Hey Christians

[newusername 10+ year member]

seriously?

I know all about how terribly the US has trampled on its constitution. I was just asking him to clarify what role he was referring to specifically.

 

[SRim23 5,000+ posts]

I know all about how terribly the US has trampled on its constitution. I was just asking him to clarify what role he was referring to specifically.

haha just making sure. but then i realized you were from canada so i didnt know how much you knew about our history. i dont know anything about yours so i figured maybe it was the same thing.

carry on.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Ah! some old testament! God wrote rules for slavery in Le 25:39-55. Christians were to treat fellow Christians indebted to them as hired servants rather than as bondservants (v.39,40). Christian servants were to serve until the seventh year (Dt 15:12-15) or until the jubilee (Le 25:40), at which time they were to be released. Once a Christian servant is freed, he is not to be put back into servitude (Je 34:15-17). Therefore, if a Christian servant never wants to leave his master’s service, he can – before he is released – proclaim his undying love for his master and be made a servant forever (Dt 15:16,17).

Most Christians think slavery is a sinful defrauding of human beings. They learned that from the world when, during the period leading up to the U.S. Civil War, they drew upon the Enlightened principles of equality in order to “know” (not discern) that the ancient institution of slavery was horribly ungodly, sinful, demeaning, cruel, and unjust.

But I digress, I havent been to church in years. I take no issue with people devoid of religion. Just people who attack others based off their personal beliefs. It seems it's the "hip" thing for kids to do nowadays. Mini arm-chair intellectuals assuming they know all the answers of time and space, believing others with differing views to be foolish or uneducated.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

As conquered by a nation of men, and one in particular, who's resounding words provided courage and strength to hundreds of of thousands..
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."

btw Lincoln also said this at Ottawa

"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.…I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one."

 

[thaster 10+ year member]

the bible is very hypocritic

 

[atsaubrey 10+ year member]

What surprises me is the OP is a mod on this forum.....obviously trying to start a worthless thread to eat bandwith. Oh, and closes a thread for donations to help spay and nueter and take in stray animals. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[SRim23 5,000+ posts]

What surprises me is the OP is a mod on this forum.....obviously trying to start a worthless thread to eat bandwith. Oh, and closes a thread for donations to help spay and nueter and take in stray animals. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

eh, it started before easter to stir up some fun religious debates. i had fun in all of them.

 

[SRim23 5,000+ posts]

Im gonna guess this will hit 8 pages.

i think its safe to say the OVER would of won on this bet lol

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

eh, it started before easter to stir up some fun religious debates. i had fun in all of them.

I agree. Nothing beats good discussion. We all pretty much know where these things are going though from the start

 

[UCF_Knight24 10+ year member]

If God knows everything about everyone, does that mean God makes people to go to hell?

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

On your second point, it goes both ways.
"Religious beliefs of others affect us all. Many politicians attempt to drive their religious agenda through their politics, and use their religious agenda as a frame for a portion of their political agenda."

The same way individuals use the system (aka, tyranny of the minority) to attempt to have religious symbols removed from a public place, or a nativity scene in a public square during Christmas, against the wishes of perhaps nearly all the citizens of a traditional, rural town.

If it's public property, then why is there any particular religious symbolism at all? Why Christianity and no other religion? Why isn't there a giant Buddha in the public square next to that Nativity Scene? Why isn't there a symbol of every religion in that public place?

That validity of displays on public property isn't subject to "popular demand", it's subject to the constitution and laws of this country. Nothing more, nothing less.

"It attempts to infiltrate our school systems by declaring that "intelligent design" is as scientific as evolution (thankfully the court systems have thus far been smart enough to strike down such endeavors)."
The same way many others try to force any mention of religious history

Depends on what we are discussing. I see no reason religion's role in human history should be ignored as it's played a pretty important role in human history.

But if you were discussing anything other than religions general influence on history and specific events, then you're going to have to be more detailed.

or value totally out of schools,

You're going to have to be more specific, as this is approaching a very fine line.

Religious values themselves have no place in the public education system. A class on the history and specifics of ALL religions might be acceptable under specific guidelines, although it runs the very high risk of being an soapbox upon which to preach the bible and Christian viewpoints much as the intelligent design issue has become a way for creationist to attempt to slip it into the classroom. And that's the problem. People don't use those programs for educational purposes, they use them to push their own agendas.

as they do not fall within the understanding and boundries of a scientific community, who believe their scientific laws unrefutable.

You apparently don't understand science.

