell but would have to "work off" (my wording) his sins in purgatory for a loooooong time. Oh and here god should be God as a "god" can't forgive anything.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Speaking generally, yes. There is a whole analysis in Catholic theology concerning what is called "the virtuous pagan" Christ's redemptivesacrifice makes heaven _possible_ for all and assured for none.


Ah yes, I remember the Jebbies saying it is possible for someone to know Christ is all but name.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Lushington said:


> There are some passages that might be interpreted in such a way, but the consensus is that without faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ it's eternal damnation for you.


This is fundamentalist Christian theology ... it does not represent the majority opinion of mainstream Christian theology.

I doubt most people realize this. As I noted in an earlier post ... fundamentalist Christians are not simply more devout mainstream Christians. The theology of each is significantly different.

So, as a Episcopalian what would I do were mainstream Christianity outlawed ... I would not convert to fundamentalist Christianity ... as I personally do not believe it to be a legitimate spiritual path. I would, however, consider converting to one of the version of Judaism which I consider to be a righteous spiritual path.

Fundamentalist Christians won't likely understand my feelings ... however, most mainstream Christians will.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?
> 
> Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


No one can really answer your questions. However, I note that most of mainstream Christian theology does not accept the personal Savior theory as "the" path to heaven. I would imagine this comes as a surprise to most ... just see my post above.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> So, as a Episcopalian what would I do were mainstream Christianity outlawed ... I would not convert to fundamentalist Christianity ... as I personally do not believe it to be a legitimate spiritual path. I would, however, consider converting to one of the version of Judaism which I consider to be a righteous spiritual path.


Interesting post RSS.

Catholicism is often considered as a post-messianic/pre Diaspora Judaism: the bread and wine offered at the Mass are the same as the _tovah_ or sacrifice of thanksgiving as offered by Melchizedek. It's even mentioned as such in the Roman Canon. Celebration of all the Old Covenant holidays is allowed, albeit not required, as are regulations like Kosher.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

One idea, at least in the Lutheran faith is that if you truly accept Christ as your Savior, your motivations and actions will be good most of the time.

However, works do not get you into heaven. Accepting Christ as your Savior and Believing in him is what is necessary. It is totally possible for someone evil to be converted on his deathbed and go to heaven, at least as far as I understand our faith. (I'm not a minister, so there may be nuances I'm missing.)


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

RSS said:


> This is fundamentalist Christian theology ... it does not represent the majority opinion of mainstream Christian theology.


True. I understood Wayfarer to be inquiring how fundies view the matter, given his reference to prosyletizing students and "personal" salvation. I received my instruction in Ye Olde Tyme Religion from none other than Tim LaHaye himself (don't ask), and I'm here to tell you, in LaHaye's brand of Christianity *everyone *outside the elect is going to burn forever and ever, amen.



> I doubt most people realize this. As I noted in an earlier post ... fundamentalist Christians are not simply more devout mainstream Christians. The theology of each is significantly different.


As noted, Christian theology is a fascinating topic. The variants, subtle and not so subtle, are the study of a lifetime.



> Fundamentalist Christians won't likely understand my feelings ... however, most mainstream Christians will.


I believe I understand your feelings and motives, although I am neither a fundamentialist nor a mainstream Christian. I'm an unbeliever, although raised a Catholic, but with a gun to my head I would adopt any number of religious beliefs. However, I would never consider adopting Chrisitianity, much less the foot-washing, mega-church brand. Both Judaism and Islam have attractions as a creed that Chrisitianity lacks, and which make them preferable as a mandated faith. To my mind, the best thing Christianity has going for it is the Authorized Version of the Bible. Still, good old secular humanism is the most congenial belief system I've found - although Marxism was pretty interesting for a while.



RSS said:


> No one can really answer your questions. However, I note that most of mainstream Christian theology does not accept the personal Savior theory as "the" path to heaven. I would imagine this comes as a surprise to most ... just see my post above.


Yes, but what is the mainstream? The "Bible-Based" fundies seem to have polluted the mainstream sufficiently to claim it as their own. This seems to be the way of things. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> I received my instruction in Ye Olde Tyme Religion from none other than Tim LaHaye himself (don't ask), and I'm here to tell you, in LaHaye's brand of Christianity *everyone *outside the elect is going to burn forever and ever, amen


And good ole' Tim is a member of the elect, right? By his own admission:icon_smile_wink: .

I had a great time debating these types on the quad during a stint at Purdue. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> And good ole' Tim is a member of the elect, right? By his own admission:icon_smile_wink: .


You'd better believe it. I recall a sermon of his from nearly forty years ago, in which he described what heaven would be like and how all the saved would zip around The Elysian Fields and The Celestial Haunts at the speed of thought. I was ejected for laughing out loud. Ghastly man. But God is not mocked. These many decades later, Pastor Tim is a power in the land, and I am . . . not. I even have more grey hair than he does, which must be conclusive proof of divine favor. Or the power of Grecian Formula.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This reminds me of my younger sister. She married a rather daft social worker (closet gay I think, even have seperate bedroomds) and they have now been deeply involved in some splinter Baptist sect for many years. I'll never forget in 1999 how they were telling me they were both happy the millenium was coming, as they were part of the (whatever number, 144k?) of the select and come midnight Y2K we would all be gnashing our teeth and realizing how right they were. That always struck me as a particularly odd way for supposed followers of a supposed benevolent religion to take. But what do I know, I'm just a heathen. I suppose they were a little upset with me for asking why they had just taken a 30 year mortgage in 1998 when they should in fact be storing their riches in heaven, not earth.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Lushington said:


> You'd better believe it. I recall a sermon of his from nearly forty years ago, in which he described what heaven would be like, and how all the saved would zip around The Elysian Fields and The Celestial Haunts at the speed of thought. I was ejected for laughing out loud. Ghastly man. But God is not mocked. These many decades later, Pastor Tim is a power in the land, and I am . . . not. I even have more grey hair than he does, which must be conclusive proof of divine favor. Or the power of Grecian Formula.


Dont feel too bad, it's been the thought that those who receive favors here are getting them by God's mercy because they're not going to like what happens after they die...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Lushington said:


> Yes, but what is the mainstream? The "Bible-Based" fundies seem to have polluted the mainstream sufficiently to claim it as their own.


I can only speak as a member of the Episcopal Church ... although there are others.

Of course given that Episcopalians have elected a gay man (Gene Robinson) to the office of Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire ... and have now elected a woman, Katherine Jefferts Schori (a marine biologist with a PhD.) as the Presiding Bishop (the American Church's equal of the Archbishop of Canterbury), we are experiencing a bit of a schism ... perhaps 8 to 12 % of the Church which prefers a more fundamentalist approach.

*Photograph of the Presiding Bishop:* Not a bad outfit. https://imageshack.us

The Episcopal Church has always taken the approach referred to as the Via Media ... the middle way. Difference of opinion is an accepted part of the Episcopal Church ... and has traditionally been that of the Anglican Communion. It's not assumed that everyone is going to approve of every decision. On the other hand, an objection to a decision doesn't mean we run out the door. We stay and work together.

Sadly a small percentage of our Church doesn't understand this. They may leave. I hope they don't. But, there is little I can do about it. They are acting much as the playground bully ... "Unless I get my way ... I'm taking my toys and going home." Unless they are crying wolf ... they may have to go home this time. And only time will tell whether or not they can even take the toys ... there is much debate about that ... and I'm sure it will end up in court.

To those who say the Episcopal Church is too small in number as to have any real meaning ... well, the biggest is not always best. And while our membership represents only 0.67% (less than 1%) of America, of those who have held the post of Cabinet Member or higher in the government of the United States of America ... more than 25% have been Episcopalian by birth or as a convert. Of recent presidents and first ladies, George W. Bush was born an Episcopalian (obviously didn't remain one), George H. W. & Mrs. Bush are both Episcopalians, Gerald Ford was and Betty is an Episcopalian (excellent examples), Caludia "Lady Bird" Johnson is an Episcopalian (excellent example), F. D. & Eleanor Roosevelt were Episcopalians (more great examples), and so on. Another I'd like to mention, because I had respect for him, was Barry Goldwater.

If that's not enough , just look at the number of "national" events held at the National Cathedral ... which, by the way, is the Episcopal Cathedral of Washington D.C. Of course, you don't typically hear about religion from Episcopalians (except perhaps the younger Bush ... who didn't reamin one) who hold public office ... as Episcopalians have a very strong commitment to separation of public and private life. In our mind, religion belongs to private life.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> One idea, at least in the Lutheran faith is that if you truly accept Christ as your Savior, your motivations and actions will be good most of the time.
> 
> However, works do not get you into heaven. Accepting Christ as your Savior and Believing in him is what is necessary. It is totally possible for someone evil to be converted on his deathbed and go to heaven, at least as far as I understand our faith. (I'm not a minister, so there may be nuances I'm missing.)


It is possible for someone to be converted on their deathbed. The best example of this is the thief on the cross.

The basis of the Lutheran faith is _Sola Scriptura_, _Sola Fide_, _Sola Gratia_. Scripture, faith and grace alone. Lutherans are most definitely not Fundamentalists, however we do believe _that without faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ it's eternal damnation for you. _As a former Episcopalian, and as I sit here with my BCP, I know that Episcopalians also believe this.

btw, I did not leave the Episcopal church because of the recent controversy. I left because my wife, who was raised Lutheran, and I came to an agreement that our children would be raised Lutheran. I do miss Easter Vigil and Evensong though.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?
> 
> Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


I took some optional religion classes in prep school. The school had a distant relationship with a Protestant church, the teacher was an ordained minister, but not dogmatic. His teaching style was free inquiry, nothing was out of bounds, you were not being a heretic by posing a question or stating an opinion. A healthy way to learn about various religions, I think.

Anyway, there was a student quite set in his beliefs, called his church the only true one, blah-blah. I won't mention which church because I know many members of that faith are not as strident as he was. I said, "Are you saying I'm going to hell if I'm of not (your faith)?" He said, most seriously, "No, God will forgive you." I had to laugh.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I should clarify what I believe and have been taught about eternal damnation, lest I be confused for all fire and brimstone.

I believe that hell is described as such by the early writers, because there is not a good way to describe such a place. I do not believe hell is a place of fire, but a place of a total absense of God. It is without goodness and happiness, a place of loneliness. I have been taught that if you do not believe in God, then you have chosen not to be with God, so hell is chosen by you. Since God represents all things good, without God, there would be nothing good. This is why I believe the early writers chose to descibe hell as a place of fire. It is easy to imagine the suffering of being burned, but hard to imagine a complete lack of goodness.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If I may look back through these threads for a moment, we were debating the Qu'oran. Just for the record, Islam consists of; Sunni, Shi'ite, Sufi, Wahabbi, Ismailis, Zaidis, Fatimah, Nizai (the Assassins)Kaheijites, Alawis, Druze and Bahai. Some of these guys should be familiar. Bin Laden is Wahabbi, the Druze militias of Lebanon, both Sunni and Shi'ite shooting at us in Iraq, and iranian Shi'ites financing lots of people shooting at us. A few of the sects are more stuff of Kipling and a few so far different many question their membership in Islam. The long persecuted Bah'ai are hardly a source of worry for anyone, and Sufi mysticism a delight for the non judgmental student of religon. You could also consider the cultural blending of various beliefs in the greater Southeast Asia region. I just wanted to clarify this for all the young men and women hopefully supported by Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the 5,000 odd recognised distinct variations of protestantism worldwide. Maybe Pat Robertson & Co. can share more of his divinely revealed predictions of how to destroy that 6'6 cripple in a cave in between stumping for faith offerings with free thankyou gifts. I'm holding out for a snowglobe depicting Hell.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Well let a heathen ask this question: If you lead the most moral of lives but do not believe Christ is your personal saviour and the only path to heaven, will you get to heaven? Say one led the life of Ghandi but was a godless heathen....would he get to heaven?
> 
> Posed another way: if Charles Manson, on his death bed, asks god for forgiveness and accepts "Christ into his heart", does he get to go to Heaven?


