Loveinaction

The important part of Jefferson's attitude here is that he thought organized religion was corrupt and philosophically garbage. He may have been a "christian", but he thought that organized Christianity was quite far from real christianity. He also did not believe in original sin, that Jesus was the saviour, or other important aspects that many people would say define whether or not you're a christian.

While I understand your humor barjockey. The definition of 'god' varies greatly among differant cultures. To some it is more god in the sense that they decide for themselves what is right and wrong. God in this sense meaning one that is qualified to decide the differance. Not the guy with the flowing white beard sitting on a cloud telling everyone they must assimilate or die.

No barjockey, I don't accept the concept of the Trinity as being Biblical. I believe the Bible is quite clear in saying there is one God, The Father. His son is Jesus Christ, and all of His Authority and Power is manifested within His Son because He has designed it thusly and Jesus has, in his obedience, earned that "Right Hand" position (unlike Satan, who rebelled), and the Holy Spirit is the embodiment of His power and will, in action.

But that's not important right now.

Ok to Assclown McDingleberry who lost his case today and the other asshats, want to take out Under God and in God We Trust? We have a federally funded Catherdal, where all religions can and do participate in various religious ceremonies - want to tear that down too? What about the rest of our basic laws that originate in Judeo-Christian beliefs? How about we just put the freakin Constitution through the paper shredder (along with your "Religious money" - ever hear of a check or credit card)? Did you watch Reagan's funeral? That was all about God and it was federally funded too! And tell me what we should do about all those soldiers in Arlington National Cemetary that died protecting your right to be an asshat? You know each one of those burials were part of a state funded religious ceremony, maybe we should just rip all their bodies out of the ground, destroy every one of their headstones (which are crosses), and turn the place into a shopping mall.

And whoever here said The law is there to protect ALL the people, not 95% of them (sorry can't find the exact quote right now, it's in this thread) tell me what is better - doing what 95% want, or doing what 5% want and ignorning the wishes of the other 95%? That is unfair and unjust too. How would this country be if we bent over backwards for every minority group's unique wishes, even if that group is only 1, 2, or 5 percent of the population? We'd be even farther in debt and nothing would ever get done. You can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. If 5% of the people are unsatisfied, that's pretty damn good compared to everywhere else. Tell me which country exists where every citizen agrees 100% with every law, belief, and practice their government holds. What's the matter, can't think of one? It doesn't exist, and never will. Maybe if the country only had about three people in it. So if you're in that 5%, suck it up. Send the offended heaping pile of DNA to school with earplugs if you think they'll be damaged by hearing the pledge. LOL BTW that was a joke...

It's like that Aesop's fable about the people with the horse and the blanket, and everybody had a diffferent opinion (the horse should carry the young man, no the horse should carry the old man, no both should carry the horse on the blanket) - eventually we will lose the farking horse!

loveinaction

I would also be very interested if you could provide any quote where Jefferson shows himself "subservient" to God. As far as I can tell, that was exactly the kind of attitude that he thought organized religion used to dominate the masses and obfuscate reason.

I don't think Secular Humanism is a religion, although I think some of its tenants, like abortion, are abhorrible. But, if Secular Humanism is not a religion than it would not qualify for either the establishment or the free exercise of clauses. It's not a religion so it cannot be established. And it's not a religion so it cannot be denied the free exercise of.

Yellow Number Five:
[Athiests want to take away the right of religious people to mention God in any setting under the color of government, or any references to God (non-specific as to individual religions) by government. The U.S. Constitution, as written, does not call for that. Period.]

"And you know this because?"

And I know this because an athiest just tried using his daughter to get "under God" taken out of pledge. If you'd like a few thousand other examples, let me know.

I apologize to any athiests who don't give a shiat about the issue. But there are many who are considerably more radical about it - such as trying to change the crest of the County of Los Angeles because it has a microscopic cross in one portion of it - wholly appropriate and historically accurate to the fact that the area was discovered by a Franciscan priest.

In the Things That Make You Go Hmmmmm.... Department: The far larger image on the L.A. crest is the Roman Goddess Pomona. The ACLU, however, doesn't have any problems with her being on it.

"Anyone who gets militant about the issue has bigger problems to deal with as far as I'm concerned. It sounds like you have some of those problems..."