Science isn't irrefutable. In fact, the very thing scientist try to do is attempt to refute present knowledge! That's what they are trying to do, disprove or overturn present understanding. Discover something no one else has. That's the point of science! Guess what science is not? Science is NOT something that is irrefutable. Because it can not be experimentally tested. It can not be overturned. It can not be used to predict the outcome of future events or experiments. Something that is irrefutable is NOT science.

Something that is truly irrefutable (an "intelligent designer", for instance) has no place anywhere near science or public education. If someone is trying to present very unscientific information, information that can not stand up to or even be tested under scientific scrutiny then again, it has no place in public education.

This has a direct effect on the majority of Americans who consider themselves religious, as it is perceived as a direct attack against their long standing personal beliefs, which they hold dear.

Sorry, but "holding something dear" is not a valid reason to allow utter, religiously driven nonsense into public education.

 

[only1manny]

I should start selling pocket protectors on this site.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

If it's public property, then why is there any particular religious symbolism at all? Why Christianity and no other religion? Why isn't there a giant Buddha in the public square next to that Nativity Scene? Why isn't there a symbol of every religion in that public place?
That validity of displays on public property isn't subject to "popular demand", it's subject to the constitution and laws of this country. Nothing more, nothing less.

Depends on what we are discussing. I see no reason religion's role in human history should be ignored as it's played a pretty important role in human history.

But if you were discussing anything other than religions general influence on history and specific events, then you're going to have to be more detailed.

You're going to have to be more specific, as this is approaching a very fine line.

Religious values themselves have no place in the public education system. A class on the history and specifics of ALL religions might be acceptable under specific guidelines, although it runs the very high risk of being an soapbox upon which to preach the bible and Christian viewpoints much as the intelligent design issue has become a way for creationist to attempt to slip it into the classroom. And that's the problem. People don't use those programs for educational purposes, they use them to push their own agendas.

You apparently don't understand science.

Science isn't irrefutable. In fact, the very thing scientist try to do is attempt to refute present knowledge! That's what they are trying to do, disprove or overturn present understanding. Discover something no one else has. That's the point of science! Guess what science is not? Science is NOT something that is irrefutable. Because it can not be experimentally tested. It can not be overturned. It can not be used to predict the outcome of future events or experiments. Something that is irrefutable is NOT science.

Something that is truly irrefutable (an "intelligent designer", for instance) has no place anywhere near science or public education. If someone is trying to present very unscientific information, information that can not stand up to or even be tested under scientific scrutiny then again, it has no place in public education.

Sorry, but "holding something dear" is not a valid reason to allow nonsense into public education.

Your'e still obviously a little oblivious to my point. No individual nor large movement should be able to force a personal viewpoint on another. An athiest forcing the removal of a nativity scene, or a Christan forcing a student to utter the word "God" during the pledge of allegance. As I mentioned above, it cuts both ways. The crux of the issue is to figure out how to have it both ways.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Your'e still obviously a little oblivious to my point. No individual nor large movement should be able to force a personal viewpoint on another. An athiest forcing the removal of a nativity scene, or a Christan forcing a student to utter the word "God" during the pledge of allegance. As I mentioned above, it cuts both ways. The crux of the issue is to figure out how to have it both ways.

An atheist isn't forcing anything; the constitution is simply ensuring the protection of all people in a public place, since religion is, by it's nature, very exclusive of those outside the sect.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Your'e still obviously a little oblivious to my point. No individual nor large movement should be able to force a personal viewpoint on another. An athiest forcing the removal of a nativity scene, or a Christan forcing a student to utter the word "God" during the pledge of allegance. As I mentioned above, it cuts both ways.

You're obviously still a little oblivious to my point. There is no religion in this country that is allowed to override or supercede the others. There are just as many (more, probably) other religions offended by that Nativity scene, not just atheists. Why is Christianity allowed to invade and impose itself upon the public? It's offending and uncomfortable to those practicing other religions, probably moreso than atheists. So why is this right afforded to Christianity but not the other religions? Where is it written into the constitution that Christianity be afforded the right to impose itself upon the public using public resources, such as public property and the public educational system?

It doesn't cut both ways. Christians think it should cut their way.

The only way it should cut is the way dictated by the laws and constitution of the country.

The crux of the issue is to figure out how to have it both ways.

False. The crux is for Christians to figure out it is not their right to impose their beliefs or symbolisms upon the rest of the population, be they atheists or members of a different religion, in a manor other than that allowed by the constitution.