These statements are how I understand this issue. I've talked it over with "people of faith" many times. I cannot understand how I, as a moral and ethical person (by societal norms), am destined for hell but a child abuser and murderer will live a happy life in Heaven because he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior as he served time in the pen. It is, in my opinion, an absurd position.

It is one of the many reasons I left Christianity and am now a happy Deist.

"I cannot believe that the same God that endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use" - Galileo Galilei


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Which 'Christianity' did you leave? One theologian of note said entering heaven he would be suprised 3 times, the first that he was there, suprised at who else was there, and finally, who was not. Whichever 5, 380 odd version you left failed you utterly.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

Kav said:


> Which 'Christianity' did you leave? One theologian of note said entering heaven he would be suprised 3 times, the first that he was there, suprised at who else was there, and finally, who was not. Whichever 5, 380 odd version you left failed you utterly.


Great question. I don't know. The intolerant one masquerading as the tolerant one I suppose.

I'm confident I'll be standing next to that theologian with wide-eyed amazement.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> I can only speak as a member of the Episcopal Church ... although there are others.
> 
> Of course given that Episcopalians have elected a gay man (Gene Robinson) to the office of Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire ... and have now elected a woman, Katherine Jefforts Schori (a marine biologist with a PhD.) as the Presiding Bishop , we are experiencing a bit of a schism ... perhaps 8 to 12 % of the Church which prefers a more fundamentalist approach.
> 
> .


Worldwide, I understand that the 'bit of a schism' means that pretty much all of Africa is considering leaving the Anglican Communion- sounds pretty serious to me. I, admittedly, am not an Episcopalian, but I'd hardly call the aversion of some of the members to certain developments occurring there "fundamentalist" (at least as how it's been defined in this thread).

The long term problem with following a _via media_ is that in by acceeding to everything, one winds up believeing in nothing.


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

Appologies if someone pointed this out already, but no members of Congress are sworn in with a Bible or any other book. This is an unofficial private ceremony (which takes place after the official no-bible group swearing in), in which candidates have traditionally used what they wish, if they use any book at all. Remember, even w/in Christianity, there are many traditions, and many bibles. I know some fundamentalist Christians who would not swear on a Catholic bible, and I know very few Jews who would be comfortable with anything but a Tanach--an oath on any Bible would be a lie. I've seen bumper stickers claiming "If it ain't King James, it ain't bible," while no serious biblical scholar would turn to a King James, lovely as the language is, for an accurate translation.

Also, the original pledge to the flag, written by a Baptist minister had NO reference to God. It also said to "my flag," not "the flag of the USA," but that's another historical pseduo-scare.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> perhaps 8 to 12 % of the Church which prefers a more fundamentalist approach.


As a fellow Episcopalian, I often have to remind myself it is such a small percentage. Here in Dallas it's closer to 8-12% wanting to stay. Here in Dallas many Episcopalians seem to be "Baptists who drink" as a former priest of mine put it


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Worldwide, I understand that the 'bit of a schism' means that pretty much all of Africa is considering leaving the Anglican Communion- sounds pretty serious to me. I, admittedly, am not an Episcopalian, but I'd hardly call the aversion of some of the members to certain developments occurring there "fundamentalist" (at least as how it's been defined in this thread).


So, how would you define it?

But now ... lets talk schism. How many different denominations of Baptists are there these days ... somewhere between ten and twenty in the United States alone? Most -- but not all -- Baptist denominations are fundamentalist Christians ... and the number of denominations is the result of schism. Moreover, the great majority of fundamentalist "churches" are individual congregations with no formal outside connection to another body -- that alone is completely antithesis to Church -- and every time a new one is formed ... it is the result of schism. The fact that so many fundamentalists churches fly solo rather than as part of a larger denomination makes it a bit tough to compare apples to apples.

By the way, the Anglican Communion (which includes 44 separate Churches) is not the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is, however, one of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. It is, in fact, the only recognized Anglican Church in the United States. The schism of which I wrote above is within the Episcopal Church. The "schism" of which you write is taking place in the Anglican Communion.

I have to write an article soon ... so lets talk about what's happening with "all of Africa" ... maybe I can use part of it.

As to the issue with "all of Africa," we are not talking all of Africa, we are talking primarily about the Church of Nigeria (indeed in Africa) and the Church of the Southern Cone (which is in South America) ... but for ease of reference I'll refer to them as Bishop Akinnola and his followers. Bishop Akinola is the head of the Church of Nigeria and the generally accepted leader of the potential "schism" within the Anglican Communion. As to your suggestion that Akinola's position isn't based in Christian fundamentalist belief, you are completely wrong. Their objection is really about the fact that the Episcopal Church has made a bishop of Robinson (a gay man) and presiding bishop of Schori (a woman).

Bishop Akinola and his followers are Bible literalists &#8230; the kind who pick and choose carefully those passages (often taken out of context) which support their ways ... while conveniently forgetting all the other passages which don't read in their favor. What it all comes down to is that the Episcopal Church is refusing to take a stand against women and people who are homosexual. Akinola can't stand that we are at odds with him and his literal and therefore "true" belief ... that we would dare to stand up to his authority. As a result, he wants the Episcopal Church kicked out of the Anglican Communion ... more of a forced schism.

Of course, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of New Zealand (both member Churches of the Anglican Communion) are right there with the Episcopal Church in their stand on women and homosexual persons. Moreover, the Church of England is in the process of coming to the same place ... it's not there yet ... but it's well on its way. Given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is both the head of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion ... it's going to be quite hard to kick the Church of England out of the Anglican Communion.

Actually it is Akinola and his followers who are at odds with true Anglican tradition. Anglican tradition allows for differences of opinion ... and the Churches within the Communion are each independent ... yet in Anglican tradition, differences are put aside as all come together as one at the Eucharist. Akinola and his followers have broken rank. Akinola refuses even to be in the same room with a representative of the Episcopal Church. He and his followers are threatening to "walk" if the Episcopal Church isn't "punished" in some way ... isn't banished from being a full member of the Communion. It's the playground bully all over again.

So ... why is it that Christian fundamentalism is so often about punishment and death (a complete betrayal of Christianity) ... while mainstream religions are about forgiveness and life (the primary purpose of Christianity)? How did they get to be so different?

In reality, Bishop Akinola and his kind feel threatened. Because they are Bible literalists who set forth prescribed beliefs to be facts (beliefs which preclude women and homosexual persons from being ordained priests) ... and because the Episcopal Church has taken positions in opposition to these beliefs ... something they accept as dogma is challenged. Now this opens a can of worms. If these bits of hard and fast dogma can be challenged ... what's next? Akinola and his kind realize (although it may be in the subconscious) that if the Episcopal Church isn't shown to be wrong ... if it isn't made to pay a price for its challenge of their authority ... ultimately he and his literalists followers will be shown as fraudulent.

So ... what will be the result of the schism in the Anglican Communion? I quote from a rather well considered blog, Father Jake Stops the World (https://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com) ...



> ...the upshot will be two separate Anglican communions. One will include the Churches of England, Ireland, and Wales, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Churches of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Japan), the Episcopal Churches of Scotland, Mexico, and Brazil, the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (or whatever its new name is, they are apparently changing it). The other pseudo-Anglican communion will include the Anglican Church of Nigeria, the Church of the Southern Cone, and whatever other churches join them. There are some provinces that it's tricky to predict where they will swing in the end.
> 
> In the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, a small minority will leave, take as many toys as they can get their hands on, form jurisdictions, and join up with the new "continuing Anglican communion," in opposition to the actual See of Canterbury. They will claim, as continuing Anglicans always have, to be "continuing Anglicans" in some curious sense in which "continuing" means "in schism" and "Anglican" means "not connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury."


As to the via media ... you assume incorrectly ... it doesn't mean acceding to everything. It means we are allowed to have minds ... we encourage questioning ... it's okay to have doubts ... we don't pretend our beliefs are fact ... and it's okay to have differences. What doesn't happen is a force-feeding of spiritual beliefs which we must accept. Mainstream religion is about full participation in a corporate community and about the spiritual journey as a part of life. Fundamentalism is more about the individual subordinating himself to authority while accepting a prescribed belief as fact.

Which is more real ... discovering something for yourself and believing in it ... or believing what you are told and required to believe? The latter leaves one a bit frantic underneath it all. Perhaps this explains why when fundamentalists talk about their way being the "true" way ... I can always hear their subconscious doubt.

So what is God? One thought I have is that God is the Total of Common Good ... and therefore God is worthy of worship. But in reality ... God can't be defined. Of course, we can debate this forever ... so it's really pointless to continue. But to be frank, as the opposite side of the argument depends on accepting opinion as fact ... and mine on accepting opinion as belief ... I'm ahead from the start.

I've enjoyed talking about my beliefs. Now it's time to go back to clothing.

EDIT: One last aside ... the Episcopal Church continues to offer Akinola his funding (Nigeria is a poor country) ... and Akinola continues to accept it with no problem. In his mind Episcopalians are worthless ... but our money is not.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

AOI Photo said:


> As a fellow Episcopalian, I often have to remind myself it is such a small percentage. Here in Dallas it's closer to 8-12% wanting to stay. Here in Dallas many Episcopalians seem to be "Baptists who drink" as a former priest of mine put it


I've had friends in Dallas say exactly the same thing!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

RSS said:


> So ... why is it that Christian fundamentalism is so often about punishment and death (a complete betrayal of Christianity) ... while mainstream religions are about forgiveness and life (the primary purpose of Christianity)? How did they get to be so different?


First you must define your terms. <in my best Linda Richman voice> Christian fundamentalism is neither Christian nor fundamental. Discuss.

"Fundamental" in the case of religion rarely if ever means essential. It almost always means corrupted or perverted, and this phenomenon is by no means limited to Christianity. Most religions have wacko fringes, people who take a subset (usually a very small subset) of a religion's teachings and pervert/contort them into something that bears little resemblance to its traditional teachings. Fundy "christians" who go around shooting doctors and bombing abortion clinics sincerely feel themselves to be good and faithful to their religion, just like Islamic suicide bombers, Jewish Kahane Chai etc etc.