Because I'm stating my viewpoint, and defending it, in a forum for debate on the issue?

Max Reax:
"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Again, 'no law respecting an establishment of religion'.

Not 'a religion'. 'Religion'. Specificity, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Mentioning God is respecting an establishment of religion."

What do you think you're proving, exactly? Read your own quoted constitutional passage again.

First of all, you're misinterpreting the word "respecting." As it's written, it means "with regard to."

So that makes the passage: "Congress shall make no law with regard to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Last time I checked, no one in the U.S. Congress was passing any laws establishing a religion, or religion in general. I do, however, see many radical athiests attempting to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

A non-specific Creator-God is already established (in reference to U.S. government) as far back as there IS an American government, as far back as the Declaration of Independence, held then to be a "self-evident truth."

crimethink:
"Once the government adopts a favored or official religion, that *does* impact the freedom of speech of religious people--especially those who don't practice the official one."

Mentioning God in government isn't adopting a favored or official religion.

As has been noted ad nauseum (and it's quite amusing, given all of the people who keep quoting Jefferson's anti-religious quotes, thinking they are making some profound point), Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which makes a God reference in its second sentence, non-specific as to any religion.

Jefferson basically got overruled. You can actually see where the creator reference is added to Jefferson's rough draft of the D of I (I think by Benjamin Franklin) at the Library of Congress website.

I'd add the URL, but it's enormously long, and Fark's not letting me HTML link it. It's Image 545 in the Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1 on the website.

Jefferson signed the final D of I, holding the existence of a Creator to be a self-evident truth. Methinks he wasn't so fervent on a nonspecific God reference as some of you here are making him out to be.

Cyansis
God said Adam/Eve don't do that and they did. How is that unfair? Just because we don't like the punishment does not mean the punisher is the one at fault.

But you told me earlier that all the badness inflicted on mankind was because Adam made a bad choice.

So why does EVERY other person in the world need to suffer for his mistake. If someone on the other side of the world commits murder, should i go to jail for it?

That's the part that seems dick-like.

The important part of Jefferson's attitude here is that he thought organized religion was corrupt and philosophically garbage. He may have been a "christian", but he thought that organized Christianity was quite far from real christianity. He also did not believe in original sin, that Jesus was the saviour, or other important aspects that many people would say define whether or not you're a christian.

I repeat, the important part is that he and the other founding fathers were deeply spiritual men who recognized their subservient position to God, and would find today's rabid atheists as equally distasteful as the corrupt clergy of this or any other historical period.

Okay - I'm through toying with everyone. The reason why God is written into our culture is because it was God's laws that were taken and put into place here. The 10 Commandments are the boiled down center for our rule of law. if it was Buddha's 10 commandments, it would be one nation under Buddha (and that would hurt because Buddha is so fat). If it was Cthullu's laws, so on and so forth. Dismantle our entire basis of right and wrong from the roots; and reassemble it to fit into whatever form you want. That is the only way to change it.

*End of Thread*

Franky17

Although, I must admit that I agree to some extent. Two people eating an apple from a tree after a talking snake told them to, and thus condemning man to wander the earth and be subject to original sin makes sense. But Zeuss pulling Minerva from his head? Well, that's just farked up.

So you agree that we haven't decided it is mythology.

Good.

Didn't want you to avoid the question.

LoveInAction: ...and that the basis of law and morality began with the belief that there is a God.

Er, "Code of Hammruabi" ring a bell? Some 1700 years before Jesus of Nazareth pranced around in his sandles, I believe. They had no God, they had gods. And yet amazingly they had a code of law that included morality.

YES, most (if not all) of our founding fathers were spiritual/religious. And yes, most felt that the U.S. needed religion to survive. However, you'll also notice that none of them attempted to force that constraint onto the the nation; they each acknowledged that to codify religion into law was a bad thing. I find it hard to comprehend why people (both sides of this argument) can't see that the men were very good at keeping their personal and political lives fairly separate.

Example: I think homosexuality is nasty. I think anyone who is gay is a lesser being than I, that they are in someway defective. HOWEVER, I also believe it is their right to choose to do whatever they want sexually so long as all parties involved are consenting and "adult". Thus, despite my aversion to them, I am not going to try to work it into legislation.