Certain percentages of any population are stupid, gullible, mentally unstable and/or emotionally disturbed. Religious and political extremism are just two expressions of these root problems. E.g. I have a friend who reads no books, no magazines or newspapers. He listens to no radio except for Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, and watches no TV except for Fox News. And this man sincerely believes he has some kind of clue about what's really going on in our country and the world. I love listening to his rants, as they're so completely ignorant they're downright funny. I don't bother even trying to engage him in debate, because there's no point in doing so. Open-mindedness cannot be forced.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

FrankDC, I do understand your point. I find it a bit amusing that Bible literalist are, more often than not, those who read the least ... or not at all. After all, they don't have to, there is someone to do it for them.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

In the immediate aftermath of my parent's ugly divorce I was pulled from public school. I was beaten up 3 times for being a 'bad kid from that broken home.' I guess knocking out my third assailant's teeth before his fellow victims knocked me down was to much. So into a episcopal private school I went. It was a family tradition started by my great and grandfather's after excommunication for I.R. A. membership and being received into the Church of Ireland. History tends to overlook the best irish revolutionaries were protestants. Father Murphy was this 6' something, steel grey haired version of Victor McLaughlin and an orangeman. I showed up on Saint patrick's Day in green. The whole school is in orange, except for Father Murphy in green vestments. I became his alter boy and later under his direction read ALL of Ireland's history. I have embraced Orthodoxy, a personal move embraced by many in the Anglican community. Orthodoxy and Anglican have a strong history of dailog. The fundamentalist, charismatic, born again supervisor at my last job ( who knew not his fundamentals, was anything but charismatic and had fewer teeth than a newborn baby) attacked me for being Episcopal, and by default probably Gay. This was after the company figured out Orthodox didn't mean Jewish alone. I could whip him quoting chapter and verse of the bible, but my rudimentary grasp of the Lizard People left me vulnarable and crying for Chuck Norris to appear. I have no problem attending ANY Episcopal service should an Orthodox community not be available. Gee, I'd even hit the Presbyterians if the parking is good.Sometimes going to Orthros I still reflexively give a Anglican bow at the Pew. I'm going to crack my soft boiled eggs now. One on the small end, one on the large.


----------



## OldSkoolFrat (Jan 5, 2007)

Wiskeypalians are not by default, gay.

I have a question, Senator Barack Obama is a convert from Islam to Christianity........ Keith Ellison is a muslim...... 

Does not the Koran compel the faithful to carry out a death senentence on those who have rejected Islam? At least that is my understanding of the text.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> As to the via media ... you assume incorrectly ... it doesn't mean acceding to everything. It means we are allowed to have minds ... we encourage questioning ... it's okay to have doubts ... we don't pretend our beliefs are fact ... and it's okay to have differences. What doesn't happen is a force-feeding of spiritual beliefs which we must accept. Mainstream religion is about full participation in a corporate community and about the spiritual journey as a part of life. *Fundamentalism is more about the individual subordinating himself to authority while accepting a prescribed belief as fact.*
> 
> Which is more real ... discovering something for yourself and believing in it ... or believing what you are told and required to believe? The latter leaves one a bit frantic underneath it all. Perhaps this explains why when fundamentalists talk about their way being the "true" way ... I can always hear their subconscious doubt.


I have to say that I disagree about your description of fundamentalism as a subordination to authority. As I understand it, fundamentalism is an acceptance of the literal truth of the Bible and developing a theology that flows from that premise. As someone from an Episcopalian tradition I can see how you may arrive at that conclusion as the root of Protestantism is a rejection of any authority beyond one's self as a final arbiter of what is true. That's relativism in a nutshell .

There is no connection between a submission to authority as to the tenets of one's faith and a literalist theology as practiced by the various fundamentalist sects. I think that the basic dichotomy here is either one believes that there is something called objective truth, that is true whether one chooses to believe (submit) to it or not, or conversely, truth is something that one defines for one's self and as such is variable dependent on exterior circumstance. Only a true relativist would be so dismissive of anyone who thinks that there is truth outside of of one's self. How very smug. If the relativist position is "true" even though that position is , by necessity, logically inconsistent, then your side of this "schism" can claim no moral superiority over Akinola as that's his "truth".


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Holy texts of many faiths have some rather nasty contradictions. The bible is a work OF MAN inspired by GOD. It's my Menu, but not my meal. I don't have to swallow the Tuna Casserole. An enlightened Moslem has the same choice. We keep calling for 'moderate muslims' to speak out against the wahhabis, the 21st century version of India's 19th Thuggies ( who were simply wiped out.) Well, maybe we might give one congressman the chance, maybe? The very life of Mohamed is one of equal debate as our friend at the Athiest anti Christmas website tries to stir. Some deny his existence, some that he was merely a warrior who united tribes and inspired a religon. The world of Islam reached a historical pinnacle and seemed destined to dominate the world. It faltered militarilly and then culturally into a long, painfull stagnation and reversal of political fortunes. We can wipe it out like the Thuggies, or nurture that which we demand to appear, pulling it's moderate self up by it's bootstraps 5 times a day after prayer.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> The bible is a work OF MAN inspired by GOD. It's my Menu, but not my meal. I don't have to swallow the Tuna Casserole.


 And therein lies the danger of biblical literalism. Conversely, being a member of a faith does require one to eat the tuna casserole. Applying your analogy to "cafeteria catholicism"-which is not really Catholicism at all-is hilarious:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

OldSkoolFrat said:


> Wiskeypalians are not by default, gay.
> 
> I have a question, Senator Barack Obama is a convert from Islam to Christianity........ Keith Ellison is a muslim......
> 
> Does not the Koran compel the faithful to carry out a death senentence on those who have rejected Islam? At least that is my understanding of the text.


Not specifically. The Quran lists only two cases where a death sentence is allowed: intentional murder, and "fasaad fi al-ardh" which translates as "spreading mischief". This latter phrase isn't described further in the text, and has been variously interpreted by sects, Islamic governments etc to mean everything from heresy to apostacy to homosexuality to wearing white socks in public. Basically anything Islamics in general are uncomfortable with.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

OldSkoolFrat said:


> Wiskeypalians are not by default, gay.


Wiskeypalians are neither by default, heterosexual. Your point?

How may Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb. One to call the electrician, and one to mix the cocktails.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

I always feel a little funny discussing sex of any sort in the same sentence as Episcopalians. God's Frozen People, and all that. Not that my own background, shot through as it is with Puritans, gives me much authority on that point.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It seems to me that the "mainline Churches" about 40 years ago were the main people standing up as the fundamentalist are today for a lot of the same things, and even more than what the fundamentalist are fighting for today. While some things are different, because of some beliefs, but largely the same. So, from this view point the "mainline Churches" are like people on a boat with no rudder on the big ocean going with the tides and winds with a "preacher" saying this is the way it is suppose to be.

Another thing about "mainline Churches" is how can they even be Churches? Or, Christians? Or, a religion? Agnostics for preachers proves my point. And with atheist as preachers means- they still don't know they are not a religion? Since they are not followers of Christ they certainly are not Christians. All they are is sort of a club where somebody preaches whatever he thinks todays values are (the values are way different than 40 years ago, so drifting with the winds and tides of the world on a rudderless boat).

There are many types of fundamentalist. If you really think they believe to run out and blow up abortionist, then why aren't they? Maybe they believe it is governments duty to stop abortion. The fundamentalist that I have been around don't take things into their own hands, while the "mainline Churches" have legalizes murder in the name of abortions to the most innocence of the innocent- babies. So, when it comes to who has the bloodiest hands- the "mainline Churches" do.

Another thing about "mainline Churches" they are rather new being less old than Lutherians, which haven't been around that long, either.

'Born Again' didn't I hear a "mainline Churchy" scoff that? If Jesus Christ talks about born again and he is the founder of Christianity, not to mention Born Again, then no Christian can scoff what he says and still be a Christian. Either you are a follower or not! And why would anybody want to claim to be something they are not? About talking and preaching about Hell- Jesus spoke more about Hell than any other subject- don't you read the Bible, you ought to know that much! Jimmy Carter is a fundamentalist with fire coming out of his mouth burning abortion clinics and bombing abortion doctors and killing gays right and left. So, when I hear some of the horse feather rumors about fundamentalist by people who claim to be intelligent and highly educated, I guess they don't get out much and hang onto their brainwashings.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

At the rate this thread is progressing eventually somebody will claim President Bush orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 to initiate Armageddon. Oh, wait, thats allready been done. The unfortunate fragmentation of the one church as described in the Gospel and apostolic succession is a part of our american experience. Remember the Pilgrims came here to practise their faith, not expand the Empire that constrained them. The great religous frenzy of new England that gave us Shakers and Mormons to name a few continues today. The 60s gave such authors as Alan Watts and Suzuki an audience pioneered by the progenitor Beatniks for Buddhism, while other groups from the wellsprings of Annie Besant and Aliester Crowley rediscovered and repackaged everything from Oiji Boards to vision quests. So, what is an american christian? Is he a Flanders from the Simpson's, Bing Crosby portraying a Catholic priest, Aimee Semple McPherson starting the tradition of media evangelists getting into trouble and our pocketbooks? All this chatter from everyone's tower is so much Babel. It makes me want to tape the Milk Council campaign on Da-iry for spiritual guidance, steal fish symbols from SUVs at night or send something to the cargo cultists and be John From for a day. A good perspective are two books by Conciliar Press; 'Becoming Orthodox' by Peter Gilquist, former leader in the Campus Crusade for Christ and 'Thirsting for God' by Matthew Gallatin. A caveat, these are men who converted to orthodoxy from contemporary protestantism. Both readings helped me gain a greater grip on this oiled Pig called doctrinal debate everyone is chasing. If we don't know, or appreciate who we are,who we should be, how can we ever handle a bunch of desert bandits financing their Jihad with our petrodollars?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Only a true relativist would be so dismissive of anyone who thinks that there is truth outside of of one's self. How very smug. If the relativist position is "true" even though that position is , by necessity, logically inconsistent, then your side of this "schism" can claim no moral superiority over Akinola as that's his "truth".


Lets see ... the Episcopal Church respects the independent authority of the Church of Nigeria in determining its own direction as perceived under its canon law (this of course would include Akinola's "truth"). We don't demand that the they change their theological positions with which the Episcopal Church disagrees ... we even fund it with our donations. The Episcopal Church accepts the Church of Nigeria as an equal Member Church of the Anglican Communion and moreover, continuously takes the position that we'd rather the Church of Nigeria remain a part of the Anglican Communion. We ignore the hateful rhetoric offered almost continuously by Archbishop Akinola ... and overlook the fact that Akinola is serving at times in the United States without the permission of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Communion doesn't permit such service). Without question, we keep communion open to all Church of Nigeria members in good standing.

On the other hand, Archbishop Akinola ignores the fact that the Episcopal Church is independent of his authority and is an equal member of the Anglican Communion. He doesn't ask, he demands that the Episcopal Church ignore the direction forged under its own canon law and subordinate itself to his will ... renouncing all decisions with which he doesn't agree ... including rescinding our election of Presiding Bishop. He refuses communion to Episcopalians who do not renounce the Episcopal Church. He threatens to "do what it takes" to have the Episcopal Church removed from the Anglican Communion. If he can't cause the expulsion of the Episcopal Church, he threatens schism in the Communion itself by his own departure to form a new communion.

So for a wrap-up ... the Archbishop of Nigeria demands that an equal and independent Member Church capitulate to his authority solely for the benefit of his "truth" and at the expense of their "truth." And you suggest that only a true "relativist" would be so smug? Glad I'm not one of those ... they must be awful!

As for Akinola's "truth" ... when one's belief is so fragile, that he is willing to take any and all means necessary --be they honest or not -- to silence his perceived "opposition" ... his belief system is something other than TRUTH.

As for your comment _"...your side of this "schism" can claim no moral superiority over Akinola..._ Well ... only the departing church is "in schism." As for claiming moral superiority ... the Episcopal church is far too moral to speak of moral superiority. You must have us confused with the moral majority.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> If we don't know, or appreciate who we are,who we should be, how can we ever handle a bunch of desert bandits financing their Jihad with our petrodollars?


You suppose that bunch of desert bandits have a better grasp of who they are, or should be, or of their religion? People have come up with thousands of ways of deceiving their consciences, by calling mass murder jihad, preventive invasion, justice, abortion, euthanasia, ethnic cleansing etc. Take the politically correct candy wrappers off and what remains is the exact same culture of death exhaustively described and spoken against by the last Pope.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

*Evidence of Allah?*

Monticello is in Goode's district.:icon_cheers:


----------



## OldSkoolFrat (Jan 5, 2007)

RSS said:


> How may Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb. One to call the electrician, and one to mix the cocktails.


I have photographic proof of my father-in-law changing the light bulbs in the sanctuary with another parrishoner, neither of which is a professional electrician!  Touche! ic12337:

We are however, the only church I know of that has poker night with BYOB.  Have offered to teach Black-Jack in sunday School, but the have yet to accept my offer.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

OldSkoolFrat said:


> I have photographic proof of my father-in-law changing the light bulbs in the sanctuary with another parrishoner, neither of which is a professional electrician!


Fess up on the important info ... is one holding a cocktail?


----------



## OldSkoolFrat (Jan 5, 2007)

There are no cocktails in the photo. 

I can neither confirm or deny the existance of any Manhattans or Dirty Vodka martinis in an anteroom.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

WA said:


> Another thing about "mainline Churches" is how can they even be Churches? Or, Christians? Or, a religion? Agnostics for preachers proves my point. And with atheist as preachers means- they still don't know they are not a religion? Since they are not followers of Christ they certainly are not Christians. All they are is sort of a club where somebody preaches whatever he thinks todays values are (the values are way different than 40 years ago, so drifting with the winds and tides of the world on a rudderless boat).
> 
> .


Thanks WA, that's my point.If there is no objective standard of what is right and what is wrong that is always right or always wrong, a standard that although we as imperfect humans can not achieve without grace, but can still apply to current events and say "it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks- it's just plain wrong", then what's the point of ascribing to a "religion" at all? Might as well just join the Elks.

FWIW, the definition of Christian is one who tries to conform one's self to Christ- not one who tries to get Christ to conform to him. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Thanks WA, that's my point.If there is no objective standard of what is right and what is wrong that is always right or always wrong, a standard that although we as imperfect humans can not achieve without grace, but can still apply to current events and say "it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks- it's just plain wrong", then what's the point of ascribing to a "religion" at all? Might as well just join the Elks.
> 
> FWIW, the definition of Christian is one who tries to conform one's self to Christ- not one who tries to get Christ to conform to him. :icon_smile_wink:


But the question is, who is the final arbiter of what constitutes conformity? You? Me? Joey Ratzinger? The RCC? The Episcopal Church? In my view no one and no institution can claim that title except Christ himself, but this is usually pawned off (intentionally, by organized religions) as moral relativism.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> But the question is, who is the final arbiter of what constitutes conformity? You? Me? Joey Ratzinger?


 That's Benedict XVI to you buddy..:icon_smile_wink:


> The RCC? The Episcopal Church? In my view no one and no institution can claim that title except Christ himself, but this is usually pawned off (intentionally, by organized religions) as moral relativism.


Picking you or me doesn't seem to work that well. And you have to remember that joining a religion is a choice and should be a reasoned one. Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II have been very good at explaining the position of the RC Church on various issues. Acquiescence does not meaning putting ones faculties of reason on hold. Until He comes back, it's rather difficult to get His take on a myriad of specific issues and I'm comfortable having a group of dedicated professionals working in His name( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)undertake these analyses and present their reasoned conclusion. At some point relying on personal opinion leaves one stranded in his prejudices and preconceptions: and _that_ kind of self reliance is relativistic. The fact that "organized religion" is pointing it out does not make it necessarily untrue.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> Of recent presidents and first ladies, George W. Bush was born an Episcopalian (obviously didn't remain one), George H. W. & Mrs. Bush are both Episcopalians, Gerald Ford was and Betty is an Episcopalian (excellent examples), Caludia "Lady Bird" Johnson is an Episcopalian (excellent example), F. D. & Eleanor Roosevelt were Episcopalians (more great examples), and so on. Another I'd like to mention, because I had respect for him, was Barry Goldwater.


"The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do" - Oscar Wilde


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Rocker said:


> "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do" - Oscar Wilde


Great quote! LOL:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do" - Oscar Wilde


Wilde was a truly a genious and of incredible wit. I note that he doesent mention other denominations.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

As an Episcopalian, as a Christian ... I do not feel that my religion is denied -- or has been denied -- its freedom of religious expression here in the United States of America. Of course, I have never presumed it my right to own the public arena as the stage where my religion is practiced. My particular denomination of Christianity makes a distinction between the private and public arenas ... between our private and public lives ... between being a private citizen and a public servant.

Example: John Doe is elected president. As there is perhaps a 25% or better chance that John Doe is an Episcopalian ... for simplicity's sake I will assume he is. When John Doe attends St. John's (Episcopal) Church in Lafayette Square, he does so as Mr. Doe ... not as President Doe. On the other hand, when John Doe governs, he does so as President Doe ... not as Mr. Doe. While Mr. Doe and President Doe are the very same John Doe ... there is a distinction between Mr. Doe and President Doe.

Such a distinction is made to allow respect for others and their traditions ... be they religious or secular. Sadly not all make this distinction.

When the theology of a particular brand of religion dictates that it is "the one true way" and all others ways are false, it is made difficult for the followers of that belief system to have any genuine respect for other traditions -- be they religious or secular. Such a unidirectional perspective makes it almost unfeasible to give consideration to other traditions without taking an inherently confrontational stance. Being open minded to other traditions is almost out of the question.

A good example is WA's post as follows:


WA said:


> Another thing about "mainline Churches" is how can they even be Churches? Or, Christians? Or, a religion? Agnostics for preachers proves my point. And with atheist as preachers means- they still don't know they are not a religion? Since they are not followers of Christ they certainly are not Christians. All they are is sort of a club where somebody preaches whatever he thinks todays values are (the values are way different than 40 years ago, so drifting with the winds and tides of the world on a rudderless boat).


 Is it too much to ask the followers of a particular tradition to respect the traditions of others? I don't think so. Frankly, it's essential if a society is to maintain civility. Failure to respect the ways of others is the root of all confrontations.

When the theology of a particular brand of religion demands conversion of those having differing beliefs, the confrontational stance becomes truly hostile. At heart, such a religion aspires to extinguish other belief systems for the benefit of itself and its supposed truth. Its followers do not stop to consider that their "truth" is simply an opinion. Does anyone really suppose that rather than have opinions, there are those who actually posit fact?

Whey the theology of a particular brand of religion requires both a public profession of that faith as well as public witness, the members of that belief system feel duty-bound to make themselves present in the public arena. The distinction between public and private is now blurred.

When the theology of that particular brand of religion requires that its members feel persecuted, you have a membership which feels compelled to cry foul.

So ... I am not surprised that we find this particular brand of religion claiming persecution at the hands of other belief systems -- both religious and secular. Moreover, I am not surprised when it accuses others of prohibiting it's freedom of religious expression. What surprises me its definition of religious expression. When a religion presumes to have a mandate from God for the establishment of itself in the public arena ... both for the purpose of expression and as moral arbiter ... at the expense and exclusion of those who differ ... well ... that goes beyond simple expression.

I have no issue with any brand of religion having the freedom to express itself. Moreover, I accept that there are going to be blurred lines of distinction between the public and private arena. I'm not about to propose that "In God We Trust" be removed from our currency. However, there is a limit to self-expression in America ... and that limit is exceeded when self-expression is either intended to -- or as a consequence -- tramples others. I don't challenge the right of any religion -- or denomination thereof -- to hold its beliefs to be true. But, I do challenge its attempt/s to subvert the public arena to force subordination of my and other beliefs for the sole benefit of itself.

For those who say "Well, my Holy Book says its this way!" I say ... read your Holy Book. If you have, read it again. Read it carefully. There is more than one way ... there are many ways.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That's Benedict XVI to you buddy..:icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Picking you or me doesn't seem to work that well. And you have to remember that joining a religion is a choice and should be a reasoned one. Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II have been very good at explaining the position of the RC Church on various issues. Acquiescence does not meaning putting ones faculties of reason on hold. Until He comes back, it's rather difficult to get His take on a myriad of specific issues and I'm comfortable having a group of dedicated professionals working in His name( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)undertake these analyses and present their reasoned conclusion. At some point relying on personal opinion leaves one stranded in his prejudices and preconceptions: and _that_ kind of self reliance is relativistic. The fact that "organized religion" is pointing it out does not make it necessarily untrue.


Nor does it make it necessarily true. When people choose to accept the 'reasoned conclusion' of one group of 'dedicated professionals' on 'specific issues', in every case they do so _on their own authority_, i.e. ask 1000 people to define what "at some point" means and you're going to get close to 1000 different opinions.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Nor does it make it necessarily true. When people choose to accept the 'reasoned conclusion' of one group of 'dedicated professionals' on 'specific issues', in every case they do so _on their own authority_, i.e. ask 1000 people to define what "at some point" means and you're going to get close to 1000 different opinions.


Sure, if you don't have a gun to your head, you always make the decision to accept an outside authority. I fail to see your point.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> I have no issue with any brand of religion having the freedom to express itself. Moreover, I accept that there are going to be blurred lines of distinction between the public and private arena. I'm not about to propose that "In God We Trust" be removed from our currency. However, there is a limit to self-expression in America ... and that limit is exceeded when self-expression is either intended to -- or as a consequence -- tramples others. I don't challenge the right of any religion -- or denomination thereof -- to hold its beliefs to be true. But, I do challenge its attempt/s to subvert the public arena to force subordination of my and other beliefs for the sole benefit of itself.
> .


This forced subordination is exactly the issue raised by Benedict XVI in Regensburg. Manuel Paleologus was making the same point to his Muslim counterpart that forced conversion is inimical to the will of God. Boy they got mad- I wonder why?:icon_smile_wink:

I don't see why having a belief that one holds the truth and, therefore wants to share it, necessarily precludes "having respect" for other traditions. Respect for others, particularly those whom one believes to be in error, is a necessary precondition for a reasoned debate. True conversion can only come from the mind and the heart when freely chosen. What I can't agree with is that one way is necessarily as good as another resulting in a sort of vague indifferentism.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

> RSS


To have a religion you have to have a God. Agnotics and athiest don't have a God. It does not matter what religion one belongs to, but they all believe in one God or many gods. Therefore, Mainline "Churches" which have agnotics and athiest as "preachers" have put themselves outside the boundaries of religion, Church and Christianity.