Example: I find abortion rather nasty -- it most definitely isn't something I would ask a lover to undergo, and if she did, I would find it hard to continue the relationship on any level. HOWEVER, I am not going to attempt to legislate away her right to do so simply because *I* find it repulsive.

/note: those were example stories and may not reflect the reality of my beliefs. Then again, they may.

Dimensio

I just love it when non Christians try to debate fine points of theology. The question with Adam and Eve was not a question of a knowledge of right and wrong. It was obedience to God. The fruit GAVE them the knowledge of right and wrong and set in motion the world as we know it today. OF COURSE God knew this was going to happen. Do you think Adam and Ever were born asexual. God knew they were going to need the equipment so they were made with it. Omniscience does not entail control. Why give the gift of free will if you just control what your creations do anyway. That is not free will that is slavery.

The effects of love can be seen and the absence also has consequences but the actual details of love are beyond our senses.

What are you talking about? It's a set of chemical reactions in the brain. You can actually get the same effect by eating large quantities of chocolate (yes, that line from The Devil's Advocate was based on fact).


We CAN FEEL love but love is also in our actions.

More like love influences our actions.


We can love and feel no love towards them. That is still love.

Huh?

95% of science is simply perception of clues.

I'm not sure that I agree. There's more to it than percecption, there's also interpretation.


Clues can lead to many different conclusions as science has proven over and over again.

Yes, and?

You don't seem to be heading to anything resembling a "point" here.


The only thing that has not changed is the arrogance that says "THIS time we have it right" All the evidence points this way so this MUST be right.

Oh, you mean the arrogance that religious people have. Except that they never say "THIS time", they say that they've been right all along.

Proper scientists don't assert absolute correctness. Yes, there are a few arrogant fools out there, but one of the first things that real scientists learn about the scientific method is that there is no certainty.

Perhaps you should argue facts rather than strawmen?


Arrogance and pride exist everywhere. So yes Virginia, there just MIGHT be a God because 95% of the universe exists outside of any way for us to DIRECTLY perceive it.

So your argument is that there "might" be a God simply because we haven't ruled out a "God" yet? Have you even defined this "God" in any meaningful way?

I thought that you might actually have an insightful thing to say here. Turns out that you have nothing more than argument from ignorance: "That you can't prove me wrong is evidence that I'm right!"

Sorry, lack of evidence against a "God" is not evidence for a "God". Your assertion of a "God" gets to stand with the assertions of every other theist presenting their own deity or deities, and it gets evaluated based upon the evidence that you provide for it, not your pathetic attempt at distraction of "you can't prove me wrong!"

You still have failed to give an example of something that can be demonstrated without the use of our senses. I'll add to that an additional question: why should I accept anything as reality if I am unable to perceive it, in any way, with my senses?

LoveInAction

Okay - fair enough. The way that you explained it is the way I take it too. I just refer to it as the Trinity. I believe that all 3 parts are the manifestation of the one God, and not separate entities, but are separate identities that only one of heaven's knowledge could interpret and understand. Carry on then.

FishingWithFredo

[I apologize to any athiests who don't give a shiat about the issue. But there are many who are considerably more radical about it... ]

Exactly the point. Why assume what one man is doing is representative of all atheists? I don't assume assclown Christian fundamentalists speak for all Christians. Personally I think Newdow has ulterior motives other than simply removing "under God" from the Pledge. Your post I was responding to made it seem like you thought there was a vast atheist conspiracy to eradicate every nuance of religion from public view.

walkingtall

Are you saying that God wanted the Fall of Man to happen?

Loveinaction

I respectfully once again ask you to provide any evidence that jefferson saw himself and any other man as "subservient" to God. He says he loves god, that he thanks god for his grace, but I can't find anywhere saying that he is subservient to god.

He also states quite clearly that one should doubt even the existence of god, to let your reason show you the path in life. He believed, as did many of his contemporaries, that through the pure exercise of reason, virtue could be achieved. He also believed that a benevolent god created the universe and both was worthy of and wanted the love of his creation. However, and I repeat, he saw any organized form of religion as a threat to the freedom of man.

From Chief Justice Rhenquist's concurring opinion, for those of you who think it was out and out not addressed as to whether "under God" is an establishment (he backs it up with about 3 pages of reasoning, so I'll leave that part out and you can go find it if you want):

-------
I do not believe that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge converts its recital into a "religious exercise" of the sort described in Lee. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase "under God" is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: "From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation [*50] was founded on a fundamental belief in God." Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church. n4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


n4 JUSTICE THOMAS concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), that Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 3-5 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U.S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. "Failure to conform [was] 'insubordination' dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] 'unlawfully absent' and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $ 50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days." Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with "formal religious exercises," 505 U.S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.


- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*51]

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase "under God," but with the phrase "with liberty and justice for all." But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase "under God" somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the First Amendment can respondent's claim succeed, where one based on objections to "with liberty and justice for all" fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase "under God" cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional [*52] prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular government -- the national, the state, and the local -- collaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of "heckler's veto" over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase "under God," is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.
-----------

The 10 Commandments are the boiled down center for our rule of law.

You are absolutely right. That is why we have Federal laws against working on the Sabbath and against taking the Lord's name in vain. That's why, until the 10 Commandments were written, no society had laws against murder and theft.

Oh, wait, we don't and they did. I guess that you're just full of it.

The 10 Commandments are the boiled down center for our rule of law.

Maybe the least informed thing I have ever read.

Which are you less familiar with? The 10 Commandments? Or US Law?

Lenny_da_Hog

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.

I think the EULA was clear.

Hebalo

How can something perfect come from imperfection? This is the whole Jesus argument. Leading a sinful life and then laying it down freely for the love of others.

Omniscience does not entail control.

No, but it does allow for certain things similar: if you know the kids are going to break the vase if you leave it on the table, then put it somewhere where they can't get to it. Leaving it on the table -- knowing that it will be broken -- and then punishing them for it is silly, if not mean.

God, if omniscient, knew what the results of his actions would be, and yet did them anyway.

Are you saying that God wanted the Fall of Man to happen?

I'd say it's more like didn't want the ascent of man to happen. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the Tower of Babel, the Flood, decades of wandering: A petty jealous God indeed, and a bit of a passive-aggressive.

From ignorant enslavement in Eden to enlightened capitulation in cathedrals, the end's the same.

The Serpent told the truth.

Last time I checked, no one in the U.S. Congress was passing any laws establishing a religion, or religion in general. I do, however, see many radical athiests attempting to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In what way is removing "Under God" from the Pledge an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religion?

for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die

Was one mighty long day then, seeing as how they had time to sire two children in sequence (as opposed to twins).

Cyansis

Why have you not answered this post, 2004-06-14 02:41:37 ? You can't make claims without justifying them.

Dimensio

I said "boiled down center" for a basis. I thought you would understand the difference between a verbatim structure for law, and a boiled down root of it. Wrong again, I suppose.

walkingtall:

So the theory (if I can paraphrase you) is that God made Adam and Eve, and KNEW that they were going to disobey him and eat from the tree. So rather than teach or provide guidance, he let them commit this sin, and then laid down the harshest of all punishments, and made sure that the enitre human race would also suffer this punishment, for thousands of years to come.

/keep your heaven, the guy in charge sounds like an asshat.

setaanbomb
My questions were posed to Just Ignorant, but I'll touch on your answers.

Thank you.

I'm down brother. Large portions of the population are Christian, they are kind, they are nice, they are forgiving, they are friendly, they are welcoming, they are benevolent. But not all of them retain these qualities. Like any large or small group there are bound to be bad apples. Killers, rapists, murderers, adulterers, drug abusers; are not all groups seeking to 'bury' these apples?

Correct. On thing I constantly hear from Christians is how good they are. When I point out how bad many Christians are, they insist that these are the exceptions. When I then suggest that perhaps the good ones are the exceptions, they get upset. The usual statement is something like; "You know some bad Christians, because of that you think all/most Christians are bad." I will then respond with; "You know some good Christians, because of that you think all/most Christians are good." The usual reaction is rage. I think it was Jesus who said "by thier fruits ye shall know them." Until Christians can genuinely claim to be better ON AVERAGE then other people, they should make no claim to being superior. Christians often say they are not superior only saved. But it makes no sense to me that Jesus would enter into the hearts of people and leave them the same asses they were before.