And as I pointed out the Fundamentalist with Jimmy Carter not all Fundamentalist are as you say of disrepect of others. And some Mainline "Churches" are as bad as what you accuse Fundamentalist, when it comes to controlling. And I hardly belief you understand Fundamentalist and literal anyway. A few years ago I was watching something on tv about what is literal belief of the Bible; you would be surprised on how varied it is. Some people think they are not literal, but were more literal than some that claim to be literal. So what does literal mean? And to lable all Fundamentalist as you have means you really don't know much about them. What your belief of Fundamentalist is what the sleezy media has said. Some of these groups that claim to Fundamentalist aren't, because they are to much like the white supremist groups, just like some other groups noticed that Evangelisticals growing rapidly and they wanted that growth so they started to call themselves evangelisticals when they are not. Fundamentalist and Evangelisticals believe the same way to Heaven (some Fundamentalist are Evangelisticals), but not all Evangelisticals believe 'once saved always saved'. Fundamentalist have certain beliefs and kick out those that do not have the same beliefs, probably like mainline churches do. Words are to seperate this from that, so there are boundaries.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

As for your theology -- or lack thereof -- believe what you wish. That's what America is about. 

But fellows ... lets stop beating around the bush and address the issue. Religion in the public arena is the issue. Does one particular belief system have a right to establish itself in and dominate the public arena?


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

RSS said:


> Does one particular belief system have a right to establish itself in and dominate the public arena?


What is your definition of public arena? On public land? By a public official? Out in the open rather than behind closed doors?

Clarification might aid in discussing the issue, avoiding divergence to a question unrelated to the one you intended.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

RSS said:


> Does one particular belief system have a right to establish itself in and dominate the public arena?


No. Even where not unconstitutional, it is really tacky.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Concordia said:


> No. Even where not unconstitutional, it is really tacky.


 Best post on this thread!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

RSS said:


> Religion in the public arena is the issue. Does one particular belief system have a right to establish itself in and dominate the public arena?


Sure it does. However your question as stated isn't relevant to government. If by 'establish' and 'dominate' and 'public arena' you mean government adoption of a set of religious beliefs, that's prohibited by our Constitution. And wisely so in my view.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Fellows I'm fried. I've written far too much today ... and spent too much time here. If it's not clear this time just pass by it. I won't be upset. 

By public arena I meant the government (our officials -- elected & appointed, our laws, our institutions). Yes, that was vague and incorrect ... I didn't mean, for example, out in the open. My use of public arena to mean government was foolish ... as religion certainly belongs in the public arena ... or with man. 

By belief system I meant religion. Yes that was vague and incorrect too ... many belief systems aren't based in religion. 

As for dominate ... I don't know what the heck I meant ... forget that part. 

A couple of questions which quickly came to mind ... 

Is a public school district having school board members who are exclusively Southern Baptist permitted to require that six weeks of world history be devoted to the study of the Gospels as historic fact. Require the study of creationism in science class? 

Is a judge allowed to place a version of the ten commandments on the wall of his courtroom? How about in his chambers?

If it's still too vague ... make of it whatever you like ... or just forget it ... it's all up to you. I'm too tired to clarify any further. 

Now ... I need a vacation from this thread. And the way I'm feeling at the moment ... it might need to be a long one.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

RSS said:


> I was vague and incorrect by some definitions. By belief system I meant religion. By public arena I meant the government (our officials -- elected & appointed, our laws, our institutions). You asked me to define ... there's the definition I choose.
> 
> A couple of questions which quickly came to mind ...
> 
> ...


In the first case, if the school is public they cannot implement a curriculum specific to a given religion. Privately funded schools can teach pretty much whatever they wish.

In the second case, courtrooms are government property and therefore not appropriate places to advertise one's religious beliefs. Doing so should be replusive to any patriotic American; it's one of the major reasons why our founding fathers revolted against the British.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> A couple of questions which quickly came to mind ...
> 
> Is a school district who's school board members are exclusively Southern Baptist permitted to require that six weeks of world history be devoted to the study of the Gospels as historic fact. Require the study of creationism in science class?


One of the best things ever written on the subject of creatonism/intelligent design was written by Orson Scott Card. A Mormon with a deep belief in God.

He gets it right.

https://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> One of the best things ever written on the subject of creatonism/intelligent design was written by Orson Scott Card. A Mormon with a deep belief in God.
> 
> He gets it right.
> 
> https://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html


Not by a longshot. Science is knowledge, and conjecture is never science. Creationism and intelligent design both fall into that latter category.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not by a longshot. Science is knowledge, and conjecture is never science. Creationism and intelligent design both fall into that latter category.


The Scientific Method:

hypothesis->test->hypothesis->test... half of science is conjecture.

Darwinism is conjecture too. Facts are _observeables_. Mutation within species-shure, it's an observeable. Creation of new species? Still an unknown-_as an observeable phenomenon._ N.B.I am not offering a solution to this.

I offer Netwonian mechanics versus quantum theory as a salient example.

You've got to get away from positing lemmas as conclusions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> The Scientific Method:
> 
> hypothesis->test->hypothesis->test... half of science is conjecture.


The scientific method is what results in science. Conjecture is never science. In fact the two words are mutually exclusive. Look up the word sometime in a dictionary.



yachtie said:


> Darwinism is conjecture too. Facts are _observeables_. Mutation within species-shure, it's an observeable. Creation of new species? Still an unknown-_as an observeable phenomenon._ N.B.I am not offering a solution to this.
> 
> I offer Netwonian mechanics versus quantum theory as a salient example.
> 
> You've got to get away from positing lemmas as conclusions.


And you need to stop putting words in my mouth. Biologists are the first to admit they don't have all the answers yet. Doesn't change the status of creationism and intelligent design as conjecture and not science.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The scientific method is what results in science. Conjecture is never science. In fact the two words are mutually exclusive. Look up the word sometime in a dictionary.


Positing explanations to explain phenomena is conjecture. If the conjecture explains the phenomena it's a theory- until there is additional unexplained phenomena found that the "theory" doesn't explain. Pack up your "dictionary" and try doing some real science.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And you need to stop putting words in my mouth. Biologists are the first to admit they don't have all the answers yet. Doesn't change the status of creationism and intelligent design as conjecture and not science.


This is ridiculouse! Evolution is nothing but wishful thinking- where is the science in that? It is more absurd than teaching Genesis. You can't show me that evolutionist have more than hot air. Even if you read psychology about lieing and then go read evolution you will quickly realize the lie of evolution.

Why do you want evolution in the first place? What good is it doing you? The teaching of it is stealing my tax money. And it has done zero good in the medical world because it does nothing good and steals away research money.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Positing explanations to explain phenomena is conjecture. If the conjecture explains the phenomena it's a theory- until there is additional unexplained phenomena found that the "theory" doesn't explain. Pack up your "dictionary" and try doing some real science.


So you don't believe in established fact, or just when fact contradicts your religious prejudice? Teacher, how old is the rock layer at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So you don't believe in established fact, or just when fact contradicts your religious prejudice? Teacher, how old is the rock layer at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?


ST. Helens blast shows layers and layers, perhapes a thousand, that happened in a year or a few minutes.

Scientist count the layers in glaciers as one year, but a WWII plane had about 240 layers over it when it was dug up many years latter.

Before the Grand Canyon was dug the high end is at the wrong place to form a river, so I hear.

The math of what glaciers do to hard rock, such as granite, according to scientist who believe in evolution, doesn't add up to Mt. Everest. Not to mention how many billions of years it would take an upthrust to create Mt. Everest with glaciers included in the math.

Billions of years of erosion and this planet would be flat, except for a few volcanos. The oceans would be filled in, so flat bottoms.

Dinosaur tracks squished in with human tracks- don't tell anybody. In solid rock at that.

Coal miners from time to time find man made things in the coal layers below the surface. How did they get there?

True scientist don't with hold facts, because they are not interested in scaming people.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> ST. Helens blast shows layers and layers, perhapes a thousand, that happened in a year or a few minutes.
> 
> Scientist count the layers in glaciers as one year, but a WWII plane had about 240 layers over it when it was dug up many years latter.
> 
> ...


Those are all very cool anecdotes. Now try answering the question asked by your student.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> So you don't believe in established fact, or just when fact contradicts your religious prejudice? Teacher, how old is the rock layer at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?


Frank DC - you're off base. Yachtie didn't bring a religious prejudice to the issue he was merely correcting you incorrect assertion that "Science is knowledge." It is NOT always - sometimes it is theory; sometimes it is conjecture/deduction based on the best available evidence.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Oops ... must have typed in the wrong web address. I see I've reached Sunny Brook Farms. My error.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Frank DC - you're off base. Yachtie didn't bring a religious prejudice to the issue he was merely correcting you incorrect assertion that "Science is knowledge." It is NOT always - sometimes it is theory; sometimes it is conjecture/deduction based on the best available evidence.


Thank you, Rocker. Maybe Frank DC is the one who needs to leave his prejudices at the door...

Knew you couldn't stay away RSS:icon_smile_big:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

:icon_smile:


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not by a longshot. Science is knowledge, and conjecture is never science. Creationism and intelligent design both fall into that latter category.


I should have been more specific. I do not agree with Mr. Card on many points. However as a direct response as to why or why not intelligent design should be tought as science, he is right on the money.

(Bold text mine)

"*But if the Designists are right, and there is no natural explanation, no process of mechanical causation that can possibly lead to the automatic evolution of complex biochemical systems, then at that moment the subject ceases to be science at all*, and becomes either history (what did the Designers do and why did they do it?) or theology (what does God mean by all this?). 
That's fine. There are lots of subjects in this world that are worth studying, and in which true and valuable things can be discovered, which are not and cannot be science. 
But when you purport to teach science in school, the subject you teach had better _be_ science, and not somebody's religion in disguise."

Also

"Meanwhile ... what do _I_ believe about the origin of life? I believe that God created it, employing and obeying natural laws, but at levels beyond our understanding. I believe we're here on this earth for God's beneficent purposes. 
*But I have no interest whatsoever in having schoolteachers train my or anyone else's children in any religion. My wife and I teach our beliefs to our children and help them put what they learn at school in perspective.* We encourage them to question everything -- including what _we_ teach them -- but we expect them to adhere to rigorous standards in deciding what they should believe." 
I disagree with Mr. Card on many points. I meant that even an *honest* believer in Intelligent Design, should admit it isn't science.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

If there is only mechanical causation, then there is no free will. It's fine to believe that, but even if you're right, it's because the laws of physics deemed it so, not because you made a willful choice in the beliefs.

Even if the universe is stochastic rather than deterministic, it would still be random chance, not free will, leading you to the belief.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Frank DC - you're off base. Yachtie didn't bring a religious prejudice to the issue he was merely correcting you incorrect assertion that "Science is knowledge." It is NOT always - sometimes it is theory; sometimes it is conjecture/deduction based on the best available evidence.