Which minority suffers from this large body of Christians?

Remember why the Puritans came to this country? Remember what the descendents of the Puritans did to the Native Americans? Remember what the Serbs did to the Muslims? The Crusades? The Inquisition?

Am I denying any minority the right to his or her own choice?

No. But when people like you gather in large numbers they need to be constrained from limiting the choices of others. Of course the same thing can be said about people like me.

But I have to admit, I may be Christian(Roman Catholic), however, I'm in the minority on every issue. I'm the lone wolf.

I do not understand this. Earlier you made reference to "this nation of 85% Christians", now you claim to be a minority?

Two men want to get live together forever? Good for them. What's stopping them? What stops them is themselves, not you, not me, not God, not Satan. If every loving, healthy and lasting relationship was only honorable with the approval of the government this country would already be dead.

Then why not let them get a marriage license? When the majority denies the minority the same choices they allow themselves, they are oppressing that minority.

I respectfully once again ask you to provide any evidence that jefferson saw himself and any other man as "subservient" to God. He says he loves god, that he thanks god for his grace, but I can't find anywhere saying that he is subservient to god.

Are you hung up on the word 'subservient'? I take it to mean simply that he acknowledged God was greater than man, God was the "giver of life and liberty", and before whose justice TJ "trembled".

God, if omniscient, knew what the results of his actions would be, and yet did them anyway.

Don't forget, omnsicence is only half of it. He is also supposed to be omnipotent. If he were merely omniscient, then knowing the consequences might be irrelevant if he weren't able to arrange things in any better configuration. Being omnipotent, however, means that he is able to arrange things exactly as he wants them. As such, everything that happens only happens because God wants it that way. The Fall of Man, all of the wars and plagues are all his will. Every soul that is damned for all eternity is only damned because God intentionally set things in motion to achieve that specific outcome.

You can ONLY escape this if you believe that God is both omniscient and omnipotent if you also believe that God is incomptetent.

ArcadianRefugee

But where does the line get drawn.

If someone doesn't think child pornogrphy or pedophilia is objectionable, then do we allow it. And the disscussion isn't far off. Check the story on Nicole Kidman making out with a ten year old in her movie and read that post board.

The response was mostly in favor of the scene.

We have to have clear laws NOW. Is homosexuality the last straw? Is mulitple spouses? Child marriages young as 13, 11, 10, or 8? Animal weddings or beastiality?

We have to draw the line. Otherwise it IS the slippery slope and then the country will decay.

Rome ring a bell?

Fair enought walkingtall. The only reason I say that is because I find it SO hard to believe the earth is 6 thousand years old. I need more proof than the Bible to explain it. How on earth can physical evidence take the back seat to 11 chapters of a book? Even if the book is supposed to be from God. I can certainly tolarate the literal interpretation of Genesis, although I don't know how one can truly believe it. I am not at all saying you are not intellectual, I am sure you are. But creation science never takes evidece and draws conclusions. They simply pick at weaknesses in evolution and say that is proof that it doesn't happen. .... Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have attended plenty of creationist lectures and they all seem to be based on nothing. Believe what you want to believe but dont make it an arguing point for faith, because its a weak one.

barjockey

The ten commandments have little, if anything, to do with law. They have to do with being a good, ethical person. The laws of Judaism were mainly explicated in the Talmud.

Note that most of the commandments have to deal with things of a spiritual nature-- oaths, lust, false witness, honoring god, honoring your parents, greed-- and that the results of these actions, the crimes, are not in general spelled out. For example, it says not to covet thy neighbor's ox, not not to steal it. It's concerned with the soul.

The Talmud, on the other hand, has extremely long, detailed examination of how these and other commandments should be lived on earth in order to A) best fulfill god's will and B) form a good society. Have you read it?

I know burning me at the stake for my 10 Commandment comment is more fun, but here is kind of what I was getting at:

http://www.courseworkbank.co.uk/coursework/ten_commandments_as_a_basis_for_all _societies_1781/

It talks about the first 4 laws as being Jewish law, which we did not adopt. Hence my use of the word "basis"

Here's an odd thought: I have read a few times about God and monotheism on this thread...