And still no one has answered the student's question. I'd like to know -- specifically -- what answer y'all would give.

The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia', which means "to know". Not 'to conjecture' or 'to theorize', but to KNOW. In other words, generally accepted fact based on the scientific method. Theorization, conjecture etc are part of the scientific method, which is how we arrive at established science.

It's also ironic that the same group of fundy Christians who refuse to believe that rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is ~2 billion years old, who attack established science and insist there's no such thing as objective fact are the same people who insist there IS such a thing as objective morality. Apparently trying to replace knowledge with voodoo in our schools is a two-step process.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Quantum mechanics, which seems to be the way the universe really works, seems to support the existence of free will. It certainly is not deterministic, in the classical sense of effects being predicated on discrete causes; nor is it stochastic as in completely random since the effects are themselves discrete and dependent on measurement.

Excellent post, by the way..


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> . Theorization, conjecture etc are part of the scientific method, which is how we arrive at established science.
> .


That's what I was trying to say in the first place. Thank you.

Science is not knowledge, it is the process by which one arrives at a type of knowledge. this type of knowledge is based on a model and construct that provides a reasonable explanation for a set of reproduceable observations-nothing more. Ascribing "a scientific truth is truth for all ages" type of attribute is dogmatic, not scientific.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That's what I was trying to say in the first place. Thank you.
> 
> Science is not knowledge, it is the process by which one arrives at a type of knowledge. this type of knowledge is based on a model and construct that provides a reasonable explanation for a set of reproduceable observations-nothing more. Ascribing "a scientific truth is truth for all ages" type of attribute is dogmatic, not scientific.


Again you're putting words in my mouth. I said "generally accepted", not "for all ages". Your definition, aside from being incorrect precludes the possibility of establishing fact. So what do we teach our kids? I'd sincerely like to know what answer you'd give to your student on the question posed.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And still no one has answered the student's question. I'd like to know -- specifically -- what answer y'all would give.


Uh, frankly, - if you want my response, it is: I have no idea. I really just don't - millions of years old I suppose? Hey, I don't have any issue with evolution - too much hair on my back to deny my potential simian relations :icon_smile:

We sure have come a long way from the original topic.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Again you're putting words in my mouth. I said "generally accepted", not "for all ages". Your definition, aside from being incorrect precludes the possibility of establishing fact. So what do we teach our kids? I'd sincerely like to know what answer you'd give to your student on the question posed.


Okay, let me make this simple. The Scientific method gives rise to a certain class of knowledge: E.G. Based on radioactive decay of certain actinides and making a reasonable assumption on the rate of erosion, the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 2x10E9 years old. Fine.

It does not give rise to this: " the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon *is* two billion years old"

The point is that the truth and utility of scientific fact *is not absolute* like, for example, mathematical facts. It only provides a level of certainty.

Now onto your question: I believe that the scientific method should be taught in schools. BUT my issue is that that is NOT what is being taught. What is being taught is an absolutist scientism:what are really theories are being taught as absolute facts which are not to be questioned. That's my issue with Darwinism. It's dogma masquarading as science.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Okay, let me make this simple. The Scientific method gives rise to a certain class of knowledge: E.G. Based on radioactive decay of certain actinides and making a reasonable assumption on the rate of erosion, the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 2x10E9 years old. Fine.
> 
> It does not give rise to this: " the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon *is* two billion years old"
> 
> ...


And yet in parochial school, when it was slammed into my brain for 12 years that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is not to be questioned, would you have the same criticism of absolutism? Just curious.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And yet in parochial school, when it was slammed into my brain for 12 years that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is not to be questioned, would you have the same criticism of absolutism? Just curious.


I don't have a problem with dogma being pitched as dogma- That's truth in advertising...accept it or reject it. But science is all about questioning, that's it's reason for existence. I have a problem when one thing is being sold as another: Theology as Science or Science as Theology.

A hard core Darwinist can be as sure in his dogma as any Fundamentalist- they just have picked different premises.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I don't have a problem with dogma being pitched as dogma- That's truth in advertising...accept it or reject it. But science is all about questioning, that's it's reason for existence. I have a problem when one thing is being sold as another: Theology as Science or Science as Theology.
> 
> A hard core Darwinist can be as sure in his dogma as any Fundamentalist- they just have picked different premises.


Darwinists can test their theories via the scientific method. What is the equivalent test for fundamentalists? It is (and can be) only voodoo based on more voodoo, absolutism based on more absolutism.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And still no one has answered the student's question. I'd like to know -- specifically -- what answer y'all would give.
> 
> The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia', which means "to know". Not 'to conjecture' or 'to theorize', but to KNOW. In other words, generally accepted fact based on the scientific method. Theorization, conjecture etc are part of the scientific method, which is how we arrive at established science.


These are not the rules of science I was taught in school and at that by athiest. The evolutionist were loseing so badly they had to change the rules so they can still pretend evolution is real.

A mt. that takes longer to rise than being ground down could never rise so high as Everest. These evolutionist have shot themselves in the foot again (how normal).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA you are using equally fallacious arguments in an equally silly debate. Uniformity in geologic progressions simply does not exist. Some things happen very quickly while others remain virtually unchanged. There are fossil sea shells from the Himalayas gathered in tibetan temples. At least there were before another group proclaiming 'Truth' destroyed many. Evolution merely explains the how, not the why , why not or who of creation(s.) It has some flaws and seeming contradictions no more or less than the Bible. You are fighting a battle between 19th century science and the threatened authority of some churchmen. Was Mendel less a churchman for laying the groundwork of genetic selection? To mirror your argument, is God static? 7 days and nights, or the 6000 odd years calculated by others is no less a blink in the Creator's eye than the 4 Billion, give or take a few days of science. I'd like to think our western civilization God is still creating wonders. Everybody, Walk outside and take in a deep breath of it.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Darwinists can test their theories via the scientific method. What is the equivalent test for fundamentalists? It is (and can be) only voodoo based on more voodoo, absolutism based on more absolutism.


Frank, since when does religion claim to describe the physical world with *any detail*? FWIW, the Darwinists haven't been able to prove their claims _concerning the origin of new species_ either yet they continue to hold onto their premises. Gee, sounds like


> It is (and can be) only voodoo based on more voodoo, absolutism based on more absolutism.


You're free to hold onto your apparent athiesm and derive whatever comfort you can from it, but it's not a proveable proposition and is therefore as much "voodoo" as what you decry.

I'm fine with Science having to answer "I don't know" to certain questions. If you want certainty, the Philosophy department is down the hall and the Theology department is upstairs.

Kav, you're right . Although philosophical argument is usually fun, this is getting silly.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA you are using equally fallacious arguments in an equally silly debate. Uniformity in geologic progressions simply does not exist. Some things happen very quickly while others remain virtually unchanged. There are fossil sea shells from the Himalayas gathered in tibetan temples. At least there were before another group of proclaiming 'Truth' destroyed many. Evolution merely explains the how, not the why or why not of creation(s.) It has some flaws and seeming contradictions no more or less than the Bible. You are fighting a battle between 19th science and the threatened authority of some churchmen. Was Mendel less a churchman for laying the groundwork of genetic selection? to mirror your argument, is God static? 7 days and nights, or the 6000 odd years calculated by others is no less a blink in the Creator's eye than the 4 Billion, give or take a few days of science. I'd like to think our western civilization God is still creating wonders.


Kav, it don't matter what angle somebody comes at. FrankDC has zero fact- zero truth and I don't like somebody ramming down falsehoods as truth. He has stepped out of calling evolution a theory into a fact, when it is nothing but a lamebrain theory. In science a theory is when the majority of scienctist believe an idea may be true, but no proof. Hypothesis is when the less than the majority of scienctist believe an idea that may be true, but no proof. Many times hypothesis have proven true and theories have proven false. Real scienctist don't keep moving the goal post so they always seem to win- that is called cheating.

Another fact- More and more top notch scientist (which FrankDC is not) are coming to grips that evolution is ridiculous. There is a lot of weight in that and Franky needs to start thinking about it, because a true scientist puts credit due where credit is due. These evolution "scientist" have done scam after scam after scam. All you have to do is read their own books. There are people who have written about the scams. I wouldn't doubt that most evolution scientist are honest people who never questioned, because they didn't know what questions to ask (and if you want a degree you have to lie anyway, or get an F in science), but when they start thinking outside the box, instead of pleaseing, then they start realizeing there is a lot of science that does not add up as they were taught. The whole thing about educations isn't about mind control, or mine traps, but to think better. You ever see a science teacher get caught in a scam? My tax money does not belong being used for science scams- evolution is built upon scams.

6,000 years (a thousand years is one day to God), 20 billion years, or, 6 earthly days when you look at the chapter of the 10 commandments.

How many evolution "scientist" have knocked the Church (and rightly so) and with the same breath did exactly what they accused the Church of doing. If they are as bad as the Church, then they are not trustworthy. In this world- Church, science, business, etc. you need to keep your wits about you. When people are manipulating it is time to stand back. Either I have misunderstood FrankDC or he is not telling the truth. Truth never Changes.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Frank, since when does religion claim to describe the physical world with *any detail*? FWIW, the Darwinists haven't been able to prove their claims _concerning the origin of new species_ either yet they continue to hold onto their premises.


As I said before, biologists are the first to admit they don't have all the answers. They do, however, provide scientific proof for their claims, unlike creationists.



yachtie said:


> You're free to hold onto your apparent athiesm and derive whatever comfort you can from it, but it's not a proveable proposition and is therefore as much "voodoo" as what you decry.


It should be obvious what I mean by "voodoo based on more voodoo", and your branding me as an atheist not only couldn't be further from the truth, it's highly offensive. It comes from the same mental midgetry that gives rise to religious fundamentalism in the first place.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Kav, it don't matter what angle somebody comes at. FrankDC has zero fact- zero truth and I don't like somebody ramming down falsehoods as truth. He has stepped out of calling evolution a theory into a fact, when it is nothing but a lamebrain theory. In science a theory is when the majority of scienctist believe an idea may be true, but no proof. Hypothesis is when the less than the majority of scienctist believe an idea that may be true, but no proof. Many times hypothesis have proven true and theories have proven false. Real scienctist don't keep moving the goal post so they always seem to win- that is called cheating.
> 
> Another fact- More and more top notch scientist (which FrankDC is not) are coming to grips that evolution is ridiculous. There is a lot of weight in that and Franky needs to start thinking about it, because a true scientist puts credit due where credit is due. These evolution "scientist" have done scam after scam after scam. All you have to do is read their own books. There are people who have written about the scams. I wouldn't doubt that most evolution scientist are honest people who never questioned, because they didn't know what questions to ask (and if you want a degree you have to lie anyway, or get an F in science), but when they start thinking outside the box, instead of pleaseing, then they start realizeing there is a lot of science that does not add up as they were taught. The whole thing about educations isn't about mind control, or mine traps, but to think better. You ever see a science teacher get caught in a scam? My tax money does not belong being used for science scams- evolution is built upon scams.
> 
> ...


WA, 
I agree with you on Creationism, however I do not believe that there is definitive proof that this took place during 24 hour days. Genesis was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word used for day is yom. Yom can mean a 24 hour day, a period of light, a period of time and a year. Yom also does not have to mean day at all. It can mean continually or season. Here is a webpage devoted to the idea that the Bible and science can be brought together without conflict. Pay particular attention to the section about Abraham and the description of large numbers.

https://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, As a christian, I have faith in the promise of the gospel.It works for me. As a scientist, I use the theory of evolution.Faith and theory, two very interesting tools. Again, this 'war' is one between men with rather plebian, temporal agendas. As christians, shouldn't we put aside this earthly concern? Galileo was put under lifetime house arrest by the Pope for what, declaring the earth wasn't the center of the universe? He never said man is not the center of the universe, and therefore niether is God. He was talking real estate, and the Pope understood to well the precept of 'location,location,location.' As Christians, we have an obligation to more pressing, divinely commanded tasks from our saviour. We have 'bigger fish to fry' so to speak like those first fishers of men. I was at the video store yesterday, itself doomed to extinction in an evolving market. I had faith the title I wanted would be in stock. My theory proved correct. There, marked down allready next to Bill and Ted's excellent Adventure was THE DA VINCI CODE. There was a change, or mutation in plans though. I spotted a unopened copy of ZULU with Michael Caine.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> WA,
> I agree with you on Creationism, however I do not believe that there is definitive proof that this took place during 24 hour days. Genesis was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word used for day is yom. Yom can mean a 24 hour day, a period of light, a period of time and a year. Yom also does not have to mean day at all. It can mean continually or season. Here is a webpage devoted to the idea that the Bible and science can be brought together without conflict. Pay particular attention to the section about Abraham and the description of large numbers.


I don't have a problem with the Bible and science getting along. After all, God created both, and he didn't lie. Do we understand everything in both? No. People who hate the Bible have attached Christians and the Bible, some in the name of science. One of the first lessons in Sunday school is snakes had legs. Some years later (1960-70's) scienctist finally had the means to discouver that snakes had legs. How could people thousands of years ago have possibly have know without the means? Because they saw them? Some people don't want their children in the class room where the teacher is deliberately attaching those children, and in that, in the name of science.

Just look at evolution. Change, change, change. Why? Because some of them know it is not true. They know that the theories are lies. So, they set out to prove some theories are wrong and put in other theories, so they get famous and rich. Have you ever heard this side of the story? I have. It is the only honorable career where lieing is ok- they say. And I didn't hear it from Christians either. Like I said mine manipulations and mine traps (mine control) is part of evolutionary "science" way of teaching. Technology of mine control is simple scamming. Present some facts, leave out some important facts, and then put in hogwash until there are no more questions.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> There, marked down allready next to Bill and Ted's excellent Adventure was THE DA VINCI CODE. There was a change, or mutation in plans though. I spotted a unopened copy of ZULU with Michael Caine.


Much better pick, IMO.:icon_smile_wink: Must have been a _natural selection_.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I love the movie.There are some Martinni rifles available from the Royal Nepalese armoury. I've aften examined smaller rook rifles and target versions, but always spotted my favourite 98 mauser in some expensive chambering when financially flush. I side politically with the Zulus after a summer spent with several books about South African history. I for one, will not let Oprah Winfrey teach me. Poor Oprah, she was convinced she was of Zulu descent. Recent genetic means can place modern peoples 'Roots.' Oprah's people came from two groups farther north. Anyway, she's involved with a school and good luck to her. Nobody has offered to identify Rosie or Donald. I think we are all more interested in where, and when they are going. We can't connect Bush with SA,politically or ancestraly although helicopters are doing some usefull crop dusting in Somalia. I don't see this comparable to Hitler, and imagine Chuck Norris is flying one with a bandana around his forehead like Stallone and Sheen. I wonder if Sam Hober would make one in Thai Silk? Anyway, hopefully I've inspired somebody to find fault in this post and hijack the thread once again from the first post.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> I don't have a problem with the Bible and science getting along. After all, God created both, and he didn't lie. Do we understand everything in both? No. People who hate the Bible have attached Christians and the Bible, some in the name of science. One of the first lessons in Sunday school is snakes had legs. Some years later (1960-70's) scienctist finally had the means to discouver that snakes had legs. How could people thousands of years ago have possibly have know without the means? Because they saw them? Some people don't want their children in the class room where the teacher is deliberately attaching those children, and in that, in the name of science.
> 
> Just look at evolution. Change, change, change. Why? Because some of them know it is not true. They know that the theories are lies. So, they set out to prove some theories are wrong and put in other theories, so they get famous and rich. Have you ever heard this side of the story? I have. It is the only honorable career where lieing is ok- they say. And I didn't hear it from Christians either. Like I said mine manipulations and mine traps (mine control) is part of evolutionary "science" way of teaching. Technology of mine control is simple scamming. Present some facts, leave out some important facts, and then put in hogwash until there are no more questions.


This is the single XXXXXXXX post in the entire history of the Interchange. Which is no mean accomplishment. Congratulations.

*LUSHINGTON: WE DON'T SPEAK TO OUR FELLOW MEMBERS IN THIS FASHION. IF YOU CAN FIND JUSTIFICATION TO PROVE YOUR THEORY, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE REVIEWING EVERY SINGLE POST EVER MADE ON THE INTERCHANGE, THEN REPOST IT. OTHERWISE, FIND A MORE GENTLEMANLY MANNER IN WHICH TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION.

ALEXANDER KABBAZ,
SENIOR MODERATOR
*


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Galileo was put under lifetime house arrest by the Pope for what, declaring the earth wasn't the center of the universe? He never said man is not the center of the universe, and therefore niether is God. He was talking real estate, and the Pope understood to well the precept of 'location, location, location.'


That is not the way I heard it from either Christians or evolutionist. The Pope believed what other scienctist said, so no problem with God and science. So, the Pope believed the other scienctist over Galileo. Why Galileo went to jail is probably because he though Galileo was scamming people in the name of science.

By the way, would you die for metaphoric reasons?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> People who hate the Bible have attached Christians and the Bible, some in the name of science.


How did they attach the Christians to their Bibles? Staples? Glue? This is extremely inhumane.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" would you die for metaphoric reasons?" No, I would not. I would let the other guy to die for his. Sadly, a part of today's reallity. WA, ever read Lewis Carrol? " Tweedle Dee and Dweedle Dum AGREED to have a fight." There are far more interesting things to discuss, far more important matters to address our energies.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> This is the single XXXXXXXX post in the entire history of the Interchange. Which is no mean accomplishment. Congratulations.


Lushington- I have been laughted at many times. Your nothing new. I like watching the scienctist proving this part of the Bible true and that part true and so on (I get laughted at less). I also like it when anthropologist find even more data that removes more laughter. I believe the oldest theory about evolution is about 20 years old- what happened to all the thousands of theories before? Has science proved them all wrong? So, science has been 100% on my side. And, why would you hang around people that have a 100% rate of flawed thinking? How many times wrong does it take before you come to your sences? You sound like a parrot. You have been taught to please not think. There is a big difference between having you head filled, which isn't thinking, and real thinking. When have you been taught to find errors in evolutions? Real scienctist look for errors in everything. And yet, you have been forbidden to look for errors to the "theory" of evolution. If you are forbidden to look for errors to evolution, then you have stepped beyond and out of science. So you have no scienctific theory of evolution because you have broken the rule of science. What is the first rule of science- to try your best to prove and to disprove? No trying to disprove and you are a fraud.

Thanks Alex.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> How did they attach the Christians to their Bibles? Staples? Glue? This is extremely inhumane.


I think they made the keyboard extremely inhumane.

I actually had a voice to text program that worked faster on my old slow computer than this one. So, I returned to the dreadful keyboard. Good thing I didn't choose a writing career.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I acouple of questions. Years ago, in the late 70's or early 80's I heard that an engine was found in the Grand Canyon that was eroded out by the river. What is the latest thoughts about it? Are there any links on the web about it? 

Intellectuals certianly know about it.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WA, I can't help but get the feeling that you form your conclusions _then_ seek out only the evidence that supports it, ignoring all other.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> WA, I can't help but get the feeling that you form your conclusions _then_ seek out only the evidence that supports it, ignoring all other.


Hey, if that modus operandi is good enough for our president, WA certainly shouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> I acouple of questions. Years ago, in the late 70's or early 80's I heard that an engine was found in the Grand Canyon that was eroded out by the river. What is the latest thoughts about it? Are there any links on the web about it?
> 
> Intellectuals certianly know about it.


What type of engine? Plane, car etc? It was found in the river? A prehistoric engine? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Hey, if that modus operandi is good enough for our president, WA certainly shouldn't have a problem with it.


Touche.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> As I said before, biologists are the first to admit they don't have all the answers. They do, however, provide scientific proof for their claims, unlike creationists.


Biologists? sure. I thought we're talking about Darwinists here. I wouldn't lump them together as Darwinism is a theory for the genesis of new species- not another word for Biologists.



> It should be obvious what I mean by "voodoo based on more voodoo", and your branding me as an atheist not only couldn't be further from the truth, it's highly offensive. It comes from the same mental midgetry that gives rise to religious fundamentalism in the first place.


Now, now, who is putting words in who's mouth? I said apparent athiesm. That is based on your posts. Paricularly the one about your unfortunate parochial school career. Name calling is not a good support for an argument. And no, it is not obvious as to what you mean by voodoo based on more voodoo. If you're willing to argue premises, fine. If you are just going to make unsupported absolute statements or _ad hominem_ attacks, I won't play as it's a waste of time.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Now I am really confuzelled; Darwinian evolutionists, biologists and now anthropologists? Anthropology is the study of mankind. Physical anthropologists study our biological 'rise' through the fossil record, genetic research and comparative studies of other primates. Cultural anthropologists study contemporary cultures and what makes them 'tick.' Archaeologists, my branch are merely anthropologists who's cultures and people have unfortunately expired with time. We may have some descendants or survivors to help us document the culture as much as possible. Ishi, the Last Wild Indian working with Kroeber is an example. Biblical archaeology is specifically devoted to locating and studying the places named in the Bible and clarifying the text's original meaning. For example, Moses probably didn't 'part' the Red Sea, desperate geologic and climatic research aside. What he probably did was take the jews into the REED Sea, a marshland. That in itself is a desperate move, but smart if Pharoah in an early anthropological example of road rage is dumb enough to follow in chariots and lose most of his force. I know it doesn't make good cinema and Charlton Heston would insist on a better script. But the IDEA, the Message is the same.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> For example, Moses probably didn't 'part' the Red Sea, desperate geologic and climatic research aside. What he probably did was take the jews into the REED Sea, a marshland. That in itself is a desperate move, but smart if Pharoah in an early anthropological example of road rage is dumb enough to follow in chariots and lose most of his force. I know it doesn't make good cinema and Charlton Heston would insist on a better script. But the IDEA, the Message is the same.


Walls of water do make for better cinema, but leading several thousand people through a sea of reeds is still pretty miraculous. I have no problem with a less "flash and bang" Old Testament because, as you say, the Message and Idea is the same- of what importance are the "props" really.