Anyone stop to think that maybe the Christian faith is actually POLYTHEISTIC? I'm not referring to Jesus and the Spook... Christians put a lot of stock into the powers of Satan... if there is this constant cosmic battle between good and evil... is Satan on the same level as God? Does that make Satan himself a god, of sorts? Maybe they didn't worship him as such, but in the Greek pantheon you could worship Artemis, but that didn't mean you denied the existance of Aphrodite...

Just a thought, and a minor thread jack.

Stolen from myself in another thread long gone:

Pretty much 7 of the 10 Commandments are components of a civil society.

Don't steal ass wipe
Don't lie you lying liar with pants of fire
Don't murder dipshiat
Be excellent to your parents
Carpe at least one in seven diem
Don't fark around with farking around
Don't be a player hater

barjockey

Nice dodge. "Yeah, I meant what I said about the ten commandments being the basis of our law. Except for the first four. And I won't address the fact that other societies at the time also had laws like the last six."

dr_worm_md --
Or, gosh, vapid shows such as women attempting to wheedle their way into matrimony with a man whom they _think_ is worth a million dollars? That'd never happen in a righteous and honorable society, surely.

barjockey- "Wrong again, I suppose."
Yup. (And you still haven't answered my questions.)

KatieLou1118, you're not the only one to notice this. A lot of fundamentalist Christians seem to put Satan on the same level as Jehovah, making their brand of Christianity resemble Zoroastrianism. (I'd provide a link, but I *still* don't have HTML, damn it!)

Yellow
Your post I was responding to made it seem like you thought there was a vast atheist conspiracy to eradicate every nuance of religion from public view.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do believe there is a vast athiest conspiracy to eradicate every nuance of religion from public view. I just don't believe those who feel that way represent the views of 100 percent of athiests.

dr_worm_md

The people who argue that we need to keep considering homosexuality immoral so that we don't start accepting adult-child sex strike me as the some of the dumbest people on the planet.

Is homosexuality "wrong"? If so, why?

Are adult-child sexual relationships "wrong"? If so, why?

If your answers for each question differ in any way, then you have established that accepting homosexuality does not logically lead to accepting adult-child sexual relationships. If, after this, you still assert the presence of a "slippery slope" then it is clear that you have not at all thought about the arguments and that you are either being deliberately dishonest or you are incredibly stupid.

LoveInAction

Yes, I am hung up on the word, because I don't believe that it's correct. Of course the creator of the universe is greater than man. However, do you take my main point: Jefferson thought that organized religion was inherently corrupt and foolish, and that religion belonged in the heart of man, as a private thing between him and his god.

As I said, I don't know what Jefferson would have to say about "under God". He might be fine with it, on the grounds that this nation was created as a testament to man's reason, given to him by a generous God. Or, he might say that such public worship was something that the government should have no part in.


But the primary point is this: Jefferson despised organized religion and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is neither right for athiests to claim him as their own-- he believed in a benevolent creator-- nor for any member of any organized religion to claim him-- for Jefferson did not respect organized religion.

Finally, two quotes that may help:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

and

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

This last quote is the most appropriate. However, i still don't think we can really figure out what he would have said about the current debate.

KatieLou1118 --
Perhaps it's the difference between being able to act only through persuading others, versus the ability to act directly. *shrug* "The Devil made me do it", perhaps, versus "act of God".

Hebalo

I do not understand why this is such a difficult idea to get across. Here is how I discipline my own children. They DO know right from wrong if only if it is defined as obedience to what I tell them to do. God wanted obedience from Adam and Eve out of love, not discipline. Adam and Ever did not understand what right and wrong was. However, they WALKED AND TALKED with God. They certainly understood what He told them. They understood He was their Creator. Love existed before sin not afterwards. So obedience out of love was WELL within their grasp. If I tell my children to not touch something I EXPECT them to not touch it. I am not going to hide all my things because I THINK my children will touch it anyways. Maybe VERY young children but if you are raising your children out of fear you are doing something wrong.

After Adam and Eve disobeyed they FULLY understood what they had done. They knew right and wrong and God punished them with their full understanding. That is what free will is. If I did not explain well just ask and I will try to explain better. This is something first year theology students learn but I tried to put it in a non religious way.