From a biological perspective or that of, as you mention physical anthropology, I see no issue with our relation to, and categorization with, the Great Apes. What I don't see is a clear demonstration of the thesis of Darwin: that a random, evolutionary process results in new species. Clearly there is some process at work as the fossil record demonstrates the arrival of new species and the disappearance of others. Statistically, looking at a completely random process, there is insufficent time in the, at latest guess, 13.5 billion years that the Universe has been in existance for such random processes to generate the diversity of life we see. Is "the Hand of God" an explanation? Sure, just not a scientifically interesting one. Random processes an explanation? Sure, just not a well supported one. Therefore each should be treated accordingly.

FWIW,"...and there was light" and the Big Bang are a very nice fit.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was on the archaeologic team that surveyed and test excavated Wood Ranch, a once lovely cattle operation on the western side of the hilltop now home to the Reagan Library. We encountered a mortuary complex. One held hundreds of Dentalium shell beads and a large quartz crystal. We quickly theorised it was a old period 'medicine man' and our chumash monitor stopped excavation until both a specialist in burials and the current chumash 'wizard' could conduct a more thorough examination and reinternment. Meanwhile this Estonian lady is shifting a final screen of midden and lets out a scream. I'm thinking, we already have hundreds of beads and a crystal. This must be a pelican thigh flute, abalone jewelry or a few other rarities I had only seen in collections and catalogs. We race over as she holds up a cartridge casing. " Our poor holyman was mu-e-er-d-erded by YOU americans!" followed by paroxisms of sobbing. I took the cartridge as the team 'expert' in firearms. There was a very rapid and animated discussion how a pre-columbian medicine man could never have been killed by ANY firearm. This led to some quick theories by Miss Riga 1957 a intact chumash tribe held out secretly until the government slaughtered them. Meanwhile I'm cleaning off the casing with my special formulae ( spit and my shirt sleeve.) "Uh, folks, what we have here is a '5 in 1 blank.' This is from an old movie shoot! Miss Riga would have none of it. 'How do you explain it being found with a 5000+ year old Indian? About that time a ground squirrel, one of thousands on the ranch poked his head up from a tunnel, shoving a lovely chert bird point out. 8 people pointed accusiingly at him simultaneously. Engines in the Grand Canyon sediment? It's called Hydrologic deposition, fancy name for the river washing some Model T downstream.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> What type of engine? Plane, car etc? It was found in the river? A prehistoric engine? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.


A friend of mine from high school went to the local Unversity and one of his proffessors claimed to be an "intellectual" (I guess to be an intellectual you have to be an atheist) and tells about this engine that is thousands of years old found in the Grand Canyon. The intellectuals kept it a secret because they were using the evolutionist and it would take too long for the evolutionist to rewrite evolution theory.

The intellectual, so he said, Phase one (I don't remember), but phase two is science, and phase three to come (back then) is knowlege. Today we are well into the knowlege phase. Maybe we are in phase four (whatever that is). Back then, in the 70's and very early 80's, small computers were the size of 3/4 of a basket ball court. The stock brokers that I invested through, back then, their closes computer was 100 miles away or farther. Today the knowlege phase is very easy with the pc.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> A friend of mine from high school went to the local Unversity and one of his proffessors claimed to be an "intellectual" (I guess to be an intellectual you have to be an atheist) and tells about this engine that is thousands of years old found in the Grand Canyon. The intellectuals kept it a secret because they were using the evolutionist and it would take too long for the evolutionist to rewrite evolution theory.


You mean the one from the 1000 B.C. spaceship? Shhhhh! That's a secret!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

I didn't think you could top yourself after your wildly anti-Catholic comments but since you have informed us that all Catholics go to hell, you have proven with your recent posts that you are an enemy of science as well. It seems you have a strong dislike of what you don't understand.

Karl


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> WA, I can't help but get the feeling that you form your conclusions _then_ seek out only the evidence that supports it, ignoring all other.


Yes I do that for somethings.

On the other hand, when you take God out of the picture the evolutionist still have flawed thinking methods. And, the ones I have been around are so quick to con, and the ones that con have an enormous influence on honest scienctist, even those that believe in evolution. The motive of some of these people is not always science- whatever their motive is science is the false front. You have to have checks and balances over a subject outside of the subject to reveiw that somebody or group is not going over your head with that subject.

Wisemen don't lie because they don't need to. Con is one type of lie. When your instructor is telling you an ex theory as thought it is still a theory or truth to try to get you to believe something, but it has be proven wrong your instructor is flat out lieing to you. In the name of science called evolution this happens all to often.

Do you like paying money for lies? Do you like people going over your head? Do you like people teaching you a theory as fact? The technology of teaching is way different between an honest teacher and a dishonest teacher. You should read some books on how cons con, then apply that knowlege with your science teachers.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> You mean the one from the 1000 B.C. spaceship? Shhhhh! That's a secret!


Not that one!

And now you let that one out, too!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Cultural anthropologists study contemporary cultures and what makes them 'tick.'


Jonah and the whale. Cultural anthropologists discovered Jonah is not the only one that was in a whale and lived to tell about it. So the mockery stopped on this story.



> Archaeologists, my branch are merely anthropologists who's cultures and people have unfortunately expired with time.


If you have expired how can you still be writing.



> We may have some descendants or survivors to help us document the culture as much as possible.


Don't even know if you have children?

The last two were just too good to pass up.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> you have proven with your recent posts that you are an enemy of science as well. It seems you have a strong dislike of what you don't understand.
> 
> Karl


You have never had a "science" teacher try to decieve you with an ex theory that scienctist have proven wrong?

Your gullilbe if you think "science" teachers are infalliable.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There is at least one account from a 19th century Whaling ship's log of such an incident. The oarsman's boat was smashed and he wound up being swallowed in the melee ( Sperm whale off New Zealand. Balleen whales are incapable of swallowing men.) The whale was successfullly harpooned by a sister boat and towed to the ship for rendering. The man was found barely alive. His hair turned snow white and he suffered severe vision loss and other 'maladies.' It is postulated ( a genteel word for theory) Jonah was in probability swallowed by a giant Grouper, known to have formerly grown to immense size and doing so in local legend. I myself was swallowed many times from infancy to young adulthood. It happened in of all places Anahiem California. Archaeologists study dead people. Dead archaeologist's physical remains are merely potential future archaeological resources. Our souls are a private matter. One famous english egyptologist horrified her muslim peers with a full on reconstructed funeral from Pharoah's time and internment in The Valley of the Kings she so loved. An anthropologist friend who studied Tibetan culture wants a sky burial. Unfortunately, the California Condor refuge is turning down such requests at present.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

Perhaps you had better focus your energies on finding a replacement for stairs (maybe the wheel and fire too?) and leave theology and science to the big boys.

And for the record most of my science teachers were nuns and Marist Brothers, but they are all going to hell according to you.

Stop posting in this thread bc the rest of us are starting to feel embarassed for you.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I believe this is a good time to politely end this phonecall like some TV moderators do on current issues. From a congressman elect taking an oath on the Koran we seem to have become those same callers who claim president Bush is being controlled by the lizard people. WA, can you distill the Gospel of Jesus to it's most simple and basic tenant? Perhaps it's " I am the way, the truth and the light. Those who believe in me shall not perish." I am hardly a worthy example, but aren't we supposed to love one another as we love God himself and forgive? Where is the agape in this thread about christian matters? Where is the tone of forgiveness, both given and asked? Those of us who profess christianity, and I emphasise christianity and not all this chaff people try to bake bread with have failed here.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> Perhaps you had better focus your energies on finding a replacement for stairs (maybe the wheel and fire too?) and leave theology and science to the big boys.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

"That's not writing. It's typing." - Truman Capote


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

WA said:


> That is not the way I heard it from either Christians or evolutionist. The Pope believed what other scienctist said, so no problem with God and science. So, the Pope believed the other scienctist over Galileo. Why Galileo went to jail is probably because he though Galileo was scamming people in the name of science.


Actually, this is exactly what happened as outlined in several biography's of Galileo I've read. One of the reasons the pope was so scared of Galileo and his positions was that he was THE scientist of his time. He was a rock star. People knew his name and believed what he said and published. He was a tremendous threat to the pope and the church (although he was severely conflicted because he was deeply religious). He had such a strong reputation that the pope had no choice but to do something drastic in order to keep him quiet.

I would recommend that you read a book about him.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> Perhaps you had better focus your energies on finding a replacement for stairs (maybe the wheel and fire too?) and leave theology and science to the big boys.
> 
> ...


Dare I say....Amen!


----------



## OldSkoolFrat (Jan 5, 2007)

KenR said:


> WA, I can't help but get the feeling that you form your conclusions _then_ seek out only the evidence that supports it, ignoring all other.


there is one..................


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There are two types of evolution- 1) micro-evolution, 2) macro-evolution. These two are not really related.

I really expected a list of macro-evolution theories (20 or more years or older) with the titles, date of invention, Doctorates that invented them and in what publications. And if your wrong I can't call you guys dimwit, nitwits, halfwit because you never gave me any wits, so I guess some of you guys are witless. (humor).

I think everybody believe in micro-evolution.

One last thing about my education of macro-evolution; By law of this state the opening statements by a teacher about macro-evolution had to say that macro-evolution is not fact, but a theory. And yes, some teachers did try to sneak in theories that had been proven wrong.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

queueball said:


> Actually, this is exactly what happened as outlined in several biography's of Galileo I've read. One of the reasons the pope was so scared of Galileo and his positions was that he was THE scientist of his time. He was a rock star. People knew his name and believed what he said and published. He was a tremendous threat to the pope and the church (although he was severely conflicted because he was deeply religious). He had such a strong reputation that the pope had no choice but to do something drastic in order to keep him quiet.
> 
> I would recommend that you read a book about him.


That sounds good to me.

Thanks!!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

queueball said:


> Actually, this is exactly what happened as outlined in several biography's of Galileo I've read. One of the reasons the pope was so scared of Galileo and his positions was that he was THE scientist of his time. He was a rock star. People knew his name and believed what he said and published. He was a tremendous threat to the pope and the church (although he was severely conflicted because he was deeply religious). He had such a strong reputation that the pope had no choice but to do something drastic in order to keep him quiet.
> 
> I would recommend that you read a book about him.


The issue there was that the Church had a lot invested in Aristotelian/ Platonic "science" which was incorporated along with Aristotelian/Platonic philosophy. Sort of a package deal. The philosophy was good , the "science" wasn't.

_Fides et Ratio (_Faith and reason) provides a good contemporary analysis of the present philosophical relationship between the Church and the Sciences.

I don't think we'll be fooled again. 500 years older, 500 years wiser....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> The issue there was that the Church had a lot invested in Aristotelian/ Platonic "science" which was incorporated along with Aristotelian/Platonic philosophy. Sort of a package deal. The philosophy was good , the "science" wasn't.
> 
> _Fides et Ratio (_Faith and reason) provides a good contemporary analysis of the present philosophical relationship between the Church and the Sciences.


_Fides et Ratio_ is one of several astonishing encyclicals we were fortunate to receive from PJPII. I also highly recommend _Evangelium Vitae_ and _Veritatis Splendor_. Both are lengthy reads but well worth the effort IMO.


----------

